17 minutes ago, samtam said:

 

 

 

There's always that itsy bitsy issue of "DISCOVERY" that seems to make Trump, (and indeed Mrs Trump, in the case of Michael Wolff), shy away from following through. "Sue! Sue! Sue!" is the Roy Cohn mantra and playbook that his devout pupil Trump has followed all his life, with some success, including the recent awards by US media companies to Trump's personal fortune.

 

 

 

...except in the US, and your name is Donald Trump. I think he still owes for a number of cases he lost, (E Jean Carroll, The Trump Organisation et al).

Wrong. Trump doesn’t dodge discovery—he owns it.He’s raked in $90M+ from media giants this year alone:

CBS: $16M

ABC: $15M

Meta: $25M

X, YouTube: $34.5M combined

All settled fast, before full discovery, because they blinked. That’s not fear—that’s leverage.Melania? Threatened Wolff with a $1B suit. He sued her first to block it. She’s not running—she’s fighting.Trump fights discovery when defending (NYAG, Carroll), but when attacking? He wins without it. "Sue! Sue! Sue!" isn’t a bluff. It’s a bank statement. Cohn’s proud. You should be embarrassed.

All the usual pearl clutching and faux outrage from the usual suspects for what in essence was 1 current affairs programme getting it badly wrong. They were rightly called out for it by the BBC’s own Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board (and how many news outlets have one of those?) and rightly so, the Director-General Tim Davie and news CEO Deborah Turness fell on their swords, with the latter saying '“In public life, leaders need to be fully accountable, and that is why I am stepping down. While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.”

 

Firstly this was a self-governed investigation by Michael Prescott, a former journalist who was an independent consultant to the BBC and secondly both these senior BBC figures took full responsibility for something that they had NO INVOLVEMENT with personally but with the utmost of integrity felt ' the buck stops here'. Now how many senior people in other far more compromising situations would have done the same? Do you think Fox or OANN or Newsmax would ever do this even though they spout their bile on a daily basis? Of course not; they could only dream of having the integrity required to do what these individuals have.

 

But yeah, the BBC is soooooo bad.   

 

 

33 minutes ago, WorriedNoodle said:

Utter rubbish. Its an opinion piece that has as much right to be broadcast as the hate and bile out of Fox News or any opinion based journalism.

Panorama isn't an "opinion piece"—it's a current affairs documentary under BBC's flagship factual journalism series, legally bound by the Royal Charter to "due impartiality" and accuracy.Guidelines demand: "Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact," with the highest standards for news/current affairs—no room for fabricating quotes.

 

They spliced clips 54 mins apart, deleted "peacefully and patriotically," faked a violence order—pre-election smear. Leaked memo: "completely misleading." Chair: "error of judgement" creating "impression of direct call for action." Doc pulled, two execs resigned.

Fox's bile? Call it out—it's opinion, labeled as such. But BBC's taxpayer-funded fraud isn't "journalism" with rights; it's defamation.

4 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Wrong. Trump doesn’t dodge discovery—he owns it.He’s raked in $90M+ from media giants this year alone:

CBS: $16M

ABC: $15M

Meta: $25M

X, YouTube: $34.5M combined

All settled fast, before full discovery, because they blinked. That’s not fear—that’s leverage.Melania? Threatened Wolff with a $1B suit. He sued her first to block it. She’s not running—she’s fighting.Trump fights discovery when defending (NYAG, Carroll), but when attacking? He wins without it. "Sue! Sue! Sue!" isn’t a bluff. It’s a bank statement. Cohn’s proud. You should be embarrassed.

And you should be embarrassed about bragging about a sitting POTUS suing so many news outlets because they hurt his fragile ego and it's cheaper for them to pay him rather than fight him. 

 

Never in the history of America has a sitting POTUS sued as much as Trump has and you for some bizarre reason think it's something to be admired.

5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

All the usual pearl clutching and faux outrage from the usual suspects for what in essence was 1 current affairs programme getting it badly wrong. They were rightly called out for it by the BBC’s own Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board (and how many news outlets have one of those?) and rightly so, the Director-General Tim Davie and news CEO Deborah Turness fell on their swords, with the latter saying '“In public life, leaders need to be fully accountable, and that is why I am stepping down. While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.”

