The BBC is apologizing again to President Trump after lawyers representing his interests sent a letter threatening legal action on his behalf.
The legal threats are about a spliced edit of Trump’s speech on Jan. 6, 2021, that appeared in the network’s program “Trump: A Second Chance?” In the edited clip, the president is framed to say “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell.”
However, in reality, those phrases were delivered almost an hour apart, and the footage omitted the part where President Trump tells supporters “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” The BBC responded to the first public criticism by stating:
BBC – “This programme was reviewed after criticism of how President Donald Trump’s 6th January 2021 speech was edited.
During that sequence, we showed excerpts taken from different parts of the speech. However, we accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.
The BBC would like to apologise to President Trump for that error of judgement. This programme was not scheduled to be re-broadcast and will not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms.” [SOURCE]
The BBC Media Center then posted a public notification following the letter received from President Trump’s legal team.
BBC – “Lawyers for the BBC have written to President Trump’s legal team in response to a letter received on Sunday.
“BBC Chair Samir Shah has separately sent a personal letter to the White House making clear to President Trump that he and the Corporation are sorry for the edit of the President’s speech on 6 January 2021, which featured in the programme.
“The BBC has no plans to rebroadcast the documentary ‘Trump: A Second Chance?’ on any BBC platforms.
“While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim.” (read more)
What was the intent of the edit, BBC? There is your answer.
Indeed, England has become quite tyrannical when it comes to the freedom of speech of their own citizens?
The gist of the Trump speech was that we “we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help. We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. ” To which he emphasized “And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
He wanted strong legislators to fight. Any one listening to the speech as it unfolded knew exactly what was meant.
Trump was/is being used as a pawn because no queen/king I know of especially, in this day/age would/should get away with editing a speech to benefit its own ends and degrade the people being represented!!
tyrannical in the sense that citizens are being jailed
England has been Tyrannical since before 1776 and King George lll. They have never learned,… time to make’em Pay $$$$$ again.
“Sorry doesn’t get it done Dude”.
“…error of judgement.”
Judgement? Implies intent imho.
How many people go trough an article or video in an outfit like the BBC before it gets published?
Oh… they disagree that there’s grounds for libel suit? Well okay, I’m sure that he’ll just let it go then… said no plaintiff ever.
The defendant(s) never admit their intent & they never agree, even when they’re found liable. For libel.
People who had no intended to defame don’t apologize for things that were not done on purpose.
They apologized twice. The BBC has a big issue on their hands.
the disagreement that there are grounds for libel
should be a lightening rod for a huge lawsuit
It means sorry – not sorry.
When the mainstream media lies, any place around the world, they are speaking their native language. There is no truth in them.
British Bullshit Corporation…have been for years. Pissoff and go cover ostrich gate in Canada.
“It’s just a trifle mate, nothing to be gutted about…”.
PTD, you got them right where you want them.
“Sorry.”
Translation: “We can’t afford to lose a lawsuit. Besides, our forced) subscribers already hate us.”
Cheerio!
Much easier to win a defamation case in the UK. And if it goes to trial, I would guess we will know who directed the edit. So…get out the checkbook.
<…’we accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression
that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech’…>
Then they totally contradict themselves!
<‘The BBC would like to apologise to President Trump for that error of judgement.’>
Case closed 🙂
While that is generally true, according to Prof. John Turley on Faux News this morning, tbe Statute of Limitations in the UK has already run. So, that means any defamation lawsuit by DJT would be filed in the US (no doubt in Florida) and … as we all know …the burden of proof in a US defamation action filed by a “public figure” is much higher. The public figure must prove “actual malice,” meaning the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
When has the BBC ever run a positive story regarding President Trump? The years of negative stories and biased reporting shows a trend that they had malice against him.
How long is the SoL? It was only aired in October 2024 … a week before the US Presidential election!!
They have exhibited actual malice. As has every news article written about every facet of Trump Life. An article from CNBC on reopening the government was riddled with so many non-associated lies sprinkled throughout. It was a work of pure fiction.
That shouldn’t be hard. When words are edited to create an entirely different meaning, it at least approaches that threshold. Besides, bringing the BBC into court and showing their bias in such a public forum will be huge.
blah, blah, blah…
They took two pieces of a speech over an hour apart and put them together to run as a continuous segment. That was not accidental, that was done intentionally. They can’t get around it. Why would you take two pieces over an hour apart and combine them together to make them look as one if you weren’t intending to use it to deceive people to make it seem like it was the same clip back to back; they didn’t have anybody explained that these were two clips splice together from two different times. They ran it as it was one.
There’s the intent; you don’t have to explicitly say it to understand it’s there.
When was the article published (or re-published)? If it was recently, then the statute of limitations has NOT run out. Either way, the BBC is going to pay.
It was broadcast just over 12-months ago, October 2024 … a week before the Presidential election.
