and so now, for you, the time of the coronation is actually a good time to have this conversation? yes, i think it's a good time to have this conversation, and let's be honest with each other. what kind of future do we want? bagpipes play. in humza yousaf, scotland now has a republican first minister as well as a nationalist. although, as he waved off the stone of destiny for the coronation ceremony, he was tight—lipped about both. and three new portraits of the king and queen consort have been released ahead of the coronation. they were photographed by hugo burnand, in the blue drawing room at buckingham palace. time for a look at the weather. . . here's tomasz schafernaker. the weather looking mixed this weekend. overall a lot of sunshine but we have to watch out for some heavy showers, particularly on

sunday where there might be the odd crack of thunder in northern ireland. we will get to that soon. here is the big picture. a large area of low pressure here is helping to draw in a warm atmosphere from the southern climes and it is spreading across the uk. it has already been the warmest day of the year so far in england, around 19 celsius. in the north of the country, still feeling the chill in scotland, it will be freezing mid—morning on saturday. for most of us between four and 10 celsius and on some western coasts. lots of cloud across the north half of the uk. showers from the morning onwards across northern ireland, wales, the north west of england. the best of the weather this programme continues on bbc1.

the chairman quits. he falls on his sword to protect the bbc reputation. questions remain about the mysterious £800,000 alone in the independence of the bbc. richard sharp says that the independent report into his appointment found only that he inadvertently broke the rules after he failed to disclose a potential perceived conflict of interest in his dealings with borisjohnson during the recruitment process.

tonight, we ask the former bbc political editor andrew marr and the former conservative culture minister ed vaizey if the appointments process has to change. also tonight, an update on last night's exclusive of an nhs gp not allowed on to british evacuation flights from sudan. after a swift government u—turn, he'll be on his way home very soon. lam i am supposed to be back tomorrow, my actual_ i am supposed to be back tomorrow, my actual flight was tomorrow. all my actual flight was tomorrow. all my hospital know about it. and this... this film, died suddenly, claims that many sudden deaths are actually caused by the covid vaccine. now, those mourning the loss of loved ones are being targeted on digital platforms by the film's online supporters. what does the film's producer think?

iamona i am on a very its —— explicit mission that is to expose lies that are killing "a potential perceived conflict of interest" — that's how the barrister adam hepinstall kc described the problem. the chairman and the board are the protectors of the bbc�*s independence. we now knowjohnson�*s number ten intervened on multiple occasions in favour of mr sharp's candidacy and that a senior official eventually told the then pm to stop asking mr sharp for financial advice. mr sharp acknowledged he should have been more open with the panel and mps about his involvement with borisjohnson. and that he could have continued in hisjob, but did not want to be a distraction to the bbc. mr sharp appeared to fall foul of that unwritten rule — don't become the story — unable to appear publicly amidst the tumult over gary lineker. substantial questions remain however about the the bbc�*s independence, as a different pm appoints another bbc chair. and about this mysterious loan to the former prime minister. ben chu is here.

does this report shed any further light on the substance? no let's keep an eye on that issue of the £800,000 loan to a serving prime minister. . , ., ., , minister. that is one of the big unanswered — minister. that is one of the big unanswered questions - minister. that is one of the big unanswered questions of - minister. that is one of the big unanswered questions of this l minister. that is one of the big - unanswered questions of this affair. does the head can still report shed any light? not directly, but it does include some important new information. let's look at what richard sharpe said when he was still chair of the bbc. first, though, here's what richard sharp said to bbc staff in an internal email on 23 january this year. he states: "i introduced an old friend of mine, sam blythe, to the cabinet secretary". remember, sam blythe is the person who reportedly wanted

