[matthieu1221]

He said the “language used was not to dissimilar to that of Nazi germany” which is arguably true, he didn’t say what the UK government is planning to do is the same as Nazi Germany. 

To be accurate he wrote:

"language not dissimilar to that used in Germany in the 30s"

Despite what some would have you believe he didn't mention the word Nazi

You are right that it doesn't mean he was saying they'd do the same, just that the language was the same as used then.

Very telling how this has mischaracterised by parts of the press, leading to even a few posters here into making misleading claims about the topic.

More worryingly are the implications for the News Department. If someone from Sports who arguably given that he has 0 role in news and current affairs has come under fire for giving his opinion (which arguably is based on facts), what leeway will the news department have in the future for making this sort of analysis?

Impartiality isn't giving one side 5 minutes to blurt out whatever they want and then giving 5 minutes to the opposite party, it's about being able to call a spade a spade. Granted, the entire 'language not being too dissimilar to that used in Germany in the 30s' isn't the actual story on BBC News at the moment, but it doesn't give me much hope that they'd be allowed to report something like this in the future. If some hypothetical future government minister paraphrases (whilst keeping a vague semblance of ambiguity) from say Mein Kampf in the future, would the news department even be able to report it and make the link to it without coming under fire for so-called lack of impartiality?

Would a Murrow-esque report be regarded as biased?
www.youtube.com