Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

BBC Faces £4BN Trump Lawsuit Crisis; Starmer Backs Reforms

Featured Replies

  • Popular Post
6 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

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

 

 

Tommy Robinson espouses the BBC?  

  • Replies 136
  • Views 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • lol Good luck with that, but anything to keep the public eye off ‘the files’, eh!

  • It sures looks like BBC sycophant's  we're trying to influence the election  of 2024 , coming out with  a deep  fake News  manipulation in that documentary only 8 days away  from the USA Nov 5th .2024

  • 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

Posted Images

5 billion? He will be lucky if he has to pay the BBC costs. 

Highest payments for defamation in the UK according to ChatGpt.

 

Lord Aldington v. Count Nikolai Tolstoy (1989):
£1.5 million in damages (never paid).
Awarded to Lord Aldington for libel over allegations of war crimes.
Adil Raja case (2025):
£50,000 in damages and £300,000 in costs, totaling £350,000.
Awarded against Adil Raja for defamation.
Chris Packham case (2024):
£90,000 in damages awarded to Chris Packham.
However, Packham was ordered to pay legal costs that dwarfed his damages, reportedly around £196,008.
Northcott v Hundeyin (2024):
£95,000 in damages, including aggravated damages, were awarded to the claimant.

8 minutes ago, Purdey said:

5 billion? He will be lucky if he has to pay the BBC costs. 

Highest payments for defamation in the UK according to ChatGpt.

 

Lord Aldington v. Count Nikolai Tolstoy (1989):
£1.5 million in damages (never paid).
Awarded to Lord Aldington for libel over allegations of war crimes.
Adil Raja case (2025):
£50,000 in damages and £300,000 in costs, totaling £350,000.
Awarded against Adil Raja for defamation.
Chris Packham case (2024):
£90,000 in damages awarded to Chris Packham.
However, Packham was ordered to pay legal costs that dwarfed his damages, reportedly around £196,008.
Northcott v Hundeyin (2024):
£95,000 in damages, including aggravated damages, were awarded to the claimant.

 

He won't sue them in the UK. 

23 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

No millions of British license fee payers' money have been handed over—yet the BBC has already issued a formal apology to President Trump for the Panorama edit, admitting it was an "error of judgment" that gave the "mistaken impression" he directly called for violence on Jan. 6.

They've pulled the documentary from all platforms and seen their Director-General and head of news resign amid the scandal. Far from a "clumsy edit," splicing non-consecutive parts of his speech to falsely portray incitement meets the definition of deceptive editing.

 

Bipartisan probes (e.g., the Senate Homeland Security Committee's 2021 report) explicitly found no evidence Trump incited the riot—his full speech repeatedly called for supporters to protest "peacefully and patriotically." The overall message wasn't neutral reporting; it was a misleading narrative aired days before the 2024 election.This isn't "harassment"—it's accountability.

 

Trump has secured settlements from U.S. networks (e.g., $16m from CBS, $15m from ABC) for similar deceptive edits. The BBC's refusal to compensate doesn't make the claim baseless; it just means the fight may head to court, where public figures can still win on actual malice. License payers deserve better than funding admitted errors that smear a world leader.

 

Perhaps some organizatin might like to make a serious study of how many / how seriously trump has defamed thousands of folks across the world. It would amount to millions. 

 

Doony might like to rmeber the old adage 'don't throw stones....'

Just now, scorecard said:

 

Perhaps some organizatin might like to make a serious study of how many / how seriously trump has defamed thousands of folks across the world. It would amount to millions. 

 

Donny might like to rmeber the old adage 'don't throw stones....'

 

35 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

He won't sue them in the UK. 

From the original complaint Trump v. ABC/Stephanopoulos as prepared by Attorney Brito:

image.jpeg.b69dab46f98abf300f7129cc79a2c79c.jpeg

17 hours ago, Hamus Yaigh said:

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.

 

How does that negate my 'cynical' claim?

 

They did it on purpose and got caught out. They had no choice but to admit it. It was there for all to see. That doesn't mean the initial action was not cynical. It just means they got caught. 

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

From the original complaint Trump v. ABC/Stephanopoulos as prepared by Attorney Brito:

image.jpeg.b69dab46f98abf300f7129cc79a2c79c.jpeg

 

Not sure what that has to do with your suggestion that the award handed out will be in line with UK awards.

 

I don't care if Trump wins 1$ or $1,000,000,000 I just want to see the BBC dragged through the courts and humiliated for the whole world to see. They deserve it. The process will be the punishment.  

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Not sure what that has to do with your suggestion

You said he case will not be in the UK -- it may have a rough time in Florida as well based on how Att. Brito described above the venue for Florida.

