The bbc, again.

Spiderman said:
Perhaps they should employ people who can drive!

Click to expand...
No that would be discriminatory against those that can't drive. 😀

On a more serious note there have been plenty of complaints of BBC staff in London taking taxis when they could jump on a bus or tube. As for guests needing taxis, oddly enough must people are desperate to get their mug on TV they might complain but they will find a way to the studio.
 
BBC trying to get off Trumps £5Billion lawsuit on technicalities.
They might get away with it, but even so, the lawyers fees are already been paid out of licence payers monies

The BBC previously acknowledged the edit had given "the mistaken impression" Trump had "made a direct call for violent action", but disagreed that there was basis for a defamation claim
 
Forest Hillbilly said:
BBC trying to get off Trumps £5Billion lawsuit on technicalities.
They might get away with it, but even so, the lawyers fees are already been paid out of licence payers monies

The BBC previously acknowledged the edit had given "the mistaken impression" Trump had "made a direct call for violent action", but disagreed that there was basis for a defamation claim
Click to expand...
Hardly “technicalities”!

They are fundamental to the whole basis of the claim. If this fails and a trial is ordered that’s when the costs spiral. That is, of course, what Trump really wants. He knows he has next to no chance of actually winning. He wants to embarrass the BBC, put it through the enormous costs involved of the laborious discovery process that’s required in the USA, in which his lawyers will demand sight of every document in the BBC’s possession for some years that mentions Trump and will then select any that criticise him to claim bias. Then there will be lengthy depositions taken from the senior executives involved, lasting days and from very aggressive lawyers. Then a televised trial.

It’s malicious and designed to extract an undeserved settlement because it’s cheaper to settle than fight. Trump extracted settlements from other media companies in this way, so getting the claim dismissed is by far the most desirable outcome for the BBC. Should they fail, which is possible given where it will be heard, then I hope the BBC decide to fight, with the government backing it, and not just fold to save costs.

When my insurer was defrauded by someone claiming a fictitious personal injury they wanted to settle pre trial because they thought it was cost effective to do so. I persuaded them that standing up to fraudsters was something that must be done, whatever the cost. We lost and the fraudster got away with it, but the principle of resisting fraudsters was maintained.

I hope the case is dismissed and the BBC then sue Trump for their costs, claiming the prosecution was malicious and without foundation.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Hardly “technicalities”!

They are fundamental to the whole basis of the claim. If this fails and a trial is ordered that’s when the costs spiral. That is, of course, what Trump really wants. He knows he has next to no chance of actually winning. He wants to embarrass the BBC, put it through the enormous costs involved of the laborious discovery process that’s required in the USA, in which his lawyers will demand sight of every document in the BBC’s possession for some years that mentions Trump and will then select any that criticise him to claim bias. Then there will be lengthy depositions taken from the senior executives involved, lasting days and from very aggressive lawyers. Then a televised trial.

It’s malicious and designed to extract an undeserved settlement because it’s cheaper to settle than fight. Trump extracted settlements from other media companies in this way, so getting the claim dismissed is by far the most desirable outcome for the BBC. Should they fail, which is possible given where it will be heard, then I hope the BBC decide to fight, with the government backing it, and not just fold to save costs.

When my insurer was defrauded by someone claiming a fictitious personal injury they wanted to settle pre trial because they thought it was cost effective to do so. I persuaded them that standing up to fraudsters was something that must be done, whatever the cost. We lost and the fraudster got away with it, but the principle of resisting fraudsters was maintained.

I hope the case is dismissed and the BBC then sue Trump for their costs, claiming the prosecution was malicious and without foundation.
Click to expand...
The BBC are about as innocent as Ayatollah Khamenei.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Hardly “technicalities”!

They are fundamental to the whole basis of the claim. If this fails and a trial is ordered that’s when the costs spiral. That is, of course, what Trump really wants. He knows he has next to no chance of actually winning. He wants to embarrass the BBC, put it through the enormous costs involved of the laborious discovery process that’s required in the USA, in which his lawyers will demand sight of every document in the BBC’s possession for some years that mentions Trump and will then select any that criticise him to claim bias. Then there will be lengthy depositions taken from the senior executives involved, lasting days and from very aggressive lawyers. Then a televised trial.

