Sue

Berlin, Germany – Organisers of a pro-Palestine conference are suing authorities in Berlin who shut the event down last April soon after it began.

They hope a panel of judges at the Berlin Administrative Court will rule that police acted unlawfully in cracking down on the Palestine Congress, a forum of solidarity activists and human rights experts who were gathering to discuss Israel’s genocide in Gaza and Germany’s alleged complicity.

The hearing begins on Wednesday.

The defendant, the State of Berlin, argues the police were right to act preemptively as they predicted criminal statements would be made at the conference, specifically incitement to hatred, dissemination of propaganda or use of symbols of unconstitutional and “terrorist” organisations.

The police justified this prediction in part on the basis that in a news conference held prior to the event, organisers allegedly did not distance themselves from the Hamas-led incursion into southern Israel on October 7, 2023.

On the day in question, April 12, 2024, officers in riot gear descended in their hundreds on the venue usually used for wedding receptions and pulled the plug – cutting off the power to ensure that none of the planned speeches could be heard or broadcast via livestream.

“I’m not aware of any other instance where a conference was shut down without any crime having been committed,” Michael Ploese, the lawyer representing the conference organisers, told Al Jazeera.

He said that German law only allowed restrictions on gatherings in private rooms where there was  high probability that a criminal act would be committed, and that the right to freedom of expression usually took precedence.

Among the groups organising the conference was Juedische Stimme (Jewish Voice), a sister group of the US collective of the same name that organises Jewish peace activists who are critical of Israeli actions regarding Palestine.

“I saw it as a success that we had even been able to begin it at all, but I wasn’t expecting it all to end an hour later,” said Wieland Hoban, the chair of Juedische Stimme, who gave opening remarks at the conference.

Adding to the sense of repression, the British Palestinian doctor Ghassan Abu Sittah, one of the main speakers, said officials at the airport in Berlin prevented him from continuing his journey and told him to return to the United Kingdom.

Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek left-wing economist and former minister of finance, posted online the speech he had planned to make. Like Abu Sittah, Varoufakis faced an entry ban after the furore. The Berlin Administrative Court later ruled that the ban on Abu Sittah’s political activity was unlawful.

Throughout Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza, German police and security services have repeatedly claimed protests in support of those being bombarded are anti-Semitic or are to be interpreted as revering Hamas. Thousands of individual protesters have been arrested, and many planned demonstrations have been banned outright.

Germany is Israel’s biggest diplomatic supporter in Europe and enforces strict limits on speech that criticises or attacks Israel, with some arguing this is necessary because of Germany’s genocide of six million Jews in the Holocaust.

It is a justification that Wieland Hoban rejects, saying the laws are even used against Jewish people who speak up for Palestine.

“Even if you lost family in the Holocaust, you can still be lectured by some German about what you can say,” said Hoban. “Simply mentioning the Holocaust can get you accused of relativierung” – a word that is used to suggest someone is playing down the Holocaust by drawing comparisons to other, lesser, crimes against humanity.

Last month, a group of United  Nations experts said they were alarmed by the “pattern of police violence and apparent suppression of Palestine solidarity activism by Germany”.

If this week’s case goes in favour of the conference organisers, it will be a blow to Germany’s controversial stance.

Videos of police using force to shut down nonviolent protests for Gaza on the streets of German cities have coursed around the world.

But what marked the state’s intervention in the Palestine Congress apart was that it represented the silencing of an event consisting of talks and debates in an indoor venue – a sphere of political expression that lawyers had previously thought was off-limits for police repression.

Nov. 25 (UPI) — A coalition of 19 attorneys general and two state governors sued the Trump administration on Tuesday over changes to funding allocations and conditions at the Department of Housing and Urban Development that they say threaten thousands of formerly homeless people and families with eviction.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island, alleges new restrictions and funding cuts announced by HUD earlier this month to its Continuum of Care program threaten housing stability and disadvantage services for people experiencing homelessness, including those with mental disabilities and substance use disorders.

The Democratic-led states allege that the changes have thrown CoC into “chaos” and that HUD was holding congressionally approved funds and vulnerable people hostage.

“Communities across the country depend on Continuum of Care funds to provide housing and other resources to our most vulnerable neighbors,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement.

