The Rest Is Entertainment - Tim Davie on BAFTA, Mistakes and the BBC’s Future

Episode Date: March 12, 2026

Is the BBC facing an exisential crisis? Can it compete against the American streamers? Will it survive threats from Farage? Outgoing Director General Tim Davie speaks to Richard Osman and Marina Hyde for his first full length interview ahead of his departure in April. The Rest is Entertainment is brought to you by Octopus Energy, Britain's most awarded energy supplier. Join The Rest Is Entertainment Club: Unlock the full experience of the show – with exclusive bonus content, ad-free listening, early access to Q&A episodes, access to our newsletter archive, discounted book prices with our partners at Coles Books, early ticket access to live events, and access to our chat community. Sign up directly at therestisentertainment.com For more Goalhanger Podcasts, head to www.goalhanger.com Video Editor: Joey McCarthy & Adam Thornton Assistant Producer: Imee Marriott Senior Producer: Joey McCarthy Social Producer: Bex Tyrrell Exec Producer: Neil Fearn Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by our friends at Octopus Energy. Some people in the entertainment industry are successful, but a much, much smaller number are genuinely admired. I was trying to think in TV, who everyone likes, I mean, Attenborough. In movies, Julia, Merrill, you will not hear a bad word said about any of those people. There are actually very few that no one is rude about behind their back, but those two are certainly two of them.

Can I tell you about a company that no one is read about behind their back and that people admire? Would it shock you to learn? It is our friends at Octopus Energy. Octopus Energy has ended up being named Britain's most admired company, 2025. That's nice. That's really nice, isn't it? I'm sure companies are like Hollywood, just absolutely vicious behind each other's backs. But to actually be elected, most admired, it's pretty good.

All the other companies just sitting around going, should I tell you I met the other day? Octopus Energy, actually, you know what? lovely bunch really really lovely bunch all of them the most admired company in the UK 2025 which is why we're very very happy that they are our sponsors hello and welcome to this episode of the rest of entertainment questions and answers edition i'm marina hi and i'm richard ozman hello marina hello richard we're in the grown-up studio again we are because we have with us a grown-up thank you so much a grown-up tim davy outgoing director-general of the bbcccc tim thanks so much for coming on the show. A real pleasure. It's nice to be in the grown-up studio with the grown-ups. It's lovely. And we asked our listeners to send in questions. And genuinely, we've got some

great ones. Tim has been in the job at the BBC since 2020, presiding over an almost, as usual, now, turbulent period in the BBC. But there are so many amazing positives. It is the biggest, most recognised and most trusted public service media organisation in the world. On the other side, There have been the scandals involving senior presenters, Hugh Edwards, Greg Wallace, Gary Lennox, with editing and impartiality, Bob Villain at Glastonbury, the Gaza documentary, the Trump documentary edit, and most recently the BAFTA's. And next year, the Royal Charter is up for renewal. This is the BBC sort of licence to exist, and it's in a media market that I think streaming has changed completely unrecognisably from even a few years ago. And we have questions on all of those things from our... And for full disclosure, I have to say that my husband works at the BBC, though not on the editorial side.

And for full disclosure, I say I no longer work at the BBC, so I can say whatever I want. Yes. Very good. That's a regretted loss, Richard. That's right. Just for the record. Almost all the questions are about House of Games. Indeed.

Yeah. Should we start with Neer Pritchard's question? She says the BBC's former director of communications John Shield called the director-general job a poisoned chalice. Tim, do you agree? I've said it's not a job for the faint-hearted and there are days when you look in the mirror and go what am I doing but overall I would recommend it to anyone

I think that if you get one life do something you care about and I couldn't be proud of doing the job as Director General number 17 I think look in life I think as you get grizzled and old you realise that some of the best experiences in life are the things that are hardest

and this is a hard old gig but one thing I feel more now than ever, I've been to BBC 20 odd years, is I care about it more than ever. I think it's more important than ever. And I think that there's something about doing something that you really believe in. And when I look to my future, for instance, I think, I just couldn't do something that I don't care about. So do I feel incredibly privileged to have done the job? Yes. Do I think it's an impossible job? No. Do I think it's a poison chalice? There are days, but overall, I think it's a joy. When you said there, do I think it's in a possible job, you paused before you said,

nope, almost as if you're about to say yes, it is definitively a more difficult job than running any other media organisation because it's publicly funded and because there are people at all sides who want to take a view on it. So given that you could run any other big media organisation, what is it about the BBC that makes it harder? What are the things that happen in the morning when you wake up that wouldn't happen if you were running, say, the daily mail? Well, it goes to the very roots of, you know, the funding and the purpose, which is if everyone pays, everyone's a shareholder and everyone is entitled to a view. That's the joy and the stresses of the job.

The very essence of it is when I kind of struggle home on a Friday night after a full week, I go to the pub in my village and there will be 15 people who want to talk about the structure of news night or what happened to Richard Osmond. I love your downtime. And, you know, it's that passion, it's that care. I mean, I was known in my village as BBC Tim, way before Director General. And if you look to the people up my lane with the greatest respect to them, they are not known as, you know, PWC, John. Yeah.

There is something about the BBC. And that's the joy of public media. It is a communal societal choice to do something that brings us together. That's it. And it brings with it quite a lot of stresses and strains, as I said, but some joy. I think I stumbled over the double negative, not really in any doubt. I don't think it's an impossible job. I just think it's a very hard one.

What is the job? It's like a bit politician. It's a bit CEO. It's a bit editor. Do you have any peer? I rail against people who describe things as unique, but in some ways, this is quite different. And I think that it is multidimensional in the way you've talked about it. I think people clearly see the public facing, the dealing with the issues, the Director General looking a bit beleaguered at some points or doing a speech.

Actually, I think it's underestimated the operational excellence needed. You know, we've got 23,000 people. We've got a two billion pound commercial arm. the funding plans and the choices you make in terms of how you deploy your resources are everything. I think what's really different about this, the BBC is, sorry for the pompous language, but multivariable.

