2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yet the BBC already admitted it, apologized and "resigned" 2 people. 

Yes, the BBC admitted to a journalistic error, and offered a full apology which should have been enough. That does not mean that they are automatically financially liable.

8 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

 

Totally agree with Trump.

 

They are supposed to be allies. The Special Friendship. Yet our state broadcaster is splicing his speeches together to make it look like he is calling for insurrection on the eve of the election.

 

Not to mention the BBC's masters, Labour, sending volunteers to campaign for Harris. 

 

It's absolutely shameful. 

 

1 minute ago, Summerinsiam said:

Yes, the BBC admitted to a journalistic error, and offered a full apology which should have been enough.

 

No it isn't enough. Not even close.

 

1 minute ago, Summerinsiam said:

That does not mean that they are automatically financially liable.

 

That's what the courts will decide. I can't wait to see the BBC stumbling/stuttering around in their usual waffling, stammering style. The process will be the punishment. Total humiliation for a once great organization now full of Pedos and lefty liars. 

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

It's absolutely shameful. 

This is not a criminal case to determine whether the BBC made any edits to the JAN6 Trump speech deliberately.

 

It is potentially a defamation suit to assess damages -- and if nobody saw i prior to the election, where are the damages.

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

That's what the courts will decide. I can't wait to see the BBC stumbling/stuttering around in their usual waffling, stammering style.

I will wait to see, prior to any trial, Donald J. Trump as the PLAINTIFF sitting for a deposition as to why any action by the BBC can be tied to $5 billion in damages.

Just now, jerrymahoney said:

This is not a criminal case to determine whether the BBC made any edits to the JAN6 Trump speech deliberately.

 

It is potentially a defamation suit to assess damages -- and if nobody saw i prior to the election, where are the damages.

 

Obviously people saw it. It's 2025. You don't need an aerial on top of your house to see a BBC documentary. It's across socials, on the iPlayer etc.

 

The question is how many, and what effect it had. That's what the court will decide. 

3 minutes ago, Summerinsiam said:

Yes, the BBC admitted to a journalistic error, and offered a full apology which should have been enough. That does not mean that they are automatically financially liable.

"Yes, the BBC admitted to a journalistic error"........however

Trump's team is explicitly arguing "reckless disregard" (part of actual malice) in any potential Florida lawsuit, citing the easy availability of the full unedited speech

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I will wait to see, prior to any trial, Donald J. Trump as the PLAINTIFF sitting for a deposition as to why any action by the BBC can be tied to $5 billion in damages.

Being the plaintiff gives Trump control over the case, and presidential accommodations make in-person appearances extremely unlikely unless he wants the optics of testifying himself.

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Trump splicing.

Gaza documentary bias.

Bob Vylan performance.

Tavistock reporting bias.

Prescott memo.

Lineker antisemitism.

Martine Croxall disciplinary action.

Brexit coverage. 

 

I could name loads more. 

 

Funny how their "mistakes" are always asymmetric. 

 

 

And yet you are clearly indoctrinated by Fox News and its poorer cousin GB News; those bastions of balanced news and impartiality. While its not perfect, its funny how the BBC is regularly touted as one of the best and most trusted news organizations around the world. How can that be? I guess, to you, it must be corrupt because Trump says it is so, and it does not conform to your sad, bigoted view of the world.

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Obviously people saw it. It's 2025. You don't need an aerial on top of your house to see a BBC documentary. It's across socials, on the iPlayer etc.

 

The question is how many, and what effect it had. That's what the court will decide. 

The only people for who Trump can say BBC tried to influence the election are those who saw the Doco between OCT 28 2024 and Election 5 NOV day with a reprieve for out of country absentee ballots

5 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Being the plaintiff gives Trump control over the case, and presidential accommodations make in-person appearances extremely unlikely unless he wants the optics of testifying himself.

Right. A good argument for case dismissal. Kinda like the old saw that a kid murders his parents and then asks for mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

 

But in a few days there either will be cased filed or not.

