Forum Topic

Trump Threatens To Sue The BBC

I knew this would happen and I hope he does!Donald Trump has put the BBC 'on notice' that he plans to sue them for $1billion (£760million) after they doctored his speech and broadcast it on Panorama, it has been revealed today.  President Trump has set a deadline of 5pm EST (10pm in the UK) this Friday to 'comply' with his demands.A letter sent to BBC Chairman Samir Shah at Television Centre by his legal team in Floridasays: 'President Trump will be left with no alternative but to enforce his legal and equitable rights, all of which are expressly reserved and are not waived, including by filing legal action for no less than $1,000,000,000 (One Billion Dollars) in damages.'Due to their salacious nature, the fabricated statements that were aired by the BBC have been widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums, which have reached tens of millions of people worldwide. Consequently, the BBC has caused President Trump to suffer overwhelming financial and reputational harm'.The letter from his lawyer, Alejandro Brito, adds: 'The BBC is on notice'.Mr Brito says Mr Trump has three demands. By close of business on Friday the BBC must issue a full and fair retraction, issue an apology and 'appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused'.A BBC spokesman said: 'We will review the letter and respond directly in due course.' It came as BBC chairman Samir Shah made a humbling apology to Mr Trump and admitted he was willing to say sorry in person. 'He's a litigious fellow. So we should be prepared for all outcomes', he said when asked if he knew whether the President will sue.https://mol.im/a/15277189

Sue Hammond ● 4d71 Comments

Thanks, Steven. Sounds like an almighty cock-up?https://deadline.com/2025/11/bbc-donald-trump-saga-october-films-kept-in-dark-1236613974/

Michael Ixer ● 1d

It appears, Michael, that the independent production company involved in making the the film  was not responsible for splicing the two parts of Trump's speech. This edit was done by the BBC's own in-house staff. The production company, October Films, only learnt of the misleading edit when the 'Telegraoh' published Michael Prescott's dossier last week.

Steven Rose ● 1d

Haha! Private Eye, another bastion of truth, intelligence and cutting humour, nails it again!It reminds me of Lord Patten speaking on and about the BBC recently , who said that the Beeb was like the character in the Carry On film who cries, ‘infamy, infamy, they’ve all got it infamy’!It’s always refreshing to hear sane, balanced voices.

Gerry Boyce ● 2d

Mr Hawkes, I'd agree it's not funny; more ridiculous when the President denied the result of the 2020 presidential election with, as far as I'm aware, no evidence to back that up - plus I didn't hear him give much support to VP Pence who was undertaking his legal duty to transfer power to the newly elected Biden government. Instead he seems to support those who rampaged through Congress threatening Pence and other Congress people - and which seemed to lead to the deaths of at least one police person and one demonstrator - by pardoning them; at least, that's the impression I got from watching the live 6th Jan broadcast and reports of the aftermath.Is there evidence the BBC's subcontractor editing error and the BBC's failed process to spot it was malicious as opposed to being careless or incompetent?Yes, of course most organisations have corporation lawyers. (I've worked closely with some in the field of data protection and internet crime but suing in the UK has usually been a last resort, particularly if it's challenging the Russian Mafia!). Amongst other things, corporate lawyer are there as much to keep organisations in line with market and industry regulations, laws and best practices rather than to be adversarial (at least, that's my experience). I doubt the lawyers will consider the Floridian jurisdiction an obfuscation, the UK ones might prefer English law? It's my perception that Mr Trump has a lawyer sitting by to threaten to sue as a first step, but my perception could be mistaken, although I'm surprised so many US news media just give in; I note the WSJ haven't. I've seen a copy of a Robert Peston Xitter post that legal advice is that Trump’s case against the BBC is weak and the BBC should call his bluff. I've not been able to verify that but I bet the BBC's lawyers are combing through this release of Epstein documents ... of course they could confirm Trump is innocent of all accusations ...https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsStill, Private Eye seems to agree with the irony in it all ....

