Can you beat a lie detector? UK police increasingly using polygraph tests – here’s how people try to cheat
I’m officially a bad liar.
With a blood pressure cuff pumped tight around my arm, straps around my chest monitoring my breathing, and sensors on my fingers to pick up any traces of sweat, veteran polygraph test examiner Don Cargill says he can easily spot the signs I’ve told him a fib.
I’ve denied writing the number three on the piece of paper placed underneath my chair, in a simple exercise designed to show how my body reacts to lying. Even with nothing to lose, it’s an uncomfortable experience.
But while commonly associated with daytime television programmes like The Jeremy Kyle Show, the use of lie detectors is expanding within the criminal justice system.
And the answers people give could help determine whether or not they can see their children – or even land them back in jail.
Lie detector tests featured regularly on The Jeremy Kyle Show. Pic: ITV
In an office above a branch of Carpetright in west London, Mr Cargill carries out private polygraph tests. His clients have included foreign politicians accused of bribery, bodybuilders who want to prove they haven’t taken performance-enhancing drugs, and people accused of stealing from their family or being unfaithful to a spouse.
More and more are trying to cheat the polygraph using instructions found online, he says. “There’s a lot of techniques they do but we spot 90% of them or more.”
I’m asked to jump up and down and open my mouth before my test. Some people have pressed drawing pins into the bottom of their shoes, or even superglued tacks in their mouths, to create a pain response in their brain to distort the chart, Mr Cargill says.
He asks for identification to make sure a stand-in hasn’t been sent and carries out other simple tests to spot signs of sleep deprivation or illegal drug use.
A camera is trained on the subject’s eyes to make sure they don’t cross them or “zone out”, while a seat pad is in place to catch out anyone clenching their bottom.
All of these methods have been used to try to cheat the test, Mr Cargill says.
Sky’s Henry Vaughan takes a lie detector test
Can lie detectors be cheated?
It is possible to beat the polygraph, says Newcastle University Emeritus Professor Don Grubin, but it takes a lot of practice with the equipment and examiners are trained to spot the signs of anyone trying to trick the test.
Double child killer Colin Pitchfork – who was jailed for life after raping and strangling 15-year-olds Lynda Mann and Dawn Ashworth in Leicestershire in 1983 and 1986 – was recalled to prison in 2021 partly due to concerns he was using breathing techniques in a bid to beat the lie detector.
The Home Office says the polygraph records physiological changes in a person, quoting research from the American Polygraph Association which found deception is accurately detected in 80 to 90% of cases.
Since 2014, probation services have carried out more than 8,800 polygraph tests, while police have conducted more than 4,600, says Prof Grubin, who explains around 60 to 70% result in disclosures – where someone reveals relevant information.
His company, Behavioural Measures UK, has trained and supervised dozens of police and parole polygraph test examiners over the past decade, and like other experts in the field, he doesn’t like the term lie detectors.
The technology detects the “cognitive process” (or the brain working harder) when someone tells a lie, he explains.
The results of a polygraph test
The “real skill lies in the experience of the examiner”, says Mr Cargill, the chief executive of VAST Screening Technologies Ltd and the chairman of the British and European Polygraph Association.
“Nervous reactions are completely different from people telling lies,” he says. “Your heart rate physically increases because you’re triggering the autonomic nervous system, which triggers a fight, flight or freeze response. You want to run away.”
But critics, including University of Northumbria researchers Dr Marion Oswald, a professor of law, and associate professor Dr Kyriakos Kotsoglou, say much of the research is carried out by the industry itself and the accuracy can’t be tested in a real-life situation – because it is impossible to verify if someone has told a lie.
They say it is an intrusive “interrogation” technique used to illicit confessions, arguing the polygraph device itself is unnecessary and could be swapped for putting someone’s hand on a photocopying machine – a method apparently used by Detroit police and immortalised in cult American crime drama The Wire.
“If you can convince the subject that she or he is being monitored for lies and they believe it, then she or he will disclose more information,” says Dr Kotsoglou.
How are lie detectors used?
The results can’t be used as evidence in criminal courts but mandatory lie detector tests have been used as a licence condition for sex offenders since 2014, then rolled out to convicted terrorists in 2021 in the wake of the Fishmongers’ Hall attack.
They are also used by police and the security services to monitor the small number of terror suspects made subject to Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (Tpims).
