The BBC are screwed, aren't they?

[kinkytoes]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c891jp9j79do

Are we ever going to find out who actually made the monumental fuck up? Rather than just a homogenous apology from the top.

Is this person/people still working for them?

I actually understand why Trump is doing this. You can't just let something so wrong pass by or they'll just keep doing it.

Nobody ‘leaked’ anything, it was openly broadcast.

Do you mean Prescott highlighted it to the board in his report? It was already out there by that point anyway.

It wasn’t two speeches it was two lines from the same speech about an hour apart.

What do you mean the BBC ‘plans to launch’ in the US? International news broadcasts, and the news website are already available there, the news App has recently been made available as a subscription service.

It wasn’t ‘leaked’ it was on TV

Actually, this is what you said: " I’d watch the rapist allegations re Trump if I were you as he has won considerable damages against people who have called him that in the past."

And as I posted above, he has not "won" damages, and the trial Judge said he can't argue that he is not a rapist.

So everyone is free to call him a rapist, because he is not allowed to argue he is not. In the Carrol case anyway

I think this is why forums can be interesting, and these chats pretty good.

I got thinking, I can't remember any vids of Trump, triumphant on the court house steps, vindicated.

And when I looked it up, that's because he has never really won. any of his 4000 odd legal; battles, and if they do get to court, they get settled.

The current edition of Private Eye has an interesting article on the current travails of the BBC.
They conclude that the BBC was at fault in this case. The also agree that there are other problems in connection with their reporting on transsexuals and Arabic service.
However they do conclude that it was Conservative appointees who were in charge and that there has been an orchestrated pile-on by the right wing media.
And that these pile-ons are part of a pattern of collusion

What 'serious news outlet' do you use then, what in your mind lives up to the standards you have for news that is responsible, fair and objective?

@RedTagAlan I’m sure you’re aware that damages and settlements are used colloquially as meaning the same thing, including by the press. In any case his appeal is under way.

Trump has also sued the Pulitzer Board for similar allegations so I’m happy to stand by my recommendation that referring to him as a rapist is not a good idea.

His appeals on the Carrol judgement was rejected. Both of them.

He has now gone to SCOTUS. I posted a link about that above.

Damages and settlements are not the same.

Can we stop talking about Trump and talk about what reasons the BBC would have for not covering the Patrick Lee protected belief ruling?

No, they’re not. Everyone knows what a fantasist and liar Trump is. His tantrums don’t distract from that. 🙄

@RedTagAlan yes, he has now petitioned the Supreme Court.

Actually while Kaplan barred Trump’s defence from arguing to the jury that he did not rape Caroll (which limited his ability to re litigate the underlying facts of the case) this certainly doesn’t prevent him from making public statements denying the rape allegations. Hence he does so on a fairly regular basis.

I’m fully aware that damages and settlements are different things but it doesn’t change the fact that anyone who calls Trump a rapist is potentially opening themselves up to legal action. So probably not a good idea.

Who is Patrick Lee?

Quite!

Trump has been accused of rape, sexual assault or other sexual misconduct by around 30 women. He has never commenced defamation proceedings against any of them.

He did sue ABC News for making repeated statements that he was found liable for rape (what he was found liable for would be considered rape under the current law in New York but not the law as it was at the time), which ABC settled (to fairly widespread surprise).

But it is an important distinction - he has never sued anyone for calling him a rapist, only for mischaracterising a court ruling. If Trump was to attempt to sue someone for calling him a rapist, then he opens himself up to discovery - in the ABC case, the question wasn't whether-or-not he is a rapist, but what the court judgment in the Caroll case said.

FWIW, I think he's a rapist and a nonce.

@NiftyBird happy to be corrected but (aside from E Jean Carroll) I’m only aware of one accusation of rape against Trump. The case was dismissed and affidavits was withdrawn. Ivana recanted on her accusations.

Can we talk about the recent judgement that under the Equality Act it is a protected right to criticise Islam?

It will make the blasphemy law the many Moslems want impossible.

This is pretty monumental and no matter how I search it I can't find a word from the BBC about it. Guardian, Sky, Mail, others, BBC nowt. Why?

I don’t think they did anything worse than what Trump and the GOP do regularly ie lies, made up stories etc. What you reap you sow.

I want the BBC to be objective and unbiased. If they cannot be, they are not worth the licence fee to me. I am not interested in keeping them around for sentimental reasons.

However they do conclude that it was Conservative appointees who were in charge and that there has been an orchestrated pile-on by the right wing media.
And that these pile-ons are part of a pattern of collusion

What are they suggesting? That the conservative appointees employed a bunch of activists and allowed them to run riot so that they'd have to resign and cause the BBC terrible PR?

yes there is a cultural / class issue in bbc and it needs reforming but it’s still most trustworthy than most others.

