The Jerusalem Post, on UK Politics, 26 October 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

Award-winning producer receives £400,000 payout from BBC over workplace antisemitism claim

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.1 finding

An Oscar- and Emmy-winning producer has received a payout of more than £400,000 from the BBC after claiming she was victimized and forced out of the corporation following the October 7 attacks.Lucie Kon left the broadcaster in April, just 19 days after winning an Oscar for her work, following a dispute over antisemitism in the workplace. Having built a stellar career on major programs including Panorama, Today, BBC Breakfast, and Storyville, her commissioned and produced films have earned an Emmy, an Oscar, a BAFTA, and many other prestigious industry honors.Speaking to The Telegraph on Sunday, Kon alleged that her professional treatment shifted rapidly after the October 7 attacks in Israel.

As footage and news of the atrocities emerged, she had messaged a colleague on WhatsApp asking if they had seen what was happening in Israel and remarking that Hamas were evil. In response, the colleague told her that “Zionists” were evil.“I was like, 'What?' And she went, 'Evil Hamas, evil Zionists,' a bit like it was a joke, like they were the same and they're not the same, and that was a particularly tasteless thing to say at that particular moment in history,” Kon said.Later, when Kon sought to raise concerns about the treatment of Jewish staff and insisted that staff should at least be able to describe Hamas as committing acts of terror, another colleague told her that if she wanted to refer to Hamas as terrorists, she was required to call Israel a terrorist state as well.Kon helps set up WhatsApp group for Jewish BBC employeesPushed by the worsening workplace environment, Kon helped set up an internal WhatsApp group for Jewish employees at the corporation and wrote to then-Director General Tim Davie to raise concerns.Shortly afterward, as more footage of the atrocities emerged, Kon proposed producing a film about the events of October 7 to .

When she mentioned the idea, the colleague dismissed it, saying they had already made enough films about Israel, but Kon's manager later called her over to discuss the project.“She said, 'Lucie, we probably will do the Nova film,'” Kon recounted. “And she said to me, 'But if we do it, we need to contextualize why Hamas did what they did.'”When Kon questioned this requirement, explaining that the project was intended as a straightforward account of what happened that day rather than a deep dive into the historical and political context of the region, her manager's manager informed her that she could no longer oversee the film.

When Kon asked why, .Kon noted that the manager then stated the person who was going to look after the film instead was the very same colleague who had previously told her that if Hamas were terrorists, the Israelis were terrorists too. An arrangement was later reached where Kon could oversee the film, but only under the strict supervision of someone else to ensure she remained impartial.Kon subsequently raised a formal grievance.

This meant the two could no longer attend meetings together, and Kon was instructed not to come into work.Six months later, she received the outcome. “It wasn't upheld,” Kon said. “I was told that a lot of the things that I'd said people didn't remember saying. And I was told that I'd been told - that I hadn't been told I couldn't work on the Nova film because I was a Jew - that they were worried about my mental health.”When she appealed the decision, that appeal was also unsuccessful.

At the time of her appeal, the BBC moved her colleague away from the Strand to work elsewhere, while Kon was told she could no longer travel, commission, or speak on behalf of the BBC because it would be unfair to her colleague.Kon continued working from home while her appeal was considered, but by December, the stress took a toll, and her health began to deteriorate. After submitting a doctor's note for stress-related sick leave, she was called into a meeting where she was told her job was being put at risk of redundancy.

Having returned from sick leave, she applied for a newly created position but was rejected and made redundant in April.BBC refuses to apologize, call Kon victim of antisemitismAccording to The Telegraph, she brought unfair dismissal proceedings against the BBC, which agreed to pay her substantial compensation, partly funded by the license fee, without admitting liability. The corporation refused to apologize or admit she was a victim of antisemitism.

