It seems they don't have a leg to stand on, as they rushed to conclude:

a. there was chemical attack
b. that Assad was to blame
c. and that an immediate response without investigation was necessary

Now, since reporters have arrive at the scene and found no evidence a chemical attack took place, they're attempting to twist this false flag in another direction. Can this get any more absurd?

I think you've keenly deciphered the message in this bbc segment. The message that Assad has previously used chemical weapons, as if this is a well known fact. A true example of double speak.