BBC bias: Pro-migrant charity ‘PLANTED’ and 'COACHED' migrants in Question Time debate

Welcome back to GB News Tonight with me, your host, Martin Dorman. Now, do you remember this man? Ashraf, where are you sitting? Ashraf, there you are. Can you just say you came over from Afghanistan on a small boat in the last four or five years, I think. Yes, I come from Afghanistan. Who can forget Ashraf, the Afghan illegal small boat immigrant that the BBC put in its Dover Question Time audience back in December. And there was another. I just want to clear that leaving the convention doesn't just affect the migrants. It would give ordinary people less court to protect their rights. Yes, eyebrows were raised because that was Alireza, another small boat illegal immigrant in the Question Time audience who just happened to read out a pre-prepared statement about the refugee convention that was on his iPhone screen. And here was Reform UK's Home Affairs spokesman Zia Yousaf's response at the time. Reform policies deport all illegal immigrants in the UK within five years. So that would be, I mean, these are real people. That would be someone like you. And that's what you're saying, right? If you are in this country illegally, let me be crystal clear. If Nigel Farage is our next prime minister, and that's obviously what we're working to deliver. If you're in this country illegally, you will be deported back to the country from which you came. Indeed, Ashraf was a real person. But what was the truth behind his motivation? Well, an extraordinary story today from The Telegraph. It's emerged that a pro-migrant charity called iMix planted those two illegal immigrants into that audience. That's correct. A charity that seeks to change the narrative surrounding illegal migration and shift public opinion to be more favourable towards those illegal immigrants. They planted them in the audience via the BBC and basically told them what to say. But there's more. So Jenny, off you go. Where are you? So I just first of all say that I don't differentiate between legal and illegal. OK. So what does this obsession with cutting migration actually mean in practice? Yes, that was Jenny Regan, who happens to be, totally by chance, the chief executive of that charity iMix, the very organisation that planted those illegal immigrants. And she happens to think there's no distinction between illegal and legal migration. And she got a question. So not only has the BBC used a pro-migrant advocacy organisation to plant migrants onto its programme, but they knowingly gave a question to its chief executive too. Now, does that smell to you fishier than the English Channel? I'm joined now by my panel, the former Labour defence secretary Geoff Hoon and the former Tory chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng. Kwasi, I'm going to start with you. I'm joined now by the founder and CEO of Tally Money, Cameron Parry. So what is Tally Money and what does it do? So you get an everyday account in your individual name, you get an account number and sort code. But instead of having an account denominated in pound sterling with your bank, you have milligrams of gold, which we brand as Tally. The reason why we chose gold, everybody understands gold, it's universally understood and accepted. It's been increasing at over 11% on average for the last 25 years against the pound. In the last two years, it's up 60% against the pound. So if you had £10,000 in a Tally account two years ago, it's now got £16,000 worth of value. The gold hasn't changed, but the value and your purchasing power has. So banks can't keep up with that performance. How easy is it to get a Tally Money account then? If you're a UK resident, it's really easy. Just go to your app store, download the app. You'll need photo ID. You can onboard yourself in a couple of minutes. Just your passport, your driving license. Yep. And you're up and away. So you know what you're getting. It's very simple, low fees. It's transparent. There's no hidden fees. There's no effect spreads depending on the amount you put in. And you just get to go ahead and be productive in your daily life, build up your savings again, because it's useful to do it now. I was going to say, so you don't necessarily, if people are watching this going, it sounds a bit scary. You can open a Tally Money account, transfer. Is there a minimum amount you have to transfer? So you might think, I'm just going to play with this. I'm going to put £100 in it that I've got this month. And I'm either going to spend it and see if I feel like I'm getting more value for money from the things that I'm buying, or I'm going to save it and watch how that compares to maybe £100 in your current account. To find out more and to get an exclusive GB News offer, simply scan the QR code or click the link in the description. You've appeared on these programmes. A lot of people watching them for years, way back to the Brexit years, always felt the audiences didn't feel representative of the British public. But this takes the biscuit. This is extraordinary. Typically, I mean, I remember doing any questions and question time, I've done, I think, 10 or 12 times. The audience is quite managed. So I remember doing an event in and half the crowd were Greens. And I was thinking, this can't be representative of the country. But of course, in Bristol, the Greens were very powerful. They were mobilised. And I think there's almost a kind of application process. What I'm not clear about this, and it was extraordinary for the Chief Executive of the charity to say, there is no distinction in her mind between legal and illegal immigration. Basically, you're saying there shouldn't be any law. There's no distinction whether something is legal or illegal. It's crazy. But typically, I don't blame the charity for organising and gaming the system. I