What has your pedantry turned you into some sort of Snopes denial service? Because one insignificant detail of someones comment might differ from a full report, the entire thrust of the argument is untrue?
I said " he was featured on the BBC in a Dr.Who advert."
You claim that is "wrong" because he "starred in Doctor Who-themed BBC Children In Need advert"
Clearly the two descriptions are entirely consistent with each other. The BBC are "advertising" Dr.Who by using one of their products in an advertising campaign.
What worries me more is that you couldn't care less about the children who were hacked to death by this monster, because he wasn't in a DrWho advert, it was a children in need advert. Are you suggesting that absolves him? Are you defending him?
Why do you feel the need to apologise for this chap who hacked so many small children to death?