17 hours 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. 

 

"Manipulating the truth to meet your agenda", as a wrongful deed, would sound pretty weird, coming from people representing one of the most extraordinarily prolific truth shredders/manipulators of all time,  as a way of demonstrating the "justicenessisity" of that persons "righteousful hurtidness".

 

What an absolutely first class **** he is.

 

 

 

23 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

 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

You may want to watch this You Tube video from the Blackbelt Barrister, he is a lawyer/barriste in the UK and he specifically mentions the insurance issue.

He starts at around 4.40, but the insurance part he specifically mentions at around 12.30, its worth a look!

 

 

On 11/11/2025 at 9:58 AM, 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.

“70% success rate in winning”?

M’lud may I bring to your attention Trump’s 62 cases which he brought before the justices alleging vote rigging against him in2020 election.

100% thrown out.

Yup, that’s winning alright!

And as for 55% Trump approval rating: just ha ha ha. Your hero is underwater in every current poll.

4 hours 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.

 

BBC management and journalists come from both left-of-centre and right-of-centre backgrounds. Most are able to suppress their personal bias, some are not. Those that are not, need to change their ways or find an alternative employer.

 

BBC News produces 120 hours of content every day. Unsurprisingly, there are occasions when it gets things badly wrong. When it does so, as in this Trump case, the BBC - or more particularly, the individuals responsible - needs to be held accountable.

 

5 pages of comments and hardly a peep from the usual anti Trump trolls.

 

The sound of silence is defaning.

17 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

You may want to watch this You Tube video from the Blackbelt Barrister, he is a lawyer/barriste in the UK and he specifically mentions the insurance issue.

He starts at around 4.40, but the insurance part he specifically mentions at around 12.30, its worth a look!

 

 

BBB, consulting with King's Counsel Colin Winter (an ex-insurance heavyweight), hammers home a core truth: BBC's policies—likely a mix of D&O (directors' & officers') and media liability coverage from Lloyd's syndicates or similar—have ironclad clauses against unauthorized admissions.

 

Shah's letter to the CMS Committee, conceding the Panorama edit "gave the impression of a direct call for violent action" and calling it an "error of judgment," reads like a gift-wrapped exhibit for Trump's lawyers. If this bypassed insurers (no public evidence it didn't, but BBB's skepticism is telling), it triggers exclusions:

Denial of Indemnity: Insurers could refuse to foot the bill for defense (easily £10M+ in a transatlantic slugfest) or any settlement, arguing the admission prejudiced their position.

Personal Exposure for Shah: As Chair, he might face clawback claims personally, echoing Richard Sharp's 2023 exit over undisclosed Boris Johnson ties.

Trump says he has 'obligation' to sue BBC over speech edit

 

If Trump sues in Florida, he would also need to establish the BBC Panorama documentary was available there. There is no evidence so far to suggest that it has been shown in the US.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9d5m54350o

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

Trump says he has 'obligation' to sue BBC over speech edit

 

If Trump sues in Florida, he would also need to establish the BBC Panorama documentary was available there. There is no evidence so far to suggest that it has been shown in the US.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9d5m54350o

Well the BBC is technically correct about the whole documentary not being shown in the US, but its irrelevant.

 

U.S. courts do not require a full broadcast.
Any communication of the defamatory content (the edited clip) to even one person in Florida is legally sufficient for publication and personal jurisdiction in a Florida defamation case.Trump’s lawsuit targets the misleading edit itself — the splicing of his January 6 speech to imply direct incitement. That edit is contained in the clip, not just the full documentary. So if one Floridian saw the clip (on BBC.com, YouTube, X, or embedded in news), that counts as publication.

 

1. Publication: Florida Law (Statute + Common Law)

Florida Statute § 770.01 (Civil Liability for Defamation)
"In all civil actions for libel or slander, the plaintiff shall recover only the actual damages sustained..."
→ No minimum audience required.
→ Publication = communication to one third party.