In that, if you're running a commercial operation, if something doesn't make money, you close it or you can't see a way to making money. In size, it's easy, he says, there are difficulties, but there's a clarity to that. The difficulty of the Director General's job, and I think it is a kind of, of wonderful torture is cross-referencing the Gaelic service one day or the orchestral sector

against another series of traitors and actually choosing your resources because you've got to deliver the value to every household, but you've got to deliver on your purposes. So you have a, you have this kind of axis where you've got public good and then return on investment for the license fee. And I think that is the essence of the job of Director General. Final thing is you've got to get great people working for you in the right place with the right culture in a much more competitive world. So apart from that, there's nothing going on. But that is essentially the essence of the job. Is it all so slightly, though, that feeling of dead men's shoes? You must have, when you took over in 2020, is there a bit where you look back at the previous 16 and think, yeah, that

won't be me, that won't be me, these things won't go wrong for me. And then life happens. Well, I think that you don't do these jobs unless you're kind of born with a little bit of optimism, maybe a smidgen of ego in there as well, in terms of just thinking, I can do. If you don't think you can do it and you're not up for it, there's no point in stepping into these jobs. I mean, I have to say, I think, you know, versus some of the political world where you're seeing, I think I'm on my 17th sector of state in 21 years. So Director General's are quite slow moving in that regard. Now, public life is a choice.

You know, there are moments where you could just get burnt up in something very quickly or you get the joy of doing something for a number of years. I've been the BBC. I've been acting director general for six months dealing with something in 2012. I'm blessed to have done that time. And I think you have to be a bit lucky in these jobs as well, but also you make a bit of your own luck. Loads of questions about streaming and the future of television, where it's going and where the BBC sits in that infrastructure.

I think the best way of putting it is Michelle O'Neill, who asks this. She says, with global streamers dominating attention, What is the BBC's competitive advantage now? And do you think they underestimate the BBC? Firstly, I think it is a very well-put question because you can't do everything. And you have to decide what your point of difference is. And I think we've decided.

And we've said there's three things we do. And it goes to the very essence of our model, our funding, our intent. It has to go to the real core of what we are. And those three things are pursue truth with no agenda. Now we'll talk about we're not perfect in that. But by goodness, we wrestle with it every day. And that is different to running a commercial organization where you're trying to drive subscription.

I'm a lot less grumpy about some of our commercial competitors. I think Netflix and Disney are great companies. They just do something different. The second thing we do is I think we've got a real commitment to UK content and UK IP. And that's in the heart of our funding and how we work. So, you know, under my watch, I pushed hundreds of millions of pounds outside the M25 so that there's that network effect. And I think that's different.

You know, if you were running a commercial organisation, you may say, we'll just have one centre, make it highly commercially efficient. That's not what we do. And the last thing we do that is different. We are here to bring people together. I mean, I really believe in civilised debate or sports events where we come together. You know, one of the great things about the UK is by and large we can have civilised discussion. By and large, we are a community that wants to come together to discuss things in a civilised way. and the BBC is incentivised to do that by its model.

So the question is well put. What we're trying to do at the BBC is actually deploying as much as our resources into things that are competitively different. And that's not about becoming commercial to the question. It's about becoming distinctive. Last thing is we need to innovate like crazy in digital. And you've seen me do that.

I mean, we now have a world-class product development team. You may have seen we've just announced we're merging all of that with our product engineering teams, our technology teams who are second to none, and forming a whole new group called Media Tech, which I believe will be a national asset. I think Michelle's question is also interesting to some extent because there is a perception among so many people, particularly younger people, whatever, that, oh, the streamers dominate everything. It's really interesting. I was hearing an interview with Ted Sarandos a couple of weeks

ago while they were still, Netflix was still bidding for warners. And he was saying, my God, in the UK, you know, we can't get into the top. We've had a lot. one show in the top 50 years top programs ever, which is adolescents. And it's that sense that actually all the big things that people watch actually are often on broadcasts. Yeah, broadcast all the BBC. I think we, you know, we do kind of pessimism for a living in the UK, don't we? And we're not very good at American Yehart. And I kind of like that in a way. But let's have a little moment to say, you know, the I play is absolutely there as a big platform with, The content we've got is strong.

The respect for the BBC is serious. I mean, honestly, I think we should be incredibly proud as the UK. This is unique globally. That's the thing I would say is you look around the world, where is a local player fighting it out with the likes of, you know, these American BMOths and they're getting bigger as we speak, and they're worried about their own scale with 17 billion of content investment. But here we are in the UK.

We've got an incredible brand. we're fighting a good fight and I player was you know in many months over the last couple of years outgrowing all of the competition and is in the game not bad but there is you know

there's a flip size to Michelle's question here which is there is a world in which in 10 years time that the huge amount of money that comes into content through the streamers means the BBC doesn't exist that's definitively a possibility and one of your jobs

is to be a shepherd to try and make sure it does exist without doubt, 10 years time. What are the biggest challenges you see in the next 10 years with the whole infrastructure of how television is changing, how content is changing? Your question is absolutely on the money. I think sometimes, you know, the BBC's thought it's in jeopardy historically.

And being contentious about it, you're not really in jeopardy. I mean, the DG may resign or something big might happen, but if you've got two out of four TV channels, you have to be doing a pretty poor job not to get an audience. And I think what I've tried to do in my tenure is say that is a, let's not worry too much about that. Let's really worry about the value and your point received, which is this is now infinite choice. I mean, I've got probably more computing power in my car than the whole of Croydon had when I was growing up and some. It's a good analogy.

Yeah, it's a good benchmark. I mean, listen, bracket citation needed. So I think in that environment, you then say, why, it goes to the heart of the question. Again, what are you doing differently? Now, to your point, it is existential. I don't think the BBC's got a right to exist in that way. It has to absolutely deliver value to every household. The exam question for me is not whether the BBC exists actually in the next phase.

It is whether it is a market failure, forgive the jargon, a market failure BBC, almost a charity project on the side, funded by general taxation or whatever it is where people don't feel, participative as opposed to a funding model and currently 94% of Brits a Brits unions every month, 83% I think the week I saw last, that's pretty incredible. And what it allows you to do is make the case for a universal funding mechanic where everyone feels connected and looking for value. That's different to a market failure model. I rail against those people who say it can be just news.

That's not what we're trying to build here. Because all of what you're talking about, all these successes actually do get put back into Britain. And I find it quite interesting. For instance, that Netflix, I don't know, I think they paid something like 0.7 of 1% tax in the UK last year because they booked the profits elsewhere. And it all were a sort of extraction colony for them. No offence. They make lots of great things. But they use lots of our talent.