to guarantee a loan for boris johnson to help with his financial problems. but look at what the heppinstall report says today. he writes: "i note that i have been told the introduction to the cabinet secretary never happened, in the sense that the cabinet secretary never met nor was in contact with the person." now, they can't both be right. either there was an introduction or there wasn't. why is this important? because we had been led to believe that the loan mrjohnson ultimately received was fully declared — and that the cabinet secretary was across it. but if the cabinet secretary never met mr blyth — who, then, guaranteed it? was it actually someone else? and, arguably most important of all, who was the money, the loan itself, actually from? we just don't know. it's notable that the heppinstall report, though it wasn't looking at ministerial ethics, makes pointed reference to the ministerial code and its statement that... "ministers must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people that might try inappropriately to influence them." what have the people involved said? the cabinet office told us it's not for officials to register or approve loans,

it is for ministers to declare them in line with the ministerial code. as for mr sharp, i'm told his view was that there was an effective introduction at the meeting — as mr case asked for mr blyth�*s number and left the impression the two would meet. from borisjohnson from boris johnson and from borisjohnson and sam dwyer, we haven't heard anything. sima kotecha looks at the day's events. for an organisation committed, over the years, to political impartiality, the appointment of its chairman is anything but. someone they like and trust, given the role to uphold and protect the bbc�*s independence. and, as history shows, political patronage has often played a part. conservative prime ministers have tended to pick conservative chairmen, while labour prime ministers have often chosen labour chairman. harold wilson stands

on the very steps... when labour's harold wilson became prime minister in 1964, there was no ambiguity as to what he thought of the bbc. dominated by tories and damaging to his own party. a few years later, he appointed lord hill as chairman to "sort out" the corporation. in margaret thatcher's days, she appointed marmaduke hussey to deal with what she thought was left—wing bias. labour accused her of appointing someone who was on her side. there are more examples of how this relationship has been one of influence. it's not unusual that someone is given the job because they have things in common with their employer. they may have similar ideas and thoughts. but the bbc is supposed to be beyond all that, with impartiality at the top of the director general�*s

priority list. when the political trouble arrives, and it inevitably will, having a chair who can back to the bbc without suspicion of having ulterior motive is key. a former bbc boss believes the appointment process needs reform. there used to be a system, and the system was that the chair would come from the governing party and the deputy chair would come from the opposition party, so there was a time when marmaduke hussey, a conservatives supporter as chairman, and at that point michael cox the deputy chair click was a former labour chief whip, so you had an overt system in which the politics were declared. i think what's happened in recent years is that you do still have political appointments, but they've been overlaid by this veneer of an independent appointment panel which, you'd have thought, would have just come up with the best candidate, but actually, clearly, as this report today shows, there is clearly a meshing between what the politicians want

and what the independent panel wants, and that's really what led to the debacle over richard sharp. the national union ofjournalists has been campaigning for a change in the rules. i think this whole fiasco that has led to the eventual resignation of richard sharp shows that there needs to be a process that is carried out with transparency, with integrity and with real, genuine public scrutiny, so that is what the nuj would like to see, a new independent process, free of political taint and interference. but supporters of the system have told us that it's not broken and that it doesn't need fixing after one man's mistake. one person, who didn't want to go on camera, said, "many of these political appointees end up being farfrom critics of the organisation. "indeed, lifting the lid on the inner workings of the corporation turns them into stout supporters of the bbc "and its independence." perhaps the system, they argue,

should be left well alone. the bbc�*s first director general lord reith put impartiality front and centre of the bbc�*s mission. will the government now want the next chairman to embody that reithian value? joining me in the studio is the veteran former bbc presenter and political editor andrew marr, now of lbc radio, and down the line, lord ed vaizey, former conservative mp and culture minister. andrew, welcome back into the building, of course. very familiar! like you make the shadow culture secretary says untold damage has been done to the bbc reputation from this? got untold damage but some damage, i think that richard sharp should have gone before, he was so close to borisjohnson at a time when thejohnson administration was going to push back some of the

traditional guardrails in our traditionally complicated balanced constitution and there was a strong sense that he was often the bbc had wanted to really squeeze it and out there there is a moot —— there is a perception that the bbc is a kind of right—wing, pro—brexit organisation controlled by the tory party and there are even more people who think that it is a left—wing, muesli munching, open toed sandal bunch of brexit hating liberal lefties. there is nothing new in that back the country has become more divided and the bbc is less highly regarded than previously, with two groups for their own reasons really going for their own reasons really going for the bbc and therefore anything that gives theirs once i come at a perception that the bbc is indeed somehow biased or controlled from outside is very dangerous for the bbc and i think that richard sharp's

