The bbc, again.

[Teddy Eagle]

Professional liability insurance?

On previous experience the premiums would be enormous.

 

[Badger11]

Professional liability insurance?

Perhaps, I have no idea.

I did just have another thought. Remember Trump would need to prove malicious intent.

If I was him intent on suing I would look at the social media posts of those involved in the making and approving of the program. If he can find lots of anti Trump posts then the defence, it's a mistake no bias, will seem rather hollow.

Now would anyone like to bet their house on there Not being such posts? Frankly I would be amazed if there wasn't.

 

[McAhuna]

I have been busy most of the day, so haven’t read all the comments but can imagine them. No point in responding individually, even if I had the time.

The story is moving fast. First the apology, for the error of judgement. Now Trump’s threat to sue for a $1 billion! How predictable!

How should the BBC respond? Will they get political pressure from a government trying to avoid upsetting a narcissist while he remains the POTUS? Who, with the DG gone, will lead them? Will the politically compromised Board have the guts to stand up to him.

I listened to Radio 4 today, who covered the story all day. I was particularly impressed by two interviews..

Ed Davey was forthright in his defence of the BBC and said he is approaching all the other party leaders to ask them to join him in writing to Trump to request him to stop trying to interfere in British politics. Which by describing the BBC as fake news and encouraging people to watch GBNews he is doing. Ed Davey just won my vote.

Chris Patten, ex Chairman of the Tory Party, last Governor of Hong Kong and previously the Chairman of the BBC Trust, the forerunner of the Board, was equally forthright in his support for the BBC. He made me smile when he described Trump’s attitude, suggesting that it was rather ridiculous to label the BBC as purveyors of fake news when he is the most obvious of liars.

So I hope that the BBC simply send Trump a copy of their explanation, and apology for what now accept was an error of judgement. Nothing else.

If Trump decides to then sue that would be excellent news. From any reasonable perspective he would have zero chance of winning. Where could he sue where enough people watched it to matter? Proving defamation is incredibly hard at any time. With this near to impossible. Proving an impact on the electorate looks a lost cause. He won!

Making this into a fight between Trump and the BBC is the best result possible for the BBC. It would immediately divert attention from the Panorama issue. In any popularity contest in the UK between Trump and the BBC there would only ever be one winner. So him suing the BBC would galvinise support for them. Bring it on! With Farage being quite so far up Trump’s posterior that you would know it was him because of his Oxford shoes, it would doubtless damage him too. Win win. This would be a big test of the BBC Board, and of the government.

I also watched James O’Brien’s take on this tonight. It’s interesting, not only because it’s so obviously true, but also because he inserts a number of other clips from “that speech”. Clips which put those used in the Panorama documentary into greater context. If you really want to get to grips with this then do watch it.

And you dislike Trump because he is grandiose, self-important and waffles on for hours while distracting from the actual point.

Interesting.

 

[McAhuna]

Here’s an idea, why doesn’t Trump just ban all BBC journalists from the US? If he feels that he has been wronged then that would be easier than a $1 billion court case. The BBC would still exist and Trump wouldn’t be on our screens so much; surely a double win for Wisbech…

I think a complete ban would play into the hands of his critics who like to smear him as a dictator.

But perhaps he could ban all 'fake news' outlets from his press conferences and government offices? I think that already happens. He now has strong justification to put the BBC in that bracket.

 

[McAhuna]

Perhaps, I have no idea.

I did just have another thought. Remember Trump would need to prove malicious intent.

If I was him intent on suing I would look at the social media posts of those involved in the making and approving of the program. If he can find lots of anti Trump posts then the defence, it's a mistake no bias, will seem rather hollow.

Now would anyone like to bet their house on there Not being such posts? Frankly I would be amazed if there wasn't.

Yes. He's a clever man, I'm sure he'd take the opportunity to bring in the wider and more sustained campaign against him.

 

[McAhuna]

Let’s not forget that, in June 2022, the BBC lied directly to Britain’s children about the experimental Covid mRNA vaccine. On the children’s programme BBC Newsround, Devi Sridhar stated that the “vaccine” was “100% safe for children.”The Covid mRNA vaccine rollout to children was the biggest safeguarding breach against kids in living memory. The BBC was complicit in this.

 

[Badger11]

Yes. He's a clever man, I'm sure he'd take the opportunity to bring in the wider and more sustained campaign against him.

Yup a very good point. Trump would do everything in his power to get the judge to admit details about other BBC dirt.

It's just not worth it.

If the BBC issues a proper apology and Trump still sues then the boot is on the other foot. Trump then looks the vindicative one.

I saw a post saying the case might be heard in Florida, is that Trump supporting Florida? Another thing for the BBC to consider.

 

[McAhuna]

Yup a very good point. Trump would do everything in his power to get the judge to admit details about other BBC dirt.

It's just not worth it.

If the BBC issues a proper apology and Trump still sues then the boot is on the other foot. Trump then looks the vindicative one.