5 minutes ago, Summerinsiam said:

And yet you are clearly indoctrinated by Fox News and its poorer cousin GB News; those bastions of balanced news and impartiality. While its not perfect, its funny how the BBC is regularly touted as one of the best and most trusted news organizations around the world. How can that be? I guess, to you, it must be corrupt because Trump says it is so, and it does not conform to your sad, bigoted view of the world.

But it does conform to your sad, bigoted view of the world?

21 hours ago, JAG said:

Let us suppose (and I think it unlikely) that an American (Florida) court finds against the BBC and awards these damages (and costs?). Should the BBC refuse to pay (and I think they should) just what will happen? Any sanctions in the USA are frankly unlikely to cost the BBC, and by extension the British taxpayer, anything remotely like £4 billion. I suppose that they could close down their broadcasting activities in the US, but there is always the internet; they could expell correspondents perhaps, I seem to remember Apartheid South Africa  and The Soviet Union did something like that but it didn't really work then, and now our connected world provides both the BBC and the interested British consumer with a myriad of sources.

 

Not a good look for the Land of The Free! The BBC, whatever one might think of it (and I am hardly uncritical) remains a largely trusted broadcaster with a global reach.

I don't think so.....?

 

U.S. Judgments Are Enforceable in the UK via the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933

• The UK is a party to reciprocal enforcement with 29 U.S. states, including Florida (via the 1933 Act).
• A final, non-appealable Florida judgment for a fixed sum (like $5.2 billion) can be registered in the UK High Court within 6 years.
• Once registered, it becomes as enforceable as a UK judgment — meaning:
  • Freezing orders on BBC bank accounts (including overseas ones with UK nexus).
  • Third-party debt orders seizing funds owed to the BBC (e.g., from advertisers, distributors).
  • Charging orders on BBC property (Television Centre, regional offices, etc.).
  • Contempt of court for non-payment → potential fines or imprisonment of BBC executives.

     

     

    Even before UK enforcement:

    • Bank accounts: Any BBC funds in U.S. banks (even transit dollars) can be frozen and seized.
    • Real property: BBC offices in Washington, New York, Los Angeles → foreclosure sale.
    • Intellectual property: U.S. trademarks, copyrights (e.g., Doctor Who, BBC World Service) → lien and forced licensing.
    • Revenue streams: Ad sales, syndication deals, PBS co-productions → garnishment.

    Bottom LineRefusing to pay is not a viable strategy. The BBC would:

    Lose all U.S. assets and revenue.

    Face UK enforcement seizing domestic funds/property.

    Risk global internet deplatforming.

    See executives jailed or barred from travel.

    The British taxpayer would foot the bill either way — either paying the judgment or funding a crippled BBC. Compliance is the only rational path.

30 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Trump splicing.

Gaza documentary bias.

Bob Vylan performance.

Tavistock reporting bias.

Prescott memo.

Lineker antisemitism.

Martine Croxall disciplinary action.

Brexit coverage. 

 

I could name loads more. 

 

Funny how their "mistakes" are always asymmetric. 

 

 

Is that the best you can come up with? The BBC has been around for over 100 years and you can come up with only 8 VERY dubious 'mistakes'. Let's break them down:-

 

1. Trump splicing - covered in a current affairs programme NOT the main news cycle and already put their hands up to it.

2. Gaza documentary bias. - could easily be construed as showing both sides since the narrative up to then had been heavily pro-Israel.

3. Bob Vylan performance - scraping the barrel now.

4. Tavistock reporting bias - REALLY grasping at straws now. Where's the evidence for this?

5. Prescott memo - plenty of people refuting his report  https://observer.co.uk/news/opinion-and-ideas/article/the-prescott-memo-flunks-the-impartiality-test

6. Lineker antisemitism - apart from being employed by the BBC at the time to host Match of the Day (about football), Lineker's views have consistently been shown to be his own. 

