| BBC 08:45 - Nov 15 with 2689 views | LeoMuff |
not a legal bod but what grounds will he sue the BBC ? he pardoned the rioters so presumably feels the riot didn’t happen.
Also wasn’t he being sued for inciting said riot ?
Hopefully BBC will stand its it’s ground but not hopeful
|  |
| |  |
| BBC on 13:28 - Nov 15 with 589 views | Churchman |
| BBC on 12:21 - Nov 15 by Guthrum |
Altho this was more comment upon a foreign politician, rather than a direct interference, given the programme was not broadcast or, apparently, available to stream in the USA. |
Is whether or not it was available or streamable in the US relevant? If he sees himself as leader of the free world (now there’s a busted cliche if ever there was one) he will see anything like that as fair game won’t he? A totally open question b3cause I have only questions and no answers on this. |  | | |
| BBC on 13:31 - Nov 15 with 587 views | Oldsmoker |
My advice to the BBC is delay,delay,delay.
4 or 5 years should be enough.
Dead men can't sue. |  |
| |
| BBC on 13:33 - Nov 15 with 578 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| BBC on 13:05 - Nov 15 by The_Major |
Think Stephen Fry had the right idea that if you turned the BBC off for a week, you'd soon miss it.
I'd like to go further and somehow take the nuclear option, removing all BBC shows from streaming platforms worldwide, withdrawing all DVDs etc from sale, basically acting as if it never existed. If you haven't got a show on DVD, tough, you ain't watching it.
Ideally it would need to be Christmas week in an Ashes year, whilst the UK is in a grip of a winter worse than 1947 and 1963 put together.
This means:
No Christmas TV - which means no EastEnders, Strictly, McIntyre, Midwife etc etc etc - and whilst that might not bother me or you, millions would be up in arms.
No TMS to listen to the Boxing Day test
No local radio to let you know what the travel conditions are like, what is open, what is cancelled etc - do you honestly think that whatever networked tripe that you can now find on the old Radio Orwell frequency is going to keep you updated if you can get up Bishop's Hill without sliding back down because of ice and crashing into The Gardeners Arms? It's probably being broadcast from Glasgow.
And no local radio means.... NO BRENNER.  
If anyone is still thinking that the BBC haven't done wrong here, they need to give their head a wobble. But there have now been consequences, and that should be the end of it. But the cretin needs something to distract from Epstein, and I guess it's either this or bomb Venezuela. |
Venezuela should be thankful for the BBC too! |  |
| |
| BBC on 13:35 - Nov 15 with 575 views | LutherBlissett |
| BBC on 13:31 - Nov 15 by Oldsmoker |
My advice to the BBC is delay,delay,delay.
4 or 5 years should be enough.
Dead men can't sue. |
How are your stocks of casserole mix these days? Abundant, I hope. |  | | |
| BBC on 13:53 - Nov 15 with 548 views | Oldsmoker |
| BBC on 13:35 - Nov 15 by LutherBlissett |
How are your stocks of casserole mix these days? Abundant, I hope. |
No more sachets - I've gone industrial.
One of my neighbors has a Macro card - they're a cash n carry outfit and have a massive catering section. Minimum size is a 5kg bag of casserole seasoning.
Add a squirt of Tomato puree to thicken and lift the sauce and it works for chicken, beef and sausages.
I have some sort of casserole 5 nights a week.
I add frozen roast spuds to the top of the oven half-an-hour before times up for the casserole.