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Not sure what that has to do with your suggestion that the award handed out will be in line with UK awards.

 

I don't care if Trump wins 1$ or $1,000,000,000 I just want to see the BBC dragged through the courts and humiliated for the whole world to see. They deserve it. The process will be the punishment.  

Absolutely, I don't think President Trump needs the money!:whistling: Billionaires usually don't!

3 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Absolutely, I don't think President Trump needs the money!:whistling: Billionaires usually don't!

 

That's right, and ultimately any huge award will paid for by extorting the British taxpayers like the BBC always does when they need money. Nobody at the BBC will suffer, they'll keep their chauffeurs, expensive offices and all expenses paid trips to "Glasto" etc...

 

I'd rather see a humiliating process for the BBC, followed by a fairly small award (6 figures). 

7 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Absolutely, I don't think President Trump needs the money!:whistling: Billionaires usually don't!

Especially one that is grifting quite as hard as Trump.

 

'Donald Trump just had the most lucrative year of his life. The president is now worth a record $7.3 billion, up from $4.3 billion in 2024, when he was still running for office. The $3 billion gain vaulted him 118 spots on The Forbes 400, where he lands at No. 201 this year. No president in U.S. history has used his position of power to profit as immensely as Trump. His primary vehicle for enrichment: cryptocurrency, an asset class full of hype and vulnerable to regulators. Teaming up with his three sons, Trump announced a crypto venture in September 2024 named World Liberty Financial, which initially struggled to gain traction. Then he won the White House. Crypto entrepreneur Justin Sun, whom the Securities and Exchange Commission had accused of fraud, invested $75 million, routing an estimated $40 million to the president-elect and millions more to his family members, kickstarting a bonanza that has since snowballed. In January, days before reentering the White House, Trump launched a memecoin, adding hundreds of millions to his pile of cash.'   https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2025/09/09/presidency-boosts-trumps-net-worth-by-3-billion-in-a-year/

 

Just a complete con-man. And you guys love him.

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I just want to see the BBC dragged through the courts and humiliated for the whole world to see.

Before this would ever get to the drag-through-the-mud phase, Team Trump might have to show just who in Florida saw the doco prior to the 2024 presidential election:

 

image.png.bb8cdbf11bbc71e14d496b7722cfdcc8.png

21 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

How does that negate my 'cynical' claim?

 

They did it on purpose and got caught out. They had no choice but to admit it. It was there for all to see. That doesn't mean the initial action was not cynical. It just means they got caught. 

The way certain people rush to defend the BBC after its latest heinous fake news hit piece on Trump is beyond belief. You almost have to laugh at the absurdity.

1 minute ago, riclag said:

The way certain people rush to defend the BBC after its latest heinous fake news hit piece on Trump is beyond belief. You almost have to laugh at the absurdity.

 

Same old story from the left. They defend the BBC and their fake news propaganda like their life depended on it - while simultaneously claiming it is in fact a rightwing organization. 😄

 

The cognitive dissonance and gaslighting must be exhausting for them. 

If as President Trump said, as above, that the BBC tried to step on the scales of a Presidential election, but nobody in Florida saw the doco prior to the election, then where is the case?

image.jpeg.279d28cad827353012bf37d1f3b5b8d4.jpeg

No comment on the above other than I heard the word 'fraud' btw


https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Jacob_Rees-Mogg
Sir Jacob William Rees-Mogg is a British politician, broadcaster and member of the Conservative Party 

_____________

Imaginary AN conversation:

 

DJT: I told all those at the Ellipse Jan6 to march to the Capitol "peacefully and patriotically"

 

Reply: And?

4 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Absolutely, I don't think President Trump needs the money!:whistling: Billionaires usually don't!

 

Plus he seems to have numerous US and other billionaire benefactors all happy to give him hundreds of millions without question. Sad.

18 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Plus he seems to have numerous US and other billionaire benefactors all happy to give him hundreds of millions without question. Sad.

 
The claim that Trump uniquely has "numerous US and other billionaire benefactors all happy to give him hundreds of millions without question" doesn't hold up. It's a bipartisan bonanza: Kamala Harris had more billionaire supporters (83 vs. Trump's 52, per Forbes), and while Trump's mega-donors wrote bigger individual checks (totaling ~$570M from billionaires vs. ~$130M for Harris), her camp raised far more overall ($2.9B vs. Trump's ~$1.8B, including small donors and PACs). The "without question" part? That's spin—donors on both sides expect (and often get) policy favors, access, or roles, from tax cuts to Cabinet spots. 
 

Every single serious presidential candidate in the modern era does it.
There has not been a major-party nominee since at least the 1990s who did not receive tens or hundreds of millions (inflation-adjusted) from billionaires and multi-millionaires through direct contributions, bundling, super PACs, or dark-money groups.

