12 hours ago, WorriedNoodle said:

Complete nonsense by the Trump lawyers playing the Austin Powers gazzilion dollars game to deflect. The BBC made a mistake in rearranging Trumps words in a Panorama program, but thats their right in a free speech world where opinion pieces are still allowed in free democracies. The program is no longer broadcast as a gesture, but the message was never changed. Trump has always been a serial liar, called for an insurrection and the message from the Panorama program told the same home truths despite screwing up the process at the same time.

how brainwashed are you??  "The BBC made a mistake"  seriously...editing to re-arrange what was said is no mistake that is intentional!

It's a perfect example of manipulating the truth to meet your agenda.   BBC, MSNBC, CNN etc should all just report the news unbiased. 

50 minutes ago, ericthai said:

how brainwashed are you??  "The BBC made a mistake"  seriously...editing to re-arrange what was said is no mistake that is intentional!

It's a perfect example of manipulating the truth to meet your agenda.   BBC, MSNBC, CNN etc should all just report the news unbiased. 

Not as brainwashed as you obviously. What truth do you think was manipulated? Do you think Trump did not instigate an insurrection like the Panorama program stated albeit in an edited an unacceptable manner. The truth was never in question. Trump has lied about it ever since to this day.

15 hours ago, Slowhand225 said:

Good, bankrupt them

 

....and let Donald "the Olympic champion of lies) get of the hook?

In the UK, you absolutely must provide evidence to estimate and justify any compensation for alleged damage. You cannot simply claim a giant, arbitrary number and expect to receive it.

17 minutes ago, WorriedNoodle said:

Not as brainwashed as you obviously. What truth do you think was manipulated? Do you think Trump did not instigate an insurrection like the Panorama program stated albeit in an edited an unacceptable manner. The truth was never in question. Trump has lied about it ever since to this day.

Doesn't matter what Trump said or his intentions.. that's not the issue. The issue is the media edited things to how they wanted things to be seen instead of just reporting the news!!

At that point how can you believe anything they report is the truth!

 

I'm not supporting trump and I dont blindly follow him. I dont agree with everything he does!

However, again this has nothing to do with Trump and has everything to do with providing unbiased information!

The Democrats did the same thing during Trump's impeachment. Wonder why he didn't sue then. Is anything said in the House exempt from defamation legislation, like the House of Commons in the UK? 🤔

Reform was being filmed as a doccumentary called the Rise of reform a producrtion company contracted for the BBC. Well it was mostly finished and due to been screened early next year. However due to the same company that filmed the Trump video they have decided to prevent it being filmed now due the damage the bbc could do to there reputation if the BBC start cutting and splicing bits together to do damage to Reforms reputation. A senior Reform splokesman said they simply do not trust the BBC for truth and good honest journalism.

9 hours ago, ericthai said:

However, again this has nothing to do with Trump and has everything to do with providing unbiased information!

You must be part of the de-fund the BBC crowd as you are missing the obvious while grinding the axe. It has everything to do with Trump, who's $1 billion defamation threat stems directly from the BBC's admitted editing error in a January 6 documentary, which misrepresented his speech.

 

It's not "nothing to do with Trump"—he's the plaintiff!! That said, pivoting to "unbiased information" does echo ongoing UK debates on BBC impartiality and funding, so it smells like you are just agenda-pushing.

15 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

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. 

 

A retraction is unlikely.

Chair Shah's "error of judgment" created "impression of direct call for violent action"—that's their euphemism for reckless disregard (full speech public; splice aired days before 2024 election via iPlayer/BBC America to US voters).

Leaked memo: "completely misleading." Two execs resigned. Doc pulled. Clause 2? Impartiality breach self-proven—no "malicious intent" admission needed; timing + distortion = intent in Florida court.

 

We will have to wait and see, but it would certainly be cheaper for the BBC to acquiesce and admit they messed up big time and pay some compensation.

 

Based on legal precedents, cost analyses, and the specifics of Trump's threat (a $1bn Florida defamation suit over the Panorama edit), fighting it out could cost the BBC tens of millions in fees alone—potentially more if it goes to trial.

 

Defamation attorneys in the US, the good ones charge $2000 per hour and the BBC would need a few?

