The fact that Donald pardoned a load of violent Jan 6th rioters should be enough proof where his loyalties lie. ( In anticipation of some nutters saying it was an FBI set up.)

11 minutes ago, Black arab said:

You mean run by the tories for god knows how many years , you really are quite slow aren't you .

I think it is you who is slow. The BBC has been anti semitic, anti right or even center for decades. They have hidden and covered up some of the worst child sex preditors from Savile,  Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter 1970's, 1980's, all the way to 2024 then there is the sculpture at the entrance of the BBC, which advertises their moral bankruptcy (unless your a supporter of Eric Gill).

On 12/16/2025 at 12:35 PM, Palatus said:

That's why the con is trying it on his home turf, he'd be laughed out of court in the UK.

And whatever a Florida Court finds holds no sway in the UK.

 

Anyway,  can't the BBC just ignore any verdict - after all it is a civil case, and isn't that what Trump does with civil cases?

On 12/16/2025 at 4:26 AM, Palatus said:

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 balance, without favoritism toward any party. Those wearing Reform UK glasses will struggle to see this however.

Impartial my ar5se. I am not a Reform supporter. I am an idiot who voted Labour last year. The BBC are a disgrace. Arrogant, employers of sex perverts and criminals, the programmes are rubbish I barely watch any BBC any more, employ BBC Gods at huge salaries, have utter contempt for licence fee payer, harass, bully and threaten people who do not watch live tv and therefore do not need to by a tv licence.

38 degrees the campaigning organisation sent an email asking me to sign the petition in support of the BBC against Trump, I refused to sign. What the BBC did as wrong and a disgrace and who is going to pay the damages Trump will win? Well not the BBC, the poor bl00dy licence fee payer of course.

And about time the some people who see any sort of campaign that they don't support as a misguided far right thing need to get a life.

1 hour ago, BritScot said:

I think it is you who is slow. The BBC has been anti semitic, anti right or even center for decades. They have hidden and covered up some of the worst child sex preditors from Savile,  Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter 1970's, 1980's, all the way to 2024 then there is the sculpture at the entrance of the BBC, which advertises their moral bankruptcy (unless your a supporter of Eric Gill).

The BBC backing Huw Edwards is what finished it for me supporting the BBC. The disgusting employment of sex perverts and others has gone on far too long. Also the backing of this 5h1te Martin Bashir.

If the BBC gets its Charter re-newed then it will be the biggest display of corruption in the UK ever.

2 hours ago, Anthony mellows said:

The fact that Donald pardoned a load of violent Jan 6th rioters should be enough proof where his loyalties lie. ( In anticipation of some nutters saying it was an FBI set up.)

What has that got to do with the BBC falsely reporting the news? If what the BBC did was actually part of a satirical comedy programme then that would have been a different matter. We would have known it was satire. But this a news programme for God's sake.

On 12/16/2025 at 4:28 AM, JonnyF said:

 

Is that why they spliced 2 parts of Trump's speech together to make it sound like he was inciting a riot? 😄

And the 2 were nearly one hour apart. 

13 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

It further claims the program was accessible in Florida/U.S. via VPNs, BritBox streaming, licensing deals (e.g., Blue Ant Media for North America),

Blue Ant confirmed it had acquired the distribution rights, but said none of the company's buyers had aired the documentary in the US. It added that the version of the documentary it received "did not include the edit in question" as the international version had been "cut down in a number of places for time".

 

Blue Ant is not named as a defendant in the case.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpvd81470v1o

 

And per in the above comment:

 

This easily satisfies the low pleading threshold for "publication" under Rule 12(b)(6).

 

AI Gemini:

 

Rule 12(b)(6) refers to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss a lawsuit for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," meaning the complaint lacks sufficient legal or factual basis to proceed, even if all alleged facts are true, requiring the plaintiff to show a plausible claim, not just a possible * one, to survive this early stage of litigation. 

 

* Team Trump's strongest words in the complaint are  immense likelihood.

 

 

On 12/16/2025 at 12:34 PM, Palatus said:

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 sue it out of existence overnight as it doesn't fit your opinion? Do you gave a damn about anyone else's opinion that does not align with yours?

 

Clumsily? No.

 

Deliberately and fraudulently? Yes.

16 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

While the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol did indeed accuse former President Trump in its December 2022 final report of engaging in a "multi-part conspiracy" to overturn the 2020 election results, including actions that "incited" the Capitol riot through his speech and subsequent tweets, these findings were political recommendations from a congressional body, not legally binding conclusions or a criminal conviction.

 

Slipped in to the report to try to push claims they couldn't prove during the hearing, 

 

J6 Sham Committee. What a waste of time and money.

22 hours 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.

 

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

 

The judge assigned to the case ROY K. ALTMAN was appointed by Donald Trump 2019 Term 1. So, if you disagree with any of his rulings, you cannot go to the old standby of radical left wing activist judge.