 

Firstly this was a self-governed investigation by Michael Prescott, a former journalist who was an independent consultant to the BBC and secondly both these senior BBC figures took full responsibility for something that they had NO INVOLVEMENT with personally but with the utmost of integrity felt ' the buck stops here'. Now how many senior people in other far more compromising situations would have done the same? Do you think Fox or OANN or Newsmax would ever do this even though they spout their bile on a daily basis? Of course not; they could only dream of having the integrity required to do what these individuals have.

 

But yeah, the BBC is soooooo bad.   

 

 

Self-governance? Too late, too little.BBC’s own Editorial Guidelines demand “due accuracy” and “impartiality” in current affairs—Panorama violated both by fabricating a quote: splicing clips 54 minutes apart, deleting “peacefully and patriotically,” and airing it days before the 2024 election.

Leaked Prescott memo: “completely misleading.” Chair Samir Shah: edit gave “impression of a direct call for violent action.”Davie and Turness “fell on their swords”? Forced out—not noble sacrifice. Turness’ “no institutional bias” claim?

Laughable after this and years of complaints. Integrity? Zero when the fraud aired globally via iPlayer and BBC America, reaching millions of US voters.

Fox/OANN? Call them trash—they label opinion as opinion. BBC pretends to be impartial while forging evidence with £3.8bn taxpayer cash.“Pearl clutching”? No—this is accountability. $1bn US lawsuit filed in Florida (where BBC operates). Deadline: Nov 14. ABC paid $15m. CBS $16m. BBC’s “self-governance” just handed Trump a nuclear win. 

2 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Trump’s media lawsuits are not backfiring—they’re racking up wins and forcing accountability.

So far, he’s secured over $51 million in settlements, including $15 million from ABC, $16 million from CBS, and $25 million from Meta, proving these aren’t empty threats but calculated strikes against verifiable defamation.

 

Ongoing cases like the $15 billion suit against The New York Times and $10 billion against the Wall Street Journal remain active, with media outlets scrambling to avoid discovery that could expose internal bias.

 

His track record shows a ~70% success rate in winning or settling these cases, turning “fake news” into a profitable and strategic defense.

The “bully” label is media spin that doesn’t match reality. Trump’s approval rating sits at 55% post-election, higher than during his 2024 campaign, with voters viewing him as a fighter against elite institutions rather than a vindictive figure. He’s pledged to donate settlement proceeds to charity or his presidential library, undercutting the “money-grabbing” narrative. These lawsuits aren’t destroying the free press—they’re holding it to account when it fabricates or misleads, just as Dominion did with Fox News in 2023. In the end, “backfiring” is just cope from outlets now writing checks instead of corrections.

You are missing the forest from the trees. Those wins from caving media companies are bad optics to the general public. It showed up in polls where majority of the people viewed Trump as not committing to press freedom and freedom of speech. It further add to his rapidly declining approval rating. He is now worse than his 1st term in just about every aspect of governance. 

Just now, mikeymike100 said:

Self-governance? Too late, too little.BBC’s own Editorial Guidelines demand “due accuracy” and “impartiality” in current affairs—Panorama violated both by fabricating a quote: splicing clips 54 minutes apart, deleting “peacefully and patriotically,” and airing it days before the 2024 election.

Leaked Prescott memo: “completely misleading.” Chair Samir Shah: edit gave “impression of a direct call for violent action.”Davie and Turness “fell on their swords”? Forced out—not noble sacrifice. Turness’ “no institutional bias” claim?

Laughable after this and years of complaints. Integrity? Zero when the fraud aired globally via iPlayer and BBC America, reaching millions of US voters.

Fox/OANN? Call them trash—they label opinion as opinion. BBC pretends to be impartial while forging evidence with £3.8bn taxpayer cash.“Pearl clutching”? No—this is accountability. $1bn US lawsuit filed in Florida (where BBC operates). Deadline: Nov 14. ABC paid $15m. CBS $16m. BBC’s “self-governance” just handed Trump a nuclear win. 