 

11 hours ago, still kicking said:

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

BBC's never sued a US politician for "lying"—zero precedent.

They'd lose, waste £millions in fees, and amplify the scandal amid license fee backlash.

On 11/11/2025 at 8:21 AM, JonnyF said:

Thanks Donald. 

 

Sue them out of existence. It's long overdue. 

Tell me, is your view of everything framed by Donald Trump's tonsils?

38 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

A retraction is unlikely.

Chair Shah's "error of judgment" created "impression of direct call for violent action"—that's their euphemism for reckless disregard (full speech public; splice aired days before 2024 election via iPlayer/BBC America to US voters).

Leaked memo: "completely misleading." Two execs resigned. Doc pulled. Clause 2? Impartiality breach self-proven—no "malicious intent" admission needed; timing + distortion = intent in Florida court.

 

We will have to wait and see, but it would certainly be cheaper for the BBC to acquiesce and admit they messed up big time and pay some compensation.

 

Based on legal precedents, cost analyses, and the specifics of Trump's threat (a $1bn Florida defamation suit over the Panorama edit), fighting it out could cost the BBC tens of millions in fees alone—potentially more if it goes to trial.

 

Defamation attorneys in the US, the good ones charge $2000 per hour and the BBC would need a few?

 

 

A full retraction unlikely as it is a legal peril but a partial retraction perhaps. 

 

Public figures are held to higher standard of proof and the claimant must show that they suffered injury as a result of the libel. BBC lawyers would argue that the content in question was part of a documentary that also featured pro-Trump voices and most people had already made their mind up on what his role with respect to Jan 6. His role in the attack has already been well played out in US where he was acquitted by the Senate after the 2021 impeachment trial. The BBC documentary was aired October last year could play role in the legal argument as there is a statute of limitation of 1 year for defamation libel. In any case, the ridiculous amount of $1B is meaningless and unlikely to win. They are his tactic to threaten and scare media he doesn't like.

---

 

49 minutes ago, JAG said:

Tell me, is your view of everything framed by Donald Trump's tonsils?

 

Grow up.

 

He clearly has a case. They admitted wrongdoing already and 2 senior figures resigned. How would you react if someone took 2 things you said an hour apart, spliced them together into a single sentence which totally changed the meaning and then aired it to millions of people? You'd be OK with that?

 

Posts with derogatory nicknames, intentional misspellings, or personal remarks will be removed. Spell names correctly for all sides of the debate.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

He clearly has a case

"Consequently, the BBC lacks any viable defense to the overwhelming reputational and financial harm it has caused President Trump to suffer."

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-puts-bbc-notice-retract-apologize-false-defamatory-documentary-face-1-billion-suit

 

AI quickie - Gemini:

 

The BBC Panorama documentary titled "Trump: A Second Chance?" aired on October 28, 2024, which was about a week before the U.S. presidential election in November 2024.

 

However, sources indicate that the program was reportedly not aired in the U.S., and the BBC's streaming service, BBC iPlayer, is generally not available there.

This Trump saga, is not a one off for the BBC.

 

The BBC has a long and documented history of bias, inaccuracies, and misleading reporting—especially on politically sensitive or ideologically charged topics. While not every story is false, the pattern of systemic bias, lack of due impartiality, and failure to correct errors has been repeatedly exposed.Key examples of BBC misleading or false reporting:

 

 

Trans milk (2024)

“Trans women’s milk is just as good as breastmilk”

Ruled misleading by BBC’s own ECU. Only 1 case study. No evidence.

 

Martin Bashir & Princess Diana (1995)

Explosive interview secured fairly

2021 inquiry: Bashir used forged documents, lies, and manipulation. BBC covered it up for decades.

 

Iraq WMDs (2003)

“Iraq can deploy WMDs in 45 minutes” (promoted heavily)

False. BBC’s source flawed. Led to Gilligan affair, Hutton Inquiry, BBC DG resignation.

 

Climategate (2009)

Dismissed leaked emails as “nothing to see”

BBC downplayed evidence of data manipulation. Later admitted bias in climate coverage.

 

Jimmy Savile Scandal

No knowledge of abuse

2012 inquiry: BBC ignored warnings, dropped investigations to protect Savile.

