Samir Shah Insults the British public

BBC's chairman Samir Shah Insults the British public with his moronic claim that the post editing of Donald Trump's speech was "unintentional".

We are not making this up. This is taken straight from the front page of the BBC's website and is repeated in several places.

It is an insult to present your audience with a claim that any one with more than a couple of grey cells is ever likely to believe.

It is possible that the BBC in total did not specifically say: we are out to damage Donald Trump through the actions that went on, but it is impossible to believe that the Panorama team, editing crew and leadership were not heavily involved in adding a slant to the report which made Donald Trump seem like somebody stirring up a rebellion.

The BBC claims to pride itself on its high standards of journalism (we have often reported just how low it actually gets) so if I have high standards I check, double check and triple check a film report about a significant American public figure.

There can be no excuses. Nothing less than giving notice to significant numbers of "pseudo" journalists who produced this trash.

We also recomemend reading this article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/11/inside-tim-davies-mutinous-meeting-with-bbc-staff/

Shah held a video meeting and various statements followed.

Davie said: "We will thrive. And this narrative will not just be given by our enemies. It's our narrative"

Another attendee stated: "We've got to stop this Right-wing plot talk - it plays into critics hands when we take on a victim stance.

How much more "them" and "us" can you get?

So we the British public are your enemies? Thank you!

You just summed up the arrogant hubristic attitude of BBC reporting.

And by the way, how did Shah ever become chairman of the BBC?

To start with he is legally British but is he in spirit? I have my doubts. Something I like about the rules to become President of the United States. You had to be born there, because as the founding fathers obviously realised, just moving to a country doesn't automatically cause you to ingest its culture. Are the rules about who can become president racist? No, because it it a cultural matter.

This man seems to lack our inborn culture. Not every Tom Dick an Harry should be the head of out main broadcaster.

More Info from the Nick Ross in the Times:

Te BBC's malaise goes far deeper than successive rows which shake it with increasing regularity. He mentions the abandoned investigation into Jimmy Savile, the false allegations of child abuse against Lord McAlpine, the cover-up over Martin Bashir, the undeclared use of a Hamas official's child as narrator of a film about Gaza.

Then scandals over presenters, and so on and on, so according to him it is a long list before we get to manipulating Trump speeches to make him say what he didn't.

They all show how bosses are out of touch with what's going on and how institutionalised and defensive the corporation has become.

Unaltered quote: "But like typewriters, coal-fired engines and fax machines the BBC is of another age. The quasi-monopoly on broadcasting depended on airtime scarcity; as bandwidth became infinite, audiences dispersed and programme-making became democratised. We can all now make and transmit TV using our phones - uploads to YouTube and TikTok are approaching ten billion a year. I warned two decades ago that the BBC, weighed down by a fixed income, would slowly drown in a rising sea of digital choice and commercial output."

On board Airforce One worth watching

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/11/15/donald-trump-bbc-sue-lawsuit-5-billion/ Next to him stood Karoline Leavitt, his press secretary. It was her interview with me a week before, when she called the corporation a leftist propaganda machine, that had given fresh legs to The Telegraph investigation.

I have included uneditied passages which I feel we cannot improve on. Originals are referenced.