If Europe can provide the support to Ukraine so that they can increase that cadence of attack, and apply it to every oil refinery in range, then it will have a major impact.
There’s a lot of fire around at the moment, the Flamingos appear to be doing a good job.
The sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil are also proving very effective, with a number of European facilities being shut down or nationalised.
Lukoil has declared force majeure at the giant West Qurna-2 oil field in Iraq after U.S. and EU sanctions prompted Baghdad to halt all payments.
Half a trillion rubles (c.$40bn) are being injected into Russian banks by the State, to stave off a collapse in the face of high interest rates and bad debts. Looks like the hyperinflation could be on the way!
Which shows this is the wrong time to force borderline unemployable people into employment, and the right time to help those who do want to work get jobs, or upskill and get jobs.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
Does anyone remember the way that most returning officers in 2010 tried to do counting on the next day, and it was only because of a determined campaign by Iain Dale that 95% of them were persuaded to change their mind and continue with election night?
I don't, but well done to him. But it's an idea which will keep coming back, not enough people care enough to retain what is, essentially, just a tradition.
I'm not so sure on this one. Donning my hard-nosed value hat, what is the extra cost of overnight counts compared to next day?
The point about "overnight ballot-stuffing" is imo frivolous.
But at a time of cost-squeeze, I'm not sure overnight counts are always worth their place.
My County Council are this year spending the cost of a new children's playground on flag wagging, that is £75k pissed away on virtue signalling. I'd rather have the children's playground.
Overnight counts are very hard on politicians and campaigners, and expensive for councils, with a whole shedload of staff on premium rate payments overnight and then the council effectively shuts down until the week after. It's a high price for a spectacle/tradition. As you say, the risk of fraud is trivial - the safeguards and number of council staff involved in managing a council election in the UK are such that organising an effective fraud between polls closing and the count would be exceptionally difficult, and almost certainly likely to be found out, sooner or later, and the penalties would be severe. Doing so over multiple seats would take a criminal genius to organise, and trying to tilt a single seat isn't worth the candle.
Fraud might be difficult but accusations of fraud will be made easier (ask America about 2020).
As for criminal geniuses, remember the risk of hostile nation state actors putting their best boffins on the case. Sure they might get caught but what's the downside? Either they've undermined British democracy or they've undermined trust in British democracy.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
None of that matters. The BBC will die because - historically - anytime a new form of Not-BBC home entertainment has become available a chunk of their eyeball time has walked away and we now live in an age of infinite Not-BBC home entertainment.
I love these US podcasts. If Trump has a case against the BBC these guys would be millionaires. Tucker Carlson seems to be everyone's football at the moment just after he's become civilised...... This one is par for the course. i think we can happily dismiss Trump even if he tries it on in the US. Analysis US style.....
PB obsesses over the licence fee but it’s £15 a month. Two coffees and two cakes in Costa costs about the same. It’s small, small fry in the grand scheme of things when it comes to taxes.
Meanwhile I pay £350 a month in student loan repayments. PB would have a collective aneurysm if income tax was increased to give a £350 a month additional tax burden.
The Russians are peddling a story about foiling an Anglo-Ukrainian plot to hijack a MiG-31 armed with a Kinzhal hypersonic missile and flying it at a Romanian airbase to provoke NATO.
These sorts of information operations are often mounted by Russia in advance of them taking the action they accuse Ukraine of attempting/planning.
Gareths point is a good one. I also think it rare to vote tactically to keep an unpopular government in power.
My seat is likely to be between Reform and a fairly sane Tory, but no way am I voting for a party that would likely prop up a Farage minority government.
First, thank you GOTV for an excellent analysis, equally interesting politically and betting wise. Despite the fact that GOTV is likely to be right and me wrong, I make this point.
The first thing to note is that within living memory we have never experienced an election remotely like the next one is currently set to be. Not even close. None of us know what the 18 months coming up to an election which could more or less demolish the Tories, and/or neuter Labour, in which some seats may be Reform v Green and so on. Equally we could see a further unknown: what happens if Reform implode and neither Tories (dead in the water) nor Labour (unpopular incumbent) are the parties to turnm to.
So there is maximal novelty combined with maximal uncertainty, with immovable object of Labour being the prime contender for tactical votes against Reform in 411 seats, and the irresistible force of Labour being much more unpopular than in 2024 in 411 seats.
My intuition (ie guess) is that on balance the desire of 60-65% of the voters to defeat Reform will mean loads of pro Labour tactical voting, through gritted teeth despite the unpopularity. SFAICS only two parties can lead the next government: Reform or Labour. Once this becomes clear to those who won't follow stuff until 2029, the rest unfolds because there isn't another course open.
But my understanding is that in the US to win a defamation case you mistakenly not only prove that the statement is untrue and libellous but that you were acting with malice. That is quite a high bar.
Also the US has stated that US courts will not automatically recognise libel judgments of the UK courts because they do not meet the high standards of US press freedom and First Amendment rights.
So Trump might not win the US courts and if he won in the UK courts might not be able to enforce. (Not that I'd expect him to sue in the UK.)
There's no case in the US. These were the actual words of the President. Now, were they cut to make him look more guilty? Yes.
But if that constitutes libel, then the vast majority of US political attack adverts, which similarly take remarks out of context, are then equally guilty.
Libel has a far superior construction in the US compared to the UK where the bar is far too low though
A UK libel trial could be highly amusing. Trump would have to appear in person and be cross-examined surely?
Then to recieve the princely sum of £1 in damages to his reputation, being a known liar and sexual predator.
Is there enough popcorn in the world?
My understanding is the jurisdiction of choice is Florida.
Presumably Panorama has a hefty audience figure in the Sunshine State.
As with everything Trump it is all theatre.
The pernicious element to the whole story is the role of ex GBNews top dog Robbie Gibb in escalating the issue, and what exactly are his motives. Robbie Gibb is another example of Long Johnson.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
None of that matters. The BBC will die because - historically - anytime a new form of Not-BBC home entertainment has become available a chunk of their eyeball time has walked away and we now live in an age of infinite Not-BBC home entertainment.
The BBC is the preserve of old farts who grew up with it, and they're even beginning to lose them.
Kids don't give a damn about the BBC. Its just one of a plethora of entertainment sources . . . and not a very good one at that.
Gareths point is a good one. I also think it rare to vote tactically to keep an unpopular government in power.
My seat is likely to be between Reform and a fairly sane Tory, but no way am I voting for a party that would likely prop up a Farage minority government.
First, thank you GOTV for an excellent analysis, equally interesting politically and betting wise. Despite the fact that GOTV is likely to be right and me wrong, I make this point.
The first thing to note is that within living memory we have never experienced an election remotely like the next one is currently set to be. Not even close. None of us know what the 18 months coming up to an election which could more or less demolish the Tories, and/or neuter Labour, in which some seats may be Reform v Green and so on. Equally we could see a further unknown: what happens if Reform implode and neither Tories (dead in the water) nor Labour (unpopular incumbent) are the parties to turnm to.
So there is maximal novelty combined with maximal uncertainty, with immovable object of Labour being the prime contender for tactical votes against Reform in 411 seats, and the irresistible force of Labour being much more unpopular than in 2024 in 411 seats.
My intuition (ie guess) is that on balance the desire of 60-65% of the voters to defeat Reform will mean loads of pro Labour tactical voting, through gritted teeth despite the unpopularity. SFAICS only two parties can lead the next government: Reform or Labour. Once this becomes clear to those who won't follow stuff until 2029, the rest unfolds because there isn't another course open.
More than usual, no-one knows anything.
PB (channelling The Moon's a Balloon):
You guys say I know fuck nothing, I know FUCK ALL!
I love these US podcasts. If Trump has a case against the BBC these guys would be millionaires. Tucker Carlson seems to be everyone's football at the moment just after he's become civilised...... This one is par for the course. i think we can happily dismiss Trump even if he tries it on in the US. Analysis US style.....
I agree with the conclusion, except I think Farage will spectacularly implode at some pint because he usually does.
At the moment Reform look more SDP February 1982 than Labour 1922 to me.
I absolutely agree with this. His track record says this will inevitably happen.
So we are stuck with the same old failed three main parties.
Pint, was that a slip based on man of the people Nige being a lover of the drink of the working man
My guess is he subliminally fumbles the ball.
I think he wants to know he can become Prime Minister, rather than actually become Prime Minister.
I could see the idea of traveling to the Palace, having his photo up on the wall at Number Ten, a guaranteed spot at the next Accession Council, in general forcing his way into the heart of the British Establishment, as being strong draws for Farage.
He's been on the outside, and scorned by those on the inside, of British politics for so long. Forcing his way in and forcing people to acknowledge him as their equal? I think he wants that.
Sot on. He's a wannabe and probably goes back to this time in Dulwich. He doesn't like the "Establishment" or the "Blob" as they were the ones that gave him a wedgie. He still getting metaphorical wedgies (Cenotaph) but he really, really wants to be one of the Establishment .