Always a tasty belly buster. | |
| |
| BBC on 17:05 - Nov 15 with 464 views | Guthrum |
| BBC on 13:28 - Nov 15 by Churchman |
Is whether or not it was available or streamable in the US relevant? If he sees himself as leader of the free world (now there’s a busted cliche if ever there was one) he will see anything like that as fair game won’t he? A totally open question b3cause I have only questions and no answers on this. |
Difficult to prove his election chances were damaged by a programme not available in the country where it's being held. Especially as he won the thing. Public opinion in the UK is irrelevant to his situation. |  |
| |
| BBC on 17:38 - Nov 15 with 441 views | bournemouthblue |
| BBC on 12:41 - Nov 15 by Trequartista |
This is a conundrum for the right in the UK. They like Trump and attack the BBC but as "patriots" which side do they choose? [Post edited 15 Nov 12:42]
|
The right has always had a problem with the BBC and has been trying to clip it's wings for a long time
The BBC much like the NHS has been a problem for the right given they are ideologically opposed to the concept but they are also much loved national institutions |  |
| |
| BBC on 18:05 - Nov 15 with 412 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| BBC on 10:51 - Nov 15 by The_Major |
Agree - it'll be presidential rather than legal.
The main thrust of his case that it caused damage to his reputation before the election - by being broadcast in a different country to people who couldn't vote in said election - which he then won.
And bearing in mind that it wasn't publicly available in the US, even if people over there took it upon themselves to dust off Lime Wire and download a torrent of Panorama (even if there was one), how many people would have had to suddenly say "Well, this changes everything, It's now Kamala for me" to reverse the result?
You know the BBC would have the best KC they can find. And all they will have to do is ask why had it taken so long for a complaint to be made, and secondly to prove the alleged reputation damage.
A British court will throw it out in seconds due to the statue of limitations. And even if they didn't, they're certainly not going to award billions.
Just had a quick look round - remember when Cliff Richard sued the BBC at the height of Yewtree for broadcasting a police raid on his home? Now that obviously did have the potential for damaging his reputation in the country where he was most well-known (although frankly, Mistletoe and Wine did that nearly 40 years ago) - he was awarded £210k.
Then there was Elton John getting £1m from The Sun in 1987 - can remember there being real surprise at such an unusually large settlement - the inflation calculator now says that would be £2.9m today.
What I'd now like to see is more support from over here. The sickening sight of so-called patriots rushing to support a foreign leader over our state broadcaster is nauseating. Ed Davey's got the idea - have Starmer tell Trump straight - the BBC royally screwed up, they've apologised profusely, heads have rolled, that's the end of it. But our gutless PM will do nothing of the sort
But if he does, and perhaps then as well put a final line along the lines of "As said, there have been consequences for the BBC's actions, and the Director General has resigned by taking full responsibility. As this, and the recent events surrounding Andrew Mountbatten Windsor have shown, in the United Kingdom, we believe that there should be consequence for actions".
If he does that, he'd get my vote for eternity. |
You say that it was broadcast in a country where people can't vote in the US Presidential Election, but most estimates suggest there are over 300,000 Americans of voting age in the UK, who can register for a vote in their home state.
When the Election is close they can make a significant difference. Although talking about an earlier Election, this article shows why:
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/arts-blog/few-thousand-us-voters-canada-uk-france-and- | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| BBC on 18:08 - Nov 15 with 412 views | baxterbasics |
Trouble is with these cases, even if there isn't much of a case, the point isn't to win and get 5 billion dollars out of the BBC, but a smaller settlement instead, because this would be cheaper than a lengthy court fight.
Recent examples of Trump taking on Media and coming out on top (Excerpt from The Telegraph):
QUOTE:
The “doctored” interview with Kamala Harris
In a case that has some similarities with the Panorama fiasco, CBS’s parent company, Paramount Global, agreed to pay Trump $16 million (£13.5m) to settle a lawsuit over an episode of 60 Minutes that included an interview with former vice-president Kamala Harris.
In the lawsuit, which was filed in Texas, Trump claimed that CBS had aired two edited versions of an interview with Harris in which she gave different answers to a question about the war in Israel and Gaza. The interview had been edited to make Harris sound more articulate, he claimed, as her “word salad” answer had been doctored. Paramount noted that the settlement, which was agreed in July this year, did not include an apology or an expression of regret. The money was allocated to Trump’s future presidential library rather than being paid to him “directly or indirectly.” A spokesperson for Trump, meanwhile, hailed the settlement as a victory over the “fake news media” and a “win for the American people.”