mean, they're an advocacy group. They want open borders. They want whatever else they want. And they've just used the rules to pack or to place their representatives on the show and the Chief Executive being on the show. Now, what the role of the BBC is what I think is what the whole question is about. Did the BBC knowingly have these people on the show or did they acquiesce? Did they acquiesce in that? No, they didn't. And there should be questions asked about that, because really, I think people should be on the electoral roll, actually. OK, before we go to you, Geoff, let's read out the statement from a BBC spokesman, spokesperson, they, them. The BBC has full editorial control over all of its content. It is common practice across the media industry to engage with charities, among others, for research purposes and to help understand different perspectives when working on programmes or news stories. However, the BBC has strict guidelines to ensure impartiality and editorial independence. Geoff Hoon, that sounds like a complete and utter shaggy dog story. The notion that these audiences are neutral has been blown out of the water. Well, let's just make a distinction between the regular question time on a Thursday night where all manner of questions arise and the audience, as I understand it these days, is carefully selected to reflect the political situation in the country. Let me just finish. This was a special programme about immigration. All of the questions were about immigration. And it seems to be perfectly sensible for the BBC in a programme devoted to immigration to get a range of views. And I think what the BBC was saying was that they approached this particular charity in order to provide a degree of balance. I didn't see the programme, but I'm confident in a place like Dover that there were plenty of people opposed to immigration who made their views pretty clear. That may be true. But this whole elision of the distinction between legal migration and illegal migration is really important. Well, I'm not defending what she said. And they seem to just merge the two. So whether you come in illegally or whether you come illegally, it's all the same. But again, Kwasi, this was a programme about immigration. And the BBC has the responsibility under the relevant legislation to provide a range of opinions. They shouldn't have people who've come here illegally. They've broken the law. Well, I think it's quite interesting. Why would you have them on the programme paid for by the taxpayer? No, I think it's interesting in the debate about immigration in this country to know why people do come here. And therefore, we have to ask those people. Geoff, Geoff, Geoff, Geoff, other people will be watching this and think, hang on a minute, mate. Two illegal immigrants who have gamed the system. Come here illegally. Come here illegally. They've broken into our country. They're being coached in what to say in a woke, pro-migrant manner by a charity that receives taxpayers' money, goes on to a BBC question time programme that's paid for by licenced payers, by taxpayers. The question time is for the BBC. What I am not defending is any of that. What I am saying is that the BBC has an obligation to provide a range of views to the British public, which we rightly pay for through a taxation system. So they are carrying out their responsibilities by making sure that all opinions are developed. On people who essentially have broken the law. They've come here illegally. They come here under whatever pretext, but they haven't done it in the right way. And I think for the national broadcaster to give them a platform is wrong. And what I was amazed at was that they were clearly coached. I mean, the guy was reading out a prepared script. And that's completely against the whole spirit of question time. And I've been on it many times. And people are incredibly articulate and forceful. And that's part of the joy and the pressure, if you're a minister or on the government side. That's part of the kind of tension and challenge of the programme. So to have someone who's come in here illegally, reading out a pre-prepared script that he clearly hadn't written, I think is against the spirit of the thing. Can I just add the final cherry on the cake in this absurd tale, is that Jenny Regan, who's the chief executive of this charity iMix, after coaching people that were in the audience, after having a question herself on the show, she had the temerity to write into question time afterwards, saying it was a daunting experience, as Dover is not a particularly multicultural area. It's an absolute and utter farce, Geoff. Well, I'm not defending her or what she did. What I am saying, though, is the BBC has a responsibility, an obligation in law to provide a range of views. And by approaching a charity responsible for dealing with immigration, they are carrying out what they are supposed to do. How they do that, then, is the problem. But that's the critical question. And if you're doing that by essentially giving a platform to illegal migrants – they're illegal, they've come here illegally, they've broken laws, they've come here not the right way – if you're giving a platform to someone like that to read out a pre-prepared speech, that isn't what question time should be about. OK, gentlemen, thank you very much. We have to leave it there now. Spokesman for iMix told GB News this. Helping journalists and productions connect with people who have relevant experience is a normal part of what a charity press office does. We helped to identify two people who wished to take part and supported them beforehand so they felt informed and prepared. Both have legal refugee status and are settled in the UK with families and jobs and both chose to take part of their own accord. The decisions about the programme and its audience were the BBC's.