'Leadership' debate

[Machiavelli]

I'll answer that.

The BBC use a debt collection service, to send out misleading threatening and false letter demanding payment of a license fee as a matter of course.

Secondly there was a major cover up for years, when a number of their presenters where sexually abusing and raping children.

Do you need any more explanation why people don't trust the BBC?

Excellent response. In the first place, and more importantly, your examples have got nothing to do with the BBC's news delivery and attempt at political impartiality/neutrality, which is what is under discussion.
As regards your two points:
-- if their letters really were "misleading [,] threatening and false" as you claim they are, then they'd be liable to legal action
-- you're referring to something that occurred, for the most part, 40 years ago, in which there wasn't a cover-up, although there was a failure to pursue certain leads, as there were in other institutions such as the NHS. For my sins, I've actually read the Report by Dame Janet Smith into this, so suspect I know a tad more than you do on such matters..

So, yes, please provide more explanation why people don't trust the BBC.
You can wallow in the reliability of Trump's tweets instead.