The bbc, again.

[ASCPFC]

I’m pointing out that the BBC is putting out misinformation re the arrests not about the festival.

I realise, I was just saying really. It's the BBC that's misinformed here. The threat to this festival is not far right. It's other Muslims.

 

[silvertop]

I don't hate the BBC I dislike it.

You seem to think it's okay for the BBC to libel someone and if they use the courts to fight back you are affronted. Trump has every right to take them to court whether he wins is another matter.

That is an odd way of looking at it. You prejudge this as libel and then attack the organisation you dislike for putting up a defence, with no consideration given to whether their defence has any weight or, indeed, the true underlying purpose of the case brought.

Thus, Trump may have been libeled. But...

There is the small matter of publishing. The piece aired in this country. Hardly anyone in the US saw it. The only reason they saw it was because he complained, many months after it aired. That is relevant as he has sued in Florida. If (almost) no-one in Florida saw it, how has his reputation been damaged there?

Also, Trump is arguing the edit misled the audience and thereby harmed his business to the tune of $billions. He cannot possibly make that causal connection. Moreover, the BBC are amassing a wealth of evidence to show his business is corrupt, swims in tax fraud etc. He had no reputation to protect.

Meanwhile, the defences:

Truth. Calling Gary Glitter a paedo is libel (your point) but, if he sued, would his case succeed?

Opinion. The edit may have been contrived to convey a view, but was that view an honest journalistic opinion within the protection of the First Amendment?

Malice. Was there any? That is, "actual malice" meaning the BBC knew the mangled statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. That is a very high bar. It excludes economy of time, incompetent and/or injudicious editing etc. That would probably be negligent and enough to get the apology and falling on swords, but not nearly enough to find a successful libel claim.

You are quick to pre-decide this case. I wonder if you would be so judgy if this was ITN?

 

[ASCPFC]

I realise, I was just saying really. It's the BBC that's misinformed here. The threat to this festival is not far right. It's other Muslims.

People may be informed by this - which is off topic I realise.

The Ahmadiyya in Pakistan: Religious Persecution, Human Rights, and Islam | OHRH

ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

 

[ASCPFC]

That is an odd way of looking at it. You prejudge this as libel and then attack the organisation you dislike for putting up a defence, with no consideration given to whether their defence has any weight or, indeed, the true underlying purpose of the case brought.

Thus, Trump may have been libeled. But...

There is the small matter of publishing. The piece aired in this country. Hardly anyone in the US saw it. The only reason they saw it was because he complained, many months after it aired. That is relevant as he has sued in Florida. If (almost) no-one in Florida saw it, how has his reputation been damaged there?

Also, Trump is arguing the edit misled the audience and thereby harmed his business to the tune of $billions. He cannot possibly make that causal connection. Moreover, the BBC are amassing a wealth of evidence to show his business is corrupt, swims in tax fraud etc. He had no reputation to protect.

Meanwhile, the defences:

Truth. Calling Gary Glitter a paedo is libel (your point) but, if he sued, would his case succeed?

Opinion. The edit may have been contrived to convey a view, but was that view an honest journalistic opinion within the protection of the First Amendment?

Malice. Was there any? That is, "actual malice" meaning the BBC knew the mangled statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. That is a very high bar. It excludes economy of time, incompetent and/or injudicious editing etc. That would probably be negligent and enough to get the apology and falling on swords, but not nearly enough to find a successful libel claim.

You are quick to pre-decide this case. I wonder if you would be so judgy if this was ITN?

The edit was a clear attempt to mislead. Watch the two versions yourself. It's not exactly subtle.
There isn't really any way the BBC can win when you watch it and consider US law.
The bottom line here is that the BBC does not exist to carry out smear campaigns at the behest of who their staff don't like.
The News editor and Director general both resigned due to their error. Effectively admitting the mistake already. Tim Davie received over a 250k payoff. And Deborah Furness a 215k payoff. Value for money I guess?
Not forgetting that Hugh Edwards got a six figure pay off too. For being a paedophile. That is disgraceful - to say the least.
You think all of this is a good use of the licence fee? BBC need to be told in no uncertain terms that they are not part of any "culture wars". And looking at their supposed culture, how can they even pretend to be in the right?
It's beyond farce or parody at this stage.

I think you'll find people don't hate the BBC. They dislike what it has become.

 

[Badger11]

That is an odd way of looking at it. You prejudge this as libel and then attack the organisation you dislike for putting up a defence, with no consideration given to whether their defence has any weight or, indeed, the true underlying purpose of the case brought.

Thus, Trump may have been libeled. But...

There is the small matter of publishing. The piece aired in this country. Hardly anyone in the US saw it. The only reason they saw it was because he complained, many months after it aired. That is relevant as he has sued in Florida. If (almost) no-one in Florida saw it, how has his reputation been damaged there?

Also, Trump is arguing the edit misled the audience and thereby harmed his business to the tune of $billions. He cannot possibly make that causal connection. Moreover, the BBC are amassing a wealth of evidence to show his business is corrupt, swims in tax fraud etc. He had no reputation to protect.