7. Martine Croxall disciplinary action - I had to look this one up it's so obscure. She got her wrists slapped for 20 impartiality complaints over the way she altered a script she was reading live on the BBC News Channel, which referred to "pregnant people" with her facial expression as she said this giving the "strong impression of expressing a personal view on a controversial matter. Big deal

8. Brexit coverage - perhaps in opinion pieces they showed why this was such a stupid idea but not in their news coverage.

 

You're biased and anti-BBC because they don't pander to your right-wing views but you really need to do MUCH better than this if you are trying to argue these points.

 

8 minutes ago, Summerinsiam said:

And yet you are clearly indoctrinated by Fox News and its poorer cousin GB News; those bastions of balanced news and impartiality. While its not perfect, its funny how the BBC is regularly touted as one of the best and most trusted news organizations around the world. How can that be? I guess, to you, it must be corrupt because Trump says it is so, and it does not conform to your sad, bigoted view of the world.

" its funny how the BBC is regularly touted as one of the best and most trusted news organizations around the world. How can that be"

 

Maybe 20  years ago or so, you would be correct, sadly more recently the BBC has lost its way..

 

BBC’s own scandals:

Martin Bashir/Diana interview (2021): Forged bank statements → £1.4M settlement.

 

Cliff Richard raid (2018): £2M+ damages for privacy breach.

 

Jimmy Savile cover-up: 2012 inquiry found BBC suppressed abuse reports.

 

 

 

Ofcom fines (2020–2025): £1.2M for due impartiality breaches (e.g., climate, COVID, Israel/Palestine).

 

 

14 minutes ago, Summerinsiam said:

And yet you are clearly indoctrinated by Fox News and its poorer cousin GB News; those bastions of balanced news and impartiality. While its not perfect, its funny how the BBC is regularly touted as one of the best and most trusted news organizations around the world. How can that be? I guess, to you, it must be corrupt because Trump says it is so, and it does not conform to your sad, bigoted view of the world.

 

I never watch Fox News and rarely watch GB News. 

 

No doubt you lap up all the race baiting and misinformation from the likes of CNN and the BBC though. You get a nice dose of antisemitism thrown in for free. Must be ideal for your ilk. 

17 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Being the plaintiff gives Trump control over the case, and presidential accommodations make in-person appearances extremely unlikely unless he wants the optics of testifying himself.

AI quickie Gemini:

 

No, a plaintiff generally cannot refuse a deposition in federal civil court, as a properly noticed deposition is mandatory. While a witness can be instructed not to answer a specific question for a limited number of reasons, refusing to appear at all is a violation that can lead to serious consequences like court sanctions, fines, or even default judgment against the plaintiff. 

9 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

that the best you can come up with? The BBC has been around for over 100 years and you can come up with only 8 VERY dubious 'mistakes'. Let's break them down:-

What about all the pedo kids presenters?

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

8 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Is that the best you can come up with? The BBC has been around for over 100 years and you can come up with only 8 VERY dubious 'mistakes'. Let's break them down:-

 

1. Trump splicing - covered in a current affairs programme NOT the main news cycle and already put their hands up to it.

2. Gaza documentary bias. - could easily be construed as showing both sides since the narrative up to then had been heavily pro-Israel.

3. Bob Vylan performance - scraping the barrel now.

4. Tavistock reporting bias - REALLY grasping at straws now. Where's the evidence for this?

5. Prescott memo - plenty of people refuting his report  https://observer.co.uk/news/opinion-and-ideas/article/the-prescott-memo-flunks-the-impartiality-test

6. Lineker antisemitism - apart from being employed by the BBC at the time to host Match of the Day (about football), Lineker's views have consistently been shown to be his own. 

7. Martine Croxall disciplinary action - I had to look this one up it's so obscure. She got her wrists slapped for 20 impartiality complaints over the way she altered a script she was reading live on the BBC News Channel, which referred to "pregnant people" with her facial expression as she said this giving the "strong impression of expressing a personal view on a controversial matter. Big deal

8. Brexit coverage - perhaps in opinion pieces they showed why this was such a stupid idea but not in their news coverage.