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

The judge assigned to the case ROY K. ALTMAN was appointed by Donald Trump 2019 Term 1. So, if you disagree with any of his rulings, you cannot go to the old standby of radical left wing activist judge.

Deflection. The laughing emoji was in response to this - "BBC is very centralised, if anything leaning right." Anyone who thinks the BBC is leaning right is deluded.

10 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Deflection.

As stated 18 hours ago this topic:

 

But right now I am sticking to the pretrial and you guys are way past start of trial.

 

 

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Deflection. The laughing emoji was in response to this - "BBC is very centralised, if anything leaning right." Anyone who thinks the BBC is leaning right is deluded.

Anyone who thinks the BBC is leaning left is deluded. The reason: society as a whole has considerably moved to the right. To the deluded the centralist view is now seen as left.

On 12/16/2025 at 11:43 AM, trainee wombat said:

He was trying to invite a riot.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437

• "On 6 January, thousands of Trump supporters gathered at a "Save America" rally organised to challenge the result of last November's presidential election.
• They listened as Mr Trump spoke to them on the National Mall, near the White House in Washington DC.
• In a 70-minute address, Mr Trump exhorted them to march on Congress where politicians had met to certify Democrat Joe Biden's win. The attack began moments after he took the applause."

"Trump Acknowledges He Wanted to Go to the Capitol on Jan. 6," May 1, 2024

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/us/politics/trump-capitol-jan-6.html

 

"Trump wanted to join Capitol riot, tried to grab limo steering wheel, aide says," by Richard Cowan and Moira Warburton, Updated July 3, 2022 https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-capitol-riot-panel-promises-new-evidence-surprise-tuesday-hearing-2022-06-28/

 

"Trump confirms he wanted to go to Capitol on Jan. 6," by Brett Samuels, The Hill Updated May 1, 2024 https://www.wsav.com/hill-politics/trump-confirms-he-wanted-to-go-to-capitol-on-jan-6/

On 12/17/2025 at 8:21 AM, mikeymike100 said:

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'??

Just an observation ... discovery cuts both ways. Defense demand for five years of tax returns to help establish if he suffered financial harm from the BBC broadcast? trump falls back to, look pay me the money you would need to spend on this court case and we can call it quits ...

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Anyone who thinks the BBC is leaning left is deluded. The reason: society as a whole has considerably moved to the right. To the deluded the centralist view is now seen as left.

Great, so give us a few examples of the BBC totally changing the meaning and context of a lefty senior politician to make them look dangerous and evil. If you are correct(you are not) this will be easy.

Lets see who exactly is deluded😅

4 minutes ago, Wrwest said:

Just an observation ... discovery cuts both ways. Defense demand for five years of tax returns to help establish if he suffered financial harm from the BBC broadcast? trump falls back to, look pay me the money you would need to spend on this court case and we can call it quits ...

 

Yes, you make a fair point, I am sure the President does not want to handover his financials!

Problem for the BBC is this is going to cost them, win or lose.

The bill for legal council council has already started, Even if the BBC file to dismiss, its going to cost around up to $20 million, if it gets to discovery, its a lot more $50-100 million. Who is paying for this?? The license payer, they wont be too happy!

4 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Great, so give us a few examples of the BBC totally changing the meaning and context of a lefty senior politician to make them look dangerous and evil. If you are correct(you are not) this will be easy.

Lets see who exactly is deluded😅

Sorry to see but not surprised my comment went over your head.

2 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

 

Yes, you make a fair point, I am sure the President does not want to handover his financials!

Problem for the BBC is this is going to cost them, win or lose.

The bill for legal council council has already started, Even if the BBC file to dismiss, its going to cost around up to $20 million, if it gets to discovery, its a lot more $50-100 million. Who is paying for this?? The license payer, they wont be too happy!

Which makes the lawsuit extortion.

20 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

In U.S. defamation law (under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim), "publication" simply requires alleging that the defamatory statement was communicated to at least one third party other than the plaintiff.

Trump's complaint easily meets this low bar by claiming the Panorama documentary—aired on BBC platforms and allegedly accessible in the U.S. (via BritBox, VPNs, or other means)—was viewed by audiences, causing reputational harm.

Discuss how the plausibility standard established by Twombly and Iqbal relates to Rule 12(b)(6) motions and its implications for plaintiffs.
The plausibility standard introduced by Twombly and Iqbal requires that complaints contain enough factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face. This directly relates to Rule 12(b)(6) motions, as defendants can move for dismissal if complaints fall short of this standard. For plaintiffs, this means they must provide clear and detailed factual allegations rather than vague or conclusory statements, significantly raising the bar for what constitutes an adequate complaint.

