7 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

“Peacefully and patriotically” urged multiple times.

“Fight like hell” = political rhetoric, 53 min later.

BBC Panorama spliced clips → misleading.

No explicit riot call.

Edit unnecessary; full context shows no complicity.

Sorry, a form of apology like what you stated does not negate the crime itself. It is not a legal defense as the crime is completed by the act of making the threat. Like when you apologies for making a bomb threat, it does not automatically undo the crime or prevent legal consequences. Good try though. 

It's interesting that in the pandemic era posts were removed or villified as misinformation yet the BBC was and still is by some viewed as a reliable source. MSM or legacy media, call it what you like, and this includes tax payer funded organisations such as the BBC in Britain and the ABC in Australia paradoxically are the ones that spread misinformation.

45 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

“Peacefully and patriotically” urged multiple times.

“Fight like hell” = political rhetoric, 53 min later.

BBC Panorama spliced clips → misleading.

No explicit riot call.

Edit unnecessary; full context shows no complicity.

There will always be some on here that can't or won't see what's infront oif their nose. Bit like 60 Minutes putting in an entire different answer for that most inarticlate Harris. Probably still think there was nothing wrong with that.

2 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

The claim of irony falls flat when you look at the facts of this specific incident. The BBC's editing of Trump's January 6, 2021, speech in a Panorama documentary ("Trump: A Second Chance?") was not a minor slip or standard journalistic practice—it was a deliberate splice of clips from nearly an hour apart, making it appear Trump directly urged violence by saying "we're going to walk down to the Capitol" immediately followed by "fight like hell," while omitting his explicit call to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Dismissing this as "a one-off in hundreds of thousands of news stories" ignores the context: the documentary aired just a week before the 2024 U.S. election, amplifying a narrative that Trump incited violence without the full context.

 

Critics, including UK MPs and former BBC insiders, described it as systemic bias, not an isolated error. When top executives resign over a single story, it's hardly trivial—it's accountability that rarely happens in media scandals.

 

Trump’s 30,000+ false claims are real and well-documented. But equating a politician’s rally exaggerations to a state media outlet fabricating evidence is false equivalence on steroids.

 

The AI poop-jet video? Crude meme posted on Truth Social, watermarked satire—not “administration policy."

Calling out proven BBC fraud isn’t hypocrisy; it’s accountability. Pot, meet kettle? No—the kettle just exploded and took two executives with it.

 

Your framing is partisan not objective. It minimizes Trump's own January 6 distortions (e.g., calling it a "day of love" despite 1,200+ convictions) as harmless "exaggerations," while hyperbolically deeming the BBC a "state media outlet fabricating evidence" (it's publicly funded but editorially independent). It also ignores how Trump's team amplified the scandal for domestic gain, echoing his "fake news" playbook. This selective outrage—valid on facts, but laser-focused to exonerate one side—tilts it toward advocacy over neutral analysis. In polarized times, both "sides" do this, but it doesn't make the core critique of the edit any less substantive.

55 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

There will always be some on here that can't or won't see what's infront oif their nose. Bit like 60 Minutes putting in an entire different answer for that most inarticlate Harris. Probably still think there was nothing wrong with that.

Brilliant ! 

14 hours ago, Tug said:

Lucid people remember the spew on the ellipse on j6 he at the very least incited a riot…in my view an attempted coup he should be in the penitentiary serving life.

+

Do you work for the Beeb?

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Sorry, a form of apology like what you stated does not negate the crime itself. It is not a legal defense as the crime is completed by the act of making the threat. Like when you apologies for making a bomb threat, it does not automatically undo the crime or prevent legal consequences. Good try though. 

 

They only apologized because they're sorry they've been found out. This is just one example of many. The BBC used to be great - now I only  look for the soccer scores.

14 hours ago, dinsdale said:

The gulible sit firmly in the radical left camp.

And downvote at the slightest hint of cognitive dissonance.

9 hours ago, Hamus Yaigh said:

 

The irony: Trump condemns "foreign" media bias while fact-checkers  have documented over 30,000 false claims during his first term, including January 6 distortions, and his administration promotes unverified or provocative content like the AI video of him crapping from a jet fighter over the US public. Supporters counter that the BBC's edit was deliberate deception warranting the rebuke, a one off in hundreds of thousands of news stories. It's classic "pot calling the kettle black" dynamic in polarized media wars that Trump and the far right activists thrives off of. Sensible people see this for what it is.

