The BBC | Tim Davie resigns as Director General over Trump documentary edit (p 187)

gordondaviesmoustache said:
Somewhere between $1 billion and $5 billion ffs. Just plucking figures out of the air.

My natural instincts in the theatre of litigation are to try and find a way to settle a dispute. Litigation is expensive, time consuming, emotionally exhausting and tedious. ‘Victory’ can often feel quite hollow, and rarely value for money. There is considerable truth in the axiom that lawyers are the only people who win in such circumstances. If a way to resolve things can be found, then it should be explored, and taken if available, even if it means taking a lot less than you feel you deserve. And it should be a lawyer’s moral and professional responsibility to make his client appreciate this wherever possible.

But sometimes, especially when defending a claim, there is no room for such an approach because it’s a dispute that is existential and to compromise is to capitulate to an extent that is catastrophic. And because the party on the other side is a ****.

This is one such instance.

Tell the **** to go fuck himself and let’s see how big his bollocks really are when it comes to prosecuting this hopeless and utterly meritless claim.
Click to expand...
The most likely outcome is the BBC will have to settle on a lower sum. What happened was "not a mistake" as the BBC PR people are trying to push. The speech was edited mid sentence by Panorama to damage Trump. And an almost identical edit was made on the same speeh for a Newsnight programme. The BBC is bang to rights. The only debate is how much they will have to pay. That's why the two most senior people quit.
 
Last edited:
meltonblue said:
That’s not right either. The right wing critics seemingly had no idea about it, much like they didn’t about Trump either until Prescott’s report came out (well, leaked out).

As per Shahs letter to the culture secretary, the BBC board had already acknowledged the issues with BBC Arabic and had made corrective steps after Prescott had raised it so they clearly didn’t want to maintain it. Whether he didn’t include that in his letter because he didn’t know or for other reasons, only he knows.
Click to expand...
Prescott didn't leak his report. He gave it to the Telegraph.

The report is more selective than the editing of Trump's speech. Critical only of certain stuff and totally ignoring any good stuff in the total of BCC output. And he's not "independent" if his appointment was influenced by someone knighted for services to the Conservative Party (Robbie Gibb knighted for "political and public service" as "Lately Director of Communications, 10 Downing Street" in Teresa May's resignation honours list").
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The most likely outcome is the BBC will have to settle on a lower sum. What happened was "not a mistake" as the BBC PR people are trying to push. The speech was edited mid sentence by Panorama to damage Trump. And an almost identicle edit was made on the same speeh for a Newsnight programme. The BBC is bang to rights. The only debate is how much they will have to pay. That's why the two most senior people quit.
Click to expand...
Is that your genuine belief or just what you're hoping for?
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The most likely outcome is the BBC will have to settle on a lower sum. What happened was "not a mistake" as the BBC PR people are trying to push. The speech was edited mid sentence by Panorama to damage Trump. And an almost identicle edit was made on the same speeh for a Newsnight programme. The BBC is bang to rights. The only debate is how much they will have to pay. That's why the two most senior people quit.
Click to expand...
It’s not the only debate at all, far from it, and such a conclusion can only be founded upon a complete misconception about what is required for a claim for defamation to be made out, mistake or not.

There is far more to that cause of action than something misleading or untrue being published or broadcast, which is what you appear to believe by saying the BBC is bang to rights

As I said, they should tell him to go fuck himself.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s not the only debate at all, far from it, and such a conclusion can only be founded upon a complete misconception about what is required for a claim for defamation to be made out, mistake or not.

There is far more to that cause of action than something misleading or untrue being published or broadcast, which is what you appear to believe by saying the BBC is bang to rights

As I said, they should tell him to go fuck himself.
Click to expand...
They will struggle to sustain the mistake narrative. I’m sure they will not follow your considered advice. They compounded the situation by also broadcasting the fabricated comments on Newsnight. Let’s see what happens.
 
robbieh said:
Whatever the BBC have or haven't done, isn't it extraordinary that the President of the US is talking suing them. Can you imagine this in the past? If someone printed something negative about Blair, Clinton, Kennedy, Mitterrand etc in a foreign country I think they would just have ignored it.
Click to expand...

And we still have people over here that like the fat ****.
 
hcblue95 said:
Is that your genuine belief or just what you're hoping for?
Click to expand...
That is what I believe will happen. The BBC will do well if they end up paying a relatively small amount to a charity of Trump' choosing. They can't afford to play roulette with public money. Anything under £1m would be a good result because if it does drag on the costs would rocket very quickly. The biggest problem for the BBC (as the publisher) is that the onus will be on them to explain how it happened and to nail any suggestions there was any malice involved. Given that they broadcast it twice (once on Panorama and once on Newsnight) and ignored the complaint made about the fake quote during the live Newsnight programme it does look very suspicious. It certainly couldn't have happened by accident. Also I wonder if there are any skeletons lurking in the background which could further undermine their position.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
That is what I believe will happen. The BBC will do well if they end up paying a relatively small amount to a charity of Trump' choosing. They can't afford to play roulette with public money. Anything under £1m would be a good result because if it does drag on the costs would rocket very quickly. The biggest problem for the BBC (as the publisher) is that the onus will be on them to explain how it happened and to nail any suggestions there was any malice involved. Given that they broadcast it twice (once on Panorama and once on Newsnight) and ignored the complaint made about the fake quote during the live Newsnight programme it does look very suspicious. It certainly couldn't have happened by accident. Also I wonder if there are any skeletons lurking in the background which could further undermine their position.
Click to expand...
Charity of Trump's choosing? Do you know if he has ever donated to a charity before?
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The most likely outcome is the BBC will have to settle on a lower sum. What happened was "not a mistake" as the BBC PR people are trying to push. The speech was edited mid sentence by Panorama to damage Trump. And an almost identical edit was made on the same speeh for a Newsnight programme. The BBC is bang to rights. The only debate is how much they will have to pay. That's why the two most senior people quit.
Click to expand...
This is like the guy still arguing that Liverpool's goal should have stood.
 
TinFoilHat said:
Trump will be threatening Starmer with Tariffs and funding cuts from US businesses.

I doubt our current PM has the balls to come out and tell him to fuck off both privately and publicly.
Click to expand...
Aren't we buying F35s? "Donald, the government might have to bail out the BBC and make some difficult cuts in defence spending to pay for it. You last thing a president wants is to be unpopular in Texas."

www.businessinsider.com

Inside the mile-long factory line where America's F-35 stealth fighter jets are made

Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II hit full-rate production last year. Today, over 150 fighter jets are being made annually.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The biggest problem for the BBC (as the publisher) is that the onus will be on them to explain how it happened and to nail any suggestions there was any malice involved.
Click to expand...
In Florida, the burden of proof in defamation cases, including in relation to the element of malice, is on the claimant, not the defendant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top