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 defamation 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.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

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.

No they didn’t!! Nor was it misinformation. It wasn’t an “edited version of a speech”. It was two clips taken from a speech and used to make a point about something else.

They aired two very short clips taken from a speech and included them in an hour long programme as indicative evidence of rhetoric. If the whole speech had been included and it was edited so that those statements appeared together, you could be correct. It wasn’t.

You, Trump, and many others seem to want to frame this as being all about him. For Trump that’s unsurprising as it’s all he ever does. Others though ought to be able to recognise the difference.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

No they didn’t!! Nor was it misinformation. It wasn’t an “edited version of a speech”. It was two clips taken from a speech and used to make a point about something else.

They aired two very short clips taken from a speech and included them in an hour long programme as indicative evidence of rhetoric. If the whole speech had been included and it was edited so that those statements appeared together, you could be correct. It wasn’t.

You, Trump, and many others seem to want to frame this as being all about him. For Trump that’s unsurprising as it’s all he ever does. Others though ought to be able to recognise the difference.

And you want to defend the indefensible. Any way you slice it there were two parts of a speech cut together to make it look as though he'd said something he hadn't. Misinformation. Still, you're obviously happy with being lied to so carry on believing what they tell you.

 

[Lombardinho]

Symbolism will be their downfall.

 

[Foxy82]

No they didn’t!! Nor was it misinformation. It wasn’t an “edited version of a speech”. It was two clips taken from a speech and used to make a point about something else.

They aired two very short clips taken from a speech and included them in an hour long programme as indicative evidence of rhetoric. If the whole speech had been included and it was edited so that those statements appeared together, you could be correct. It wasn’t.

You, Trump, and many others seem to want to frame this as being all about him. For Trump that’s unsurprising as it’s all he ever does. Others though ought to be able to recognise the difference.

So an edit then?!

Here's an explanation (from the BBC, so you'll have no issues believing it) on the basics of film editing (at GCSE level).

Editing styles - Editing - GCSE Moving Image Arts (CCEA) Revision - BBC Bitesize

A well crafted edit can create meaning and take audiences on emotional journeys.

www.bbc.co.uk

Note the first paragraph:

The importance of editing in film-making cannot be stressed enough.
At its simplest editing can remove bad takes and shorten sequences, but when film-makers fully harness its power they can create meaning where none existed and take audiences on emotional journeys.

Also, see the attached screenshots, where I asked AI 'how was Trump's speech edited by Panorama?'

Notable paragraphs below.

Omission of Context: The edit removed Trump's invitation to supporters to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," which occurred between these two moments.

Lack of Visual Cues: There were no on-screen wipes, captions, or "clock wipes" to indicate to viewers that the footage was out of sequence or that time had passed.

BBC Response: The BBC admitted the edit created a "mistaken impression" of a direct call for violent action. This "error of judgment" led to the resignations of Director General Tim Davie and Head of News Deborah Turness in November 2025.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

And you want to defend the indefensible. Any way you slice it there were two parts of a speech cut together to make it look as though he'd said something he hadn't. Misinformation. Still, you're obviously happy with being lied to so carry on believing what they tell you.

No, you are refusing to understand the difference between the speech itself and small slices of it used to make a completely different point. That he didn’t say those things at the same time doesn’t mean, in the context they were used, that he couldn’t have done. He made many such controversial statements both before and after these ones.

This wasn’t about Trump!

 

[Teddy Eagle]

No, you are refusing to understand the difference between the speech itself and small slices of it used to make a completely different point. That he didn’t say those things at the same time doesn’t mean, in the context they were used, that he couldn’t have done. He made many such controversial statements both before and after these ones.

This wasn’t about Trump!

And in the context of your response it was entirely about Trump. He has many controversial statements so why not quote those verbatim instead of concocting one. In any case it's not the BBC's responsibility to make points.

 

[chris123]

Amol Rajan is on his way it seems, which is good news as far as I'm concerned, a little too ubiquitous for my liking.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So an edit then?!

Here's an explanation (from the BBC, so you'll have no issues believing it) on the basics of film editing (at GCSE level).

Editing styles - Editing - GCSE Moving Image Arts (CCEA) Revision - BBC Bitesize

A well crafted edit can create meaning and take audiences on emotional journeys.

www.bbc.co.uk

Note the first paragraph:

The importance of editing in film-making cannot be stressed enough.
At its simplest editing can remove bad takes and shorten sequences, but when film-makers fully harness its power they can create meaning where none existed and take audiences on emotional journeys.

Also, see the attached screenshots, where I asked AI 'how was Trump's speech edited by Panorama?'

Notable paragraphs below.

Omission of Context: The edit removed Trump's invitation to supporters to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," which occurred between these two moments.

Lack of Visual Cues: There were no on-screen wipes, captions, or "clock wipes" to indicate to viewers that the footage was out of sequence or that time had passed.

BBC Response: The BBC admitted the edit created a "mistaken impression" of a direct call for violent action. This "error of judgment" led to the resignations of Director General Tim Davie and Head of News Deborah Turness in November 2025.

View attachment 2647
View attachment 2648

The BBC have acknowledged that the two clips should have had a fade between them, which would have removed any doubts, and apologised. I think that was a Board decision and not that of the journalists. I don’t think an apology was necessary, in the context of the programme. This wasn’t the editing of a speech. It wasn’t the broadcast of a speech. It was examples of rhetoric taken from a speech put together to make a point that was not about the speech maker, much as he thinks everything is about him.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

And in the context of your response it was entirely about Trump. He has many controversial statements so why not quote those verbatim instead of concocting one. In any case it's not the BBC's responsibility to make points.

Of course it is. It’s what you do in documentaries. It’s a journalistic decision on how you make them. Not that of a narcistic attention seeker.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Of course it is. It’s what you do in documentaries. It’s a journalistic decision on how you make them. Not that of a narcistic attention seeker.

A unique view of the impartiality which is part of their charter.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

A unique view of the impartiality which is part of their charter.

It was entirely impartial!

I don’t know how often I need to point out that it was a programme about the motivations of the Capital rioters. Not about Trump.

So much so that no one even noticed the edit, until Mr Prescott brought it to the attention of the right wing media who then decided there was an opportunity to bash the BBC again.

The BBC didn’t notice. No viewer noticed. No politician noticed. No one in the media noticed. Trump didn’t notice. No MAGA sycophant noticed.

Why? Because it was typical of what he said, both then and since, about those events. It fitted. As part of the programme it made the point. With hindsight a fade should have been between the clips because that would have avoided all the subsequent bs. Not because it altered the point being made.