 

The BBC's edit was not a one-off but more a standout example, yet still typical of their political manipulation. 

 

BBC TV viewership has been declining for at least a decade.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/284752/bbc-tv-reach-by-channel-in-the-uk/?srsltid=AfmBOoqI0EoHWz6yrH2bWfazjMcmqL0qOPgyflk2vhgSPkwvq2Y3M9EG

12 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Very fine people on both sides.
Stand back and stand by.
Fight like hell — peacefully and patriotically.

He built every sentence with the escape hatch of plausible denial.
The crowd didn’t mistake him — they heard him exactly as he meant to be heard.
He watched the killing and violence unfold — three hours of silence with a smile on his face.

 

You can prove all this nonsense?

7 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

So much gaslighting on just this BBC article when the seeds of the Jan 6 insurrection were already sowed by Trump.
 

When he denied the election results & subsequently filed 62 lawsuits and launched his own election certification audits in 9 states, he instigated the insurrection. If it was another country, that will be enough to haul him to court for attempted coup. 

 

All the lawsuits were dismissed or dropped for lack of evidence or standing. The election process audits turned out to be just a waste of time with nothing proven.

 

Trump is celebrating the resignation of the executives and a pyrrhic victory. 

 

Yes, it was quite amazing that so many cases were very quickly dismissed for this "lack of standing" thing, especially after so much compelling testimony was offered during several state senate hearings around the country. Maybe it was just too close to Christmas?

Fired

7 hours ago, candide said:

Has the BBC any noticeable impact on US voters?

And just like that foreign election interference is no problem again. After years of raging about the (false) claims Russia interfered with Hillarys turn. 

 Classic!😅🤣

9 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Why do people think the BBC is left-wing?

 

Because of their pro left, woke, liberal, biased, selective, dishonest, "progressive" content.

 

But you already knew that.

BBC latest: Trump threatens to sue corporation for $1bn if it does not respond within days over speech edit error

Donald Trump has threatened to sue the BBC for $1bn after its chair admitted an error in the editing of a speech by the US president in a documentary about the January 6 riots in 2021. Follow the latest.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/bbc-resignations-director-general-tim-davie-and-ceo-of-bbc-news-issue-statements-after-resigning-13467560

18 hours ago, Tug said:

Lucid people remember the spew on the ellipse on j6 he at the very least incited a riot…in my view an attempted coup he should be in the penitentiary serving life.

 

Ok, but that's not the issue here. A serious violation of journalism ethics occurred. There was wrongdoing on the part of the BBC journalists and overseers. 

OK, so 2 people have been sacrificed. They will take their golden parachutes and float away to enjoy their severance settlements. The sad reality is that nothing has been remedied or fixed.

 

These two did not prepare the story. I doubt they were even in control of anything that influenced the wrongdoing and the  airing of the broadcast. Have the journalists, editors and producers who were responsible for the wrong doing been terminated or otherwise disciplined? Did they even take responsibility? I do not believe  that they did and they remain in positions where they can push their own political and social biases. The journalists union which is so very protective of its members and vocal in its claim of pursuing "the truth" has not been very vocal in condemning the wrong doing has it? Where are the people who insist on free speech and journalism ethics? I hear nothing.  That's the big issue.

 

The BBC is rotten to its core and is dominated by a group of bullies who have tainted the BBBC with their shared political views and social positions. Either clean out the rot, or privatise or close it down. 

Im imagining Trump like an orange Daniel Day Lewis effortlessly riding a thundering 18 hand horse holding up Davie's scalp. What a TRIUMPH. He's Made America Great now he's going to do the UK too just because he can. 

Go collect your BILLION $$ payday from the Beeb and enjoy it.

 

2 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Im imagining Trump like an orange Daniel Day Lewis effortlessly riding a thundering 18 hand horse holding up Davie's scalp. What a TRIUMPH. He's Made America Great now he's going to do the UK too just because he can. 

Go collect your BILLION $$ payday from the Beeb and enjoy it.

 

Yawn ....30,000 lies spewed...

12 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Trump about to Make the bbc Great Again. He just can't help sprinkling Greatness like fairy dust wherever he goes. What a guy!

BBC now forever exposed a lefty fake news and a non credible source. Just a bit surprised at the saltiness from the left. I suppose it causes angst having everything you "know" exposed as bs. 

