| BBC 08:45 - Nov 15 with 3224 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 08:54 - Nov 15 with 2159 views | BloomBlue |
He's suing them in Florida, predominantly because he knows Florida is Trump friendly, and as a consequence, in an indirect way he controls the legal system in Florida. |  | | |
| BBC on 08:57 - Nov 15 with 2148 views | MrPotatoHead |
I would be quite confident it won’t come to that. The orange tosser just wants to swing his tiny cock around, as he has for his whole life. |  | | |
| BBC on 08:57 - Nov 15 with 2146 views | Mullet |
| BBC on 08:54 - Nov 15 by BloomBlue |
He's suing them in Florida, predominantly because he knows Florida is Trump friendly, and as a consequence, in an indirect way he controls the legal system in Florida. |
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. |  |
| |
| BBC on 09:14 - Nov 15 with 2072 views | Pioneer_Blue |
It's a grift as usual. The BBC will settle long before it his a courtroom. |  | | |
| BBC on 09:28 - Nov 15 with 2020 views | BlueBoots |
| BBC on 08:54 - Nov 15 by BloomBlue |
He's suing them in Florida, predominantly because he knows Florida is Trump friendly, and as a consequence, in an indirect way he controls the legal system in Florida. |
If he does that, can't see how he'd have any success (as the programme wasn't aired in the US), and I don't think he could in the UK either as the programme aired here over a year ago now. No idea whether availability to view on demand since then would have any bearing on that though... |  |
| |
| BBC on 09:35 - Nov 15 with 1979 views | iamatractorboy |
| BBC on 09:14 - Nov 15 by Pioneer_Blue |
It's a grift as usual. The BBC will settle long before it his a courtroom. |
They'd be mad to settle for anything. They haven't got a case to answer. He hasn't been libelled/defamed (I'm not sure it would be possible to harm Trump's reputation, frankly, in which case no defamation) and as far as I know the programme wasn't available in Florida so what is his basis for suing there? | | | |
| BBC on 09:36 - Nov 15 with 1978 views | Zx1988 |
Surely, notwithstanding all the other potential hurdles, it all relies on him having a good character to defame in the first place? | |
| |
| BBC on 09:36 - Nov 15 with 1973 views | MattinLondon |
Even if the BBC stands its ground what political help can the BBC expect over here? Starmer will not criticise Trump as he’s too sterile and bland for that. The Tories and hate-preacher Farage all want to brown nose Trump as long as he tickles their tums.
The BBC will probably be too isolated to tackle Trump. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| BBC on 10:06 - Nov 15 with 1888 views | Churchman |
Interesting commentary from The New Statesman:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/11/the-bbc-is-right-not-t
Where I disagree is that the BBC did not make a mistake. It chose to splice two bits of tape together for a purpose. To make Trump look bad. It was both wrong and an unbelievably stupid thing to do for two reasons.
Surely everyone knew that Trump would not let it go. He has a track record on preying on stuff like this. Secondly, they didn’t need to do it.
We all know what Trump did, what he was doing and what he is. Why manufacture evidence in the way they did? I don’t get it.
So no, it wasn’t a mistake, it was a deliberate act by a publicly funded broadcaster that should not be playing politics in this way. The U.K. taxpayer will now be paying Trump off one way or the other, possibly to the equivalent of BBCs £5bn annual budget. You couldn’t make it up.
Whoever made this programme and whoever authorised it going out with this, including the head of the BBC if he/she is still there, should either resign or be fired in my view.
Does that sound over the top? Maybe, but while Lord Carrington had little to do with the Falklands debacle, he felt accountable and resigned. Head of HMRC Paul Gray resigned after the alleged Child Benefit Disc loss in 2007. He didn’t lose anything.
The scumbags who bankrupted U.K. banks got the heave ho, but should have gone to prison. There was public dissent that they got off lightly. I put this in a similar bracket. |  | | |
| BBC on 10:06 - Nov 15 with 1893 views | Guthrum |
There's a fundamental misunderstanding of how TV works. Very few programmes are made by "the BBC". Almost all are done by independent production companies commissioned by the Corporation. There is then a network of indemnities and insurances to protect against the financial consequences of just such a situation (i.e. legal action over content).
The BBC is more likely to be damaged by presidential, rather than legal, action. They have spent a lot of time and effort in recent years trying to break into the lucrative US market - to offset increasing funding pressures (inflation, cost of the World Service) and hedge against threats to the licence fee. Being barred from the States or tariffed would harm that greatly. |  |
| |
| BBC on 10:11 - Nov 15 with 1862 views | Mullet |
| BBC on 10:06 - Nov 15 by Guthrum |
There's a fundamental misunderstanding of how TV works. Very few programmes are made by "the BBC". Almost all are done by independent production companies commissioned by the Corporation. There is then a network of indemnities and insurances to protect against the financial consequences of just such a situation (i.e. legal action over content).