You keep stating the exact same thing time after time like it's gospel or that we are so dumb as not be able to get it the first 12 times you posted it - I know you may feel compelled to dumb it down for some of our posters here but the rest of us can read so please stop repeating the same point time after time.

 

MY POINT was it was 1 programme coming from the Panorama team who have been a staple of UK current affairs for decades and was in the most part, highly respected and widely praised. However they obviously got this wrong and although the BBC may have to financially pay for this error (who knows, including you), that wasn't what my post was about - it was about the integrity needed to police yourself and when a mistake has been made, to quickly own up to it and sacrifice the very highest of those at the top.

 

My post was about doing the right thing and integrity - yours (yet again for the umpteenth time) was about money. Are you American by any chance? 

 

4 hours ago, WorriedNoodle said:

Sue them on what basis? Not meeting your political agenda? Don't think that will stand up in court.

The BBC already said they screwed up.  So the basis has already been set.

It's all part of a master plan by Trump.

 

Sue a UK public company, they won't pay, declare the UK the "51st State", and name yourself King. Who would look better wearing those crown jewels than Trump? And the Balas Ruby (Black Prince Ruby...actually a spinel) would match his ubiquitous red tie. So many Brits here already worship Trump, so they would be delighted to get rid of that Windsor family and put Trump as the Father of the Nation. Trump could pardon fellow Epstein buddy Andrew and restore his titles.

 

Then Trump could bulldoze that musty old Tower of London and put in a mixed-use office space called Trump Tower of London, add a McDonalds (does anybody really like British cuisine? In a 2005 international poll, it was rated the World's Worst Cuisine, beating out Russia and the Philippines). He could paint Buckingham Palace in gold to bring it up to "Oval Office standards", and get those palace guards dressed in something more appropriate like masks and camo,

 

Finally, Trump could rename the PM's place 10 Downing Effect Street, to reflect Trump's overinflated view of his own intellect, stable genius that he is.

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

You are missing the forest from the trees. Those wins from caving media companies are bad optics to the general public. It showed up in polls where majority of the people viewed Trump as not committing to press freedom and freedom of speech. It further add to his rapidly declining approval rating. He is now worse than his 1st term in just about every aspect of governance. 

Trump's "wins" aren't just optics—they're justice against media that lied, edited interviews to rig elections, and smeared him for years. The public? They see through the spin—majorities blame biased outlets, not Trump, for eroding trust. And those "declining" ratings? Blame the government shutdown over Dems' refusal to fund border security and deportations, not lawsuits.

Trump's at 41-44% approval—higher than Biden's equivalent, and better than his first-term low of 36%. Even underwater, it's no "rapid decline"—steady amid chaos he inherited.

On "press freedom"? That WaPo poll screams partisan hackery: 61% overall say Trump's not committed, but majorities of Republicans say he is—and GOP approval holds at 79%. Independents? Split. Overall free speech confidence? Up 10 points to 41% post-election.

Trump's lawsuits boost his base (up 12 points among conservatives on speech optimism) and force accountability—CBS/ABC/Meta paid $90M+ for deception, not censorship. Real erosion? Under Biden, when Twitter/FBI colluded to suppress Hunter laptop stories. Trump's fighting that.Governance "worse than first term"? Laughable. Economy's roaring (unemployment 3.8%, stocks +15% YTD), borders secure (deportations up 40%), no new wars—Iran's contained, not bombed. First term had endless Russia hoaxes; this one's delivering. Approval dips? Temporary shutdown noise—midterms loom, and Dems are panicking.

Forest? It's thriving. Trees like you just block the view.

2 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

Panorama isn't an "opinion piece"—it's a current affairs documentary under BBC's flagship factual journalism series, legally bound by the Royal Charter to "due impartiality" and accuracy.Guidelines demand: "Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact," with the highest standards for news/current affairs—no room for fabricating quotes.

 

They spliced clips 54 mins apart, deleted "peacefully and patriotically," faked a violence order—pre-election smear. Leaked memo: "completely misleading." Chair: "error of judgement" creating "impression of direct call for action." Doc pulled, two execs resigned.

Fox's bile? Call it out—it's opinion, labeled as such. But BBC's taxpayer-funded fraud isn't "journalism" with rights; it's defamation.

