15 hours ago, Geoff914 said:

Don't forget Huw Edwards.

             And not just him of course,   there are so many of them now that its impossible not to forget a few .   Maybe it's time we had some sort of an official "national remembrance day" 

            We could even commission a monument with their names engraved in large font under the heading       "Lest we Forget"

              Anybody got any suggestions what form the monument should take ?  I was thinking of a statue of a late middle aged man, sat hunched up in front of a computer screen , his trousers and underpants around his ankles, whilst typing with one hand.

               No need to spend much money , a cheap plastic casting would suffice, as the leftists will eventually destroy it anyway, "human rights" and all that

4 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

BBC was aware from January 2025

However, the EGSC also heard from BBC News (JAN 2025) that the purpose of editing the clip was to convey the message of the speech made by President Trump so that Panorama's audience * could better understand how it had been received by President Trump's supporters and what was happening on the ground at that time.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2p1v77gl2o

 

* and I will presume that to mean Panorama's primary audience meaning non-US.

4 hours ago, vinny41 said:

The phrase "BBC over a barrel" 

Which refers to one of their very versatile  "ceremonies", 

        The same procedure used to welcome newcomers, discipline those who fail to conform, and reward those who follow the narrative.  

         It is the basis of the saying "buggered if I do and buggered if I don't

         In extreme cases the phrase is modified to "BBC  in the barrel"

11 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

BBC iPlayer 'watched by more than 60m outside the UK for free'

Great so Brito should have no trouble finding someone who actually saw it pre-election in Florida.

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

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

I did not realise skippy was so small.  I though kangaroos were a lot bigger

19 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Great so Brito should have no trouble finding someone who actually saw it pre-election in Florida.

Who or What is "Brito"

18 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

However, the EGSC also heard from BBC News (JAN 2025) that the purpose of editing the clip was to convey the message of the speech made by President Trump so that Panorama's audience * could better understand how it had been received by President Trump's supporters and what was happening on the ground at that time.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2p1v77gl2o

 

* and I will presume that to mean Panorama's primary audience meaning non-US.

Better to presume nothing as we now know

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/

MIPCOM is an annual trade show for the television industry held in Cannes, France, traditionally in the month of October

 

5 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Better to presume nothing as we now know

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

_______________________________

No matter how many ways someone might have accessed the doc especially pre-election, there is no proof that anyone did.

11 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Who or What is "Brito"

Alejandro Brito is Trump's lead defamation attorney in Florida.

Just now, jerrymahoney said:

Alejandro Brito is Trump's lead defamation attorney in Florida.

ok thanks

47 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

However, the EGSC also heard from BBC News (JAN 2025) that the purpose of editing the clip was to convey the message of the speech made by President Trump so that Panorama's audience * could better understand how it had been received by President Trump's supporters and what was happening on the ground at that time.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2p1v77gl2o

 

* and I will presume that to mean Panorama's primary audience meaning non-US.

What a pathetic excuse and even if true it certainly shows what  the BBC thinks of their audience. Ie   stupid and likely to reach the "wrong" conclusion without their "guidance"

You should stop trying to defend that which is indefensible

4 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

You should stop trying to defend that which is indefensible

For right now all I am doing is looking at the case. I know nothing of the BBC other than their early Beatles broadcasts

31 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

_______________________________

No matter how many ways someone might have accessed the doc especially pre-election, there is no proof that anyone did.

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/

It does appear they had concerns surrounding the content of the program hence it was withdrawn

14 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

For right now all I am doing is looking at the case. I know nothing of the BBC other than their early Beatles broadcasts

Its a completely different animal these days,  It used to be good, possibly the best in the world, but it was infested with the wrong sort

4 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

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/

It does appear they had concerns surrounding the content of the program hence it was withdrawn

I am not anymore interested in how many ways you can come up with that MAYBE someone saw it especially between OCT 28 and 5 NOV 2024 when it might have influenced the election.

20 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I am not anymore interested in how many ways you can come up with that MAYBE someone saw it especially between OCT 28 and 5 NOV 2024 when it might have influenced the election.

And I am sure Trump legal time will state Did the BBC program

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

From the date that the program was published until the date that the program was removed

Not the short period that your looking at

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

5 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

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

INTRODUCTION
1. This action concerns a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and
malicious depiction of President Trump, which was published in a BBC Panorama documentary,
that was fabricated and aired by the Defendants one week before the 2024 Presidential Election in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election’s outcome to President Trump’s detriment. 

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

INTRODUCTION
1. This action concerns a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and
malicious depiction of President Trump, which was published in a BBC Panorama documentary,
that was fabricated and aired by the Defendants one week before the 2024 Presidential Election in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election’s outcome to President Trump’s detriment. 

And was the program still available to view after the election

 Did the BBC program provide a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump, which was published in a BBC Panorama documentary

And we all know the answer Yes it did

 

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

On 12/18/2025 at 10:32 AM, 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!

A favorite weapon by trump.