“These funds help keep tens of thousands of people from sleeping on the streets every night. I will not allow this administration to cut off these funds and put vital housing and support services at risk.”

Founded by Congress in 1987, the CoC program provides states, local governments and nonprofits with funds to provide housing and support services to those experiencing homelessness.

Earlier this month, HUD Secretary Scott Turner criticized the CoC for prioritizing funds for organizations with Housing First policies, which provide housing to individuals without preconditions, such as sobriety or minimum income.

Turner said the policy ran counter to the department’s objective of selecting the most effective and innovative programs, and it would be instituting changes, including requiring that 70% of projects to be selected through competition.

In a statement, HUD said 90% of CoC awards went to support projects with “failed” Housing First ideologies, which the department said “encourages dependence on endless government handouts while neglecting to address the root causes of homelessness, including illicit drugs and mental health.”

Changes to be implemented are to increase competition for grants, advance public safety, focus on self-sufficiency, encourage personal accountability and crack down on gender ideology, use of taxpayer dollars on undocumented migrants and diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

“Our philosophy for addressing the homelessness crisis will now define success not by dollars spent or housing units filled, but by how many people achieve long-term self-sufficiency and recovery,” Turner said.

In their lawsuit, the states allege that the changes mean only 30% of CoC funds may be used for permanent housing, a drop from roughly 90%.

HUD has also revised the scoring system used to grant awards. According to the lawsuit, the previous system encouraged CoCs to address needs of minority groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community, and the new changes arbitrarily disadvantage programs that provide supportive services for mental disabilities and substance use disorder

The policies also bar funding for applicants that acknowledge the existence of transgender and gender-diverse people and penalize homeless-service providers that pursue approaches to homelessness that do not align with the Trump administration.

In total, the changes will threaten housing stability and disadvantage services for people with mental disabilities and substance use disorder, the lawsuit states.

“This program has proven to be effective at getting Americans off the streets, yet the Trump administration is now attempting to illegally slash its funding,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “Those caring for our unhoused neighbors need the federal government’s continued support. Absent judicial intervention, the Trump administration’s actions would only worsen the homelessness crisis.”

The US president signals legal war even as the British network apologises for an ‘error of judgement’ in editing his January 6 speech.

United States President Donald Trump says he would likely sue the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) next week for as much as $5bn after the British broadcaster admitted it wrongly edited a video of a speech he gave, but insisted there was no legal basis for his claim.

“We will sue them for anywhere between a billion and five billion dollars, probably sometime next week. I think I have to do it. They have even admitted that they cheated,” Trump told reporters on board Air Force One late on Friday.

Trump’s lawyers had sent the BBC a letter on Monday, accusing it of defaming the US president with the video of the speech before the 2021 US Capitol riot and giving it until Friday to apologise and pay compensation for what they described as “overwhelming reputational and financial harm”.

The controversy centres on the BBC’s edit of Trump’s remarks from January 6, 2021, the day his supporters stormed the US Capitol. The dispute has pushed the network into its most severe crisis in decades, triggering the resignations of two senior leaders and prompting a wave of political scrutiny.

“The people of the UK are very angry about what happened, as you can imagine, because it shows the BBC is fake news,” Trump said.

He added that he planned to raise the BBC issue with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who has backed the broadcaster’s independence while avoiding taking sides against Trump.

“I’m going to call him over the weekend. He actually put a call into me. He’s very embarrassed,” Trump said.

‘Beyond fake, this is corrupt’

The documentary, aired on the BBC’s flagship Panorama programme, stitched together three separate clips of Trump’s January 6 speech. His lawyers say the sequence created the false impression he was inciting the riot, calling the edit “false and defamatory”.

In an interview with GB News, Trump accused the BBC of misconduct. He said the edit was “impossible to believe” and likened it to election interference.

“I made a beautiful statement, and they made it into a not beautiful statement,” he said. “Fake news was a great term, except it’s not strong enough. This is beyond fake, this is corrupt.”

He dismissed the BBC’s apology as insufficient, arguing that the broadcaster had spliced together remarks that were nearly an hour apart. “It’s incredible to depict the idea that I had given this aggressive speech which led to riots,” he said.