Farage will never be establishment as he never went to Oxbridge or even any university. He did go to Dulwich but while a major public school it is still not Eton or Winchester or Westminster or even Harrow. While wealthy he is also not a billionaire or worth over £100 million so he isn’t rich enough to be able to force himself into the establishment either
Farage is typical of the kind of people who want to bring down the establishment: close enough to it to resent his exclusion all the more. Very like Trump in that respect. A chip on his shoulder you could see from space. My dad went to Dulwich (on a scholarship, long before Farage) and absolutely loathed the place with a passion. My daughter knew a few "DC boys" too from the SE London teenage party scene and says they are a pretty toxic bunch even now. I do sometimes wonder why we tolerate these madrassas of hate peddling values that seem so at odds with mainstream British culture.
See also Gove, Cummings, even Johnson to a degree. It's Orwell's theory of the Middle co-opting the Low to depose the High, then dumping them.
See also the contempt when someone from an even less charmed circle (May, Major) breaks through.
Yes the contempt heaped on Major by the press was really a sight to behold. Even as a Labour supporter and a child at the time it was really noticeable. Back then it wasn't so obvious to me what exactly was going on but now I've been around the corridors of power and influence and seen how networks are created around certain common pathways to the top it is all rather obvious how Major offended their sense of entitlement.
Pretty off topic, for once a winner of the Booker sounds quite interesting, probably the level of experimental writing I can manage. Might drop a few Christmas gift hints, may even read it!
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
None of that matters. The BBC will die because - historically - anytime a new form of Not-BBC home entertainment has become available a chunk of their eyeball time has walked away and we now live in an age of infinite Not-BBC home entertainment.
The BBC is the preserve of old farts who grew up with it, and they're even beginning to lose them.
Kids don't give a damn about the BBC. Its just one of a plethora of entertainment sources . . . and not a very good one at that.
One of the few advantages the BBC had was their children’s programming without advertising, but Netflix Kids has totally crushed that business model.
Pretty off topic, for once a winner of the Booker sounds quite interesting, probably the level of experimental writing I can manage. Might drop a few Christmas gift hints, may even read it!
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
You are more sensible than this. For example, any likely settlement will be peanuts, not something that hobbles the BBC’s programming. Trump has threatened a law suit, but hasn’t actually started one: who knows if he ever will. Trump partially controls the Supreme Court, but not most of the lower courts, who have happily tossed Trump’s defamation cases before.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
None of that matters. The BBC will die because - historically - anytime a new form of Not-BBC home entertainment has become available a chunk of their eyeball time has walked away and we now live in an age of infinite Not-BBC home entertainment.
The BBC is the preserve of old farts who grew up with it, and they're even beginning to lose them.
Kids don't give a damn about the BBC. Its just one of a plethora of entertainment sources . . . and not a very good one at that.
That must be why so many in the Conservative Party have a hang-up with it; it's position is all too familiar and close to home?
4 minutes of Steve Rosenberg's review of the Russian press, which includes some helpful advice for President Trump on winning next year's midterms.
I highly recommend the US government doubles the healthcare costs of 22 to 24 million Americans, while simultaneously denying there is any inflation.
That's the way to win the midterms.
The Republicans' core agenda of funneling money to the donor class while still winning power in a democracy has always been a challenging one. To be fair, given how difficult it should be, they are remarkably good at it.
I love these US podcasts. If Trump has a case against the BBC these guys would be millionaires. Tucker Carlson seems to be everyone's football at the moment just after he's become civilised...... This one is par for the course. i think we can happily dismiss Trump even if he tries it on in the US. Analysis US style.....
Gareths point is a good one. I also think it rare to vote tactically to keep an unpopular government in power.
My seat is likely to be between Reform and a fairly sane Tory, but no way am I voting for a party that would likely prop up a Farage minority government.
My seat is similar, and I was planning to vote for the fairly sane Tory if that's what it takes to keep Reform out. But that depends on Tory policy. The more they move to the right, the harder it becomes to hold one's nose and vote for them. Environmental policy is important to me, and if the Conservatives are going to bin net zero, that crosses a line.
The Tories have these options by July 2029 WRT Reform, each of which is voter significant:
They can renounce any possibility of supporting in any way a Reform government. This loses them votes. They can undertake to govern/help govern with Reform. This loses them votes. They can (most likely) say nothing. This loses them votes.
This formula can't change unless and until they look as if they could govern on their own. Which as things stand can't happen unless they make their mind up about which vote losing possibility they opt for.
A sort of prisoner dilemma and not a happy place until something turns up.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
You are more sensible than this. For example, any likely settlement will be peanuts, not something that hobbles the BBC’s programming. Trump has threatened a law suit, but hasn’t actually started one: who knows if he ever will. Trump partially controls the Supreme Court, but not most of the lower courts, who have happily tossed Trump’s defamation cases before.
Folks, we’ve got to dial down the hyperbole!
Trump has extorted 9-figure sums out of multiple news companies already. It isn't hyperbole to imagine he will seek to repeat the exercise here.
I love these US podcasts. If Trump has a case against the BBC these guys would be millionaires. Tucker Carlson seems to be everyone's football at the moment just after he's become civilised...... This one is par for the course. i think we can happily dismiss Trump even if he tries it on in the US. Analysis US style.....
When your car maximises plank wear and has enhanced lift-and-coast potential, maybe listen to the 7 time world champion who wants it to be better, rather than mindlessly defending the engineers who took the car a big step backwards from 2024?
Gareths point is a good one. I also think it rare to vote tactically to keep an unpopular government in power.
My seat is likely to be between Reform and a fairly sane Tory, but no way am I voting for a party that would likely prop up a Farage minority government.
And that’s the error you are making.
You are making an assumption about the Tories (I don’t think they will prop up a minority Reform government because that would be suicidal from their perspective) to justify voting for a party that can’t win and - as a direct result - will help Reform win.
Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Other > Tory > Reform (for you I assume) but if Other is not possible then Tory is better than Reform
But my understanding is that in the US to win a defamation case you mistakenly not only prove that the statement is untrue and libellous but that you were acting with malice. That is quite a high bar.
Also the US has stated that US courts will not automatically recognise libel judgments of the UK courts because they do not meet the high standards of US press freedom and First Amendment rights.
So Trump might not win the US courts and if he won in the UK courts might not be able to enforce. (Not that I'd expect him to sue in the UK.)
There's no case in the US. These were the actual words of the President. Now, were they cut to make him look more guilty? Yes.
But if that constitutes libel, then the vast majority of US political attack adverts, which similarly take remarks out of context, are then equally guilty.
Libel has a far superior construction in the US compared to the UK where the bar is far too low though
A UK libel trial could be highly amusing. Trump would have to appear in person and be cross-examined surely?
Then to recieve the princely sum of £1 in damages to his reputation, being a known liar and sexual predator.
Is there enough popcorn in the world?
My understanding is the jurisdiction of choice is Florida.
Presumably Panorama has a hefty audience figure in the Sunshine State.
As with everything Trump it is all theatre.
The pernicious element to the whole story is the role of ex GBNews top dog Robbie Gibb in escalating the issue, and what exactly are his motives. Robbie Gibb is another example of Long Johnson.
"The first step towards saving our precious BBC: remove Robbie Gibb from the board" Ed Davey
Ah yes, History Repeating
For those who don't remember, during the 1980s and 1990s, the NHS was gradually made more and more legal liable for fuckups. Whistleblowers weren't protected - that would have been excessive! - but the automatic utter destruction of people trying to blow the whistle was ended. Kinda.
An example of the hilarity - in the law 90s, the NHS was to start recording and collating surgical outcomes. The surgeons revolted - all would resign. Then the government announced it wouldn't be retrospective and would, in fact, be brought in at an announced future date. Calm was resumed. A number of rather old surgeons officially moved into management.....
Anyway, through this process of discovering accountability, the theme was often repeated that "Anyone criticising problems in the NHS is attacking the NHS". Certain politicians even backed campaigns against those raising issues.
It took a long time for the truth to sink in - in all organisations, raising the issues is to *protect* the organisation. The problems aren't the whistleblower's or those campaigning to fix problems. The problems are the problems.
I love these US podcasts. If Trump has a case against the BBC these guys would be millionaires. Tucker Carlson seems to be everyone's football at the moment just after he's become civilised...... This one is par for the course. i think we can happily dismiss Trump even if he tries it on in the US. Analysis US style.....
When you say civilised, you mean an anti-Semite supporter of Russia?
He's certainly not anti semitic. Well nothing I've seen. I didn't know he was a supporter of Russia but there again you got the anti semitic thing wrong so maybe you got the Russia support wrong as well?