chairmanship made life harderfor bbc reporters. thank you mac andrew marley, suggesting that culture has for difficult the bbc and this has played into that —— andrew marco motta. played into that -- andrew marco motta. . . ,, . , played into that -- andrew marco motta. . . ,, . , . played into that -- andrew marco motta. . . ,, . motta. richard sharp was a great chairman of— motta. richard sharp was a great chairman of the _ motta. richard sharp was a great chairman of the bbc _ motta. richard sharp was a great chairman of the bbc and - motta. richard sharp was a great chairman of the bbc and if - motta. richard sharp was a great chairman of the bbc and if you i motta. richard sharp was a great i chairman of the bbc and if you look at the _ chairman of the bbc and if you look at the statement put out by the bbc it was_ at the statement put out by the bbc it was quite a heart that very well, not a _ it was quite a heart that very well, not a bland — it was quite a heart that very well, not a bland corporate statement and on any measure, in terms of richard sharpe's _ on any measure, in terms of richard sharpe's cv. — on any measure, in terms of richard sharpe's cv, he was perfectly qualified _ sharpe's cv, he was perfectly qualified to be bbc chairman, with experience in business and lots of public— experience in business and lots of public policy experience as chairman of the _ public policy experience as chairman of the royal academy, he worked with cancer_ of the royal academy, he worked with cancer research, so, he was a good chair— cancer research, so, he was a good chair of— cancer research, so, he was a good chair of the — cancer research, so, he was a good chair of the bbc and i don't think his appointment damage the bbc and what your— his appointment damage the bbc and what your reporter said in her report, — what your reporter said in her report, that the people who get these _ report, that the people who get these appointments tend to end up hacking _ these appointments tend to end up backing the institution is absolutely right. we tie ourselves

up absolutely right. we tie ourselves up in _ absolutely right. we tie ourselves up in knots about political appointments, but what you often find is _ appointments, but what you often find is that the minute they become appointments they become champions of the _ appointments they become champions of the institution that they chair, and i_ of the institution that they chair, and i think— of the institution that they chair, and i think that richard sharp did that _ and i think that richard sharp did that. . . . and i think that richard sharp did that. . , . ,., . , that. there was a point in the last three months _ that. there was a point in the last three months with _ that. there was a point in the last three months with the _ that. there was a point in the last three months with the gary - that. there was a point in the last l three months with the gary lineker episode that he wasn't able to be present. episode that he wasn't able to be resent. . . ,, . , . , ., present. richard sharpe was right to wait for the report, _ present. richard sharpe was right to wait for the report, to _ present. richard sharpe was right to wait for the report, to wait - present. richard sharpe was right to wait for the report, to wait for - present. richard sharpe was right to wait for the report, to wait for an - wait for the report, to wait for an objective — wait for the report, to wait for an objective report which said what he did right _ objective report which said what he did right or— objective report which said what he did right or wrong. objective report which said what he did right orwrong. but objective report which said what he did right or wrong. but it was also clear_ did right or wrong. but it was also clear that — did right or wrong. but it was also clear that his decision to resign was a _ clear that his decision to resign was a reflection of the fact that the difficulties he was in were a distraction for the bbc and the gary lineker— distraction for the bbc and the gary lineker episode showed that. i am told that— lineker episode showed that. i am told that richard sharp did lots of work behind—the—scenes, that's what people _ work behind—the—scenes, that's what heapie told _ work behind—the—scenes, that's what people told me but it was hard for him to— people told me but it was hard for him to publicly defend the bbc because — him to publicly defend the bbc because he was working under a cloud, _ because he was working under a cloud. and — because he was working under a cloud, and that isjust one of the facts _ cloud, and that isjust one of the facts of— cloud, and that isjust one of the