 

Splicing two sentences from Trump's January 6 speech that were 54 minutes apart to imply a more direct incitement—the Panorama episode's broader reporting was framed as an investigative examination of Trump's role in the Capitol events, drawing on sources like the January 6 congressional committee report and watchdog analyses (e.g., CREW) to argue his rhetoric amplified election falsehoods and contributed to the violence. It did not explicitly urge viewers not to vote for him but rather scrutinized his actions and ongoing narrative around the "insurrection," aligning with BBC's impartiality mandate, though subjective critics from the right viewed the overall tone as biased.

 

It's unlikely to qualify as defamation under UK or US law. The BBC's admitted "error of judgment" in splicing Trump's speech suggests negligence, not the "actual malice" (knowing falsity or reckless disregard) required for public figures like Trump to win a defamation suit. The program remains online with a note on the edit, and while Trump demands a full retraction by Nov 14 (or faces a $1bn claim), no lawsuit has been filed yet, and most legal observers would view it as a stretch.

3 hours ago, WorriedNoodle said:

Utter rubbish. Its an opinion piece that has as much right to be broadcast as the hate and bile out of Fox News or any opinion based journalism.

Utter rubbish. It's not an a opinion piece, it's a fraud.

Oh the faux outrage from MAGAs who see no problem when Trump's WH is obviously lying! 🤣🤣🤣

11 hours ago, webfact said:

 

Donald Trump is threatening the BBC with a hefty $1bn (approximately 36 billion Baht) lawsuit over allegations that a speech he made was improperly edited in a documentary. This follows a leaked memo from former BBC adviser Michael Prescott, which claims that the Panorama program distorted Trump's words to suggest he incited the Capitol Hill riots. Trump's legal team is demanding the retraction of the documentary, an official apology, and full compensation.

 

The broadcast of the controversial edits before the last US election sparked significant backlash. The memo emphasises that the corporation pieced parts of Trump's speech together, thereby altering its original intent. As a consequence, BBC director general Tim Davie and CEO of news Deborah Turness have stepped down.

 

The legal demands come as Trump’s representatives pressure the broadcaster for a swift resolution. They caution that without compliance, Trump will vigorously pursue the legal route, aiming to secure $1bn in damages. BBC chair Samir Shah has acknowledged the editing mishandling as an error of judgement, but further action from the corporation remains pending, reported the BBC.

 

The BBC is yet to publicly address the threat of legal repercussions or outline their next steps. Meanwhile, Tim Davie is scheduled to address employees in an all-staff call tomorrow amid the mounting crisis. Legal experts suggest that the case could significantly impact editorial practices at news organisations if it proceeds.

 

 

 

• Donald Trump threatens the BBC with a $1bn (36 billion Baht) lawsuit over alleged speech editing.
• BBC's top executives, Tim Davie and Deborah Turness, have resigned in the wake of the controversy.
• The BBC is yet to respond to legal demands from Trump's team.

 

Related Storiy:

BBC Leaders Step Down Over Controversial Trump Footage

 

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-11-11

 

 

BBC is the most dangerous and misleading news outlet. Yes, it's all the same with all the MSM's like CNN, Times, Forbes, MSN, etc

7 hours ago, DonniePeverley said:

 

 

The BBC is a british corporation. How on earth can you file in America. Not sure you understand how this works.

 

The highest ever award from the UK courts for this type of compensation has been around a few hundred thousand. It's rare UK courts award anything like they do in America. 

Don't ask me, ask Trump's lawyers. 

2 hours ago, howlee101 said:

The BBC already said they screwed up.  So the basis has already been set.

 

They've admitted to making a mistake.  Proving that it was made 'with malice' is another thing altogether!

A friend of mine applied to be in the Audiance a while back where you are supposed to ask any question to a panalist. What they don't tell you is a questionaire sent where your told to write down your question prior to airing. If your question may upset a minister that is on the panel your not asked to ask your question, so in fairness Question time is Bias too If your not allowed to ask a specific question. They have also been known to plant troublemakers into the audiance specially if a reform member is on the panel.