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
His threat has sufficiently unnerved people as to achieve part of its goal in any case. Ever since he won re-election there has been a strand of bootlicking on the right which has gone beyond pointing out that everyone has to work with him and that many anti-Trumper politicians are in an awkward spot (which is true) but reacted hyper defensively about any past or present things that might upset him, like they are on his personal defence team.
Folk should show a bit more spine, and stop pretending he's anything other than what he is.
That's the challenge. To show who Trump is in such a watertight way that nobody can throw up any chaff.
I'd like to describe how to do that, what with how I spend my professional time making teenagers do things they don't necessarily want to do.
But it ain't easy.
Window, please. Chaff is strictly Usonian, like afterburner.
"Afterburner" is American? What is the proper name?
FPT to avoid (inadvertently) missing the question and being discourteous as a result:
Reheat. As in Concorde (probably the most familiar example to non-nerds, esp. Captain Speaking announcements).
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
None of that matters. The BBC will die because - historically - anytime a new form of Not-BBC home entertainment has become available a chunk of their eyeball time has walked away and we now live in an age of infinite Not-BBC home entertainment.
The BBC is the preserve of old farts who grew up with it, and they're even beginning to lose them.
Kids don't give a damn about the BBC. Its just one of a plethora of entertainment sources . . . and not a very good one at that.
That must be why so many in the Conservative Party have a hang-up with it; it's position is all too familiar and close to home?
The Conservatives are 50+ year olds who think the media consumption of today's 15-30 year olds resembles their own. That why they have an issue with the BBC and that's why the BBC are happy with them being like that - because the next step - when Tory anger turns to Tory apathy - is another step towards the void.
Which shows this is the wrong time to force borderline unemployable people into employment, and the right time to help those who do want to work get jobs, or upskill and get jobs.
Good morning
Reeves NI and minimum wage increases floored business and it seems she is to increase the minimum wage above inflation later this month
The labour party proposals to equalise the NMW from 18 is a recipe for long term youth employment, because employers will not employ young workers if they have to be paid the same rate as mature workers
Add in the workers rights act, then we have the prospect of serious unemployment for a long time
Trump v The Beeb would be like the Al Fayed v Neil Hamilton court case.
It’s a shame both sides cannot lose.
The Beeb nade a mistake. It was entitled to apologise, and has done so.
For all its many faults it remains the outstanding independent news source around the world with an unequalled reputation for accuracy and impartiality. In many parts of the world it is the only means people have to find out what is going on. People risk their lives just to listen to its broadcasts because they know that it the only source which can be relied upon to give news in a reasonably impartial and balanced way.
You want it to lose? You'd prefer something like Fox presumably.
You’re usually a most reasonable poster. That last dig is cheap and most unlike you.
I don’t like the BBC, it offers me little, I don’t like having to fund a license fee for a service I barely use.
My watching is predominantly YouTube, old TV and my strap on hard drives that hold my DVD collection.
Fund world service via the license fee and let the commercial side, the strictly and traitors side, compete for funding.
The BBC has a track record of getting news wrong and lessons will be learned. Yet here we are.
I do watch some CNBC stuff on YouTube. Also some yahoo finance. That’s about it. Never watch Fox News, or GB News.
Don't patronise me. I meant what I wrote, and wrote what I meant.
If you use the BBC little and resent the fee, just stop using it altogether and save your money. What's the problem?
By the way I chose Fox off the cuff. They are by no means the worst outfit I could have mentioned.
If Europe can provide the support to Ukraine so that they can increase that cadence of attack, and apply it to every oil refinery in range, then it will have a major impact.
There’s a lot of fire around at the moment, the Flamingos appear to be doing a good job.
The sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil are also proving very effective, with a number of European facilities being shut down or nationalised.
Lukoil has declared force majeure at the giant West Qurna-2 oil field in Iraq after U.S. and EU sanctions prompted Baghdad to halt all payments.
Half a trillion rubles (c.$40bn) are being injected into Russian banks by the State, to stave off a collapse in the face of high interest rates and bad debts. Looks like the hyperinflation could be on the way!
Yes. I've seen a few people get very excited about the money supply statistics in Russia. Fingers crossed!
When their own central bank is going public with suggestions that the next few years could look like the early 1990s, you have to think there must be something behind the usual wall of propaganda.
That the ‘official’ inflation rate is 8%, but with interest rates around 20%, is a good sign of just how badly some of the statistics are being manipulated.
A number of oblasts have also made significant cuts to military signup bonuses of up to 75%, and there have been a number of Indian and African mercenaries encountered on the front lines in recent weeks. The Russians are pretty much out of their own men to recruit without conscription, and industries are going to 4-day and even 3-day weeks because of shortages of men and equipment. Even a tank factory announced a 4-day week, and surely they need as many of those as they can get!
It’s also worth noting that Ukraine probably has only a year left before they encounter manpower issues of their own, but their attrition rate is a tiny fraction of that of the enemy.
But my understanding is that in the US to win a defamation case you mistakenly not only prove that the statement is untrue and libellous but that you were acting with malice. That is quite a high bar.
Also the US has stated that US courts will not automatically recognise libel judgments of the UK courts because they do not meet the high standards of US press freedom and First Amendment rights.
So Trump might not win the US courts and if he won in the UK courts might not be able to enforce. (Not that I'd expect him to sue in the UK.)
There's no case in the US. These were the actual words of the President. Now, were they cut to make him look more guilty? Yes.
But if that constitutes libel, then the vast majority of US political attack adverts, which similarly take remarks out of context, are then equally guilty.
Libel has a far superior construction in the US compared to the UK where the bar is far too low though
A UK libel trial could be highly amusing. Trump would have to appear in person and be cross-examined surely?
Then to recieve the princely sum of £1 in damages to his reputation, being a known liar and sexual predator.
Is there enough popcorn in the world?
Trump is vain enough to think his personal magnetism would overcome the UK court system. In fact has he won any recent cases that went to court? Aren’t all the ‘wins’ from companies that cravenly paid up in the face of threats?
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
You are more sensible than this. For example, any likely settlement will be peanuts, not something that hobbles the BBC’s programming. Trump has threatened a law suit, but hasn’t actually started one: who knows if he ever will. Trump partially controls the Supreme Court, but not most of the lower courts, who have happily tossed Trump’s defamation cases before.
Folks, we’ve got to dial down the hyperbole!
Trump has extorted 9-figure sums out of multiple news companies already. It isn't hyperbole to imagine he will seek to repeat the exercise here.
One of the things that happens as your mind goes... you revert to instinct and reflex action. In Trump's case, that reflex is to cosplay Dr Evil.
In the other cases, the legal case was pretty pure MacGuffin. Really it was Trump shaking down organisations with money who needed government permission to do something. Not even Trump's America can admit to explicit bribery... not yet, anyway. But an out-of-court settlement for a phoney legal claim suited both sides very well. It's either that, or give him another ballroom.
Unless there is something that the BBC wants that Trump can grant, that doesn't really apply here. So we are left with a case being judged on its merits. Which, to use a technical term, are bullshit.
PB obsesses over the licence fee but it’s £15 a month. Two coffees and two cakes in Costa costs about the same. It’s small, small fry in the grand scheme of things when it comes to taxes.
Meanwhile I pay £350 a month in student loan repayments. PB would have a collective aneurysm if income tax was increased to give a £350 a month additional tax burden.
Among other things, quite a lot of magistrates court time is taken up with chasing poor people for not having a license.
The license fee is an accident of technological history. Read David Kahn's "The Codebreakers" - a great unified history of code breaking. Bit outdated in a couple of places - but very readable.
In the late 1950s, encrypting TV signals was attempted. The technology was going to be used for the BBC and several US channels. Creating an encryption system that provided even modest security proved to be impossible, with the technology of the day. So the license fee was the backup plan.
I love these US podcasts. If Trump has a case against the BBC these guys would be millionaires. Tucker Carlson seems to be everyone's football at the moment just after he's become civilised...... This one is par for the course. i think we can happily dismiss Trump even if he tries it on in the US. Analysis US style.....
When you say civilised, you mean an anti-Semite supporter of Russia?
He's certainly not anti semitic. Well nothing I've seen. I didn't know he was a supporter of Russia but there again you got the anti semitic thing wrong so maybe you got the Russia support wrong as well?
I have to agree with Gareth, Caerphilly showed a not Reform party can hoover up all the Not Reform vote but that was because Plaid were also a None of the Above party.
For Reform to lose the election - it will require the Lib Dems to move into a winnable position in a lot of Labour heartland seats...
Or Labour to get a more electable leader like Burnham or Streeting
Burnahm can't become leader until they elect somebody more electable. He needs to be elected first...
He would get a personal vote in a greater Manchester seat
I was surprised he hadn't put his hat into the ring for DG of the BBC.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
None of that matters. The BBC will die because - historically - anytime a new form of Not-BBC home entertainment has become available a chunk of their eyeball time has walked away and we now live in an age of infinite Not-BBC home entertainment.
