My Final Salvo at the BBC

Here is the last reply they are allowing me.

Editor’s Note: Here is the first half of the third exciting episode of the saga, “Biggar v. the BBC”, where, in Stage 2 of the drawn-out process, Professor Biggar escalates his complaint to the Executive Complaints Unit. The second half will be broadcast when the ECU responds. If you need a refresher, click HERE for the second round of the battle and HERE for the first.

Reference CAS-8297457-C1L2F8

Stage 2 complaint re. David Olusoga’s “Empire” (November 2025, BBC2)

In its lackadaisical response to my 1b Stage complaint, the BBC Complaints Team made a series of unargued or irrelevant assertions that:

1. David Olusoga is an ‘established’ historian;

2. viewers do not need additional signposting to recognise that Mr Olusoga’s series expressed his particular interpretation;

3. the focus on ‘under-explored’ voices is a legitimate editorial choice; and

4. none of the topics covered are “active matters of political controversy or relate to current public policy”.

To these assertions, I answer that:

1. The issue is not whether Mr Olusoga is a journalist who has been ‘established’ as a popular historian. He has been, not least by the BBC. No, the issue is whether he is a journalist whose representation of history can be trusted to be fair and not unduly distorted by political prejudice. In section 3 (c) of my Stage 1b Complaint, I explained the political bias of his treatment of the Mau Mau Emergency, commenting that either he deliberately suppressed half of the truth or he didn’t know it. In either case, he is not a reliable historian, behind whom the BBC should put the weight of its reputation. The Complaints Team evaded this point entirely.

2. Again, the issue is not whether viewers can be expected to know that ‘Empire’ represents an interpretation of history. Of course, they can. The issue is whether a typical viewer, with little or no knowledge of the subject-matter, has been sufficiently alerted to the politically partisan and controversial nature of the interpretation. I substantiated my claim about its partisan, distorted nature in sections 3 and 5 of my Complaint. The Complaints Team did not even attempt to engage with my argument.