Who do the BBC think is more dangerous - Abu Qatada or Eric Pickles?

Who do the BBC think is more dangerous  - Abu Qatada or Eric Pickles? An odd question you might think but read this from The Telegraph:

'The BBC has told its journalists not to call Abu Qatada, the al-Qaeda preacher, an “extremist”.

In order to avoid making a “value judgment”, the corporation’s managers have ruled that he can only be described as “radical”.

Journalists were also cautioned against using images suggesting the preacher is overweight. '

So the BBC have decided that they can not make a "value judgement" about a man whose preachings have been an indirect cause of the death of thousands in the Arabian peninsular and beyond and whose views are at best described as dangerous to our western culture. Abu Qatada believes in the ideology of takfir, the excommunication of governments, and then by extension whole societies. This belief leads to the justification of the killing of innocent men, women and children. But the BBC think that it would be guilty of making a "value judgement" to describe someone with those bleliefs as an extremist, preferring to call him a radical. I warn the BBC now that I will look out for any references to "extremists" on their website and I will hold them to account.

Whilst that BBC decision is stupid and dangerous, it was the second part that struck me: 'Journalists were also cautioned against using images suggesting the preacher is overweight.' Why? Why is Abu Qatada's image to be protected by the BBC? Have the BBC cautioned its journalists against portraying Eric Pickles as overweight? If not, why not?