It seems to me that we still need a public service broadcaster both for TV and (much more) radio, but a more limited one. The really distinctive things about the BBC are the bits other commercial outfits can't do.
This is first of all to provide a universal service for all, free at the point of delivery - which for radio (however accessed) but not TV is the case now. This gets too little mention.
The second is a unique worldwide power of newsgathering and expert journalism, currently loads less good than it was but still OK by world standards. Combined with fine coverage of state stuff - Remembrance, Coronations, elections,
The third is a sort of add on, the consistent quality stuff, culturally, artistically etc that other providers can't do as well, done without dumbing down (as currently with R4 and R3 who are seriously dumbed down). The cost of this is peanuts compared with, say, Premiership football.
But my understanding is that in the US to win a defamation case you mistakenly not only prove that the statement is untrue and libellous but that you were acting with malice. That is quite a high bar.
Also the US has stated that US courts will not automatically recognise libel judgments of the UK courts because they do not meet the high standards of US press freedom and First Amendment rights.
So Trump might not win the US courts and if he won in the UK courts might not be able to enforce. (Not that I'd expect him to sue in the UK.)
There's no case in the US. These were the actual words of the President. Now, were they cut to make him look more guilty? Yes.
But if that constitutes libel, then the vast majority of US political attack adverts, which similarly take remarks out of context, are then equally guilty.
Libel has a far superior construction in the US compared to the UK where the bar is far too low though
A UK libel trial could be highly amusing. Trump would have to appear in person and be cross-examined surely?
Then to recieve the princely sum of £1 in damages to his reputation, being a known liar and sexual predator.
Is there enough popcorn in the world?
My understanding is the jurisdiction of choice is Florida.
Presumably Panorama has a hefty audience figure in the Sunshine State.
As with everything Trump it is all theatre.
The pernicious element to the whole story is the role of ex GBNews top dog Robbie Gibb in escalating the issue, and what exactly are his motives. Robbie Gibb is another example of Long Johnson.
If he sues in Florida, he will be required to prove that the BBC acted out of malice, which is not easy.
If he sues in the UK, he will have a better chance of winning, but there is no way he would get anywhere near $1billion in damages if he did. Even here, it is not guaranteed he would win. The courts may accept that the BBC's report was substantially true, i.e. that whilst they did cut together separate parts of Trump's speech and muddled the timeline, their implication that Trump deliberately set out to cause the insurrection is true.
I note that @Pulpstar thinks US libel law is superior to the UK. I disagree. I know the press would love to be able to publish defamatory stories about public figures without having to worry about whether they are true, as is the case in the US. I am happy they cannot. I'm not saying UK libel law is perfect but, in my view, the US protection for the press goes to far and allows them to ruin the lives of innocent men and women.
Aside from that he'd have to prove actual libel.
I think he'd struggle to do that even here (if he were allowed to bring a case, which he isn't). Selective edit or not, it was his own words, and virtually every news program ever will edit any politicians words when they broadcast them (indeed Trump regularly benefits from being edited into some form of coherence on a daily basis).
The BBC were right to apologise - and not one, but two of their senior leadership have resigned over this affair. But there is no legal liability whatsoever, and any UK politician suggesting otherwise is a fool, or worse.
Does anyone remember the way that most returning officers in 2010 tried to do counting on the next day, and it was only because of a determined campaign by Iain Dale that 95% of them were persuaded to change their mind and continue with election night?
I don't, but well done to him. But it's an idea which will keep coming back, not enough people care enough to retain what is, essentially, just a tradition.
I'm not so sure on this one. Donning my hard-nosed value hat, what is the extra cost of overnight counts compared to next day?
The point about "overnight ballot-stuffing" is imo frivolous.
But at a time of cost-squeeze, I'm not sure overnight counts are always worth their place.
My County Council are this year spending the cost of a new children's playground on flag wagging, that is £75k pissed away on virtue signalling. I'd rather have the children's playground.
Do you feel the same about Pride zebra crossings and the like. I’ve never seen you complain about them.
I've always had a downer on virtue-signalling - starting years ago with the ever expanding list of -isms, and -archies (eg when the oppressive patriarchy became a kiriarchy), on some self-indulgent blogs.
On Rainbow Crossings, I've criticised them here - but I've probably lead with the issue of road safety and confusing assistance dogs etc. We have a rainbow crossing at our local hospital, which I've mentioned as unacceptable for that reason to reception staff. In this case, the white lines elsewhere are so faded on campus that a mini-roundabout has entirely vanished. I do, though, usually steer clear of the PB tans wars.
I think the whole Rainbow Crossing thing is a very effective bit of marketing by a company selling thermoplastic and MMA resin surfaces, creating a market for themselves.
I'm more sympathetic to "rainbow" things (eg murals), than to "flag" things as we have now, as the latter are specifically aimed at driving division imo.
I'm quite happy with items such as the NHS Rainbow Lanyard project which identifies staff with a specific training in questions around LGBT in the NHS etc, who can then be approached for advice.
I love these US podcasts. If Trump has a case against the BBC these guys would be millionaires. Tucker Carlson seems to be everyone's football at the moment just after he's become civilised...... This one is par for the course. i think we can happily dismiss Trump even if he tries it on in the US. Analysis US style.....
When you say civilised, you mean an anti-Semite supporter of Russia?
He's certainly not anti semitic. Well nothing I've seen. I didn't know he was a supporter of Russia but there again you got the anti semitic thing wrong so maybe you got the Russia support wrong as well?
Totally off topic: Netflix's Death by Lightning is worth a watch - the story of President Garfield's assassination by Charles Guiteau. I only watched it cos I recognised Guiteau's name from Sondheim's Assassins, but the political backdrop is facinating.
Oh - and it's short too - like Garfield's time in office
I love these US podcasts. If Trump has a case against the BBC these guys would be millionaires. Tucker Carlson seems to be everyone's football at the moment just after he's become civilised...... This one is par for the course. i think we can happily dismiss Trump even if he tries it on in the US. Analysis US style.....
When you say civilised, you mean an anti-Semite supporter of Russia?
He's certainly not anti semitic. Well nothing I've seen. I didn't know he was a supporter of Russia but there again you got the anti semitic thing wrong so maybe you got the Russia support wrong as well?
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
None of that matters. The BBC will die because - historically - anytime a new form of Not-BBC home entertainment has become available a chunk of their eyeball time has walked away and we now live in an age of infinite Not-BBC home entertainment.
It seems to me that we still need a public service broadcaster both for TV and (much more) radio, but a more limited one. The really distinctive things about the BBC are the bits other commercial outfits can't do.
This is first of all to provide a universal service for all, free at the point of delivery - which for radio (however accessed) but not TV is the case now. This gets too little mention.
The second is a unique worldwide power of newsgathering and expert journalism, currently loads less good than it was but still OK by world standards. Combined with fine coverage of state stuff - Remembrance, Coronations, elections,
The third is a sort of add on, the consistent quality stuff, culturally, artistically etc that other providers can't do as well, done without dumbing down (as currently with R4 and R3 who are seriously dumbed down). The cost of this is peanuts compared with, say, Premiership football.
Everything else is done better by others.
Certainly one and some two should be the destination. Three? They should have to punt with the rest. Some of that, for instance, might be better covered by funding the end to the paywall for parts of the BFI or the National Theatre at Home collections.
Which shows this is the wrong time to force borderline unemployable people into employment, and the right time to help those who do want to work get jobs, or upskill and get jobs.
Good morning
Reeves NI and minimum wage increases floored business and it seems she is to increase the minimum wage above inflation later this month
The labour party proposals to equalise the NMW from 18 is a recipe for long term youth employment, because employers will not employ young workers if they have to be paid the same rate as mature workers
Add in the workers rights act, then we have the prospect of serious unemployment for a long time
Hospitality has been decimated by Reeves
A cursory look at the stats finds the increase in unemployment on trend since June 2022. There's not much evidence for the kind of effect you describe - indeed it grew faster under the Conservatives than it has done under Labour.
The employment rate - PB's favourite stat - is actually up year-on-year. The inactivity rate has fallen too.
All the hyperbole over BBC will die down, they will install a more Labour friendly DG, they will get licence fee renewal and it will carry on as before like nothing had happened just like every previous scandal.
I love these US podcasts. If Trump has a case against the BBC these guys would be millionaires. Tucker Carlson seems to be everyone's football at the moment just after he's become civilised...... This one is par for the course. i think we can happily dismiss Trump even if he tries it on in the US. Analysis US style.....
When you say civilised, you mean an anti-Semite supporter of Russia?
He's certainly not anti semitic. Well nothing I've seen. I didn't know he was a supporter of Russia but there again you got the anti semitic thing wrong so maybe you got the Russia support wrong as well?
That’s exactly the link I was looking for, thanks!
