1. a full and complete retraction of the defamatory statements made by the BBC 2. an apology to Trump for engaging in such intentional and biased reporting 3. a monetary settlement to remedy the financial harm that they caused Trump to suffer
1) accused the BBC of “defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements”
and
2) has caused Trump “overwhelming financial and reputational harm”
So they are going to have to try and argue
That the BBC broadcast on BBC national TV and available on iplayer to a British audience caused Trump "overwhelming financial harm" and "overwhelming reputational harm"
So first they may have to prove what the viewing figures (either to live broadcast or to the iplayer stream) were
For Panorama this figure varies wildly depending on the topic being covered e.g.
Let's tackle the "overwhelming financial harm" first
So apparently its 13 consecutive years of losses for Trump resorts in Scotland
But - apparently the 2024 calendar year showed a sales increase of £730k to £4.5m
So it doesn't look like "overwhelming financial harm"
If you go to 1 year of results you can see clearer
The Panorama episode was aired on 28th October
So there only are 2 data points there for his
Donald's
Fame went UP from 98% to 100%
Popularity went UP from 27% to 34%
Dislikes went UP from 57% to 58%
Neutrals went from 14% to 8%
So to the British audience to whom this Panorama would have been available to watch
His fame and popularity went up
Those with a neutral view of him went down
And those who disliked him had a 1% change
So I look forward to a legal team explaining how
a 9 second clip in a 57 minute documentary
with only UK availability audience
where he had positive reputational change in the period
is somehow "overwhelming damage"
But I want to move back to the BBC headlines I used at the start of my thread
These two are fascinating. I want to know
How did the BBC reach the decision that Trump "egged on his mob" ?
How did the BBC reach the decision that Trump had "handed out matches" ?
But in particular want to focus on this one:
So in the news article that accompanies this one
I will paste my transcript of it verbatim
Just so I can't be accused of clipping it "out of context"
So I want to focus on several (to me) what feel like key phrases
The 3 key ones
1. "a blow to whatever was left of Donald Trump's historical reputation." 2. "crying fraud" and "He has not proven his case. He has not proven that the 2020 election was stolen." 3. "What he has done is radicalise his supporters which is what led to those scenes"
So I look forward to seeing the BBC News team being hauled over the coals in trial to account for those words
After all , we don't want them causing such "overwhelming reputational and financial harm" to Donald
@Telegraph Now you could also look at the change history of that speech and how in the run up to the speech on January 6th before that failed insurrection
How Trump and his cult altered wordings of it to target Vice President Mike Pence
@Telegraph Also is the fascinating line:
"Two Fox News primetime personalities, always so obsequious, begged those around the President to get him to do more. But
President Trump was unmoved."
I often wonder
How did they beg?
For how long did they beg?
@Telegraph Can you imagine the BBC having news staff "begging" a Prime Minister or King?
I agree with @charliekirk11, America will never be the same
Say what you like about Julius Streicher but he never used the "crimes" of Ernit Wilmersdoerfer to drown out other news
Using the horrific murder of Iryna Zarutska as part of your press/social media campaign to drown out the Epstein Birthday Card really is quite shameless
What is worse it that this is also done by party who:
1) invented fake news on $ support to justify Trump extortion of Ukraine's resources
2) used Russian talking points to attacl Zelensky
3) considered revoking the status of Ukranian refugees
1. @Telegraph and what’s wrong with politics 2. Kimberly 3. Fannies &scum 4. Piccanninies 5. @Jacob_Rees_Mogg on a moral compass 6. Shit your eyes 7. Bung a Bob for a Big Ben Bong 8. 72 virgins 9. Sacrifice 10. Paul McCartney & a frog song 11. Let it rip 12. Aristotle
"I know all the military sites in Israel, there isn't a military site her for miles and miles around"
vs
the army calls its “tech campus in Beersheba,” the new home of the computer services directorate, also known as C4i, and the Cyber Defense Directorate in the south
"I know all the military sites in Israel, there isn't a military site her for miles and miles around"
vs
"The tech units are the most significant part of the IDF’s relocation to Beersheba."
I do not think "harshness" is the issue
I think "preparedness" is the issue
So I'm going to talk about Piers and Natasha
And go back on a journey to 24th May 2025
“I think everyone will agree that it’s actually nice to once again have a president who’s not afraid to come to the White House correspondents’ dinner.”
"Within four or five square blocks [in downtown Washington], you've got more people who need them than anyplace else in the world,"
P.T. Barnum had one, but no one thought of bringing one into the White House until John Kennedy came along.
P.T. Barnum had one, but no one thought of bringing one into the White House until John Kennedy came along.
"Kennedy didn't exactly advertise that he was using an Autopen, but autograph collectors soon realized that certain of his signatures could be exactly superimposed on one another-and that meant an Autopen was on the White House premises. "