The bbc, again.

[Teddy Eagle]

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.

No. It's you trying to deflect. The BBC has deliberately aired a false statement from a world leader but never mind because he's "an awful piece of humanity". How many times have they done that?

 

[Spiderman]

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.

So he wasn’t a fraudster then if found not guilty? Or did the court make a mistake, surely not

 

[Spiderman]

You don’t need to be Mystic Meg! You only need to have paid attention to the tactics he routinely uses and to listen to those with great experience of them. I am far from alone with my analysis.

Nothing preconceived then?

 

[Spindle]

So he wasn’t a fraudster then if found not guilty? Or did the court make a mistake, surely not

Wisbech is a bit of a dictator. He decides, trial or not. His aged wisdom is plentiful.

All rise.....

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

No. It's you trying to deflect. The BBC has deliberately aired a false statement from a world leader but never mind because he's "an awful piece of humanity". How many times have they done that?

Not at all. The issue is now about whether what happened amounts to defamation. Not about the edit itself.

The position of the BBC being that there was nothing “deliberate” involved. It was an editing error in a programme that wasn’t about Trump. It was two clips spliced together which indicated the type of rhetoric that led to the riot. It wasn’t a report on the speech. It was a few seconds lifted from it used to make a point. With hindsight they accepted that it should have been made clear it wasn’t contemporaneous and apologised. I wouldn’t have done! Not because I think (my opinion, not that of the BBC) that he is an awful piece of humanity, but because in its context an apology wasn’t justified. It wasn’t him that was the subject. Therefore no deformation happened.

Imagine a programme about the passions of football supporters that includes some clips of famous incidents that arouses them. Then imagine two clips of the same player, taken from the same game. One shows a wonderful weaving run, beating player after player. The next him missing an open goal by 10 yards. The programme only airs in the UK. Was the player defamed in the USA because it wasn’t made clear they were separate incidents? It wasn’t about him! It was about the passion incidents like that generate.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Not at all. The issue is now about whether what happened amounts to defamation. Not about the edit itself.

The position of the BBC being that there was nothing “deliberate” involved. It was an editing error in a programme that wasn’t about Trump. It was two clips spliced together which indicated the type of rhetoric that led to the riot. It wasn’t a report on the speech. It was a few seconds lifted from it used to make a point. With hindsight they accepted that it should have been made clear it wasn’t contemporaneous and apologised. I wouldn’t have done! Not because I think (my opinion, not that of the BBC) that he is an awful piece of humanity, but because in its context an apology wasn’t justified. It wasn’t him that was the subject. Therefore no deformation happened.

Imagine a programme about the passions of football supporters that includes some clips of famous incidents that arouses them. Then imagine two clips of the same player, taken from the same game. One shows a wonderful weaving run, beating player after player. The next him missing an open goal by 10 yards. The programme only airs in the UK. Was the player defamed in the USA because it wasn’t made clear they were separate incidents? It wasn’t about him! It was about the passion incidents like that generate.

Once again your pity for Trump is in evidence. Nothing deliberate? It was all an accident that the film was cut to change what he said and then aired on the BBCs flagship programme.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So he wasn’t a fraudster then if found not guilty? Or did the court make a mistake, surely not

The Judge made his decision. I know it was wrong. That’s not just an opinion. It’s a fact.

My barrister was outraged and said that in all his years he had never encountered such a poor judgement. My barrister being a senior specialist in personal injury motoring claims and much more experienced in this area than the Judge who was a part time District Judge whose normal job was as a Solicitor in a rural location, specialising in family law. He blew his top at him and had to calm down and apologise.

We both wanted to appeal, but as the award was only partial the insurance company decided not to and I couldn’t overrule them.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Once again your pity for Trump is in evidence. Nothing deliberate? It was all an accident that the film was cut to change what he said and then aired on the BBCs flagship programme.

The accident was not to put a fade between the clips. Were they deliberately put together? I don’t know but I think probably as the words were a good example of the type of rhetoric the rioters had been subjected to for weeks. Which is the point. This was trying to show why and how people had been brought to the point of believing the election had been “stolen” and that Congress should not endorse it. It wasn’t about Trump, or his speech. Those clips were just small pieces of a much bigger picture.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

The accident was not to put a fade between the clips. Were they deliberately put together? I don’t know but I think probably as the words were a good example of the type of rhetoric the rioters had been subjected to for weeks. Which is the point. This was trying to show why and how people had been brought to the point of believing the election had been “stolen” and that Congress should not endorse it. It wasn’t about Trump, or his speech. Those clips were just small pieces of a much bigger picture.

The point is that the entirely trustworthy BBC aired an edited version of a speech in accord with their prejudices.
This is not only about Trump; why should anyone trust the BBC reports on anything from now on knowing they've shown an edited version of a speech without explanation and how would this explanation have worked anyway? This isn't what he said but we know what he meant.
There has been a lot of talk on here about misinformation but this is trying to ignore a prime example.