Trump is suing the BBC for Ten Billion USD.

[Ivor Windybottom]

The BBC have admitted they did wrong and apologized accordingly.

An apology doesn't cancel liability or responsibility.

Otherwise every criminal would just say sorry and the prisons would be empty.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

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

It was skillfully done, by someone who obviously wanted to change the meaning of his words. Twice.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It was skillfully done, by someone who obviously wanted to change the meaning of his words. Twice.

You seriously think it changed the meaning of his words ?

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

You seriously think it changed the meaning of his words ?

Yes, by putting two partial sentences together into a new one.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Yes, by putting two partial sentences together into a new one.

Now think about the long long long rant he made

Condense it and then tell me the meaning was altered

 

[Koolpc]

Trump has every right to sue the bbc. Good on him i say. They did the dirty.

 

[motorbiking]

oh dear

poor Motorbiking hasnt thought about the words: "direct call for violent action"

Trump made a call for violent action, it just wasnt quite as direct as the Panorama programme implied


Brigadier expressed it brilliantly:
View attachment 402440

oh dear its seems neither of you understand what giving a mistaken impression means.

keep dreaming

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

I can't find a transcript of the original speech or the BBC's edit, and it's not important enough to me to endure two hours of rambling speech.

But I'm sure, from watching the BBC's edit and the two sentences that they took parts from, that they fundamentally created a new sentence with a different meaning to the two sentences they took the words from.

Every journalist would know that they were doing something wrong, it couldn't have been an accident.

 

[morqthana]

But a state-run organisation that uses threats of violence to force people to pay their wages needs to be utterly whiter than white.

We don't have one of those, not in the real world.

 

[morqthana]

You seriously think it changed the meaning of his words ?

You're asking Ivor if he seriously thinks?

Good lord.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

We don't have one of those, not in the real world.

Don't pay your TV licence and watch other channels on live TV.

You'll get a threatening letter. If you admit you're watching ITV or Sky live then they'll demand money with menace.

If you don't pay you'll get taken to court and given a fine.

If you don't pay the fine you'll get more threats.

Eventually the police will take you away from your home by force and you'll be imprisoned.

It's the only subscription service that carries the threat of state-backed violence.

If it wasn't backed by violent threats then far fewer would pay, and the BBC would probably go bust. It's funded by fear.

 

[noseall]

oh dear its seems neither of you understand what giving a mistaken impression means.

Nonsense.

The Panorama edit was put out after the riots. Trump gave a speech to the rioters - they violently rioted. The BBC has no case to answer. Even the Torygraph believe it's frivolous.

keep dreaming

Keep hallucinating.

 

[SPLINE]

For the defamation case to succeed it needs to be proven that the BBC acted with malice, that's the tricky part.

Put it in context - the BBC has always been anti-Trump and hasn't said anything positive about him for as long as I can remember. It won't be hard to find other examples of lies and bias, if anyone cares to try. The defamation in question is just the tip of an iceberg.

 

[noseall]

For the defamation case to succeed

They need to show Trump was defamed.

 

[noseall]

You seriously think it changed the meaning of his words ?

It didn't and the mob that day is testament to that. The BBC got it spot on. Trump said riot, and riot (violently) they did.