And then the profits go back to the motherland. Is that something that you find quite, I find that you don't hear politicians talking about that at all when they constantly, big up Netflix. I'll tell a couple of things. One is, I'm going to say, I think he's rather pompously, and not on all. So I absolutely think it's great that Netflix are coming, the productions are here, the storytelling is here. But the thing I would agree with you on is I think the UK, we need to really spend time looking at what I call the whole economics more. How much IP do we own? There's a radical difference for someone like strictly, which is owned by the British public. You know, we've generated.

a business that can make lots of profit. But that profit is not lining my pocket. It's being recycled into, it's not what to bonuses or an investment company or a US entity. It is literally being used to fund the news, all the things we do is the BBC. I think sometimes I would say we underestimate the need to look at those full economics and where the value is. And that has been an issue over time. So sometimes you're celebrating things which are radically different, just to echo what you're

saying in terms of how much money they're bringing back to UK PLC. The good news, by the way, is the creative industry, 2 million people plus employed, good, generally better salaries than average, very good for people with different skills, where they've got creative skill, all those things. There's plenty of growth to be had. We just need to make sure we capture going forward the right share of the economics, and the BBC is part of that. Okay, talking of the economics, here's a question from Berosu-Oenair. He says, if the BBC were being founded today in a world dominated by Netflix, YouTube and TikTok, do you think the license fee model

would still be the best way to fund it, or would you design something fundamentally different? I think I've never felt more the need for the BBC. I really, really feel we've got a choice around what kind of society we build. My thought is that we are facing a crisis in terms of what I call a participative society. It just feels, you know,

you have to travel far from, you know, the centre of London, is a little different. And it feels a long way from some of the institutions, and we see it. So we do need to decide. I don't want to be of a generation where I'm looking back going,

well, the best days are behind us. I want to intervene. So I think the BBC is an enlightened intervention for the future, not for the past. I think being trapped by the past is a problem. So the first thing is, I'll say, I think absolutely the BBC has got a role to play as a universal provider, and that's the second part,

which is we said, look, the specific mechanic, and this is what the charter will get into, and I don't think we should jump the gun on this. We're at consultation phase, but we have set out a very clear preference, which is, and I would do this to the point about restarting where we're at, I think there is a model which says, look, if we can deliver value for every household

and really work at that, then everyone contributes fairly. And I think that is a model that's worth fighting for, I don't see it as something potentially trapped in the past. I actually think it could be something exciting for the future, quite enlightened. You don't have to go exactly where the market is going currently. You have to make markets. And I think we can do that. Because you said earlier that you didn't feel that the BBC, that it's a kind of slight

fallacy to imagine that the BBC is always under siege. Although explicitly some political parties... Did I say that? I can't remember saying that. I think you can simultaneously be continually under siege and getting on with your work. that you're all right. That's the point. But perhaps the most explicit threats to the future the BBC have been made,

to put an example, by someone like Nigel Farage and Reform, how do you sort of protect the BBC from government control or even malice and still have it accountable to the public? I think there's two, let's just unpick that a bit because there's big things in there. The first is, I think, in terms of some people's vision of the BBC, as I said earlier, I believe that you've got a choice. It's not about killing the BBC. There's not many people who don't want the World Service

or for all their angst would keep the newsroom going. The question is, do you have a intervention of scale that does entertainment, all the other things? And I believe that scale is really effective venture capital, both economically and socially for the UK. And as it sits today, we can make that fight. And I absolutely think that's right for a mainstream, intervention, because I don't see it as restricting commercial markets. I see it as

stimulating. You know, look at what we've done, the independent production sector. I think that doesn't work for me. So when we talk about people's view of the BBC, I think often we fight the wrong battles. We, you know, we finger points. They don't you know we do good work? Yes, that's not the exam question. The exam question is what kind of scale and what kind of operation and how you fund it. When it comes to political interference, I'm pretty straightforward. I think we absolutely need accountability to the public. There are mechanics to do that. I think, know, I can't remember how many select committees I've done, but I may not miss them. But, you know, I think public accountability is essential.

And through Parliament and through politicians, that's appropriate. When it comes to editorial interference or anything like that, and I think, you know, we need to look at and review how board members are appointed, all of that. Look, when I emailed, he says, 40 million people and we got nearly 900,000 people coming back to us with the gift of feedback. And I thank everyone who for then. The biggest thing that came through was keep the BBC independent. I mean, there's a clear message. And look, we want a world where that happens.

And having to argue for your existence every, you know, and having to argue for your existence every however many years when the Bank of England has been given a form of independence. Is there a way of being the BBC being given that independence, but still being able to be accountable? Well, we've made it very clear in our Green Paper response that we think this idea of a cliff-edge charter is wrong. which is this idea where it's a little bit random, isn't it?

And Cliffordshire would be every 10 years you've got to go back and renew. The point is not whether the BBC exists or not. It's how that happens. And the idea, a passive action to not renew just allows it to just drift off. To me, just doesn't make sense. So this often gets read, I think, is the BBC not wanting accountability. Nothing could be further than the truth. We need accountability.

But I do think the idea of a basic level of charter, I don't know, there might be an example out there, but of a Royal Charter that has a time length like this, I think there should be a standard provision that just goes forever, basically, until Parliament or whatever the mechanic is decides through reasoned debate actively, actively, not passively,

to say, okay, we don't want the BBC anymore, but the idea can just roll off And it just happens to be the government du jour. To me, I don't think it's right. I genuinely agree with your economic case for the BBC. And I'm speaking to someone who doesn't work there anymore, but who ran a very, very big independent production company for a long time. And I see that the ecosystem in Britain,

because we sold to pretty much every country in the world, is probably the best ecosystem there is. And I think that's because of the BBC. And so I think it raises all ships. So I think the economic argument is an easy one to make, and most people would agree with it. However, there is an ideological argument which is harder to make,

and there are ideological opponents who are harder to sate. And that feels like anyone who wants to follow the economic path, I think, would accept there is an argument for funding a BBC. However, I think that the ideological argument is going to be the one that's harder to win.

The word ideological in that could mean a couple of things, Richard, so give me a bit more. Okay, you're saying, enlightened intervention into a market. Okay, which has got two words. Intervention, which some people are against in and of itself, and enlightened, which of course is a value judgment.

And other people have completely different politics. And there are definitely people out there. You must know every morning when you wake up the people who in 10 years time don't want the BBC to exist. They're out there. And hard to make that economic argument to them. Yeah, but I do think it rests on your view of, do you want an economy?

I mean, I'm a, you know, this is not a, a speech against markets. But I do think the idea of enlightened intervention is proven actually to stimulate markets. And I think there are without doubts, the economic end of this question, which says there are people that just say, look, there's perfectly good functioning markets

around the world without public service intervention. For what it's worth, we see public service broadcasters around the world. And if I'm beleaguered of a morning, have a look around the world. honestly, it's really worrying. They're being stripped. Yeah, and they are market failure operations.

Some of them, many of them are very good, very good people, but they are trapped within their brief. Now, to your point, I think that debate is really the essence of what you want from a public service broadcaster. Do you want a market failure? I've said this a little bit. Do you want the market failure? Do you want the market making?

