The bbc, again.

Wisbech Eagle said:
He was always going to withdraw. It was only about the publicity. Now he will claim he has no time available to waste on this, as he is too busy making America great again. Or playing golf, campaigning or falling asleep in meetings!
Click to expand...

On the other thread a moment ago you were talking about defending yourself. Now you don't see it as the right thing to do.

And you don't think we notice 🤣
 
Mental gymnastics to justify anything.

If it were the Dems, as we are constantly seeing with their violent protests, even here when in 2023 they tried to storm downing street, they will explain it all away.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Fair enough. If there's no difference between "I will never" and "I will".
Click to expand...
Yes, poor.

But did those speeches, considered in their whole, at the time, without the post facto dubious BBC edit cause people to storm the Capitol, or did they not?

If they did not, the BBC will have a tricky time in court (but may still win given the onerous burden of proof on Trump).

If they did, the edit and factual skewing is largely irrelevant.

The problem with Trump's case is that those arrested have pretty much all said they were inspired by those very speeches. There are acres of testimony, police interviews, court transcripts and the like which I suspect are all admissible in the defamation case.
 
silvertop said:
Yes, poor.

But did those speeches, considered in their whole, at the time, without the post facto dubious BBC edit cause people to storm the Capitol, or did they not?

If they did not, the BBC will have a tricky time in court (but may still win given the onerous burden of proof on Trump).

If they did, the edit and factual skewing is largely irrelevant.

The problem with Trump's case is that those arrested have pretty much all said they were inspired by those very speeches. There are acres of testimony, police interviews, court transcripts and the like which I suspect are all admissible in the defamation case.
Click to expand...
This is why the case needs to be looked at in the wider context. It's not my intention to defend Trump but rather to express concern that the BBC, whether directly or not, constructed a false narrative and if so how widespread the practice is in other stories.
The BBC among all media outlets is supposed to represent objective reporting and in this instance clearly didn't.
 
More Business/Government-propaganda to feed to the BBC ...

www.bbc.co.uk

Why should I stockpile and what will I need?

The UK government has warned households to have three days of essential supplies on hand.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Let's try to panic people into buying stuff, stimulating the economy and driving up profits for businesses and shareholders. Absolute scumbags, all of them. Trying to scare the population because of any number of Government-caused crisis. Who the ef is going to stockpile anything with the cost of living so ridiculously high, and food with a shelf-life of around 3 days ? Utter scum.

Another bit of top, insightful, reporting
 
Spindle said:
On the other thread a moment ago you were talking about defending yourself. Now you don't see it as the right thing to do.

And you don't think we notice 🤣
Click to expand...
You are showing confusion again.

Trump has not been “defending himself”! He has been diverting attention away from his idiotic behaviour and on to anything he can find that could possibly present him as a victim, no matter how flimsy.
 
silvertop said:
Yes, poor.

But did those speeches, considered in their whole, at the time, without the post facto dubious BBC edit cause people to storm the Capitol, or did they not?

If they did not, the BBC will have a tricky time in court (but may still win given the onerous burden of proof on Trump).

If they did, the edit and factual skewing is largely irrelevant.

The problem with Trump's case is that those arrested have pretty much all said they were inspired by those very speeches. There are acres of testimony, police interviews, court transcripts and the like which I suspect are all admissible in the defamation case.
Click to expand...
This has always been the central point, but one that many refuse to acknowledge.

The programme wasn’t about Trump. It used his words as evidence of the kind that wound people up. Words that were very plentiful and frequent. Words that have been acknowledged by the rioters to have been their inspiration. They could have broadcast many such clips. They chose two and admitted the edit should have included a pause between them. A mistake. Nothing more. How could have been? The programme wasn’t about him. He just thinks that everything is about him.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
This has always been the central point, but one that many refuse to acknowledge.

The programme wasn’t about Trump. It used his words as evidence of the kind that wound people up. Words that were very plentiful and frequent. Words that have been acknowledged by the rioters to have been their inspiration. They could have broadcast many such clips. They chose two and admitted the edit should have included a pause between them. A mistake. Nothing more. How could have been? The programme wasn’t about him. He just thinks that everything is about him.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the title of the programme Trump: A second chance?
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
This has always been the central point, but one that many refuse to acknowledge.

The programme wasn’t about Trump. It used his words as evidence of the kind that wound people up. Words that were very plentiful and frequent. Words that have been acknowledged by the rioters to have been their inspiration. They could have broadcast many such clips. They chose two and admitted the edit should have included a pause between them. A mistake. Nothing more. How could have been? The programme wasn’t about him. He just thinks that everything is about him.
Click to expand...
Why do you continue to spout this ludicrous line.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
You are showing confusion again.

Trump has not been “defending himself”! He has been diverting attention away from his idiotic behaviour and on to anything he can find that could possibly present him as a victim, no matter how flimsy.
Click to expand...

Filing a lawsuit against a false accusation is "diverting attention"? 🤣

You are speaking to adults here....
 
It's been a busy week for the courts, Russell Brand has had all the headlines but Tim Westwood and Noel Clarke have also been in court all charged with sex offences.

I can't help thinking there must be a common denominator, but blowed if I know what it is. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top