Right now I am only interested in what will likely to be a motion to dismiss as the first reply from BBC.

 

And it will likely be a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion in that the claim of publishing is "possible but not plausible" in identifying any third party.

 

And the strongest words used in the Trump complaint as to publishing are IMMENSE LIKELIHOOD.

 

20 days and the clock is ticking unless there has been an extension due Defendant in the UK.

 

And nobody in the Trump Communications brain-trust knew about the devastating edit until last month

 

18 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Right now I am only interested in what will likely to be a motion to dismiss as the first reply from BBC.

 

And it will likely be a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion in that the claim of publishing is "possible but not plausible" in identifying any third party.

 

And the strongest words used in the Trump complaint as to publishing are IMMENSE LIKELIHOOD.

 

20 days and the clock is ticking unless there has been an extension due Defendant in the UK.

 

Once again partial quote from court document

29. The Panorama Documentary’s publicity, coupled with significant increases in VPN usage in Florida since its debut, establishes the immense likelihood that citizens of Florida accessed the Documentary before the BBC had it removed

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. As disgraced, and now former BBC Director General Tim Davie (“Davie”) stated in his recent resignation letter: “Despite a hugely competitive market, I am proud that the BBC remains the most trusted news brand globally. We have continued to ensure that it is used by almost everyone in the UK as well as hundreds of millions of people globally.”10

24. The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC

25. In addition to access through various means, including BritBox, it is well established that millions of Florida citizens use a virtual private network (“VPN”) to view content such as the Panorama Documentary, which is aired on foreign streaming platforms like BBC iplayer

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

If your quoting from media links please provide supporting link

12 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

If your quoting from media links please provide supporting link

No. Those are not quotes.

 

It would actually be a small universe of persons in Florida who had access to and saw the doc at anytime before removal and is willing to come forward to swear to that. And it would to me it not be unreasonable for BBC to ask the Trump legal team to do so. It would seem to me would be remiss in already not having done so or tried to do so.

42 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Right now I am only interested in what will likely to be a motion to dismiss as the first reply from BBC.

 

And it will likely be a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion in that the claim of publishing is "possible but not plausible" in identifying any third party.

 

And the strongest words used in the Trump complaint as to publishing are IMMENSE LIKELIHOOD.

 

20 days and the clock is ticking unless there has been an extension due Defendant in the UK.

 

And nobody in the Trump Communications brain-trust knew about the devastating edit until last month

 

 

5 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

No. Those are not quotes.

 

It would actually be a small universe of persons in Florida who had access to and saw the doc at anytime before removal and is willing to come forward to swear to that. And it would to me it not be unreasonable for BBC to ask the Trump legal team to do so. It would seem to me would be remiss in already not having done so or tried to do so.

Clearly it is a quote as you partial quoted 29

And the strongest words used in the Trump complaint as to publishing are IMMENSE LIKELIHOOD

Point 29

The Panorama Documentary’s publicity, coupled with significant increases in VPN usage in Florida since its debut, establishes the immense likelihood that citizens of Florida accessed the Documentary before the BBC had it removed.

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

22 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Once again partial quote from court document

29. The Panorama Documentary’s publicity, coupled with significant increases in VPN usage in Florida since its debut, establishes the immense likelihood that citizens of Florida accessed the Documentary before the BBC had it removed

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. As disgraced, and now former BBC Director General Tim Davie (“Davie”) stated in his recent resignation letter: “Despite a hugely competitive market, I am proud that the BBC remains the most trusted news brand globally. We have continued to ensure that it is used by almost everyone in the UK as well as hundreds of millions of people globally.”10

24. The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC

25. In addition to access through various means, including BritBox, it is well established that millions of Florida citizens use a virtual private network (“VPN”) to view content such as the Panorama Documentary, which is aired on foreign streaming platforms like BBC iplayer

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

If your quoting from media links please provide supporting link

27. You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Only post a link, the headline and three sentences from the article. Content in the public domain is limited to the same restrictions.

No other US president has filed any lawsuits against anybody, not one. Trump has 328 on the go. Does that sound rational to you?

 

Of course, it's not wholly Trump but his sycophantic advisors swilling at the trough.

 

However, the good old boy, man of the people, has issued more than 219 Executive Orders and more via TruthSocial, rule by social media.

 

From 1973 to 2016, however, poor old Trumpet has been sued more than 4,000 times.

4 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

I did not realise skippy was so small.  I though kangaroos were a lot bigger

 

The big red boys are. 

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

The big red boys are. 

so was skippy just a wallaby then, looks that way,  I am devastated

2 hours ago, vinny41 said:

I am proud that the BBC remains the most trusted news brand globally. We have continued to ensure that it is used by almost everyone in the UK

by trying to make everybody in the UK obliged to pay for it, whether they use it or not

8 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

so was skippy just a wallaby then, looks that way,  I am devastated

 

No, just a grey girl.

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

No, just a grey girl.

but still a roo?   that's ok then  for a moment I thought the BBC had been changing things again