Report under the Freedom of Information Act, despite the fact that BBC reporters often use the Act to pursue their journalism. The action will increase suspicions that the report, which is believed to run to 20,000 words, includes evidence of anti-Israeli bias in news programming". The Times reported in March 2007 that "critics of the BBC" were interested in knowing if the Balen Report "includes evidence of bias against Israel in news programming". After the 2004 report, the BBC appointed a committee chosen by the Governors and referred to by the BBC as an "independent panel report" to write a report for publication, which was completed in 2006. Chaired by the British Board of Film Classification president, Sir Quentin Thomas, the committee found that "apart from individual lapses, there was little to suggest deliberate or systematic bias" in the BBC's reporting of the Middle East. However, its coverage had been "inconsistent", "not always providing a complete picture" and "misleading", and the BBC had failed to report adequately the hardships of Palestinians living under the occupation. Reflecting concerns from all sides of the conflict, the committee highlighted certain identifiable shortcomings and made four recommendations, including the provision of a stronger editorial "guiding hand". Of the report's findings regarding the dearth of BBC reporting of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians, Richard Ingrams wrote in The Independent, "No sensible person could quarrel with that judgement". Martin Walker, then the editor of United Press International, agreed that the report implied favouritism towards Israel but said that the suggestion "produced mocking guffaws in my newsroom" and went on to list a number of episodes of what he thought was the BBC's clear pro-Palestinian bias. Writing in Prospect magazine, the Conservative MP Michael Gove wrote that the report was neither independent nor objective. A former BBC Middle East correspondent, Tim Llewellyn, wrote in 2004 that the BBC's coverage allowed Israel's view of the conflict to dominate, as was demonstrated by research conducted by the Glasgow Media Group. Douglas Davis, the London correspondent of The Jerusalem Post, has accused the BBC of being anti-Israel. He wrote that the BBC's coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict was a "portrayal of Israel as a demonic, criminal state and Israelis as brutal oppressors" and resembled a "campaign of vilification" that had delegitimised the State of Israel. "Anglicans for Israel", the pro-Israel pressure group, berated the BBC for apparent anti-Israel bias.