There is currently a three-year trial for their use on domestic abuse offenders, while the new Criminal Justice Bill proposes to extend this to convicted murderers who pose a risk of committing a relevant sexual offence on release.
The tests provide “invaluable information we would otherwise not have had about offenders’ behaviour which helps us to better protect the public”, the Ministry of Justice says.
The Metropolitan Police is looking into using lie detection technology to vet new recruits or root out corrupt officers following a string of damaging scandals, including the cases of Sarah Everard’s murderer Wayne Couzens and serial rapist David Carrick.
David Carrick and Wayne Couzens
But “this is still at an early research stage” and there are no imminent plans to use the technology in this way, the force says.
Others are turning to lie detectors to try to prove their innocence.
Kevin Duffy, 70, passed a polygraph test after he was convicted of sexually assaulting a child, but the results weren’t taken into account by the judge who jailed him for more than nine years.
His son Ryan Duffy, 44, says: “If there’s something that can be used when it’s one person’s word against another’s that can highlight some kind of evidence, why can’t it be used?
“If they are prepared to look at it after conviction for single case issues such as, ‘are you using public transport, hanging around schools’, and relying on data for probation services, then why can’t you use it beforehand?”
Kevin Duffy took a polygraph test to try to prove his innocence. Pic: Ryan Duffy
People can’t be sent back to prison for failing a test, but they can face further sanctions, such as stricter licence conditions, and they can be recalled for making disclosures that reveal they have breached licence conditions or indicate their risk has increased.
The information gathered can be shared with police to carry out further investigations, which could lead to charges, while those found trying to trick the polygraph can also be recalled to prison.
A government report last year revealed four convicted terrorists were sent back to jail as a result of lie detector tests – three were recalled after disclosing “risk-related information”, while the fourth didn’t comply with their polygraph licence condition.
Sensors pick up any traces of sweat during the polygraph test
An increasing number of police forces are using the polygraph, which is seen as a useful tool to monitor and assess the risk of people on the sex offenders’ register, allowing officers to concentrate stretched resources on those deemed the most dangerous.
At least 14 of the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales are now using lie detectors, with 14 police officers and 11 staff qualified as polygraph examiners, according to figures obtained by Liberty Investigates.
The data shows 671 polygraph tests were carried out by the 13 forces who provided figures by calendar year, up from 458 in 2018, and a five-year high.
More forces are expected to start using the technology as the College of Policing makes available training through its “polygraph school”.
Polygraph tester Don Cargill reviews Henry’s results
Suspects facing lie detector tests
Testing is “only mandatory by way of conditional caution or a positive obligation of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order or Sexual Risk Order” imposed by the courts, says the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and “any police use of polygraph will form part of a wider and detailed risk management plan tailored to the individual concerned”.
But the University of Northumbria researchers say a non-statutory regime of testing is being carried out by some forces, including on suspects during criminal investigation.
People arrested on suspicion of committing online child sex offences, for example, could be asked to take a test as part of a risk assessment to determine whether they can have contact with children, including their own.
Figures obtained by Prof Oswald and Dr Kotsoglou, using freedom of information requests, show that at least 228 such polygraph interviews were carried out over six years.
Other responses indicated use in “voluntary” risk assessments of convicted sex offenders, including those who apply for removal from the sex offenders’ register, and ambitions to use polygraph testing for more general offences such as violence.
Prof Oswald says: “I think our concern is that should we really in this country be basing really serious criminal justice decisions in a legal system on a scientific technique that is highly contested, to put it mildly, and hasn’t, especially in the policing circumstance, been discussed by parliament?”
The College of Policing says: “The College is working closely with the NPCC to establish a Polygraph School so that policing in England and Wales has access to standardised learning and development in the use of the tool that is tailored to their operating environment.
“The College will develop operational advice so that forces using the tool have a consistent basis on which to do so whilst recognising the relevant legal provisions.”
A new test known as ‘polygraph in a box’ has been developed
What is the future for lie detectors?
The technology has existed in some form for around a century and now Mr Cargill has invented what he calls a “completely revolutionary” Validated Automated Screening Technology (VAST) system – or “polygraph in a box”.
Programmed to find out anything from whether someone has massaged the qualifications on their CV to if they’re a member of an international terrorist organisation, he says the device is as accurate as any polygraph examiner and is already being used by police in the UK.
