BBC attack 'far right' Rishi Sunak...

You can parrot that nonsense as often as you like. It has long been one of your favourite themes. Utter bollocks of course.

Your one eyed  hero PM Gordon the history teacher sold off the country's gold reserves at bargain basement prices 
His idiocy made the country poorer

No the topic is the BBC attacking Sunak and attaching a label against their specific policy to an organisation. The BBC have a charter which outlines how they should operate that editorial independence. They should be impartial and balanced and if they have a policy on how to operate that policy should be followed for all.
As has been pointed out the BBC is supposed to provide a public service and has stated it will not apply labels with its own voice as it is up to the public to make their own minds up. But that is exactly what they have done in this instance and the fact you agree with them is really of no importance other than it indicates the editorial direction they follow.

This is stark raving bonkers

So if the BBC claimed that a Humbug was a mint, and tasted minty, would that be wrong ?, because its putting a label on it.

How should the BBC describe a far Right political party ?, or should they simply state that "The Brothers Of Italy is a political party which most observers believe is a far right party".

Or should they state that "The Brothers Of Italy is a political party, however the BBC cannot describe what type of political party for fear of breeching impartiality rules".

One is a label attached by the British government - the other is a definitive description and a reference, do you not know the difference. ?

A terror group is any group or organisation which harms, kills or intimidates usually innocent people, usually by using bombs, explosives or guns ...... a very fitting description which could very easily be applied to both Hamas and The Israeli Defence Force EQUALLY.

But the BBC does not refer to the IDF as terrorists do they ?

I suspect you do not know the full story behind the selling off of some of the Gold by Brown, which is in no way as bad as the selling off of UK North Sea Oil, exacerbated by the selling off of Gas, electricity etc. etc. by Thatcher.

__"Gold’s most pronounced price fall in the past decade happened from October 2012 to July 2013—nine months during which the metal lost over a quarter of its value."__

Gold is an unreliable backdrop that is not used as part of the economy, nor does it earn interest in the reserves whereas the three different currencies bought from part of the proceeds of the sale of gold and placed in the reserves, do earn interest.

Brown also reduced the National debt with some of the proceeds thus reducing the level of ongoing interest payments on the National debt.

Brown's move may not have been his brightest, but it was done at a time when currencies were king.

The sale of gold was done for the benefit of the UK economy, whereas Thatcher's selling off of the "family silver" was done in order to keep her 'Corner Shop' ideology economically afloat.

I do see Brown as a very good chancellor, who also, helped by Alistair Darling, stopped the UK's recession caused by the 2008 meltdown, from turning into a depression.

The Independent is the equivalent to the alleged symbiotic relationship between the Mail and the Right. 

One thing I can agree, the anti-democratic Lib Dems are a big reader. Check out their comments sections on the Independent they are absolute Genz/Millennial Loons.