Trump is suing the BBC for Ten Billion USD.

[carmanmemoranda]

The BBC have admitted they did wrong and apologized accordingly.

Yes .

And refused to pay. And will defend.

Any idea why ?

 

[motorbiking]

I'd like to see the American lawyers prove slander and 'defamation of character' when the programme wasn't even broadcast in America.

That is the easy bit.

 

[Odds]

That is the easy bit.

'defamation of character' - you've seen what he's been doing this past ten years, right?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

'defamation of character' - you've seen what he's been doing this past ten years, right?

Obviously not

 

[motorbiking]

'defamation of character' - you've seen what he's been doing this past ten years, right?

Obviously not

I think you both may have misunderstood how that is relevant.

 

[blup]

The BBC have admitted they did wrong and apologized accordingly.

As is their prerogative in the circumstances of a sensitive. The bbc should have had the balls to double down, but they seem to self muzzle these days, or have been infiltrated.

 

[blup]

nonsense do you know what a SLAPP claim is?

It’s lawfare. Next the Beeb will be criticised for spending taxpayers money defending a non case. Heavyweight rent a gobs in the Daily Fail will argue that this is all a distraction from their core duty as a broadcaster. They might even find themselves in an Andrew Mounbatten situation where it is impossible to carry on.

 

[fillyboy]

Yes .

And refused to pay. And will defend.

Any idea why ?

The case isn't about what the BBC did or not do, that's already been established, the BBC admitted it and apologised. For the defamation case to succeed it needs to be proven that the BBC acted with malice, that's the tricky part.
The BBC are using a line of defence that the programme couldn't have been viewed in America which the yanks have already shot out of the water on the basis of VPN's.

The best line of defence for the BBC would be sloppy reporting/incompetence, that gets them off the hook for malicious intent which is needed for defamation to succeed.

Of course it hasn't gone to court yet, the whole thing could be a ruse to nudge the BBC towards an out of court settleement.

Who knows?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

The case isn't about what the BBC did or not do, that's already been established, the BBC admitted it and apologised. For the defamation case to succeed it needs to be proven that the BBC acted with malice, that's the tricky part.
The BBC are using a line of defence that the programme couldn't have been viewed in America which the yanks have already shot out of the water on the basis of VPN's.

The best line of defence for the BBC would be sloppy reporting/incompetence, that gets them off the hook for malicious intent which is needed for defamation to succeed.

Of course it hasn't gone to court yet, the whole thing could be a ruse to nudge the BBC towards an out of court settleement.

Who knows?

A bit like mbk then

Ignore the facts and give in.

The BBC apologised for the edit. But it was based on facts. Just badly put together.

Their lawyers (not as world class as mbk admittedly) are standing up to the bully boy and his tactics. As should anybody with morals.

 

[motorbiking]

It’s lawfare. Next the Beeb will be criticised for spending taxpayers money defending a non case. Heavyweight rent a gobs in the Daily Fail will argue that this is all a distraction from their core duty as a broadcaster. They might even find themselves in an Andrew Mounbatten situation where it is impossible to carry on.

It's not tax payers money as such. The BBC is funded by a licence fee, it is entirely optional to pay. I know some of their legal team, they will need external help, to put it gently.

 

[Munroast]

The BBC have admitted they did wrong and apologised accordingly.

hope you don't mind me emphasising your comment to make it a bit more obvious to the hard of thinking - but this is the crux of the matter, even the beeb say they got it wrong.

 

[motorbiking]

A bit like mbk then

Ignore the facts and give in.

what facts have I ignored?

The BBC apologised for the edit. But it was based on facts. Just badly put together.

not how it works.

Their lawyers (not as world class as mbk admittedly) are standing up to the bully boy and his tactics. As should anybody with morals.

I suspect they will be looking for help.

 

[fillyboy]

The BBC apologised for the edit. But it was based on facts. Just badly put together.

It was put together extremely well, so well as to be invisible to the casual viewer. Maliciously?, I don't know.

 

[Odds]

Even the House of Representatives January 6 committee concluded that Trump did use his speech to incite an insurrection. Where's the defamation?

 

[motorbiking]

hope you don't mind me emphasising your comment to make it a bit more obvious to the hard of thinking - but this is the crux of the matter, even the beeb say they got it wrong.

an apology is not necessarily an admission of guilt. It can actually be used to mitigate the potential harm caused.