The Beeb

Diogenes said:
Don't be silly.

President Trump's legal team sent a cease-and-desist letter on November 9, 2025, demanding a full retraction, apology, and damages by November 14, 2025, or face a defamation lawsuit. The claim alleges the edit was "malicious, disparaging, and inflammatory," designed to interfere in the 2024 election by portraying Trump as responsible for the Capitol riot.

The BBC has stated it will review and respond directly.

If filed in a U.S. court, the case would proceed as a defamation suit under American civil law, where it is rare for public figures to prevail in defamation actions.

Contrast this with UK civil law (governed by the Defamation Act 2013 for England and Wales): The burden flips, with the defendant (the BBC) needing to prove truth, honest opinion, or public interest, making it plaintiff-friendly. Claimants win about 70-80% of libel trials, per historical data. No constitutional free speech override exists; instead, the Human Rights Act 1998 balances Article 10 (expression) against reputational harm, but courts often prioritize the latter. Procedure is more judge-led and inquisitorial.

In summary, U.S. law shields the BBC with speech protections, capping Trump's leverage at a potential settlement; UK law exposes it.
Click to expand...
One would think he'd sue them in the UK as the BBC is there and that is primarily where their stories would play. As the US President is a global figure, Trump could argue that his reputation was impugned in the UK with potentially negative effects in diplomatic relations.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
One would think he'd sue them in the UK as the BBC is there and that is primarily where their stories would play. As the US President is a global figure, Trump could argue that his reputation was impugned in the UK with potentially negative effects in diplomatic relations.
Click to expand...

Probably. The most salient argument for a UK suit is the one I outlined above. I'm betting the Beeb folds.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Why shouldn't they? The UK government has to pick up the tab.
Click to expand...


The DG already resigned in disgrace. Ditto the CEO.

On November 10, POTUS Trump's lawyers demanded the BBC retract the documentary by November 14 or face a $1 billion (£760 million) defamation suit, calling the edit "fabricated" and "inflammatory." This could represent up to 20% of the BBC's annual license fee revenue. The BBC is scrambling to respond by the deadline, amid fears of a protracted international battle. Staff morale is low, and the crisis coincides with a looming charter review—its funding model (household license fees) is under scrutiny as audiences shift to streaming and social media. Trust in BBC News, already strained by past scandals, is eroding further. The scandal amplifies existential threats: potential funding cuts, talent exodus, and reputational damage.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy is set to address Parliament on the crisis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top