Now, to your point, Richard, I think there's still, when you really get people to the facts of economic growth, what it looks like. Now, you don't have to be a huge, I mean, I don't think this is cartoon left and right. I think there's no one in the world that doesn't think a participative economy doesn't have intervention. It has intervention on tax policy. It has intervention on healthcare. There's no one-way model where you just let it go to the market or you state control everything. But enlightened intervention is, to me, something that is accretive to the economy and to your point helps grow a bigger commercial side to our business.

it is a UK national asset and it's not a coincidence that we've had this hybrid system it's not a coincidence now I think to your point there are some there are some who look at other markets and just feel uncomfortable

about any kind of government intervention in this way or public intervention they also may have their own politics to add to that but I... That's what I'm really getting at Tim as you know well I thought you might be I was trying to say it in the politest way I possibly could

Yeah, I tend to pull them apart a little bit. And I think it really is if you really talk to people about the economics of it and what the BBC delivers, it becomes a more reasoned debate. I think some of the – also – if you talk about the least polarised news market and you look at America, which is – just as an example, which is often held up as like, why can't we move more like that? They have a hyper-polarized news market where really no one trusts anyone much more than about 20% wherever you are, whether you're on the left, the right, and you've got your chosen sources,

whereas we have something much bigger in the middle purely because of the BBC. We do, we do. But also, look, I don't rail against some of the other services that want to, you know, have a particular view on life or a length. We should let, you know, within our codes and all that we do in our digital standards and all of that needs management. But let the competition roar. The questions I got earlier are on the money, which is what's different.

about the BBC. The BBC is trying to be all of your media consumption. Maybe we're 30%, but that 30% is curiously valuable. Yeah. You know, if you're a young parent and you want to put your precious child in front of some good content, CBBs there, CBBs is there for you. If you want to watch, you know, decent drama, UK-based, there's some good, other people who do some good stuff. There's a few titles I would have liked myself over the last, you know, 24 months, but, but the BBC is doing it at its heart. And just, that's just different. It's, it's, it's, it's, I think it is not a zero-sum game. And to a point, it's always been like that.

You know, people have always read a paper with an opinion and then gone and watched the BBC. They may watch the news here. Then I think there are some worrying societal trends we need to be a bit paranoid about, which is people trusting more, people of their own view. So I think there's work to be done to say, okay, that's one way of doing it.

And we need to be more transparent as the BBC in terms of showing on it. how we even develop our editorial. But it sounds like there's a tight rope to walk. You, I would say, this is just my opinion, I've walked it very, very successfully, but your successor is going to have to walk

that same tight rope and for quite some time. Without doubt, when you sign up for the job, the image of a tightrope going across a very high canyon is reasonably appropriate, Richard. Yeah, I mean, there's some joy to be had, but look, we're in an age where weaponisation is rife. And when I say weaponisation, someone said to me, well, it's not weaponisation. It's simply pointing out the fact that you didn't get that right or you pulled that documentary.

And that is true. We made mistakes, sometimes serious mistakes, which we regret. But weaponisation is selectively taking one fact. It may be a fact, so you're standing on a fact. But what you're not standing on is any effort to be proportionate. You're not saying, look, a thousand stories run, we're running, and one didn't get it right. Or overall, this is where there's no balance date. It's literally just selecting a fact to make a case.

And that is rife. We've got to question about that very specifically, which we will do after some adverts. I know you're not used to where efforts, Tim, but listen, they are our absolute lifeblood. So after the adverts, we will... Go and get this thing paid for. Exactly right. We will talk about that very weaponisation. This episode is brought to you by Monzo.

Marina, what's your attitude to things like... stocks, shares, investing, all of that. I really think most people feel daunted and like it's not for them. I agree. It always feels slightly terrifying, like something that other people do, people with their kind of pinstripe suits and braces. Well, that's where Monzo comes in. Monzo offers two types of ISA, which is simply tax-efficient accounts. A cash is for saving, where money earns interest.

And a stocks and shares ISA is for investing with the aim of long-term growth. And Monzo's stocks and shares ICER is designed to feel simple with expert managed funds and no unnecessary jargon. You can start with a small amount and build it up gradually with a monthly deposit, roundups from your daily spending or even investing interest you've earned. It means investing isn't just for the select few. Absolutely not. Search Monzo online. Monzo, current account required. You could get back less than you invest. Tax depends on your circumstances and could change in the future. UK residents, 18 plus T's and Cs apply. Welcome back, everyone. We are joined by Tim Davy, the outgoing Director General of the BBC is answering all of your questions. We were speaking just before the adverts about when BBC gets things wrong and the weaponisation of that. And we have a question on exactly that, Marina. Well, let's get into it.

Chris says, why do you think the BBC failed to learn any lessons from Glastonbury when broadcasting the Bfters? He's done to him on there. He's done. Yeah. They're different situations. They're obviously live events, but they're different situations. So I think in Glastonbury, it was clear the team made a bad mistake. and not to pull the broadcast rather than during the warning.

And there are learnings around that in terms of making sure with high-risk live music acts. And I say with some heavy heart, actually, because I think we're in a point where you've just got to be safe, but that was completely unacceptable. And I found it really quite upsetting. I think a lot of the BBC staff are very upset by it because, you know, it didn't stand for what we stand for. And I think it was a bad error. Now, when it comes to BAFTA, scroll forward,

we're still in the midst of doing a little bit more work in terms of talking to people and making sure we're across every single detail. But it is very clear they didn't hear that instance. And they had another instance of the same word, and they took it straight out. So it wasn't unlike Glastonbury where there was an interpretive question. And as always, these things are, the devil is in the detail. They just did not hear it.

Well, I mean, listen, just from a reproduction point of view, I'll say two things. It boggles the mind that the communication was so bad that it wasn't heard. But equally, that doesn't feel like a job for the director general. Well, I think there's two points you're making there. One is we deep regret it was aired. I mean, honestly, the hurt it's caused people. Personally, I mean, this is not what we stand for.

And when I see something, you know, this is the BBC's intent or the, I mean, honestly, people are very upset that it got aired. And these are good people who are trying to make. I'm not excusing them, by the way, in that way. But the good people trying to make the right calls. They removed the word. Then it came, you know, and they didn't hear it. Now, to your point, Richard, I think there's some things to be learnt there.

