I walked out of live BBC interview - it's not a right-wing plot that's Auntie's problem

Some have characterised the resignations of Tim Davie and Deborah Turness as the triumph of a "right-wing campaign" against the BBC, designed to cow a great public institution. That analysis is comforting for those who want to believe the BBC is under siege from bad-faith actors. It is also wrong. I take no pleasure in the turmoil at the BBC. I have defended the corporation when it has acted with diligence and integrity. But accountability for editorial failure is not an attack on journalism, it is essential to protect it. To suggest otherwise is to confuse scrutiny with sabotage. I have experienced the BBC's capacity for both excellence and failure. In 1984, Panorama aired "Maggie's Militant Tendency" which libelled me and colleagues, Neil Hamilton and Sir Gerald Howarth, with fabricated associations to extremist groups.

My interview was edited so crudely that it showed me in three different suits in what was presented as a single meeting. John Selwyn Gummer, the. Conservative Party Chairman, commented that he knew I was many things, but a quick-change artist I was not. It was not satire, it was broadcast reality. That saga ended with significant damages being paid, over 100 MPs signed a Commons motion condemning Panorama, and director general Alasdair Milne was pressured to resign.

Fast forward almost four decades later and during Operation Midland - when distinguished public servants were accused of the most serious crimes including child sexual abuse and child murder - BBC journalist, Tom Symonds, then Home Affairs Correspondent, met Carl Beech and showed him photographs of missing children - including Martin Allen, who disappeared in 1979, the year I entered Parliament. The result? Hate mail, threats, and the grotesque spread of falsehoods. Again, no "culture war." Just people harmed by bad journalism.

Post Operation Midland in 2019, I was invited onto BBC Breakfast to discuss Operation Midland and the Henriques Report. I found myself listening instead to a Metropolitan Police statement.

When I corrected a false claim by Naga Munchetty about Dame Cressida Dick being "cleared" - she wasn't cleared, she wasn't even interviewed - I was interrupted in case I said something "potentially incorrect". I walked out of the live interview. The irony needs no elaboration.

Yet the BBC's story is not one of uniform failure. Far from it. During Operation Midland, I was indebted to Daniel De Simone and Alistair Jackson.

Their forensic work exposed Beech's lies and helped turn the tide against a destructive conspiracy theory embraced by police and certain politicians and media. Professional, humane and rigorous - they showed the BBC at its finest. That is the point. The BBC is capable of excellence, but also of extraordinary error.

Which brings us to today. Editing a US President's remarks to falsely imply endorsement of political violence is not a "misstep." When such manipulation angers the American President and risks damaging the special relationship, we stand in dangerous territory. This is not partisan fury; it is concern for Britain's national credibility and democratic standards.

To wave all criticism away as ideological attack is to insult those harmed by genuine BBC failures, and to infantilise the public who expect - and deserve - high standards from an organisation they fund. This is not about "baying for blood." It is about the public broadcaster being accountable to the public.

The BBC requires reform, not ritual defensiveness. True impartiality requires robust guardrails, not assurances. Over the last few days several people have some out to blindly defend the BBC. Including Sir Ed Davey, who I greatly respect, who has written to Sir Keir Starmer with a profoundly misguided letter.

This issue is not about "defending Britain from Donald Trump" as Sir Ed mentions. It's about a public broadcaster being accountable to the public it serves.

The BBC did not face criticism because a foreign leader demanded it. It faced criticism because it doctored footage of a sitting President - a grave journalistic breach with serious diplomatic consequences. Criticism in such circumstances is not an "assault on democracy". It's democracy functioning as it should.

Then there's John Simpson, who is miffed that no one has mentioned that the BBC has a reach of 77 million in the US, and is one of the most trusted sources. Audience size and trust are not shields against accountability. A broadcaster can have 77 million viewers and still make serious, damaging mistakes - the BBC's reach makes accuracy more important, not optional.

Success does not excuse editing a President's words to alter their meaning, nor the consequences for trust at home and abroad. A broadcaster funded by licence payers must report the news, not reshape it. The BBC remains a precious institution. But precious things deserve protection and correction. To defend the BBC is not to excuse its failures; it is to insist that it be worthy of the trust the nation places in it.

The plea should not be to stop "weaponising" the BBC. The plea should be to stop handing its critics ammunition. Reform is not a threat to the BBC. It is its best chance at renewal.