Aside from agreeing with Alex Dugin -
"....genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism.... by no means the racist and chauvinist aspects of National Socialism that determined the nature of its ideology. The excesses of this ideology in Germany are a matter exclusively of the Germans ... while Russian fascism is a combination of natural national conservatism with a passionate desire for true changes."
What has Fucker Carlson ever done wrong? Apart from....
Totally off topic: Netflix's Death by Lightning is worth a watch - the story of President Garfield's assassination by Charles Guiteau. I only watched it cos I recognised Guiteau's name from Sondheim's Assassins, but the political backdrop is facinating.
Oh - and it's short too - like Garfield's time in office
It was well done. Made me have a dig into Garfield - it seems he really was a v good and admirable man and the US could have been a very different place in terms of race relations and equality had he not been shot/had a totally incompetent doctor.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
Trump is only threatening a libel suit. Politely but firmly stand up to the blowhard and he would likely fold.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
You are more sensible than this. For example, any likely settlement will be peanuts, not something that hobbles the BBC’s programming. Trump has threatened a law suit, but hasn’t actually started one: who knows if he ever will. Trump partially controls the Supreme Court, but not most of the lower courts, who have happily tossed Trump’s defamation cases before.
Folks, we’ve got to dial down the hyperbole!
Expect the BBC events to have a walk-on part for US anti-Trumpers (eg Meidas Touch) in the same way that Andrew MW had a walk-on part as 'evidence' when they are trying to drive the Epstein narrative.
It will be a prop in their US-focused commentary on Trump - they also suffer to some extent from the Mainfest Destiny and Best Country Effer assumptions.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
You are more sensible than this. For example, any likely settlement will be peanuts, not something that hobbles the BBC’s programming. Trump has threatened a law suit, but hasn’t actually started one: who knows if he ever will. Trump partially controls the Supreme Court, but not most of the lower courts, who have happily tossed Trump’s defamation cases before.
Folks, we’ve got to dial down the hyperbole!
There is no chance of a successful lawsuit against the BBC in the US, because their libel laws a really strict. And selective editing of a politicians speech doesn't come anywhere near the hurdle needed for success.
In the UK there's a much better chance of him prevailing. (Albeit it's still by no means certain.)
But the problem is that maximum payouts in the UK are really low. And the BBC would chuck a million quid offer in at the start of proceedings, and the Judge would say "so long as damages awarded are less than or equal to 1m, then any costs incurred past this point will be the responsibility of the plaintiff."
Does anyone remember the way that most returning officers in 2010 tried to do counting on the next day, and it was only because of a determined campaign by Iain Dale that 95% of them were persuaded to change their mind and continue with election night?
I don't, but well done to him. But it's an idea which will keep coming back, not enough people care enough to retain what is, essentially, just a tradition.
I'm not so sure on this one. Donning my hard-nosed value hat, what is the extra cost of overnight counts compared to next day?
The point about "overnight ballot-stuffing" is imo frivolous.
But at a time of cost-squeeze, I'm not sure overnight counts are always worth their place.
My County Council are this year spending the cost of a new children's playground on flag wagging, that is £75k pissed away on virtue signalling. I'd rather have the children's playground.
It’s more than tradition: it’s symbolic.
Politicians work for us and once the voters have cast their ballots then the result should be determined as soon as possible and without delay.
It’s the same concept as having a removal van parked outside Downing Street on the day of the general election.
But my understanding is that in the US to win a defamation case you mistakenly not only prove that the statement is untrue and libellous but that you were acting with malice. That is quite a high bar.
Also the US has stated that US courts will not automatically recognise libel judgments of the UK courts because they do not meet the high standards of US press freedom and First Amendment rights.
So Trump might not win the US courts and if he won in the UK courts might not be able to enforce. (Not that I'd expect him to sue in the UK.)
There's no case in the US. These were the actual words of the President. Now, were they cut to make him look more guilty? Yes.
But if that constitutes libel, then the vast majority of US political attack adverts, which similarly take remarks out of context, are then equally guilty.
Libel has a far superior construction in the US compared to the UK where the bar is far too low though
A UK libel trial could be highly amusing. Trump would have to appear in person and be cross-examined surely?
Then to recieve the princely sum of £1 in damages to his reputation, being a known liar and sexual predator.
Is there enough popcorn in the world?
My understanding is the jurisdiction of choice is Florida.
Presumably Panorama has a hefty audience figure in the Sunshine State.
As with everything Trump it is all theatre.
The pernicious element to the whole story is the role of ex GBNews top dog Robbie Gibb in escalating the issue, and what exactly are his motives. Robbie Gibb is another example of Long Johnson.
"The first step towards saving our precious BBC: remove Robbie Gibb from the board" Ed Davey
Ah yes, History Repeating
For those who don't remember, during the 1980s and 1990s, the NHS was gradually made more and more legal liable for fuckups. Whistleblowers weren't protected - that would have been excessive! - but the automatic utter destruction of people trying to blow the whistle was ended. Kinda.
An example of the hilarity - in the law 90s, the NHS was to start recording and collating surgical outcomes. The surgeons revolted - all would resign. Then the government announced it wouldn't be retrospective and would, in fact, be brought in at an announced future date. Calm was resumed. A number of rather old surgeons officially moved into management.....
Anyway, through this process of discovering accountability, the theme was often repeated that "Anyone criticising problems in the NHS is attacking the NHS". Certain politicians even backed campaigns against those raising issues.
It took a long time for the truth to sink in - in all organisations, raising the issues is to *protect* the organisation. The problems aren't the whistleblower's or those campaigning to fix problems. The problems are the problems.
Yes but Robbie Gibb is not sorting the problem, he is part of the problem. Let the journalists do their job. Separate news from comment. Root out hidden agendas
Thanks, Mr GotV for the header. I must say I would be conflicted at the GE under the present system; Priti Patel, as the likely leading non-Reform candidate, or Reform itself!
However there's a solid history of Green activity locally, so maybe ......
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
Trump is only threatening a libel suit. Politely but firmly stand up to the blowhard and he would likely fold.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
You are more sensible than this. For example, any likely settlement will be peanuts, not something that hobbles the BBC’s programming. Trump has threatened a law suit, but hasn’t actually started one: who knows if he ever will. Trump partially controls the Supreme Court, but not most of the lower courts, who have happily tossed Trump’s defamation cases before.
Folks, we’ve got to dial down the hyperbole!
There is no chance of a successful lawsuit against the BBC in the US, because their libel laws a really strict. And selective editing of a politicians speech doesn't come anywhere near the hurdle needed for success.
In the UK there's a much better chance of him prevailing. (Albeit it's still by no means certain.)
But the problem is that maximum payouts in the UK are really low. And the BBC would chuck a million quid offer in at the start of proceedings, and the Judge would say "so long as damages awarded are less than or equal to 1m, then any costs incurred past this point will be the responsibility of the plaintiff."
There is no case at all in the UK, as the broadcast was over 12 months ago.
And an offer of fifty quid would have been sufficient, anyway.
All the hyperbole over BBC will die down, they will install a more Labour friendly DG, they will get licence fee renewal and it will carry on as before like nothing had happened just like every previous scandal.
Longer term the trend isnt their friend.
You might be right but knowing Starmer's idea of a Labour friendly DG they'll probably go for David Mencer
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
You are more sensible than this. For example, any likely settlement will be peanuts, not something that hobbles the BBC’s programming. Trump has threatened a law suit, but hasn’t actually started one: who knows if he ever will. Trump partially controls the Supreme Court, but not most of the lower courts, who have happily tossed Trump’s defamation cases before.
Folks, we’ve got to dial down the hyperbole!
There is no chance of a successful lawsuit against the BBC in the US, because their libel laws a really strict. And selective editing of a politicians speech doesn't come anywhere near the hurdle needed for success.
In the UK there's a much better chance of him prevailing. (Albeit it's still by no means certain.)
But the problem is that maximum payouts in the UK are really low. And the BBC would chuck a million quid offer in at the start of proceedings, and the Judge would say "so long as damages awarded are less than or equal to 1m, then any costs incurred past this point will be the responsibility of the plaintiff."
There is no case at all in the UK, as the broadcast was over 12 months ago.
And an offer of fifty quid would have been sufficient, anyway.
Excessive, even.
The legal advice to the BBC I am told is that President Trump was not meaningfully damaged by Panorama’s manipulation of his 6 January speech, and that therefore there is no legal necessity to pay him compensation.
The BBC board is therefore likely to resist and fight his demand to be “appropriately compensated” out of court, and will risk him carrying through on his threat to seek $1bn in damages by going to court. https://x.com/Peston/status/1988148691308367905
(OK, it's Peston, but even the stopped clock, etc.)
All the hyperbole over BBC will die down, they will install a more Labour friendly DG, they will get licence fee renewal and it will carry on as before like nothing had happened just like every previous scandal.
Longer term the trend isnt their friend.
