to work through. in the end, we came to a judgment about his lack of experience, that he was out of his depth, that he was contrite, and we gave him a second chance, we trusted him, and it turns out we couldn t, so i understand why i was using words that, when you look at them now, they seem wrong, but it was me trying to work out whether i could trust this man or not. you trying to work out whether i could trust this man or not. trust this man or not. you very cuickl trust this man or not. you very quickly went trust this man or not. you very quickly went through trust this man or not. you very quickly went through the - trust this man or not. you very quickly went through the first i quickly went through the first investigation, as head of programming, as i understand, the person who did that investigation wrote in his own handwriting a description of what mr bashir had done, including creating fake documents, which was then sent to your office. what did you do subsequent to tha
though because of low dyson s inquiry that there were other things he did. ifrankly inquiry that there were other things he did. i frankly was astonished to read low dyson s report saying martin bashir had not understood the gravity of what he had done because certainly, tony and others, he understood the gravity of what he had done. he understood the gravity of what he had done. , ., . , ., ,, had done. he produced these fake documents had done. he produced these fake documents in had done. he produced these fake documents in a had done. he produced these fake documents in a peculiar had done. he produced these fake documents in a peculiar way, i had done. he produced these fake documents in a peculiar way, we i documents in a peculiar way, we didn t documents in a peculiar way, we didn t take documents in a peculiar way, we didn t take that through any of his senior didn t take that through any of his senior management, he made a visit to a hawk senior management, he m
laura kuenssberg. exactly, so why was the religious affairs editor- was the religious affairs editor allowed, a senior position in the bbc? i allowed, a senior position in the bbc? ., , y ., bbc? i am very sorry, you will have to ask. that bbc? i am very sorry, you will have to ask. that is bbc? i am very sorry, you will have to ask. that is fine, bbc? i am very sorry, you will have to ask. that is fine, we bbc? i am very sorry, you will have to ask. that is fine, we are i to ask. that is fine, we are rrettin to ask. that is fine, we are getting nowhere. to ask. that is fine, we are getting nowhere. lord i to ask. that is fine, we arej getting nowhere. lord dyson to ask. that is fine, we are i getting nowhere. lord dyson has surmised you getting nowhere. lord dyson has surmised you were getting nowhere. lord dyson has surmised you were not getting nowhere. lord dyson has surmised you were not entirely l surmised you were not entirely open minded when you conducted your
looking back at it and in fact, i accept lord dyson s recommendation that of course, in the light of what earl spencer said, we should have gone back to earl spencer, one of us should have done, to pin down exactly these facts about the fake documents. i accept that as a mistake, 25 years on, but, you know, we were trying to do our best and be as rigorous as we could with what we had them but we were confronted with someone who in my 35 years at the bbc, i ve not come across, basically you trust your reporters and editors to tell the truth and in his case, that trust was misplaced. but are seekinr that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one side that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one side of that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one side of a that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one side of a story i that trust was misplaced. but are seeking one side of a story it i that trust was misplaced. but are i seeking one s
to staff. with hindsight, do you acce -t to staff. with hindsight, do you accept that to staff. with hindsight, do you accept that mr to staff. with hindsight, do you accept that mr should - to staff. with hindsight, do you accept that mr should have i to staff. with hindsight, do you. accept that mr should have been dealt accept that mr should have been dealt with as a whistle blower? shouldn t dealt with as a whistle blower? shouldn t he have been treated more elaborate shouldn t he have been treated more elaborate by the bbc and they should have been elaborate by the bbc and they should have been grateful for him coming forward have been grateful for him coming forward with his concerns about those forward with his concerns about those documents and how they might have been? i those documents and how they might have been? .. those documents and how they might have been? ,, ., , have been? i think that s right. i think some have been? i think that s right. i think so