Evaluate how Rule 12(b)(6) influences the overall balance between judicial efficiency and access to justice for plaintiffs.
Rule 12(b)(6) seeks to balance judicial efficiency with access to justice by preventing frivolous lawsuits while still allowing legitimate claims to be heard. While it serves as a gatekeeping mechanism that protects defendants from unnecessary legal challenges, it also poses challenges for plaintiffs who must ensure their complaints are sufficiently detailed from the outset. The influence of this rule necessitates that plaintiffs provide substantial evidence early in litigation, which can sometimes create barriers for those with valid claims, particularly if they lack legal resources or knowledge about proper pleading standards.

https://fiveable.me/key-terms/civil-procedure/rule-12b6

_____________________________________

Again the summary evaluation in the complaint of all the allegations in the referenced quote is IMMENSE LIKELIHOOD

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Which makes the lawsuit extortion.

"Which makes the lawsuit extortion.".....

 

If a lawsuit that follows every legal rule—filed in open court, subject to dismissal, discovery, and judicial oversight—is "extortion," then every single defamation claim by CNN, Fox, or the New York Times against Trump was extortion too.

Funny how that label only sticks when the plaintiff is someone you dislike.

The BBC's legal bills are the price of doing risky journalism in a country with aggressive libel laws—same as ABC ($15M settlement) and CBS ($16M) learned the hard way. License payers might grumble, but they're also funding the "error of judgment" that started this mess.

4 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

"Which makes the lawsuit extortion.".....

 

If a lawsuit that follows every legal rule—filed in open court, subject to dismissal, discovery, and judicial oversight—is "extortion," then every single defamation claim by CNN, Fox, or the New York Times against Trump was extortion too.

Funny how that label only sticks when the plaintiff is someone you dislike.

The BBC's legal bills are the price of doing risky journalism in a country with aggressive libel laws—same as ABC ($15M settlement) and CBS ($16M) learned the hard way. License payers might grumble, but they're also funding the "error of judgment" that started this mess.

A few more examples of extortion you give there. 

Pay up, it's cheaper than a lawsuit even if you win.

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

fraudulently? Yes.

The only people who could consider this fraud are those on one extreme side of the political divide with an agenda and guilty verdict already assumed before there is even a court case.

The BBC has no agenda or need to be fraudulent since its Royal Charter is to provide impartial, accurate public service broadcasting. This doesn't make it immune to mistakes or bias accusations. The BBC faces criticism from across the political spectrum left and right, and incidents like this fuel debates over its neutrality despite the Charter's intent. 

Unless malice is proved in a court of law (unlikely), it isn't fraud just a clumsy error.

44 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Sorry to see but not surprised my comment went over your head.

It didn't. You were caught pushing a false and silly narrative, and as suspected, could offer no justification.

Next....

22 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

It didn't. You were caught pushing a false and silly narrative, and as suspected, could offer no justification.

Next....

Lol

On 12/17/2025 at 2:17 AM, JonnyF said:

 

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. 

 

The reality, however, is that you will pay for all of this.

To watch the BBC dragged through the courts, to further enrich an octogenarian billionaire and his family if the BBC loses, and ultimately to bail out the BBC from the financial hole it has dug for itself.

 

But the stoicism with which you endure all this in addition to the Starmer government, after those led by Sunak, Truss, BoJo, May and Cameron, is admirable.

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437

• "On 6 January, thousands of Trump supporters gathered at a "Save America" rally organised to challenge the result of last November's presidential election.
• They listened as Mr Trump spoke to them on the National Mall, near the White House in Washington DC.
• In a 70-minute address, Mr Trump exhorted them to march on Congress where politicians had met to certify Democrat Joe Biden's win. The attack began moments after he took the applause."

"Trump Acknowledges He Wanted to Go to the Capitol on Jan. 6," May 1, 2024

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/us/politics/trump-capitol-jan-6.html

 

"Trump wanted to join Capitol riot, tried to grab limo steering wheel, aide says," by Richard Cowan and Moira Warburton, Updated July 3, 2022 https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-capitol-riot-panel-promises-new-evidence-surprise-tuesday-hearing-2022-06-28/

 

"Trump confirms he wanted to go to Capitol on Jan. 6," by Brett Samuels, The Hill Updated May 1, 2024 https://www.wsav.com/hill-politics/trump-confirms-he-wanted-to-go-to-capitol-on-jan-6/

 

The attack began moments after he took the applause. Olympic records broken by the crowd to make it to the Capitol from the Ellipse as the applause died away. LOL. 

 

Your bundle of stories is just that. There was trouble at the Capitol before Trump stopped talking but there was no relayed live broadcast there. Hutchinson was not even in the "Beast" and her tale of the steering wheel was later denied by the Secret Service - Trump sits in back in a sealed cabin -  how the hell would he be able to go for the damn steering wheel????

 

Stop pushing nonsense.

 

  

 

 

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Sorry to see but not surprised my comment went over your head.

 

Please don't flatter yourself. It doesn't suit you.