AI Quicke Gemini:

 

It is not illegal to use a VPN to access BBC iPlayer, but it is a violation of the BBC's terms of service, and you must have a valid UK TV license to legally watch BBC content. The BBC detects VPN usage and may block your access if it believes you are not in the UK, though it is generally still possible to watch by using a VPN connected to a UK server. 

____________________________

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.

 

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

 

3 hours 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! 

The big lie that he didn't incite the insurrection that you and the other forum left falsely claimed that he did?

 

So you concede the UK govt propaganda outlet the BBC did interfere with the US election but no biggie as it's not a popular media outlet in the USA? How ridiculous. It was deemed(by wingnuts) as a "credible source" and used to back up the false lefty narrative that DJT incited an insurrection.

 

I won't say it's a new low for you, but it's not a reasonable stance - as usual.

He actually DID incite an attempted insurrection. 

 

2 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

The big lie that he didn't incite the insurrection that you and the other forum left falsely claimed that he did?

 

So you concede the UK govt propaganda outlet the BBC did interfere with the US election but no biggie as it's not a popular media outlet in the USA? How ridiculous. It was deemed(by wingnuts) as a "credible source" and used to back up the false lefty narrative that DJT incited an insurrection.

 

I won't say it's a new low for you, but it's not a reasonable stance - as usual.

Lol! Are you seriously claiming that this BBC program, which cannot normally be accessed from the US, about a subject all American people know about, had any influence on US elections? That's ridiculous! 🤣

54 minutes ago, candide said:

Lol! Are you seriously claiming that this BBC program, which cannot normally be accessed from the US, about a subject all American people know about, had any influence on US elections? That's ridiculous! 🤣

CNET Survey: 47% of Americans Use VPNs for Privacy. That Number Could Rise as State Internet Bans Increase

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/vpn-survey-2025/

USA Estimated 2025 population: Around 347 million. Thats a lot of people even if only 47% use VPN's

1 hour ago, candide said:

Lol! Are you seriously claiming that this BBC program, which cannot normally be accessed from the US, about a subject all American people know about, had any influence on US elections? That's ridiculous! 🤣

They also deliberately falsely claimed Trump said there would be a "bloodbath" if he didnt win the election, by taking his comments about the US auto industry and lying that he meant it in terms of a violent uprising. BBC = fake news and election interference, which I can see you suddenly have no problem with.

As expected.

BBC Newsnight also doctored Trump speech

Concerns were ignored over spliced footage of Jan 6 speech that aired on Newsnight two years before Panorama

Spliced footage of the speech, which aired in an episode in 2022, made it appear that Mr Trump was encouraging his supporters to riot.

A former White House chief of staff criticised the BBC on air at the time for “splicing” the footage, but his concerns were ignored by Kirsty Wark, the Newsnight presenter.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/13/bbc-doctored-trump-speech-second-time-newsnight/

 

BBC apologises to Trump over Panorama edit but refuses to pay compensation

19 minutes ago fro BBC website:

 

The BBC has apologised to US President Donald Trump for a Panorama episode which spliced parts of a speech together, but rejected his demands for compensation.

 

The corporation said the edit had given "the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action" and said it would not show the programme again.

 

Lawyers for Trump have threatened to sue the BBC for $1bn (£759m) in damages unless the corporation issues a retraction, apologises and compensates him.

 

"While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim."

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c874nw4g2zzo

7 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

BBC apologises to Trump over Panorama edit but refuses to pay compensation

Follow-up:

 

In its letter to Trump's legal team, the BBC sets out five main arguments for why it does not think it has a case to answer

 

First of all, it says the BBC did not have the rights to, and did not, distribute the Panorama episode on its US channels.

When the documentary was available on BBC iPlayer, it was geographically restricted to viewers in the UK.

 

Secondly, it says the documentary did not cause Trump harm as he was re-elected.

 

Thirdly, it says the clip was not designed to mislead, but just to shorten a long speech, and that the edit was not done with malice.

 

Fourthly, it says the clip was never meant to be considered in isolation. Rather, it was 12 seconds within an hour-long programme, which also contained lots of voices in support of Trump.

 

Finally, an opinion on a matter of public concern and political speech is heavily protected under defamation laws in the US.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c874nw4g2zzo

 

A good response by the BBC.  Hopefully it shuts up Trump.  

