8 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

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

 

What's the best in the world now? Babestation? Blaze?

 

You obviously have an idea, at various points in time who is the "best" TV broadcaster in the world. There is a hint that you think that in the 60s the BBC might not have been the best; so who was your alternate?  From the sounds of it, you have first hand experience of the BBC from its early days, indicating that you're in maybe your 90s?

2 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

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

 

Nope. Skips was a good clean girl.

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

 

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. 

 

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

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

 

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. 

 

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

Court Papers clearly state that program was viewed in Florida by citizens of Florida

But there is an inherent contradiction that they state in two places "in fact viewed" and then stating as in link above

 

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 Floridan accessed the Documentary before the BBC had it removed. 

 

 So nothing is 'clearly' and that is your word.  Attorney Brito used the word 'actually' in the ABC complaint but not here.

 

And if it was "in fact viewed" they should be able to come up with someone who did.

How can I watch programmes when I'm offline?

Once the programmes are downloaded, you can find them in the 'Downloads' menu in the app, and watch them anywhere in the world* or when you're offline.

*Programmes can only be downloaded when in the UK, so you can download before you travel.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/help/questions/downloading/watching-offline#:

It doesn't seem to me  that a hypothetical argument as to who MIGHT have viewed it is any way to proceed with a $10 billion defamation suit.

 

‘The BBC deserves it’: Your views on Trump suing the broadcaster

Poll shows majority of readers support US president’s decision to claim $10bn damages

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/19/telegraph-readers-support-bbc-lawsuit/

Great. The only poll that matters is the one in Miami Division Federal Court. And Team Trump has to likely prove in a motion to dismiss that someone actually did see it; not that the BBC has to prove they didn't.

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Great. The only poll that matters is the one in Miami Division Federal Court. And Team Trump has to likely prove in a motion to dismiss that someone actually did see it; not that the BBC has to prove they didn't.

I sure it will be very easy for someone to prove that they saw it via the various methods of accessing the program

Here the BBC give guidance on how to watch their programs worldwide

How can I watch programmes when I'm offline?

Once the programmes are downloaded, you can find them in the 'Downloads' menu in the app, and watch them anywhere in the world* or when you're offline.

*Programmes can only be downloaded when in the UK, so you can download before you travel.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/help/questions/downloading/watching-offline#:

1 minute ago, vinny41 said:

I sure it will be very easy for someone to prove that they saw it via the various methods of accessing the program

At least per the complaint it doesn't seem they have found any such person as yet.

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

At least per the complaint it doesn't seem they have found any such person as yet.

Not sure why you think that

Most lawyers would advise never show all your cards in the opening statement

So they can use that in responding to BBC's likely motion to dismiss.

 

BTW on the "never show all your cards" via Gemini:

 

A plaintiff cannot generally withhold known relevant evidence in a complaint or during the subsequent discovery process in civil litigation. Court rules, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the U.S., impose a duty of disclosure that requires parties to reveal all relevant documents and information, including those that might be unfavorable to their own case, unless protected by a legal privilege. 

 

Initial Disclosures: Parties are typically required to make initial disclosures of relevant evidence early in the case, even without a specific request from the opposing party.

____________________________

Different Gemini search:

 

While there are no specific reports of the (Brito)  law firm publicly soliciting individuals who watched the documentary in Florida, the entire premise of their lawsuit in a Florida court rests on the ability to prove it was seen there and caused reputational harm. Legal experts suggest proving this broad accessibility and impact in Florida may be a significant challenge for Trump's legal team. 

 

Proving that a sufficient number of people in Florida watched the specific documentary and, as a result, thought less of Donald Trump is necessary for the case to proceed in that jurisdiction. 

 

 

And to the above, even with all the publicity this suit is getting in Florida, it also seems that no Trump supporter say in the MAGA enclave of The Villages has publicly come forward to say that they watched it

 

... at least prior to the filing of the complaint.

 

And my conjecture (as a former long term resident of Florida with a still current Florida driver's license) is that  a hard core MAGA supporter would not be the likely viewer to watch the BBC election coverage a few days before the election or even afterward  ... the likely BBC election coverage viewer I will guess would be a liberal  and wouldn't come forward, knowing the situation is to help Trump, even if they did see it.

54 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

And to the above, even with all the publicity this suit is getting in Florida, it also seems that no Trump supporter say in the MAGA enclave of The Villages has publicly come forward to say that they watched it

 

... at least prior to the filing of the complaint.

 

And my conjecture (as a former long term resident of Florida with a still current Florida driver's license) is that  a hard core MAGA supporter would not be the likely viewer to watch the BBC election coverage a few days before the election or even afterward  ... the likely BBC election coverage viewer I will guess would be a liberal  and wouldn't come forward, knowing the situation is to help Trump, even if they did see it.