The libel row on ABC News
In perhaps his most conclusive victory to date, ABC News agreed to pay $15m (£12m) to Trump, plus $1m towards the president’s legal fees, after its star anchor George Stephanopoulos, a former Democratic advisor, said Trump had been found “liable for rape.” Trump brought a defamation lawsuit against the network over the claims, which were made repeatedly by Stephanopoulos during an interview broadcast in March last year. In 2023, the jury in a civil case determined that Trump was liable for “sexual abuse,” meaning Stephanopoulous’ comment was false. The network settled. Again, the settlement was earmarked for Trump’s future presidential library, rather than for the president directly.
Trump vs Meta
While the president holds a particularly dim view of the legacy media, he has also taken on the social media giant, Meta, over its decision to suspend his accounts in the wake of the January 6 riots in 2021. It was one of several lawsuits he filed against social media companies who suspended him that year, but it is the only one in which he was eventually awarded damages (although Meta did not admit wrongdoing). Frosty relations with Meta were thawed over a Mar-a-Lago dinner with Mark Zuckerberg, and earlier this year, Trump signed a $25m (£20m) settlement, amounting to around $22m for a fund for his future presidential library and around $3m to cover legal costs.
END QUOTE |  |
| |
| BBC on 18:14 - Nov 15 with 405 views | vapour_trail |
| BBC on 12:41 - Nov 15 by Trequartista |
This is a conundrum for the right in the UK. They like Trump and attack the BBC but as "patriots" which side do they choose? [Post edited 15 Nov 12:42]
|
It’s not a conundrum at all. They’ll get squarely behind trump and an opportunity to bash the bbc.
There’s already been the sadly predictable reaction on here from the little and loud group that like to jump all over this stuff. You’ll know who they are. |  |
| |
| BBC on 18:22 - Nov 15 with 383 views | The_Major |
| BBC on 18:14 - Nov 15 by vapour_trail |
It’s not a conundrum at all. They’ll get squarely behind trump and an opportunity to bash the bbc.
There’s already been the sadly predictable reaction on here from the little and loud group that like to jump all over this stuff. You’ll know who they are. |
You see, I fail to see how this sort of talk can be deemed in anyway patriotic. I mean, she's now a private citizen and has every right to voice this opinion, but other people can also take her to task. Absolutely despicable, and treacherous.
Liz Truss on Fox News supporting Trump suing the BBC
"There are lots of people in Britain who are cheering President Trump on and want him to sue the BBC"
"And I believe the organisation needs to be defunded" — Farrukh (@implausibleblog.bsky.social) 2025-11-15T17:57:23.749Z
|  | | |
| BBC on 18:25 - Nov 15 with 369 views | vapour_trail |
| BBC on 18:22 - Nov 15 by The_Major |
You see, I fail to see how this sort of talk can be deemed in anyway patriotic. I mean, she's now a private citizen and has every right to voice this opinion, but other people can also take her to task. Absolutely despicable, and treacherous.
Liz Truss on Fox News supporting Trump suing the BBC
"There are lots of people in Britain who are cheering President Trump on and want him to sue the BBC"
"And I believe the organisation needs to be defunded" — Farrukh (@implausibleblog.bsky.social) 2025-11-15T17:57:23.749Z
|
She’s a fu(king traitor. Can’t we offload her to rwanda. | |
| |
| BBC on 18:28 - Nov 15 with 352 views | The_Major |
| BBC on 18:25 - Nov 15 by vapour_trail |
She’s a fu(king traitor. Can’t we offload her to rwanda. |
Spot on. I mean, I am diametrically opposed to the politics of the current leader of the Conservative Party, but I can never imagine her doing this, no matter what her issues with the BBC are.