BBC chair Samir Shah issued a personal apology to the White House and told British lawmakers that the edit was “an error of judgement”. Culture Minister Lisa Nandy said on Friday the apology was “right and necessary”.

The crisis has already cost the BBC its director general, Tim Davie, and its head of news, Deborah Turness, both of whom resigned this week as accusations of bias and editing failures mounted.

US President Donald Trump has said he will file legal action against the BBC next week over how his speech was edited by Panorama, after the corporation apologised but refused to compensate him.

Speaking to reporters on board Air Force One on Friday evening, Trump said: “We’ll sue them for anywhere between a billion and $5bn probably sometime next week.”

On Friday, the BBC said the edit of the 6 January 2021 speech had given “the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action”.

The BBC apologised but said it would not pay financial compensation.

Trump said he would discuss it with UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer over the weekend.

Earlier this week Trump’s lawyers threatened to sue the BBC for $1bn in damages unless the corporation issued a retraction, apologised and compensated him.

Trump’s lawyers had given the BBC a deadline of 22:00 GMT (17:00 EST) on Friday 14 November to respond, which it did.

The controversy led to the resignations of BBC director general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness on Sunday.

Searches of public court record databases earlier showed no legal action had been filed so far.

Federal and state courts in Florida, where a case would likely be filed, are now closed for the weekend.

Based on Pacer searches for federal cases related to the BBC, no case filed by the Trump administration has been filed.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated shortly.

LONDON — Britain’s government rallied to the defense of the BBC on Tuesday after allegations of bias from its critics and the threat of a lawsuit from President Trump over the way the broadcaster edited a speech he made after losing the 2020 presidential election

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said the national broadcaster faces “challenges, some of its own making,” but is “by far the most widely used and trusted source of news in the United Kingdom.”

With critics in media and politics demanding an overhaul of the BBC’s funding and governance, Nandy said that “the BBC as an institution is absolutely essential to this country.

“At a time when the lines are being dangerously blurred between facts and opinions, news and polemic, the BBC stands apart,” she said in the House of Commons.

Trump threatens to sue

A lawyer for Trump is demanding a retraction, apology and compensation from the broadcaster over the allegedly defamatory sequence in a documentary broadcast last year.

Fallout from the documentary has already claimed the BBC’s top executive, Tim Davie, and head of news Deborah Turness, who both resigned over what the broadcaster called an “error of judgment.”

The BBC has apologized for misleading editing of a speech Trump delivered on Jan. 6, 2021, before a crowd of his supporters stormed the Capitol in Washington.

Broadcast days before the November 2024 U.S. election, the documentary “Trump: A Second Chance?” spliced together three quotes from two sections of the speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.” Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

BBC chair Samir Shah said the broadcaster accepted “that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action.”

The BBC has not yet formally responded to the demand from Florida-based Trump attorney Alejandro Brito that it “retract the false, defamatory, disparaging and inflammatory statements,” apologize and “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused” by Friday, or face legal action for $1 billion in damages.

Nigel Huddleston, media spokesman for the opposition Conservative Party, said the BBC should “provide a fulsome apology to the U.S. president” to avoid legal action.

Legal experts say Trump is likely too late to sue the BBC in Britain, because a one-year deadline to file a defamation suit has expired. He could still bring a defamation claim in several U.S. states, and his lawyer cited Florida law in a letter to the BBC, but faces considerable legal hurdles.

An embattled national institution

The publicly funded BBC is a century-old national institution under growing pressure in an era of polarized politics and changing media viewing habits.

Funded through an annual license fee of 174.50 pounds ($230) paid by all households who watch live TV or any BBC content, the broadcaster is frequently a political football, with conservatives seeing a leftist slant in its news output and some liberals accusing it of having a conservative bias.

Governments of both left and right have long been accused of meddling with the broadcaster, which is overseen by a board that includes both BBC nominees and government appointees.

Some defenders of the BBC allege that board members appointed under previous Conservative governments have been undermining the corporation from within.

Pressure on the broadcaster has been growing since the right-leaning Daily Telegraph published parts of a dossier compiled by Michael Prescott, who had been hired to advise the BBC on standards and guidelines. As well as the Trump edit, Prescott criticized the BBC’s coverage of transgender issues and raised concerns of anti-Israel bias in the BBC’s Arabic service.

