Trump Suing The BBC

[jack123]

Donald Trump confirms he will sue the BBC over Panorama edit - despite broadcaster's apology

The BBC officially apologised to the US president for the "error of judgement" on Thursday, but added that "we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim".

news.sky.com

I must say, I found this hilarious when I first read the story, but then it dawned on me, who is actually going to pay for this, if he’s successful? It would be an absolute disgrace if anything paid, was to come out of license payers money!

 

[Ronald Parp]

The BBC edit was stupid but didn’t alter the narrative. They should tell Trump to do one. Typically the master of fake news and bullshit don’t like it up him.

 

[jack123]

The BBC edit was stupid but didn’t alter the narrative. They should tell Trump to do one. Typically the master of fake news and bullshit don’t like it up him.

Well they’ve apologised, and they are hoping that will suffice, reading the article it says he’s looking for damages in the region of 1-5 billion dollars, I can’t see him getting that, although I can see him getting quite a substantial amount.

Like him or loathe him, for the edit the BBC did, I believe he deserves some form of compensation, my only problem is, if he does win, and I think it’s a very high probability he will, why should the BBC licence payers foot the bill?

 

[monmouth]

Well they’ve apologised, and they are hoping that will suffice, reading the article it says he’s looking for damages in the region of 1-5 billion dollars, I can’t see him getting that, although I can see him getting quite a substantial amount.

Like him or loathe him, for the edit the BBC did, I believe he deserves some form of compensation, my only problem is, if he does win, and I think it’s a very high probability he will, why should the BBC licence payers foot the bill?

Ridiculous.

Shitler won’t get a penny and deserves nothing. It won’t get near court. Grandstanding bollocks to deflect from Epstein.

 

[Ronald Parp]

Well they’ve apologised, and they are hoping that will suffice, reading the article it says he’s looking for damages in the region of 1-5 billion dollars, I can’t see him getting that, although I can see him getting quite a substantial amount.

Like him or loathe him, for the edit the BBC did, I believe he deserves some form of compensation, my only problem is, if he does win, and I think it’s a very high probability he will, why should the BBC licence payers foot the bill?

Don’t be daft.

 

[JackSomething]

Probably the most success he's had as President has been in extorting money for personal gain by threatening to sue lots of people/companies.

 

[jack123]

Don’t be daft.

Take away your dislike of him, and all will become clearer. If he does proceed with this, I can almost guarantee you, that he will win, and the BBC will be forking out a good few million.

The BBC have edited footage and altered it, to make it look like POTUS is calling for an insurrection, and inciting violence, do you honestly believe the BBC have no case to answer?

 

[JackSomething]

Take away your dislike of him, and all will become clearer. If he does proceed with this, I can almost guarantee you, that he will win, and the BBC will be forking out a good few million.

The BBC have edited footage and altered it, to make it look like POTUS is calling for an insurrection, and inciting violence, do you honestly believe the BBC have no case to answer?

Mate, do yourself a favour and read an article about what exactly the case would entail.

There's too much for me to summarise, but some key points are that he has to file suit in Florida, as it's too late to do so in the UK. BBC weren't responsible for airing it in the US and it may never have aired there, so difficult for him to prove it did him any material harm. He also won the election after it aired in this country, so again, how does he prove the documentary harmed him?

There's plenty more, but it amounts to the same thing his suit against the American network (CNN?) about a Kamala Harris interview. That being it's cheaper for companies to settle, therefore lining his pockets, than it is to go to court. That tactic is less likely to work here, but he's the ultimate grifter, so of course he's going to try it on.

 

[jack123]

Mate, do yourself a favour and read an article about what exactly the case would entail.

There's too much for me to summarise, but some key points are that he has to file suit in Florida, as it's too late to do so in the UK. BBC weren't responsible for airing it in the US and it may never have aired there, so difficult for him to prove it did him any material harm. He also won the election after it aired in this country, so again, how does he prove the documentary harmed him?

There's plenty more, but it amounts to the same thing his suit against the American network (CNN?) about a Kamala Harris interview. That being it's cheaper for companies to settle, therefore lining his pockets, than it is to go to court. That tactic is less likely to work here, but he's the ultimate grifter, so of course he's going to try it on.

Yes, I have read the articles saying he hasn’t got a chance. We will see on that, looks like standard litigation BS to me, anyway the only point on this I’m concerned about is if he does win, who should pay, because the license payer’s money should not be touched.

 

[Neath_Jack]

Ridiculous.

Shitler won’t get a penny and deserves nothing. It won’t get near court. Grandstanding bollocks to deflect from Epstein.

Nothing to do with this man baby, how’s the flooding where you live? Meant to be bad up your way isn’t it?

 

[Ronald Parp]

Take away your dislike of him, and all will become clearer. If he does proceed with this, I can almost guarantee you, that he will win, and the BBC will be forking out a good few million.

The BBC have edited footage and altered it, to make it look like POTUS is calling for an insurrection, and inciting violence, do you honestly believe the BBC have no case to answer?

Don’t be daft.

 

[Ronald Parp]

Yes, I have read the articles saying he hasn’t got a chance. We will see on that, looks like standard litigation BS to me, anyway the only point on this I’m concerned about is if he does win, who should pay, because the license payer’s money should not be touched.

lol, the BBC is funded by licence payers. If he wins who do you think will pay? Ch4 maybe?

 

[jack123]

lol, the BBC is funded by licence payers. If he wins who do you think will pay? Ch4 maybe?

Eh? It’s quite obvious I know who is going to pay, I’m quite flabbergasted with your reply to be honest. My only point is that it should not be the license payers.

 

[monmouth]

Nothing to do with this man baby, how’s the flooding where you live? Meant to be bad up your way isn’t it?

Not too bad - well nothing- where I am, but horrendous in the town. The Monnow burst its banks. More storms forecast next week too.

Thanks for asking NJ.

 

[Ronald Parp]

Eh? It’s quite obvious I know who is going to pay, I’m quite flabbergasted with your reply to be honest. My only point is that it should not be the license payers.

If not the licence payers then who? ITV perhaps?