The Telegraph noted that she is the first person known to have been given a settlement by the BBC after alleging antisemitic behavior among colleagues. Speaking about the broader climate for staff after her departure, Kon reportedly told The Telegraph that other Jewish colleagues are still being bullied and abused, adding, “I know that nothing has changed because I've spoken to quite a few people since I left. Friends who are still struggling, still suffering, who feel embarrassed to say that they're Zionist or that they're a Jew.”“I went from being a journalist and commissioner at the BBC who was Jewish to being a Jewish journalist at the BBC,” Kon said.

“It was like I had Jew stamped on my forehead. I think I became a problem. I think I made too much of a noise about being a Jew inside the BBC.”Kon added, “A colleague of mine said to me a while ago that if you say you're a Zionist at the BBC, you might as well say that you were the person who had their foot on the neck of George Floyd. You're a murderer. You're an evil colonialist. You are a racist, and I'm not any of those things, and neither are the other people I know who are Zionist.”“I stood up for who I was,” Kon said.

“I stood up for what I believed to be right. The BBC says, 'Bring your authentic self to work.' And I did, and I lost my job as a result.”A BBC spokesperson said in a statement, “We are grateful that Ms. Kon acknowledges that the BBC is not institutionally antisemitic. The BBC processes did not uphold any of Ms. Kon's allegations of antisemitism. However, the outcome acknowledged shortcomings and the personal impact on Ms. Kon. We would like to acknowledge that Ms. Kon was a valued member of staff with many years of dedicated service to the BBC.”

Read the original article on jpost.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (1)

The Jerusalem Post reports Lucie Kon's BBC settlement and attributes most of her account to her interview with The Telegraph. In a few sentences it slips into its own voice for her contested allegations: that a manager said she was taken off the Nova film "because you're Jewish", and that a colleague made "inappropriate remarks". The article itself reports further down that the BBC's grievance process did not uphold her allegations.

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “the manager told her it was “because you're Jewish” and stated she was partial”

    Why this matters
    The Jerusalem Post writes in its own voice that the manager told Kon she was removed "because you're Jewish". There is no "Kon said" or "according to Kon" in the sentence.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes it as an established fact that a BBC manager openly removed Kon from the film because she is Jewish.
    The context
    This is Kon's allegation, and it is the centre of the dispute. The article itself reports that her grievance was not upheld. It also reports that she was told the decision was not about her being Jewish but about worries for her mental health. The BBC says its processes upheld none of her antisemitism allegations.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “a colleague who had previously made inappropriate remarks”

    Why this matters
    The outlet calls the colleague's remarks "inappropriate" in its own voice, as its own verdict, with nothing to attribute the judgement to Kon.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes it that the colleague's misconduct is established and accepted.
    The context
    The remarks are known only from Kon's account. The article reports she was told that people did not remember saying many of the things she alleged, and that her grievance was not upheld.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“a lot of the things that I'd said people didn't remember saying”
    • Elsewhere in the article“It wasn't upheld”

    Show it in the article

    “News of the grievance quickly reached the colleague who had made the remarks about Zionists, and that colleague wanted nothing more to do with Kon.”

    Why this matters
    The outlet narrates in its own voice that the colleague "had made the remarks" and that the colleague shunned Kon, with no attribution to Kon.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes it as fact that the colleague made the remarks and then froze Kon out.
    The context
    Both points come from Kon's side of a dispute the BBC did not uphold. The article reports that people did not remember saying what she alleged.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“a lot of the things that I'd said people didn't remember saying”
    • Elsewhere in the article“The BBC processes did not uphold any of Ms.”

    Show it in the article

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Jerusalem Post

  1. 27 OctTwo men charged in UK with helping Iran over RAF Fairford incident6.0
  2. 26 Oct'Lack of Jews hasn't meant lack of antisemitism,' Expert on Jews in Wales tells 'Post' - interview3.0
  3. 26 OctUK antisemitism watchdog GnasherJew exposes 40 antisemitic healthcare workers in NHS3.0
  4. 25 OctBoard of Deputies passes motion declaring Green Party a 'racist party'3.0
  5. 24 OctUK teachers could be barred from wearing pro-Palestine badges amid antisemitism concerns - report3.0

Everything we scored from The Jerusalem Post