Near the BBC’s London headquarters, some passersby said the scandal would further erode trust in a broadcaster already under pressure.

Amanda Carey, a semi-retired lawyer, said the editing of the Trump speech is “something that should never have happened.”

“The last few scandals that they’ve had, trust in the BBC is very much waning and a number of people are saying they’re going to refuse to pay the license (fee),” she said.

A growing number of people argue that the license fee is unsustainable in a world where many households watch little or no traditional TV.

Nandy said the government will soon start the once-a-decade process of reviewing the BBC’s governing charter, which expires at the end of 2027. She said the government would ensure the BBC is “sustainably funded (and) commands the public’s trust,” but did not say whether the license fee might be scaled back or scrapped.

Davie, who announced his resignation as BBC director-general on Sunday, acknowledged that “we have made some mistakes that have cost us.”

But, he added: “We’ve got to to fight for our journalism.”

Lawless writes for the Associated Press. AP journalist Kwiyeon Ha contributed to this story.

Donald Trump has branded the BBC ‘100% fake news’ but Keir Starmer has backed the Corporation for being ‘internationally renowned’ and rejected the accusation that it’s journalists were ‘corrupt’

Donald Trump has threatened to sue the BBC over its editing of his Capitol Hill speech from 2021, as the government yesterday defended the corporation in the wake of the resignations of two top bosses. Amid the fallout from the exits of director general Tim Davie and BBC News boss Deborah Turness, the BBC yesterday confirmed it had received the letter threatening legal action from the US President and would respond in due course.

And Trump’s claim that the BBC has “corrupt journalists” was rejected by Keir Starmer as Downing Street threw its weight behind the BBC, describing it as an “internationally renowned” institution.

The developments came as BBC Chair Samir Shah finally apologised over the BBC Panorama in which two bits of a speech from Trump were edited together in a way which made him appear to support the rioters. This move has allowed Trump’s press secretary to accuse the BBC of being “100% fake news” and brand it a “propoganda machine”.

READ MORE: Strictly Come Dancing in huge show first with Britain’s Got Talent link-upREAD MORE: Alan Carr lined up for two major TV roles after Celebrity Traitors win

Shah’s apology, contained in a letter to culture, media and sport select committee chair Caroline Dinenage, said the BBC regretted its “error of judgement” that resulted in a misleading edit of a Donald Trump speech.

It came after a week of silence from the BBC, which claimed it did not comment on leaked documents. This seemingly prevented it from either defending its journalism or apologising for any mistake made, leaving many supporters baffled.

The row erupted a week ago with the publication of a leaked memo from Michael Prescott, a former political journalist who spent three years as an external adviser to the BBC, in which he made many complaints about issues that he claimed were not being sufficiently dealt with, notably on its coverage of the Gaza conflict and around trans issues.

But in his letter yesterday, Shah insisted that it was “simply not true” to say the BBC had done nothing to tackle the problems raised and he also defended the BBC against claims of systemic bias.

The chairman said the edit had initially been cleared to “convey the message of the speech” made by Trump, so that Panorama viewers would “better understand” how it was received by the president’s supporters, and what was happening on the ground at that time.

The edit, which drew no complaints at the time of broadcast, had been discussed by the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee (EGSC) in both January and May this year. He said that while it was discussed as part of a wider review of the US election coverage, hindsight had shown “it would have been better to take more formal action”.

He said that reports suggesting Prescott had “uncovered” a list of stories and issues that the BBC have sought to “bury” were “simply not true,” explaining: “The issues raised by Mr Prescott are precisely the issues that have been considered by the EGSC and the Board.”

The chairman said it was also misleading to suggest that the BBC has done nothing to tackle these problems.”That is also simply not true,” he wrote. “Over the three years Mr Prescott was an advisor to the EGSC, the BBC has: published corrections where we have got things wrong; changed editorial guidance to make the BBC’s position on issues clearer; made changes to leadership where the problems point to underlying issues; and carried out formal disciplinary measures.”

