MY topic today is something I know nothing about – heavens, I must be turning into a rent-a-rant Tory MP.

The BBC has bought a new drama from the French. Now imported dramas with subtitles constitute a pleasant niche of my TV viewing, so I do know something about them. But not about Versailles because I haven’t seen it yet.

This rarely bothers the sort of backbench Tory who pops up with a bundle of outrage rolled under their arm, ready to splash about in the shallow end of our cultural life, especially when an opportunity arises to have a pop at the BBC.

The other day the Daily Mail worked itself into a righteous lather about the costume drama Versailles. According to the Mail’s report, Versailles has been accused of being “porn dressed up in a cravat and tights”. Is this drama really that bad – or that good, depending on tastes? The only way to know is to watch before letting an opinion roll out of your mouth like a half-sucked mint, a sensible precaution which rarely applies when it comes to MPs complaining about a television programme.

According to the Mail, the first episode of Versailles – which has already been seen in France – contains “gay sex, a cross-dressing prince, and a queen with a penchant for dwarves”. All of this and a scene in which “the king, played by English actor George Blagden, is seen burying his head between his mistress’s thighs”.

Enter Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen, indignation rolled up under his arm. “There are channels where, if you wish to view this sort of material, you would have to pay for it. BBC viewers don’t have a choice. They have to pay for it whether they approve or not.”

Dear me, what does Mr Bridgen know about such channels? He does seem to have an air of authority on the matter. Then we have “BBC viewers don’t have a choice”. Oh yes they do: there are endless channels these days, so many so we are drowning in choice; and there is always the ‘off’ button.

This is just another in the endless round of anti-BBC stories that fill the newspapers nowadays. Sometimes these confected rows end up looking ridiculous. The BBC’s adaptation last year of Lady Chatterley’s Lover was on the same day described in different newspapers as being the most explicit drama ever seen on the BBC; and as having had most of the sex removed.

I took the trouble of watching and wished I hadn’t bothered, as it was terrible – and hardly explicit at all, as it happened.

The newspapers daily carry stories knocking holes in the new Top Gear show. The latest one has presenter Chris Evans apologising on air for a stunt in which co-presenter Matt LeBlanc drove past the Cenotaph war memorial in Westminster and indulged in the sort of motorised silliness often seen on this show.

Evans went into apology overdrive, but why exactly? The Cenotaph is a site of hushed reverence on Remembrance Sunday, yet outside of that properly respectful moment it is a monument on a busy street in central London.

If LeBlanc had tried this stunt during the Remembrance Day parade, that would have been an outrage. This isn’t – it’s just another over-hyped bit of BBC bashing, with even the presenter being panicked into taking part.

All of this is happening as the BBC faces the most hostile government in memory, and comes as the Culture Secretary John Whittingdale continues his long war of attrition against the BBC. The most recent example of this is a 242-page government-commissioned report suggesting that BBC1 has become less distinctive and claiming that if the corporation’s services were made less populist, commercial rivals could benefit by more than £100m.

The BBC rejected the report, citing shows such as The Night Manager, War And Peace and David Attenborough’s Giant Dinosaur – as they should. I’ve not seen the Attenborough programme, but the other two dramas are excellent, and just the sort of thing the BBC should be doing – and is already doing.

This ‘distinctiveness’ argument is a swamp into which Mr Whittingdale would like to see the BBC sink. Follow that approach and you’d end up with the BBC making the sort of worthy and dull programmes that no other broadcaster would touch. And then nobody much would watch and the reason for the BBC would begin to disappear.

As for benefiting commercial rivals to the tune of £100m – that figure has surely been conjured out of thin air. And why is that even a good thing anyway? I’d rather have a strong BBC, thank you.

Incidentally, the other night a glance at the listings revealed that Channel 5 had a programme about internet clips of cats, followed by three episodes of an imported US crime drama. Do we really want to benefit such rubbish at the expense of the Beeb?