Five Live Drive yesterday interviewed Dr Alan Sked.
Sked was the founder, in 1991, of the Anti-Federalist League which became the United Kingdom Independence Party in 1993. According to Wikipedia he left the party in 1997, accusing it of being "racist".
I knew there had been a falling out but I didn't realise the extent of Sked's bitterness.
UKIP, he declared on Five Live yesterday, is now an "authoritarian right-wing" party. He continued his attack and presenter Peter Allen sounded a bit surprised, even taken aback.
Sked's comments went largely unchallenged. Allen, an experienced journalist, was clearly aware that the interview was hopelessly one-sided. He appeared to cut it short before acknowledging that no-one from UKIP was there to defend the party.
A few minutes later he read out a couple of texts from listeners - one said Sked's comments were "spiteful" - but if anyone was spiteful it was the producer who invited Sked on the programme and must have known what he was going to say.
(I am frequently asked my views in advance of an interview. Producers don't like being taken by surprise. Quite often they have a preconceived idea of what they want you to say and if your opinion doesn't coincide with it they won't use you.)
Quite what the purpose of the Sked interview was - other than to portray UKIP as a bunch of extreme right wing racist homophobes - I can't imagine. Why, on the day of UKIP's greatest domestic success, would you give a platform to someone who resigned from the party 16 years ago?
There was no debate and Sked's opinions were so partisan it was laughable. This was a pity because I would have liked to have learned more about the Anti-Federalist League and its founder.
As readers of this blog know I am not a UKIP supporter. I support some of their policies and I obviously welcome Nigel Farage's support for an amendment to the smoking ban.
I know and like many UKIP supporters yet I still have reservations that the party is over reliant on Farage and without him it would be a lot less libertarian or indeed credible.
I have heard tales of chaos and discord within the organisation, and there are still too many clowns and fruitcakes (to use Ken Clarke's injudicious words) standing for election under the UKIP banner.
I even share Alan Sked's concern that some UKIP MEPs have "gone native" and enjoy the Brussels gravy train a little too much.
Nevertheless Five Live's conduct in inviting Dr Sked to attack the party unchallenged was outrageous.
Not that it did UKIP any real harm. When an item is that biased listeners will draw their own conclusions.
Instead it was yet another blow to the BBC's damaged reputation as an impartial political broadcaster and further evidence that, whether it is broadcasting from London or Salford, the corporation is hopelessly out of touch with ordinary people.
PS. I should add that Dr Sked is perfectly entitled to his views. I am not suggesting he or anyone else with a similar view of UKIP should be silenced.
This is about balance and the BBC. What were they thinking?