But the testing time is reduced to around 20 minutes from three hours and can be used with just 15 minutes training.
After filling out a questionnaire, the subject – attached to the device, wearing headphones and sensors on their fingers and palm – is instructed to silently answer “no” to the questions by a person in a recorded video on the screen. A human then grills them about any responses that indicate deception.
“I call it a truth verifier rather than a lie detector because what it’s doing is testing integrity,” explains Mr Cargill.
The technology, he says, would be ideal for use in police vetting and he wants to see it rolled out to areas such as Border Force, where officers could verify someone’s age or country of origin.
Amid serious concerns over the editorial mistakes made by the BBC, the downfall of its leaders has been greeted with undisguised glee by many on the right of British politics.
Former prime minister Liz Truss was quick off the mark to retweet gloating posts from Donald Trump and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt with clapping emojis.
Ms Truss argued not just for the abolition of the licence fee, but for the end of nationalised broadcasting altogether.
Her former cabinet colleague Suella Braverman has also called for the licence fee to be scrapped.
It’s an idea long advocated by Nadine Dorries during her time as culture secretary. The recent Reform convert is particularly pessimistic about the BBC’s future – telling me she believes its “core bias” has worsened in recent years.
“I’m afraid the resignation of Tim Davie will change nothing,” she said. “Under this Labour government overseeing the new appointment… it will probably get worse.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Why ‘Teflon Tim’ resigned from BBC
All three politicians were close allies of Boris Johnson, who has been instrumental this week in piling the pressure on the BBC.
He dramatically threatened in the Daily Mail to boycott the licence fee until Tim Davie explained what happened with the Trump Panorama documentary – or resigned.
The official Conservative Party line is slightly more restrained.
Shadow culture secretary Nigel Huddleston told Sky News “we want them to be successful” – but he and his boss Kemi Badenoch are calling for wide-ranging editorial reforms to end what they describe as “institutional bias”.
Their list calls for changes to BBC Arabic, its coverage of the US and Middle East, and “basic matters of biology”, by which they mean its stories on trans issues.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Catastrophic failure’ at BBC
The irony of demanding editorial changes from a supposedly independent organisation dealing with allegations of bias has been lost in the furore.
Similarly, Nigel Farage is calling for the government to appoint a new director-general from the private sector who has “a record of coming in and turning companies and cultures around”.
As part of its editorial independence, the appointment of the BBC’s next editor-in-chief is meant to be entirely down to its own independent board – and out of the hands of ministers.
The government’s own response to the scandal has therefore been relatively muted. In a statement, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy thanked Mr Davie for his long service to public service broadcasting – and paid tribute to the BBC as “one of our most important national institutions”.
Tim Davie and Deborah Turness. Pics: PA
Before the news of the resignations broke, she had been expressing her “complete confidence” in how the BBC’s leadership were dealing with the “serious allegations” described in the leaked memo from Michael Prescott, a former external adviser to the corporation’s editorial standards committee.
The departure of Mr Davie and the CEO of BBC News Deborah Turness just hours later seemed to be something of a shock.
A more detailed government response is sure to come when parliament returns from recess on Monday.
The Culture Media and Sport Committee of MPs – which has played an active role in the scandal by writing to the BBC chairman and demanding answers – is due to receive its response on Monday, which is expected to include an apology for the Panorama edits.
Its chair Dame Caroline Dinenage described Mr Davie’s resignation as “regrettable” but said that “restoring trust in the corporation must come first”.
Read more:
Analysis: ‘Teflon Tim’ has come unstuck
The past controversies faced by Davie
Read their resignation letters in full
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Ex-Panorama staffer: ‘Worst crime imaginable’
So far, the only British political leader prepared to mount an outspoken defence of the BBC is Sir Ed Davey.
The Liberal Democrat argues that seeing the White House take credit for Mr Davie’s downfall – and attacking the BBC – “should worry us all”.
He’s called on the PM and all British political leaders to stand united in “telling Trump to keep his hands off it”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What did the BBC do to anger Trump?
Given the diplomatic contortions Sir Keir Starmer has gone through to develop close relations with the current president, this seems entirely unlikely.
But for a prime minister already juggling an overflowing in-tray of problems, controversy over the national broadcaster as the government prepares to enter negotiations about renewing its charter for the next decade is another political tripwire in waiting.