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Follow-up:

 

In its letter to Trump's legal team, the BBC sets out five main arguments for why it does not think it has a case to answer

 

First of all, it says the BBC did not have the rights to, and did not, distribute the Panorama episode on its US channels.

When the documentary was available on BBC iPlayer, it was geographically restricted to viewers in the UK.

 

Secondly, it says the documentary did not cause Trump harm as he was re-elected.

 

Thirdly, it says the clip was not designed to mislead, but just to shorten a long speech, and that the edit was not done with malice.

 

Fourthly, it says the clip was never meant to be considered in isolation. Rather, it was 12 seconds within an hour-long programme, which also contained lots of voices in support of Trump.

 

Finally, an opinion on a matter of public concern and political speech is heavily protected under defamation laws in the US.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c874nw4g2zzo

 

"it says the clip was not designed to mislead, but just to shorten a long speech, and that the edit was not done with malice."

Bwahahahaha!   You really believe this?  Purely a coincidence that they edited exactly 54 minutes of the speech, to bookend the two bits that they used....

 

And if this were true, why the resignations of top level people?  Mama Beeb got caught and will have to pay.  

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Follow-up:

 

In its letter to Trump's legal team, the BBC sets out five main arguments for why it does not think it has a case to answer

 

First of all, it says the BBC did not have the rights to, and did not, distribute the Panorama episode on its US channels.

When the documentary was available on BBC iPlayer, it was geographically restricted to viewers in the UK.

 

Secondly, it says the documentary did not cause Trump harm as he was re-elected.

 

Thirdly, it says the clip was not designed to mislead, but just to shorten a long speech, and that the edit was not done with malice.

 

Fourthly, it says the clip was never meant to be considered in isolation. Rather, it was 12 seconds within an hour-long programme, which also contained lots of voices in support of Trump.

 

Finally, an opinion on a matter of public concern and political speech is heavily protected under defamation laws in the US.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c874nw4g2zzo

 

From your link BBC stated

Fresh claim of misleading edit

Earlier on Thursday, the BBC was accused of another misleading edit of Trump's 6 January 2021 speech, two years before the Panorama sequence aired.

On a Newsnight programme from 2022, the edit is a little different from Panorama.

This was followed by a voiceover from presenter Kirsty Wark saying "and fight they did" over footage from the Capitol riots.

Responding to the clip on the same programme, former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who quit a diplomatic post and became a critic of Trump after describing the 6 January riots as an "attempted coup", said the video had "spliced together" Trump's speech.

"That line about 'we fight and fight like hell' is actually later in the speech and yet your video makes it look like those two things came together," he said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c874nw4g2zzo

 

Assuming this would ever get that far, it would only likely go as far as the plaintiff you-know-who being called for deposition to prove how he has been caused "to suffer overwhelming financial and reputational harm" as in the lawyer Brito's above letter to BBC. Failure to be so deposed would be grounds for dismissal.

6 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

From your link BBC stated

Fresh claim of misleading edit

Earlier on Thursday, the BBC was accused of another misleading edit of Trump's 6 January 2021 speech, two years before the Panorama sequence aired.

On a Newsnight programme from 2022, the edit is a little different from Panorama.

This was followed by a voiceover from presenter Kirsty Wark saying "and fight they did" over footage from the Capitol riots.

Responding to the clip on the same programme, former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who quit a diplomatic post and became a critic of Trump after describing the 6 January riots as an "attempted coup", said the video had "spliced together" Trump's speech.

"That line about 'we fight and fight like hell' is actually later in the speech and yet your video makes it look like those two things came together," he said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c874nw4g2zzo

 

This isn't coincidence—it's a systemic pattern of editorial malpractice, unearthed by The Telegraph's Daily T podcast and splashed across UK headlines yesterday (Nov 13, 2025)

Coming hot on the Panorama apology (Shah's Nov 14 letter conceding the "mistaken impression"), it supercharges Trump's $1B threat: Two years apart, same distortion, ignored red flags? That's not "oops"—it's recklessness, teeing up Sullivan actual malice. BBC's stock reply? "Looking into it," per a spokesperson—echoing their post-Panorama probe promises.

 

 

With Ofcom circling and license fees footing the bill, this could force a fuller grovel or settlement bump. Trump's team hasn't tweeted yet, but expect fireworks—Mulvaney's clip is viral bait. Pattern confirmed: BBC's got a Trump-edit habit.

