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.

Trump Sues BBC for $5 Billion Over January 6 Speech Edit

Featured Replies

On 12/16/2025 at 12:30 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

The BBC aren’t owned by the same hyper wealthy right wingers that feed you the canned views to parrot about dear old Aunty.

 

However, FOX News USA  was sued for wrongful claims and it had to settle.

If the BBC has committed an intentional wrongful act it must take responsibility. Instead we have seen an attempt first to deny, then an attempt to downplay by dismissing it as an unfortunate incident. Unlike the Fox case, no one has been held accountable.The responsible parties are still employed.

  • Replies 297
  • Views 9.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Such an unhinged response. The BBC isn't propaganda for anyone except in the eyes of people who's views are extremist and do not align. It operates under a royal charter mandating impartiality and bal

  • Great news.   Drag them through the mud Don. They deserve it, the morally bankrupt, left wing, state funded, Propaganda wing of the Welfare Pa..., sorry I meant the Labour party.  

  • The Panorama program was a 60 minute edit that was spliced for a few seconds of footage clumsily. The BBC has put out billions of hours of broadcasts over a 100 year lifespan and you and Trump want it

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Legally, the BBC considers itself on good ground.

 

Trump's case appears to rely on two main points - jurisdiction and malice.

 

He is suing from Florida and needs to prove that audiences in the so-called Sunshine State saw the Panorama programme, in order to prove that it impacted him negatively.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2przgvdyeo

From a legal perspective, the BBC's position following the High Court ruling that Sir Cliff Richard had "no case to answer" was that the judgment represented a "dramatic shift against press freedom". The corporation argued it was protecting the principle of the public's right to know and the media's ability to scrutinise police investigations. 

Public Interest vs. Privacy: The BBC maintained that its reporting was justified under the right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the Human Rights Act)

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cliff-richard-v-bbc-judgment.pdf

As we can see from the judgment here the Judge didn't have the same view from a legal point of view as the BBC

5 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

As we can see from the judgment here the Judge didn't have the same view from a legal point of view as the BBC

I don't know anything about UK law.

 

Legal experts have said arguments over jurisdiction could play a central role, with the case hinging on whether anyone in Florida saw the documentary. The filing says the episode may have been available to viewers in Florida using a VPN or via the BritBox streaming service.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mx28vlp4wo

9 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I don't know anything about UK law.

 

Legal experts have said arguments over jurisdiction could play a central role, with the case hinging on whether anyone in Florida saw the documentary. The filing says the episode may have been available to viewers in Florida using a VPN or via the BritBox streaming service.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mx28vlp4wo

If you put all the lawyers in the world into a room you would find that some lawyers support the BBC some lawyers will support that Trump does have a case

 

39 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Condensing 70 page legal briefs on Discovery disputes into pithy messages on a forum doesn't mean a lot except as an intellectual exercise for those indulging

This case is still way in the procedural realm and for not now about the issues of BBC news activities.

 

Or in American baseball parlance, it is  not yet at first base ... unless one prefers cricket

6 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

If you put all the lawyers in the world into a room you would find that some lawyers support the BBC some lawyers will support that Trump does have a case

 

Really?

 

The use of the word 'anyone' means, at least as the BBC sees it, the issue is whether the viewing audience in Florida for the doc can be proved as greater than zero.

As part of the discovery process the BBC should get his financial records, health records, and all the dirt he wants to hide.

  • Popular Post
1 hour ago, Purdey said:

As part of the discovery process the BBC should get his financial records, health records, and all the dirt he wants to hide.

If it gets to discovery, the simple question to ask of President Trump:

 

How do you get to the conclusion that the BBC has caused you by any means in any manner$10 billion worth of damage?

3 hours ago, vinny41 said:

That not the job of this forum that down to Trump Legal team

There plenty of posts from US residents living in the USA that stated  panorama was listed on Britbox but all listings for  panorama were recently removed

 

Shocking!

8 hours ago, vinny41 said:

That not the job of this forum that down to Trump Legal team

There plenty of posts from US residents living in the USA that stated  panorama was listed on Britbox but all listings for  panorama were recently removed

I would tend to think that viewing panorama after the election doesn't count....🙂

25 minutes ago, candide said:

I would tend to think that viewing panorama after the election doesn't count....🙂

It will be interesting to see what the US courts view is because the claim is for

This action concerns a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump, which was published in a BBC Panorama documentary

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382.1.0_5.pdf

And that is relevent from the day 1 of the airing of the BBC Panorama documentary until the day that they removed the program from all its media outlets

If the BBC have decided to air the program on November 6th 2024 I don't think that would make the claim null and void

22 minutes ago, candide said:

I would tend to think that viewing panorama after the election doesn't count....🙂

 

 

The BBC version was aired on Panorama 8 days before the 2024 election. 

 

The same fudged version was also aired on Newsnight sometime in 2022.

 

Lazy cheating they call journalism these days.

 

14 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

It will be interesting to see what the US courts view is because the claim is for

This action concerns a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump, which was published in a BBC Panorama documentary

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382.1.0_5.pdf

And that is relevent from the day 1 of the airing of the BBC Panorama documentary until the day that they removed the program from all its media outlets

If the BBC have decided to air the program on November 6th 2024 I don't think that would make the claim null and void

Ok

image.png.342014ec728855b88ed232d0f288e9ee.png

 

(Their bold in Overview)

 

NB And the Trump v BBC complaint makes no specific mention that anyone 'actually' saw it 'actually' being the word used in the Trump v ABC complaint. 