The worst offending areas for uninsured driving in the UK have been revealed – as a hit-and-run victim described how he was “left for dead” with catastrophic injuries.
Every 20 minutes, someone in the UK is hit by an uninsured or hit-and-run driver, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) said, based on claims from over 26,000 victims each year.
Every day, at least one person is so seriously injured by an uninsured or hit-and-run driver that they need life-long care and every week, at least one person is killed by an uninsured driver, according to the bureau.
Thurrock in Essex is the worst offending area for uninsured driving, according to claim data from the MIB, a non-profit organisation created to protect people from the impact of uninsured and hit-and-run drivers.
Four different postal areas in Birmingham are among the 15 hotspots highlighted by the MIB, with areas in Peterborough, Manchester, Belfast and Havering also named due to housing a large number of defendants per 1,000 residents.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Map shows worst areas for uninsured driving in UK
The 15 worst postal areas for uninsured driving
• 1. Thurrock (RM19)
• 2. Birmingham (B25)
• 3. Birmingham (B18)
• 4. Peterborough (PE1)
• 5. Sandwell (B66)
• 6. Havering (RM1)
• 7. Birmingham (B21)
• 8. Manchester (M18)
• 9. Birmingham (B35)
• 10. Belfast (BT17)
• 11. Epping Forest (IG7)
• 12. Belfast (BT13)
• 13. Buckinghamshire (HP18)
• 14. Bradford (BD7)
• 15. Luton (LU1)
One of the victims of an uninsured driver is cyclist Cahal O’Reilly, 55, who was five miles from the ferryport in Holyhead, Wales, when he was hit from behind in September 2021.
He was thrown on to the windscreen and 20m through the air until he landed on the side of the road, seriously injured.
The uninsured driver, who police estimate was driving at 70mph, fled the scene.
Mr O’Reilly suffered catastrophic injuries, including a broken neck and back. Pic: MIB
‘Left for dead’
“I was left for dead, bleeding to death on the side of the road,” Mr O’Reilly told Sky News.
“Nobody knows how long I was on the floor for. When I came to my senses, I could taste my own blood and feel the road on my cheek.”
He realised he was “pretty seriously injured” when he could not move his ankles, and lay still until help arrived.
A passing motorist, who initially thought Mr O’Reilly’s lifeless form was debris before realising it was a body, called the emergency services.
Mr O’Reilly was left with serious injuries, including a broken back and neck, shattered pelvis, smashed bone in his leg, and dislocated shoulder and required several surgeries in the days after the crash.
Police said Mr O’Reilly would be dead if he had not worn his helmet. Pic: MIB
The back tire of Mr O’Reilly’s bicycle was completely ripped apart. Pic: MIB
“I suffered a polytrauma, which is multiple horrendous injuries,” Mr O’Reilly said. “The police said if I hadn’t been wearing a helmet, I would be dead, and officers didn’t think I would make it.
“The hospital consultant told my wife that most people don’t survive the impact, the time until the ambulance arrives, and 22 hours of operations in 48 hours.”
Doctors had to use rods to reconnect Mr O’Reilly’s knee and ankle on his right leg, as the bottom of his foot “was just hanging on by skin and muscle”, and use an arterial skin graft from his left arm to help patch up the damage to his smashed leg.
Mr O’Reilly, who lives in Wandsworth, south London, also had to wear a neck brace for more than five months to stabilise his shattered neck and had to learn how to walk again, with serious setbacks on the way.
Mr O’Reilly had to learn how to walk again after extensive surgery. Pic: MIB
‘Challenging’ recovery
“My pelvis and back fused and healed very quickly, but my leg took the main force of initial impact, with bits of my leg tissue found in the headlight of the car,” Mr O’Reilly said.
Just when he started seeing some progress in the rehab for his leg, about 18 months after the crash, doctors discovered that the metal work supposed to hold the bones together was falling apart, causing a serious infection in his leg.
Mr O’Reilly required another surgery and was told that if the bone did not heal, his leg would have to be amputated.
Mr O’Reilly’s blood and tissue were found in the headlights of the driver’s car. Pic: MIB
Four years on from the horrifying crash, he was told that his bone had finally fused last month.
“If you walk past me in the street, you wouldn’t know now, but the process to get there was very difficult and psychologically quite challenging,” Mr O’Reilly said.