 

 

9 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

This isn't coincidence—it's a systemic pattern of editorial malpractice, unearthed by The Telegraph's Daily T podcast and splashed across UK headlines yesterday (Nov 13, 2025)

 The veteran BBC Panorama reporter, John Ware, has been using the archives of the Daily Telegraph - the paper which has accused the BBC of "materially misleading" editing - to demonstrate a degree of hypocrisy.

 

He quotes the Telegraph's own Chief Reporter, Robert Mendick, on January 7: "Trump threw on the whole, messy heap a burning match. And throughout the day he kept throwing on more. A clenched fist, and a call for action."

Then Ware quotes the Telegraph's own columnist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on January 8:

 

"The putsch has failed….the desecration of Capitol Hill by Trump mobs — on explicit incitement by the president [his emphasis] — speaks for itself."

For good measure, he adds the Telegraph's own Ben Riley-Smith on January 13, referring to Trump's "incendiary speech to supporters" prior to the "mob that stormed the US Capitol last week."

 

https://archive.ph/yiDff#selection-1755.0-1783.58

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

 The veteran BBC Panorama reporter, John Ware, has been using the archives of the Daily Telegraph - the paper which has accused the BBC of "materially misleading" editing - to demonstrate a degree of hypocrisy.

 

He quotes the Telegraph's own Chief Reporter, Robert Mendick, on January 7: "Trump threw on the whole, messy heap a burning match. And throughout the day he kept throwing on more. A clenched fist, and a call for action."

Then Ware quotes the Telegraph's own columnist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on January 8:

 

"The putsch has failed….the desecration of Capitol Hill by Trump mobs — on explicit incitement by the president [his emphasis] — speaks for itself."

For good measure, he adds the Telegraph's own Ben Riley-Smith on January 13, referring to Trump's "incendiary speech to supporters" prior to the "mob that stormed the US Capitol last week."

 

https://archive.ph/yiDff#selection-1755.0-1783.58

Ware's tu quoque is clever PR, but legally and journalistically irrelevant.
Trump doesn’t need to prove the Telegraph was "fair"—he needs to prove the BBC lied with the tape.
And they did. Twice. Ware just handed Trump another clip for the lawsuit reel?
 

5 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Ware just handed Trump another clip for the lawsuit reel?

I posted a link and quote verbatim. Response or filing of suit seems next for team Trump.

I sincerely hope he proceeds with the lawsuit. 

 

He certainly has a case. Of course they could argue about the number of people who saw it, but I think that ruling would come down to whether the judge was a typical leftist activist type.

 

But either way, I'd love to see it. The BBC in court, squirming. Having to report on their own trial. Utter humiliation. The process would BE the punishment even if they squirmed out of it in the end. It would be a wonderful lesson for them and their snidey staff. 

 

22 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

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.

Whilst valid on core facts—it correctly highlights the BBC's error, Trump's exact words, the lack of insurrection charges, and legal nuances around speech/incitement. These are valid points. However, you are clearly biased toward a pro-Trump lens: you cherry-picks exculpatory evidence, misattributes a court ruling, and equates factual critiques with "propaganda" which is hyperbole, without engaging counterarguments (e.g., the riot's death toll, Trump's post-riot tweet praising rioters, or ongoing trials).

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I sincerely hope he proceeds with the lawsuit. 

 

He certainly has a case. Of course they could argue about the number of people who saw it, but I think that ruling would come down to whether the judge was a typical leftist activist type.

 

But either way, I'd love to see it. The BBC in court, squirming. Having to report on their own trial. Utter humiliation. The process would BE the punishment even if they squirmed out of it in the end. It would be a wonderful lesson for them and their snidey staff. 

 

Absolutely and the fact that Starmer, and a few others,  are still trying to defend them, the BBC,  is beyond reality!

1 minute ago, mikeymike100 said:

Absolutely and the fact that Starmer, and a few others,  are still trying to defend them, the BBC,  is beyond reality!

 

Starmer had "volunteers" campaigning for Harris in the US at around the same time as the BBC were splicing together this piece of propaganda to vilify Trump. Election interference. 

 

I've been saying for years that the BBC are Labour's propaganda wing. A state funded left wing PR machine. This sorry incident and the fact Starmer still defends them just proves my point. 

 

2 cheeks of the same rancid arse. 