 

Gender ideology in schools

Promoted “100 genders” & puberty blockers as safe

Cass Review (2024): BBC pushed activist claims; evidence showed blockers experimental & harmful.

 

COVID-19 origins

“Lab leak is conspiracy theory”

Later acknowledged as plausible. BBC censored early discussion.

 

The Trump 'saga', just might be the straw that breaks the camels back??

 

Bottom line is.............

Yes — the BBC is legally required to be unbiased.
No — it is not.
It violates its own Royal Charter routinely, with impunity.

The Charter is clear in law, but meaningless in practice.
The BBC is not a public service — it’s a state-funded advocacy network.

What I'm thoroughly enjoying is watching all the lefties that cheered on the mind numbing zillion dollar lawsuits against the right.  Trump, Fox, Jones, and... and...

 

It's as if they thought that the tactic would never be used against their side.  And now their heads are 'sploding.

 

I wonder how they like them apples?

 

Trump as plaintiff in a civil action while President is entertaining.

12 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

This Trump saga, is not a one off for the BBC.

 

The BBC has a long and documented history of bias, inaccuracies, and misleading reporting—especially on politically sensitive or ideologically charged topics. While not every story is false, the pattern of systemic bias, lack of due impartiality, and failure to correct errors has been repeatedly exposed.Key examples of BBC misleading or false reporting:

 

 

Trans milk (2024)

“Trans women’s milk is just as good as breastmilk”

Ruled misleading by BBC’s own ECU. Only 1 case study. No evidence.

 

Martin Bashir & Princess Diana (1995)

Explosive interview secured fairly

2021 inquiry: Bashir used forged documents, lies, and manipulation. BBC covered it up for decades.

 

Iraq WMDs (2003)

“Iraq can deploy WMDs in 45 minutes” (promoted heavily)

False. BBC’s source flawed. Led to Gilligan affair, Hutton Inquiry, BBC DG resignation.

 

Climategate (2009)

Dismissed leaked emails as “nothing to see”

BBC downplayed evidence of data manipulation. Later admitted bias in climate coverage.

 

Jimmy Savile Scandal

No knowledge of abuse

2012 inquiry: BBC ignored warnings, dropped investigations to protect Savile.

 

Gender ideology in schools

Promoted “100 genders” & puberty blockers as safe

Cass Review (2024): BBC pushed activist claims; evidence showed blockers experimental & harmful.

 

COVID-19 origins

“Lab leak is conspiracy theory”

Later acknowledged as plausible. BBC censored early discussion.

 

The Trump 'saga', just might be the straw that breaks the camels back??

 

Bottom line is.............

 

Yes — the BBC is legally required to be unbiased.
No — it is not.
It violates its own Royal Charter routinely, with impunity.

The Charter is clear in law, but meaningless in practice.
The BBC is not a public service — it’s a state-funded advocacy network.

 Yes, it's very difficult to believe the BBC is still operating, after all the lies and deceit, right now they are in an untenable position, they must go!

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Trump as plaintiff in a civil action while President is entertaining.

 

You get it.  He's trolling for Dems.  And the Dems (and lefties) are gobbling down the bait.

 

The highest publicly reported UK court-ordered payment for defamation appears to be around £3.2 million, typically awarded in cases involving high-profile individuals such as celebrities. This figure is exceptional and far above the usual range, which is generally between £5,000 and £50,000 for most cases, and up to £300,000+ for severe reputational harm involving public figures or widely circulated defamatory statements. (Copilot search)

So, don't expect the BBC to go bankrupt.

Maybe judges of The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida regardless of their appointment are looking at this and saying:

 

Oh no, not again?

12 minutes ago, Purdey said:

The highest publicly reported UK court-ordered payment for defamation appears to be around £3.2 million, typically awarded in cases involving high-profile individuals such as celebrities. This figure is exceptional and far above the usual range, which is generally between £5,000 and £50,000 for most cases, and up to £300,000+ for severe reputational harm involving public figures or widely circulated defamatory statements. (Copilot search)

So, don't expect the BBC to go bankrupt.

UK caps? Irrelevant. Trump’s suing in Florida, not London—where BBC streams via iPlayer and BBC America to millions of U.S. viewers. Florida juries award hundreds of millions.

 

Bankrupt? No. Humiliated and lighter in the wallet? Absolutely.

