BBC to Cut 550 Jobs in First Wave of Savings Drive

"The BBC has announced plans to cut 550 jobs across its news, nations, television and radio operations as part of a wider programme aimed at saving £500 million over the next two years."

Look like the BBC is going under....good news??🤣

Only another 20,000 to go.

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

"The BBC has announced plans to cut 550 jobs across its news, nations, television and radio operations as part of a wider programme aimed at saving £500 million over the next two years."

Look like the BBC is going under....good news??🤣

Well if Trump wins his defamation case, against the BBC, it will go under!

The BBC won't be missed plenty of other news channels available

and better

Save the Tax payers money i can imagine a lot of people would like to see it go

48 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Well if Trump wins his defamation case, against the BBC, it will go under!

And if the case is dismissed, BBC can likely recover attorneys fees and costs.

From the motion to dismiss:

As another federal court recognized in a lawsuit against the BBC, rejecting identical personal jurisdiction allegations based on claims about pirated VPN access: “Unauthorized viewers outside of the United Kingdom do not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction; rather, Defendants’ relationship with [the forum] must arise out of contacts that they themselves created with the state.

OR Team Trump is still at the stage where they are saying MAYBE someone saw it and MAYBE maybe doesn't cut it for a Florida defamation case.

Ten billion lawsuit, I hope it shutters the place

9 minutes ago, NedR69 said:

Ten billion lawsuit, I hope it shutters the place

They're not going to lose.

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

Well if Trump wins his defamation case, against the BBC, it will go under!

We have the replacement for the BBC.

Waiting in the wings.

3 minutes ago, gargamon said:

They're not going to lose.

Not going to be a lawsuit. Hiting lots of roadblocks including missing a court deadline on BBC's motion to dismiss the case.

9 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Not going to be a lawsuit. Hiting lots of roadblocks including missing a court deadline on BBC's motion to dismiss the case.

Just to note that Judge Altman on the case is a 2019 first term Trump appointment.

Probably getting rid of the remaining white men.

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

Well if Trump wins his defamation case,

Which I doubt. There is another thread somewhere claims BBC is winning. Of course could have been a non-news YouTube thing.

3 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Which I doubt. There is another thread somewhere claims BBC is winning. Of course could have been a non-news YouTube thing.

The scorecard now is that BBC has filed a motion to dismiss to which team Trump has yet to respond. Just a lot of back & forth discovery motions.

The original Trump complaint uses the word " “immense likelihood" that someone in Florida actually viewed Panorama documerntary.

4 hours ago, JerryM said:

And if the case is dismissed, BBC can likely recover attorneys fees and costs.

From the motion to dismiss:

As another federal court recognized in a lawsuit against the BBC, rejecting identical personal jurisdiction allegations based on claims about pirated VPN access: “Unauthorized viewers outside of the United Kingdom do not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction; rather, Defendants’ relationship with [the forum] must arise out of contacts that they themselves created with the state.

OR Team Trump is still at the stage where they are saying MAYBE someone saw it and MAYBE maybe doesn't cut it for a Florida defamation case.

The BBC is playing a game of chicken with public license-fee money.

If Judge Altman decides to let the case go to a jury trial in February 2027, the BBC's legal bills will instantly cross the $10 million mark.

Even if they win the trial a year later, trying to collect millions of dollars in attorney's fees from a sitting U.S. President is a diplomatic and bureaucratic nightmare that could take a decade to resolve in appeals.

The BBC's lawyers are putting on a brave face, but behind closed doors, their finance team is likely terrified that they will end up with a massive, unrecoverable bill, that couldn't come at a worst time.

The corporation is currently in the middle of a massive £500 million ($640 million) cost-cutting drive, which recently forced them to announce up to 2,000 job cuts and brace for major programming reductions across BBC News.

Every single dollar the BBC spends defending this blunder in Florida is public license-fee money that is being diverted away from making television and radio programs.

It’s exactly why the BBC’s lawyers are practically begging the judge to grant their Motion to Dismiss—they warned the court that forcing a public broadcaster to endure "expensive yet groundless litigation" creates a severe "chilling effect" on global journalism, purely by bleeding them dry before a trial even starts.

9 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

The BBC is playing a game of chicken with public license-fee money.

The defamation suit, if any, should have been filed in the UK. But there was a 1 year statute limitations and the vaunted Trump media operation did not know about the devastating Panorama edit until it was leaked by the Telegraph too late.

