Light pollution - 'tolerated' by Stargazing Live - why?

I am a Board Member of the International Dark Sky Association, the global body which tackles light pollution. It was great to see such main stream publicity given to promoting the night sky. However, I am disappointed that not only did it fail to address the main threat to the night sky- light pollution, but it also featured some pretty large scale light pollution.
Whilst I understand the wish to floodlight things for aesthetic purposes, or impact. This is precisely why commercial premises and historic buildings want to light themsleves. We are dedicated to not switching lights off necessarily, but to trying to seek a balance. That of lighting where needed, when needed and only to the level of light needed. I do not see why this lighting was needed, and certainly not at that level. At the least I would hope that if this lighting was featured- that some discussion could have been given to the fact that it was being used for impact and should NOT normally be used.
Otherwise, viewers will justifiable say "what's all this fuss about light pollution, if you can floodlight your own telescopes like then; a bit hypocritical isn't it? You can light like that but I can't have a skybeam on my club".
Indeed it is not just the night sky that suffers from waste lighting, but the Royal Commission of Environemntal Pollution published a short report on light pollution in the environment in 2010. It highlighted the negative effects on animals. It's also a massive waste of energy (in our time of austerity, would this money not be better of spent on educational purposes)?
Martin Morgan-Taylor
Board Member, International Dark Sky Association

[deleted]