[Abernathy]

I’m sure Nandy said the other day that it wasn’t in her power to bin off members of the BBC board.

[Boiler]

I’m sure Nandy said the other day that it wasn’t in her power to bin off members of the BBC board.

She did.

[Boiler]

I read that Trumplethinskin is now upping his claim against the BBC to be between one and five milliard dollars.

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

[satnav]

One of his former lawyers claims that Trump fires off hundreds of these legal threats every year and in most cases people just settle to avoid a protracted legal case. Hopefully the BBC will stand firm and see off his ridiculous claim.

[Boiler]

I really hope the BBC just sticks a finger up to him. As he's called the BBC "corrupt" perhaps the BBC could counter-sue in an English court - he'd have to provide real evidence of that under English defamation law and that is nowhere near as lax as the US First Amendment.

[Abernathy]

I think that Auntie’s legal advice - that there is no basis whatsoever for an inflated claim for compensation, that Trump suffered zero reputational damage whatsoever (how could he ?), and that a public apology for some poor editing should suffice, is pretty sound. But then I’m no lawyer, and the Floridian judiciary may be sympathetic to, if not actually biased in favour of, the president.

But frankly, I can't see that the BBC realistically has any alternative but to tell the Mango-hued Mussolini where to stuff his 5 billion dollar damages claim. Can you imagine the outcry were they to agree to pay him 5 billion dollars ? It could be the end of the BBC, or at the very least accelerate the end of the TV licence funding model.

[Bones McCoy]

I think that Auntie’s legal advice - that there is no basis whatsoever for an inflated claim for compensation, that Trump suffered zero reputational damage whatsoever (how could he ?), and that a public apology for some poor editing should suffice, is pretty sound. But then I’m no lawyer, and the Floridian judiciary may be sympathetic to, if not actually biased in favour of, the president.

But frankly, I can't see that the BBC realistically has any alternative but to tell the Mango-hued Mussolini where to stuff his 5 billion dollar damages claim. Can you imagine the outcry were they to agree to pay him 5 billion dollars ? It could be the end of the BBC, or at the very least accelerate the end of the TV licence funding model.

There'd be rejoicing down Tufton Street, at GB News, The Telegraph, Mail, Express and from 100,000 social media bots.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Some Americans seem to think the BBC has "bent the knee". Lawyers seem to be saying that the apology is exactly what they should have done in terms of containing the damage. I'll go with the lawyers.

[Oboogie]

I think that Auntie’s legal advice - that there is no basis whatsoever for an inflated claim for compensation, that Trump suffered zero reputational damage whatsoever (how could he ?), and that a public apology for some poor editing should suffice, is pretty sound. But then I’m no lawyer, and the Floridian judiciary may be sympathetic to, if not actually biased in favour of, the president.

But frankly, I can't see that the BBC realistically has any alternative but to tell the Mango-hued Mussolini where to stuff his 5 billion dollar damages claim. Can you imagine the outcry were they to agree to pay him 5 billion dollars ? It could be the end of the BBC, or at the very least accelerate the end of the TV licence funding model.

There'd be rejoicing down Tufton Street, at GB News, The Telegraph, Mail, Express and from 100,000 social media bots.

According to Google AI, the BBC's total income in 2023/24 was about £5.39 billion, $1bn would be terminal, let alone $5bn

[Malcolm Armsteen]

It could be the end of the BBC, or at the very least accelerate the end of the TV licence funding model.

Is that, in fact, the plan?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Probably, though Robbie Gibb apparently prefers the current situation (with dire news and politics) to continue. Which is the rational view, in its own way. BBC disappearing would lead to fragmentation, some to GB News, but lots to other places, which may be less inhibited by Robbie and co. ITN would be an obvious destination, and some have said it's less bad than the BBC these days.

[Andy McDandy]

And if they did kill it off, they'd be almost immediately whingeing about no SCD, no shipping forecast, no CBeebies, bloody adverts everywhere, etc etc.

[Boiler]

And if they did kill it off, they'd be almost immediately whingeing about no SCD, no shipping forecast, no CBeebies, bloody adverts everywhere, etc etc.

SCD: I do wonder how much of a future it has;

Shipping forecast: a tradition but there are other, more modern methods of conveying that information now;

CBeebies: only today has the creator of the Teletubbies warned about the rapid growth of "empty content" on YouTube for children;

Adverts: "who cares, as long as I'm not paying for woke crap I don't watch anyway".

Licence fee; a "poll tax" according to Nittily Binnit, who was the Green member of the panel on Any Questions last night.

[Boiler]

There'd be rejoicing down Tufton Street, at GB News, The Telegraph, Mail, Express and from 100,000 social media bots.

I see there's considerable whining about the deal to sell the Telegraph falling through.

The Telegraph does not have a divine right to exist: if it closes down and its staff are made redundant, well, that's capitalism for you.