Michael Ixer ● 2d

Nick Robinson's monologue demonstrates much that is wrong with the BBC:1) a contempt for the rules on impartiality,  on the assumption that his personal opinions equate to 'facts'2) a refusal to accept criticism, even to the extent  of questioning whether the BBC had 'got anything wrong' in the 'Panorama' programme3) a willingness to impugn the motives of critics, implicitly accusing a BBC governor of mounting a coup against the BBC.The problem seems to be that in recent years parts of the BBC have been captured by a new breed of leftist ideologues whom the older generation have been reluctant to restrain, probably out of fear of being targeted themselves. Mark Urban, the BBC's former diplomatic editor, recounts how veteran managers struggled to maintain standards of impartiality in the face of a young 'progressive' workforce that would, for example, object to inviting JK Rowling to appear on a panel because she was a 'bigot'. But instead of admitting that they have failed to uphold standards, managers like Tim Davie and veteran presenters like Nick Robinson prefer to propagate conspiracy theories about dark forces intent on destroying the BBC.

Steven Rose ● 2d

That's actually the view i have. If it is consistently accused of pro left and pro right bias then it's probably somewhere about right.

Michael Brigo ● 2d

Boycie'Except they are not ‘his’ views, they are facts.'What does this refer to ?Who is 'he' ?

John Hawkes ● 2d

Mr Brigo'What has the BBC said to attack the critics?'The BBC itself ?Probably nothing.Quite rightly as a mature organisation it has defended itself not attacked its opponents.I'm beginning to feel a little sorry for the BBC (if such a sentiment can be applied to an institution or organisation).Firstly it takes it from the 'right' for its supposed negative attitude towards and in one instance fictitious reporting of Trump quotes and also for having a leftish bias.Now the attack is coming in from the left - "MP says Kelvin MacKenzie BBC interview 'an insult'"'A Liverpool MP has urged the culture secretary to speak to the BBC about its decision to interview Kelvin MacKenzie over the resignation of director general Tim Davie and news chief Deborah Turness.Labour's Ian Byrne called the decision to include Mr MacKenzie "a grave error of judgement" and an "insult" to the survivors of the Hillsborough disaster in an official letter to Lisa NandyMr MacKenzie was editor of the Sun newspaper in 1989 when it ran its notorious 'The Truth' headline, falsely accusing fans of causing the stadium crush which killed 97 people.The BBC has said he was interviewed as part of a news package which "sought a range of views from people across the media industry".Byrne, who represents West Derby, said he was writing the letter to express his "profound concern".Obviously no 'right-winger' should be given air time.And why should the Government get involved ?We are not living in a totalitarian state and the BBC is not Tass.I thought everyone was calling for un-biased balance in its output.'Leftish' views and 'rightist' views.It must be getting something right ! 😉

John Hawkes ● 2d

Except they are not ‘his’ views, they are facts.

Gerry Boyce ● 2d

For example, Nick Robinson, one of the presenters on the Radio 4 'Today' programme, launched into a monologue lasting several minutes on Monday in which he singled out one of the governors of the BBC, Sir Robbie Gibb, who he said was associated with the Conservative Party and with GB News, for promoting the view that the BBC was institutionally biased, indirectly blaming him for the resignation of Tim Davie. Robinson also appeared to downplay the distortion of  Trump's in the 'Panorama'. Apart from the fact that Gibb has been a consistent supporter of Tim Davie on the BBC Board, why was a presenter allowed to use use the BBC to express his personal views?

Steven Rose ● 2d

"The interests of the viewing public would be better served if the BBC addressed the criticisms instead of attacking the critics"What has the BBC said to attack the critics?

Michael Brigo ● 2d

For many years the news and current affairs coverage of the BBC has been coloured by the left of centre views of the majority of its staff. People who share these views were not bothered by the BBC's failure to observe its duty of impartiality and disingenuously dismissed complaints about bias as undermining the independence of the BBC. Now that the extent of the bias has been exposed by an internal report, those same people are trying to deflect attention away from the failings of the BBC by impugning the motives of its critics. This is particulaly true of Tim Davie, the outgoing Director General, who, while acknowledging that the BBC 'has made some mistakes', accused 'enemies' of the BBC of 'weaponising' the criticisms outlined in Michael Prescott's report. The interests of the viewing public would be better served if the BBC addressed the criticisms instead of attacking the critics.

