https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpvd81470v1oUS President Donald Trump has filed a multi-billion-dollar defamation lawsuit against the BBC over an edit of his 6 January 2021 speech in a Panorama documentary.Trump accused the broadcaster of defamation and of violating a trade practices law, according to court documents filed in Florida. He asked for $5bn (£3.7bn) in damages on each of the claims.The BBC has apologised to Trump, but rejected his demands for compensation and disagreed there was any "basis for a defamation claim".Trump's legal team accused the BBC of defaming him by "intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring his speech". The BBC has not yet responded.Trump said last month that he planned to sue the BBC for the documentary, which aired in the UK ahead of the 2024 US election."I think I have to do it," Trump told reporters of his plans. "They cheated. They changed the words coming out of my mouth."In his speech on 6 January 2021, before a riot at the US Capitol, Trump told a crowd: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."More than 50 minutes later in the speech, he said: "And we fight. We fight like hell."In the Panorama programme, a clip showed him as saying: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol... and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell."The BBC acknowledged that the edit had given "the mistaken impression" he had "made a direct call for violent action", but disagreed that there was basis for a defamation claim.In November, a leaked internal BBC memo criticised how the speech was edited and led to the BBC's director general, Tim Davie, and its head of news, Deborah Turness, to resign.Before Trump filed the lawsuit, lawyers for the BBC had responded in length to the president's claims.They said there was no malice in the edit and that Trump was not harmed by the programme, as he was re-elected shortly after it aired.
>>1466006Another one for the library of fake news.
>>1466006>They said there was no malice in the edit and that Trump was not harmed by the programme, as he was re-elected shortly after it aired>UK's libel & slander laws are ultra-brutal & hyper-savageBetter hire the best barrister in Britain, Trumpy. Because when all the BBC's barrister has to do is show evidence of your own words verbatim, and nothing of what others have said - which is nothing - Aunty Beeb will take you to the cleaners.Remember WSJ, and you 'suing' them for $10 billion? How's that going, since they called your bluff, Blumph...?!
>>1466006Given trump is inciting violence again over rob's murder and trump did incite a coup that day.BBC should dig in against trump's lies
>>1466006>The BBC has apologised to Trump, but rejected his demands for compensation and disagreed there was any "basis for a defamation claim".They're right. Trump is going to pay lawyers for nothing again. It's almost like Trump enjoys filing frivolous lawsuits just to put his lawyer's kids through college or something.
>>1466006I hope he continues this and sues individual Democrats for their roles in the primtime show trials.
>>1466029So he can lose even more? Why do you want that?
>how UK's courts work: especially in libel & slander cases>the 1st Amendment only exists within the boundary of the US embassy on the Thames Embankment>hopeGood luck with that.
>>1466032I'm sill pissed Democrats misused the government. It was absolute banana republic shit.
>>1466029>primtime>trialsThe shill continues to be found guilty for crimes against the English language.This should be on primetime TV.
>>1466036>what Trump is about to try, and where>Democrats misused the government>absolute banana republic shitThat'll be nothing compared to what happens in London's Old Bailey to Old Failey.>what has been said about Trump in the satirical magazine Private Eye>what others have tried to do to that 'organ' and it's editor Ian Hislop has basically said to them - literally in one instance - 'Fuck Off'. Mainly because Hislop is an expert lawyerTrump will fail against the BBC and...!(Contd. P94) (He'll be fired. Ed)
>>1466036>I'm sill pissed>sillYou're still pissed about missing English classes, shill.
>>1466047>please talk to me!!No.
>Don't call me out on my illiteracy and my need to attention whore and project on /news/!!Yes.
>>1466051Sorry, I black n eatin at all of garden righ now. June bug git some free breastik catched in him throat and we waitin' for the amber lamps.Shut the duck up! I am talking to my phone.
>>1466058Lol
>>1466006>And we fight. We fight like hellSo will the BBC. They'll know who is the best barrister to hire. Do you even know what the word 'Barrister' means outside of a coffee shop?Like the Wall Street Journal, they're calling your bluff. But then, that's all you have left: bluff & bluster. And those in UK's legal profession will know of your welshing on lawyer's bills. Either you pay up the entire bill up front or just give any KC in UK reason why they should represent a serial Scrooge.
Remember the first thread on this and the /news/ leftists claimed that the BBC did not edit the speech (even though the BBC admitted they did) and said that only people "indoctrinated by the far right" would believe that it was?
>>1466495They were right, you were wrong.
>>1466496If BBC never edited the speech then why did BBC apologize to Trump for editing the speech? Why did their executives resign?
>>1466497No reason.
>>1466497>apologize to TrumpThen why does he need to continue with this egregious & spiteful act of frivolous lawfare if the BBC apologized? Especially with heads rolling. After all: To err is human, to forgive divine. MAGAts' orange deity does the former and not the latter, because he's nothing more than a sadist who is the embodiment of Spite.And why do you need to glaze Trump, cultist? Why do you need to be in /news/? Other than channeling your orange god's spite towards those not exactly like you.
>>1466514>ummmm if they apologized then why would you still sue them?I hate Zoomers. Why can't we raise the voting age to 25?
>>1466497Because conspiracies and reasons or something
>>1466006And kier Starmer tried to act like internet censorship wasn’t happening in the uk. Screw Kier Starmer
>>1466602>Screw Kier StarmerYou dirty bugger.>>1466597>Why can't we raise the voting age to 25?>It's not only those who love an orange Boomer that is nothing but SpiteThey're the reason why
All big black cocks are offended.
all black men are laughing at the sexually obsessed 1466769 for admitting he's gay
>>1466911Like you?
You like gay men, the pointed & laughed at 1466918. I'm straight.