facts of life. if cloud, and that is 'ust one of the facts of ufe._ cloud, and that is 'ust one of the facts of life. if richard sharpe had been fired immediately _ facts of life. if richard sharpe had been fired immediately that - facts of life. if richard sharpe had been fired immediately that of. facts of life. if richard sharpe had l been fired immediately that of have been fired immediately that of have been interference with the independence of the bbc? he should have resigned. _ independence of the bbc? he should have resigned, he _ independence of the bbc? he should have resigned, he was _ independence of the bbc? he should have resigned, he was in _ independence of the bbc? he should have resigned, he was in trouble - have resigned, he was in trouble with the select committee and mainstream conservative mps did not like what they were hearing from him and thought that there are big inconsistencies and it is at that point i thought that he should go. i accept that he is a sharp man, who loves the bbc and was doing his level best to help but we are in a new era when direct connections with prime ministers, particularly that prime minister, is a problem. we talked about the culture of restraint... talked about the culture of restraint. . ._ talked about the culture of restraint... let me ask you directly. — restraint... let me ask you directly. you _ restraint... let me ask you directly, you are _ restraint... let me ask you directly, you are famouslyl restraint... let me ask you - directly, you are famously political editor of the bbc at a time when gavin davies, his, why is this anything different? there is this

unspoken privilege of the prime minister to pick the bbc chairman. gavin davies resigned as labour member as soon as he was appointed and chris patten when he was appointed as a conservative, he was appointed as a conservative, he was a crossbench peer... thea;r appointed as a conservative, he was a crossbench peer. . ._ a crossbench peer... they left their olitics at a crossbench peer... they left their politics at the _ a crossbench peer... they left their politics at the door? _ a crossbench peer... they left their politics at the door? they - a crossbench peer... they left their politics at the door? they both - a crossbench peer... they left their i politics at the door? they both made very specific — politics at the door? they both made very specific decisions. _ politics at the door? they both made very specific decisions. i _ politics at the door? they both made very specific decisions. i was - politics at the door? they both made very specific decisions. i was there i very specific decisions. i was there with gavin davies, and three post the iraq war, and greg bike, and any sense that they wear in bed with the government of the day with tony blair as the reverse of the truth but they both had to resign. they were taking on the government of the day in the 2000s. marmaduke rc is the clip —— the most interesting example who got rid of the then director general alistair milne. the

0 - osition director general alistair milne. the opposition seemed to really go for richard sharp, with keir starmer raising it at pmqs for example so this was a factor in the way that this was a factor in the way that this would play out politically. it was a factor and if i was in opposition i would go for it in the same _ opposition i would go for it in the same way. — opposition i would go for it in the same way, that is what opposition will mac— same way, that is what opposition will mac do, in an unfortunate situation _ will mac do, in an unfortunate situation like that but i fail to see what— situation like that but i fail to see what andrew's case is, i do not believe _ see what andrew's case is, i do not believe for— see what andrew's case is, i do not believe for a — see what andrew's case is, i do not believe for a minute that richard —— richard _ believe for a minute that richard —— richard sharp was a different chair from _ richard sharp was a different chair from gavin — richard sharp was a different chair from gavin davies, i think it was from gavin davies, ! think it was loyal— from gavin davies, ! think it was loyal to— from gavin davies, i think it was loyal to the _ from gavin davies, i think it was loyal to the bbc and wanted to do the best— loyal to the bbc and wanted to do the best for the organisation, but there _ the best for the organisation, but there is— the best for the organisation, but there is a — the best for the organisation, but there is a debate to be had about whether— there is a debate to be had about whether they should be in any sense a political— whether they should be in any sense a political appointment.— a political appointment. doesn't 'ust draw a political appointment. doesn't just draw a _ a political appointment. doesn't just draw a line _ a political appointment. doesn't just draw a line under _ a political appointment. doesn't just draw a line under this? - just draw a line under this? and number of _ just draw a line under this? and number of things. _ just draw a line under this? and number of things. if _ just draw a line under this? and number of things. if you belonged to a political— number of things. if you belonged to a political party that should not stop you — a political party that should not stop you having a public appointment and the _ stop you having a public appointment and the people to get these jobs take them seriously, and there has not been _ take them seriously, and there has not been another dodgy dossier

