web analytics


By David Vance On January 20th, 2020

BBC Question Time as a must-watch experience has long since lapsed into a stupor of studied indifference for many people. A typical bastion of liberal BBC values, it carefully picks those who appear on the panel. For the last number of years, it has stuffed the panels with pro-EU Remainers, and it is viscerally hostile to any view which does not conform to the metropolitan elitist values at the heart of the BBC.

But what about those who appear in the audience. Last Thursday saw a rather unusual edition of the programme when it invited the actor Laurence Fox onto the panel.


Refreshingly, Fox is an actor who does not conform to the “woke” progressive narrative and he expressed some interesting opinions during the programme. But there was one particular exchange with an audience “member” which caused quite a furore. Here it is.

Now then, the audience member calling Mr. Fox a ‘white, privileged man’ is actually an academic called Rachel C Boyle. Nothing wrong with that, even academics are allowed to express an opinion (regardless of how ignorant it may be).

But Rachel has been a little busy editing her Twitter Profile.

Here’s what it looked like before she went on BBC Question Time.

Note the call out to her BBC links.


And a day after…?


Spot the difference. Why it’s almost as IF she was seeking to cover her links to the BBC.

Surely not?

And then this was spotted, for the avoidance of any doubt.

Here she is reviewing the papers on the BBC.


In fact, matters gets worse as it has also been exposed that earlier this month she deleted a tweet that said; “As someone who is employed by the BBC I am appalled at the treatment of @bbcnaga”

Why the dishonesty from the BBC? Why pretend that Boyle is just another member of the public instead of one of their chosen elite who gets to pontificate at our expense? Boyle can drone on all that she wants, few care about her ludicrous race-baiting views. But the BBC is manipulating both the panel AND the audience and it should be a clear signal not to trust anything that the BBC claims.


  1. QT (& the BBC) have become increasingly irrelevant, especially since 2016.

    Their blatant & deliberate pushing of the in-house agenda, be it Climate alarums/mutant Feminism/inverted Racism & of course Leaving the EU has alienated a sizeable part of their audience, so much so that their funding model must be adjusted to reflect the modern reality.

  2. what she said was rubbish too, on QT
    good catch DV , there’s alot of nonsense at universities , and this one is Boyle is full of her own prejudices. as always she takes it too far , whilst there might be a well made point about privilege in UK ( e.g Boris Johnson – Eton ) , she hits the wrong target. and ended up looking foolish.

  3. // “As someone who is employed by the BBC I am appalled at the treatment of @bbcnaga” //

    What’s that supposed to mean?

    Is she appalled by (whatever) because she works for the BBC?

  4. Well done DV.

    Surely this is against their charter ? If so, I await the government’s response to this.

    People maybe turning away from QT and even the BBC, but they cannot turn off the financial tap that is the TV Tax. Once that is removed they can then put on what they hell they like and see if people will pay for it.

  5. I’m sure this woman was sitting in a Chinese restaurant in Ormskirk, when I was there with friends a couple of months ago.

  6. I don’t see what point this post is trying to make? Is it that some woman who voiced a, (pretty dumb), opinion on a public audience participation talk show had a part time gig with the BBC? Is there an insinuation that she was planted there?

    From my reading she’s also an academic and I know from personal experience that at least BBC NI offer invites to community groups and academia to similar shows being broadcast in Belfast. I know this as I was in the audience at a few of them when I worked in the community sector and academic friends frequently recieved similar invitations. I assume that Question Time has a similar system in whichever particular locality it’s being broadcast from.

    Indeed, for a considerable time David himself had a similar position to this woman appearing frequently on BBC NI tv and radio as a commentator giving analysis.

  7. The BBC is terribly unlucky with its audience selections for these things. Time and again the “random” woke loon turns out to be a BBC and/or Labour staffer.

    It’s the same when they interview “random” members of the public for a voxpop piece. You can guarantee that the out there nutter has been lined up first.

  8. Really Pete? I don’t think that’s that case at all:


  9. The sanest QT audience member they ever had.

  10. Magnificent!

  11. This incident shouldn’t have even been a news story. Two people expressed their own opinions on a tv show that is designed to be exactly that, a debate on differing viewpoints. It shouldn’t have become a wider controversy at all.

  12. But Colm the academic reviewed papers for the BBC so it’s obviously evidence of BBC bias of something or other. Here’s what her real employers, Edge Hill University, had to say on the subject:

    As a member of the public she is entitled to voice her own opinion and as a university we respect and acknowledge the right to freedom of speech

    It would seem that academia are more in touch with freedom of speech than some of those who supposedly are in favour of free speech.

  13. Yes Paul,I do agree David’s slant attacking her background and previous appearances on the BBC is wrong, but on the other hand Laurence Fox has also been attacked for daring to express an opinion that contradicted hers with even the Actors union Equity attempting to censure him and only yesterday an article in the Guardian attacking him for ‘lecturing’ . As I said earlier this should have been a non-story. It was a difference of opinion on a topical debate show. Intolerance of free speech from both left and right is why this has gone viral.

  14. On the other hand Laurence Fox has also been attacked for daring to express an opinion that contradicted hers

    […] some woman who voiced a, (pretty dumb), opinion on a public audience participation talk show

    I don’t think that the issue of David’s post though Colm. David seems to be suggesting that because she sometimes reviewed newspapers for the BBC there’s some kind of ‘activist’ hidden agenda.