And the impact is profound on individuals. And I absolutely think that no one across the BBC feels anything but regret. Is there a part of you, Tim, that thinks I've got a few weeks left if I have to edit every single program myself until I can get out and have a leaving do, I'm going to get down there and do it. Yeah, I think that the point, and this is Richard's second point, which is the director general is sitting across so much editorial. Simply, as I sit here today, we've got numerous radio stations across the world. So you just have to get the best people in place and absolutely ensure your processes are robust.

Sometimes in the last few years, we've had moments where that hasn't worked, We've had to have learnings. We've moved people. We've done things. But what I would say is I'm very sensitive to it because I think we are deeply sorry when that happens. But I also would look across the sweep of the BBC in a highly weaponised world where proportion is something very hard. I'm not excusing this. But proportionality is sometimes a little hard to find that we calmly reflect on that and look at the entirety of the BBC output as a simultaneous fact.

not one that negates the error, but I think that is reasonable. The Director General's job is a couple of things, I think, in this, aside from just picking up the phone and going, what happened, what on earth happened, that's polite language. I think there's two. One is, have you got the right people in every place in the organisation and the grip? And that is a real challenge. The second is you are often, and I'm not looking for sympathy, but the Director General job is, okay, we have an issue. with this documentary, do we pull it or not?

Yeah. It's a absolutely raw editorial choice one way or the other. And I think what you need is someone in the role who can make those choices. Often you're doing that once you're in a situation you wouldn't want to be in. And you are cleaning up in the way that is appropriate. You're also trying to be proportionate. I mean, many people think the BBC Director General door was literally just sitting in an office managing crisis. That's not how it is at all.

No, honestly, people think you're kind of sitting with a towel over your head for days on end. It's actually just getting the right people. It can actually be quite time efficient. What you've got to decide is not your comms line or what you're going to say in that regard. It's what is the right thing to do. That's what I've tried to do. And what do you think and try and act clearly and appropriately. And that's all you can do.

And that's what I say to my successor, just act, you know, act sensibly in that. But in a world, and we touched on it just before the adverts came, where, as you say, there is a weaponisation of dissent against the BBC must make those decisions, which, as you say, are often very binary, almost impossible. It makes it much harder. It makes it much harder. In a world that's so polarised that everyone is, you know, talking about their truth or their – it does make it harder. And it dials it up.

The whole thing gets quite lively. And you have to – in my job, I think you have to actually look after yourself. a bit. I'm not, I mean, in terms of just not reading everything or, I mean, I don't spend my time on social media. I think I'd collapse. Yeah, I think it's probably for the best. Thank you for that, yeah. But you can't do that. I think we can do, the survival technique is to a couple things. One is, don't be too defensive. If you've done something wrong, just, I'd go for human. We deeply regret it. We made a mistake. I think we've tried to do that more and just be honest about these things. Some people feel the BBC is too apologetic and that they're in

this permanent crouch, maybe because of the funding model and the sort of sense that they, that they're always saying sorry. And a lot of people think that, again, you can't win. The truth is, as ever, a little bit yes and no. I mean, I think we're pretty robust on a lot of what we do. Most of our coverage, by the way, is loosely positive. It's about what's coming up on traitors. Yeah. It is the, you know, the latest dramas where we're deploying. I mean, honestly, when I look at what's going around the world I mean a part of keeping my sanity is just to sit on the train the morning and listen to what people are talking about

and they might be talking about oh did you see Waiting for the Out nice little drama by the way and so thank you so that is important to keep perspective while dealing with seeing seriously I think the truth of it is and I see I have some sympathy for politicians of all flavour here

because this is not a new cycle that's like a day long it's not fun it's half an hour Yeah. I mean, through that churn, how on earth do you plan long term to do things that really make a difference? And again, I think people are pretty surprising to come to BBC. We're not running around but headless chickens at all. We moved on a little bit since W1A in terms of the way we operate. Fantastic BBC show.

Yeah, in the great show. But we've moved on. We're pretty well. I think it's a pretty good team doing this job. Can I talk to a bit about impartiality? Of course. Of course. Of course.

and obviously point out that the BBC gets criticised from both sides. Does that mean that it's getting it right? How would you personally define impartiality and, you know, has it changed a lot during your tenure as Director General? I think it's been the biggest challenge. Yeah. I think negotiating a world in which people often see this, I mean, particularly Gaza, people will see the same piece of content and absolutely believe.

And I don't say this with angst, by the way, or anger. I might have some angst, but not anger. I say it, you know, with some understanding, but people see the same piece of footage and will absolutely be convinced that it indicates because they're looking for cues there. Meanwhile, add in the fact that we make mistakes now and again. So that can be, okay, that's pure evidence.

What I would say is, overall, I'm very proud, actually, that we're still at the races in terms of holding our ground and fighting the fight. Honestly, I mean, people don't believe me internationally when I say, I've got no idea how Chris Mason votes. I've got no idea. Henry Zephman,

these people are seriously good. And you can see their intent. They're exploring on our behalf. They're inquisitive. And you ask me what impartiality needs to be. It is that. It's a fair assessment of where the situation lies,

both in terms of facts. So we believe in facts, old-fashioned view, but we believe there are facts. So you chase the facts. You're also very transparent about where the facts are not available. And we also believe in sensible and proportionate interpretation. That is due impartiality.

It's not, say, one person here, one person there, we've got the balance. I think that's cheap, okay, or lazy to a point. I think... Although that's often been the case in the BBC. certainly in current affairs and things like question time. It's also been the facts in UK politics. Yeah.

I mean, you're covering a vast swaze of population 10 years ago by doing the two main parties. Yeah. We're now in a completely different landscape that actually puts some pressures on. If you look at the elections coming up, you know, look at the and add the nations in there as well. You've got complexities around less people locked into a political party,

more issues-based. You know all this. Final point, just to pick up on your question, about number of complaints, a relevant factor, but certainly I would not allow a BBC executive off the hook by going, we've got 5,000 here, we got 5,000 there. It's, oh, cliche, but it's the nature of the complaint, it's the depth of the complaint, is has it got merit? I think what can happen is these situations can, because they're so intense, can provoke

unnecessary defensiveness. and I've really tried on my watch to be, you know, provoke open-mindedness. Well, maybe they've got a point. So instead of kind of this is clearly coming from that point of view, just keep an open mind and do your best. And that's all human beings can do. I think we're doing okay. But it's been really tough. And we made a few mistakes that have allowed the whole thing to be often, you know, really, really difficult over periods.

But broadly speaking, we're okay. We're not able to talk about today is the ongoing case with Trump. Indeed. But that's great. We don't have to talk about it. I know. He's available on demand in so many other formats. If you want your Trump fix, you can't get a...

