Trump - again
Comments
-
I agree with what you have said. Unfortunately the BBC are known for it and it is the reason a lot of people refuse to pay for a licence. I was on Twitter for a few years and I know that is what people have done. They openly talked about it. I was proud of the BBC, but that has waned over recent years.
Thinking back I have agreed with all your posts whatever the subject. Keep posting! Thanks.
1 -
Trevor, I should add that I continue to pay the licence fee, not because I watch the BBC, but because I watch other live channels and the fee applies to them as well. That is the frustrating part.
Until the licence fee is separated from viewing other channels, I have no choice but to keep paying it.
If the BBC ever did go to subscription, I certainly would never hand them another penny. I simply do not see this “world class service” that others claim to see.
3 -
This is such a disappointment from the BBC.
I do watch BBC regularly, I do pay the TV licence. But I haven't watched a whole Panorama for years because every time I did, it was always pushing an agenda rather than reporting on things impartially and allowing the viewer to make up their own minds.
But to do something like this is utterly ridiculous and was only ever going to fuel Trump's fire when he found out about it. The way they mashed those two videos together is completely unforgiveable as MW has said. I am not a fan of Trump at all but having seeing the two clips in context, the end result was not even close to the way that it had been portrayed after editing.
Honestly I don't believe Trump should get the money from licence payers or UK taxes. If he gets money, it should come directly from the individuals who suggested the edit in the first place. Unfortunately the law doesn't work like that. And as Trump can pay for the best lawyers around, I won't be surprised if he does get a pay out.
On a slightly different note, I had reason to cancel a TV licence earlier this year at temporary accommodation. I wasn't watching TV there as I found I was unable to due to my own health issues. Firstly, this was not a simple task. Secondly, they started sending threatening letters to make me feel like a criminal for not needing a TV licence in that property, while I was still paying the licence on another. Even using a condescending line about 'remember, not paying the TV licence could cost you a lot more than the licence fee'. Frankly I was disgusted with the way I was being treated, having cancelled the licence legitimately due to health reasons. Prior to that I was still on the side of a licence fee to keep commercial adverts off of the BBC, but my opinion has now changed on that.
2 -
If (when ?) Trump does get a payout - what are the odds that it is HUSHED UP……I will make a FOI request on BBC to check in say 3 months time.
2 -
Yes, unless you complete the "No licence needed" either by phone or online, the letters are relentless, disgusting really. The threats as you mention are not called for either. It is not that simple to request the "No licence needed" online and the threats are part of this procedure too. Within the " No licence needed " procedure, you can select you are covered by a licence at another property, but it is not at the start. Hope this helps.
1 -
Fair enough and point taken. You need a licence streaming live programmes on a tablet too!
0 -
I did complete the online form in the end. But as you say, that wasn't available at the point of cancelling. And even after that they still sent another letter threatening to come round in person to check that TV wasn't being used at that property.
I am no longer liable at that property now so don't know whether any more letters arrived after I left.
The licence on my main property wouldn't have covered the temporary property as well, so I couldn't choose that from the online form. (Although that's also a daft regulation, seeing as I can't be watching TV in two different properties at the same time).
1 -
OverlyAnxious, I am sorry to hear about the harassment you endured from the licensing authority. Sadly, that heavy-handed approach is all too familiar. Ordinary viewers are treated like criminals for cancelling a licence, while those inside the corporation are shielded from accountability.
Huw Edwards still owes the BBC around £200,000 in overpayments, yet no comparable pressure is applied to recover those funds. If the BBC pursued its own insiders with the same zeal it shows in prosecuting the public, we would all be better off.
The deception has been going on for decades, and licence payers always bear the brunt. The Panorama interview with Princess Diana is the clearest example. Bashir forged bank statements, deceived her into believing she was being spied on, and the BBC concealed the truth for years. When it finally came out, they paid £1.42 million to charities chosen by her sons, and damages to staff whose reputations had been blackened. All of this was funded from the licence fee. We paid.
What angers me most is the gross deception. Regardless of who the victim is, the real issue is the principle, the way the BBC is allowed to operate without consequence. No broadcaster should be allowed to misrepresent anyone, least of all the BBC, which is funded through a compulsory licence.
In practice, the licence fee has become less a guarantee for honest broadcasting and more a slush fund for scandals.
3 -
I have always wondered why nobody has produced a "delay box" to put a 1 second delay in to a TV signal - thus not being "live" and no licence required.
1 -
Anyone remember the Queen Elizabeth II documentary scandal? A trailer was edited to make it seem she stormed off a photo shoot.
The BBC head had to resign then too 🤦🏼♀️
2 -
I've written a song about Trump suing the BBC
1 -
The BBC would need to pay me to watch fake news channels!
I've had to switch off Newsnight twice in recent weeks because Sergei Cobb was in the studio, grinning inanely 🙄 (in the interests of balance)
HARDtalk ended recently after 20 years but Unspun World with John Simpson, world affairs editor, has been extended to 30 minutes. Sadly, he looks exhausted but BBC journalism is second to none.
The BBC produced Esther Rantzen and Childline.
