Trump's defamation suit against the media backfires

[andy06shake]

"media failures" 
  ​​​​​​

Pizzagate springs to mind there. 

[Oldcarpy2]

Mistakes simply don't equal proof of defamation.

If in doubt, see your own laws.

I'll send you the money right after the BBC wires me my inheritance, your highness. 

Oh, wait, i don't have a TV licence. 

No TV licence?

This has been noted, citizen......

[BeTheGoddess]

Mistakes simply don't equal proof of defamation.

If in doubt, see your own laws.

I'll send you the money right after the BBC wires me my inheritance, your highness. 

Oh, wait, i don't have a TV licence. 

You WHAT? No TV  license?. There is an episode of Young Ones that touched on the issue facing young adults...

When they are at the door say "It wasnt me it was the other three".

[andy06shake]

You WHAT? No TV  license?. There is an episode of Young Ones that touched on the issue facing young adults...

When they are at the door say "It wasnt me it was the other three".

Aye, that was a good yin.
 
Then again, they were all grrrrreat.

Best just to say "No thank you" and close the door on them.
 
Or, if you're feeling witty, inform them.

"Your legal right of implied access to the property has been removed in writing.

Please leave, or I will phone the police."
 
Either way, they are "Capita" scum and have no teeth unless you give them details.

Which you are in no way required to do.

It's extortion.

But I digress.

[BeTheGoddess]

I see.  Thanks for your sage wisdom....

Every assistant I ever had got sawn in half.

Im professional on an armature level

We arrived a month late to a Sage Francis gig, but I think I posed that here already.

[andy06shake]

No TV licence?

This has been noted, citizen......

I got a red letter, does that count? 

[BeTheGoddess]

Aye, that was a good'yin.

Then again, they were all grrrrreat. 
 
Best just to say "No thank you" and close the door on them.

Or if you are feeling witty, inform them, "their legal right of implied access to the property has been removed in writing, please leave, or you will phone the Police."

Either way, they are "Capita" scum and have no teeth, unless you give them details, which you are in no way required to do so. 

It's extrosion.

But i digress.

One of my old uni mates sees herself as Vivian,, but she is so Rick. 

it gets worse, I am Mike.

[Oldcarpy2]

I got a red letter, does that count? 

I'm afraid that your numerous transgressions leave us no option than to have you detained indefinitely in an Attitude Adjustment Facility. 

It's for your own good, citizen.....

[Oldcarpy2]

One of my old uni mates sees herself as Vivian,, but she is so Rick. 

it gets worse, I am Mike.

"Vegetable Rights and peace, man..."

[Knows]

So, the BBC was responsible for the conviction of Jan 6th rioters?

I see...

What crime might the BBC have committed?

(I'm just denying ignorance here).

Legal Claims and Allegations The lawsuit, filed in a Florida federal court in December 2025, accuses the BBC of:  

• Defamation: Claiming the BBC intentionally manipulated footage to harm Trump's reputation and portray him as inciting the Capitol riot.
  
• Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices: Alleging the broadcaster used its platform to "interfere in and influence" the 2024 U.S. election.
  
• Deceptive Editing: The lawsuit states the BBC spliced together two parts of his speech that were delivered nearly 50 to 54 minutes apart. Specifically, it combined his call to "walk down to the Capitol" with his later comment to "fight like hell," while omitting his instruction to protest "peacefully and patriotically". 
  

•  
  

 BBC Response and Consequences While the BBC has not admitted to a crime, it has acknowledged a significant "editorial breach" and an "error of judgment".  

• Resignations: The scandal led to the immediate resignations of the BBC's Director-General, Tim Davie, and the CEO of BBC News, Deborah Turness, in November 2025.
  
• Apology: BBC Chair Samir Shah issued a personal apology to Trump, admitting the edit gave the "mistaken impression" of a direct call for violence.
  
• Refusal of Compensation: Despite the apology, the BBC has rejected Trump's demand for financial compensation, stating they do not believe there is a legal basis for a defamation claim. 
  

•  
  

 Legal Context Under U.S. law, public figures must meet the "actual malice" standard to win a defamation case, proving the defendant knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The case follows a similar recent settlement where Paramount (CBS) paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit regarding the editing of a Kamala Harris interview.

Donald Trump sues BBC over misleading video editing of speech ...