It’s not the first time the BBC has done this either. They ran a similar clip in 2022.
“This programme was reviewed after criticism”
No… the programme [sic] was reviewed BEFORE the critcism. That’s the whole point of this exercise.
mr. piddles.
❤️
People do the editing. People make the decisions. Those people are responsible.
💥BOOM!!
Scared!!!!
Soon to be Scarred!!
When they hand you the knife shove it into all of them without mercy or it’s never gonna stop.
Maybe that “International Court” will do what’s right /s
It is really unfortunate that a esteemed and well respected news organization such as yourselves (BBC), would start out an apology for a serious and unprofessional mistake, with a lie.
We will see you in court.
Sincerely,
Mistake My Ass
Apologies are only done from sincere people with integrity. This is a save face, not an apology. It shouldn’t be accepted due to it’s nasty intentions and hit them in the bank account so they might learn from it.
Sue the pants off of them!!!
The manual for state-sponsored lies, 1984, was written in the UK.
Eric Blair, under pen name George Orwell, worked for the BBC:
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/articles/george-orwell-at-the-bbc-a-reflection/
Then it WAS an instruction manual!
Or perhaps as a whistleblower, He was exposing them.
No, more like a vision of the future the author believed was being forced upon the UK by the elites, which he saw while working for the BBC. The date / title ‘1984’ was chosen as the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Fabian Socialists. The book was foreshadowing what would happen if the Fabian Socialists had fully implemented their plans in one hundred years.
Keir Starmer is an actual, proudly professing, Fabian Socialist. It just took a few decades longer than Orwell imagined.
Two random cuts of video just happened to end up in a very misleading sequence. What are the odds, do you think?
Oh dear, that nasty AI!
Pretty soon all news organizations will embrace the AI defense. We did not write the article……
The BBC has a storied history of lies and deception.
Among others, It buried the story of its very own presenter/sexual predator, Jimmy Savile:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-scandals-at-the-bbc-have-rocked-its-leadership-over-the-years
Guilty
Sue them into oblivion
Ballroom donation.
Samir Shah. An old English family name, right there with Churchill and Chamberlain.
The UK has so many big problems at this point, I don’t even know where to begin.
Their officious, sneering, duplicitous, manipulative, lying, state propaganda apparatus is the least of it.
well said
The King should seriously be concerned for his head and that of his heirs. England is in peril and so is her Crown and Government. The titled gentry have sold out their people just as our government have sold us out. We are not manageable and have the means to defend. England is invaded and unarmed.
the “King” should have considered his head when he took the name Charles III
Neutered , as other Europeans.
Sue the BBC for $1B. It will lengthen the time of exposing the false, egregious, and malevelolent attack upon PDJT, it will further humiliate the BBC, it will cost the BBC millions in legal fees, and a large settlement ($100MM?) would be likely.
Allow the false news media collective to fully fund the Trump Presidential Library. That would be a never-ending W for the President and an L for the media.
Just do it.
Money? … Money? No Biggie For The Beeb. They’ll just raise the TV tax that each UK citizen HAS to pay for the “privilege” of watching TV!
It should enlighten and enrage the citizens paying the tax that they are doing so because the BBC lies and expects someone else to pay for it.
It would be in the best interests of the UK subjects not to watch the BBC.
So this Panorama program was broadcast in October 2024, right before the election. Strangely, no one in America noticed the splice until last week.
Now, a similar splice of President Trump’s J6 speech, used by the BBC in 2022, has been discovered. They even showed it to Mick Mulvaney (PDJT’s former chief of staff) during a show and he noticed the splice on live TV.
Both these program were not broadcast in the US.
In order to ensure compensation, the President’s legal team should look for programs that were accessible in the US. Something like the BBC News program that was shown daily on PBS.
If the program or pertinent excerpts of the program appeared on social media platforms visible to American audiences (social media is recognized as “the public square” in England…look at all the UK arrests for “vicious” tweets, vids, memes to the public), then there should be no problem with the suit.
It was edited. People do the editing. It wasn’t an “oops.” It was intentional.
I call BS. BBC KNEW IN MAY THAT THE SPEECH WAS SPLICED AND DICED
BBC Newsnight also doctored Trump speech
President’s legal team accuses corporation of ‘pattern of defamation’ after latest Telegraph revelations
https://archive.is/WebfK#selection-2277.4-2281.111
LIARS!!!
The disgusting part is that, to the liars, calling them liars is a compliment, since they are furthering their agenda by any means necessary. It makes them think they are REALLY trying.
I’m convinced of this.
Starmer’s Britain has made an enemy of Trump. It’s about to feel his fury
The president’s anger at the BBC is likely to open the floodgates. His surprising warmth towards the Prime Minister won’t last
How many ways did the UK try and screw Pres Trump?