moment— not been another dodgy dossier moment for the bbc under the richard sharp chairmanship but if he was still chairman and there was a clash with the _ still chairman and there was a clash with the government of the day, the tory government, he would have defended — tory government, he would have defended the bbc to the hilt. i have no doubt _ defended the bbc to the hilt. i have no doubt about that at all. if defended the bbc to the hilt. i have no doubt about that at all.— no doubt about that at all. if you are advising _ no doubt about that at all. if you are advising rishi _ no doubt about that at all. if you are advising rishi sunak - no doubt about that at all. if gm. are advising rishi sunak about the new chair, would you say to avoid a donor, go for a former banker or economist, which has been popular in the past? it is economist, which has been popular in the ast? . , . the past? it is interesting what andrew is saying _ the past? it is interesting what andrew is saying because - the past? it is interesting what andrew is saying because i - the past? it is interesting what. andrew is saying because i think a lot of— andrew is saying because i think a lot of this — andrew is saying because i think a lot of this is — andrew is saying because i think a lot of this is based around the personality of boris johnson. we have _ personality of boris johnson. we have a _ personality of boris johnson. we have a very different prime minister here, _ have a very different prime minister here. i_ have a very different prime minister here. idon't— have a very different prime minister here, i don't think rishi sunak is in the _ here, i don't think rishi sunak is in the business of handing jobs to the boys — in the business of handing jobs to the boys or— in the business of handing jobs to the boys or girls, i think he was the boys or girls, i think he was the right— the boys or girls, i think he was the right person for the job, so, the boys or girls, i think he was the right person forthejob, so, i don't _ the right person forthejob, so, i don't think— the right person forthejob, so, i don't think he will follow the same path. _ don't think he will follow the same path. i_ don't think he will follow the same path, i think he will want somebody who is— path, i think he will want somebody who is a _ path, i think he will want somebody who is a credible and excellent candidate and he will not be fussed about _ candidate and he will not be fussed about the _ candidate and he will not be fussed about the political links or whatever. he has a businesslike

mentality— whatever. he has a businesslike mentality civil almost certainly try to get _ mentality civil almost certainly try to get someone from the world of business to do this job, and to get someone from the world of business to do thisjob, and i hope that he breaks the mould as well, because _ that he breaks the mould as well, because we have had white male chairs— because we have had white male chairs of— because we have had white male chairs of the bbc so i hope that he breaks— chairs of the bbc so i hope that he breaks the — chairs of the bbc so i hope that he breaks the mould here, as well. who would ou breaks the mould here, as well. who would you like _ breaks the mould here, as well. who would you like to _ breaks the mould here, as well. tram would you like to see in this job and who do you think prime minister rishi sunak would appoint? i would like to see and experience proponent of public service broadcasting who would lead the bbc in a new way. you will not thank me for saying so, but i would like to see somebody like david dimbleby. in terms of rishi sunak�*s choice, this is really interesting across politics. a very difficult choice for rishi sunak and we will learn a lot more about him depending on what he does. does he go for the culture war? does he go for squeezing the bbc? does he go view guide somebody

