[Update] BBC DG and head of news resign

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I’m not sure you’ve been keeping up with current events, but this whole story has erupted because the BBC is neither independent or unbiased.

In what way is the BBC not independent?

The whole story seems to be one of incompetence and poor decision-making at the organisation.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

In what way is the BBC not independent?

it's ideologically captured, I don't think Sky and CH4 are much better

The whole story seems to be one of incompetence and poor decision-making at the organisation.

more like one of pushing a narrative and view held by the programme makers.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/donald...ry6-5HjdMsw_2/

Now, the BBC has told the President’s lawyers it would fight his lawsuit, claiming nobody in the US watched the programme and that it did not lead to damage to his reputation as he went on to win the 2024 election.

Their argument is understood to revolve around the fact that Trump: A Second Chance? did not air in the US due to the BBC not having the rights to show it.

Audiences in the US were also prevented from watching via BBC iPlayer because it was “geo-blocked” by the broadcaster, as reported in The Times.

Analysis of whether Trump can sue, where he can sue and how much of a case he has has been circulating on social media since this first started, but it has unfortunately been skewed around partisan divides. Long-term critics of the BBC and Trump supporters have been saying he has a slam-dunk case and the BBC is in serious trouble; supporters of the Beeb and Trump critics have said he has little chance.

I did see Robert Preston report that the BBC's legal advice mirrors this LBC article in saying that American courts probably won't have jurisdiction and that the bar is quite high for libel in America anyway. Preston's reporting did say that Trump could sue in the UK, but the BBC are more willing to contest that as the sums involved would be much smaller.

Again, some pundits are saying the BBC is skewed and should pay a huge settlement to stop the action, but it seems the BBC has decided it's better to fight it.

We'll see if, where and when Trump files his suit.

[Pierre]

Trump filing a suit is irrelevant, the BBC and certain politicians are imploding over it.

Trump just needs to keep threatening and let the chaos continue.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Trump filing a suit is irrelevant, the BBC and certain politicians are imploding over it.

Trump just needs to keep threatening and let the chaos continue.

Yes he is a lover of chaos and bullying. However legal opinion is that he has no chance, but maybe that's not the objective. . Anything to divert from the Epstein files nasty rumours he performed a sexual act on Bill Clinton. Malicuous stuff (probably), and unbelievable if it was anyone else.
https://metro.co.uk/2025/11/14/bubba...ails-24710912/

Originally Posted by Mr K

Yes he is a lover of chaos and bullying. However legal opinion is that he has no chance, but maybe that's not the objective. . Anything to divert from the Epstein files nasty rumours he performed a sexual act on Bill Clinton. Malicuous stuff (probably), and unbelievable if it was anyone else.
https://metro.co.uk/2025/11/14/bubba...ails-24710912/

There’s legal opinion for both sides. Sadly that opinion as to his chances of success tends to align with one’s personal opinion of Trump.

I did share a link to a former Newsnight producer last week (who has subsequently been in senior positions with both Sky and Channel 5, so by no means some anonymous lanyard) who thought it was actionable.

More reporting from America suggesting it's unlikely in their courts: https://archive.ph/CMxMR

The two biggest issues seem to be jurisdiction and convincing a court that his reputation was materially damaged by the report.

First, it’s not clear that US courts even have jurisdiction, given that the documentary never aired in the US and was geo-blocked in the US on the BBC’s streaming service.

The president would also need to prove that the BBC had acted with “actual malice” toward him when it edited the documentary — a high bar required for public figures that was established by the US Supreme Court in 1964 in order to protect free speech.

“They’ve got to meet the actual malice standard with New York Times versus Sullivan, which is a very tough standard,” said Gregory Germain, a professor at Syracuse University College of Law. Trump is “the ultimate public figure.”

[Mr K]

Which is the bigger crime , a badly edited documentary or inciting a riot to overturn a democratic election ? Its Trump that should be in court. The US 'justice' system and its constitution are corrupt and bonkers.

Meanwhile Putin eyes up Poland. A real world leader would be turning their attention to that rather than the BBC, making himself richer ,and trying to cover up sex scandals.

[Pierre]

Let’s edit this….

Lets not, editing quotes of other peoples posts is not really allowed.

Originally Posted by Mr K

......

[Carth]

Putin eyes up Poland??

That train 'explosion' could just as well have been a sly attempt by Ukraine to get people thinking . . well, exactly what you probably did.

That nice Mr Zelenski chap needs help, and what better way to get it than stirring up Nato a little more

Originally Posted by Mr K

Which is the bigger crime , a badly edited documentary or inciting a riot to overturn a democratic election ? Its Trump that should be in court. The US 'justice' system and its constitution are corrupt and bonkers.

Meanwhile Putin eyes up Poland. A real world leader would be turning their attention to that rather than the BBC, making himself richer ,and trying to cover up sex scandals.

Amusingly enough, the person (Prescott) who wrote the report stating the BBC edited Trump’s speech also edited Trump’s speech in the report…

https://www.thenewworld.co.uk/james-...ps-bbc-attack/

In the document, Prescott writes:

“Fifteen minutes into the speech, what Trump actually said: ‘We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.’ It was completely misleading to edit the clip in the way Panorama aired it.”

But this is not what Donald Trump actually said in his speech. Prescott has heavily edited the remarks, changing their meaning.

And just as Prescott claims there are rules for television, on making it clear when you have edited or abridged a quote, these exist in print, too. If you are abridging a quote, you signify it with an ellipsis. Prescott has not done this.

The full version of the quote that Prescott cites reads very differently. Here it is below, with the sections Prescott uses in bold.

“We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

“Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

---------- Post added at 10:06 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

Putin eyes up Poland??

That train 'explosion' could just as well have been a sly attempt by Ukraine to get people thinking . . well, exactly what you probably did.

That nice Mr Zelenski chap needs help, and what better way to get it than stirring up Nato a little more

Strangely enough, that’s what the Ruski bots are posting…

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

<big snip>

Strangely enough, that’s what the Ruski bots are posting…

is that you Mr McCarthy?

Originally Posted by Carth

is that you Mr McCarthy?

I'm a bit older than him...

[Carth]