In over 100 years of broadcasting, of course mistakes have been made.
1 -
The BBC is not a private company making profits for shareholders. On the contrary, it has significant funding challenges. If you agree that the BBC pay money to this man-child fascist, make no mistake, you’re talking about licence fee payers’ money! You're talking about your own licence fee going into the pockets of this creep!
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing the fact that the BBC has failed to uphold highest standards.
1 -
Because the BBC is funded by the licence fee, its failures carry greater significance. When it makes serious mistakes, licence fee payers ultimately bear the cost. In the Diana/Bashir scandal, compensation was rightly paid from the licence fee because it represented a public service failure within the BBC’s core operations.
By contrast, in Donald Trump’s case the BBC has so far issued only an apology, refusing to pay damages. Using licence fee funds to compensate international figures over non-UK disputes would be inappropriate. Should compensation ever be awarded, it would almost certainly be handled through the BBC’s separate commercial division, which is legally and financially distinct from licence fee income.
The BBC has only itself to blame for the current predicament. While its public service arm faces increasing scrutiny and financial pressure, its commercial activities continue to prosper. What we are witnessing is not merely an editorial lapse but a deeper breakdown in communication, accountability, and public trust.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the BBC. They deserve everything they get, scandal after scandal, failure after failure. It is high time they stood on their own two feet and let the public decide whether they wish to fund and be associated with such a shambles. I know I certainly do not.
4 -
I wonder whether Convicted Crook Donald McDonald’s knows that the total assets of the BBC Group, including the commercial branch, BBC Studios, as well as the public service operations, were valued at approximately £1.976 billion as of March 31, 2024!
1 -
Exactly - and that is why the BBC already has 4672 FOI requests made against it !!
Someone has beaten me to it :
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/freedom_of_information_request_b_1195#incoming-3211714
0 -
The problem is if bbccan get away with editing trump speech . It will 100% mean thet will in the future. Editing can change context and truth and manipulate that altering fact and truth.
Maybe if trump does sue BBC they then be vetted and other truths may come out . Meaning people then can argue about the liscence being mandatory.
They may be independent but other businesses would have to answer that are. Definitely wouldn't get away with it.
So why are hung to paying tv liscence to BBC when they are dishonest . There was more truth in the news of the world and they paid the penalty for there wrongs. Why shouldn't BBC be accountable
2 -
The BBC’s £1.976 billion figure is its asset base, buildings, studios, equipment, and long‑term holdings. It is not cash sitting in a bank waiting to be spent.
Like any major organisation, the BBC carries liability insurance to cover defamation claims. That insurance is the first line of defence, designed to protect against the financial impact of legal disputes.
If a claim ever exceeded both insurance and commercial resources, insolvency could become a risk. But that risk would fall squarely on the BBC itself, not on the licence payer.
A bit more due diligence in the editing department could have avoided this entire mess. Accuracy is not optional when reputations and legal consequences are at stake.
When the BBC broadcast misleading edits, the consequences are theirs. No amount of ‘sorry’ shields them from any victim’s claims for damages.
0 -
The BBC's total cash was £5.4 billion in 2023/24, which included billions from the TV licence fee. This is used to fund its operations, including spending on television, radio, and online content, and not to make a convicted con wealthier.
I heavily doubt BBC's insurance companies would fork out billions on behalf of the BBC.
It's interesting, by the way, that the BBC is accused of defamation because this time it involves Founding Farter Don the Con, when defamation regarding R. Mugabe was its daily staple for many years and no one was saying anything about it, leave alone agreeing to compensate him with your licence fees!
I'm glad that the last time I paid a TV licence was about 20 years ago, as I haven't had since a TV, neither have I watched live TV or used BBC iPlayer on any device.
1 -
Charlie, I fully agree with you. Editing can change context and truth, and once a broadcaster crosses that line, trust is undermined. If the BBC can get away with misleading edits today, it sets a dangerous precedent for tomorrow.
If Trump does pursue his case, it may force closer scrutiny of the BBC’s practices. That kind of vetting could bring other truths to light, and it would certainly fuel the wider debate about whether the licence fee should remain mandatory.
Other businesses would never get away with this sort of behaviour without consequences. Independence does not mean immunity, and accountability should apply across the board.
You make an excellent point. The closure of the News of the World showed that even the UK’s biggest selling Sunday paper could not survive once trust was broken. The BBC can apologise all it likes, but honesty is non-negotiable. The closure of the News of the World was a direct consequence of dishonesty, and Leveson’s findings reinforce the principle that no media organisation, however large, should be spared accountability when trust is broken, the BBC must be held to the same standard.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.6K Start here and say hello!
- 7.4K Coffee lounge
- 101 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 148 Announcements and information
- 24.5K Talk about life
- 5.9K Everyday life
- 455 Current affairs
- 2.4K Families and carers
- 885 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 551 Money and bills
- 3.7K Housing and independent living
- 1.1K Transport and travel
- 626 Relationships
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 872 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 932 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.1K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 40.7K Talk about your benefits
- 6.1K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.9K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.8K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.8K Benefits and income