 

You're biased and anti-BBC because they don't pander to your right-wing views but you really need to do MUCH better than this if you are trying to argue these points.

 

 

Another leftist defending/excusing the leftist BBC. What a surprise. You forgot to simultaneously claim they are actually right wing though. 😄

 

How about a defense of Saville, Edwards, Harris, Westwood etc. as well? Come on, may as well go whole hog. 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

That's because the left gaslight on the issue.

 

Pretty much every time the BBC have a [cough] "error of judgement" it's always on the side of the left. Fake news about Trump, paying Hamas relatives, referring to Hamas as freedom fighters etc. Their "mistakes" are always overt slander of the right or support of leftist causes. 

 

The left only pretend the BBC are right wing so people can make claims like yours. The fact they make this claim while defending them to the hilt just shows they don't believe their own words. It's a tactic which nobody believes.

 

"Well if the left think they are right and the right think they are left, they must be neutral". Absolute nonsense.  

 

I hope Trump sues them into oblivion. The left hope Labour's state funded propaganda wing are untouched. 

 

 

The optics are so telling we got a decades worth of the enemy of the people , negative news  attacking their boogiemen in  so many ways,the pattern of media overhyping or fabricating narratives . ,Russia Russia, Hunters Laptop, Jessie Smolette ,Two IRS whistleblowers,Arctic Frost investigation,Bubba Wallace NASCAR noose, Trump very fine people hoax,Border Patrol whipping Haitian migrants,Kyle Rittenhouse white supremacist vigilante,Covington Catholic kids (Nick Sandmann).Kavanaugh gang rape allegations,Obamas kids in cages, j6 false flag of insurrection,COVID lab leak conspiracy theory, Steele pee dossier .   The BBC covered and amplified all these  fake, negative stories that cast negitive aspersions on Trump ,the right and conservatives.

11 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Is that the best you can come up with? The BBC has been around for over 100 years and you can come up with only 8 VERY dubious 'mistakes'. Let's break them down:-

 

1. Trump splicing - covered in a current affairs programme NOT the main news cycle and already put their hands up to it.

2. Gaza documentary bias. - could easily be construed as showing both sides since the narrative up to then had been heavily pro-Israel.

3. Bob Vylan performance - scraping the barrel now.

4. Tavistock reporting bias - REALLY grasping at straws now. Where's the evidence for this?

5. Prescott memo - plenty of people refuting his report  https://observer.co.uk/news/opinion-and-ideas/article/the-prescott-memo-flunks-the-impartiality-test

6. Lineker antisemitism - apart from being employed by the BBC at the time to host Match of the Day (about football), Lineker's views have consistently been shown to be his own. 

7. Martine Croxall disciplinary action - I had to look this one up it's so obscure. She got her wrists slapped for 20 impartiality complaints over the way she altered a script she was reading live on the BBC News Channel, which referred to "pregnant people" with her facial expression as she said this giving the "strong impression of expressing a personal view on a controversial matter. Big deal

8. Brexit coverage - perhaps in opinion pieces they showed why this was such a stupid idea but not in their news coverage.

 

You're biased and anti-BBC because they don't pander to your right-wing views but you really need to do MUCH better than this if you are trying to argue these points.

 

Lets see

Trump splicing 1st time Newsnight 2022

Trump splicing 2nd time Panorama 2024

Trump splicing 1st time Newsnight 2022 caught out live 

A former White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, criticised the BBC on air at the time for splicing together the footage.

“Your video actually spliced together the presentation,” he said. “That line about ‘and we fight and fight like hell’ is actually later in the speech.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/nov/13/newsnight-accused-of-selectively-editing-same-trump-capitol-riots-speech-as-panorama

Looking at the list of BBC controversies since the 1920's it would appear that only decade without any controversies was the 1940's

Here is some noticeable ones

1982 Falklands War

 Shortly before the attack on Goose Green, the BBC broadcast that an attack was imminent and that the 2 Para regiment were within five miles of Darwin. According to Woodward, there "are still some who believe that BBC report was directly responsible for the Argentinian 'ambush' in which Colonel Jones and many others died. Standing in the Ops Room of Hermes on the day the BBC effectively informed the Args of our position and bearing, 