Steven Rose ● 2d

@ Ivonne 11/11/25 16.34“The link you posted is a 5 minute video introduced by Gordon Rayner, Associate Editor at The Telegraph.  No, that is not the video I want to see.  I would like to see the actual Panorama episode which, of course, it is not possible as it is no longer available because it is over 1 year old.”The fact that the video was produced by the newspaper that reported the BBC’s wrongdoing is hardly surprising is it?  However you cannot accept the facts because you’re in complete denial that your beloved Beeb could do anything wrong.🙄 The Telegraph, after making such a serious accusation against the BBC was obligated to provide the proof, and that is exactly what the paper did with the video.  It may not be want you wanted to see Ivonne but even your other bastion of truth, the Guardian, have confirmed in the following YT video that the tape was doctored.https://youtu.be/jg7CnaYM83s?si=9gsO2Ywrl9vVtWIG

Sue Hammond ● 2d

Boycie'It is existential for the BBC to defend themselves and their ability to tell the truth in the face of mounting dark forces'. But if they are sometimes obviously not capable of telling the truth and worse at times even generate fake news would their lack of existence be missed ?Can you tell us who these 'dark forces' are ?Sounds very apocalyptic !'The content of the documentary is accurate'.Overall it is not and you know it.Were it to be so why is an apology for it needed and being given ? And why stand by journalists that generate programmes containing fake news ?Surely to protect its reputation for unbiased news it should sack them; after all there are c.6,000 others to take their place !And if the program containing the fake news was outsourced to an 'independent' production company it should be struck off the preferred suppliers list.Can you explain why the aggressive defensive posture taken up by you and your ilk is focused solely on Trump ?Finally have you read what has been published about the Prescott report ?From Yahoo News - 'It is an insider’s account of serious and widespread failings of impartiality, systemic bias and activist journalism spanning years of BBC news coverage.It lays bare for the first time how senior BBC executives repeatedly tried to dismiss, downplay or excuse these failings in a total abdication of their responsibilities. In doing so, they failed to uphold the highest standards of public service journalism we must expect of the BBC.Michael Prescott is a serious and respected journalist. As an adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Standards Committee for three years he had regular and detailed access to evidence of the BBC’s journalistic failures and groupthink.The Prescott report, authored by former journalist Michael Prescott, reveals serious concerns about editorial bias within the BBC.Key findings include:Misleading editing of Donald Trump's speech during the Capitol riot, which was perceived as incitement to violence.Allegations of BBC Arabic downplaying Israeli suffering in the Gaza conflict and promoting Hamas's views without proper editorial checks.Criticism of the BBC's coverage of transgender issues, which was reportedly censored by LGBT specialist reporters.

John Hawkes ● 2d

Mr Ixer'It's a fact that the letter I've seen (I think I posted a link elsewhere from the Sky news site with a facsimile of it) refers to an article of Floridian law, so how is that obfuscation? I guess the President has a resident lawyer at Mar-a-Lago sending out writs to anyone he dislikes or disagrees with him? :-)'It's obfuscation because where Trump may or may not issue his writ is detail that is not of any relevance to the fact he was deceitfully defamed by the BBC, something you seem to think to be a bit of a joke.I am sure Trump does have a resident lawyer on call.Most rich and powerful individuals and corporations do.That's how your lawyer friend makes his money is it not ?

John Hawkes ● 2d

I’m guessing the legal threat issued on behalf of Trump will not go the distance; from what I gather there is next to no chance of it succeeding. Also, as others have mentioned, what reputation does he think he is protecting? He has no reputation to protect regarding his behaviour before, during and after the election he lost to Biden. He refused to accept the democratic decision of the American people and attempted to bully, harass and intimidate anyone who stood in hi way. He’s not just a sore loser, he is a criminal and a disgrace. Anyway, my point is that this current spat may be much more to do with attempting to intimidate and, to a certain extent, silence the BBC and other news organisations that do not follow his line; it feels like it is a warning shot across the bows of all organisations that , if he chooses, he will come after you irrespective of where you are. It is existential for the BBC to defend themselves and their ability to tell the truth in the face of mounting dark forces. If they buckle and accept that they can be intimidated and not stand by their journalists, then what is the point of them?In this case, yes, apologise for not inserting a clear junction between the two clips, and that’s it. The content of the documentary is accurate and excellent; the BBC just need to believe in themselves, for all our sakes!

