Tim Davie tells BBC staff ‘this narrative will not just be given by our enemies’
Frances Mao
Tim Davie, the BBC director general, has this morning addressed all BBC staff in an online call. He opened the address with an acknowledgment of the “very tough” period.
Then he rallied the troops, with a tacit acknowledgment of the “enemies” of the BBC, and the “weaponisation” of its mistakes.
These times are difficult for the BBC but we will get through it. We will get through it and we will thrive. This narrative will not just be given by our enemies. It’s our narrative. We own things.
He said he heard the calls from staff to stand up for their journalism.
I see the free press under pressure. I see the weaponisation. I think we have to fight for our journalism.
We have made some mistakes that have cost us but we need to fight for that.
BBC Chair Samir Shah also addressed staff in the call. We’ll have more shortly.
Share
Updated at 06.38 EST
Key events
Show key events only
Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature
Trump’s legal action against BBC will benefit ‘community as a whole’, his lawyer claims
In an interview with GB News last night, Alejandro Brito, Donald Trump’s lawyer, claimed that the president was taking legal action against the BBC not just for his own benefit, but for the benefit of the community.
Referring to the legal letter sent to the BBC, he said:
The letter completely states our position with respect to what transpired as well as what the president seeks, which are three things.
Number one, a full and complete retraction of the defamatory statements made by the BBC. Two, an apology to the president for engaging in such intentional and biased reporting, and three, a monetary settlement proposal to be made by the BBC in order to remedy the financial harm that they caused the president to suffer as a result of their intentional conduct.
If they don’t respond, then we will be left with no alternative but to enforce the president’s legal and equitable rights. And it’ll be up to the president to decide how and when he seeks to do so.
The president is clearly not seeking to sting or damage the consumers and the public as a whole. In fact, his decision to take legal action and to enforce his rights is not simply for his benefit, but for the community as a whole. Because if the BBC and other institutions can engage in this sort of conduct and damage his reputation and engage in such nefarious conduct, it can happen to anyone.
Brito also said Trump was “not inciting anyone” on 6 January 2021.
The president clearly was not inciting anyone and anyone who reads the transcript of what the president actually said, as opposed to what the BBC wanted the viewers to believe he said, would make it abundantly clear that what the president was asking for was a peaceful demonstration, was not seeking to incite any sort of violence, and the broadcast that was aired by the BBC tried to intentionally alter that.
And so if in fact the BBC seeks to take a position that what the president actually did was to incite violence that will be demonstrated to be demonstrably false and will only compound the problems that the BBC is confronted with right now.
The BBC has admitted that it was wrong to present Trump’s speech on 6 January as a “direct call for violent action”. But that is not the same as saying that he had no responsibility for the attack on the Capitol. A congressional inquiry into the violence that day concluded:
[The] evidence has led to an overriding and straight-forward conclusion: the central cause of January 6th was one man, former President Donald Trump, who many others followed. None of the events of January 6th would have happened without him.
Here is a summary of what the 6 January committee investigation concluded.
In his memo to the BBC board complaining about the Panorama broadcast, and other alleged impartiality lapses, the standards adviser Michael Prescott played down the committee’s findings, describing it as “a Democrat-packed committee, not an objective source of truth”.
Share
Huddleston criticises those trying to ‘hound out’ Robbie Gibb from BBC
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has called for Robbie Gibb to be removed from the BBC board. Gibb, a rightwing Conservative who worked as Theresa May’s director of communications after a career as a BBC journalist, has been described as the lead critic at board level over the way that the BBC newsroom is run. Gibb argues that he is defending BBC impartiality, but his many critics in the organisation view his version of impartiality as overtly partisan and rightwing.
In his GB News interview, Nigel Huddleston, the shadow culture seceretary, defended Gibb. He said:
The fact that they’re now trying to hound out Robbie Gibb, the one person who’s openly Conservative, speaks volumes about their inability to understand the strength of the problem here.
The BBC tries to pursue diversity in every single area other than diversity of thought, and now they’re going after Robbie Gibb. I mean, did these people have the same arguments when James Purnell, the former Labour DCMS Secretary of State was made director of strategy at the BBC? No, of course they didn’t.
Share
Tory culture spokesperson Nigel Huddleston says BBC should apologise and ‘grovel’ to Trump over Panorama broadcast
Nigel Huddleston, the shadow culture secretary, has said that the BBC should apologise and “grovel” to President Trump over the editing error that implied he was explicitly urging his supporters to resort to violence when they marched on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021.
In an interview on GB News, asked how the BBC should respond to Trump’s legal threat, Huddleston replied:
Well, with a big apology and grovel because they were wrong, and Donald Trump has a perfectly legitimate concern here. It wasn’t ‘could be perceived’ to be misleading, it transparently was.