He said it was important to remember the thousands of hours of “outstanding journalism” produced by the BBC on TV, radio and digitally, calling for “a sense of perspective” to be maintained.

Speaking to reporters yesterday, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “On the question of is the BBC corrupt? No. The BBC has a vital role in an age of disinformation… where there’s a clear argument for a robust, impartial British news service to deliver, and that case is stronger than ever.”

Asked if Mr Starmer believed the BBC was institutionally biased, the spokesman replied: “No, but it is important that the BBC acts to maintain trust and correct mistakes quickly when they occur, because as I say, for any public service broadcaster, accountability is vital to maintain trust.”

Elsewhere, ex-PM Gordon Brown told Sky News an “immediate” apology from the BBC over the Trump speech could have swerved the need for resignations. “I think the problem that the BBC has had is that this happened a year ago,” he said. “An apology should have been made instantly. If a mistake has been made, you’ve got to apologise instantly.”

As many media commentators and BBC alumni rushed to either defend or denigrate the BBC, there were also claims of a “coup” from within the BBC board.

David Yelland, a former editor of The Sun who now presents a podcast for the BBC, said: “It was a coup and, worse than that, it was an inside job. There were people inside the BBC – very close to the board, on the board – who have systematically undermined Tim Davie and his senior team. This has been going on for a long time. What happened yesterday didn’t happen in isolation.”

He added: “There is a reason that the BBC is the most trusted news organisation in the world – look at who is celebrating this morning, including the president of the United States. This is not a good day and I do think there was a failure of governance.”

Radio 4 presenter Nick Robinson, a former political editor for BBC News, declared that forces were at work to try and bring down the BBC. “It’s clear that there is a genuine concern about editorial standards and mistakes,” he said on Today. “There is also a political campaign by people who want to destroy the organisation. Both things are happening at the same time.”

He said the BBC had appeared “paralysed” for the past week – “unable to agree what to say not just about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech by Panorama but also wider claims of institutional bias”.

Former 5 Live Breakfast Show host Shelagh Fogarty now works in commercial radio but says the BBC needs defending. “We need the BBC as part of a broader economy in news media. I worked there for 25 years and can see its rigour has been eroded. The practice of impartiality is its highest aim. Fix that and state facts.”

But Nigel Farage seized on the crisis, claiming the BBC “has been institutionally biased for decades” as he appeared at a press conference in central London. The Reform leader said: “I actually spoke to the president on Friday. He just said to me: ‘Is this how you treat your best ally?’ It’s quite a powerful comment.”

Former Radio 4 presenter Libby Purves said that she was “glad” to see Turness had been “binned” from her job at the helm of BBC News and claimed the Trump edit should never have happened. “The trans bias is irritating and the Arabic service a problem, but what viscerally distressed us ancient BBC newsfolk was the Trump edit,” she posted on social media. “As a reporter, spent years editing tape and being vv careful NOT to risk traducing even horrible people.”

And Charles Moore, chair of The Spectator, argued that the BBC’s views were “always from a metropolitan left position”. He added: “That means it’s not serving a very large percentage of the licence fee payers. I’m not, of course, saying it should be right wing either, I’m saying it should take impartiality seriously.”

Former Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer said he felt “sad” that Davie had resigned as a result of the latest controversy, describing him as an “outstanding” director general. “I don’t agree that the BBC is systemically biased and that it is basted in a culture which means that its journalism can’t be trusted. I think that’s absolutely wrong,” he said. “The overwhelming majority is excellent and it doesn’t happen by accident. I am here to say that the BBC is an outstanding and excellent exponent of impartial journalism and it needs to be defended.”

Emily Thornberry, chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, agreed: “Across the world, the BBC is recognised as the best source of impartial news reporting. “It’s not perfect, because nothing made by people ever is. However, in these days of deliberate lies, manipulation & populism, it’s a beacon of truth. Britain should be proud of it.”

Caroline Dinenage said that Davie’s decision to quit came down to “editorial failure”, listing other recent mistakes including Bob Vylan at Glastonbury, misconduct by Gregg Wallace on MasterChef, and editorial failings in the doc Gaza: How To Survive a War Zone.