I think you are right. This strategy won't survive the fall of the present government by more than a week. The BRIGHT thing to do would be appoint someone who the incoming goverment couldn't remove, David Cameron or Theresa May. Won't happen because in the government of 10 watt bulbs David Lammy is not the dimmest.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
None of that matters. The BBC will die because - historically - anytime a new form of Not-BBC home entertainment has become available a chunk of their eyeball time has walked away and we now live in an age of infinite Not-BBC home entertainment.
The BBC is the preserve of old farts who grew up with it, and they're even beginning to lose them.
Kids don't give a damn about the BBC. Its just one of a plethora of entertainment sources . . . and not a very good one at that.
Nowhere in the hysterical pile-on against the BBC in the British press has anyone mentioned that BBC News now has 77 million viewers & listeners in the US and has established itself as the second most trusted news source there. https://x.com/JohnSimpsonNews/status/1988163852853539130
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
You are more sensible than this. For example, any likely settlement will be peanuts, not something that hobbles the BBC’s programming. Trump has threatened a law suit, but hasn’t actually started one: who knows if he ever will. Trump partially controls the Supreme Court, but not most of the lower courts, who have happily tossed Trump’s defamation cases before.
Folks, we’ve got to dial down the hyperbole!
There is no chance of a successful lawsuit against the BBC in the US, because their libel laws a really strict. And selective editing of a politicians speech doesn't come anywhere near the hurdle needed for success.
In the UK there's a much better chance of him prevailing. (Albeit it's still by no means certain.)
But the problem is that maximum payouts in the UK are really low. And the BBC would chuck a million quid offer in at the start of proceedings, and the Judge would say "so long as damages awarded are less than or equal to 1m, then any costs incurred past this point will be the responsibility of the plaintiff."
There is no case at all in the UK, as the broadcast was over 12 months ago.
And an offer of fifty quid would have been sufficient, anyway.
Excessive, even.
The legal advice to the BBC I am told is that President Trump was not meaningfully damaged by Panorama’s manipulation of his 6 January speech, and that therefore there is no legal necessity to pay him compensation.
The BBC board is therefore likely to resist and fight his demand to be “appropriately compensated” out of court, and will risk him carrying through on his threat to seek $1bn in damages by going to court. https://x.com/Peston/status/1988148691308367905
(OK, it's Peston, but even the stopped clock, etc.)
I thought it was all nonsense, now I am thinking they are going to end up paying $1 trillion....
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
You are more sensible than this. For example, any likely settlement will be peanuts, not something that hobbles the BBC’s programming. Trump has threatened a law suit, but hasn’t actually started one: who knows if he ever will. Trump partially controls the Supreme Court, but not most of the lower courts, who have happily tossed Trump’s defamation cases before.
Folks, we’ve got to dial down the hyperbole!
There is no chance of a successful lawsuit against the BBC in the US, because their libel laws a really strict. And selective editing of a politicians speech doesn't come anywhere near the hurdle needed for success.
In the UK there's a much better chance of him prevailing. (Albeit it's still by no means certain.)
But the problem is that maximum payouts in the UK are really low. And the BBC would chuck a million quid offer in at the start of proceedings, and the Judge would say "so long as damages awarded are less than or equal to 1m, then any costs incurred past this point will be the responsibility of the plaintiff."
I doubt he would get anywhere near £1b in damages in the UK even if successful.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
You are more sensible than this. For example, any likely settlement will be peanuts, not something that hobbles the BBC’s programming. Trump has threatened a law suit, but hasn’t actually started one: who knows if he ever will. Trump partially controls the Supreme Court, but not most of the lower courts, who have happily tossed Trump’s defamation cases before.
Folks, we’ve got to dial down the hyperbole!
There is no chance of a successful lawsuit against the BBC in the US, because their libel laws a really strict. And selective editing of a politicians speech doesn't come anywhere near the hurdle needed for success.
In the UK there's a much better chance of him prevailing. (Albeit it's still by no means certain.)
But the problem is that maximum payouts in the UK are really low. And the BBC would chuck a million quid offer in at the start of proceedings, and the Judge would say "so long as damages awarded are less than or equal to 1m, then any costs incurred past this point will be the responsibility of the plaintiff."
There is no case at all in the UK, as the broadcast was over 12 months ago.
And an offer of fifty quid would have been sufficient, anyway.
Excessive, even.
The legal advice to the BBC I am told is that President Trump was not meaningfully damaged by Panorama’s manipulation of his 6 January speech, and that therefore there is no legal necessity to pay him compensation.
The BBC board is therefore likely to resist and fight his demand to be “appropriately compensated” out of court, and will risk him carrying through on his threat to seek $1bn in damages by going to court. https://x.com/Peston/status/1988148691308367905
(OK, it's Peston, but even the stopped clock, etc.)
I thought it was all nonsense, now I am thinking they are going to end up paying $1 trillion....
They should offer to pay Trump the amount he paid in fines for his conviction for false accounting.
I agree with the conclusion, except I think Farage will spectacularly implode at some pint because he usually does.
At the moment Reform look more SDP February 1982 than Labour 1922 to me.
Implosion is pretty inevitable, but could easily happen after election rather than before.
Starmer record unpopularity? Farage says hold my pint. (Empty pint glass surely? - Ed)
The gurning tw** was on Ferrari yesterday giving his ludicrous opinion on how an enraged Trump had told him on Friday how he had been misrepresented as a seditious traitor by the splice from the BBC. Farage claimed Trump was outraged that he had been so scurrilously defamed by the UK, a political ally no less.
Point of order, Trump is no ally of the UK and whatever the ridiculous edit proved it did not in anyway change the narrative of Trump's hour long call to march on the Capitol Building.
One also questions where Farage's loyalties lie. He seems to have a greater concern for Trump's densities than he has for the rest of us. Why do people not see past the snake oil? Starmer and Badenoch may be useless, however their loyalty to the Union flag is unwavering. Farage with his Trump adjacency and his former friendship with Putin shill Nathan Gill makes me question his patriotism. Just a thought.
"Trump's densitities" = "Trump's sensitivities"?
Trump is so dense that truth bends around him... A black hole of morality.
Yes, sensitivities was the plan, although I am assuming I touched the d (next to the s) and autocorrect did its work. In this instance quite admirably.
But my understanding is that in the US to win a defamation case you mistakenly not only prove that the statement is untrue and libellous but that you were acting with malice. That is quite a high bar.
Also the US has stated that US courts will not automatically recognise libel judgments of the UK courts because they do not meet the high standards of US press freedom and First Amendment rights.
So Trump might not win the US courts and if he won in the UK courts might not be able to enforce. (Not that I'd expect him to sue in the UK.)
There's no case in the US. These were the actual words of the President. Now, were they cut to make him look more guilty? Yes.
But if that constitutes libel, then the vast majority of US political attack adverts, which similarly take remarks out of context, are then equally guilty.
Libel has a far superior construction in the US compared to the UK where the bar is far too low though
A UK libel trial could be highly amusing. Trump would have to appear in person and be cross-examined surely?
Then to recieve the princely sum of £1 in damages to his reputation, being a known liar and sexual predator.
Is there enough popcorn in the world?
My understanding is the jurisdiction of choice is Florida.
Presumably Panorama has a hefty audience figure in the Sunshine State.
As with everything Trump it is all theatre.
The pernicious element to the whole story is the role of ex GBNews top dog Robbie Gibb in escalating the issue, and what exactly are his motives. Robbie Gibb is another example of Long Johnson.
"The first step towards saving our precious BBC: remove Robbie Gibb from the board" Ed Davey
Ah yes, History Repeating
For those who don't remember, during the 1980s and 1990s, the NHS was gradually made more and more legal liable for fuckups. Whistleblowers weren't protected - that would have been excessive! - but the automatic utter destruction of people trying to blow the whistle was ended. Kinda.
An example of the hilarity - in the law 90s, the NHS was to start recording and collating surgical outcomes. The surgeons revolted - all would resign. Then the government announced it wouldn't be retrospective and would, in fact, be brought in at an announced future date. Calm was resumed. A number of rather old surgeons officially moved into management.....
Anyway, through this process of discovering accountability, the theme was often repeated that "Anyone criticising problems in the NHS is attacking the NHS". Certain politicians even backed campaigns against those raising issues.
It took a long time for the truth to sink in - in all organisations, raising the issues is to *protect* the organisation. The problems aren't the whistleblower's or those campaigning to fix problems. The problems are the problems.
Yes but Robbie Gibb is not sorting the problem, he is part of the problem. Let the journalists do their job. Separate news from comment. Root out hidden agendas
That is the phraseology used over many. many NHS scandals.
The report on bias issues is there. Have you read it?
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
You are more sensible than this. For example, any likely settlement will be peanuts, not something that hobbles the BBC’s programming. Trump has threatened a law suit, but hasn’t actually started one: who knows if he ever will. Trump partially controls the Supreme Court, but not most of the lower courts, who have happily tossed Trump’s defamation cases before.
