Just now, jerrymahoney said:

Great. And President Trump can be deposed as to why he thinks the BBC has caused him $10 billion worth of damage.

 

   Harmed his esteemed reputation globally  ?

3 hours ago, webfact said:

The BBC has apologised for the editing error, acknowledging it was a lapse in judgement,

It was clearly neither an editing error or a lapse in judgement

7 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Great. And President Trump can be deposed as to why he thinks the BBC has caused him $10 billion worth of damage.

 

I don't see a downside risk there.  He can't run again...

 

33 minutes ago, Palatus said:

The Panorama program was a 60 minute edit that was spliced for a few seconds of footage clumsily.

yeah right,,  "clumsy splicing " you are delusional.    If it was accidental why would two senior employees fall on their swords over this , an apology would have sufficed

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I don't see a downside risk there.  He can't run again...

 

As far as his being able to claim damages, I don't see that that helps him,

Just my thought, but if the BBC people wanted Team Trump to produce a Florida resident who claims by whatever means they saw the Panorama doc in the roughly ten-day window it was shown before the election, that person would not just sign a statement but would subject to BBC interrogatory,

 

This is from the (settled) Trump ABC-Stephanopoulos lawsuit (click to enlarge):

 

The current BBC lawsuit gives an explanation as to who MAY have seen the doc worthy of Rube Goldberg.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

A disgusting organization. t

Defund it

 

 

 

 

Sure, jonny.  

 

Just for your benefit!!

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, In Full Agreement said:

 

 

 

 

Sure, jonny.  

 

Just for your benefit!!

 

 

 

 

Umm, not exactly.

 

BBC loses £1.1bn as more households opt out of paying licence fee | LBC

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/bbc-missing-out-on-11bn-as-more-households-opt-out-of-paying-licence-fee-5HjdNBm_2/

1 hour ago, daveAustin said:

The big difference is the BBC covers the gamut of TV making, it’s not just news. I’d be up for a big change with how the news is generate and made non-bias again, but to close it down (ain’t gonna happen) would lose all the great TV… dramas & natural world etc. That side of it is nothing to do with the Trump nonsense. Those others you cite can’t hold a candle to the bbc. 

 

    The BBC can be funded some other way , rather than a licence fee

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Hyper wealthy right wingers?  Most of my favorite right wing sources have a few thousand followers and a few friends working with them that scour the interwebs looking for the stories that the hyper wealthy MSM won't cover.

 

Yes, the rightwing corner of the internet that can’t drum up an audience beyond friends and family.

 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Umm, not exactly.

 

BBC loses £1.1bn as more households opt out of paying licence fee | LBC

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/bbc-missing-out-on-11bn-as-more-households-opt-out-of-paying-licence-fee-5HjdNBm_2/

I thought Brits were forced to pay the license fee, it is that another rightwing myth?

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes, the rightwing corner of the internet that can’t drum up an audience beyond friends and family.

 

Some of them, maybe.  But others look for scientific studies, foreign news, and gub'ment disclosures that the lefty MSM won't cover.

 

If it wasn't for guys like them (and the old school gadflies that preceded them), we'd still believe that most doctors prefer Camel filters, and we'd be pulling out our vaccine passports to get on a plane.

Trump’s legal team will be aware that Grand National-style hurdles lie ahead for the US President before any trial gets underway. The lawsuit’s failure to identify a Florida viewer who either complained about the documentary in the immediate aftermath of its transmission or changed their vote as a result of seeing the film could prove to be the complaint’s Achilles heel.

 

Further, the US Constitution’s First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech applies to all the speakers interviewed in the documentary, and past evidence suggests that Florida judges may not be impressed by the lawsuit’s grandiose claims that “direct harm” was done to the President’s “brand, properties and businesses, and…reputation as a politician, leader and businessman in the eyes of the American public and around the world”.

 

A similar $15bn (£11.2bn) claim lodged against the New York Times was thrown out by a Republican-appointed judge in Florida in October, who called the lawsuit “tedious and burdensome” and comprised of “vituperation and invective”.

 

Trump’s $10bn BBC lawsuit relies on one massive presumption

 

At least in the UK, 'truth' and 'fair comment' are defences against civil court libel charges. While the BBC's production took Trump's comments out of context, there's PLENTY of examples about this guy's character that can be used to mitigate the producers' actions. My sense is he will win the action of libel but it will be softened by other testimony. The 10 billion claim is fantasy. They didn't damage his character in the eyes of the public - and that's what matters big time in deciding a British libel case. Remember, no one even noticed the edit for quite some time. And it will drag on for years.