The BBC is more likely to be damaged by presidential, rather than legal, action. They have spent a lot of time and effort in recent years trying to break into the lucrative US market - to offset increasing funding pressures (inflation, cost of the World Service) and hedge against threats to the licence fee. Being barred from the States or tariffed would harm that greatly. |
Although, I wonder if the Epstein distraction stuff that this is part of will backfire. There is growing resentment from MAGA nuts and normal people alike that he's lied so much etc.
Hopefully the ongoing wrangling over the files and people starting to hint more openly how guilty Trump is of lying, will ultimately damage him more and more. | |
| |
| BBC on 10:17 - Nov 15 with 1839 views | Guthrum |
| BBC on 10:11 - Nov 15 by Mullet |
Although, I wonder if the Epstein distraction stuff that this is part of will backfire. There is growing resentment from MAGA nuts and normal people alike that he's lied so much etc.
Hopefully the ongoing wrangling over the files and people starting to hint more openly how guilty Trump is of lying, will ultimately damage him more and more. |
In the last day or so he's had an open falling out with Marjorie Taylor Greene, formerly one of his noisiest supporters.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/14/trump-marjorie-taylor-greene-sup
Largely over Epstein, but also lack of dealing with the cost of living crisis and lack of medical provision for ordinary Americans (something Trump cares little about, other than a useful way of stoking things up). | |
| |
| BBC on 10:51 - Nov 15 with 1706 views | The_Major |
| BBC on 10:06 - Nov 15 by Guthrum |
There's a fundamental misunderstanding of how TV works. Very few programmes are made by "the BBC". Almost all are done by independent production companies commissioned by the Corporation. There is then a network of indemnities and insurances to protect against the financial consequences of just such a situation (i.e. legal action over content).
The BBC is more likely to be damaged by presidential, rather than legal, action. They have spent a lot of time and effort in recent years trying to break into the lucrative US market - to offset increasing funding pressures (inflation, cost of the World Service) and hedge against threats to the licence fee. Being barred from the States or tariffed would harm that greatly. |
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. |  | | |
| BBC on 11:12 - Nov 15 with 1600 views | Churchman |
| 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. |
Unfortunately, our state broadcaster chose to interfere with a foreign leader (or potential leader). Fine, but splicing a tape together to present a picture or broadcasting somebody else’s handiwork just isn’t right. It was no accident or mistake. It was a deliberate act and an unbelievably stupid one. You and me are forced to pay a licence fee that funds a high percentage of their funding. That in itself surely means they should not be pulling stunts like that.
Are so called patriots rushing to support shtgibbon trump? Sycophantic fruitloops like Farage might be but I doubt anyone else will. I don’t know beyond bluster and threat what leverage trumpington has to extort money from the U.K. on this - there are legal people on here who can perhaps advise.
Where I totally agree is re Starmer. He will spend the weekend brown nosing Trump, if the orange one bothers to take the call, and he certainly won’t stand up to him. One of the government’s priorities should be de-linking this country from the US. It never has acted beyond its own best interests and they certainly are not ours.
He should have told trump to get stuffed the day that apology of a man tried it on with his tariffs and / or when he and his ghastly dead eyed idiot VP started on Zelenski. I would have, but I guess there’s a reason I’m no politician. So my plea to Starmer is please, just once, show some backbone. [Post edited 15 Nov 11:13]
| | | |
| BBC on 12:21 - Nov 15 with 1429 views | Guthrum |
| BBC on 11:12 - Nov 15 by Churchman |
Unfortunately, our state broadcaster chose to interfere with a foreign leader (or potential leader). Fine, but splicing a tape together to present a picture or broadcasting somebody else’s handiwork just isn’t right. It was no accident or mistake. It was a deliberate act and an unbelievably stupid one. You and me are forced to pay a licence fee that funds a high percentage of their funding. That in itself surely means they should not be pulling stunts like that.
Are so called patriots rushing to support shtgibbon trump? Sycophantic fruitloops like Farage might be but I doubt anyone else will. I don’t know beyond bluster and threat what leverage trumpington has to extort money from the U.K. on this - there are legal people on here who can perhaps advise.
Where I totally agree is re Starmer. He will spend the weekend brown nosing Trump, if the orange one bothers to take the call, and he certainly won’t stand up to him. One of the government’s priorities should be de-linking this country from the US. It never has acted beyond its own best interests and they certainly are not ours.