1 hour ago, WorriedNoodle said:

Whilst valid on core facts—it correctly highlights the BBC's error, Trump's exact words, the lack of insurrection charges, and legal nuances around speech/incitement. These are valid points. However, you are clearly biased toward a pro-Trump lens: you cherry-picks exculpatory evidence, misattributes a court ruling, and equates factual critiques with "propaganda" which is hyperbole, without engaging counterarguments (e.g., the riot's death toll, Trump's post-riot tweet praising rioters, or ongoing trials).

Fair play on the nod to "core facts"—, the BBC edit was sloppy, Trump's words included "peacefully," no insurrection charges stuck, and courts protect political speech. But calling my take "pro-Trump bias" via cherry-picking? That's projection. I laid out verifiable legal realities (e.g., Brandenburg bar for incitement, zero §2383 convictions), not MAGA fanfic.  You're the one ignoring them to peddle uncharged "incitement" as gospel, while whining about "hyperbole."

I'm truth-seeking, not tribal—Jan. 6 was a stain, rioters guilty, but BBC's fraud and "insurrection" overreach? That's the propaganda. Engage facts, not labels.

 

"Cherry-picks exculpatory evidence"Wrong—That's Just the Facts, Not a Trump Fanboy Montage.
I highlighted Trump's "peacefully and patriotically" line because it's in the speech, verbatim, and central to why courts tossed incitement claims. You act like it's buried—it's not. The full Ellipse transcript (1+ hour) balances fiery rhetoric with de-escalation pleas. Cherry-picking? That's the BBC's splice job, mashing 54 minutes apart into "direct call to violence." I didn't ignore the heat ("fight like hell" is there)—I contextualized it. Your beef? You want me to pretend the peaceful bit vanished. Nah—facts aren't partisan.

 

"Misattributes a court ruling"False—You Misread It Entirely.
I cited the D.C. Circuit's 2024 rulings on Trump's presidential immunity for Jan. 6 actions, which rejected blanket protection and let suits proceed, but did note his Ellipse speech was "protected political rhetoric" under Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)—requiring imminent lawless action, not vague "fight" talk.

 

cbsnews.com

Judge Amit Mehta (in the Capitol Police suits) explicitly called it an "implicit call for imminent violence" not shielded by immunity, but still First Amendment-protected absent provable incitement.

No misattribute—it's nuanced: No immunity, but speech shielded from prosecution. You twisted it into "exoneration" strawman. Try reading the opinions.

 

. "Equates factual critiques with 'propaganda'—hyperbole"No—It's Accurate for the Edit, Not the Broader Debate.
Calling the BBC's splice "propaganda" isn't hyperbole—it's manufacturing a narrative via footage fraud, not "factual critique." They didn't air the full speech; they doctored it to imply direct incitement, breaching editorial standards (Shah's own "error" admission). That's not opinion—it's deception, akin to CBS's $16M Harris edit settlement. Broader Jan. 6 critique? Fine—it's chaotic, tragic. But equating Trump's full words to "incite attempted insurrection"? That's the propaganda leap, unsubstantiated by courts or charges. Hyperbole's your side's "blood libel" rhetoric.

 

Here's the Engagement You Demanded, With Full Context You Omitted.
You lob these as "gotchas," but they're red herrings—tragic, yes; proof of Trump's criminal incitement, no. Let's unpack:

• Riot's Death Toll: Official count? Five immediate deaths (one shot rioter, one overdose, three natural causes including Officer Sicknick's stroke). Later? Four officer suicides (months/years after), linked by trauma but not ruled "line of duty" by all (e.g., MPD Chief: "Cannot say riot caused them"). Total ~9, per bipartisan Senate report—horrific, but not "insurrection massacre" (no mass killings). Ties to Trump? Correlation, not causation—rioters acted on QAnon fever, not a script. I didn't ignore it; it's irrelevant to the edit's lie.
• Trump's Post-Riot Tweet Praising Rioters: Yeah, the 6:00 PM one: "Remember this day forever!" followed by video: "We love you. You're very special... go home in peace." Mixed bag—praise amid de-escalation (he finally told them to leave after 187 minutes of inaction). Earlier tweet (2:38 PM): "Stay peaceful!" Tone-deaf? Absolutely—impeachment fuel. But "praising rioters"? Selective quote-mining; full context shows mixed messaging, not full-throated endorsement. Ivanka/Don Jr. pushed for stronger disavowals—he resisted. Valid critique, but doesn't retroactively "incite" the speech.
• Ongoing Trials: Over 1,200 charged (as of 2025), ~630 guilty pleas, 87 full trial convictions—mostly misdemeanors (trespass, disorderly). Felonies? ~38% assault/impeding officers; 18 seditious conspiracy (Oath Keepers/Proud Boys leaders, like Stewart Rhodes' 18-year bid)—not insurrection under §2383 (zero charges). Trump's federal case? Paused on immunity; no "insurrection" tag. These nail rioters' chaos, not presidential orchestration. I engaged: No §2383 = no legal "insurrection."