July 2007: A Year with the Queen

A 60-second trailer was shown at the BBC1 autumn launch in London on 11 July. The trailer showed two clips of Queen Elizabeth II; one in which she tells photographer Annie Leibovitz that she will not remove her crown to make the scene look "less dressy", and another in which the Queen says "I'm not changing anything. I've done enough dressing like this".[88]

The shots in the trailer were edited out of sequence, making it appear as if the Queen had abruptly left the photo shoot, when in fact, the second shot showed her entering the shoot. BBC 1 Controller Peter Fincham told journalists at the launch that it showed the monarch "losing it a bit and walking out in a huff".[89]

October 2012: Jimmy Savile abuse scandal

In early October 2012, it was found that a Newsnight investigation to allegations of sexual abuse by the late Jimmy Savile had been shelved shortly before it was due to be broadcast

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_controversies#Early_years

10 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

AI quickie Gemini:

 

No, a plaintiff generally cannot refuse a deposition in federal civil court, as a properly noticed deposition is mandatory. While a witness can be instructed not to answer a specific question for a limited number of reasons, refusing to appear at all is a violation that can lead to serious consequences like court sanctions, fines, or even default judgment against the plaintiff. 

You're correct that in ordinary federal civil litigation, a properly noticed deposition is generally mandatory, and outright refusal to appear (without a successful protective order or quashing the notice) can lead to severe sanctions under FRCP 37—including monetary fines, adverse inferences, striking pleadings, or even default judgment against the non-compliant party.

 

However, when the plaintiff is a sitting President of the United States, the situation is materially different for separation-of-powers reasons:The Supreme Court in Clinton v. Jones (1997) explicitly left open (and assumed courts would accommodate) that presidential testimony need not require physical, in-person appearance at a specific time or place that unduly burdens executive duties. The Court noted:

 

"our decision [does not] require us to confront the question whether a court may compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place... We assume that the testimony of the President... may be taken at the White House at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule."

 

In practice, sitting presidents have never been forced into a traditional in-person deposition against their will in private civil litigation:

President Clinton's deposition in Paula Jones was taken by remote video (from the White House).

 

Presidents Ford, Carter, and Clinton (in criminal matters) all gave testimony via video or at the White House when required.

No court has ever held a sitting president in contempt for insisting on remote/video accommodations.

When the president is the plaintiff (as Trump would be in a defamation suit against the BBC), the dynamics are even more favorable to accommodation:

 

The president controls the pace and venue of his own case.

Courts routinely grant protective orders limiting disruption (location, duration, remote format) because the executive's duties take constitutional precedence.

 

Refusing to appear entirely would still be risky (and no president has tested that), but insisting on remote/video from the White House or Mar-a-Lago is almost certainly enforceable—no federal judge is going to try to drag a sitting president into a deposition room, and appellate courts would reverse any such order.

 

In short: A normal plaintiff can't just blow off a deposition, but a presidential plaintiff can (and almost certainly would) successfully force it to be remote/video, scheduled around official duties, and potentially limited in scope/duration. Most of Trump's recent media defamation suits (ABC, CBS, etc.) settled long before any deposition stage, so the issue never arose.

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Another leftist defending/excusing the leftist BBC. What a surprise. You forgot to simultaneously claim they are actually right wing though. 😄

 

How about a defense of Saville, Edwards, Harris, Westwood etc. as well? Come on, may as well go whole hog. 

I'm not defending the BBC at all. I'm just calling out your BS.

 

Obviously over 100 years ANY new organisation is going to get it wrong (with the Saville one being the main one for me) but you're continual attempts to paint the BBC as some sort of corrupt, left-wing biased organisation that only pushes a certain agenda is patently false and is only given validity by your adoration of Trump and his calling of EVERYONE that isn't a sycophant news station FAKE NEWS! 