The suit claims that the doc was published to millions of people in Florida.

 

This is from Attorney Brito's ABC lawsuit document

 

 

It seems this time around, he is not making the claim that ANYBODY actually saw it, only the likelihood.

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I thought Brits were forced to pay the license fee, it is that another rightwing myth?

           its relatively easy to avoid paying the licence fee, and although it's illegal, it's common practice,   

           Its not a left wing or right wing issue, why would you even mention that.   I think you may be losing it

            Although having said that I am sure that out there somewhere, there will someone who has found  some statistics that suggest the licence fee is racist. What do you think?

6 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

    The BBC can be funded some other way , rather than a licence fee

are there plans to increase it if Trump cleans them out ?

7 hours ago, bannork said:

Trump’s legal team will be aware that Grand National-style hurdles lie ahead for the US President before any trial gets underway. The lawsuit’s failure to identify a Florida viewer who either complained about the documentary in the immediate aftermath of its transmission or changed their vote as a result of seeing the film could prove to be the complaint’s Achilles heel.

 

Further, the US Constitution’s First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech applies to all the speakers interviewed in the documentary, and past evidence suggests that Florida judges may not be impressed by the lawsuit’s grandiose claims that “direct harm” was done to the President’s “brand, properties and businesses, and…reputation as a politician, leader and businessman in the eyes of the American public and around the world”.

 

A similar $15bn (£11.2bn) claim lodged against the New York Times was thrown out by a Republican-appointed judge in Florida in October, who called the lawsuit “tedious and burdensome” and comprised of “vituperation and invective”.

 

Trump’s $10bn BBC lawsuit relies on one massive presumption

 

"The lawsuit’s failure to identify a Florida viewer who either complained about the documentary in the immediate aftermath of its transmission"

Well, at the time they saw it they may well have not realised it was edited. Also, even if they did, they may not have gone to the trouble of reporting it, just putting it down to the partisan nature of reporting these days.

How the Pulitzer Board has responded to a similar law suit.

 

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/pulitzer-prize-board-members-fight-back-with-wide-ranging-discovery-demands-including-about-trump-finances/

 

Quote

 

Pulitzer Prize Board members filed court documents in Okeechobee County, Florida, on Thursday, containing a litany of broad discovery demands in an attempt to beat back President Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit over Russia probe reporting awards.

 

.....The board defendants are demanding documentation on subjects ranging from Trump's demands to rescind the awards, to his threats to sue, to proof that the board statement at issue "had a significant impact on the 2020 presidential election," and to Trump's various lawsuits — whether counterclaims and defenses against E. Jean Carroll, a failed defamation case against CNN, a settled suit against ABC, a settled suit against CBS, and an ongoing lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch over Jeffrey Epstein birthday letter reporting.

 

 

......The defendants further demanded "all" of Trump's tax returns — "from all jurisdictions, including all attachments, schedules, and worksheets" — from 2015 to the present day, documents "sufficient to show all sources of Your income" over the same time period, documents "sufficient to show all of Your financial holdings" and his liabilities, and finally his health records and prescription medication history.

"To the extent You seek damages for any physical ailment or mental or emotional injury arising from Counts I-IV of Your Complaint, all Documents (whether held by You or by third parties under Your control or who could produce them at your direction) concerning Your medical and/or psychological health from January 1, 2015, to present, including any prescription medications you have been prescribed or have taken," the filing concluded. "For the avoidance of doubt, this includes all Documents Concerning Your annual physical examination. To the extent you do not seek such damages in this action, please confirm so in writin

 

g."

4 hours ago, nexus7 said:

The lawsuit’s failure to identify a Florida viewer who either complained about the documentary in the immediate aftermath of its transmission"

Well, at the time they saw it

First Team Trump would have to find someone who actually saw it and is willing to sworn to and prove that fact.

UPDATE:

 

BBC to Fight Trump $5B Lawsuit Linked to Panorama Edit

 

video screenshot

 

The BBC faces a $5bn lawsuit from US President Donald Trump over an edited Panorama documentary that allegedly defamed him by altering his 6 January 2021 speech. Trump claims the edit misrepresented his words, leading to the lawsuit filed in Florida, despite the BBC's apology and dismissal of the defamation claim. The broadcaster insists it will defend against the allegations.