Meanwhile, the defences:

Truth. Calling Gary Glitter a paedo is libel (your point) but, if he sued, would his case succeed?

Opinion. The edit may have been contrived to convey a view, but was that view an honest journalistic opinion within the protection of the First Amendment?

Malice. Was there any? That is, "actual malice" meaning the BBC knew the mangled statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. That is a very high bar. It excludes economy of time, incompetent and/or injudicious editing etc. That would probably be negligent and enough to get the apology and falling on swords, but not nearly enough to find a successful libel claim.

You are quick to pre-decide this case. I wonder if you would be so judgy if this was ITN?

Where have I pre-judged the case?

The BBC has admitted it is at fault, Fact.

Trump is suing them Fact.

The case will be heard under US law and I have no idea who will win. It is entirely possible that the judge will throw it out not because the BBC didn't libel Trump but because it doesn't meet the criteria to be judged in Florida. That doesn't mean that the BBC is right just that Trump should not have brought the case in Florida. In which case that is his fault.

You seem to think that when someone sues the BBC it is an attack on democracy whereas I see the BBC as any other organisation, if they are wrong people are entitled to sue them. They are not entitled to a free pass.

As for ITN my guess is that like the US broadcasters their shareholders would have told them to try and find a settlement.

 

[chris123]

I make no secret that I am anti BBC.

By the way the BBC settles lawsuits all the time with it's staff rather than risk going to court. So they are not adverse to the principle.

I am not pro Trump and clearly there are always behind the scene negotiations the point I am trying to make is that if this could have been settled (for a reasonable amount) and the BBC chose not to after admitting it's "error" then that is just plain stupidity.

I guess the die is cast so we shall have to see what happens.

If you've ever worked overseas for a long period of time you may soften a little, world service in particular

 

[cryrst]

Whose paying to clear up all the s*** left behind I wonder !

 

[puncheon_judy]

Putting to one side the sentiments towards the BBC - if they are granted access to the text messages between Trump and his advisors on Jan 6, this might turn into one fascinating case if it shows that the violence at the riots was foreseeable to the President.

Whilst I don't agree with the BBC's franken-byting, Trump may have inadvertently shot himself in the foot.

 

[Badger11]

Putting to one side the sentiments towards the BBC - if they are granted access to the text messages between Trump and his advisors on Jan 6, this might turn into one fascinating case if it shows that the violence at the riots was foreseeable to the President.

Whilst I don't agree with the BBC's franken-byting, Trump may have inadvertently shot himself in the foot.

Indeed.

However the counter argument is that if the BBC needs these "secret" messages to make their case then clearly they did not know about them when they broadcast their programme. It could be argued that it is still libel (at the time) and that retrospectively the BBC is now trying to build their case.

I don't know Florida libel laws so it will be interesting to see how the judge interprets that.

 

[ASCPFC]

Putting to one side the sentiments towards the BBC - if they are granted access to the text messages between Trump and his advisors on Jan 6, this might turn into one fascinating case if it shows that the violence at the riots was foreseeable to the President.

Whilst I don't agree with the BBC's franken-byting, Trump may have inadvertently shot himself in the foot.

Completely irrelevant to the case. It's the financial records they're after - to demonstrate substantive losses. What or not Trump could possibly foresee or not is nothing to do with the legal case. He's not on trial for any incitement. The BBC are on trial for broadcasting a false and misleading edit of Trump. Designed to malign him.

 

[Badger11]

Completely irrelevant to the case. It's the financial records they're after - to demonstrate substantive losses. What or not Trump could possibly foresee or not is nothing to do with the legal case. He's not on trial for any incitement. The BBC are on trial for broadcasting a false and misleading edit of Trump. Designed to malign him.

Still musing about my hypothetical.

If a person libels someone but later it turns out to be true (in other words they got lucky) is it still libel?

In this hypothetical they had no proof of their allegation. My guess is that the judge would probably find in their favour whilst making it clear they don't deserve any compensation as they were reckless at the time and had no way of knowing it would later prove to be true.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

It's interesting that defenders of the BBC concentrate on the importance of its news output, even though Sky, Channel 4, etc are bound by the same rules of impartiality, and ignore the tsunami of crap "entertainment" they spew out.

 

[ASCPFC]

Still musing about my hypothetical.

If a person libels someone but later it turns out to be true (in other words they got lucky) is it still libel?

In this hypothetical they had no proof of their allegation. My guess is that the judge would probably find in their favour whilst making it clear they don't deserve any compensation as they were reckless at the time and had no way of knowing it would later prove to be true.

There isn't an allegation against Trump. - Trump isn't on trial. As the judge and lawyers will point out. The BBC are on trial for their edit. Which clearly changes what Trump said substantially.
What the BBC are trying to show with records is that Trump didn't suffer any financial losses: the 10 billion he claims. I suspect they might have a point with that - but that is simply damage limitation.
How much value will the judge put on reputational damage? A lot, millions but not billions. That would be unprecedented.

In all of this, I'm pretty sure a grovellimg apology from the BBC. A new programme showing the full speech and the edit and a very large donation to the Trump Foundation would have avoided all of this.