It’s malicious and designed to extract an undeserved settlement because it’s cheaper to settle than fight. Trump extracted settlements from other media companies in this way, so getting the claim dismissed is by far the most desirable outcome for the BBC. Should they fail, which is possible given where it will be heard, then I hope the BBC decide to fight, with the government backing it, and not just fold to save costs.

When my insurer was defrauded by someone claiming a fictitious personal injury they wanted to settle pre trial because they thought it was cost effective to do so. I persuaded them that standing up to fraudsters was something that must be done, whatever the cost. We lost and the fraudster got away with it, but the principle of resisting fraudsters was maintained.

I hope the case is dismissed and the BBC then sue Trump for their costs, claiming the prosecution was malicious and without foundation.
Click to expand...
The edit was malicious and designed to misrepresent what was said. Had it been anyone else but the demon Trump that would be glaringly obvious. To deny it is to be content with the BBC falsifying the news.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Hardly “technicalities”!

They are fundamental to the whole basis of the claim. If this fails and a trial is ordered that’s when the costs spiral. That is, of course, what Trump really wants. He knows he has next to no chance of actually winning. He wants to embarrass the BBC, put it through the enormous costs involved of the laborious discovery process that’s required in the USA, in which his lawyers will demand sight of every document in the BBC’s possession for some years that mentions Trump and will then select any that criticise him to claim bias. Then there will be lengthy depositions taken from the senior executives involved, lasting days and from very aggressive lawyers. Then a televised trial.

It’s malicious and designed to extract an undeserved settlement because it’s cheaper to settle than fight. Trump extracted settlements from other media companies in this way, so getting the claim dismissed is by far the most desirable outcome for the BBC. Should they fail, which is possible given where it will be heard, then I hope the BBC decide to fight, with the government backing it, and not just fold to save costs.

When my insurer was defrauded by someone claiming a fictitious personal injury they wanted to settle pre trial because they thought it was cost effective to do so. I persuaded them that standing up to fraudsters was something that must be done, whatever the cost. We lost and the fraudster got away with it, but the principle of resisting fraudsters was maintained.

I hope the case is dismissed and the BBC then sue Trump for their costs, claiming the prosecution was malicious and without foundation.
Click to expand...
The BBC has nothing to gain in this and will gain nothing. Trump might accept a token couple of mil and maybe some kind of apology documentary. That's what the BBC should offer immediately, instead of wasting all of your money when they have already admitted what they did.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Hardly “technicalities”!

They are fundamental to the whole basis of the claim. If this fails and a trial is ordered that’s when the costs spiral. That is, of course, what Trump really wants. He knows he has next to no chance of actually winning. He wants to embarrass the BBC, put it through the enormous costs involved of the laborious discovery process that’s required in the USA, in which his lawyers will demand sight of every document in the BBC’s possession for some years that mentions Trump and will then select any that criticise him to claim bias. Then there will be lengthy depositions taken from the senior executives involved, lasting days and from very aggressive lawyers. Then a televised trial.

It’s malicious and designed to extract an undeserved settlement because it’s cheaper to settle than fight. Trump extracted settlements from other media companies in this way, so getting the claim dismissed is by far the most desirable outcome for the BBC. Should they fail, which is possible given where it will be heard, then I hope the BBC decide to fight, with the government backing it, and not just fold to save costs.

When my insurer was defrauded by someone claiming a fictitious personal injury they wanted to settle pre trial because they thought it was cost effective to do so. I persuaded them that standing up to fraudsters was something that must be done, whatever the cost. We lost and the fraudster got away with it, but the principle of resisting fraudsters was maintained.

I hope the case is dismissed and the BBC then sue Trump for their costs, claiming the prosecution was malicious and without foundation.
Click to expand...
Bloody hell Mystic Meg wouldn’t be able to tell us that much about Trumps train of thought. You missed your true vocation
 
ASCPFC said:
The BBC has nothing to gain in this and will gain nothing. Trump might accept a token couple of mil and maybe some kind of apology documentary. That's what the BBC should offer immediately, instead of wasting all of your money when they have already admitted what they did.
Click to expand...
Nothing to see so far.

Injured party says pay up or see me in court. Other party so we done nothing wrong and there is no case to answer. All standard as law suits go.

