1 hour ago, Hamus Yaigh said:

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.

 

No agenda? Well they can hardly put it in writing can they? The BBC, like many other UK institutions has evidently been steadily infected by left-wing ideology over the last few decades. That's the main reason why it has become so unpopular. The BBC seems to hold little regard for the charter, as well and its own audience.

 

The blatant editing of the Trump clip is a type of fraud and the BBC is guilty of it. The evidence is plain to see after comparison with the full/original version and, from that, the only suggestion of any agenda is that one which has been followed followed by the BBC itself.

18 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

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.

 

  

 

 

People did not have mobile phones in 2021? 🙂

25 minutes ago, AndreasHG said:

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

 

I won't be paying a single penny. 

Just now, candide said:

People did not have mobile phones in 2021? 🙂

 

Say again? There's a lot of noise here! So easy to riot and chat simultaneously, right?

1 hour ago, Hamus Yaigh said:

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.

 

What Is Fraud, Anyway?

“Fraud” is any activity that relies on deception in order to achieve a gain. Fraud becomes a crime when it is a “knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment” (Black’s Law Dictionary). In other words, if you lie in order to deprive a person or organization of their money or property, you’re committing fraud. 

 

https://www.acfe.com/fraud-resources/fraud-101-what-is-fraud#:~:text=“Fraud” is any activity that,her detriment” (Black's Law Dictionary).

I would say that when the BBC lose this case and they will that,will be the end of them and all the poor pommies   will  have nothing decent to watch on tv.

20 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

No agenda? Well they can hardly put it in writing can they? The BBC, like many other UK institutions has evidently been steadily infected by left-wing ideology over the last few decades. That's the main reason why it has become so unpopular. The BBC seems to hold little regard for the charter, as well and its own audience.

 

The blatant editing of the Trump clip is a type of fraud and the BBC is guilty of it. The evidence is plain to see after comparison with the full/original version and, from that, the only suggestion of any agenda is that one which has been followed followed by the BBC itself.

The ABC in Australia operates exactly like the BBC and are also very left wing and have been that way for years.The editing  of the videos was not a mistake but deliberate to embarrass Trump and they deserve everything that they get.

43 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Say again? There's a lot of noise here! So easy to riot and chat simultaneously, right?

People were no using earplugs in 2021? 🙂

56 minutes ago, candide said:

People were no using earplugs in 2021? 🙂

 

If they were they wouldn't have been able to hear anything.

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

A few more examples of extortion you give there. 

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

 

if "pay up because defending is expensive" equals extortion, then you've just indicted the entire U.S. civil justice system—where 95% of cases settle precisely because litigation costs are a weapon for both sides.

 

Dominion forced Fox to cough up $787M not because of extortion, but because discovery was about to air their dirty laundry in public.

 

Same with Hulk Hogan bankrupting Gawker, or countless celebrities squeezing tabloids. It's called leverage in litigation, not a back-alley shakedown.

 

The difference you keep ignoring is actual extortion skips the courthouse, threatens illegal harm, and demands secret payoffs.

Trump's suits are public filings, judged by federal rules, with judges ready to toss them (or sanction him) if frivolous.

 

Funny how "extortion" only applies when the big bad orange man is the plaintiff, but it's suddenly "smart lawyering" when media giants bleed smaller outlets dry.

 

If the BBC thinks this is criminal coercion, they can dial the DOJ anytime.

 

Spoiler: They're lawyering up because it's a civil dispute—one they might even lose on the merits, given their own "error of judgment" admission.

 

Sour grapes taste even stronger when reality bites, don't they?

5 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

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.

This is from the Trump v ABC - Stephanopoulos complaint.

They clearly make the issue as to who 'actually' saw it and if they needed proof they could look at the AC Nielsen ratings on network tv audience.

 

The BBC complaint does not contain the word 'actually'.

3 hours ago, wavodavo said:

I would say that when the BBC lose this case and they will that,will be the end of them and all the poor pommies 

When the plaintiff is of unstable mind they have nothing to worry about besides the lawyers fees to get the case dismissed.

3 hours ago, wavodavo said:

I would say that when the BBC lose this case and they will that,will be the end of them and all the poor pommies   will  have nothing decent to watch on tv.

Yeeeh, cobber, "An Evening with Ralph Harris".............😬

4 hours ago, wavodavo said:

I would say that when the BBC lose this case and they will that,will be the end of them and all the poor pommies   will  have nothing decent to watch on tv.

What are you talking about ?  there is nothing decent to watch now, It did improve a little when Skippy , neighbours , and home and away  were thankfully binned though

 Strange how Rolf Harris disappeared I expected he would fit in well.   (just kidding) 

58 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

What are you talking about ?  there is nothing decent to watch now, It did improve a little when Skippy , neighbours , and home and away  were thankfully binned though

 Strange how Rolf Harris disappeared I expected he would fit in well.   (just kidding) 

Thank God we no longer get that Australian 5h1te or their sex perverts.

5 hours ago, wavodavo said:

The ABC in Australia operates exactly like the BBC 

What, they employ sex perverts?

50 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

What are you talking about ?  there is nothing decent to watch now, It did improve a little when Skippy , neighbours , and home and away  were thankfully binned though

 Strange how Rolf Harris disappeared I expected he would fit in well.   (just kidding) 

 

As an avid fan of Skippy, I feel that I must disassociate her good name from the BBC. She was hugely popular after the global premiere on ATV (ITV) in the UK, collecting several awards. 

 

 

 

If someone in Florida watched the program using a VPN it was illegal. Not sure a barrister will use that to show it was never meant to affect American voters.

5 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

Thank God we no longer get that Australian 5h1te or their sex perverts.

 

See above. Skippy was never into any of that stuff!

