1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

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. 

 

"Trump is such a tremendous man" you say? And I have to say I agree with you. 

 

I mean, you said everything I quoted, just not necessarily in that order. 😄

1 hour ago, Summerinsiam said:

No money will be paid nor should it. The case has no legal merit and is just a bullying tactic. 

BBC will pay, it's just a matter of how much, and they should. Their reputation is at stake here, and that's worth a quick settlement and a more sincere apology.

7 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

BBC will pay, it's just a matter of how much, and they should. Their reputation is at stake here, and that's worth a quick settlement and a more sincere apology.

From the BBC website:

 

"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."

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.

It was absolut incompetence by the BBC and it is no good anyone trying to deny it. If they did have to out-source the documentory you think tha  alo done  t someone would watch it and check for mistakes before putting it to air.Trump will sue the ar#e off them and when he wins and they can't pay he will bankrupt them and close them down. We have the same problem in Australia with the very woke and lefy leaning  ABC who have  also done similar tricks faking news . Like the BBC the ABC is publicly funded but directly by the Government  ( taxpayers   ) and not a subscription.

 

 

5 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

From the BBC website:

 

"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."

Regret without remedy isn't sincerity—it's stonewalling. The BBC already knows the edit crossed the line; that's why they've gone to such lengths to distance themselves from it. Disagreeing there's a legal claim is just posturing until a court (or settlement) says otherwise. License-fee payers funded a smear—they deserve better than excuses.

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

From the BBC website:

 

"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."

I think their reputation was already poor before this.Can anyone from the U.K. tell me how many people would subscribe if it wasn't compulsoty . Not too many I think.

That was a verbatim quote that I presume was vetted prior.

 

The Brito lawsuit should be filled shortly as this will be his 4th media suit filed for Mr. Trump.

 

Some the Brito prior handiwork from the settled ABC/ Stephanopoulos lawsuit

click to enlarge

7 hours ago, dinsdale said:

US citizens in Britain.

You are grasping at straws! 😆

 

How many US citizens watched this program in the UK before voting?

 

And, in relation to my previous post, did the BBC target US citizen with this program?

51 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

From the BBC website:

 

"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."

I'm well aware of what they said. Of course, they won't concede at this point, nor should they. The lawsuit has not yet begun.

22 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

I'm well aware of what they said. Of course, they won't concede at this point, nor should they. The lawsuit has not yet begun.

OK but I was responding to your saying:

 

"Their reputation is at stake here, and that's worth a quick settlement and a more sincere apology."

 

If there is no defamation as they claim, then to many persons in both UK and US, their reputation may suffer if they DO agree to a settlement.

On 11/16/2025 at 12:47 PM, 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.

You're joking ?

Personally, having made his point, I doubt Donald Trump will take this much further. 

3 hours 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. 

 

 

This was not a mistake by the BBC's programme maker, it was a deliberate distortion. However I doubt Donald Trump will take this much further. More important things to do.

25 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

OK but I was responding to your saying:

 

"Their reputation is at stake here, and that's worth a quick settlement and a more sincere apology."

 

If there is no defamation as they claim, then to many persons in both UK and US, their reputation may suffer if they DO agree to a settlement.

Sorry, it's only a prediction on my part. Anything could happen. 

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

"Trump is such a tremendous man" you say? And I have to say I agree with you. 

 

I mean, you said everything I quoted, just not necessarily in that order. 😄

Massive quantities of it can be harmful to one's health. 

2 hours ago, wavodavo said:

It was absolut incompetence by the BBC and it is no good anyone trying to deny it. If they did have to out-source the documentory you think tha  alo done  t someone would watch it and check for mistakes before putting it to air.Trump will sue the ar#e off them and when he wins and they can't pay he will bankrupt them and close them down. We have the same problem in Australia with the very woke and lefy leaning  ABC who have  also done similar tricks faking news . Like the BBC the ABC is publicly funded but directly by the Government  ( taxpayers   ) and not a subscription.

 

 

Someone bemoaning the BBC for not getting someone to 'check their work' after literally writing a paragraph full of spelling and grammatical errors. 

On 11/16/2025 at 10:39 AM, Rimmer said:

The clip unintentionally implied Trump incited the Capitol riot

That's a heck of a comment.  I suspect they (BBC) knew exactly what they were doing.  The derangement is a global news effort and problem. 