People are being taken in by more BBC political crusading. It's irrelevant to the case. They need to stop the grandstanding and be a proper broadcaster again.

 

[puncheon_judy]

Completely irrelevant to the case. It's the financial records they're after - to demonstrate substantive losses. What or not Trump could possibly foresee or not is nothing to do with the legal case. He's not on trial for any incitement. The BBC are on trial for broadcasting a false and misleading edit of Trump. Designed to malign him.

I think the BBC's point is that if his text messages show he did know that his speech and actions would likely result in a violent riot, he can't go after the BBC for portraying him as causing a violent riot.

Seems like a bit of a hail mary to me, but if they can get the hands on the evidence from Jack Smith, who did come to that conclusion, then they may get away with murder.

 

[ASCPFC]

I think the BBC's point is that if his text messages show he did know that his speech and actions would likely result in a violent riot, he can't go after the BBC for portraying him as causing a violent riot.

Seems like a bit of a hail mary to me, but if they can get the hands on the evidence from Jack Smith, who did come to that conclusion, then they may get away with murder.

I can see the point being made but it will be ruled as irrelevant to the case. You have to remember that Trump is not on trial here. You can watch the edits yourself. And the real speech. They are different and clearly designed to be different. That will be the evidence. Won't matter if he said his speech would cause WWIII - it would be idle speculation and not admissible.
I have to say the BBC seem to be getting hoodwinked by adversarial US lawyers who love these claims and counter claims. Fees are the bottom line to them. And surely the government and licence payer?

 

[puncheon_judy]

I can see the point being made but it will be ruled as irrelevant to the case. You have to remember that Trump is not on trial here. You can watch the edits yourself. And the real speech. They are different and clearly designed to be different. That will be the evidence. Won't matter if he said his speech would cause WWIII - it would be idle speculation and not admissible.
I have to say the BBC seem to be getting hoodwinked by adversarial US lawyers who love these claims and counter claims. Fees are the bottom line to them. And surely the government and licence payer?

Yes I see your point. Ultimately Trump is suing the BBC for a malicious attempt to interfere with the 2024 election. Whether he knowingly contributed to the riots or not is somewhat irrelevant.

It would be interesting to know if their professional indemnity policy would cover some of these costs in the case of negligence.

 

[HKOwen]

If you've ever worked overseas for a long period of time you may soften a little, world service in particular

Maybe more than thirty years ago pre internet the World Service was useful when it broadcast unbiased news, cricket and some light entertainment. Now the BBC is available in all it's forms everywhere it's easier to see the biased, virtue signalling shite they broadcast.

I have access to virtually every UK channel and have had for many years.

 

[HKOwen]

Yes I see your point. Ultimately Trump is suing the BBC for a malicious attempt to interfere with the 2024 election. Whether he knowingly contributed to the riots or not is somewhat irrelevant.

It would be interesting to know if their professional indemnity policy would cover some of these costs in the case of negligence.

Yes to first para.

The act was not negligent, it was deliberate so would be excluded from most forms of PI insurance, they don't care as it doesn't affect their personal incomes or pensions.

The worst behaviour in the BBC whether journalist like the b****** Bashir or morally corrupt like Edwards does not seem to lead to any financial punishment

 

[puncheon_judy]

Yes to first para.

The act was not negligent, it was deliberate so would be excluded from most forms of PI insurance, they don't care as it doesn't affect their personal incomes or pensions.

The worst behaviour in the BBC whether journalist like the b****** Bashir or morally corrupt like Edwards does not seem to lead to any financial punishment

I would agree that would be the case for most sectors, but the BBC will have an extension of PI which should cover them for media liability.

If Trump can prove malice then it wouldn't pay out, however if he is unsuccessful then it should cover it. The question is whether the level of cover is sufficient to cover it all... and to Badger's point would a judge rightfully punish the BBC and say their fees aren't included if they are successful in defending themselves.

 

[silvertop]

Where have I pre-judged the case?

The BBC has admitted it is at fault, Fact.

Trump is suing them Fact.

The case will be heard under US law and I have no idea who will win. It is entirely possible that the judge will throw it out not because the BBC didn't libel Trump but because it doesn't meet the criteria to be judged in Florida. That doesn't mean that the BBC is right just that Trump should not have brought the case in Florida. In which case that is his fault.

You seem to think that when someone sues the BBC it is an attack on democracy whereas I see the BBC as any other organisation, if they are wrong people are entitled to sue them. They are not entitled to a free pass.

As for ITN my guess is that like the US broadcasters their shareholders would have told them to try and find a settlement.

You argue but miss our common ground:

It was libel.

They apologized and heads rolled.

The matter has been issued in a court in an area where there was next to no audience.

But...

If the BBC were bang to rights they would have settled.

The defences are very strong.

And..

Trump either dismisses any report he doesn't like as "fake news", or he goes after them through the courts. Most settle not because they were wrong, but because of the inequality of arms and the eye watering cost of defending.

If that isn't an attack on democracy, I would like to know what is.