Echoing the points made the Michael Prescott, the former BBC standards adviser whose letter to the BBC board complaining about the Trump programme and other alleged incidents of bias ultimately led to Tim Davie’s resigation, Huddleston said the editing error was not the only problem with the Panorama programme about Trump.
If you look at the number of people who were interviewed, it was 10 to one the people who opposed Donald Trump to those who supported him, and there wasn’t a compensatory programme for Kamala Harris. So I think the president has some legitimate concerns …
What they did was mislead the public and give the impression that Donald Trump said something that he transparently did not.
That was not a mistake, that was a deliberate and conscious decision by a whole production team, by the editors, by the journalists. It was then decided to broadcast. Complaints were raised and nothing was done.
You can read the Prescott memo in full here. Samir Shah, the BBC chair, included it as an appendix to the letter he sent to the culture committee yesterday.
Share
Starmer all but confirms that two-child benefit cap will be fully abolished in budget
Yesterday Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, gave an interview that indicated very strongly that she will get rid of the two-child benefit cap in full in the budget. It had been reported that the government was only going to partially remove it (by replacing the cap with a softer version, like a three-child benefit cap), but Reeves signalled that the cap will go in its entirety.
If anyone did not get the message, Keir Starmer has signalled exactly the same intention – only even more strongly. In an interview with Amir Khan, a doctor and ITV broadcaster, the PM said he was determined to drive child poverty down. In the clip, recorded yesterday but broadcast this morning, Starmer said:
I can tell you in no uncertain terms I’m determined to drive child poverty down. It is what the last Labour government did. And it’s one of the things we were proudest of. I am personally determined that is what we’re going to do.
You won’t have to wait much longer to see what the measures are. Some of them are already in place; the free school meals, the breakfast clubs, free childcare are all part of it.
But we need to do more than that. And I can look you in the eye and tell you I’m personally committed to driving down child poverty.
When asked again if he would get rid of the two-child benefit cap, Starmer said:
You won’t have to wait much longer. But I wouldn’t be telling you that we’re going to drive down child poverty if I wasn’t clear that we will be taking a number of measures in order to do so.
PM signals two child benefit cap could be lifted @DrAmirKhanGP asks Starmer if he will scrap the cap on @lorraine
‘I wouldn’t be telling you we’re going to drive down child poverty if I wasn’t clear that we will be taking a number of measures in order to do so’, PM says pic.twitter.com/fWDeGIUGmi
— ITVPolitics (@ITVNewsPolitics) November 11, 2025
Starmer’s words are significant because economists have argued that a partial abolition of the two-child benefit cap would not drive down child poverty. This is what the Resolution Foundation said in a report on budget options published last week.
It is unsurprising, then, that it is rumoured the government has been exploring options for partial reform of the two-child limit, most notably lifting the limit for working families only; moving to a three-child limit which would restore benefit entitlement for third children, but not for any fourth or subsequent child; and scrapping the limit in full, but then paying the UC child element at a reduced rate for third and subsequent children.
Each of these options would cost around £1bn less in 2029-30 compared to fully scrapping the policy.
But, crucially, as figure 10 shows, all of these partial-repeal alternatives would leave child poverty rates higher at the end of the forecast period than at the beginning (just under 32 per cent compared to just under 31 per cent in 2024-25), an outcome that is inconsistent with the government’s promise to be ambitious with respect to reducing child poverty.
And here is the chart (figure 10).
Impact of getting rid of two-child benefit cap, and alternative options, on child poverty Photograph: Resolution Foundation
They read Resolution Foundation reports in No 10, and take them seriously. Torsten Bell, the Treasury minister who is one of the lead figures drawing up the budget, was chief executive of the Resolution Foundation until the last election. It is very hard to imagine Starmer saying what he did if full abolition of the two-child benefit cap was not now agreed.
Share
Updated at 05.19 EST
Trump ally says BBC will win if case goes to court in Florida – but president likely to sue anyway as part of war on ‘fake news’
On the Today programme, Christopher Ruddy, CEO of Newsmax, a rightwing news organisation in the US, and someone who has been a friend of Donald Trump for years, was interviewed about Trump’s threat to sue the BBC. Here are the main points he made.
-
Ruddy said that, if the BBC were to fight the case in the Florida courts, they would probably win. He explained:
The fact is, I’m from the state of Florida. I’m very familiar with the Florida libel laws.
I have no doubt the BBC misrepresented what the president said. And that’s pretty clear. I think everybody agrees, otherwise you wouldn’t have had those resignations.
I’m also very assured that if the BBC took the case to court, they would prevail. They would prevail because the state of Florida has pretty strong libel laws that defend media companies and free speech.
-
But Ruddy also acknowledged that other media organisations sued by Trump had decided to settle rather contest his claims. “What’s happening is that a lot of media companies would prefer not to go through the media spectacle of all this,” he said.
