[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.

[Abernathy]

https://www.thenerve.news/p/stewart-le ... cfd7d27ddb

Please support the Nerve by becoming a paying member
Friends confident of my victory are already asking me how I would fund the BBC, and it is true that the licence fee presents ethical problems. I would suggest that it is scrapped and replaced by levies paid to the BBC by Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Paramount, Disney and Sky, which frequently appropriate talents nurtured by the BBC – such as Charlie Brooker, James Corden and Fleabag – and pay them fees it would be inappropriate for the BBC to offer. Streamers and commercial services don’t like to broadcast the kind of necessary news that no one necessarily wants to watch, and algorithmically generated programming decisions will never give rise to genuinely mould-breaking programming such as the BBC sometimes stumbles into, just near facsimiles of the already-proven. For once, let the parasites feed the host.

[Boiler]

https://www.thenerve.news/p/stewart-le ... cfd7d27ddb

Please support the Nerve by becoming a paying member
Friends confident of my victory are already asking me how I would fund the BBC, and it is true that the licence fee presents ethical problems. I would suggest that it is scrapped and replaced by levies paid to the BBC by Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Paramount, Disney and Sky, which frequently appropriate talents nurtured by the BBC – such as Charlie Brooker, James Corden and Fleabag – and pay them fees it would be inappropriate for the BBC to offer. Streamers and commercial services don’t like to broadcast the kind of necessary news that no one necessarily wants to watch, and algorithmically generated programming decisions will never give rise to genuinely mould-breaking programming such as the BBC sometimes stumbles into, just near facsimiles of the already-proven. For once, let the parasites feed the host.

I think the Guardian review of Channel 5's reboot of Play For Today says a lot.

[Abernathy]

Thoughtful stuff from Tom Watson .

The Value of Public Service Broadcasting

We are uniquely privileged in the UK to have a system of Public Service Broadcasters (PSBs) that operate under legal obligations to serve the public good. Their duties include impartial news, regional representation, original British drama and programmes that hold power to account. The BBC is the best known because it is funded by the licence fee, but ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, STV and S4C carry similar responsibilities through their licences.
This framework shaped generations of British culture. It created regional newsrooms, serious investigative work, dramas grounded in everyday life and shared national moments like royal weddings, elections and sporting finals.

PSBs rarely unite, yet this year they did. They set out five shared asks for the next decade: stable funding and regulation, a remit that reflects modern viewing habits, protections for prominence on digital platforms, fair access to audience data held by global streamers and a renewed focus on younger audiences. These were agreed before the BBC’s trouble with Donald Trump and before reports that Sky had opened talks to buy ITV’s media and entertainment arm. The pressures on the system were already clear.

One of the greatest vulnerabilities is children’s content. For decades PSBs helped children understand the world and see their own communities reflected back at them. Parents who find their children doom scrolling might think back to Bagpuss, Button Moon and the Night Garden. These imaginative worlds existed because the law required broadcasters to serve younger audiences. Global streamers have no such duty. They withdraw programmes overnight if they are not making money. We have already weakened the public service framework in this area and families feel the loss.

What Needs to Happen Next
This is all happening while global streamers command budgets larger than many national cultural institutions. They carry few public service duties. They cut investment in British content when global priorities shift. PSBs kept regional communities visible for half a century. Now they must keep our national culture visible in a global market. In an age of state backed disinformation they should give citizens content they can trust.
The five shared requests from PSBs offer a practical path. They ask for a level playing field, for regulation suited to modern viewing, for independence strong enough to withstand political pressure and for the ability to invest in talent so future generations enjoy the same cultural inheritance their parents enjoyed.
The BBC needs governance that restores confidence. ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 need a framework that lets them compete and still deliver public value. Ofcom needs the authority to safeguard the public interest. If Parliament and Ministers act with purpose we can preserve the best of our PSBs for a new era of telly.