Gerry Boyce ● 2d

Mr Ixer'I don't think there's any argument that the BBC and the films producer made an error'.There is certainly an argument against the claim 'the BBC and the films producer made an error'.It was not an error it was a deliberate fabrication of a piece of fake news to discredit Trump.And aren't your many 'US friends' a witty bunch.Who did they vote for in the Presidential election ?

John Hawkes ● 2d

Mr IxerCongratulations on your self-appointment as leader of the TDS Self Help Group.'I believe Trump gained 49.8% of the popular vote so just over half of US voters didn't vote for him'.Yes, just over.But a better performance than that achieved by the British Labour Party !34% vs 38% for Conservatives plus Reform and vs 28% for the other parties.

John Hawkes ● 2d

I didn't claim it was statistically significant; it'sprobably self selecting based on other factors such as an interest in scienceand technology,  environment, art, travel, etc. I believe Trump gained 49.8% of the popular vote so just over half of US voters didn't vote for him.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election#:~:text=Trump%20won%20all%20of%20the,George%20W.%20Bush%20in%202004.

Michael Ixer ● 2d

Mr RoseI totally agree with your post particularly - "After that the Chairman should tell Nick Robinson of Radio 4 and others to shut up about a right wing coup. Finally he should send a letter to all staff telling them to leave their personal political opinions at home when they go to work for the BBC".People like Robinson are far too big for their boots and to the rest it should be made clear that the BBC is not there for them to use to express their personal political views.The slanderous and deceitful fake news clip could threaten the UK US relationship as Trump is not one to put aside a grudge.And to him I am sure the BBC is the UK's state news and propaganda service (which of course it is) and thus speaks for the government.

John Hawkes ● 2d

Mr Hawkes. I don't think there's any argument that the BBC and the films producer made an error but I think the views of most of my US friends is probably that using the words Trump and morals in the same sentence is an oxymoron. It's a fact that the letter I've seen (I think I posted a link elsewhere from the Sky news site with a facsimile of it) refers to an article of Floridian law, so how is that obfuscation? I guess the President has a resident lawyer at Mar-a-Lago sending out writs to anyone he dislikes or disagrees with him? :-)

Michael Ixer ● 2d

Mr Ixer'a retired US corporate lawyer'Friends in high places !Did he think it was morally or legally correct for the BBC to publish obviously fake and defamatory news ?And why all this deliberate obfuscation of the issue by banging on about Florida.The BBC fouled up and tarnished its reputation.Unfortunately you and I will be paying the price.

John Hawkes ● 2d

Mr Ixer'most of the US citizens I know'Would you say that is statistically a valid representational sample ?How do you then explain how and why he was elected ?

John Hawkes ● 2d

We don't know what discussions might be going on in private between the BBC and October, or what NDAs the contracts contain. 

Michael Ixer ● 2d

It seems strange that the independent production company October Films is not mentioned in the on-going furore about the Panorama programme ‘Trump: A Second Chance’. Maybe the BBC should be suing Trump for his spokesperson saying: “ This purposefully dishonest, selectively edited clip by the BBC is further evidence that they are total, 100% fake news that should no longer be worth the time on the television screens of the great people of the United Kingdom," Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2d

Well dismissing Jonathan Munro would save the licence payers £287 000 each year. Perhaps a contribution to mollified Donald Trump could be found out of that. There is a precedent for BBC pay outs. Mr Munro was responsible for hiring a helicopter in 2014 to overfly Cliff Richard's property to film his (false) arrest on historical sex charges. That episode cost the Corporation over £2 million for breach of privacy.

Steven Rose ● 2d

Steven, you obviously didn't read my post. I agreed with the apology and agree with most of your points other than I believe no licence payers' money should be voluntarily given away. He should have sued in the UK; perhaps he should seek compensation from his lawyers for leaving it to late.Why shoud his personal issues with a broadcasting organisation affect US-UK relations? Of course, if those who made the error want to make a personal donation that's up to them ...

