How exactly do you reconcile the serious allegation made in The BBC is knowingly breaking Freedom of Information laws with the corporation’s own explanation that The BBC is of the view that the delay is justified?

Just because you have a different interpretation of the rules doesn’t give you a licence to be defamatory. The Information Commissioner will arbitrate. That’s what he’s for.

…. and why not put in the same FoI request to DCMS?

Hmm, I’m not finding it on WhatDoTheyKnow…

Link in the second paragraph of OP should read
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/09/13/bbc-evading-scrutiny-over-jeremy-hunt-emails/

Buttocks — I’m going round in circles. A familiar practice around here, I know…

They refused to publish the Balen Report too, used £200.000 of TV Licence funds to do that!

I’m amazed how the tone of BBC’s political coverage has altered with the change of government. Has Andrew Marr put a difficult question to a government minister since the election? It’s not that long ago he was asking Gordon Brown whether he was addicted to pain killers, based on something he’d read on the internet. Why is there hardly any mention on the BBC of the George Osborne/prostitute/Cocaine story?

If the Mark Thompson/Jeremy Hunt have nothing to hide they will release the e-mails.

@1

The BBC have not provided a ‘different interpretation of the rules’ – they have simply failed to comply with the law.

@OP and @Ciaran #8:

The BBC have not provided a ‘different interpretation of the rules’ – they have simply failed to comply with the law.

The law is misstated in the OP.

The BBC is entitled to a “reasonable time” to consider the public interest test (s10(3)). The ICO has expressed the view that public authorities should in all cases respond within 40 working days in total (not in addition to the initial 20 working days); but that is not a statement of the law. If the BBC can make good its claim that the further delay is justified, then there is no breach.