All of this is your own personal opinion and you have already stated

The only poll that matters is the one in Miami Division Federal Court.

BBC overhauls editorial committee after Trump speech row

 

An internal review, published on Friday, said BBC executives did not act "quickly or decisively enough following the discovery of the misleading edit of a speech by President Trump in a Panorama programme".

The BBC's current editorial guidelines say editing "must never be used to give the audience a materially misleading impression of events"

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj9yp7v37jyo

34 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

All of this is your own personal opinion and you have already stated

The only poll that matters is the one in Miami Division Federal Court.

Some is my opinion and your "not showing your cards" comment shows you are not familiar with Rules of Federal Civil Procedure.

24 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Some is my opinion and your "not showing your cards" comment shows you are not familiar with Rules of Federal Civil Procedure.

AI overview

Initial Disclosures: Parties must provide initial disclosures of basic information and relevant documents early in the case without a formal request [1, 3].

Discovery Requests: During the discovery phase, parties must respond to requests for production of documents, interrogatories, and depositions truthfully and completely [2].

As far as i am aware neither side has started the Discovery process

 

 

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

A plaintiff cannot generally withhold known relevant evidence in a complaint or during the subsequent discovery process in civil litigation

Anyone who makes the comment that a plaintiff in a federal civil trial can "not show all their cards" or otherwise deliberately withhold evidence in a complaint is an idiot.

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

So they can use that in responding to BBC's likely motion to dismiss.

 

BTW on the "never show all your cards" via Gemini:

 

A plaintiff cannot generally withhold known relevant evidence in a complaint or during the subsequent discovery process in civil litigation. Court rules, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the U.S., impose a duty of disclosure that requires parties to reveal all relevant documents and information, including those that might be unfavorable to their own case, unless protected by a legal privilege. 

 

Initial Disclosures: Parties are typically required to make initial disclosures of relevant evidence early in the case, even without a specific request from the opposing party.

____________________________

Different Gemini search:

 

While there are no specific reports of the (Brito)  law firm publicly soliciting individuals who watched the documentary in Florida, the entire premise of their lawsuit in a Florida court rests on the ability to prove it was seen there and caused reputational harm. Legal experts suggest proving this broad accessibility and impact in Florida may be a significant challenge for Trump's legal team. 

 

Proving that a sufficient number of people in Florida watched the specific documentary and, as a result, thought less of Donald Trump is necessary for the case to proceed in that jurisdiction. 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Anyone who makes the comment that a plaintiff in a federal civil trial can "not show all their cards" or otherwise deliberately withhold evidence in a complaint is an idiot.

taken from your own post

during the subsequent discovery process in civil litigation

21 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

3 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

A plaintiff cannot generally withhold known relevant evidence in a complaint or during the subsequent discovery process in civil litigation

Good bye.

AI Overview

A plaintiff is generally obligated to disclose known relevant evidence during the discovery phase of a lawsuit, not necessarily in the initial complaint itself [1]. The complaint serves to provide notice of the claims being made against the defendant, outlining the factual and legal basis of the suit [1]. 

Therefore, while the specific evidence might not be detailed in the complaint, a plaintiff cannot generally withhold known relevant evidence once the formal discovery process begins. 

 

The funny thing here is that, If the Brito people actually have someone to say with corroborable evidence that they saw the doc there really would be no reason for them to withhold that at any point in the process.

As to if Trump has found that in the-flesh-third person after the complaint is filed via Gemini:

 

When a federal civil trial plaintiff discovers new evidence after the initial complaint is filed, they must take immediate steps to bring it to the attention of the court and the opposing counsel, typically following the procedures outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The specific action depends on when the evidence is found. 

 

You guys should get a room.....a courtroom.

Residents in Florida have access to Brit Box and VPN etc. so they musta watched the Trump Doc in question:

1 March 2024

BBC Studios takes full ownership of BritBox International in historic deal

BBC Studios, the BBC’s commercial content studio and media & streaming business, has announced it is taking full ownership of BritBox International, acquiring ITV’s 50% share for a cash consideration of £255 million

The service has grown subscribers by over 300% in the past four years, surpassing 3.75 million subscribers and has an enterprise value of around £500 million.

https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/bbcstudios/2024/bbc-studios-takes-full-ownership-of-britbox-international-in-historic-deal#

Both BBC STUDIOS DISTRIBUTION LIMITED, and BBC STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LIMITED are listed in the court filing

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

Makes no difference how many possible viewers there was. Find one who did.

18 hours ago, nauseus said:

You guys should get a room.....a courtroom.

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

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

Makes no difference how many possible viewers there was. Find one who did.

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

12 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

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

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

 

But, per my AI screenshot post above, it would seem that even if someone in Florida does have access to BBC, that doesn't mean anyone watched what you think they did watch.