But the key rule comes from common law, adopted in Florida:

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577 (Publication of Defamatory Matter)
“Publication of defamatory matter is its communication intentionally or by negligent act to one other than the person defamed.”
→ One person = sufficient.
→ Florida courts follow this: Cape Publications, Inc. v. Hitchner, 549 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1989) — “Publication occurs when the defamatory matter is communicated to any person other than the plaintiff.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The BBC’s “no evidence” claim is factually narrow (full doc) but legally irrelevant.
Trump wins the jurisdiction battle — even if he loses on malice later.

After last night's resignations, Mr Trump posted a lengthy statement on Truth Social.

 

"The TOP people in the BBC, including TIM DAVIE, the BOSS, are all quitting/FIRED, because they were caught "doctoring" my very good (PERFECT!) speech of January 6th," he wrote.

 

"Thank you to The Telegraph for exposing these Corrupt 'Journalists.' These are very dishonest people who tried to step on the scales of a Presidential Election
 

https://news.sky.com/story/very-dishonest-people-it-didnt-take-long-for-donald-trump-to-react-to-the-bbc-resignations-13467810

 

 

BBC did make a bad mistake in editing.

HOWEVER, BBC did portray the actual truth about what Trump did that day, among the darkest days in American history.

Donald Trump DID incite an attempted insurrection.

As far as Trump's lawsuit, he's not going to win one quid from it.

 

4 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

"Manipulating the truth to meet your agenda", as a wrongful deed, would sound pretty weird, coming from people representing one of the most extraordinarily prolific truth shredders/manipulators of all time,  as a way of demonstrating the "justicenessisity" of that persons "righteousful hurtidness".

 

What an absolutely first class **** he is.

 

 

 

If Trump was as awful as you say, why did the BBC need to go to such lengths to splice and edit his speech. Couldn't they not just use real stuff he did/said?

 

Like the left inventing new crimes to charge Trump with and bonkers new legal moonshots. Again, if he was a criminal mastermind just charge him with a real crime.

 

As we are aware, all this comes from pure derangement. The left lost their minds when their Hillary lost and have been in a lala land of hate and rage since then. Our kids and grandkids will wonder how such mass mania could happen in such recent times.

 

6 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

If Trump was as awful as you say, why did the BBC need to go to such lengths to splice and edit his speech. Couldn't they not just use real stuff he did/said?

 

Like the left inventing new crimes to charge Trump with and bonkers new legal moonshots. Again, if he was a criminal mastermind just charge him with a real crime.

 

As we are aware, all this comes from pure derangement. The left lost their minds when their Hillary lost and have been in a lala land of hate and rage since then. Our kids and grandkids will wonder how such mass mania could happen in such recent times.

 

Spot on , BBC doctored  the October 2024 film  just 8 days out  before the 2024 election.

 Hopefully BBC will be  another notch added to Trumps other successful lawsuits.

Why stop there . It should be fully investigated in the UK  and make  those responsible come under questioning in a court of law. Those who doctored the video  went to great lengths to deceive. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/bombshell-uk-report-reveals-bbc-191614318.html

10 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Trump says he has 'obligation' to sue BBC over speech edit

 

If Trump sues in Florida, he would also need to establish the BBC Panorama documentary was available there. There is no evidence so far to suggest that it has been shown in the US.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9d5m54350o

From Trump attorney Brito letter to BBC via Scribd:

 

 

3 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

From Trump attorney Brito letter to BBC via Scribd:

 

 

And yet Trump won the election!  

4 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

From Trump attorney Brito letter to BBC via Scribd:

 

 

More gaslighting from the POTUS plain and simple to escape the Epstein files. Overwhelming harm is laughable. The BBC aired this over a year ago and there were no complaints then from right wing fanatics even from the UK audiences and none reported in Florida State where the case would be set to be tried and no one probably ever heard of the BBC program. There were no complaints as despite the splicing the story remains the same.

