Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Donald Trump BBC

260 replies

Daygloboo · 15/11/2025 14:45

If Donald Trump gets compensation from the BBC to the tune of a million, which might affect our license fee payments, would it be appropriate to stop buying goods from US for a while. I think the BBC were wrong to misrepresent what Trump said, but effectively suing the population as a retaliation seems a step too far.

OP posts:
Hiptothisjive · 15/11/2025 18:39

Daygloboo · 15/11/2025 14:57

I agree completely. It was a stupid thing to do. But I think threatening to sue ...effectively the British people.... is an ugly form of bullying and we shouldnt stand for it. He only understands economic retaliation so maybe people shouldnt buy American stuff for a bit.

Maybe we shouldn’t buy American for everything else he has done in the world including crippling tariffs? How about supporting those countries being affected by his crazy actions already, or is it just when it affects the BBC?

He doesn’t understand that the BBC is owned by the public and truthfully he has every right to being a libel case no matter how horrid or awful he is.

The pay out won’t be a billion pounds - think about it. It’s just sensationalist.

xanthomelana · 15/11/2025 18:47

Instead of crying about Trump rightly taking action against the BBC shouldn’t you be asking yourself what else they’ve lied about?

GoodStuffAnnie · 15/11/2025 18:49

It’s the only thing that would actually make th change and even then it’s not guaranteed .

Appalonia · 15/11/2025 18:52

I really don't understand why pp still think the BBC are impartial. Is describing male rapists as women impartial? No it bloody well isnt. How do you think those rape victims felt about it? They didn't have the funds to sue. I'm glad he's doing it, simply to send a message that it's immoral for the national, state funded broadcaster to lie.

Kpo58 · 15/11/2025 18:53

I thought that Trump believed in free speech. It's not like he hasn't told any serious lies is it...

Sladuf1 · 15/11/2025 18:56

BobnLen · 15/11/2025 16:11

I pay it reluctantly because I watch and record live tv on Sky Q, I don't watch hardly any BBC so could easily not use the BBC part.

Sounds just like 2 of my friends, who are around my age (the others are like me and don’t watch or record any live tv). Must be millions of licence fee payers in the same position.

LittleAlexHornesPocket · 15/11/2025 18:58

Oh boy it would really Suck if Trump were to do this. Let's hope it all Blows away. This wouldn't happen if Clinton still has the Job.

StillCreatingAName · 15/11/2025 20:04

tobee · 15/11/2025 15:35

Trump: look at this! The BBC!!!!

Trump: Epstein? FAKE NEWS!!!! Nothing to see here.

This

southerngirl10 · 15/11/2025 20:04

xanthomelana · 15/11/2025 18:47

Instead of crying about Trump rightly taking action against the BBC shouldn’t you be asking yourself what else they’ve lied about?

Exactly. Trump is a scapegoat, the same as Andrew. Other presidents/politicians and royals are just as bad, but are protected while we blame everything on those two. BBC and CNN, etc don't verify or fact check they push agendas. Come on guys, wake up!!

LabourOfLoathing · 15/11/2025 20:06

Daygloboo · 15/11/2025 14:45

If Donald Trump gets compensation from the BBC to the tune of a million, which might affect our license fee payments, would it be appropriate to stop buying goods from US for a while. I think the BBC were wrong to misrepresent what Trump said, but effectively suing the population as a retaliation seems a step too far.

They didn’t just “misrepresent what he said” 🙄

cardibach · 15/11/2025 20:08

Genevieva · 15/11/2025 14:59

I think this is all grandstanding. He has a slam dunk case, but in a U.K. court, for libel at least, he’s too late. No idea about the US. It’s $5 billion apparently, which is absurd. I know American courts award higher sums than here, but that just reminds me of the beginning of Austin Powers when Dr Evil says he will hold the world to ransom and demand 100 billion dollars.

He really doesn’t have a case. It would have to prove both a detrimental effect on his reputation and an actual loss.
He had no reputation in the first place, everyone knows he wanted the insurrection, plus the other cases he’s lost.
He got re-elected so no detriment.
It’s nonsense.

cardibach · 15/11/2025 20:09

Genevieva · 15/11/2025 15:13

I’ve just looked online and in Florida (Trump’s home state) the limit for defamation is 2 years, not 1. Like British courts, US courts claim global jurisdiction for the consideration of such cases, so he can sue them and he would probably win. Though one wonders if the purpose is the pre-trial negotiation and an out of court settlement that may not be financial. Who knows. Maybe he doesn’t know himself. Rich men instruct lawyers to litigate as readily as poor men smoke cigarettes.

But the programme wasn’t broadcast in Florida…

PencilsInSpace · 15/11/2025 20:31

nomas · 15/11/2025 14:54

Have the BBC basically abridged what Trump
said? He did say those things, did they just miss out the ellipses?