like nadine dorries or someone like that? or, ed vaizey was suggesting, and i certainly hope he is right, go to somebody more mainstream and consensual, try to push these things back a little bit to the way they were before? i very much hope it is the latter. there is a whole series of conservative leaning, well—known people in public life who he might choose but i hope it goes for somebody like that. ed vaizey, that is your instinct _ somebody like that. ed vaizey, that is your instinct of what _ somebody like that. ed vaizey, that is your instinct of what the prime i is your instinct of what the prime minister might do? unfortunately andrew has _ minister might do? unfortunately andrew hasjust made _ minister might do? unfortunately andrew hasjust made a very - andrew has just made a very good point! _ andrew has 'ust made a very good oint! ,.. , andrew has 'ust made a very good poinnfl it is — andrew has 'ust made a very good point!i it is a thoughtful. point! so sorry! it is a thoughtful and interesting _ point! so sorry! it is a thoughtful and interesting point, this- point! so sorry! it is a thoughtful and interesting point, this is a i and interesting point, this is a test for— and interesting point, this is a test for rishi sunak. i think the prime — test for rishi sunak. i think the prime minister would make a sensible appointment that's best for the bbc, and i really— appointment that's best for the bbc, and i really hope he doesn't make a political— and i really hope he doesn't make a political culture war, it would be a disaster if— political culture war, it would be a disaster if he did. gne political culture war, it would be a disaster if he did.— disaster if he did. one such consensus _ disaster if he did. one such consensus we _ disaster if he did. one such consensus we must - disaster if he did. one such consensus we must leave l disaster if he did. one suchl consensus we must leave it, disaster if he did. one such - consensus we must leave it, thank

you ed vaizey and andrew marr. last night, we reported that nhs doctor abdulrakman babikir was refused a place on a british evacuation flight from sudan. joe inwood, who highlighted this story, joins me now to give us an update on that story. joe, what is the latest? i spoke to doctor babikir this morning and he said he would have another go to get to the airport. we have seen thousands of people try to make this perilous journey to an airport north of khartoum, and much to his surprise, he told me over the phone this morning that he had made it and they have allowed him through. the controversy was doctor's or sudanese origin working for the nhs being denied access to these flights, rescue flights out of these flights, rescue flights out of the country. —— doctors of sudanese origin. he was very cheerful today and told me about his feelings of going back to work in the nhs. i’m going back to work in the nhs. i'm supposed to be back tomorrow, my actual— supposed to be back tomorrow, my actual flight, and my first day

working is tuesday. my hospitals know _ working is tuesday. my hospitals know about it. many people in my hospital— know about it. many people in my hospital group know about it. how do ou feel hospital group know about it. how do you feel about _ hospital group know about it. how do you feel about the _ hospital group know about it. how do you feel about the idea _ hospital group know about it. how do you feel about the idea of _ you feel about the idea of going back to work? are you looking forward to it? i’m back to work? are you looking forward to it?— back to work? are you looking forward to it? �* ., , . forward to it? i'm not sure if i am read to forward to it? i'm not sure if i am ready to work, to _ forward to it? i'm not sure if i am ready to work, to be honest, - forward to it? i'm not sure if i am i ready to work, to be honest, at the moment. with all the situation here butting my— moment. with all the situation here putting my family at risk. well, that's great _ putting my family at risk. well, that's great news that - putting my family at risk. well, that's great news that that has| that's great news that that has happened, but what about the general policy here? the happened, but what about the general oli here? ., , , policy here? the honest truth is this is pretty —

policy here? the honest truth is this is pretty unclear. _ policy here? the honest truth is this is pretty unclear. we - policy here? the honest truth is this is pretty unclear. we spoke j this is pretty unclear. we spoke to the foreign office yesterday, they told us that the rules where if you were not a british passport holder or a dependent of one, you could come to the uk but you could make your own way there, which of course is very difficult to do in this situation. of course, doctor babikir�*s situation suggests there had been a change of the rules. i have tried to get a response from the foreign office all day, and in the foreign office all day, and in the last half hour they sent me another e—mail that said essentially the same as they said yesterday. that is slightly at odds with what happened here. and also at odds with the fact we have heard of know what that means, but certainly, the indication we are getting is there has been some movement and its

clearly good news for doctor babikir, we don't know exactly where he is now, his phone is off. we suspect he may be in the air but we won't find out for a few hours. thank you, joe. were first rolled out. throughout that time, conspiracy theories have swirled, claiming that the jabs have killed large numbers of people. now a viral film has taken off — smafitfiggg ti¥5%i¥§:a’2 m5: of individual tragedies and linking them, without any evidence, to covid vaccines. in a rare interview, the film's creator told the bbc he was "happy" to hear about the harassment and exclusive research shared with bbc newsnight has revealed how twitter�*s new policies might have played a role in the film's spread. rachel schraer has this report. and the vaccine killed your spouse. it's all your fault you murdered... you know, it's all these things. but it all goes back to that vaccine. and the key words were died suddenly. late last year, tricia's husband came home from a day's work as a maintenance man in their housing complex, collapsed on the carpet