14 hours ago, Jingthing said:

BBC did make a bad mistake in editing.

HOWEVER, BBC did portray the actual truth about what Trump did that day, among the darkest days in American history.

Donald Trump DID incite an attempted insurrection.

As far as Trump's lawsuit, he's not going to win one quid from it.

 

Agreed the BBC did make a huge mistake and what's more they admit it!

 

But did the BBC “portray the actual truth” about Jan 6?

No.
You’re conflating opinion with fact, and context with truth.

Trump did NOT say “storm the Capitol” — he said “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

The FBI, DOJ, and bipartisan Senate report all found no evidence of a planned insurrection orchestrated by Trump.

 

Over 1,200 people were charged — zero with “insurrection” under 18 U.S.C. § 2383.

The D.C. Circuit Court (2024) ruled that Trump’s speech was protected political rhetoric, not incitement under Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

 

So while Jan 6 was chaotic and tragic, calling it “an attempted insurrection incited by Trump” is a political narrative, not a legal or factual conclusion.

The BBC didn’t just report that view — it manipulated footage to create the impression of direct incitement.
That’s not truth. That’s propaganda.

 

Trump’s lawsuit: “He won’t win one quid”?

Wrong. He doesn’t need to win in court to win in settlement — and he already has.

Why? Because media insurers hate risk.
And thanks to Shah’s letter, the BBC just handed Trump Exhibit A: admission of misleading editing.
In Florida (where he’s filing), there’s no cap on damages, and actual malice is easier to argue when the defendant admits fault.

 

 

3 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

And yet Trump won the election!  

Yes indeed and look at the poor state of the country now. 

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

And thanks to Shah’s letter, the BBC just handed Trump Exhibit A: admission of misleading editing.

AI quickie - Gemini

Samir Shah's letter was sent to lawmakers (specifically the parliamentary culture, media and sport committee) to apologize for an "error of judgment" in editing a documentary clip of a 2021 speech by President Donald Trump.

 

However, given the context—apologizing for a journalistic error that led to a $1 billion legal threat—it is highly probable that the official response from the BBC Chairman would have been vetted by the BBC's legal department before its release.

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

AI quickie - Gemini

Samir Shah's letter was sent to lawmakers (specifically the parliamentary culture, media and sport committee) to apologize for an "error of judgment" in editing a documentary clip of a 2021 speech by President Donald Trump.

 

However, given the context—apologizing for a journalistic error that led to a $1 billion legal threat—it is highly probable that the official response from the BBC Chairman would have been vetted by the BBC's legal department before its release.

It is going to be interesting to see what happens and what the BBC actually says in its reply to President Trump's lawyers.

A Guardian exclusive from yesterday (November 12) states outright that the BBC is "prepared to apologize to Trump to resolve billion-dollar legal threat", citing sources close to the board who say a "formal and direct apology" could drop as early as today, potentially including a retraction and some form of compensation to avoid a Florida court battle

 

This echoes a Daily Mail scoop today headlining "BBC prepares to apologise to Trump TODAY after he filed $1bn lawsuit", reporting that Chair Samir Shah's team has been in "crisis talks" overnight, weighing a climbdown to shield license fee payers from a protracted (and uninsured) slugfest.

36 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

It is going to be interesting to see what happens and what the BBC actually says in Its reply to President Trump's lawyers.

Attorney Brito's letter says response due Friday. Stay tuned.

 

BTW the actual Daily Mail headline:

 

BBC prepares to grovel to Donald Trump TODAY before president's billion-dollar lawsuit deadline expires

By NOOR QURASHI, NEWS REPORTER

 

Published: 01:58 GMT, 13 November 2025 | Updated: 03:02 GMT, 13 November 2025

10 hours ago, riclag said:

Spot on , BBC doctored  the October 2024 film  just 8 days out  before the 2024 election.

 Hopefully BBC will be  another notch added to Trumps other successful lawsuits.