Folks, we’ve got to dial down the hyperbole!
There is no chance of a successful lawsuit against the BBC in the US, because their libel laws a really strict. And selective editing of a politicians speech doesn't come anywhere near the hurdle needed for success.
In the UK there's a much better chance of him prevailing. (Albeit it's still by no means certain.)
But the problem is that maximum payouts in the UK are really low. And the BBC would chuck a million quid offer in at the start of proceedings, and the Judge would say "so long as damages awarded are less than or equal to 1m, then any costs incurred past this point will be the responsibility of the plaintiff."
There is no case at all in the UK, as the broadcast was over 12 months ago.
And an offer of fifty quid would have been sufficient, anyway.
Excessive, even.
The legal advice to the BBC I am told is that President Trump was not meaningfully damaged by Panorama’s manipulation of his 6 January speech, and that therefore there is no legal necessity to pay him compensation.
The BBC board is therefore likely to resist and fight his demand to be “appropriately compensated” out of court, and will risk him carrying through on his threat to seek $1bn in damages by going to court. https://x.com/Peston/status/1988148691308367905
(OK, it's Peston, but even the stopped clock, etc.)
I thought it was all nonsense, now I am thinking they are going to end up paying $1 trillion....
They should offer to pay Trump the amount he paid in fines for his conviction for false accounting.
Too complicated to be enjoyable.
Get Alan Carr to record a video saying "The BBC is really really sorry and thinks Donald Trump is great", whilst wearing that green cloak and carrying that lamp.
Everyone understands at their level of understanding, everyone is happy.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
Trump is only threatening a libel suit. Politely but firmly stand up to the blowhard and he would likely fold.
Indeed.
Without irony, the Telegraph printed this article from Ben Wallace.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
Trump is only threatening a libel suit. Politely but firmly stand up to the blowhard and he would likely fold.
I really hope they do. Fulsome apology and offer to show the doc again without the edit. No payment of protection money.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
None of that matters. The BBC will die because - historically - anytime a new form of Not-BBC home entertainment has become available a chunk of their eyeball time has walked away and we now live in an age of infinite Not-BBC home entertainment.
The BBC is the preserve of old farts who grew up with it, and they're even beginning to lose them.
Kids don't give a damn about the BBC. Its just one of a plethora of entertainment sources . . . and not a very good one at that.
Nowhere in the hysterical pile-on against the BBC in the British press has anyone mentioned that BBC News now has 77 million viewers & listeners in the US and has established itself as the second most trusted news source there. https://x.com/JohnSimpsonNews/status/1988163852853539130
He has become an incredibly unreliable source in recent years. For starters. that isn't actually BBC News, its all BBC online output and 77 was a peak, it was 60 million average visitor. And this is not indepdently verified, its BBC bigging up their own achievements. What is a "visitor".....Its actually hard to accurately count unique visits / visitors (and this isn't being independently verified), a bit like BlueSky continuing to grow users, but actually not.
This figure was released as part of a promo for decision to charge for BBC.com for US audience.
A fascinating short segment by Dr Jack Watling of RUSI on how Russian oil shipments through the Baltic on dodgy shipping could be restricted by use of the Copenhagen Convention 1857.
That was when Danish territorial waters were opened up to international transit. There is some similarity to the Montreux Convention which regulates the Bosporus.
The Russians are peddling a story about foiling an Anglo-Ukrainian plot to hijack a MiG-31 armed with a Kinzhal hypersonic missile and flying it at a Romanian airbase to provoke NATO.
These sorts of information operations are often mounted by Russia in advance of them taking the action they accuse Ukraine of attempting/planning.
Man those Anglos are living rent free in Russia’s head!
The Russians are peddling a story about foiling an Anglo-Ukrainian plot to hijack a MiG-31 armed with a Kinzhal hypersonic missile and flying it at a Romanian airbase to provoke NATO.
These sorts of information operations are often mounted by Russia in advance of them taking the action they accuse Ukraine of attempting/planning.
Man those Anglos are living rent free in Russia’s head!
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
You are more sensible than this. For example, any likely settlement will be peanuts, not something that hobbles the BBC’s programming. Trump has threatened a law suit, but hasn’t actually started one: who knows if he ever will. Trump partially controls the Supreme Court, but not most of the lower courts, who have happily tossed Trump’s defamation cases before.
Folks, we’ve got to dial down the hyperbole!
There is no chance of a successful lawsuit against the BBC in the US, because their libel laws a really strict. And selective editing of a politicians speech doesn't come anywhere near the hurdle needed for success.
In the UK there's a much better chance of him prevailing. (Albeit it's still by no means certain.)
But the problem is that maximum payouts in the UK are really low. And the BBC would chuck a million quid offer in at the start of proceedings, and the Judge would say "so long as damages awarded are less than or equal to 1m, then any costs incurred past this point will be the responsibility of the plaintiff."
I doubt he would get anywhere near £1b in damages in the UK even if successful.
"...These biases that large language models have towards extremes show up in real life, too. A Dutch data protection agency warned just last week that chatbots were nudging voters towards political extremes when voters use them to decide how they should vote by over representing the same two fringe parties. Their research showed that chatbots lumped together left-leaning voters with the Green Labor Party and voters on the right with the far-right party for freedom. They found that the other more mainstream parties didn't feature in the chatbot recommendations..."
But my understanding is that in the US to win a defamation case you mistakenly not only prove that the statement is untrue and libellous but that you were acting with malice. That is quite a high bar.
Also the US has stated that US courts will not automatically recognise libel judgments of the UK courts because they do not meet the high standards of US press freedom and First Amendment rights.
So Trump might not win the US courts and if he won in the UK courts might not be able to enforce. (Not that I'd expect him to sue in the UK.)
There's no case in the US. These were the actual words of the President. Now, were they cut to make him look more guilty? Yes.
But if that constitutes libel, then the vast majority of US political attack adverts, which similarly take remarks out of context, are then equally guilty.
Libel has a far superior construction in the US compared to the UK where the bar is far too low though
A UK libel trial could be highly amusing. Trump would have to appear in person and be cross-examined surely?
Then to recieve the princely sum of £1 in damages to his reputation, being a known liar and sexual predator.
Is there enough popcorn in the world?
My understanding is the jurisdiction of choice is Florida.
Presumably Panorama has a hefty audience figure in the Sunshine State.
As with everything Trump it is all theatre.
The pernicious element to the whole story is the role of ex GBNews top dog Robbie Gibb in escalating the issue, and what exactly are his motives. Robbie Gibb is another example of Long Johnson.
"The first step towards saving our precious BBC: remove Robbie Gibb from the board" Ed Davey
Ah yes, History Repeating
For those who don't remember, during the 1980s and 1990s, the NHS was gradually made more and more legal liable for fuckups. Whistleblowers weren't protected - that would have been excessive! - but the automatic utter destruction of people trying to blow the whistle was ended. Kinda.
An example of the hilarity - in the law 90s, the NHS was to start recording and collating surgical outcomes. The surgeons revolted - all would resign. Then the government announced it wouldn't be retrospective and would, in fact, be brought in at an announced future date. Calm was resumed. A number of rather old surgeons officially moved into management.....
Anyway, through this process of discovering accountability, the theme was often repeated that "Anyone criticising problems in the NHS is attacking the NHS". Certain politicians even backed campaigns against those raising issues.
It took a long time for the truth to sink in - in all organisations, raising the issues is to *protect* the organisation. The problems aren't the whistleblower's or those campaigning to fix problems. The problems are the problems.
Yes but Robbie Gibb is not sorting the problem, he is part of the problem. Let the journalists do their job. Separate news from comment. Root out hidden agendas
That is the phraseology used over many. many NHS scandals.
The report on bias issues is there. Have you read it?
Do you have a link that report? I would like to read it.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
This isn’t about Trump. It’s about integrity. They don’t need to show fealty to anyone. And won’t be expected to. An apology (if they haven’t already) for the splicing of his speech. An investigation to make sure it doesn’t happen again and a monitoring system, not to hunt out wrong opinions but to make sure the organisation is honest.
A few scenarios how they end 1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord. 2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was 3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
Trump is only threatening a libel suit. Politely but firmly stand up to the blowhard and he would likely fold.
I really hope they do. Fulsome apology and offer to show the doc again without the edit. No payment of protection money.
He always folds - the only time he has got people to pay money, is extorting them as President.
His opening $1Bn is usually low for his blowhard legal threats, incidentally.
PB obsesses over the licence fee but it’s £15 a month. Two coffees and two cakes in Costa costs about the same. It’s small, small fry in the grand scheme of things when it comes to taxes.
Meanwhile I pay £350 a month in student loan repayments. PB would have a collective aneurysm if income tax was increased to give a £350 a month additional tax burden.
Point of order PBers procure their two coffees and two cakes from Gail's, so the licence fee cost is even more of a trifle (not available at Gail's, although Gail's Mess is an alternative).