They got it wrong. They owned up to their mistake and heads rolled. Exactly what should have happened but importantly, all that needed or needs to happen.

5 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

However, when the plaintiff is a sitting President of the United States, the situation is materially different for separation-of-powers reasons:

You are talking as if Trump is the defendant who has no choice in the matter. As president or anyone else, he never had to file a complaint in the first place and then claiming all things he can't do.

1 hour ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

Sue these Wokes and Lefties 😡

 

Im glad he upped the 1B to 5B  . The BBC left out the part of going to the Capital to" Peacefully Protest". To the left & their news propagandist,  Trump is a threat to their Global Establishment, any means necessary to thwart his lawful democratic win  as the leader of the free world is justified to them . Spin news to alter public opinion.

3 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

you're continual attempts to paint the BBC as some sort of corrupt, left-wing biased organisation that only pushes a certain agenda is patently false

 

Nope.

 

That's exactly what they are and the British people are waking up to the fact.

 

Keep gaslighting though, it's all you've got left. 

 

 

14 hours ago, ronnie50 said:

I see this a bit differently. The UK PM calling for the BBC to get their house in order is actually underlining 20 years of a 'thousand cuts' the BBC has had to deal with. The BBC had its house well in order before that slash and burn nonsense. Now, BBC like some other news agencies and TV networks, are forced to hand the work of making 'their' documentaries and entertainment to third-parties (contractors) who will cut corners and produce these programmes cheaper. But cutting corners has precisely the outcome we just witnessed. Should BBC have been more careful in double-checking all the edits? Yes. Is it possible their senior staff get too stretched and just trust a contractor with a good track record? Yes. Does that let them off the hook? Unfortunately not.

Do you have any direct experience in documentary post-production, and the normally rigorous oversight (including a BBC producer & legal staff) an organization such as the BBC provides when it uses a third-party post-production company? 

36 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

I don't think so.....?

 

 

U.S. Judgments Are Enforceable in the UK via the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933

• The UK is a party to reciprocal enforcement with 29 U.S. states, including Florida (via the 1933 Act).
• A final, non-appealable Florida judgment for a fixed sum (like $5.2 billion) can be registered in the UK High Court within 6 years.
• Once registered, it becomes as enforceable as a UK judgment — meaning:
  • Freezing orders on BBC bank accounts (including overseas ones with UK nexus).
  • Third-party debt orders seizing funds owed to the BBC (e.g., from advertisers, distributors).
  • Charging orders on BBC property (Television Centre, regional offices, etc.).
  • Contempt of court for non-payment → potential fines or imprisonment of BBC executives.

     

     

    Even before UK enforcement:

    • Bank accounts: Any BBC funds in U.S. banks (even transit dollars) can be frozen and seized.
    • Real property: BBC offices in Washington, New York, Los Angeles → foreclosure sale.
    • Intellectual property: U.S. trademarks, copyrights (e.g., Doctor Who, BBC World Service) → lien and forced licensing.
    • Revenue streams: Ad sales, syndication deals, PBS co-productions → garnishment.

    Bottom LineRefusing to pay is not a viable strategy. The BBC would:

    Lose all U.S. assets and revenue.

    Face UK enforcement seizing domestic funds/property.

    Risk global internet deplatforming.

    See executives jailed or barred from travel.

    The British taxpayer would foot the bill either way — either paying the judgment or funding a crippled BBC. Compliance is the only rational path.

Perhaps not that cut and dried?

 

The case must have been brought within the parameters which apply in the UK, and UK law holds that the case must have been brought within one year of the alleged defamation.

 

Punitive and or excessive damages rather than actual proven damages will not be enforced in the UK ( nor in any other European country); and of course any attempt to enforce such damages is appealable.

Trump is such a ridiculous and petulant man child. He's likely the most litigious man in history and that shows a tremendous degree of self-loathing. Though the editing of that video was unethical, none of it was made up, and Trump said everything that was quoted, just not necessarily in that order. He did encite the January 6th riot. There is no doubt about that. Had he just been a man about it, and accepted the results none of that ever would have happened.