 

NB2 as above:

 

Legal experts have said arguments over jurisdiction could play a central role, with the case hinging on whether anyone in Florida saw the documentary. The filing says the episode may have been available to viewers in Florida using a VPN or via the BritBox streaming service. (my bold)

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mx28vlp4wo

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

image.png.342014ec728855b88ed232d0f288e9ee.png

 

(Their bold in Overview)

 

NB And the Trump v BBC complaint makes no specific mention that anyone 'actually' saw it 'actually' being the word used in the Trump v ABC complaint. 

 

NB2 as above:

 

Legal experts have said arguments over jurisdiction could play a central role, with the case hinging on whether anyone in Florida saw the documentary. The filing says the episode may have been available to viewers in Florida using a VPN or via the BritBox streaming service. (my bold)

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mx28vlp4wo

Claim document states

23. The Panorama Documentary was available to be viewed by citizens of Florida and was, in fact, viewed in Florida by citizens of Florida, notwithstanding the BBC’s anticipated, and inaccurate claims that the Documentary was unviewable in the United States due to purported geolocking.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382.1.0_5.pdf

 

9 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

in fact, viewed in Florida by citizens of Florida,

What  fact? -- all they have stated is the likelihood.

 

But you  can say, like you did before, that they have a fact but they are "not showing your cards" could be grounds for caser dismissal.

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

What  fact? -- all they have stated is the likelihood.

Suggest you read the court document rather than relying on just what the bbc says

As stated point 23 in the claim document states

23. The Panorama Documentary was available to be viewed by citizens of Florida and was, in fact, viewed in Florida by citizens of Florida, notwithstanding the BBC’s anticipated, and inaccurate claims that the Documentary was unviewable in the United States due to purported geolocking.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382.1.0_5.pdf

So if it ever gets down to not just who maybe watched the program in Florida but finding the "third person" in Florida who actually did, who would be more likely to come forward to assist Mr. Trump:

 

image.png.f5653ac15635974856e29b8d0c5f305e.png

5 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

So if it ever gets down to not just who maybe watched the program in Florida but finding the "third person" in Florida who actually did, who would be more likely to come forward to assist Mr. Trump:

 

image.png.f5653ac15635974856e29b8d0c5f305e.png

If that is the case its highly likely that a US citizen that is  a liberal or Democratic- leaning persuasion downloaded the  Panorama Documentary while they were in the UK and then hop on a plane back to the USA

There are around  around 343,325 US citizens living in the UK excluding US tourists / visitors

As far as I know there have been  daily  flights from the UK to USA for since the Panorama Documentary was aired

 

Great.

 

Meanwhile, in the Trump V Murdoch and Wall Street Journal, the WSJ team has filed a motion to dismiss. Trump responded. And WSJ replied. Then last week there was an oral hearing.

 

The Trump team, among its arguments in its response, is that the WSJ team did NOT prove that it could NOT be a fraud or NOT planted in the version of the book in the Epstein estate by various unknown Trump adversaries.

 

So the judge's ruling awaits.

  • 3 weeks later...

Latest filing on Trump v BBC based in part on a prior lawsuits in US. In a nutshell:

Saying that someone in Florida MAYBE saw it doesn't count.

  • 4 months later...
  • Popular Post
4 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Trump's team refusing to turn over financial records. The case will get thrown out.

https://archive.ph/9Li7x#selection-2293.4-2293.68

And rightly so. It was a joke of a case to begin with!

4 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Trump's team refusing to turn over financial records. The case will get thrown out.

https://archive.ph/9Li7x#selection-2293.4-2293.68

From one of the many back & forth discovery motions:

Likewise, because Plaintiff (Trump) claims that Defendants (BBC) defamed him by altering his own statements, he must prove that this “alteration results in a material change in the meaning” of the statements that he actually made on January 6. In short, to prevail in this case, Plaintiff must prove that he did not foment or incite the January 6 Capitol riot.

Plaintiff has placed that question directly at issue in bringing this libel lawsuit – he cannot now prevent Defendants from seeking records that would shed light on his true knowledge, intent, and state of mind in delivering his speech at the Ellipse. (Bold & italic in the original)

Edited by JerryM

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

The President's lawyers missed the deadline to respond to a Motion to Dismiss filed by the BBC in his defamation case against the outlet, and the court is considering hearing the MTD as unopposed and sanctioning his legal team.

The BBC filed their motion to dismiss on March 16.
trump’s legal team was unable to pull a response together in just under three months.

Panicked dog ate the homework response:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382.73.0.pdf

His lawyers have still not publicly filed any response to the motion to dismiss on the docket.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-orders-trump-lawyers-explain-missed-deadline-10-billion-bbc-defamation-2026-06-08/

June 8 (Reuters) - A Miami federal judge on Monday ordered Donald Trump's lawyers to explain why they should not be penalized for missing a Friday deadline ‌to respond to the BBC's motion to dismiss the U.S. president's $10 billion defamation lawsuit over a misleadingly edited clip of a speech.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/insight/judge-threatens-sanctions-over-missed-deadline-in-trump-bbc-case/gm-GMC31A6DFB?gemSnapshotKey=GMC31A6DFB-snapshot-5&uxmode=ruby

Judge Roy Altman, a Trump appointee, warned Trump’s lawyers they could face sanctions for missing a June 5 deadline in the BBC libel case

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

Panicked dog ate the homework response:

From the filing:

The Delay was Caused by Plaintiff’s Good-Faith Efforts to Comply with the Protective Order.

Edited by JerryM

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.