I saw a post saying the case might be heard in Florida, is that Trump supporting Florida? Another thing for the BBC to consider.

Does an apology cover it though?

If he brings in the wider campaign against him, can he argue that the BBC cost him? Possibly even cost him the 2020 election - which was incredibly tight.
In which case, an apology a few years later doesn't begin to cover the damages.

The BBC misinformation will have certainly harmed international relations, possibly international trade.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

for a long time, Trump has been saying that the main enemy out there is The Media. And he is correct.

If he could take out the BBC, it would be another Trump-triumph.

You really are blind to reality aren’t you!

The only defence we have against tyrants, like Trump, is a media freely expressing what they observe to be true.

No one here should encourage Trump. Everyone should stand shoulder to shoulder against the rise of authoritarianism.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Perhaps, I have no idea.

I did just have another thought. Remember Trump would need to prove malicious intent.

If I was him intent on suing I would look at the social media posts of those involved in the making and approving of the program. If he can find lots of anti Trump posts then the defence, it's a mistake no bias, will seem rather hollow.

Now would anyone like to bet their house on there Not being such posts? Frankly I would be amazed if there wasn't.

His lawyers would first need to distinguish between something being “anti-Trump” and it being fair criticism.

Just because Trump whines whenever he is criticised doesn’t mean that criticism isn’t fair.

Freedom of speech applies to everyone.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So James O'Brien did his own edit, which you also liked, so that helps a lot

Have you tried to listen to the entire speech as a whole and made your decision from that?

He did and it pointed up that those criticising the BBC edit weren’t telling the truth!

The Panorama programme is no longer available. I have tried to find it. I would want to watch that as well, and not just the speech, to truly put things into their context.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

It probably would be harder to win in America but I've read that the statute of limitations is a year here and two years in Florida so it would have to be there.
Yes, an apology or an expensive lawsuit wouldn't seem to be a hard choice.

This will be a battle between the Board, who will want to settle by grovelling to Trump, and the staff who will want to stand up to him.

It could get very nasty indeed.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Tim Davie is apparently going to speak to all the BBC staff this morning.

He is no “lefty” himself but I anticipate he will tell people to be proud of the jobs they are doing and not be deflected or discouraged by the campaign being waged against them.

I also expect him to reassure them that although he has decided to resign he will be staying in post until his replacement is and will continue to lead them with determination and a commitment to ensure the truth gets told. They need a strong voice now.

I hope he will say they are already carefully considering whether the threats of legal action are in any way justified, and will issue an update asap, but will always acknowledge any mistakes.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

Well if the British Voting-Public have failed to bring any accountability to the renegade BBC........then maybe a US President will do so for us ?

During the 1600's you could get arrested for owning an unofficial unlicensed Printing Press. Control of the Media is a key part of running any society.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

Does an apology cover it though?

If he brings in the wider campaign against him, can he argue that the BBC cost him? Possibly even cost him the 2020 election - which was incredibly tight.
In which case, an apology a few years later doesn't begin to cover the damages.

The BBC misinformation will have certainly harmed international relations, possibly international trade.

Trump could bring to bear an enormous financial & economic muscle onto Keir. Or its probably more likely Trump would scramble a Stealth Bomber over Broadcasting House ?

 

[McAhuna]

Trump could bring to bear an enormous financial & economic muscle onto Keir. Or its probably more likely Trump would scramble a Stealth Bomber over Broadcasting House ?

He will no doubt be met by a 'robust' response. A squadron of Gloster Gladiators is ready to be scrambled.

 

[beak]

Well if the British Voting-Public have failed to bring any accountability to the renegade BBC........then maybe a US President will do so for us ?

During the 1600's you could get arrested for owning an unofficial unlicensed Printing Press. Control of the Media is a key part of running any society.

Especially dangerous if printing snide banknotes, we could compromise and put Trumps face on a tenner,I would enjoy wiping my ---- on one. 👍

 

[McAhuna]

Just gone live on BBC verify



Spot the implicit bias. They are only interested in investigating online or social feeds.
Not TV or legacy media, let alone the BBC itself.

They just can't help themselves.

 

[HKOwen]

On previous experience the premiums would be enormous.

PI insurance excludes deliberate acts

 

[eaglesdare]

So i asked grok "what is the viewership figures for the BBC in America?"

Here's a breakdown based on the most recent available data as of mid-2025:

1. BBC America (TV Channel)Availability: Reaches approximately 60 million pay-TV households (down from 82 million in 2017).
Primetime Audience: Averages 104,000 viewers per week (as of June 2025, ranking it 60th among U.S. cable networks). This is a concurrent live viewership metric and has declined slightly year-over-year.
2. BBC News (Overall U.S. Audience)Weekly Reach: Approximately 50 million Americans tune in weekly across TV, radio (BBC World Service), and digital platforms (as of 2021 data; recent reports indicate stability or growth due to events like the 2024 U.S. election). This makes the U.S. BBC News's second-largest international market after India.

Damning figures of the amount of people in the US who watch the BBC and could have seen the edited clips just before an election.