AI quickie - Gemini

 

A plaintiff can't simply refuse to attend a federal civil trial, but they may not be required to attend in person under certain circumstances, such as when a valid excuse exists or if their testimony was already preserved via deposition.

 

Refusing to appear without a valid reason can lead to negative consequences, like the court dismissing the case, while failing to attend a deposition without adequate excuse can result in being held in contempt. 

35 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

You get it.  He's trolling for Dems.  And the Dems (and lefties) are gobbling down the bait.

 

Well OK -- there was plenty enough talk on here years before as to what shade of orange would be Trump's prison jump suit or whether the Secret Service will set up house arrest in Bedminster, NJ

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

someone took 2 things you said an hour apart, spliced them together into a single sentence which totally changed the meaning

Sure, they spliced it—but Trump's full speech still peddled the Big Lie that fueled the riot, and he's still denying the whole thing. Who's really gaslighting here?

On 11/11/2025 at 8:41 AM, JonnyF said:

 

Yes unfortunately they still extort money from the British public in order to pay for documentaries that deliberately mislead them in order to support their left wing political agenda.

 

It's like something from the soviet era. It's actually pretty repulsive. 

What the BBC did is literally FakeNews as  Wikipedia describes Fakenews and when you google Fake News ,guess who pops up first  in the "Top Stories".

Its Truly Scandalous and at the same time such a middle finger to the once prestigious  of all media , say what.  ABC,CBS,YouTube,Meta, and possibly BBC will be another notch for the Great one.

 

"Fake news or information disorder is false or misleading information (misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, and hoaxes) claiming the aesthetics and legitimacy of news.[1] Fake news often has the aim of damaging the reputation of a person or entity,[2] or making money through advertising revenue".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news

 

7 minutes ago, riclag said:

What the BBC did is literally FakeNews as  Wikipedia describes Fakenews and when you google Fake News ,guess who pops up first  in the "Top Stories".

Its Truly Scandalous and at the same time such a middle finger to the once prestigious  of all media , say what.  ABC,CBS,YouTube,Meta, and possibly BBC will be another notch for the Great one.

 

"Fake news or information disorder is false or misleading information (misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, and hoaxes) claiming the aesthetics and legitimacy of news.[1] Fake news often has the aim of damaging the reputation of a person or entity,[2] or making money through advertising revenue".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news

 

 

Especially ironic when they position themselves as the arbiters of truth with their silly Fact Checker BBC Verify section, headed up by a woman who lied on her own CV. 😀

 

https://en.protothema.gr/2023/09/12/bbcs-chief-fact-checker-reportedly-lied-on-her-cv/

 

It was great to see beautiful, intelligent Karoline Leavitt rip them a new one. 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/donald-trump-bbc-speech-karoline-leavitt-fake-news-b2861380.html

 

The BBC are a disgrace. A leftist cabal of Paedos and liars. 

Looks like he is going ahead with it.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/bbc-latest-trump-has-obligation-to-sue-very-dishonest-broadcaster-13467560

 

He said he has an obligation to sue the very dishonest broadcaster.

 

Strangely, in the BBC version of the interview he appears to be saying "Fascists unite, kill 'em all" although he appears to be dressed slightly differently for each of the 5 words. 😀

From the Sky news link above:

 

Does Trump have a defamation case against the BBC?
Donald Trump has threatened the BBC with a $1bn lawsuit, but how likely would it be to succeed?

A potential case against the broadcaster could hinge on whether anyone in Florida watched it online and felt misled.

If that hurdle is cleared, a US court would need to decide
whether the BBC intentionally deceived viewers.

 

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Grow up.

 

He clearly has a case. They admitted wrongdoing already and 2 senior figures resigned. How would you react if someone took 2 things you said an hour apart, spliced them together into a single sentence which totally changed the meaning and then aired it to millions of people? You'd be OK with that?

 

The case to be successful for Trump is to prove that the documentary was sufficiently exposed to a Florida audience. Can you provide evidence it was aired to millions? TV ratings services like Nielsen didn't even track the Florida viewership as its was insignificant. As I know, the October '24 was primarily aired to a British audience and reportedly not easily viewable in Florida at the time of the initial airing. This lawsuit is a dud.