10 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

A friend of mine applied to be in the Audiance a while back where you are supposed to ask any question to a panalist. What they don't tell you is a questionaire sent where your told to write down your question prior to airing. If your question may upset a minister that is on the panel your not asked to ask your question, so in fairness Question time is Bias too If your not allowed to ask a specific question. They have also been known to plant troublemakers into the audiance specially if a reform member is on the panel.

Absolute nonsense

37 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

They've admitted to making a mistake.  Proving that it was made 'with malice' is another thing altogether!

Trump's lawyers nailed it in their Nov 10 letter: BBC's "reckless disregard for the truth" by splicing clips 54 minutes apart, axing "peacefully and patriotically," and airing it days before the 2024 election—a blatant pre-election smear when the full speech was public knowledge.

Leaked memo: "completely misleading." BBC Chair: created "impression of direct call for violent action." That's not oops—it's intentional distortion under Florida defamation law.

 

2 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Trump's lawyers nailed it in their Nov 10 letter: BBC's "reckless disregard for the truth" by splicing clips 54 minutes apart, axing "peacefully and patriotically," and airing it days before the 2024 election—a blatant pre-election smear when the full speech was public knowledge.

Leaked memo: "completely misleading." BBC Chair: created "impression of direct call for violent action." That's not oops—it's intentional distortion under Florida defamation law.

 

If it gets as far as the Court, it will be an interesting case for sure.  I hope the BBC don't cave (like ABC did) and fight it all the way.

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Trump's "wins" aren't just optics—they're justice against media that lied, edited interviews to rig elections, and smeared him for years. The public? They see through the spin—majorities blame biased outlets, not Trump, for eroding trust. And those "declining" ratings? Blame the government shutdown over Dems' refusal to fund border security and deportations, not lawsuits.

Trump's at 41-44% approval—higher than Biden's equivalent, and better than his first-term low of 36%. Even underwater, it's no "rapid decline"—steady amid chaos he inherited.

On "press freedom"? That WaPo poll screams partisan hackery: 61% overall say Trump's not committed, but majorities of Republicans say he is—and GOP approval holds at 79%. Independents? Split. Overall free speech confidence? Up 10 points to 41% post-election.

Trump's lawsuits boost his base (up 12 points among conservatives on speech optimism) and force accountability—CBS/ABC/Meta paid $90M+ for deception, not censorship. Real erosion? Under Biden, when Twitter/FBI colluded to suppress Hunter laptop stories. Trump's fighting that.Governance "worse than first term"? Laughable. Economy's roaring (unemployment 3.8%, stocks +15% YTD), borders secure (deportations up 40%), no new wars—Iran's contained, not bombed. First term had endless Russia hoaxes; this one's delivering. Approval dips? Temporary shutdown noise—midterms loom, and Dems are panicking.

Forest? It's thriving. Trees like you just block the view.

 

Your delusion is staggering. The shellacking on Tuesday has no after thoughts for you and your kind. Personally, I hope that Trump will continue to be immersed in his out of touch reality, opulence and Biden continue to live rent free in excuses for his incompetence. This one trick pony show is rapidly losing audience. 

6 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

If it gets as far as the Court, it will be an interesting case for sure.  I hope the BBC don't cave (like ABC did) and fight it all the way.

I agree, we are getting ahead of ourselves, Trump hasn't actually filed the lawsuit yet, he is giving the BBC a few days to mull things over!

 

Excerpts from the letter, i don't think the whole letter has been published yet?

 

1.  “Immediately issue a full and fair retraction of the documentary and any and all other false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading, and inflammatory statements about President Trump in as conspicuous a manner as they were originally published.”

 

2.  Issue a public apology acknowledging the "malicious" edit and its intent to "interfere in the 2024 presidential election."

 

3.  “Appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused.”

 

Threat: “If the BBC does not comply with the above by November 14, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. [ET], the President will enforce his legal and equitable rights against the BBC in all available forums, seeking no less than $1 billion in damages.”

 

Number 3 is the kicker, re. compensation for the harm caused? 

 

If it does go to court, its the UK license payer that will be funding the bill and any compensation!

3 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

If it does go to court, its the UK license payer that will be funding the bill and any compensation!