He should have told trump to get stuffed the day that apology of a man tried it on with his tariffs and / or when he and his ghastly dead eyed idiot VP started on Zelenski. I would have, but I guess there’s a reason I’m no politician. So my plea to Starmer is please, just once, show some backbone. [Post edited 15 Nov 11:13]
|
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. | |
| |
| BBC on 12:26 - Nov 15 with 1417 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| BBC on 08:54 - Nov 15 by BloomBlue |
He's suing them in Florida, predominantly because he knows Florida is Trump friendly, and as a consequence, in an indirect way he controls the legal system in Florida. |
I assumed it would be a US case which has no jurisdiction over the BBC. So he will win the case, be awarded huge damages (because his reputation will have taken a huge hit from it) and the BBC doesn't bother paying and there is no further consequence (aside from the headlines that he successfully sued them). I think that is a lot of how the US litigation system works from my very limited knowledge.
If that is correct, the BBC shouldn't bother wasting any money defending the case. |  |
| |
| BBC on 12:38 - Nov 15 with 1360 views | Illinoisblue |
As with 99% of Trump’s threatened lawsuits, it’s bluster and bulls5it and will never get to court where he would be deposed and questioned. It’s all performative nonsense to appeal to his mouth-breathing base who can’t think beyond a simple headline. [Post edited 15 Nov 12:39]
|  |
| |
| BBC on 12:41 - Nov 15 with 1340 views | 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]
|  |
| |
| BBC on 12:45 - Nov 15 with 1287 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| 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]
|
I don't see a conundrum there.
As patriots they denounce the lefty-biased woke BBC.
Just like those on the left denounce the right-biased Reform-pushing BBC.
The truth is that the BBC is neither left nor right but does publish programmes that push each agenda. There are places where they get the balance completely wrong (no one is perfect) but to push to remove it is a bad mistake which will only really be regretted once it has gone. | |
| |
| BBC on 12:56 - Nov 15 with 1251 views | Trequartista |
| BBC on 12:45 - Nov 15 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I don't see a conundrum there.
As patriots they denounce the lefty-biased woke BBC.
Just like those on the left denounce the right-biased Reform-pushing BBC.
The truth is that the BBC is neither left nor right but does publish programmes that push each agenda. There are places where they get the balance completely wrong (no one is perfect) but to push to remove it is a bad mistake which will only really be regretted once it has gone. |
The conundrum being as "patriots" they will be supporting the American over a British institution. | |
| |
| BBC on 12:57 - Nov 15 with 1249 views | LegendofthePhoenix |
If Trump were to succeed in his claim I couldn't see the BBC surviving. It doesnt have reserves of cash like that, and as a licence payer I'm b*ggered if I'm going to pay a penny extra to fund "compensation" to that orange scumbag. And I woulnt mnd betting that evry other licence payer feels the same. If Trump wants to end the BBC, then that will just add to the long list of catatstrophes that he has caused. This is what happend when you elect a psychopath as President of the most powerful nation on earth. |  |
| |
| BBC on 13:01 - Nov 15 with 1213 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| BBC on 12:56 - Nov 15 by Trequartista |
The conundrum being as "patriots" they will be supporting the American over a British institution. |
These "patriots" are as MAGA as you get. Farage, Tommy two-names, all of them support it. They don't realise being more pro-US than pro-UK is unpatriotic. Special relationship and all that. | |
| |
| BBC on 13:02 - Nov 15 with 1204 views | You_Bloo_Right |
Doesn't even Florida law place a greater burden of proof on public figures claiming defamation (they have to prove that the libel/slander was made maliciously)?
I have seen the spliced speech edit but not the documentary.
If Trump's potential suit is based on that ill-advised edit alone he doesn't have a leg to stand on. |  |
| |
| BBC on 13:05 - Nov 15 with 1201 views | The_Major |
| BBC on 12:45 - Nov 15 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I don't see a conundrum there.
As patriots they denounce the lefty-biased woke BBC.
Just like those on the left denounce the right-biased Reform-pushing BBC.
The truth is that the BBC is neither left nor right but does publish programmes that push each agenda. There are places where they get the balance completely wrong (no one is perfect) but to push to remove it is a bad mistake which will only really be regretted once it has gone. |
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. | | | |
| BBC on 13:08 - Nov 15 with 1187 views | The_Major |
Somewhat ironic that as I typed the above, I was listening to Hollywood by Marina and The Diamonds, which of course contains the line "I'm obsessed with the mess that's America." | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