Why stop there . It should be fully investigated in the UK  and make  those responsible come under questioning in a court of law. Those who doctored the video  went to great lengths to deceive. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/bombshell-uk-report-reveals-bbc-191614318.html

It was electoral interference by a foreign government. It was cheating in a US election.

Funny the forum left are not up in arms over this. They used to pretend election interference/cheating by foreign entities were the worst crimes ever back when thry were falsely accusing DJT and Russia of doing it.

RIP the BBC. Thsnks again President Trump

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

It was electoral interference by a foreign government. It was cheating in a US election.

Funny the forum left are not up in arms over this. They used to pretend election interference/cheating by foreign entities were the worst crimes ever back when thry were falsely accusing DJT and Russia of doing it.

RIP the BBC. Thsnks again President Trump

Lol! The BBC has no noticeable influence on US voters! 

 

Meanwhile, no problem about Trump repeating the Big Lie in nearly all his speeches! 

54 minutes ago, candide said:

Lol! The BBC has no noticeable influence on US voters! 

 

Meanwhile, no problem about Trump repeating the Big Lie in nearly all his speeches! 

According to the BBC

BBC.com reaches 139 million visitors globally, including almost 60 million in the US, the corporation said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2vgkn7w10o

Or maybe they are telling porkies again

55 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

According to the BBC

BBC.com reaches 139 million visitors globally, including almost 60 million in the US, the corporation said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2vgkn7w10o

Or maybe they are telling porkies again

That's the website.

How many people watched this particular program in the U.S.?

Just now, candide said:

That's the website.

How many people watched this particular program in the U.S.?

AI quickie Gemini:

 

BBC iPlayer and its content, including the current affairs program Panorama, are geo-restricted to viewers within the United Kingdom due to licensing agreements.

If you are in the US or any other country outside the UK, you will be blocked from accessing the content directly. As you mentioned, the common workaround to bypass these geographical restrictions is to use a Virtual Private Network (VPN) and connect to a server located in the UK.

1 minute ago, candide said:

That's the website.

How many people watched this particular program in the U.S.?

Its the website that is used to access BBC content

US-based visitors to BBC.com will now have to pay $49.99 (£36) a year or $8.99 (£6.50) a month for access to most BBC News stories and features, and to stream the BBC News channel.

No idea on how many people watch Panorma in the USA I doubt if the BBC knows as majority of people accessing BBC will be using VPN's

5 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Its the website that is used to access BBC content

US-based visitors to BBC.com will now have to pay $49.99 (£36) a year or $8.99 (£6.50) a month for access to most BBC News stories and features, and to stream the BBC News channel.

No idea on how many people watch Panorma in the USA I doubt if the BBC knows as majority of people accessing BBC will be using VPN's

They have to pay since June 2025 only.

 

As to Panorama, Jerry just posted it's geolocalized content, so I doubt many people watched it. And it's not like US media didn't cover this subject extensively. It wasn't particularly attractive for US visitors.

7 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

No idea on how many people watch Panorma in the USA I doubt if the BBC knows as majority of people accessing BBC will be using VPN's

Trump's attorney knows:

3 minutes ago, candide said:

They have to pay since June 2025 only.

Before June 2025 they didn't and according to the BBC

According to the BBC

BBC.com reaches 139 million visitors globally, including almost 60 million in the US, the corporation said.

5 minutes ago, candide said:

They have to pay since June 2025 only.

 

As to Panorama, Jerry just posted it's geolocalized content, so I doubt many people watched it. And it's not like US media didn't cover this subject extensively. It wasn't particularly attractive for US visitors.

 

Just now, vinny41 said:

Before June 2025 they didn't and according to the BBC

According to the BBC

BBC.com reaches 139 million visitors globally, including almost 60 million in the US, the corporation said.

Sorry, I have edited my post already.

 

Very few people may have watched this particular program, which was geolocalized and not particularly original for US website visitors.