Wow. Just wow. 

 

 

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/trump-incited-january-6-defendants/

 

6 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

And just like that foreign election interference is no problem again. After years of raging about the (false) claims Russia interfered with Hillarys turn. 

 Classic!😅🤣

You are making stuff up again! 

 

The Russian interference was proven by every investigation, including the GOP led Senate Committee investigation. You know, in the report signed by Rubio! 

 

 

13 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Sorry, a form of apology like what you stated does not negate the crime itself. It is not a legal defense as the crime is completed by the act of making the threat. Like when you apologies for making a bomb threat, it does not automatically undo the crime or prevent legal consequences. Good try though. 

You’re Conflating Two Different Things.

Your bomb-threat analogy collapses the moment you read the full transcript:

“Fight like hell” is not a threat—it’s a metaphor used 100+ times by politicians on both sides (e.g., Biden: “We have to fight like hell” on voting rights, 2020). No court has ever ruled political hyperbole as a criminal threat.

The speech explicitly says “peacefully and patriotically”—three times—before and after the line. That’s not an apology; it’s contextual negation of violence. A bomb threat has zero such qualifiers.

Timeline destroys causation: Rioters breached barriers 16 minutes before “fight like hell” was even uttered (12:53 p.m. vs. 1:09 p.m.).

Legal precedent: Trump was acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial (57–43, not 67) on incitement—because no reasonable person interprets “fight like hell” + “peacefully” as a riot order.

The BBC spliced two clips 53 minutes apart to manufacture a threat that never existed in sequence. That’s not “apology fails to undo”; that’s fabrication.Your analogy only works if someone yells “BOMB!”—then edits in “Just kidding!” 53 minutes later.
That’s not defense. That’s deception.

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

+

Do you work for the Beeb?

If not, he should should, would fit right in!!😅

“Due to their salacious nature, the fabricated statements that were aired by the BBC have been widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums, which have reached tens of millions of people worldwide,” (Trump attorney) Brito wrote. “Consequently, the BBC has caused President Trump to suffer overwhelming financial and reputational harm.”

 

https://nypost.com/2025/11/10/us-news/trump-lashes-out-at-corrupt-dishonest-bbc-after-bosses-resign-over-doctored-jan-6-speech-footage/

 

Salacious??

22 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Very fine people on both sides.
Stand back and stand by.
Fight like hell — peacefully and patriotically.

He built every sentence with the escape hatch of plausible denial.
The crowd didn’t mistake him — they heard him exactly as he meant to be heard.
He watched the killing and violence unfold — three hours of silence with a smile on his face.

 

Do you actually know what you are saying there????  You are attempting to tell us  that you know how the crowd thinks (or thought)???  And how the crowd receives (and perceives) exactly what the speaker means as he talks?

 

Amazing insight, as if you were given all this insight by three witches on your way to reading this thread.

The wagons will circle and they'll both be re-employed very shortly.De-fund this corrupt corporation immediately!

2 hours ago, blazes said:

Do you actually know what you are saying there????  You are attempting to tell us  that you know how the crowd thinks (or thought)???  And how the crowd receives (and perceives) exactly what the speaker means as he talks?

Amazing insight, as if you were given all this insight by three witches on your way to reading this thread.

You don’t need to 'know what the crowd thinks' — just look at the picture.
They acted on his words in real time — cause and effect.

Cause:
He told them never give up, never concede.
He told them you’ll never take back your country with weakness.
He told them we’re going to walk down to the Capitol.
He told them when you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules.
He told them we fight — we fight like hell.

Effect:

On 11/10/2025 at 5:06 PM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

“Peacefully and patriotically” urged multiple times.

“Fight like hell” = political rhetoric, 53 min later.

BBC Panorama spliced clips → misleading.

No explicit riot call.

Edit unnecessary; full context shows no complicity.

Yet Trump was watching the assault on TV, and did not tell his fans to get out of the Capitol until after a few hours! 

Public broadcasting is the only force keeping news honest. Sure, there are personal biases. If you find them annoying, change the bloody channel!

 

Goddess bless BBC, CBC, PBS, ABC, SBS. Would you really trust Murdoch with your mind, X, Fox?

 

I can think of no better use for public funding than to keep the thinking public informed. They weren't born yesterday and they're not as stupid as you think. Maybe shave funding off the bloated bomb budget...