2 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Regret without remedy isn't sincerity—it's stonewalling. The BBC already knows the edit crossed the line; that's why they've gone to such lengths to distance themselves from it. Disagreeing there's a legal claim is just posturing until a court (or settlement) says otherwise. License-fee payers funded a smear—they deserve better than excuses.

What are you waffling on about? 'Regret without remedy isn't sincerity—it's stonewalling'? They literally investigated themselves, quickly owned up to their mistake and both the Director General and the CEO resigned soon after. There's been no 'stonewalling'. There's been no 'distancing themselves' and there's been no 'excuses'. They got it wrong, held their hands up and resigned. No amount of people like yourself pearl clutching like what they did is the end of the world because it offended a fragile man-baby will make these facts any different.

2 hours ago, wavodavo said:

I think their reputation was already poor before this.Can anyone from the U.K. tell me how many people would subscribe if it wasn't compulsoty . Not too many I think.

A lot.

 

The BBC has been the bastion of a free and open media for many for over 100 years and is the envy of many. It saw us through WWII, the coronation, the death of our queen and much, much more. It is one of the most trusted news sources in the world with The BBC World Service reaching about 418 million people weekly across TV, radio, and digital platforms in 43 languages. It is often ranked as one of the most trusted and reliable international news providers in the world.

 

 

No amount of you right-wingers trying to besmirch their reputation just because it doesn't support your myopic world view will ever change these facts.

10 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

What are you waffling on about? 'Regret without remedy isn't sincerity—it's stonewalling'? They literally investigated themselves, quickly owned up to their mistake and both the Director General and the CEO resigned soon after. There's been no 'stonewalling'. There's been no 'distancing themselves' and there's been no 'excuses'. They got it wrong, held their hands up and resigned. No amount of people like yourself pearl clutching like what they did is the end of the world because it offended a fragile man-baby will make these facts any different.

"Owned up"? They only confessed after Trump threatened a multibillion-dollar lawsuit and the White House demanded answers.

The “investigation” was a panicked internal scramble once the edit went viral and the resignations were forced—not noble self-sacrifice. Tim Davie and Deborah Turness didn’t fall on their swords out of honor; they were pushed to save the institution from total meltdown.

 

And spare us the “fragile man-baby” sneering. This isn’t about hurt feelings—it’s about a taxpayer-funded broadcaster splicing a world leader’s speech out of order to fabricate incitement, days before an election.

ABC paid $15m. CBS paid $16m. The BBC thinks apologies and resignations are a free pass while keeping every license-fee pound. That’s not accountability—that’s arrogance.

Regret without financial remedy is stonewalling. They got caught red-handed, performed a public mea culpa to save face, and now hide behind “we resigned!” to avoid paying for the lie. If that’s your idea of integrity, enjoy the Kool-Aid. The rest of us call it getting away with it.

7 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

A lot.

 

The BBC has been the bastion of a free and open media for many for over 100 years and is the envy of many. It saw us through WWII, the coronation, the death of our queen and much, much more. It is one of the most trusted news sources in the world with The BBC World Service reaching about 418 million people weekly across TV, radio, and digital platforms in 43 languages. It is often ranked as one of the most trusted and reliable international news providers in the world.

 

 

No amount of you right-wingers trying to besmirch their reputation just because it doesn't support your myopic world view will ever change these facts.

" It is often ranked as one of the most trusted and reliable international news providers in the world."

Great sarcasm...GOOD ONE!!!!

 

he BBC was last "actually trusted" at peak levels in 2003 (22 years ago), with broad cross-party faith intact until ~2012.

Today, it's trusted by a slim majority but as a polarized institution—valuable, yet vulnerable to bias accusations.

2 hours ago, wavodavo said:

It was absolut incompetence by the BBC and it is no good anyone trying to deny it. If they did have to out-source the documentory you think tha  alo done  t someone would watch it and check for mistakes before putting it to air.Trump will sue the ar#e off them and when he wins and they can't pay he will bankrupt them and close them down. We have the same problem in Australia with the very woke and lefy leaning  ABC who have  also done similar tricks faking news . Like the BBC the ABC is publicly funded but directly by the Government  ( taxpayers   ) and not a subscription.