 

 

 

From https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c891jp9j79do

 

Trump says he will take legal action against BBC over Panorama edit
20 minutes ago

 

US President Donald Trump has said he will take legal action against the BBC over how his speech was edited by Panorama, after the corporation apologised but refused to compensate him.

 

Speaking to reporters on board Air Force One on Friday evening, Trump said: "We'll sue them for anywhere between $1bn and $5bn probably sometime next week."

 

Searches of public court record databases earlier showed no legal action had been filed so far.

Federal and state courts in Florida, where a case would likely be filed, are now closed for the weekend.

47 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

From https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c891jp9j79do

 

Trump says he will take legal action against BBC over Panorama edit
20 minutes ago

 

US President Donald Trump has said he will take legal action against the BBC over how his speech was edited by Panorama, after the corporation apologised but refused to compensate him.

 

Speaking to reporters on board Air Force One on Friday evening, Trump said: "We'll sue them for anywhere between $1bn and $5bn probably sometime next week."

 

Searches of public court record databases earlier showed no legal action had been filed so far.

Federal and state courts in Florida, where a case would likely be filed, are now closed for the weekend.

What is wrong with this Guy? He should ask for $ 50 billions as he always likes when, in this case the British public, normal people help him to get closer to Elon moneywise.

Seems he is going ahead with it. Great move. Drag them through the mud publicly. Constant headlines. Let everyone see what they deliberately did. Remove this ridiculous claim of impartiality on a global stage. 

 

The process will be the punishment. 

 

Thanks Donald. Britain appreciates you. 

4 minutes ago, chercheur888 said:

What is wrong with this Guy? He should ask for $ 50 billions as he always likes when, in this case the British public, normal people help him to get closer to Elon moneywise.

 

You think Brits will keep paying the TV tax when they see it is being used to pay for lawsuits brought against Labour's BBC due to their lies and propaganda against Labour's political opponents.

 

Good luck with that.

 

The beginning of the end.

 

As a Brit I hope Trump wins. Take these liars, grifters and Pedos to the cleaners. Long overdue.

19 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Seems he is going ahead with it. Great move. Drag them through the mud publicly

This will likely be a case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

Donald J. Trump is the plaintiff and, as such, the dragging through the mud can go in both directions.

Go on, Don!

 

Show 'em who's boss!!

 

Eric.

Another resurfaced controversy over a misleading edit in a 2022 episode of BBC's Newsnight program, where footage of Donald Trump's January 6, 2021, speech was spliced together to imply he was directly inciting violence at the U.S. Capitol. This came to light amid the broader BBC-Trump dispute over a similar edit in a 2024 Panorama documentary, amplifying accusations of systemic bias and "reckless disregard" by Trump's legal team. The edit was not flagged to viewers as cut, creating a false narrative of continuity.Key Details of the Edit

• What Happened: The clip juxtaposed two non-consecutive segments from Trump's Ellipse speech:
  • An early line: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol..."
  • A later line: "...and we're going to fight like hell."
  • Omitted: The intervening phrase "...and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women," which framed the "walk" as peaceful support.
• Effect: It portrayed Trump as explicitly urging a riot, mirroring the Panorama controversy and fueling claims of deliberate misrepresentation ahead of the 2024 U.S. election.

This incident was initially overlooked but resurfaced as evidence of a "pattern," strengthening Trump's $1B–$5B lawsuit threat. BBC insiders reportedly dismissed concerns, per a whistleblower memo.

From the BBC link above:

 

(President Trump)  called the edit "egregious" and "worse than the Kamala thing", a reference to a dispute he had with US news outlet CBS over an interview on the 60 Minutes programme with his 2024 election opponent Kamala Harris.

 

In its Corrections and Clarifications section, published on Thursday evening, the BBC said the Panorama programme had been reviewed after criticism of how Trump's speech had been edited.

 

"We accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action," the statement said.