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

What Is Fraud, Anyway?

“Fraud” is any activity that relies on deception in order to achieve a gain. Fraud becomes a crime when it is a “knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment” (Black’s Law Dictionary). In other words, if you lie in order to deprive a person or organization of their money or property, you’re committing fraud. 

 

https://www.acfe.com/fraud-resources/fraud-101-what-is-fraud#:~:text=“Fraud” is any activity that,her detriment” (Black's Law Dictionary).

It is very common in English to refer to somebody as a fraud, ie misrepresenting themselves, but not doing it for financial gain. Example, Kier Starmer is a fraud representing himself as somebody who gives a damn.

3 minutes ago, Purdey said:

If someone in Florida watched the program using a VPN it was illegal. Not sure a barrister will use that to show it was never meant to affect American voters.

What is illegal. Using a VPN in Florida or watching the BBC on a VPN.

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

See above. Skippy was never into any of that stuff!

Referring to Rolf Harris.

On 12/17/2025 at 10:11 AM, 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).

Don't forget Huw Edwards.

 

1 minute ago, Geoff914 said:

It is very common in English to refer to somebody as a fraud, ie misrepresenting themselves, but not doing it for financial gain. Example, Kier Starmer is a fraud representing himself as somebody who gives a damn.

 

Yes it is, although some "frauds" may often reap hidden financial gains, as by-products of their dishonest activities.

 

This UK PM seems to be a fraud at several levels (tiers).

5 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

Referring to Rolf Harris.

 

Thank God for that.

4 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

 

if "pay up because defending is expensive" equals extortion, then you've just indicted the entire U.S. civil justice system—where 95% of cases settle precisely because litigation costs are a weapon for both sides.

 

Dominion forced Fox to cough up $787M not because of extortion, but because discovery was about to air their dirty laundry in public.

 

Same with Hulk Hogan bankrupting Gawker, or countless celebrities squeezing tabloids. It's called leverage in litigation, not a back-alley shakedown.

 

The difference you keep ignoring is actual extortion skips the courthouse, threatens illegal harm, and demands secret payoffs.

Trump's suits are public filings, judged by federal rules, with judges ready to toss them (or sanction him) if frivolous.

 

Funny how "extortion" only applies when the big bad orange man is the plaintiff, but it's suddenly "smart lawyering" when media giants bleed smaller outlets dry.

 

If the BBC thinks this is criminal coercion, they can dial the DOJ anytime.

 

Spoiler: They're lawyering up because it's a civil dispute—one they might even lose on the merits, given their own "error of judgment" admission.

 

Sour grapes taste even stronger when reality bites, don't they?

Nice examples where the threat was discovery, so the truth coming out. The threat eas not the cost of litigation compared to a settlement.

4 March 2025 - The work of the BBC - Oral evidence

Answer to question 19 from former Director General of the BBC Tim Davie

BritBox in the US now has over 4 million subscribers, has very low churn and the enterprise value is very high.

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/15458/pdf/

10th October 2024

Blue Ant Studios to shop BBC’s President Trump: A Second Chance? in Cannes

Blue Ant Studios will launch forthcoming documentary President Trump: A Second Chance? (working title) at Mipcom this month.

Produced by October Films in the UK, the 1×60’ doc, which has just wrapped production, was commissioned by the BBC for its Panorama strand, where it will premiere on October 29.

Blue Ant Studios holds the international licensing rights to the doc, excluding the UK

https://www.c21media.net/news/blue-ant-studios-takes-october-films-president-trump-a-second-chance-to-cannes/

7 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Blue Ant Studios holds the international licensing rights to the doc, excluding the UK

Trump's lawsuit cites agreements the BBC had with other distributors to show content, specifically one with a third-party media corporation, Blue Ant Media, that allegedly had licensing rights to distribute the programme "in North America, including Florida".

 

The BBC has not yet responded to this claim.

 

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

8 hours ago, vinny41 said:

BritBox in the US now has over 4 million subscribers, has very low churn and the enterprise value is very high.

BritBox Now Tops 4 Million Subscribers Across U.S., Canada, Australia, Nordics

BBC director-general Tim Davie and chair Samir Shah appeared in front of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons in Britain's parliament.

 

“BritBox in the U.S. (and other non-U.K. territories) is now over 4 million subscribers (and) is pretty much very low churn, and the enterprise value is very high,” 

 

He also said that global streamers make brilliant content, but the BBC is the key player able to “focus on British storytelling for British audiences.” Plus, the BBC and other public service broadcasters can provide shared experiences for mass audiences.

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/britbox-us-subscriber-update-4-million-1236153363

March 4, 2025 2:33am

41 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Trump's lawsuit cites agreements the BBC had with other distributors to show content, specifically one with a third-party media corporation, Blue Ant Media, that allegedly had licensing rights to distribute the programme "in North America, including Florida".

 

The BBC has not yet responded to this claim.

 

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

Blue Ant pulls controversial BBC Trump doc from catalogue

Blue Ant Rights has confirmed that it has pulled the BBC Panorama documentary on U.S. President Donald Trump from its catalogue amid the controversy surrounding the film.

In a statement provided to Playback sister publication Realscreen, Blue Ant Rights, the international distributor for the doc, said it was not involved in the production or editorial process of the film.

“Once we were made aware of concerns surrounding the content, the title was promptly withdrawn from our distribution catalogue,” the company said in the statement. “Blue Ant Rights remains committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, transparency and editorial independence across all content we represent.”

https://playbackonline.ca/2025/11/12/blue-ant-pulls-controversial-bbc-trump-doc-from-catalogue/

Why remove it if it didn't include the edit and the runtime of the program that Blue Ant was promoting in Cannes of 60 minutes is the same runtime of the UK program