We're fighting the case. We're defending it aggressively and that's about as much as I can say. But talking about politics and talking about elephants in rooms, David Bennett asked a question which we had in so many different forms and you're the person best place to answer this, I think. When you announced you were leaving the BBC, Lisa Nandy highlighted that she was concerned about political appointments to the board of the BBC. Do you think that those on the BBC board have the BBC's best interests at heart? And you know what the question is there, which is, is there a right-wing bias on the BBC board?

I don't know anyone the BBC board who hasn't got the BBC's best interest at heart. No one. I think if you go down, by the way, to the newsroom floor, you would be reassured, weirdly. Despite all the noise, if you meet John Neal, Edithy through the 6 and 10, and watch that meeting, they are not being. I mean, honestly, the level of interference, I mean, honestly, is not something I worry about. You understand why the question is asked, because there is a narrative that has gained so much traction, which is Robbie Gibb is on the board, the BBC is skewing right. There was a right-wing plot to oust you and Deborah Turneris. I asked that question only because

you're aware of that narrative and you're the best person to answer it. I'm very aware of it. What I'm saying is that decision I made was long. wisely. Again, there's no, there's no cryptic stuff here. I wrote when I left, there were, there were three things. And they were the facts. One is I, you know, after five and a, five and a half years, I thought that's, that's about the right tenure for me. The second was I actually thought there was a gap to charter. And it's worked. I say it's work. Let's see what happens. But, you know, we've responded to the green paper. I think it's quite, it works to have someone new come in and then take into, and I think we're in a good state as the BBC. And lastly,

the Trump situation was difficult. Put that together, that's why I decided to move. You know, I'll say going forward, I do think for all public institutions, and we've made this clear in our chart's green paper submission, that I've always been a fan of the system we've had in the UK has been one where we've chosen people of high competence, we've not necessarily made ideology overriding, and I think that's great.

That's what we should do. We've been very clear on the appointments going forward. that's what I'll say on that. But in your response to the Green Paper, you do talk about perhaps making the BBC Board non-political appointees. And was there anyone on the BBC Board who disagreed with that? Well, it will not surprise you that I don't deconstruct board debates within the podcast studio.

But I think everyone's aligned on. Everyone is aligned that the BBC's reputation needs to be actually underpinned by editorial independence. That is sacrosanct. and I think it's really important that the charter enshrines that. Well, anyway, but thank you for letting everyone ask that question because it is, it's a question that has gone sort of unanswered and it's interesting to hear that your day-to-day experience of the BBC

and your day-to-day experience of the newsroom would not back up the suggestion that there is some sort of institutional bias on that board. I don't think there's institutional bias in the BBC, and the board is there to support the BBC. see, I think the editorial power of the director general is significant. Sorry, I sound like some kind of maniac here, but it is significant. And essentially, they're in, you know, we're in control as the executive. I mean, personally, you know, one minute, I'm a kind of right-wing implant with Tory Roots.

The next moment, I'm Britain's chief left-wing warrior. You've got to just throw the ring back into Mount Doom, Tim. That's what you're doing recently. It's too much power. Yeah. Well, I think, actually, it's, it's hard. highly distributive. So if you look at it and you know this, it's like I'm currently as I sit, my life could be changed quite dramatically by the wrong decision of probably 100 editors as we speak.

You just have to get the right people. Is it tiring all sorts of other people's fault, always being your fault? Yeah, I don't see it like that because I kind of take it personally, but not to a point where I'm collapsing. I think you are, you can't be accountable for every or responsible for every single broadcast. But, you know, these public jobs have a... I do believe in accountability. I do believe, you know, you stand up accounted on your record. And that's just...

I'm very lucky to be in this job. You know, there are some tough bits. There's some lovely... I've had some amazing moments in this job. There's some wonders here. You're very lucky to do it. So you're also got responsibilities. I mean, there's no free lunch here.

This is a tough old job. But the great things in life tend to be tough. Can I just as a follow up to my first elephant Because we've talked about this idea that there's Some right-wing bias on the board There's also a very very strong strain of thought In the absolute other direction Which is the BBC has a strong left-wing bias

So you've spoken to ideas of right-wing bias You say it doesn't affect you in your day-to-day job And you don't see it What about the suggestions of a left-wing bias in the BBC Particularly in the BBC newsrooms? again, I don't see so much of the world seems to be straining under this left-right construct, doesn't it? It's like, look at our politics. Well, you know, it's breaking down that whole thing, okay?

And what I see, and I've been very, I say it from day one, I still see it as a, as a challenge for institutions. Because, again, I really, really feel very deeply, there's two reallys there. that's how deeply I feel that institutions are there to serve and we have a crisis we should call it as a full-on crisis that people do not trust

too many of our institutions and in the UK we're well ahead the rest of the world we hate to even be happy about things but it is a wonder that we have these institutions and they're there to serve but trust is built and I'm semi-obsessed by this

so prepare yourself is trust is built by people absolutely believing that someone is acting their interest and they listen to them. Yeah? And if you think about an old school broadcaster, it broadcast, yeah? Yeah. I think we're of an age where the BBC's central challenge, and you might think where the hell's you going because of the bias question, but I think it relates to it, which is if someone is not seen to listen and act in someone's interest, then you've got a problem.

So it may not even be an active bias. It might just be, you just don't get it. and I think there has been too many instances where institutions and the BBC is definitely not exempt from this where call it what you will Metropolitan, a certain lens on life I happen to think it's not that helped by left and right it's just a view on life, a metropolitan view

you and I could walk out of here go to a few restaurants and go, what's wrong with the world? You know, it is a fatal place for institutions to be that's why I've pushed so much out. I mean one of the things I'm proud of us about is the number of apprentices in the BBC who come from, you know, different back. We had 46,000 applications, I believe, to 288 places,

which puts it in perspective. In terms of our diversities organization, the biggest thing that we've had trouble shifting is socio-economic diversity. It's not protected characteristics. It's socio-economic. Because you and I know, and I know your passion on this, this industry is not an easy one to get into.

There's potentially more transient work in freelancing. I think there's a risk in that. And then if the local media, all the local newspapers are under their economics are under real pressure, have you got that feeding kind of pipeline of talent coming through the organisation? And by talent, I don't mean presenters. I mean all talent coming through. You don't say talent anymore, I believe. Is that right? I do say talent, but I refer to everyone, okay?

As opposed to a certain subset of our community, which are presenters. Okay? But so to your point, Richard, I think there's more work to be done in terms of really understanding. people from different backgrounds, people from, you know, different life experiences, that is a problem for the media industry. The overall, you know, media industry is about 15% from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. I think the population is about mid-30s. That's a problem. So you say, what's the bias?