What Trump said: “We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

What he said after Panorama's edit: “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”

PencilsInSpace · 15/11/2025 20:34

StillCreatingAName · 15/11/2025 17:46

Oh ffs, so you want the president of the US to reign over our media and teach them a lesson? Public service broadcasting to be given a whipping to teach them sort of lesson? This isn’t just about panorama and anyone who thinks that is naive.
Oh look, a squirrel…

No, it's not just about Panorama. It's also about Newsnight, BBC Verify, BBC Arabic, the LGBTQ news desk, the style guide, BBC complaints ...

EasternStandard · 15/11/2025 20:37

PencilsInSpace · 15/11/2025 20:31

What Trump said: “We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

What he said after Panorama's edit: “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”

Peacefully to fight is pretty much the opposite

xanthomelana · 15/11/2025 20:39

Kpo58 · 15/11/2025 18:53

I thought that Trump believed in free speech. It's not like he hasn't told any serious lies is it...

How is doctoring a speech by someone else free speech? I’m ready and waiting for this to be explained to me because I call it lying to the viewers.

gamerchick · 15/11/2025 20:39

I think DT has more pressing things to think about atm.

Wheresrebeccabunch · 15/11/2025 21:01

gamerchick · 15/11/2025 20:39

I think DT has more pressing things to think about atm.

True!
Although he may view this as a good distraction to what’s all over social media about him at the moment..!

PurplePolishing · 15/11/2025 21:07

I hope he sues and wins. It's about time the BBC was held accountable for this kind of thing. How do we know anything they report is accurate now?

cardibach · 15/11/2025 21:10

PurplePolishing · 15/11/2025 21:07

I hope he sues and wins. It's about time the BBC was held accountable for this kind of thing. How do we know anything they report is accurate now?

It wasn’t a news report. It was a documentary mad by another company. Should the6 have caught it in quality control? Of course. But it wasn’t a news report, and most of us recognise that it reflects what Trump meant. We all know what he wanted to happen.

Cornishclio · 15/11/2025 21:16

The BBC did not really need to edit the comments in the first place so they were idiotic. DT says stupid things all the time and is constantly threatening to sue so they should have made sure he did not have the opportunity. I think this is all just a distraction from his unpopularity in the US and abroad and the Epstein files saga.

Personally if the BBC never mentioned his name or showed his face again on our screens I would be happier as he just loves the airtime. The programme was not shown in the US, it was shown before he was elected so defamation is a ridiculous suit to bring as it obviously did not affect his cult following in the US. It is no coincidence that this comes up just as the heat is winding up on the Epstein files and the government shutdown.

They would be crazy to pay out on this as it opens the doors to other crackpot suits but hopefully they will learn from this and just report on facts rather than try and edit to match their own agenda.

cardibach · 15/11/2025 21:17

Cornishclio · 15/11/2025 21:16

The BBC did not really need to edit the comments in the first place so they were idiotic. DT says stupid things all the time and is constantly threatening to sue so they should have made sure he did not have the opportunity. I think this is all just a distraction from his unpopularity in the US and abroad and the Epstein files saga.

Personally if the BBC never mentioned his name or showed his face again on our screens I would be happier as he just loves the airtime. The programme was not shown in the US, it was shown before he was elected so defamation is a ridiculous suit to bring as it obviously did not affect his cult following in the US. It is no coincidence that this comes up just as the heat is winding up on the Epstein files and the government shutdown.

They would be crazy to pay out on this as it opens the doors to other crackpot suits but hopefully they will learn from this and just report on facts rather than try and edit to match their own agenda.

Agreed apart from - they didn't edit, it was another company and I’m not sure what yo7u mean by ‘their agenda’

Cornishclio · 15/11/2025 21:23

cardibach · 15/11/2025 21:17

Agreed apart from - they didn't edit, it was another company and I’m not sure what yo7u mean by ‘their agenda’

Well presumably even if another company did the editing the BBC panorama team have people fact checking or they should. There was evidence aplenty for the actual full speech he made. Their agenda was to sensationalise it and a president actually inciting violence on Capitol Hill will do that. That may have been his actual intention but his words do not bear that out.

cardibach · 15/11/2025 21:28

Cornishclio · 15/11/2025 21:23

Well presumably even if another company did the editing the BBC panorama team have people fact checking or they should. There was evidence aplenty for the actual full speech he made. Their agenda was to sensationalise it and a president actually inciting violence on Capitol Hill will do that. That may have been his actual intention but his words do not bear that out.

I’ve said there was a failure of oversight. Suggesting it affected Trump’s meaning or how people thought about him is nonsense though.

CoraLea · 15/11/2025 21:37

YABU. I hope he takes them down.

Swipe left for the next trending thread