sadoldgit

He claims that the BBC has a history of reporting him in a negative manner. The filing says the BBC had no regard for the truth about President Trump and characterises the BBC as making an effort to craft as one sided an impression and narrative against him as possible. A lot to unpack here but let’s start with what happened to free speech Donald? Then, Trump’s relationship with “the truth” is tenuous at best so good luck with that. The only person responsible for crafting a negative impression of Trump is Trump himself. From memory the Panorama programme also featured interviews with some MAGA members who spoke favourably about Trump. Why do that if they weren’t trying to be even handed. I have seen countless news reports about Trump on the BBC and they have only reported what has happened. Usually what comes out of his mouth is enough to condemn him, he doesn’t need any help in making himself look stupid. The original speech in this case was around 50 minutes long and was always going to be edited down. He will have to prove that the edit was done with malicious intent. Unless they can produce hard evidence that was the intent, the case might not even make it to court.

It’s a point of view. I have already said that change is needed so I don’t see how that is ‘binary?’

I don’t disagree but he is saying that they put words in his mouth. They didn’t. He spoke every word. There was no AI involved as he claimed. He also made his intent very clear in his comments during that period. They didn’t need to change anything.

Another council infected with racist Reform councillors. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/dec/03/reform-council-leader-ian-cooper-accused-racism-alleged-remarks-sadiq-khan

The licence fee is worth it for David Attenborough alone. When compared to so much of the dross out there it is still good value. The BBC is more of a part of the fabric of the UK than flags on lampposts. It is firmly embedded in the growth of modern day Britain. It’s a shame that the so called patriots don’t value it. Too busy getting their gammon fix on GB News I suppose.

Fortunately the whole speech was recorded properly and was witnessed at the time.He clearly said the words. No AI involved.

Funny that the people slagging off the BBC have grown up watching its programmes. I guess they now spend their time in front of GB News. Just look at the number of BBC programmes appear on the list of favourite series. I think that most people would like to see some modification to the license fee but the BBC is the national broadcasting company and belongs to all of us. If you don’t use it that is your choice. I don’t use most of the things I pay for through my council tax but am happy to pay for swimming pools etc because I have used them in the past and want people to continue to use them.

It’s of their own doing that there are many more choices of channels nowadays and they have a great deal more competition?

And find evidence that people changed their voting intention based on what they saw. Given that he won the election he is on very thin ice there too. It would be great if they invoked the 25th Amendment but then we would end up with Vance as POTUS. Not sure if that would be a huge improvement.

No you are not and people are not being prevented from voting. All that is changing is the date. Thicko. So, moving on. Your thoughts on Trump’s disgusting words after the death of Rob Reiner. Ok with that? I am sure you and your like kicked off about “looney lefties” supposedly disrespecting Charlie Kirk after his death. I don’t think I read anything that even comes close to the level of disrespect displayed by Trump. Can you bring yourself to call it out for what it is?

Oh, and the jury trials are being limited (not done way with) because the CJS is in its knees after 14 years of austerity and measures need to be taken to fix it. If you are so precious about juries are you going to start a campaign to have all magistrates courts moved over to jury trials?

Go and read up on why the elections have been postponed (not cancelled - there is a big difference as well you know). You are not correct. As usual.

Only 1% of the boat people per annum were likely to be deported to Rwanda. Not much of a deterrent. Mist of these people are unlikely to know about the plan before leaving France. Not much of a deterrent. The cost of deporting them to Rwanda is £63,000 more than keeping them here. Not cost effective. The plan was announced just before elections and was clearly just an effort to win votes. Instead of wasting money on expensive gimmicks we need to get our money’s worth out of the French. We need to stop them leaving the beaches in the first place and make more legal routes available.

So it was supported by some and not by others. Hardly a ringing endorsement is it? It was playing to the supporters of Farage and was just a stunt. Seems like you swallowed it too. Read this… https://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/Is-the-Rwanda-plan-acting-as-a-deterrent-Here's-what-the-evidence-says-about-this-approach#:~:text=Researchers have found that people,upcoming local and national elections.

Everybody is entitled to legal representation. Extremists are no different. I should have mentioned that the Rwanda plan was also morally wrong. Not that you seem to worry about little things like that.