 

 

As I have already explained, I very much doubt that the UK courts will accept, should Trump win and be awarded the massive punative damages he is threatening to claim in the Florida courts, that he will be able to enforce them through the UK courts. Apart from the consideration that the alleged defamation is "out of time" under UK law, and that punative and excessive damages as opposed to any actual provable damages will not be enforced by the courts, there is also the matter of setting a very dangerous precedent. The BBC is established by Royal Charter, and that Royal Charter is set and revised by Parliament - I'm not sure about the ABC. I really cannot conceive that the British Courts will allow a foreign potentate to pursue the bankrupting and closing down of an organisation established by such a charter, and and whose ultimate fate is controlled by Parliament, in the cause of political vengeance and his personal enrichment. In the UK, Parliament is sovereign, and the courts will not allow a precedent established that a foreigner can overule or bypass Parliament in deciding the future of such a body. If it came to it Parliament could and would step in to put a stop to it; and under our Constitution Parliament is sovereign, not Co-equal to courts or the executive - which in as much as we have one, unlike the USA, is drawn from and answerable to Parliament.

 

Of course the BBC can be made to suffer in the USA. I suppose that they can be fined, to the limit of the funds they hold there, property seized, banned, maybe even their correspondants thrown out of the country. All that of course will be subject to due process and judicial action by the US legal system, whether that can and will stand up to Mr Trump remains to be seen. The BBC was stupid to make that edit, there was I am sure a degree of awareness amongst the programme producers as to exactly what they were doing. but Mr Trump does not have the final say within the UK. As I have also already said, such actions  would be a very bad look for the USA, rather putting them alongside Apharteid South Africa and the Soviet Union.

10 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

ABC paid $15m. CBS paid $16m. The BBC thinks apologies and resignations are a free pass while keeping every license-fee pound.

ABC and CBS are American broadcasters, they were obviously cowed by the threat they thought Donald Trump posed to them, and were prepared to hand him American money. The BBC is not American, and the license fee is not American money

Another massive mistake that cost a Panorama boss was the programme on Tommy Robinson. He secretly had an insider miked up and with a hidden camera and filmed Panorama offering money to lie against Tommy Robinson and try to smear him. The producer and others on Panorama were " Retired " ie sacked and they quickly did a under the carpet job. 

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

It wasn't a "Clumsy" edit.

 

It was a deliberate and cynical attempt to deceive the viewing public. You know, the ones who are extorted to pay for it all. 

 

Their anti Trump / Pro Left agenda is clear for all to see and has been for years. 

The BBC formally apologized for the edit on Nov 14, calling it an 'error of judgment'—not denying bias, but owning the mistake. That kind of negates your cynical claim which you might see if you took off your Trump tinted glasses. Trump's $1-5B suit still seems like a shakedown, with slim odds as I said, under US defamation standards for public figures like him.

3 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Regret without remedy isn't sincerity—it's stonewalling. The BBC already knows the edit crossed the line; that's why they've gone to such lengths to distance themselves from it. Disagreeing there's a legal claim is just posturing until a court (or settlement) says otherwise. License-fee payers funded a smear—they deserve better than excuses.

You put it so nicely .

Maybe the Panorama doco editing was done in the context of persons saying that President Trump's 20 times use of the word "fight" was a figurative political metaphor and not a literal call for violence. 

 

And that the one time that he said, for a few seconds, "peacefully and patriotically" that was a metaphor too and disingenuous considering that Trump at the time knew that persons in the audience were armed and refusing Secret Service screening.

 

So maybe the Panorama editors decided to leave out the "peacefully and patriotically" because -- considering what happened next -- it might come off as a laugh line.

There's Trump using threats ,suing anything and anyone that he thinks

he can cobble a case against , BUT the court cases he has lost ,he is not

paying the damages due , for sexual assault case and business fraud.

 

regards worgeordie

1 hour ago, BarraMarra said:

Another massive mistake that cost a Panorama boss was the programme on Tommy Robinson. He secretly had an insider miked up and with a hidden camera and filmed Panorama offering money to lie against Tommy Robinson and try to smear him. The producer and others on Panorama were " Retired " ie sacked and they quickly did a under the carpet job. 

 

You have a link to this, right? 

8 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

 

You have a link to this, right? 

look for yourself take you 2 minutes tommy robinson esposes the bbc.