The True Extent of BBC Miscreancy...And how I would solve it.

Libelling the most powerful man on Earth should total Auntie. Thankfully, it won't. Having come from the BBC, I know how to sort it out.

The UK's Most Trusted News Outlet, brags the branding.

Indeed, the BBC-loyal Mrs Miggins of this realm don't really know what “this YouTube thing” is all about and often get caught buying miracle bird feed from a pop-up on Facebook, and are unlikely to have their steadfast faith in the institution shaken. And it is largely the Miggins who still believe in the BBC. It's as dependable and British as tea and shortbread, a tot of Harvey's Bristol Cream after that other institution, the Sunday Roast.

So when the 6 and 10, as they are colloquially known in the corridors of Auntie, tell the world that there is a genocide in Gaza, the dutiful Nans of Blighty are wont to start knitting tea coseys for UNWRA who distribute them among their pals in Hamas to keep grenades at optimum kinetic temperature for ballistics.

Back when the BBC had a monopoly over broadcast news, were we just unaware of similar despicable bullshitting as is now being exposed? With the absence of fast moving and uncompromising social media to provide friction to the established truth, were we being spoonfed lies all along? Or is being economical with the truth a new Auntie austerity measure? Perhaps we will never know.

But what is now utterly irrefutable is that Auntie is not only barmy, but incontinent and embarrassing.

The deplorable, deliberate deceit of the heinously manufactured clip of the World's Most Powerful Man, audaciously aired on Panorama as sexed up Prima Facie evidence that the Great Orange Warmonger Tried To Start An Insurrection, is extraordinary to say the least. This wasn't just ‘topping and tailing’ a ‘SOT' to illustrate actuality, but doing a Dr Frankenstein on reality to create a vision of a monster.

Journalism should be the examination of evidence to tell the true story, not butchering of the story to curate evidence to tell a different one.

The BBC still has one of the greatest international audiences in the world. Reaching 200 different countries, and unlike its competitors, still valued as state-owned but not state-led with impartiality at its core, the fact that this brand, synonymous with Britain, has flagrantly, fraudulently, defamed The Leader Of The Free World with such grave accusatory allegations, should be a show-stopping moment.

And it's not an isolated incident.

The BBC has also been accused of essentially platforming Hamas apologists on BBC Arabic, as well as letting the son of terrorist narrate a mawkish pastiche of genocide in Gaza to its British audience.

Not to mention the fact veteran political journalist Nick Robinson (of whom I am a great fan as a superb storyteller in his field) allowed the odious Zara Sultana to state that Nigel Farage was a dangerous fascist akin to Hitler on his podcast. In the current climate, that is not only deeply dangerous and patently untrue, but one would struggle to imagine someone saying Sultana was as malevolent as Mao and as Islamist as Bin Laden - and it making it to air.

I could list innumerable, evidenceable incidents of not just bias, but outright dishonesty that would have brought down any other company in the private sector in Britain. But the Teflon Beeb just lurch from one offence to the next in such a predictable fashion it has become somewhat priced in.

What hasn't been priced in, however, are the eyewatering reparations that the Corporation may have to pay to the President of the United States of America should he wish to pursue legal action. And he has form.

As of November 4, 2025, Trump has been involved in dozens of such cases, extracting over $70 million in settlements from major networks in recent years. From CNN (bigger than the Beeb in terms of international footprint) to ABC, to the New York Post and Wall Street Journal, Trump has slapped SLAPPs on behemoth outlets - successfully.

Should he wish to take similar action against His Majesty's Telly, the case would be open and shut. You can't splice together two bits of a speech, an hour apart, and present it as evidence for attempting to start civil war.

I suspect a huge diplomatic effort will now be underway to bail out the Beeb. At what point will the establishment fly Princess Kate over the pond to present Donald with a golden ticket to a lavish 10 day Trump Fest touring every Royal Residence, culminating in offering up Buckingham Palace as a Trump Hotel, in order to save Auntie's wretched, leathery skin?

But sadly, folks, it has to be done.

It has to be done not only to spare any of us who still wish to connect to the world in real-time from their boxes from having to fund an epic legal battle from the ever increasing license fee.

But also because the BBC, love it, loathe it or tolerate it, remains the greatest shop window for our little island. We now need to sort out properly and finally, what wares are on display.

As someone who has lived and worked around the world, from Ghana to India to China to Kenya, the BBC is probably second to our late Queen as one of our most influential exports.

While many may not understand why platforms such as BBC Pidgin exists (oh please spare it, if only for the quaint comedy), I do. The BBC has more diplomatic leverage potential than all the foreign aid added together. It is why every assertive country on earth is trying to ape it. From Russia Today, to France 24, to CTV to TRT to Al Jazeera, an international national TV news channel is, in potential projection terms, like possessing a nuclear weapon.

BBC Pidgin…not a spoof. A whimsical window into another world of words…

But it is now beyond question whether it should exist in its current form.

I think I may have some answers.

If I were to become Culture Minister with a mandate of dealing with the BBC, here is what I would consider doing.