The former British Army major hopes he will be able to return to work as a business consultant next year.
Read more:
Victim criticises ‘appalling’ sentence for uninsured driver
Nurse describes ‘horrific’ fatal crash
He is now campaigning with the MIB to stop uninsured drivers from hitting the roads, as he wants “nobody to go through what I had to go through”.
“We have to do something in this country,” he said. “People are morally making a choice where they don’t care about their fellow citizens and fail to insure their car and make sure it is properly taxed. Something like that is a social responsibility.”
Mr O’Reilly is campaigning with the MIB to stop uninsured motorists. Pic: MIB
£1bn cost of uninsured drivers
Uninsured driving costs the government £1bn a year, including compensation for victims, emergency services, medical costs and loss of productivity.
An uninsured vehicle is seized every four minutes across the UK, with almost 120,000 seized so far this year, the MIB said.
The bureau has launched a week-long road safety initiative in collaboration with police forces across the UK, including targeted enforcement in problem areas and public education to urge people to check their insurance status.
“Our aim is to end uninsured driving, which means working closely with the police across the UK to remove dangerous vehicles from our roads,” Martin Saunders, head of enforcement at MIB, said.
“At the same time, we are ramping up our support for motorists who want to drive legally, providing them with the knowledge they need to have the right cover in place.”
Tim Davie stepping down as director-general of the BBC comes after several controversies faced by the broadcaster in recent years.
His resignation came at the same time as that of BBC News chief executive Deborah Turness, at the end of a week in which concerns about impartiality were raised over how a speech by US President Donald Trump was edited in an episode of Panorama.
“While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision,” Mr Davie wrote in a note sent to staff.
“Overall, the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made and as director-general I have to take ultimate responsibility.”
Tim Davie is stepping down as director-general after five years. Pic: PA
Mr Davie has been in the role for five years and at the BBC for 20 in total, having previously worked as director of marketing, director of audio and music, and chief executive of BBC Studios.
Here are the controversies the broadcaster has faced in recent years.
The Trump documentary edit
A memo sent in the summer by a former external adviser to the BBC’s editorial standards committee, highlighting the edit of a Donald Trump speech as well as other concerns about impartiality, was first reported by The Daily Telegraph on Tuesday.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What did the BBC do to anger Trump?
The concerns regard clips spliced together from sections of a speech made by the US president on 6 January 2021, featured in the Panorama programme Trump: A Second Chance?
It made it appear that Mr Trump told supporters he was going to walk to the US Capitol with them to “fight like hell”, although the quotes were made during separate parts of the speech. The episode was broadcast by the BBC the week before last year’s US election.
Bob Vylan at Glastonbury
Bob Vylan frontman Bobby Vylan on stage at Glastonbury. Pic: PA
In July, punk-rap duo Bob Vylan led chants of “death to the IDF” while on stage at Glastonbury, a performance which was live-streamed as part of the BBC’s coverage of the festival.
Afterwards, the broadcaster said it would no longer live broadcast “high risk” performances, and suggested disciplinary action could be taken against staff who failed to halt the stream.
The BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit received four complaints about the performance relating to incitement to violence, terrorism or ethnic cleansing, hate speech and expressions of antisemitism.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trump hits out at ‘dishonest’ BBC
In a ruling given in September, it found the stream of the performance had breached its editorial standards.
Following the backlash over the Glastonbury gig, Bob Vylan said in a post on Instagram that “we are not for the death of Jews, Arabs or any other race or group of people”.
MasterChef
Pic: Ken McKay/ITV/Shutterstock
In the same month, presenter Gregg Wallace was sacked from cooking show MasterChef after an investigation into historical allegations of misconduct upheld multiple accusations against him. These first emerged towards the end of 2024.
Wallace, who co-presented the show for almost 20 years, said he was “deeply sorry for any distress caused” and that he “never set out to harm or humiliate”, but also said in a statement released ahead of the publication of a summary of the report that he had been “cleared of the most serious and sensational accusations” made against him.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Mark Stone: Trump enjoys ‘having a scalp’ as BBC director-general resigns
His co-presenter John Torode left the show the following week after an allegation he used an “extremely offensive racist term” was upheld, the BBC said.
In October, Wallace announced he was suing the broadcaster for “distress and harassment”.