Sometimes it's just the way you look at life. It's the way you come into an issue. It's what interests you. It's your curiosity is stimulated in a certain direction. Your topic choice. It's much deeper than just a kind of point. pantomime left right. It's an institutional flavor. And I've really tried to work on that. We are better than we've been. But I think that is a lot of work to do. I've always taken it to be a class

bias. And if I can just speak from experience, this idea that BBC sending things out to the nations and regions, and what it means in a very real sense is, you know, I go up to Glasgow and Manchester. And I work in an environment there where there are people who do not have to leave their hometown anymore and they would have had to 15, 20 years ago. There are huge creative sectors which have been created because the BBC and ITV and Channel 4 have put money into those areas.

One of the things I'm most proud of is all those partnerships with the regions. If you go to Digbur, Sulford, you work and you know, go to the centre of Cardiff in Central Square. The issue is now we're into another level of debate, which is Cardiff is not Wales breaking news. Yeah.

Yeah. Says man from, you know, Oxfordshire. Yeah? It's It's also what's happening in Abrawith, in Bengal, what's the situation there? And I could go around Wales and say, okay, how we building the talent to come through the organisation? There's an interesting tension actually

because you can be too distributed in terms of your actual resources. So you have to move around, whereas what I'm really proud of on my watch is you can now go to Cardiff and be a network editor in news. Yeah? Not in the Welsh newsroom. You are, you know, and that is

a massive change. There's network programs coming out of there. Great drama that's no longer kind of consigned. It used to exhaust me. Like, oh, it's like a trust in terms of we don't want to put network out there. That's largely disappeared. The BBC's superpower, and it relates to some of the conversation we had earlier, which is because I don't have to make a P&L work every quarter

and turn up to a stock exchange and tell them, you know, how we're doing or not, I can actually make slightly longer-term decisions, which may not be, if you like, the most economically, tight in the short term but make total sense longer term. And actually what I've tried to do in the BBC is

let's imagine a Venn diagram. You didn't think I was going there. Yeah, I'm surprised you haven't mentioned Venn diagrams up to now. But what you're trying to do is say what's in the public interest to kind of is for public policy.

It's useful having, you know, working with the region where Richard Parker in, you know, the West Midlands going, okay, in Digbeth, We can be an anchor tenant there, bring up silent witness, bring up Marshaf, da, da, da, and do a partnership where we're both investing more money. Now, what you've got is that is absolutely driving our public purposes.

What I've tried to do is migrate as much money, though, into a Venn diagram on the other side. The other side is actually really valued by audiences in every part of the UK. So actually, you know, we've announced a casualty will be not only staying in Rothlock outside Cardiff, but we'll actually based in Wales. So it'd be rooted in Wales, clearly of its place, just like Silent Witnesses now, in Birmingham, a Birmingham show. You know it's Birmingham. That just builds the power of the show. It's not a creative weakening.

I'm not compromising. I don't see it as doing anyone a favour. I think this whole thing, do us a favour and move some money there. That's not what we're doing. We're trying to migrate as much of our money into, that is not only good on our public purposes, but really smart use of money to drive audience. So that's what I've tried to do in the BBC. What about the wider world? Because obviously it is a huge job.

A lot of people ask us about the World Service. Indeed. Here's one from Stephen Kerr, who says, do the changes made to the BBC World Service look with hindsight to have been mistaken, especially given the importance of soft power in today's global political maelstrom? Thank you, Stephen. The answer is yes. Yeah. I've spoken a lot about this.

It is shocking what's going on around the world. I mean, part of what I try to do sometimes is lift us out of this. UK bubble I've got I think now 300 people in the BBC largely in the World Service who cannot go home

to their home country because they'd be arrested or face trouble because they're doing you know just their job why do you think so many successive governments

have failed to understand the importance of an organisation that does that I think everyone supports the world I've met anyone where I go

you do understand China are spending billions, you do understand that there's been interesting analysis of what might be called cognitive warfare which is how people think, oh, you're all as bad as each other, yeah, and I think that's a long-term game being played by

certain regimes to undermine democracy. Famously Russia, I mean, Russia absolutely, but there's others who are active in it. I mean, the flood of, you know, frankly, dangerous, I mean, there's AI slop and there's just dangerous propaganda.

it's hundreds of millions of pounds and it's absolutely about conditioning how we think I'm not sure being provocative of people nodding along I don't I don't think of it I mean there's probably someone you can find but there's not many people I look at and go do you realize that not only should we

be protecting the World Service in the short term and I think the government get that but longer term actually I think we should be doubling the funding and absolutely it's a UK national asset but it's important our national defence our national reputation

it's rather a soft part it's not just strategic okay the problem is just to your point about why don't why don't we tell I just think people

you know if you look at the current funding and there's always a problem you know the FCDO really committed the World Service the Foreign Office they've increased funding but in terms of a transformational budget increase

they're currently facing cuts in the FCDO in so it just as with life it just gets hit with the current situation and the financial constraints and yes it's really quite inexpensive my view is someone someone just needs to go enough we're going to make a big call here

and support this thing properly I honestly think it's so short-sighted but is that government is that taxpayer or is that private sector or could it be I think it's government I think look you can You can cost, terrible words, but you can cost recover through a bit of appropriate advertising on the news channel in the right market.

But honestly, if you're going to be out there in Afghanistan, if you're going to have the Persian service, this is not. With the best, I mean, I'm all for, we've built a two billion pound commercial arm. We're making money wherever we can appropriately. But there's not money in the news business in this way. And if you want to make money in the news business, you might just, get out alive and make some by having a subscription business in the US, which we're trying, but you're not going to do, you're not going to do the World Service without government funding. And do I think it was a mistake to put it on the BBC license fee payer?

Absolutely. It was. Can I ask you this question from Chloe? You may. Because I do think it's interesting. I think it speaks to a lot of what is coming through behind all the things you're saying. She says, what's kept to you at the BBC? Your comparative job at ITV Channel 4 or any other international broadcaster have paid millions. dedication to public service.

God, that makes me sound extremely worthy. It's certainly purpose. It's purpose. I care about it. I mean, I do, I mean, everyone knows me. I really care about it. I think I also am philosophically one of those people who says, cliches are available.

I sound like some kind of US self-help tape. But you only have one life. So I mean, I am extremely lucky. I get, you know, a good salary. we all know that actually happiness is often at the point where you're not going into the supermarket and worrying about how you make it work. I happen to come from a background where that was a bit. Not hugely disadvantaged,

but where household budget was a real challenge every month, that is the reality for most households. If you've got over that, it also goes to science. Happiness does not massively increase once you're over that point. Okay, the data is overwhelming. So bluntly, a bit of me is a rational brain, and the emotional brain going, yes, you could be, you could get more money, but one thing I know is I care about every day I get up.