 

If you win a major-party nomination in the United States today, a small group of ultra-wealthy people will write gigantic checks to groups supporting you. It’s not a Trump thing, not an Obama thing, not a Democrat or Republican thing. It’s an American-presidential-politics thing.

28 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Especially one that is grifting quite as hard as Trump.

 

'Donald Trump just had the most lucrative year of his life. The president is now worth a record $7.3 billion, up from $4.3 billion in 2024, when he was still running for office. The $3 billion gain vaulted him 118 spots on The Forbes 400, where he lands at No. 201 this year. No president in U.S. history has used his position of power to profit as immensely as Trump. His primary vehicle for enrichment: cryptocurrency, an asset class full of hype and vulnerable to regulators. Teaming up with his three sons, Trump announced a crypto venture in September 2024 named World Liberty Financial, which initially struggled to gain traction. Then he won the White House. Crypto entrepreneur Justin Sun, whom the Securities and Exchange Commission had accused of fraud, invested $75 million, routing an estimated $40 million to the president-elect and millions more to his family members, kickstarting a bonanza that has since snowballed. In January, days before reentering the White House, Trump launched a memecoin, adding hundreds of millions to his pile of cash.'   https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2025/09/09/presidency-boosts-trumps-net-worth-by-3-billion-in-a-year/

 

Just a complete con-man. And you guys love him.

 

 

Trump’s $3 billion net-worth jump to $7.3 billion isn’t “profiteering from the presidency”; it’s the entirely predictable result of him winning the election and then unleashing the biggest pro-crypto policy shift in U.S. history.

When the guy who promised to end the SEC’s war on digital assets actually wins the White House, the entire sector explodes. Everyone who held Bitcoin, Ethereum, or any decent altcoin made a fortune in 2025.

Trump just happened to launch his own projects into that rocket fuel.

Calling World Liberty Financial and the $TRUMP memecoin a “con” is laughable. People lined up to buy those tokens with their own money because they wanted exposure to the Trump brand in the hottest asset class on earth.

The family took a big cut of the protocol revenue, exactly the same way Vitalik takes fees from Ethereum or Solana’s founders get their slice. That’s not a kickback; that’s how DeFi works.

Investors who got in early are up hundreds of percent. The ones who bought the top and panic-sold are the same people who always lose money in every bull market.

The Justin Sun story is even funnier. The SEC had been trying to nail him for years. A few weeks after Trump won, the case magically slowed down, Sun threw tens of millions into World Liberty, and then, when the token dumped, the Trumps froze his tokens like any other big holder to stop a rug-pull.

He’s publicly begging them to unfreeze it while simultaneously promising to buy another $20 million. That’s not a secret payoff; that’s a whale getting the exact same treatment as everyone else.

And the “no president has ever profited like this” line is pure historical amnesia. The Clintons made $150 million in speeches and book deals the minute they left office. Obama got $65 million for his memoirs. Jimmy Carter turned a modest peanut farm into a global empire.

Trump’s sin is that he made his money while still in office, in a completely transparent, market-driven way instead of waiting until the traditional post-presidency cash-in window.

Bottom line: Trump bet big on crypto, won the election, delivered the policy, and the market rewarded him massively, just like it rewarded every other early believer. If that makes him a “con-man,” then every Bitcoin millionaire on the planet is running the same con, and the only people mad about it are the ones who stayed on the sidelines clutching their fiat.

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Jimmy Carter turned a modest peanut farm into a global empire.

AI quickie - Gemini:

 

 At its peak, the farms he operated encompassed close to 2,500 acres. 


However, the business faced significant financial difficulties when Carter put it into a blind trust during his presidency to avoid conflicts of interest. Due to drought and mismanagement by the trustee, the business was over $1 million in debt when he left office in 1981. The Carters sold the enterprise to cover these debts. 

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

 

 

Trump’s $3 billion net-worth jump to $7.3 billion isn’t “profiteering from the presidency”; it’s the entirely predictable result of him winning the election and then unleashing the biggest pro-crypto policy shift in U.S. history.

When the guy who promised to end the SEC’s war on digital assets actually wins the White House, the entire sector explodes. Everyone who held Bitcoin, Ethereum, or any decent altcoin made a fortune in 2025.

Trump just happened to launch his own projects into that rocket fuel.

Calling World Liberty Financial and the $TRUMP memecoin a “con” is laughable. People lined up to buy those tokens with their own money because they wanted exposure to the Trump brand in the hottest asset class on earth.

The family took a big cut of the protocol revenue, exactly the same way Vitalik takes fees from Ethereum or Solana’s founders get their slice. That’s not a kickback; that’s how DeFi works.