Michael Ixer ● 2d

That would be most unwise, Michael. In the first place the BBC was in the wrong  as it has already admitted. So to refuse to apologise would be seen at best as ungracious and at worst as arrogant. But even more important is the threat to the relationship between the UK and the USA. Even if Trump is unsuccessful in his lawsuit, he is quite capable of seeking revenge on this country in other ways eg by imposing tariffs. My advice would be to apologise, remove the libellous sequence from the documentary and agree an appropriate donation. Once that is done the Chairman should seek the resignation of the two idiots responsible for the documentary as well as that of Jonathan Munro, the global editor of BBC News, who along with Deborah Turness defended the programme at the meeting in May when Michael Prescott's letter was discussed. After that the Chairman should tell Nick Robinson of Radio 4 and others to shut up about a right wing coup. Finally he should send a letter to all staff telling them to leave their personal political opinions at home when they go to work for the BBC.

Steven Rose ● 2d

Yes, I'm sure there will be an̈ apology for the error from the BBC. Trump's legal team have missed the boat for suing in England so they've issues a letter that references Florida law. However, the Panorama programme was not broadcast in the US or legally available on iPlayer in Florida or the rest of the US. By chance I was having a drink with friends this evening. One was a retired US corporate lawyer in transit through London who thought because of the lack of available of the programme in Florida Trump was just using his usual bully boy tactic to intimidate the BBC and didn't really have a case. I think he used a non legal term; that the BBC should tell him to F... Off (although I think that's one Trump is familiar with and has used himself). 

Michael Ixer ● 2d

Yes, which is why Trump will sue in Florida (if the apology and retraction are not forthcoming).

Steven Rose ● 3d

Isn't there a time limit after which you can't sue for libel in the UK?

Philippa Bond ● 3d

Mr Hawkes. No, they may be very objective about his reputation given previous statements (grab 'em by the pussy), his obvious bullying of Zelensky, etc.Actually, most of the US citizens I know probably wouldn't be that enamoured of his reputation :-)

Michael Ixer ● 3d

Ms Holliday'I would like to see the actual Panorama episode which, of course, it is not possible as it is no longer available because it is over 1 year old.'Are you telling me the BBC tech-wizards could not retrieve this embarrassing item to back up their case if they wanted ?It must be on the internet somewhere.Perhaps they need help from Mr Ixer over such a matter.

John Hawkes ● 3d

Boycie'this irritates the commercial and biased organisations like Fox and GBNews, the Telegraph and Times '.I note you omit ITV News, Channel 4 News and the Guardian from this list of villainous disseminators of fake news.Are they not commercial media outlets ?They are and always have been squeaky clean in their news reporting ?

John Hawkes ● 3d

Ms Hammond'There is little point in trying to convince Ivonne because she still won’t even acknowledge that the BBC deliberately spliced the tapes despite the overwhelming evidence that it did.  The fact that ****the Corporation has admitted liability, the DG and News CEO have both resigned and an apology issued is not enough to convince Ivonne*****.'"Yes but, no but...'!Perhaps she knows something these other people do not.I wonder what she would take as conclusive evidence that this action actually took place ?I would hate to be on trial were she to be in the jury.For whatever the evidence we can all read and see, the BBC, even though it has 'fessed up, is innocent of any accusation of impropriety and Trump is such a dangerous ogre in her eyes he must be in the wrong and guilty.Extreme TDS  🥱😁

John Hawkes ● 3d

Sue,The link you posted is a 5 minute video introduced by Gordon Rayner, Associate Editor at The Telegraph.  No, that is not the video I want to see.  I would like to see the actual Panorama episode which, of course, it is not possible as it is no longer available because it is over 1 year old.

Ivonne Holliday ● 3d

The licence fee pays for the orchestras, Radio 3 and the Proms which is why I'm prepared to pay it.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 3d

Mr Ixer'He might find a UK jury or judge unsympathetic given his bullying treatment of others (President Zelensky?) unsympathetic?'Are you casting aspersions on the British legal system and its probity ?🤔

John Hawkes ● 3d

Ms Hammond'Oh Ivonne, have you finally accepted that the BBC are guilty of peddling misleading information?'Of course she hasn't and won't.If you suffer from TDS then he can never do right for doing wrong.