-Steele dossier
-MI6 colluded
-RussiaGate
-100 Labour operatives sent to Pennsylvania to campaign for Kamala
-British Government was no longer sharing intelligence with the United States over drug trafficking in the Caribbean in the wake of US military action against South American drug cartels. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has pushed back against these reports, but it would represent a major slap in the face for the Anglo-American Special Relationship and an immensely destructive own goal by Starmer’s evidently clueless team.
-Prince harry ( and Meghan Markles campaign fight against free speech and the First Amendment(H said it was bonkers. H is also a member at the Aspen Institute)
-Appeasement of Communist China and the handing over of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius which would give China access
-China is building a HUGE “embassy” next to Londons highly sensitive telephone exchange-would enable spying in MI6 and 5Eyes
Election interference per excellence
https://archive.is/CdxO6#selection-2301.0-2325.130
New spy fears over site of Chinese ‘super-embassy’ due to proximity to phone exchange that handles sensitive City data
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15205041/Chinese-super-embassy-spy-proximity-sensitive-City-data.html
FAFO
Maybe the BBC should be banned/censored in the USA….
Ban BBC from all pressers that President Trump has world wide.
According to Promethian Action the British have been undermining us since we left the fold.
Promethean Updates with Susan Kokinda and Barbara Boyd are must-see TV.
Totally agree.
Exultant site to be a member of. ( excuse my spelling please, not awake yet…)
Thank you for the reminder about the Promethian Action website. They are truly excellent and explain a lot in plain language.
The BBC might have gotten away with their smear with their apology, but with their follow-up and every leftist politician in the UK piling on and smearing the President to protect the BBC…I don’t care if they never air another broadcast.
It’s actually quite astonishing how much garbage has been thrown at the wall to see what sticks!
They really are all grasping at straws to try and hurt Trump.
Sue the fake news BBC into oblivion. If one of these communist propaganda outlets were shut down because of their blatant libel and defamation of character, maybe the others would start behaving for awhile.
They only have the one news organization. Three TV channels. We can conquer England!
“Sorry – We’re just stupid ” defense strategy should have mighty high bar to meet for negating intent.
His legal team should also review various ABC Australia ‘to air’ broadcasts – there should be more cash forthcoming from that little mob of ‘lefties’, as well.
Then, there is the outstanding matter of “KRudd the Dud” – who is supposed to be representing Australia in the USA – he’s another failed leftie that managed to make a mess, everywhere he’s managed to insert himself.
Sometimes I could cry…
JMO.
“BBC Apologizes to President Trump for Second Time” is just the latest of multiple, serious justifications for TOTALEXIT.
BREXIT was just a trial run.
EU, destined for the ash pile of globalist / socialist failures, on President Trump’s watch?
Believe it.
MAGA / America First isn’t just our motto, it is our duty!
See ya in court Samir…
Perfect 👌
There was nothing ‘unintentional’ about the edit, and BBC actually has a history of such editing in order to push the intent of a particular message. Some years ago, a friend of mine befriended a Tibetan monk and fixed up a cottage on her property for him to live in. BBC decided to do a program on this monk’s life. When it came time to indicate his current living conditions, they portrayed him as living in dire circumstances in a garden shed. When my friend saw the broadcast program she was furious, and contacted producers to see why this was done. He was actually living in a fully furnished cottage with all the modern conveniences. The programmers advised her that ‘living with modern conveniences was not the message they wanted to broadcast’. BBC does this with everything.
They want a story so they make one up. Great way to run a “news” operation. It is news because we deem it so.
USAID taxpayer-based funding has served as a laundering tool for global censorship and the BBC editing of Trump’s speech represents just a slice of that censorship mechanism according to Mike Benz. The BBC received substantial USAID funding over multiple years and shows foreign censorship efforts to silence voices in opposition to “official” narratives.
Then there’s election interference involved in the BBC edit slice of Trump’s speech and that is another can of worms ready to explode on the scene.
The process is part of the punishment.
.
Make them pay Trump the proverbial British Pounds and pounds of
flesh.
.
The more painful the better.
The UK’s insincere apology is not accepted. Ban them from broadcasting in the US. We have enough domestic leftist propaganda to deal with.
It’s called “damages.”
Sue their socks off
The BBC does not make editing errors.
Errors made are deliberate and intentional.
BBC is part of the money USAID scam! Follow the money
Samir Shah? Doesn’t sound like a British name.
Apology not acceptable. Go directly to civil court. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200 dollars.
“we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim.” “. Keep on, BBC, FAFO.
Since the BBC IS State Run, can we (President Trump) sue The Crown into Receivership?
Or, assuming the supremes rule that Trump is allowed to levy tariffs, maybe an extra 25% until the BBC states the truth at the beginning of every broadcast for a month starting in September of next year?
Apology not accepted. They have not sincerely apologized to the American public for trying to undermine our Republic.