Investors who got in early are up hundreds of percent. The ones who bought the top and panic-sold are the same people who always lose money in every bull market.

The Justin Sun story is even funnier. The SEC had been trying to nail him for years. A few weeks after Trump won, the case magically slowed down, Sun threw tens of millions into World Liberty, and then, when the token dumped, the Trumps froze his tokens like any other big holder to stop a rug-pull.

He’s publicly begging them to unfreeze it while simultaneously promising to buy another $20 million. That’s not a secret payoff; that’s a whale getting the exact same treatment as everyone else.

And the “no president has ever profited like this” line is pure historical amnesia. The Clintons made $150 million in speeches and book deals the minute they left office. Obama got $65 million for his memoirs. Jimmy Carter turned a modest peanut farm into a global empire.

Trump’s sin is that he made his money while still in office, in a completely transparent, market-driven way instead of waiting until the traditional post-presidency cash-in window.

Bottom line: Trump bet big on crypto, won the election, delivered the policy, and the market rewarded him massively, just like it rewarded every other early believer. If that makes him a “con-man,” then every Bitcoin millionaire on the planet is running the same con, and the only people mad about it are the ones who stayed on the sidelines clutching their fiat.

You really have drunk the juice haven't you. And your reply is just one continuous contradiction after the next. Let's break them down shall we:-

 

'Trump’s $3 billion net-worth jump to $7.3 billion isn’t “profiteering from the presidency”; it’s the entirely predictable result of him winning the election and then unleashing the biggest pro-crypto policy shift in U.S. history' - everything was set up in November BEFORE he became POTUS and neither the meme coin nor the exchange were doing much UNTIL he became POTUS. If you cannot see this as directly profiting from being office then there really is no helping you.

 

'Calling World Liberty Financial and the $TRUMP memecoin a “con” is laughable.' - it's not laughable as it is a direct opportunity to influence the POTUS through a simple but VERY effective way of buying favour. 

 

'The family took a big cut of the protocol revenue' - oh you mean HIS family?

 

"The Clintons made $150 million in speeches and book deals the minute they left office. Obama got $65 million for his memoirs. Jimmy Carter turned a modest peanut farm into a global empire'. The important phrase there is AFTER they left office. None profited whilst IN office. 

 

'.....completely transparent' - yeah sure and I have a bridge to sell you.

 

'If that makes him a “con-man,” then every Bitcoin millionaire on the planet is running the same con' - agreed. Just my opinion though as I'm sure many don't feel the same.

 

This is just typical MAGA fanaticism along the lines of 'I could shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters. You're just all there defending the indefensible. The mental gymnastic you must have to go though on a daily basis must be exhausting. The guy is a snake-oil salesman and you just all think that's just dandy.

 

Shame on you. Shame on you all. 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

 

 
The claim that Trump uniquely has "numerous US and other billionaire benefactors all happy to give him hundreds of millions without question" doesn't hold up. It's a bipartisan bonanza: Kamala Harris had more billionaire supporters (83 vs. Trump's 52, per Forbes), and while Trump's mega-donors wrote bigger individual checks (totaling ~$570M from billionaires vs. ~$130M for Harris), her camp raised far more overall ($2.9B vs. Trump's ~$1.8B, including small donors and PACs). The "without question" part? That's spin—donors on both sides expect (and often get) policy favors, access, or roles, from tax cuts to Cabinet spots. 
 

Every single serious presidential candidate in the modern era does it.
There has not been a major-party nominee since at least the 1990s who did not receive tens or hundreds of millions (inflation-adjusted) from billionaires and multi-millionaires through direct contributions, bundling, super PACs, or dark-money groups.

 

If you win a major-party nomination in the United States today, a small group of ultra-wealthy people will write gigantic checks to groups supporting you. It’s not a Trump thing, not an Obama thing, not a Democrat or Republican thing. It’s an American-presidential-politics thing.

 

Ultimately meaning that the candidate with the most funds becomes president.

 

Not really democracy.

39 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Ultimately meaning that the candidate with the most funds becomes president.

 

Not really democracy.

 

txt  in txt out deletion

16 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

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

 

I looked. Couldn't find anything about Panorama offering people money to lie about Yaxley-Lennon. 

Got a link?

Just to note:

 

The Wall Street Journal published their article on Donald Trump's contribution to the Epstein birthday book on 17 JUL 2025.

 

The lawsuit against the WSJ was filed in Florida federal court by attorney Brito 18 JUL 2025

5 hours ago, riclag said:

 

txt  in txt out deletion

 

What does that mean?

6 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

I looked. Couldn't find anything about Panorama offering people money to lie about Yaxley-Lennon. 

Got a link?

Your not trying hard enough.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.