I presume her apology on Twitter today was written for her by the BBC and I am afraid it is simply not good enough.
Today she tweeted, ‘Good morning. I’m starting the day by saying I’m sorry: a few weeks ago, the Radio Times asked me (amongst other things) what would potentially happen at Christmas with my own family if the rule of six was still in place....”
“I talked about my mum, her partner & my dad-in-law spending it with us - making seven in our home in a Tier One area (medium). It was hypothetical - however I was totally wrong to say it & I’m sorry. We’ll of course continue to follow whatever rules are in place on Dec 25th”
Oh well, that’s okay then Vic, on you go presenting the news for the BBC then pop off to the Jungle and pick up your fee of 75 grand on top of your BBC salary of £220 grand!
Of course, the rules don’t apply to you, do they? Just to everyone else, ‘the little people.’
What makes this story even worse is that the interview where she made this claim and blatant encouragement to break the law was in the Radio Times. I know that the magazine is no longer actually owned by the BBC but most people still see it as the BBC in printed form.
I actually understand her dilemma as it is one we are facing in our own family, and I suspect many other households the length and breadth of the UK are facing the same conflict of emotions.
Many of us are cynical about the confusing rules coming out of Downing Street but the majority of us will shrug our shoulders and abide by the rules for the good of the wider society.
Christmas will not be cancelled but it will be different and parts of it will be unpleasant. So, to have the debate is not a problem but as a highly paid news presenter to actually state that you are going to break the law is totally unacceptable and to do it in the BBC’s own magazine is inexcusable.
Let’s be honest the only reason she was doing the interview was to ‘up her profile’ before she went off to the Jungle or Wales to do the reality show with Ant and Dec.
Isn’t the Beeb meant to be Impartial?
Why on earth are the BBC allowing an existing main news presenter to do a reality show when she is still employed to be an impartial presenter is beyond me. I thought that the new Director-General was clamping down on this nonsense?
Are we really meant to believe that her line manager didn’t know she was giving this interview and that she had said these irresponsible comments?
Of course, they did. It’s just another blatant example of the BBC forgetting that they are meant to be impartial.
Unbelievably as I write this column Victoria is actually on BBC2 presenting the News!
The news agenda is of course dominated by Covid, the rules and the school meals row.
How can she seriously interview MP’s like Jake Berry and remain impartial after she has openly declared her objection to government policy?
She is interviewing people about Tier 3 being imposed on Nottinghamshire whilst she is mired in a controversy of her own making. She has just interviewed a Doctor in Scotland about the prospect of tier 4 or even 5 being imposed which she would probably ignore too!
Funnily enough, her own story hasn’t made the news agenda on her own programme? There’s a surprise!
But it gets worse, guys, because now she has just had to read out the latest death figures from the ONS and they are up by 61 percent. Forget the BBC sacking her, if she had any morals or ethics, she would walk now.
But it gets worse. Her old radio station BBC 5 live have decided to use her suggestion of breaking the law as a hook for a phone in, just look at their tweet. ‘
BBC presenter Victoria Derbyshire has apologised for saying she would break the rule of 6 and have her mum over for Christmas. Can you forgive a Covid rule breaker at Christmas? Or is there absolutely no excuse? Call 08085 909 693 Text 85058’
This illustrates the institutional arrogance of the BBC and disrespect to the people who pay their wages through a compulsory poll tax of a TV licence.
If Victoria or any of her other BBC chums like Emily Maitlis want to express an opinion they should join LBC or Talk radio, not use a publicly funded platform to push their own agenda.
Giving an opinion, especially one which clearly promotes breaking the law (no matter how stupid that law is) is totally unacceptable when you are picking up over £200 thousand pound of public money, and a mealy-mouthed apology after the event is not good enough.
She should have been told by the BBC that she should ‘spend some time with her family’ before entering her highly paid ‘celebrity’ gig.
Just like Cummings and the bonking professor and all the other ‘elite idiots’ before her she is spreading misinformation and actively promoting breaking the law. This is both dangerous and reckless.
No doubt Covid cynics will describe her as brave and assertive! Others are already saying they will follow her lead.
However, I believe she is arrogant, irresponsible and stupid to use her position in this way.
This overpaid, smug BBC presenter should be sacked!
The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.