 

The controversy stems from the BBC's Panorama programme, which aired in the UK ahead of the 2024 US election. Trump’s speech, just before the US Capitol riot, was edited, implying a direct call to action, sparking the legal dispute. An internal BBC leak criticised the edit, causing resignations within senior management, including Tim Davie and Deborah Turness.

 

The BBC maintains the edit was not malicious, asserting it did not result in harm to Trump, who was re-elected soon after. The broadcaster also clarified that the documentary was not distributed on its US channels and restricted its availability to the UK on iPlayer. However, Trump's legal team cited agreements with third-party distributors allowing American access, including Blue Ant Media’s licensing for North America, which the BBC has yet to address.

 

Blue Ant confirmed distribution rights but stated the US version omitted the controversial edit. Additionally, Trump's lawsuit suggests Floridian viewers accessed the programme via VPNs or the streaming service BritBox. Experts express doubt over the lawsuit's success given the high defamation standards in the US.

 

Chris Ruddy of Newsmax advises a settlement to avoid litigation costs estimated between 1,845 million and 3,691 million Thai baht. However, former BBC Radio controller Mark Damazer argues that the case is pivotal for the BBC's independence and reputation. The UK government, while supporting the BBC’s independence, urges prompt error correction to maintain public trust.

 

Parliamentary voices express concern, with Shadow Culture Secretary Nigel Huddleston warning of potential impacts on licence fee payers and Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey calling the lawsuit "unacceptable." Trump's legal actions against media outlets are a recurrent theme, with previous successful claims reinforcing his approach.

 

Key Takeaways:

 

• BBC facing a $5bn lawsuit from Trump over a Panorama edit.
• Trump claims the edit of his speech was defamatory, leading to legal action.
• The BBC intends to strongly defend its position in the court case.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-12-17

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Palatus said:

The Panorama program was a 60 minute edit that was spliced for a few seconds of footage clumsily.

"Clumsily"? There were 50 odd minutes cut out to create a false narrative. This was deliberate not some clumsy slice error.

18 hours ago, JonnyF said:

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.

 

 

Great news for British taxpayers who will be footing the bill...

18 minutes ago, AndreasHG said:

 

Great news for British taxpayers who will be footing the bill...

Interesting point. I wonder who they'd rather give their taxpayer money to. Trump or all the immigrants flooding into the country. 

All this stuff about how or why or with malice the Panorama program was edited or mis-edited is WAY downstream and would come after the Trump proving the case that somebody in Florida actually *  saw the doc before the NOV 2024 election -- not just that it was hypothetically possible.

 

* as the word actually was used in the ABC-Stephanopoulos complaint.

 

NB The Trump clip where Trump says 'maybe they used AI or something' to [put words in his mouth is on the BBC website but they make no mention of it.

10 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

Its not a left wing or right wing issue, why would you even mention that.   I think you may be losing it

So you missed all the complaints from right wingers about BBC?

 

But i agree with you, BBC is very centralised, if anything leaning right.

12 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So you missed all the complaints from right wingers about BBC?

 

But i agree with you, BBC is very centralised, if anything leaning right.

so who do they employ that leans to the right as far as the likes of emily maitlis and robert peston  lean / leant to the left?    The likes of dimbleby and paxman etc were truly unbiased and did not try to force any of their personal views on their audience ever.   The newer crew do this at every opportunity, 

 

people with "right wing" views are just as entitled to complain about things as those with left wing views, are they not?

2 hours ago, AndreasHG said:

 

Great news for British taxpayers who will be footing the bill...

 

I'd far rather pay to watch the BBC dragged through the courts than for the woke, lying, biased garbage that they pump out in the name of content these days. 

19 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Maybe.  But it's also likely that the discovery process will expose a lot of emails and memos and other records that don't reflect very well on BBC management, and they'll get their comeuppance when the British people see who they really are.

 

Ten Billion $$$ is nice, but Trump doesn't really need the money.

Yes, the BBC definitely do not want it to get that far....'discovery'.. it would expose what they really think about President Trump and I'm sure it's not 'pretty'??

19 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

It was clearly neither an editing error or a lapse in judgement

It was obviously a deliberate act, to change the narrative! And it did!