If I was the BBC I would not considering settling until the judge rules if they will take the case. If he does rule in favour of Trump it will cost the BBC a fortune to defend in a court where I seriously doubt the BBC will have many friends. That is the time to consider if it is worth settling or go for broke.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Hardly “technicalities”!

They are fundamental to the whole basis of the claim. If this fails and a trial is ordered that’s when the costs spiral. That is, of course, what Trump really wants. He knows he has next to no chance of actually winning. He wants to embarrass the BBC, put it through the enormous costs involved of the laborious discovery process that’s required in the USA, in which his lawyers will demand sight of every document in the BBC’s possession for some years that mentions Trump and will then select any that criticise him to claim bias. Then there will be lengthy depositions taken from the senior executives involved, lasting days and from very aggressive lawyers. Then a televised trial.

It’s malicious and designed to extract an undeserved settlement because it’s cheaper to settle than fight. Trump extracted settlements from other media companies in this way, so getting the claim dismissed is by far the most desirable outcome for the BBC. Should they fail, which is possible given where it will be heard, then I hope the BBC decide to fight, with the government backing it, and not just fold to save costs.

When my insurer was defrauded by someone claiming a fictitious personal injury they wanted to settle pre trial because they thought it was cost effective to do so. I persuaded them that standing up to fraudsters was something that must be done, whatever the cost. We lost and the fraudster got away with it, but the principle of resisting fraudsters was maintained.

I hope the case is dismissed and the BBC then sue Trump for their costs, claiming the prosecution was malicious and without foundation.
Click to expand...

Cornwall's #1 LLP
 
Teddy Eagle said:
The edit was malicious and designed to misrepresent what was said. Had it been anyone else but the demon Trump that would be glaringly obvious. To deny it is to be content with the BBC falsifying the news.
Click to expand...
You are attempting to reopen another debate! Over which there is a difference of opinion. Mine, and the BBC’s, being that whilst they acknowledge an error it was neither malicious, nor important, in the context of the programme. This wasn’t “The News”. It was a documentary about those involved in the Capitol riot. Nevertheless they apologised for the error.

What the case officially concerns is whether Trump was defamed, and even the most ardent Trump admirer must admit that seems extremely unlikely, given that the programme was not broadcast in the USA in any meaningful way, and that he won the election.

What is actually about is embarrassing the BBC, who Trump doesn’t like, and loading them with costs so they try to settle, giving Trump the opportunity to claim victory.

For me this is but another example of Trump proving what an awful piece of humanity he is.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Hardly “

When my insurer was defrauded by someone claiming a fictitious personal injury they wanted to settle pre trial because they thought it was cost effective to do so. I persuaded them that standing up to fraudsters was something that must be done, whatever the cost. We lost and the fraudster got away with it, but the principle of resisting fraudsters was maintained.
Click to expand...

I bet your insurer was happy with you costing them more, and the alleged fraudster was found to be honest !
 
Bassak said:
I bet your insurer was happy with you costing them more, and the alleged fraudster was found to be honest !
Click to expand...
Happy that the fraudster got away with it, no. Happy with what my barrister and I did, yes. I got a very nice letter afterwards, all my expenses paid and no loading of my premium.

The fraudster was not “found to be honest”. The Judge decided that a witness statement, which was also untrue because he had tampered with it, left sufficient doubt for a partial award to be justified. Only 2 people in the Courthouse knew the truth beyond any doubt. I being one, and the fraudster the other. Knowing something and proving it in a Court being different things.
 
Badger11 said:
Nothing to see so far.

Injured party says pay up or see me in court. Other party so we done nothing wrong and there is no case to answer. All standard as law suits go.

If I was the BBC I would not considering settling until the judge rules if they will take the case. If he does rule in favour of Trump it will cost the BBC a fortune to defend in a court where I seriously doubt the BBC will have many friends. That is the time to consider if it is worth settling or go for broke.
Click to expand...
Some think the application to dismiss will determine the whole outcome and if it fails the BBC will have to settle to avoid not just the costs but the huge disruption.

I hope that’s untrue and that if they win they counter sue Trump for a malicious prosecution and if they lose they fight the case to its conclusion, when they have a very strong prospect of winning, and announce they will claim for all their costs. That could get Trump to withdraw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top