Yes, but how is this actually relevant to whether it belongs in the article? I think you think that the content being there is somehow an endorsement of the Daily Mail. It isn't, it is a mere documentation that allegations of special stage management were part of the controversy, and they were subsequently shown to be rubbish. I see no merit in not mentioning it simply because it was the Daily Mail, or that is was rubbish. I am sure if its really necessary this theme could be supported by better sources, but the Daily Mail was just the most obvious example I came across at the time. I realy am not seeing the problem here. We are certainly not going to start removing content simply because it comes from 'anti-BBC' sources, and I am extremely concerned that there even seems to be a subtext here that the Mail were acting as some sort of proxy for the BNP. This isn't the best way to decided what is and is not relevant to the article.