AI quickie - Gemini:

 

Yes, the BBC does have professional liability insurance, which in a media context often refers to Errors and Omissions (E&O) insurance, to cover risks such as defamation, intellectual property infringement, and professional negligence claims. 

4 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

AI quickie - Gemini:

 

Yes, the BBC does have professional liability insurance, which in a media context often refers to Errors and Omissions (E&O) insurance, to cover risks such as defamation, intellectual property infringement, and professional negligence claims. 

Yes, I believe you are correct, but there is a catch, always is......Intentional misconduct, criminal acts, or known falsehoods may not be covered?

So if it can be proved the BBC intentionally mislead by editing the clips, then the insurers may say no?

2 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

 

So if it can be proved the BBC intentionally mislead by editing the clips, then the insurers may say no?

 However, the EGSC also heard from BBC News that the purpose of editing the clip, was to convey the message of the speech made by President Trump so that Panorama's audience could better understand how it had been received by President Trump's supporters and what was happening on the ground at that time.

 

This issue was considered and discussed as part of a wider review of the BBC's US Election coverage, commissioned by the Committee, rather than handled as a specific programme complaint, given it had not attracted significant audience feedback and had been transmitted before the US election, so the point wasn't pursued further at that time.

 

From BBC Chair Shah BBC  -- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2p1v77gl2o

13 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

I agree, we are getting ahead of ourselves, Trump hasn't actually filed the lawsuit yet, he is giving the BBC a few days to mull things over!

 

Excerpts from the letter, i don't think the whole letter has been published yet?

 

1.  “Immediately issue a full and fair retraction of the documentary and any and all other false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading, and inflammatory statements about President Trump in as conspicuous a manner as they were originally published.”

 

2.  Issue a public apology acknowledging the "malicious" edit and its intent to "interfere in the 2024 presidential election."

 

3.  “Appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused.”

 

Threat: “If the BBC does not comply with the above by November 14, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. [ET], the President will enforce his legal and equitable rights against the BBC in all available forums, seeking no less than $1 billion in damages.”

 

Number 3 is the kicker, re. compensation for the harm caused? 

 

If it does go to court, its the UK license payer that will be funding the bill and any compensation!

Doný think BBC will issue a retraction especially compliance to Clause 2. Admitting malicious intent will lend BBC in more legal problems. Better chance to go to court. Trump's lawyer has to prove malicious intent in court and is difficult because it requires showing a deliberate and harmful motive, which is not a matter of simple negligence or mistake, Courts often need evidence that goes beyond a lack of reasonable cause. such as an admission to prove the intent was specifically to cause harm. 

 

1 billion. Exactly how did he come up with that figure, other than the attention it draws for the vainglorious narcissist’s desperation for being in the headlines. 

 

5 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

A friend of mine applied to be in the Audiance a while back where you are supposed to ask any question to a panalist. What they don't tell you is a questionaire sent where your told to write down your question prior to airing. If your question may upset a minister that is on the panel your not asked to ask your question, so in fairness Question time is Bias too If your not allowed to ask a specific question. They have also been known to plant troublemakers into the audiance specially if a reform member is on the panel.

Welcome to TV. 
I say welcome because you seem to be new to the medium. 

4 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

I agree, we are getting ahead of ourselves, Trump hasn't actually filed the lawsuit yet, he is giving the BBC a few days to mull things over!

 

Excerpts from the letter, i don't think the whole letter has been published yet?

 

1.  “Immediately issue a full and fair retraction of the documentary and any and all other false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading, and inflammatory statements about President Trump in as conspicuous a manner as they were originally published.”

 

2.  Issue a public apology acknowledging the "malicious" edit and its intent to "interfere in the 2024 presidential election."

 

3.  “Appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused.”

 

Threat: “If the BBC does not comply with the above by November 14, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. [ET], the President will enforce his legal and equitable rights against the BBC in all available forums, seeking no less than $1 billion in damages.”

 

Number 3 is the kicker, re. compensation for the harm caused? 

 

If it does go to court, it’s the UK license payer that will be funding the bill and any compensation!

Bring it on. 
The bully needs to be stopped so let it be the British. 
You kids have been getting out of control for long enough. Time for the adults to step up. 

Why doesn't the BBC  sue Trump for deceiving the American people and lying every day?