and died of a sudden and unexpected heart attack. i've known him since seventh grade. our life went separate ways, but we met back up just as we were both going through divorces in 2015. and we got married in 2021, and then he died a year, four months later. it was an everyday tragedy. a man in his forties with high blood pressure and a pre—existing health condition. he'd lost two brothers in quick succession just months earlier. tricia thinks the stress of it affected his health. but when tricia shared the news of her husband's death online, looking for some support, in amongst words of condolence, she began to receive a flood of more sinister messages. apparently, the combination of the words "died suddenly" coincided

with some movie that was coming out about that time, and that's what maybe triggered some of it and got so many of them to constantly, oh, you know, "the vaccine killed your husband, the vaccine killed your spouse." somebody mentioned to go on to google and go into the news section and then type in "died suddenly". the film, called died suddenly, claims — baselessly — that people are suddenly dropping dead in large numbers and covid vaccines are to blame. now, any sudden death announced on social media, no matter the cause, can be used as evidence for this conspiracy theory. when you see people attacking your healthcare decisions and how you take care of your family in your own home, and telling you that that's responsible for killing your spouse while you already feel like crap because you didn't recognise the signs of a heart attack, it puts you down some dark

holes after a while. it does. the belief that swathes of people are being killed by covid vaccines has become a significant one within the anti—vaccine community. it's driving mistrust in public health advice. in this case, it's also driving a mistrust so deep, it even extends to doubting what bereaved people are saying about their own loved one's death. and then you find out they were vaccinated. something's causing this. somebody needs to look into it. the film's creator, stu peters, has built up hundreds of thousands of followers and millions of views across different platforms. i wanted to speak to him online. when ijoined the call, it became apparent he'd rented a warehouse especially for the occasion, and had brought his own crew to film the interview in order to get his own distorted message out. several of the clips that you show are from people passing out before

covid vaccines were available. many of them did not die. did you include them by mistake or were you deliberately trying to mislead? so this is an attempt to try to discredit me or the film, rather than talking about the millions of people that are dying. but if millions of people are dying, why didn't you use them as examples? johnson collapsed in december 2020 before the vaccines were available. he's still alive and well. he played in the national college basketball championship this year. why did you include him in the film? we released a film that has saved millions and millions of lives. you know that. i know that. you've been sent here to discredit it. you'll have to take that up with god. look, i gave this platform to god. i'm on a very specific mission, and that is to expose lies that are killing people. i put several other errors to him. the headline actually about a man who died in a car crash in 2017. the american football

player, demar hamlin, who collapsed after colliding with a fellow player. and when i ask him if he's sorry for the harrassment of people like tricia his film is inciting, he showed no remorse. as that begins to trend and as that continues to grow, all we're doing is saving more lives, i think that's awesome. but stu peters doesn't seem to want to answer any of my direct questions about the film's message, which is miles away from the weight of scientific evidence. there is no evidence whatsoever that vaccines have been associated with any increase in mortality. the died suddenly film has been far reaching, but exclusive research for the bbc has found evidence of coordinated and inauthentic activity by accounts sharing the link and the hashtag, which seems to have helped it go viral. previously, content like this might have been removed from twitter, under its old covid misinformation policies. now, the site seems to have played

a significant role in helping this film and the associated misinformation and harrassment take off. i asked twitter about this, but they didn't respond to my questions. for trisha, though, the problem is much more profound. people are going out looking for what they already believe. they're looking for that confirmation of their own biases. they are not looking for actual facts, actual truth. they don't want to know. so let's take a look at some of the front pages. let's have a look at the guardian. bbc chair quits. rishi sunak under pressure to stop appointing conservatives to key positions at the bbc, it said. moving on to the times, which doesn't go on this story. it goes on the nhs strike