John Hawkes ● 3d

Mr Ixer'If BBC board members (including recently resigning ones) want to pay to a charity - or perhaps the production company making the original error want to - that's fine by me'. Do you not find its strange that the BBC employs c.6,000 members of staff in its news and current affairs department (including the Hamas supporters in BBC Arabic) and yet had to pay an outside production company to make this contentious and possibly slanderous Trump video.What else were they working on ?Surely the BBC should sue this company for the amount it itself will be liable for were Trump's litigation to succeed.That will give 6,000 scribblers/'social media' posters something to write about 😉

John Hawkes ● 3d

@IvonneI posted this YT video in another thread, did you actually watch it?https://youtu.be/EjPlfUt4S9U?si=SG5O9WoadS1AEZg_

Sue Hammond ● 3d

Interesting, the letter from Trump's lawyer refers to a Florida statute. However, apparently the Panorama programme was not broadcast in the US and iPlayer is only available in the UK. (OK, iPlayer can be accessed from outside of the UK using a VPN as every school kid who wants to access a foreign porn site yo circumvent age checks knows - but that would contravention licence to access the iPlayer.)Hence, it couldn't legally damage his reputation or the election result to any significant extent in the US, could it? Surely,  it could be concluded that Florida law has no effect on a UK institution, and although a case could be brought in the UK the damage would be very limited, particularly as he already has a poor reputation amountg a significant number of people in the UK. https://news.sky.com/story/trumps-lawyer-threatens-bbc-with-1bn-lawsuit-read-the-letter-in-full-13468134Ah, it's fun being an armchair lawyer :-)

Michael Ixer ● 3d

I agree with you Gerry.  It is not surprising that the whole furore was started by The Telegraph.  What is surprising is that it took it a year to do so.....As you say, Fox, GB News, The Telegraph, The Times, the Daily Mail dislike the BBC enormously as neither of them have the respect that the BBC has worldwide.  I would say it is a political pursuit based in gigantic jealousy.

Ivonne Holliday ● 3d

Good morning Steven,To paraphrase your response, I afraid your defence of Trump is truly unconvincing.I am not too sure that the BBC has libelled Trump; he has managed to damage his own reputation by more serious matters than excerpts of a speech he gave over a year ago.  The Panorama programme is no longer available as they are withdrawn after 12 months from iPlayer. Therefore, nobody can see it and the BBC programmes are not broadcast in the US and they do not have iPlayer either.As for your points:1) I do not know why the Panorama team took those excerpts of Trump's speach.  Where they attempting to mislead the viewers?  I very much doubt it as the speech was reported endlessly (and I mean endlessly) on all news programmes before Panorama aired its episode.2)  I know there was discussions of this in the Board but I do not know who said what and why the issue of the Panorama programme came to light over a year after the speech was delivered and the Panorama programme aired.  Very suspect indeed. 3)  The BBC have still not shown the part of Trump's speechwhen he tells his supporters that they were to demonstrate "patriotically and peacefully".  It is surprising (to put it mildly) that these words were not repeated at the end of the speech when the main summary of the speech is given/shown.  On the contrary, it was a rallying call that had nothing patriotic or peaceful about it. We have to agree to disagree, Steven.  It would not be the first time.  Trump is a bully and an opportunist.  Where the USD1 billion came from I do not know, neither does Trump but the figure sounds nice to him.  Sadly, the Panorama programme did not massage his ego enough, if at all, which is an unforgivable offence as far as Trump is concerned.

Ivonne Holliday ● 3d

@Steven 23.11 There is little point in trying to convince Ivonne because she still won’t even acknowledge that the BBC deliberately spliced the tapes despite the overwhelming evidence that it did.  The fact that the Corporation has admitted liability, the DG and News CEO have both resigned and an apology issued is not enough to convince Ivonne.  Deluded or what?🙄The part of Trump’s speech that you alluded to is directly compared with the BBC’s doctored version in the Mail online:https://mol.im/a/15277649

Sue Hammond ● 3d

I don’t really get why Trump’s every action  and utterance is taken with the seriousness that it clearly doesn’t deserve. Steve is happy for the BBC to pay him whatever her asks for in the hope that he leaves us alone.Isn’t that a pathetic stance? Of course it is, but that really isn’t the goal. The aim is to dismantle the BBC  because it is the most respected news organisation in the world and this irritates the commercial and biased organisations like Fox and GBNews, the Telegraph and Times etc. It’s a commercial attack on the BBC. Trump’s law suit is a try on, a distraction, a missile fired in, that’s all. Who really cares how it’s calculated? Not me. The real question is how do we protect the institution from relentless attacks for the sake of honest, impartial journalism, that is occasionally flawed.