There are some days where you probably question your choice, but you get up and you're fired up. And also the variety, you know, the other thing about life is as I look to the future, it's really interesting. I was talking to someone who did a high profile job and they said, everyone just wants to hire you to get kind of what you were, whereas I want to learn. Now, the great thing about, you know, I was marketing fizzy pop. And I could have been in Connecticut in a nice house with a white picket fence with the hoop in the drive and with lots of money. But without being funny about it, I love this country kind of in a kind of weird, obsessional way. And then the second thing is, if you do something you care about, I have, you know, when I talk audio music, I didn't know a lot about classical music. I listened to a bit.

But this job allowed me to sit in the proms, watch Bichkoff, conduct a marla symphony with myself. from three people watching. And you can just, those memories are, they're priceless. What money are you going to put on those? I mean, I've met people you wouldn't dream of in terms of from world leaders. That is not what you get. If you're running a widget company, ITV, you might get a bit of it. But you get the idea.

Can I ask you a little bit about, I'm reading a really good book at the moment by a guy called Michael Linton, who you probably know. He was there. I know Michael. Yeah, yeah. But his book is about mistakes. I don't know if you've read it. It's really good. Yeah.

So he was the chief executive of... I could write a long one on that. Well, I was going to ask it. He was a chief executive of Sony Pictures at the time of the North Korean hack. And he greenlit the interview, the Seth Rogen comedy about North Korea, which precipitated the attack. Indeed. And this is a book about mistakes, not failure, which I think is something different. And how about that kind of explosive scandal impacted his home, his family, his whole industry.

And for years, he literally couldn't bear to analyze what. happened and would always kind of laugh it off on people board it. Anyway, he eventually did and he now knows that the reason he did that and what the mistake was, was that he basically greened that movie because he just got sick of being the guy who said no, and he wanted actors to like him. He wanted to be cool and he wanted to belong. I think it's kind of interesting because I think the Seth Rogen character in the studio has sort of imbibed quite a lot of that.

And I just wondered. Great series, by the way. Yeah, it's brilliant. Yeah, love it too. You may not have had time yet, but I wondered on your B. you've seen mistakes if you thought that any of those derived from bits of your personality like all of us do? And if you've had a chance to look back and think. Yeah, it's a really good question. Personally, I'm more reflected on did we have the right people and the right approach? And

there's a very dry answer. But I think it's not because I've been kind of yehaw and blinded by stardom or like Seth in the studio. I think that's right. But, but here's the but. is sometimes you need a little time. I mean, you know, give me a break. I'm still on the job, yeah. So I'm still in the midst of it. I'm still on the tightrope. I can just see the cliff on the other side, Richard.

But it's, it's, so you, I will process those things and have a thing. Have you had time to have a cultural life? You talked about the problems. Have you had time to have? Yeah, well, yes and no. I, it's surprising. I mean, I'm pretty ferocious about the weekend. Yeah.

Okay. My view is if you call me at the weekend. I thought you meant the band. No, not the weekend. I was like, that surprised me. No. Anyway, moving on. So that's one of my kids' ones.

But I think you do need your time that's quiet. And I'm not a big fan of flap. Yeah, people that, also, you know, people come and say, oh, I got this, something. You go, hold on, I'm the one that's going to have to deal with it. I'm the one that's going to do the interview, not you, yeah? And you're conducting a lot of energy. So I think people do need quiet time.

I mean, honestly, often the best time in a week is just quietly wandering down to the calf sitting there for half an hour with a notebook and working out what you want to do. And I still do that, by the way. I still spend a lot of, I do have quiet time. Now, to your point about culture, I'm a reader. So I love, that's my background. And I've never lost it since I studied. So if, you know, you're not, if I'm not reading a novel or, you know, a book that I care about, that is a problem for me. So I escape that way and I'm a runner.

These things were really important, by the way. I won't give the full resilience a speech. But I think you need that stability. If you're going to cope at all with these things, because they are quite significant at times. I absolutely think you need to consciously manage that. Not in a kind of over-organised way, but just say I will need time to think, quietly reflect.

If you can't get that calm, I don't think you're going to last very long. I just don't think that works. Can I ask you one final questions from actually? Anthony Jackson, and he says, what are your proudest moments from your time as DG? Probably three quick things. One is the people I brought into the BBC. At the end of the day, that is huge for me. The second thing is, I think the BBC for audiences, you'll all have your views, listening.

You'll all be clapping, steamed up, but the BBC's still fiercely relevant and precious. And it's that digital innovation we've done, pushing it out of London, really, really, really, important. And the last thing I'm really proud of is, is we haven't talked enough about culture in this succession because, you know, we've been through the highlights and the low lights of, but, you know,

there's also been quite a lot to deal with in terms of how, the acid test of a human being is when you give them power, how they behave. And this industry has had a problem where people have had power. It's a weird old thing. You've got senior executive as presenters with power. I'm really proud. I think that really has been flushed out.

It's been tough work and it's never, ever done. So you constantly watch it. But I really think we've got an environment in the industry where behaving in the wrong way, I nearly said something a bit more fruity in my language, but behaving like that. Difficult men, shall we put it that way. Yeah, but you know what? It's mainly being men. But I wouldn't go there.

No, but I just think it's people who have abused power. and that is not acceptable and I'm really, really proud that we've called a lot of it out it's been difficult dealing with it but I genuinely believe you can't behave in that way I'm fiercely proud of that because I think it's a kinder, nicer place here

to work. So yeah, there's a lot of things I'm proud of and then there's, I could list a lot of programs that at the end of that's the work as well. But you can't list programs because everyone who makes every other program would be listening going, oh. That's quite a lot of people to offend, I know. so I'll quit while I'm behind.

We know his eyes are saying House of Games. I see that. Tim, thank you so much. It's been a hard. Thank you. And best of luck in what you do next as well. I'm sure whatever it is, it will be very interesting. And thank you so much, listeners for those amazing questions.

And super balanced as well and interesting. And I thought I thought I thought I thought I thought this was absolutely proud there. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you very much, Tim. Thank you, Tim. Getting ready for a game means being ready for anything, like packing a spare stick. I like to be prepared.

That's why I remember 988 Canada's Suicide Crisis Helpline. It's good to know, just in case. Anyone can call or text for free confidential support from a train responder anytime. 988 Suicide Crisis Helpline is funded by the government in Canada.