“There seems to be a muscle memory at the BBC as to how to badly respond to any kind of editorial crisis or scandal,” she complained. “The BBC seems to have dropped the ball at every opportunity. That is not a board-level problem, that is an institutional problem.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

LONDON — The BBC reported Monday that President Trump sent a letter threatening legal action over the way a speech he made was edited in a documentary aired by the British broadcaster.

The BBC’s top executive and its head of news both quit Sunday over accusations of bias and misleading editing of a speech Trump delivered on Jan. 6, 2021, before a crowd of his supporters stormed the Capitol in Washington.

Asked about a letter from Trump threatening legal action over the incident, the BBC said in a statement on Monday that “we will review the letter and respond directly in due course.” It did not provide further details.

Earlier, Trump welcomed the resignations of BBC Director-General Tim Davie and news chief Deborah Turness, saying the way his speech was edited was an attempt to “step on the scales of a Presidential Election.”

The hourlong documentary — titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” — was broadcast as part of the BBC’s “Panorama” series days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.” Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

In a resignation letter to staff, Davie said: “There have been some mistakes made and as director-general I have to take ultimate responsibility.”

Turness said the controversy was damaging the BBC, and she quit “because the buck stops with me.”

Turness defended the organization’s journalists against allegations of bias.

“Our journalists are hardworking people who strive for impartiality, and I will stand by their journalism,” she said Monday. “There is no institutional bias. Mistakes are made, but there’s no institutional bias.”

BBC chairman Samir Shah apologized Monday for the broadcaster’s “error of judgment,” saying the broadcaster “accept[s] that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action.”

Trump posted a link to a Daily Telegraph story about the speech-editing on his Truth Social network, thanking the newspaper “for exposing these Corrupt ‘Journalists.’ These are very dishonest people who tried to step on the scales of a Presidential Election.” He called that “a terrible thing for Democracy!”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reacted on X, posting a screen grab of an article headlined “Trump goes to war with ‘fake news’ BBC” beside another about Davie’s resignation, with the words “shot” and “chaser.”

Trump speech edited

Pressure on the broadcaster’s top executives has been growing since the right-leaning Daily Telegraph published parts of a dossier compiled by Michael Prescott, who had been hired to advise the BBC on standards and guidelines.

As well as the Trump edit, it criticized the BBC’s coverage of transgender issues and raised concerns of anti-Israel bias in the BBC’s Arabic service.

The “Panorama” episode showed an edited clip from the January 2021 speech in which Trump claimed the 2020 presidential election had been rigged. Trump is shown saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

According to video and a transcript from Trump’s comments that day, he said:  “I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

“Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Trump used the “fight like hell” phrase toward the end of the speech, but without referencing the Capitol.

“We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” Trump said.

In a letter to Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Shah said the purpose of editing Trump’s words had been “to convey the message of the speech” so that viewers could understand how it had been received by Trump’s supporters and what was happening on the ground.

He said the program had not attracted “significant audience feedback” when it first aired but had drawn more than 500 complaints since Prescott’s dossier was made public.

Shah acknowledged in a BBC interview that “it would have been better to have acted earlier. But we didn’t.”

A national institution

The 103-year-old BBC faces greater scrutiny than other broadcasters — and criticism from its commercial rivals — because of its status as a national institution funded through an annual license fee of 174.50 pounds ($230) paid by all households who watch live TV or any BBC content.

The broadcaster is bound by the terms of its charter to be impartial, and critics are quick to point out when they think it has failed. It’s frequently a political football, with conservatives seeing a leftist slant in its news output and some liberals accusing it of having a conservative bias.

It has also been criticized from all angles over its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. In February, the BBC removed a documentary about Gaza from its streaming service after it emerged that the child narrator was the son of an official in the Hamas-led government.

Governments of both left and right have long been accused of meddling with the broadcaster, which is overseen by a board that includes both BBC nominees and government appointees.

Some defenders of the BBC allege that members of the board appointed under previous Conservative governments have been undermining the corporation from within.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesman, Tom Wells, said the center-left Labor Party government supports “a strong, independent BBC” and doesn’t think the broadcaster is biased.

“But it is important that the BBC acts to maintain trust and corrects mistakes quickly when they occur,” he said.

Lawless writes for the Associated Press.