To be fair legally they probably need to if asked. I say this as someone who perfectly understands the hypocrisy of an actual criminal who regularly makes false claims and spreads false news getting all high and mighty about this. But the BBC are bang to rights on this and it is a ridiculous own goal. (Also the irony of it being the Telegraph to report it when they regularly take extreme creativity with the truth).
And especially ironic, given the way the Telegraph, like The Mail, Express, Gibbon News, and Murdoch Empire, are all actively working to undermine democracy in the UK (deliberately "flooding the zone with ****", as per the Steve Bannon playbook)
Let them go to court then and spend that licence fee money unwisely on something else this time! It matters when there is an actual threat to sue!
OK for people who still think the BBC is inbiased lets use our imagination a little. Its newsnight and to the left of Emily Maitlis we have Ian Thurmwood. No lets say Richard Burgeon because they pretty much say very similar things. and on the right we have Margaret Thatcher in 2025 as she was then, same ideologies and policy ideas but shes not PM (and no she's not 100, she's as she was then.) So Richard Burgeon comes out with all the crazy spiel that Ian says on here. Emily Maitlis listens but doesn't interrupt much, no tuts, no sighs no pushback. Its Thatcher's turn and within seconds Emily Maitlis interrupts before 3 words were even uttered, Thatcher gives her a look but continues. Maitlis issues her first tut and a sigh for good measure then interrupts again only for Thatcher to continue to talk. When Thatcher has finished Maitlis gives a sneering disgusted look to the camera and thanks Richard burgeon of the Labour and Fatcha, spoken in a dismissive sneering way, and moves to the next subject! That's how Newsnight has been for at least 5 years if not more! The left wing talking head can come out with the most loopy batshit stuff and nothing is said. The right winger gets attacked before they've even got a sentence out and the host makes sure that the viewer is aware and hopefully delighted at the host's direction before ending the interview with a self congratulatory "we got them" sort of self satisfactory pride when the reality from this side of the screen. That is BBCs unbiased impartial approach in a nutshell! My karma on reddit is taking a hammering for even daring to question anything the left likes. lol. Still big though:
For someone who claims they don't watch the BBC any longer, and haven't for some time, you have a very vivid imagination and clear ideas of precisely what happens on their programmes that you don't watch?
Guilty pleasure sometimes In the hope that maybe they've stopped being so sneery. I actually do like BBC News overnight coverage from the US and Singapore. Its much more about actual news rather than daytime (think they're top celebs) presenters with their little sneery quips (Naga Munchety really bad for it) and the little winks and nods and expressions to the camera..........Hmmm that's not right. you're not allowed to do facial expressions are you?..............OK I admit I do watch it a bit still. lol. waiting for history channels to put something on I haven't watched yet. Or one of them to show something other than their weird hitler and Nazi obsession. Sometimes all of them have something hitler or Nazi on them and I am stuck watching Saturday Kitchen waiting for the footie to start on TNT. Or if the missus is not asleep BBC4 on Friday nights for some old TOTP or ClublandTV to relive some of the rave era.......again.
The BBC are held to higher account than many sources. We all know that the print media are biased. US TV News channels Fox and CNN are famously biased without any issues. GB News get away with murder. But only the BBC get held to account with the phrase PUBLIC MONEY (The left and the right both claim it’s biased, where else does that happen?) The BBC funding makes it different and accountable in a different way. If it is privatised, it either becomes exactly the same as the other sources and open to exactly the same influences and biases Those with money, power and influence have less power over it and that’s why they hate it and love to kick it in the balls. They want it gone. Be careful what you wish for However, this affair was an own goal and hasn’t been dealt with well
And let’s not forget that this fire has been fuelled internally by the double agent Robbie Gibb. If he was on the board of a private organisation he’d have been ‘let go’ Breach of Fiduciary Duties: Board members have a legal and ethical duty of care, loyalty, and obedience to the organization. A breach, such as acting in self-interest rather than the organization's best interest (e.g., self-dealing, insider trading), can lead to financial loss and legal penalties