Gerry Boyce ● 3d

I am afraid your defence of 'Panorama' is unconvincing. If I make a speech where I begin by saying 'I love Arsenal' and half an hour later I end by saying ,'A rogue motorist killed my dog' and a tv company splices together the two parts of my speech so that I appear to be saying "I ... killed my dog', then, yes, I spoke all the words, but the impression would be entirely misleading. In any case this discussion is irrelevant given that the BBC has already admitted libelling Trump and misleading its viewers. The only question now is how far the apology and retraction should go. Trump apparently wants the BBC to withdraw the whole programme. I am not sure I agree with that. Clearly the BBC should apologise profusely and eliminate the part which misrepresented the President but I don't think the BBC should withdraw an hour long programme just because a foreign leader is offended by legitimate criticism. But I suspect that pressure from Downing St may force the BBC to comply. I am not satisfied, however, with the level of contrition shown by the BBC:1) The Chairman's insistence that there was no intention to mislead the viewers is clearly untrue. You don't splice two unrelated clips by accident. 2) I don't understand why, Jonathan Munro (Deborah Turness'deputy) is still in a job given that he defended the programme back in May  describing the splice as 'normal oractice'.3) The BBC have still not shown the part of Trump's speech in which he urges his supporters to demonstrate 'patriotically and peacefully'.

Steven Rose ● 3d

Steven, as far as i understand it, they've admitted an error (by a subcontractor) but not that the BBC intended any harm, and are willing to apologise. As he comfortably won the election there appears not to be any material damage; did it really harm his reputation, given his criminal convictions and other lost civil cases, and comments,  involving sexual impropriety? (Remember "grab 'em by the pu .."?)The BBC could offer a few thousand on the basis it's public money and they have a duty to protect it. Might be worse publicity for him - if sued and lost, or was awarded less compensation he'd be liable for costs, although I'm sure Elon would pick up the tab.

Michael Ixer ● 3d

That is the key, Steven.Trump must prove that the Panorama programme published a false statement.  In my view, they did not.  They put two statements he made together, even if they omitted sections of them.  The speech given by Trump is available online and, for all intents and purposes, they did not put words into his mouth that were not there.As I said before, the BBC extracted bits of his speech, but they were words he did say.  Moreover, in his antepenultimate paragraph there was no mention of the "..everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."  On the contrary.The fact that he owns a golf course in Scotland is neither here nor there.  Does he have substantial business interests in this country and the programme has damaged his reputation which would result in financial loss?  Hmmmmmmmm, that is pushing it too far!

Ivonne Holliday ● 3d

On the contrary, a foreigner can sue for libel in a British court, especially when the libel was committed in Britain and when the plaintiff has substantial business interests in this country such that damage to his reputation would be result in financial losses. Trump of course owns a golf course in Scotland.

Steven Rose ● 3d

But Trump cannot sue the BBC in the UK, it would have to be in the US.The only other alternative is for the US Embassy in the UK to file for a court case in the UK against the BBC on Trump's behalf.

Ivonne Holliday ● 3d

Ivonne, it would not be the US Embassy but Donald Trump suing the BBC. Do you suppose that any lawyer would agree to fight the case when the defendant has already admitted liability? Correction: 'Give him the money, Mabel.'

Steven Rose ● 3d

Thank you Michael and I agree that the amount has been plucked out of thin air.I Googled the question:  Can an embassy in the UK start a law suit against the country's institution?The answer is yes, but it depends on the nature of the of the claim, the legal status of the defendant, whether the defendant voluntarily agrees to be sued in English courts and if the English courts consider they are the "appropriate forum" for the dispute.  However, the possibility of the lawsuit succeeding would hinge on whether the subject matter of the dispute falls under one of the exceptions to the Embassy's immunity in UK law.

Ivonne Holliday ● 3d

Given that the BBC have already admitted to having made a serious error of judgment in the case, what chance would you give them of successfully defending any lawsuit, Michael? And even supposing that a British jury found in favour of the BBC, what do you think would be the political cost to the UK from a  vengeful American administration? As Wilfred Pickles (remember him?) used to say, 'pay him the money, Mabel'.