All that tells me is how terribly untrustworthy all our media is.

The Katie Johnson (pseudonym) case was initially dismissed on technical grounds but was then re-filed. It was supported by two witnesses statements, the most significant of which being from an eyewitness who claimed to have worked for Epstien and recruited underage girls for his parties. She claimed to have witness Trump rape Johnson on multiple occasions.

Johnson voluntarily withdrew the case. According to her lawyers, the withdrawal was due to Johnson receiving multiple death threats - presumably from those immediately in Trump or Epstien's orbit (since her identity was not public).

Given the independent witness testimony, I am particularly inclined to believe it. It is hard to imagine someone would open themselves up to the possibility of a huge defamation lawsuit by swearing that they had witnessed a rich and powerful man repeatedly rape a child. It is noteworthy that Trump (litigious as he is) never so much as threatened a defamation suit.

Ivana, as you note, also accused him of rape - in divorce proceedings - before later recanting (after she and Trump had entered into a settlement).

Jill Harth also accused Trump of attempted rape, and filed a suit back in 1997, which she says she was pressured into dropping. She has repeatedly stood by her accusations, though, and yet no defamation suit from Trump.

So 5 women (4 victims, 1 witness) have accused Trump of rape, or attempted rape, in court, under risk or perjury. 1 recanted after a hefty settlement which, one would likely assume, restrained her from repeating the allegation.

Gosh, what an unlucky, innocent man! Its a shame he simply doesnt have the time to sue any of these nasty slanderers.

We all agree Trump is horrible. How is it relevant to the BBC’s shenanigans? They lied, but he deserved it? What about trans activists and BBC Arabic?

Re. Trump, I think you'd be hard pushed to say it was a "lie". It was a fleeting moment in a 1 hour documentary, where they tried to condense a rambling and incoherent Trump speech (a speech that, on its own, lasted more than an hour), into a few seconds. I do think it wrongfully gives the impression that it was a singular quote of a 20-second segment of the speech, and visual cues should have made clear that it was not continual - but I don't think that it materially misrepresented the thrust of his speech, nor his actions (or inactions) that day.

As for accusations of bias around other issues - that's the subjective view of one man (one man who served as editor of a right leaning, Murdoch-owned outlet, so we can reasonably infer his own biases) and is unsubstantiated.

Correct - I have not said anyone was forced or tricked into doing anything - thats your words not mine. The programme didnt misrepresent what Trump said - he said those words. The error they made was spicing 2 speeches which were in fact 1 hour apart, If Trump saying those words makes him 'a bogeyman' then it is what it is. If the cap fits etc. The BBC didnt make him say those words. You seem a little confused about what the BBC actually did and what Trump actually did and said. I hate to break it to you.... Trump was indicted on felony charges for inciting an insurrection - that was nothing to do with the BBC. The BBC program was only shown in the UK so has had zero impact on the USA.
Look at how much utter BS and lies Trump has said about all manner of people and places including about the UK - recently claiming Sharia law was now implemented in London - he talks utter crapola yet wants to sue the BBC for a slicing error on a programme in the UK - its utterly ridiculous and purely a distraction and an agenda for something else

The Patrick Lee ruling likely hasnt drawn much coverage because its a prelimary ruling at the lowest level of tribunal (the Employment Tribunal), and so isn't precedent-setting (but rather follows the precedent set by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Forstater - which was a marked divergence from previous decisions).

Essentially, the media tends to get interested when "new law" is made, and that cannot happen until/unless a case makes it into a higher, appellate level of court/tribunal.

They are not just the opinion of one man, he is referencing another report in his email which has been ignored

The reason it has not been substantiated is because in spite of the fact that the BBC specifically bought the other guy in to do the report they then ignored all his findings. So they haven't bothered to substantiate it. If they bothered to actually investigate what he's saying I'm pretty sure it would be substantiated.

And they are also the opinion not just of one man but of millions of licence fee payers who have stopped trusting the BBC because they can see the constant diet of drag queens and Hamas propaganda and are switching off.

The nothing to see her narrative will destroy the BBC. In a digital age of fragmented and segmented media, literally the only reason to have a licence fee is the guarantee of a non-biased news source which reflects all opinions in the nation. If we don't have that then there's no justification for the licence fee. The BBC really needs to get its act together.

Oh and I can guarantee that if GB news had done half of what the BBC has done the same people who are claiming there's nothing to see here, would be calling for the channel to be shut down.

The tribal hypocrisy is really interesting to see.