It's time for these people to he called exactly what they are. [Post edited 15 Nov 18:45]
| | | |
| BBC on 18:32 - Nov 15 with 344 views | GlasgowBlue |
| BBC on 18:22 - Nov 15 by The_Major |
You see, I fail to see how this sort of talk can be deemed in anyway patriotic. I mean, she's now a private citizen and has every right to voice this opinion, but other people can also take her to task. Absolutely despicable, and treacherous.
Liz Truss on Fox News supporting Trump suing the BBC
"There are lots of people in Britain who are cheering President Trump on and want him to sue the BBC"
"And I believe the organisation needs to be defunded" — Farrukh (@implausibleblog.bsky.social) 2025-11-15T17:57:23.749Z
|
Badenoch needs to kick her out of the Tory party the way Starmer did Corbyn. Not only is she an utter embarrassment, some of her rantings are against the best interests of her own country. [Post edited 15 Nov 18:35]
|  |
| |
| BBC on 18:35 - Nov 15 with 332 views | reusersfreekicks |
| BBC on 18:22 - Nov 15 by The_Major |
You see, I fail to see how this sort of talk can be deemed in anyway patriotic. I mean, she's now a private citizen and has every right to voice this opinion, but other people can also take her to task. Absolutely despicable, and treacherous.
Liz Truss on Fox News supporting Trump suing the BBC
"There are lots of people in Britain who are cheering President Trump on and want him to sue the BBC"
"And I believe the organisation needs to be defunded" — Farrukh (@implausibleblog.bsky.social) 2025-11-15T17:57:23.749Z
|
Vile excuse of a human being.
Gone full on bad |  | | |
| BBC on 18:38 - Nov 15 with 327 views | Trequartista |
| BBC on 18:14 - Nov 15 by vapour_trail |
It’s not a conundrum at all. They’ll get squarely behind trump and an opportunity to bash the bbc.
There’s already been the sadly predictable reaction on here from the little and loud group that like to jump all over this stuff. You’ll know who they are. |
I was ridiculing the label "patriots", never mind, it just got a bit lost in translation. |  |
| |
| BBC on 18:52 - Nov 15 with 310 views | GlasgowBlue |
| BBC on 18:35 - Nov 15 by reusersfreekicks |
Vile excuse of a human being.
Gone full on bad |
Was she ever good? | |
| |
| BBC on 23:36 - Nov 15 with 213 views | MattinLondon |
More importantly than whether she has ever been good or bad, has she ever had any principles? |  | | |
| BBC on 09:21 - Nov 16 with 130 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| BBC on 23:36 - Nov 15 by MattinLondon |
More importantly than whether she has ever been good or bad, has she ever had any principles? |
 |  |
| |
| BBC on 10:25 - Nov 16 with 114 views | flykickingbybgunn |
As I see it it's a question of truth.
Are we happy that our national broadcaster deliberately mislead viewers ?
What should have happened was as soon as the bosses found out about it it should have been retracted and those responsible sacked. Then an apology made.
Instead the BBC chose to try to brush it under the metaphorical carpet. The folly later compounded by misc high ups trying to justify their actions.
While they have offered a mealy mouthed statement they clearly dont consider they did much wrong.
Their greatest mistake of course was to try to pull the tail of the biggest dog on the planet. He will turn and bite back resulting in all of us having to pick up the bill. |  | | |
| BBC on 10:30 - Nov 16 with 107 views | StokieBlue |
| BBC on 08:57 - Nov 15 by Mullet |
He also knows that just saying he's suing someone is enough to play to his base. He's sued most American broadcasters hasn't he?
As a population we should be worried. The way the right-wing are courting him to bring down the BBC and promote themselves and their mates' media empires is a terrible thing. |
Most of those cases have been settled by the US broadcasters, it's doubtful the BBC will settle but he's treating them the same.
Case is also a bit weird, I was listening to the radio the other day and if it's not been shown in the US it seems fairly easy to argue the case needs to be made in the UK where it was shown which he won't bother with.
Never know with these types of suits though.