Steven Rose ● 3d

There doesn't appear to be a US entity that President Trump could sue in his own jurisdiction. According to Wikipedia, BBC America was acquired by a company called AMC Networks in 2024 and just licences BBC content for distribution in the US. I suppose he could sue in a US court but I can't see how any ruling would be enforced, but I'm not a lawyer so perhaps there's a way?

Michael Ixer ● 3d

I guess it's plucked out of thin air. My understanding is if it goes to a UK court there'll need to be some justification for an actual quantifiable loss incurred,  and for distress and reputation, which Google AI tells me, at the high end is £100,000+ is unlikely to be anywhere near a billion! He might find a UK jury or judge unsympathetic given his bullying treatment of others (President Zelensky?) unsympathetic?

Michael Ixer ● 3d

I’m guessing it came from the same place as his tariffs, and the same place as his assertion that they are eating the cats and dogs. I’m not going to try and speculate the name of that place; this is a family friendly site.

Gerry Boyce ● 4d

No, Sue.  I have not.

Ivonne Holliday ● 4d

Oh Ivonne, have you finally accepted that the BBC are guilty of peddling misleading information?

Sue Hammond ● 4d

The apology he has had.I wonder what would the compensation Trump would accept amount to. Also, does anyone know why the £1 billion?  Where did that figure come from? Thank you.

Ivonne Holliday ● 4d

So you don't watch any TV at all, Sue 🤔

Lucille Grant ● 4d

Sue, you can Google it yourself and see that Trump has been found guilty of numerous crimes over many decades; from his dodgy university to sexual assault etc etc. In many other cases he paid significant damages to avoid admitting guilt. If you’re suggesting the guy is a victim of multiple unfounded and vexatious claims, then so be it, but I think most people know he’s a very dodgy dealer. Whether you like him or not is another matter, but a there is some merit in seeing him for what he is.

Gerry Boyce ● 4d

As I understand it, Michael, Trump is demanding an apology and 'compensation' as the price of dropping his £1 billion lawsuit. Pay the compensation!

Steven Rose ● 4d

@GBIf true how many of those lawsuits were vexatious claims?  How many claims were upheld and resulted in prosecution?  Thankyou

Sue Hammond ● 4d

I don't think the BBC should be paying out.public money voluntarily. If BBC board members (including recently resigning ones) want to pay to a charity - or perhaps the production company making the original error want to - that's fine by me. I haven't verified it but there's suggestion the board delayed the apology letter to the Commons committee ... let's hope if that's true the reasons are made public.

Michael Ixer ● 4d

licence

Steven Rose ● 4d

I think the most sensible course for the BBC would to be to apologise to Trump, accept the resignation of a couple more  of the idiotic BBC Managers who several months ago defended the 'Panorama' programme (thereby saving the license fee payers several hundred thousands pounds in annual salary payments) and pay a suitable amount in compensation to a charity of Trump's choice.

Steven Rose ● 4d

Ultimately, if the BBC can't pay I guess it might be the UK taxpayers who are liable. However, it's interesting which jurisdiction he would sue in. Is he going to appear at the Royal Courts of Justice in London and testify? Is there a legal entity in the US who they can sue that has sufficient reserve. (I understood from a business contact at Greenpeace who'd lost a case in the US involving damages they eould just quit the US, or were planning to.)Seems like just a bullying action by Trump. The BBC made an error in a UK court he might be quizzed on why he pardoned those who attacked Congress ... I suppose the obvious answer would be to put a special tax on US social media companies to pay the compensation? :-)

Michael Ixer ● 4d

Interestingly, the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law found that the Trump administration has lost 79 of 85 cases involving federal agencies — a historically low 7.1% win rate. Most administrations have a 70% win rate.Up to 2016, the start of his first term, Donald Trump has been involved in at least 4,095 lawsuits where he was the defendant. These include a wide range of civil and criminal cases, relating to business disputes, defamation, political campaigns, casinos, taxes, golf clubs, real estate, government investigations, and sexual abuse. I hope he authorises the full release of the Epstein Files soon.

Gerry Boyce ● 4d

I won’t be paying anything Lucille because I recently cancelled mine.

Sue Hammond ● 4d

If he succeeds it's us, the licence payers, who'll be paying up, Sue. So be careful what you wish for!

Lucille Grant ● 4d