So now they have a case in Florida that under Florida law, "publication" is the mandatory second element of any defamation claim. A statement cannot be considered defamatory unless it is published, meaning it is communicated (orally or in writing) to at least one third party who is not the subject of the statement.

And they still have not anyone in Florida who actually saw but that someone in Florida MAYBE saw it. This only one component of the motion to dismiss but is the one that is not a judgment call but clearly yes or no.

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Even if they win the trial a year later, trying to collect millions of dollars in attorney's fees from a sitting U.S. President is a diplomatic and bureaucratic nightmare that could take a decade to resolve in appeals.

They may also be awarded attorneys fees and costs if the case is dismissed.

As to collecting any awarded benefits:

Under Florida law, a prevailing party awarded attorney's fees can attach and eventually seize non-exempt Florida properties if the debtor refuses to pay. To do this, the creditor must record a certified copy of the judgment and obtain a court-issued writ of execution to authorize a sheriff's levy and sale.However, this process is subject to specific legal protections and exemptions under Florida law. (principally homestead exemption so Mar a Lago at least in part off-limits.)

https://dos.fl.gov/sunbiz/forms/judgment-lien/collect-judgment/

27 minutes ago, JerryM said:

They may also be awarded attorneys fees and costs if the case is dismissed.

As to collecting any awarded benefits:

Under Florida law, a prevailing party awarded attorney's fees can attach and eventually seize non-exempt Florida properties if the debtor refuses to pay. To do this, the creditor must record a certified copy of the judgment and obtain a court-issued writ of execution to authorize a sheriff's levy and sale.However, this process is subject to specific legal protections and exemptions under Florida law. (principally homestead exemption so Mar a Lago at least in part off-limits.)

https://dos.fl.gov/sunbiz/forms/judgment-lien/collect-judgment/

Right.

Even if the BBC wins a complete, early victory and Judge Altman throws the case out of court, that multi-million-dollar defense bill is effectively gone.

They are trapped in a system where a technical win on "No Jurisdiction" locks them out of standard fee-recovery laws. And even if they somehow secured a piece of paper ordering Trump to pay, the bulletproof Florida asset exemptions, corporate shell networks, and the impossible logistical nightmare of trying to seize assets from a sitting U.S. President mean it would be completely uncollectible.

Ultimately, the BBC's expensive legal fight isn't an investment to get a refund—it is pure damage control to prevent a bad situation from turning into a total financial catastrophe and it is very bad timing for them, per the OP.

10 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Ultimately, the BBC's expensive legal fight isn't an investment to get a refund—it is pure damage control to prevent a bad situation from turning into a total financial catastrophe and it is very bad timing for them, per the OP.

Well if he suggestion there is they should settle I'll leave that decision to therm.

Get a grip boys and girls. Nothing to do with Trump or the BBC going under. This is the biggest downsizing in 15 years, but it’s framed as restructuring to “meet audiences where they are”, presumably avoiding you lot on AN.

The BBC still had ∼21,500 employees as of March last year. Brittin told staff they’re prioritizing “programmes delivering the greatest value and impact” and trying to become “simpler and faster”.

6 hours ago, JerryM said:

The scorecard now is that BBC has filed a motion to dismiss to which team Trump has yet to respond. Just a lot of back & forth discovery motions.

The original Trump complaint uses the word " “immense likelihood" that someone in Florida actually viewed Panorama documerntary.

Yes, it's unlikely that Trump will actually win anything, it's very likely it will be dismissed, cos of 'jurisdiction'.

Unless in discovery, which they are doing at the moment, Trump's team find a smoking gun.

7 hours ago, gargamon said:

They're not going to lose.

More like they are probably not going to lose.

You never know with these things, anything can happen?

10 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

More like they are probably not going to lose.

You never know with these things, anything can happen?

I'll agree never say never. Things like malice, first amendment press freedoms, and defamation involving a public figure are all judgment calls in a motion to dismiss.

Jurisdiction under Florida defamation law is pretty much yes or no.

And to keep it simple: Previous federal court ruling says that the Panorama doc wasn't available in Florida for defamation purposes unless BBC itself made it available in Florida.

early morning OOPS

BBC is running ad segments during the water breaks in World Cup matches on the licence fee along with an on screen QR code to help you pay :-))))))

English people know the BBC lie to them at all times but are no longer happy to pay for it.

British State is fast becoming rogue / illegitimate.

The reply from BBC supporting motion to dismiss is in. Primary point:

Saying someone MIGHT have seen the doco in Florida by using unauthorized VPN ain't gonna cut it.