Gary Lineker
Pic: PA 2024
No stranger to controversy during his last few years at the BBC, Gary Lineker stepped down from hosting Match Of The Day and World Cup coverage in May.
It came after he apologised unreservedly for sharing a social media post from the Palestine Lobby group that had been illustrated with a rat – which has been used to represent Jewish people in antisemitic propaganda, including Nazi Germany.
He said he had not known about the rat’s symbolism.
“I would never consciously repost anything antisemitic – it goes against everything I stand for,” Lineker said in a statement as he confirmed his resignation. “However, I recognise the error and upset that I caused, and reiterate how sorry I am. Stepping back now feels like the responsible course of action.”
The former England star had previously been temporarily suspended from the BBC in March 2023, after an impartiality row over comments he made criticising the then Conservative government’s asylum policy.
His temporary suspension led pundits Ian Wright and Alan Shearer to both announce they would not appear on Match of the Day, and a shortened show went ahead without commentary, pundit analysis, or post-match interviews.
The incident sparked a report, which decided that high-profile BBC presenters outside of its news coverage should be able to express their views on political issues as long as they stop short of campaigning.
Gaza documentary
Mr Davie and BBC chairman Samir Shah were questioned about the documentary by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee earlier this year. Pic: PA
Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone was pulled from BBC iPlayer in February after it emerged that the 13-year-old boy narrating the programme was the son of a deputy minister in the Hamas-run government.
The documentary was made by independent production company Hoyo Films.
A BBC review into the controversial programme said three members of the independent production company knew about the role of the boy’s father – but no one within the corporation was aware.
In July, the BBC said it had breached its own editorial guidelines by failing to disclose the full identity of the child narrator’s father – Ayman Alyazouri, who has worked as Hamas’s deputy minister of agriculture.
In October, an Ofcom investigation found the documentary had breached the broadcasting code.
Huw Edwards
Huw Edwards appeard in court in September 2024. Pic: PA
In April 2024, veteran news presenter Huw Edwards resigned from the BBC, nine months after coming off air following accusations of paying a teenager thousands of pounds for sexually explicit pictures.
Just a few months later, it emerged he had remained one of the broadcaster’s highest-paid stars of the year, despite his suspension.
Days later, new allegations emerged – and he was charged and pleaded guilty in court to three counts of “making” indecent images of children, after receiving the illegal images as part of a WhatsApp conversation.
The court heard how he paid up to £1,500 to a paedophile who sent him 41 illegal images between December 2020 and August 2021, seven of which were of the most serious type.
The disgraced broadcaster avoided jail, but was given a six-month suspended sentence.
Strictly Come Dancing
Pic: BBC
Ahead of the 2024 series of BBC favourite Strictly Come Dancing, producers said they would introduce staff chaperones into all future rehearsals.
It followed the departure of two professional dancers following complaints about their behaviour.
Following an investigation, the BBC upheld “some, but not all” of the allegations made against Giovanni Pernice by his 2023 dance partner Amanda Abbington.
Abbington described an apology from the corporation as vindication, while Pernice denied displaying “abusive or threatening behaviour” and said the majority of the complaints had not been upheld.
Another professional dancer, Graziano Di Prima, also left the show amid reports of alleged misconduct.
Apology over Diana interview
Diana, Princess of Wales, during her interview with Martin Bashir for the BBC in 1995. Pic: PA
In 2021, a report into Martin Bashir‘s bombshell 1995 programme with Princess Diana found the journalist had “deceived and induced” her brother to secure the interview.
By using fake bank statements, Mr Bashir made a “serious breach” of BBC guidelines on straight-dealing, the Lord Dyson report concluded.
Mr Davie, who was not at the BBC at the time the programme was made, issued a “full and unconditional” apology after the findings were released, and the corporation sent written apologies to Prince William and Prince Harry, as well as to Prince Charles and Earl Spencer.
Mr Bashir also apologised and said the faking of bank statements was a “stupid thing to do” and “an action I deeply regret”, but added he felt it had “no bearing whatsoever on the personal choice by Princess Diana to take part in the interview”.
Former director-general Lord Hall, who was the BBC’s director of news and current affairs when the Diana interview was screened, said he accepted the corporation’s 1996 inquiry into how the sit-down was secured “fell well short of what was required”.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024