SB |  | | |
| BBC on 10:36 - Nov 16 with 95 views | Mullet |
| BBC on 10:30 - Nov 16 by StokieBlue |
Most of those cases have been settled by the US broadcasters, it's doubtful the BBC will settle but he's treating them the same.
Case is also a bit weird, I was listening to the radio the other day and if it's not been shown in the US it seems fairly easy to argue the case needs to be made in the UK where it was shown which he won't bother with.
Never know with these types of suits though.
SB |
It also seems confected to hit now as the Epstein files are being dripped out - the fact that he is so prominent in them is terrifying. Likewise, see Stephen Yaxley Lennon being mentioned is the stuff of Netflix dramas.
I can’t see how he wins, but it creates a huge dead cat that drags the narrative away from the scumbags on the right constantly undermining our country, whilst licking the cream from Trumps teat as much as they can. |  |
| |
| BBC on 10:46 - Nov 16 with 92 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| BBC on 10:25 - Nov 16 by flykickingbybgunn |
As I see it it's a question of truth.
Are we happy that our national broadcaster deliberately mislead viewers ?
What should have happened was as soon as the bosses found out about it it should have been retracted and those responsible sacked. Then an apology made.
Instead the BBC chose to try to brush it under the metaphorical carpet. The folly later compounded by misc high ups trying to justify their actions.
While they have offered a mealy mouthed statement they clearly dont consider they did much wrong.
Their greatest mistake of course was to try to pull the tail of the biggest dog on the planet. He will turn and bite back resulting in all of us having to pick up the bill. |
I would suggest that we, along with the citizens of many other countries in the world, are already "picking up the bill" for Trump beng elected.
As for "deliberately mislead" I'm not so sure that's the case. In his impeachment trial the Senate voted 57–43 to convict - a two thirds majority was required so the vote fell short but as Mitch McConnell said following the vote, "There's no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day."
What irks me most is that there must be ample evidence available that the documentary could have used, unmanipulated, to make the same point. So why this clumsy edit?
And truth? The only lie I can see is the way the clip of Trump's speech was edited rather than the message the documentary, and indeed Trump's speech, was trying to convey. | |
| |
| BBC on 10:47 - Nov 16 with 89 views | StokieBlue |
| BBC on 10:46 - Nov 16 by You_Bloo_Right |
I would suggest that we, along with the citizens of many other countries in the world, are already "picking up the bill" for Trump beng elected.
As for "deliberately mislead" I'm not so sure that's the case. In his impeachment trial the Senate voted 57–43 to convict - a two thirds majority was required so the vote fell short but as Mitch McConnell said following the vote, "There's no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day."
What irks me most is that there must be ample evidence available that the documentary could have used, unmanipulated, to make the same point. So why this clumsy edit?
And truth? The only lie I can see is the way the clip of Trump's speech was edited rather than the message the documentary, and indeed Trump's speech, was trying to convey. |
"What irks me most is that there must be ample evidence available that the documentary could have used, unmanipulated, to make the same point. So why this clumsy edit?"
This is the key point here, it was also so unnecessary.
SB | | | |
| BBC on 10:51 - Nov 16 with 77 views | Mullet |
| BBC on 10:46 - Nov 16 by You_Bloo_Right |
I would suggest that we, along with the citizens of many other countries in the world, are already "picking up the bill" for Trump beng elected.
As for "deliberately mislead" I'm not so sure that's the case. In his impeachment trial the Senate voted 57–43 to convict - a two thirds majority was required so the vote fell short but as Mitch McConnell said following the vote, "There's no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day."
What irks me most is that there must be ample evidence available that the documentary could have used, unmanipulated, to make the same point. So why this clumsy edit?
And truth? The only lie I can see is the way the clip of Trump's speech was edited rather than the message the documentary, and indeed Trump's speech, was trying to convey. |
Quite, especially when we see GB “news” picked up repeatedly for much worse and yet still on the air, still giving platforms to fringe lunatics, dangerous actors and beyond.
Mistakes happen, poor judgement happens, but the way this has been moved is pretty sickening. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
