Earl Spencer is calling for the BBC to break a long-running silence by commissioning a historian and enabling further investigation into Martin Bashir's actions
The brother of Princess Diana, Earl Spencer, has publicly renewed his demand that the BBC address the controversy surrounding Martin Bashir and the 1995 Panorama interview. Speaking at his estate’s literary festival, he urged the corporation’s incoming leadership to lance the boil — a phrase he used to describe the need to confront institutional failings rather than allow them to fester.
His remarks focused on the twin goals of transparency and accountability, and he made clear that he wants all relevant material to be examined openly rather than left behind closed doors.
At the same event, Earl Spencer backed calls for the appointment of an official historian within the BBC to undertake a systematic review of internal records related to the episode.
He reiterated his request for law enforcement scrutiny if new evidence suggests wrongdoing, asking that any potentially criminal behaviour be referred to Scotland Yard. Those comments reflect long-standing concerns about how journalistic methods and subsequent corporate conduct were handled, and the appeal underscores the continued sensitivity of the matter for Diana’s family and the public.
What the controversy involved
The central allegation is that Martin Bashir obtained access by using fabricated materials and misleading claims to gain the trust of Princess Diana and others close to her. Among the most cited tactics were the presentation of what were later described as forged bank statements and assertions that conversations had been secretly monitored. Earl Spencer and others have called these moves a deliberate attempt to manipulate sources and an abuse of trust. Those events are now framed not only as a singular journalistic malpractice but as part of a broader debate about ethical standards at major broadcasters and how internal responses may have enabled a cover-up.
Calls for investigation and historical review
One of the concrete proposals supported by Earl Spencer and investigative author Andy Webb is for the BBC to reinstate its internal historical post and task that office with reviewing every document connected to the case. The BBC maintains an official written history that currently covers earlier decades of the organisation, and critics point out it appears not to have been updated to cover later controversies. Webb, who has worked through thousands of pages obtained from the BBC — many of them heavily redacted — argues there remain unanswered questions that merit a thorough archival analysis and institutional accounting.
Document trail and redactions
Investigative work has uncovered a large volume of material: more than 10,000 pages were reportedly obtained by researchers, with over 3,000 redactions limiting the public record. Those restrictions fuel calls for a detailed, independent review to determine what has been suppressed and why. Earl Spencer has identified what he believes to be senior figures whose actions require explanation, referring to a small number of people he suspects oversaw or enabled the subsequent concealment. Whether those leads will prompt renewed police inquiries depends partly on what additional documentation is made available and whether any new facts point to criminal conduct.
Responses and implications for the BBC
The BBC has publicly accepted the conclusions of an earlier independent report and has issued an apology for its role in the affair. Still, Earl Spencer and others argue that acceptance of prior findings is not the same as complete transparency. The incoming executive leadership, he says, faces an opportunity to restore public trust by committing to full disclosure and to institutional reforms such as reestablishing a dedicated historian and improving record-keeping practices. For the family and for many members of the public, those steps are necessary to ensure the episode is not simply closed but properly understood.
Public trust and next steps
Beyond the specifics of documents and personnel, the dispute raises broader questions about media ethics, institutional responsibility and the limits of internal inquiries. Earl Spencer’s advocacy reflects a wider demand that major organisations face rigorous external scrutiny when serious allegations arise. Whether through a commissioned historical review, fresh police consideration, or both, the call is for a process that produces verifiable findings and clear recommendations. For now, the matter remains a touchstone in debates about accountability in public institutions and the lasting repercussions of how high-profile stories are pursued.
