Trump to sue BBC for $5bn (£3.7bn)

Agree absolutely Magenta.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Thank you imaround, it works!

Rather than having the characteristics of someone who is alcoholic I would say he has the lack of an 'off' switch which you see in people suffering from bi-polar and other mood regulation disorders.

While not suggesting for one moment that this is the issue he does display many similarities. Bi-polar is a tragic illness for those with it and those caring for them but there do seem to be strong similarities between Trump and the rapid shifts in tone and behavior, the high-energy, impulsive communication, the grandiose language, the low tolerance for criticism, and the periods of apparent hyper-focus you will see in a bi-polar sufferer and Trump.

I've asked for the first, longer post, to be deleted. It seemed to disappear into the air so I wrote the shorter one ... and then it was there!

Magenta8

It has been announced The BBC are not going to back down and settle out of court as they do not think that they have a case to answer. I know that some GNs won't agree but in my opinion the BBC is quite right to take this stance. It is about time that somebody stands up to the unhinged, orange baby.

👏👏👏

That's a good step in the right direction Magenta8.

Pulitzer appear to be standing firm too.

That case has now reached the ‘discovery’ phase, in which Pulitzer have asked Trump to produce huge swathes of documentation (including tax and medical records) in order to substantiate his claim against them.

Well done the Pulitzer board. Investigative journalism should never be silenced by bullying and intimidation.

I hope the BBC stands firm. This issue is about far more than ‘the license fee’!

He is showing signs of dementia, along with all of his other 'traits'. Dementia does not get better. The time will come when he will no longer have legal 'competency'.
If the BBC holds steady, then time might favour their case.

Stand firm BBC.

No one gives in to a bully.

I am well aware of how so many of you dislike Trump, but surely you acknowledge that what the BBC did was wrong? In fact, I'm surprised that they haven't been brought to court by our own laws. Many newspapers have been sued for giving false information, so it should apply to tv documentaries too.
Really, Trump should be suing the producers of the programme itself, not the BBC but I suppose the buck stops at the top.

mum2three Do you seriously think that the BBC (October Films) were so wrong that they did damage to Trump's reputation to the tune of $5bn?

The bbc have apologised, top people had to resign, Trump won the election and the programme wasn’t shown in America,. Trump suffered no damage to his reputation, which is already and at last, sinking fast.

Maybe the BBC will counter sue for Trump's false allegations: using AI to make it appear he'd said something he didn't say Magenta .

Smileless2012

Of course 'they have a leg to stand on'. Trump's making false allegations; no words were put into his mouth. Even someone as stupid as he is can't really expect anyone to believe the BBC had him saying things he never said.

Trump is saying this but his lawyers won’t advise him to claim this in court because they know it’s not true. The actual claim is defamation and violation of a Florida law that bans deceptive and unfair business practices. Most civil actions in the USA result in settlements and that is probably what will happen in this case. Trump will of course claim he won the biggest battle ever fought in history, he will rant on about free speech and defeating the left wing British broadcaster, he will probably demand a Purple Heart for his bravery.

US has a high bar to prove defamation. Trump has a steep hill to climb.

It's reported that the BBC seeks to get the case dismissed, on basis of no case to answer. The BBC will present its submissions/reasons to the court as a result. The onus will then be on Trump to present evidence to refute said submissions to allow the case to proceed.

Trump's had other cases dismissed- I hope the BBC is similarly successful.

Worth fighting.

Smileless2012

He's accused the BBC of putting words in his mouth; that it's portrayed him of saying things he never said!!!

They're his words. Not in the order they were originally said but he did say them.

You sound like an old Eric Morecambe joke

mum2three

I am well aware of how so many of you dislike Trump, but surely you acknowledge that what the BBC did was wrong? In fact, I'm surprised that they haven't been brought to court by our own laws. Many newspapers have been sued for giving false information, so it should apply to tv documentaries too.
Really, Trump should be suing the producers of the programme itself, not the BBC but I suppose the buck stops at the top.

Firstly, I personally, do not dislike or like Trump. I do not know him so I cannot form such an opinion. What I do not like is the way he is moving his country and encouraging and aiding those in other countries to move towards authoritarianism, autocracy, monarchy or oligarchy. I am saddened that some of our people are supporting this.

The issue within the BBC has been dealt with. You may have looked for a gallows but BBC HR thankfully do not have that power.

Trump could have brought a case in this country, why didn't he? Firstly because UK defamation law is tougher than it looks. It us likely Trump has not sued the BBC in the UK because:

Winning would be uncertain
The BBC has strong legal defenses
The costs and risks are high
The strategic upside is limited.

mum2three

I am well aware of how so many of you dislike Trump, but surely you acknowledge that what the BBC did was wrong? In fact, I'm surprised that they haven't been brought to court by our own laws. Many newspapers have been sued for giving false information, so it should apply to tv documentaries too.
Really, Trump should be suing the producers of the programme itself, not the BBC but I suppose the buck stops at the top.

They apologised for not making it clear that they had jumped from the first part of his speech to the end part, as they didn't have enough airtime for it's entirety. You do realise the program was not available in the USA before the election, or indeed after it? There is no foundation for the idea of damages of $10 billion and he's had his apology and he should go back to persecuting his own people and his close neighbours. I think people should wise up to this bully. I know loads hate the BBC so they can't manage to be impartial. The Daily Mail, KGB News and the Telegraph feed them a constant diet of BBC=bad.

The splicing of Trump's speeches by the BBC was wrong, and done for no apparent purpose, but it was not done in error.

The BBC has damaged its reputation by its stupidity and it inevitably will result in the waste of TV licence payers' money whether they fight or capitulate.

I totally disagree, they had to fit the speech into a 60 minute slot as I recall. The speech was 70 minutes long, what with other blurb, something had to go. The spice was badly done in terms of not being a fade, but Trump said everything that was broadcast. If they fight they need to do what Pulitzer are doing, go for Trumps financials. And eventually it'll get costs, when the USA finally gets a sane government.

I agree IOMGran, it's obvious there was not enough time to include Trump's entire over 60 minute speech in the documentary so it had to be edited. The only error was not explicitly explaining the spice. Trump has a very steep hill to climb in his vexatious claim.

The BBC is doing the right thing in standing up to Trump's bullying tactics. Other US media outlets are also similarly standing up to Trump's claims.

Magenta8

Following the Panorama edit, Trump is pursuing a case against the BBC to be heard in Florida.

I don't know if any GNs are Trump supporters, if they are, I hope they don't mind their BBC licence fee going to Trump if he wins.

Not sure if I'm a Trump fan, but surely the important thing is to recognise an....... editing problem, and call it out.

So mis representing someone's words, out of context, to look like they are saying something that is actually opposite, is acceptable to some?
I'm aghast!

The result will be whatever it will be.

One can only be considered un biased, by actually showing no bias

It was not edited to say the opposite of what he said. He clearly incited the riot, at the very least he made no effort to stop it. Why don't you listen to it. I did.

Agreed IOMGran.