-
Ruddy said that, when Trump forced other media organisations to settle, he viewed that as proving his case that they were peddling “fake news”. Referring to the CBS and ABC lawsuits (see 9.22am), Ruddy said:
I think he sees these as victories … He sees this as legitimising his claims that there’s fake news, that the news is out to get him.
I congratulate that the BBC and people resigned, and they were held accountable. In American media organisation oftentimes you don’t see that and there’s not a sense of accountability.
The president sees this as a big victory for him in his claim the media is out to get him.
He may very well sue the BBC because he’s had a winning record on bringing these suits.
I think that he he feels that there are very big wealth funded organisation and if they did him wrong then and he could be compensated for that. And I think he sees that as a win for him and a win for truth.
I do think that it [legal action] doesn’t hurt his relationship [with the UK government]. He has a very good relationship with Keir Starmer. He’s certainly widely respects King Charles.
He does not see this as impinging at all on the very good relationship that he has with Britain. I was with him at Windsor Castle, when he was there [for the state visit]. I think he and Melania felt that was one of the high points of his presidency so far.
Chris Ruddy. Photograph: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesShare
Updated at 04.54 EST
Tim Davie, the outgoing BBC director general, has arrived for work at Broadcasting House, according to the BBC’s live blog. He said he was “very, very proud” of the BBC journalists working in the building, adding:
The BBC is going to be thriving and I support everyone on the team.
He did not answer questions about Donald Trump’s proposed lawsuit.
Share
How Trump has track record of using the law to threaten media organisations
Here is an analysis by Jeremy Barr of how Donald Trump’s threatened legal action against the BBC is just the latest example of how he has always used “legal threats and lawsuits to pressure news companies who put out coverage he does not like”.
Share
Minister suggests BBC should apologise to Trump over editing error – but doesn’t comment on his $1bn lawsuit threat
Good morning. Yesterday the BBC in crisis story, that had primarily been about the resignations of its director general and its head of news, veered into international diplomacy when Donald Trump threatened to sue the BBC for $1bn over the way it edited a clip of the speech he gave before his supporters attacked the US Capitol and people working there on 6 January 2021.
This is obviously awkward for the government, not least because the BBC is funded with taxpayers’ money and so any payout to the president would ultimately come from them.
This morning there is quite a lot of legal comment around addressing the question of whether or not Trump has much of a legal case. I’ll summarise some of it later, but, bluntly, the answer is no. But a lot of this analysis falls under the heading of category error; Trump has launched several high-profile cases against US media organisations with little or no legal merit, and almost always they have settled, not because they thought Trump had a case, but because being in ongoing dispute with the White House created other risks and it was safer and easier to cave.
The BBC probably does not need the approval of the Federal Communications Commission for any deals in the US, but there are countless other ways that the Trump administration could make life difficult for it.
Perhaps Trump will just drop his legal threat and let the whole row blow over. For the BBC, and the UK government, that would be the ideal outcome. But it does not seem likely.
Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, is due to make a statement to MPs about the BBC later. As well as addressing what can be done in the immediate term to restore confidence in the BBC, and what might be done in the medium term to give it a secure funding model (Reform UK was making the case for the abolition of the licence fee yesterday), she will also have to respond to questions about Trump’s threat. Not easy for a minister in a government where any criticism of the president is more or less banned.
Alison McGovern, the local government minister, has been doing interviews this morning. In an interview with Times Radio, asked about Trump’s threat to sue, she just said that was a matter for him and for the BBC.
I think the president can say what he wants, and he will do. And we know that.
Asked again about his threat, she replied: “Well, that’s for him, and the BBC, I’m sure, will respond to whatever happens. And that is for them to do.”
In a separate interview on LBC, McGovern was asked if the BBC should apologise to Trump for the way his 6 January 2021 speech was edited in the Panorama programme about him shown just before last year’s election. McGovern replied:
If they’ve made an editorial mistake, then they should apologise … I think the BBC is probably chock full of policies on what they should do when they make editorial mistakes, so I think they should stick to it.
Yesterday the BBC did apologise for the way the speech was edited in the programme. But that was in a letter to the Commons culture committee. McGovern seemed to be saying the BBC should apologise to Trump directly.
I will be mostly focusing on the BBC story today, but there is other politics around. Here is the agenda for the day.
9am: Keir Starmer is due to appear on ITV’s Lorraine, in a pre-recorded interview.
Noon: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: David Lammy, the deputy PM and justice secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
2.30pm: Peter Kyle, the business secretary, gives evidence to the Commons business committee.
After 3.30pm: Lammy is expected to make a statement about prisoner release mistakes, and Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, is expected to make a statement to MPs about the BBC. Lammy will probably go first, but that has not been confirmed yet.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm BST at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Share
Updated at 04.24 EST