I agree with the conclusion, except I think Farage will spectacularly implode at some pint because he usually does.
At the moment Reform look more SDP February 1982 than Labour 1922 to me.
I've been saying this for a while. Back in Feb 1982 who foresaw Thatcher in power for another 8 years and the Tories another 15? We forget that polls can become volatile. Just because we have a seemingly 'stuck' pattern for Reform right now, does not mean thats it. Labour can recover. Why are they so unpopular? Lots of reasons but they really messed up with the ming vase strategy. And then to get into power with a huge majority and crumble at the first whiff of back bench dissent? Weak, weak, weak.
Reeves has one last chance to grasp the nettle and actually put things in play to get a Labour win. But I suspect she will fail to take it.
PB obsesses over the licence fee but it’s £15 a month. Two coffees and two cakes in Costa costs about the same. It’s small, small fry in the grand scheme of things when it comes to taxes.
Meanwhile I pay £350 a month in student loan repayments. PB would have a collective aneurysm if income tax was increased to give a £350 a month additional tax burden.
Point of order PBers procure their two coffees and two cakes from Gail's, so the licence fee cost is even more of a trifle (not available at Gail's, although Gail's Mess is an alternative).
So the people on benefits who get dragged into court for non-payment of the license fee should just stop getting their coffee at Gails? Just eat the cake, possible?
It's an absurd system in the 21st cent. Should have gone with encrypted channels when the digital broadcast changeover happened.
1 - On "official agreements". We would do well to remember that Labour and the Lib Dems had an "unofficial official agreement" in 1997, when strategists met up without telling many people.
There's also an (I think) Compass Online podcast somewhere.
2 - I think you underweight the prospect of RefUK disintagrating. There are a lot of people embedded with extreme views / affiliations, and Farage is stepping back from dealing with them.
I agree with the conclusion, except I think Farage will spectacularly implode at some pint because he usually does.
At the moment Reform look more SDP February 1982 than Labour 1922 to me.
I've been saying this for a while. Back in Feb 1982 who foresaw Thatcher in power for another 8 years and the Tories another 15? We forget that polls can become volatile. Just because we have a seemingly 'stuck' pattern for Reform right now, does not mean thats it. Labour can recover. Why are they so unpopular? Lots of reasons but they really messed up with the ming vase strategy. And then to get into power with a huge majority and crumble at the first whiff of back bench dissent? Weak, weak, weak.
Reeves has one last chance to grasp the nettle and actually put things in play to get a Labour win. But I suspect she will fail to take it.
I can't see Reeves succeeding, all the signs are that she's been captured by the Treasury and is trotting out the trivial tax changes they've been hankering after for years. It'll have to be a successor to Reeves with a strong grasp of the big picture.
I'd suggest that the biggest threat to Reform is a Conservative revival, a limited recovery and Labour cling on, 10% or more and the Conservatives probably emerge as next Govt.
Comments
A few scenarios how they end
1) They obsequiously apologise, with some kind of grotesque new standard for "impartiality" imposed so that just like GBNews they send a presenter to salute Trump's motorcade. We still have BBC News, but now with a Reform puppet as overlord.
2) They pay Trumpler a settlement amount. Public money. Which means they have to then cancel a whole load of programmes that people actually watch as no money to pay for them. They stagger on but its a shadow of where it was
3) Someone at the BBC grows a pair and they go contest it in Florida. They'll lose because of course they will - Florida is MAGA and Trumpler controls the courts.
As for criminal geniuses, remember the risk of hostile nation state actors putting their best boffins on the case. Sure they might get caught but what's the downside? Either they've undermined British democracy or they've undermined trust in British democracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbeT4TAwA_Q
Meanwhile I pay £350 a month in student loan repayments. PB would have a collective aneurysm if income tax was increased to give a £350 a month additional tax burden.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtJws3nZHtM
4 minutes of Steve Rosenberg's review of the Russian press, which includes some helpful advice for President Trump on winning next year's midterms.
These sorts of information operations are often mounted by Russia in advance of them taking the action they accuse Ukraine of attempting/planning.
The first thing to note is that within living memory we have never experienced an election remotely like the next one is currently set to be. Not even close. None of us know what the 18 months coming up to an election which could more or less demolish the Tories, and/or neuter Labour, in which some seats may be Reform v Green and so on. Equally we could see a further unknown: what happens if Reform implode and neither Tories (dead in the water) nor Labour (unpopular incumbent) are the parties to turnm to.
So there is maximal novelty combined with maximal uncertainty, with immovable object of Labour being the prime contender for tactical votes against Reform in 411 seats, and the irresistible force of Labour being much more unpopular than in 2024 in 411 seats.
My intuition (ie guess) is that on balance the desire of 60-65% of the voters to defeat Reform will mean loads of pro Labour tactical voting, through gritted teeth despite the unpopularity. SFAICS only two parties can lead the next government: Reform or Labour. Once this becomes clear to those who won't follow stuff until 2029, the rest unfolds because there isn't another course open.
More than usual, no-one knows anything.
"The first step towards saving our precious BBC: remove Robbie Gibb from the board"
Ed Davey
Kids don't give a damn about the BBC. Its just one of a plethora of entertainment sources . . . and not a very good one at that.
You guys say I know fuck nothing, I know FUCK ALL!
That's the way to win the midterms.
I'm sure that will work and have no negative consequences.
Folks, we’ve got to dial down the hyperbole!
They can renounce any possibility of supporting in any way a Reform government. This loses them votes.
They can undertake to govern/help govern with Reform. This loses them votes.
They can (most likely) say nothing. This loses them votes.
This formula can't change unless and until they look as if they could govern on their own. Which as things stand can't happen unless they make their mind up about which vote losing possibility they opt for.
A sort of prisoner dilemma and not a happy place until something turns up.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/articles/c625eylz4kyo#comments
When your car maximises plank wear and has enhanced lift-and-coast potential, maybe listen to the 7 time world champion who wants it to be better, rather than mindlessly defending the engineers who took the car a big step backwards from 2024?
You are making an assumption about the Tories (I don’t think they will prop up a minority Reform government because that would be suicidal from their perspective) to justify voting for a party that can’t win and - as a direct result - will help Reform win.
Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Other > Tory > Reform (for you I assume) but if Other is not possible then Tory is better than Reform
For those who don't remember, during the 1980s and 1990s, the NHS was gradually made more and more legal liable for fuckups. Whistleblowers weren't protected - that would have been excessive! - but the automatic utter destruction of people trying to blow the whistle was ended. Kinda.
An example of the hilarity - in the law 90s, the NHS was to start recording and collating surgical outcomes. The surgeons revolted - all would resign. Then the government announced it wouldn't be retrospective and would, in fact, be brought in at an announced future date. Calm was resumed. A number of rather old surgeons officially moved into management.....
Anyway, through this process of discovering accountability, the theme was often repeated that "Anyone criticising problems in the NHS is attacking the NHS". Certain politicians even backed campaigns against those raising issues.
It took a long time for the truth to sink in - in all organisations, raising the issues is to *protect* the organisation. The problems aren't the whistleblower's or those campaigning to fix problems. The problems are the problems.
Reheat. As in Concorde (probably the most familiar example to non-nerds, esp. Captain Speaking announcements).
Reeves NI and minimum wage increases floored business and it seems she is to increase the minimum wage above inflation later this month
The labour party proposals to equalise the NMW from 18 is a recipe for long term youth employment, because employers will not employ young workers if they have to be paid the same rate as mature workers
Add in the workers rights act, then we have the prospect of serious unemployment for a long time
Hospitality has been decimated by Reeves
If you use the BBC little and resent the fee, just stop using it altogether and save your money. What's the problem?
By the way I chose Fox off the cuff. They are by no means the worst outfit I could have mentioned.
That the ‘official’ inflation rate is 8%, but with interest rates around 20%, is a good sign of just how badly some of the statistics are being manipulated.
A number of oblasts have also made significant cuts to military signup bonuses of up to 75%, and there have been a number of Indian and African mercenaries encountered on the front lines in recent weeks. The Russians are pretty much out of their own men to recruit without conscription, and industries are going to 4-day and even 3-day weeks because of shortages of men and equipment. Even a tank factory announced a 4-day week, and surely they need as many of those as they can get!
It’s also worth noting that Ukraine probably has only a year left before they encounter manpower issues of their own, but their attrition rate is a tiny fraction of that of the enemy.
In the other cases, the legal case was pretty pure MacGuffin. Really it was Trump shaking down organisations with money who needed government permission to do something. Not even Trump's America can admit to explicit bribery... not yet, anyway. But an out-of-court settlement for a phoney legal claim suited both sides very well. It's either that, or give him another ballroom.
Unless there is something that the BBC wants that Trump can grant, that doesn't really apply here. So we are left with a case being judged on its merits. Which, to use a technical term, are bullshit.
The license fee is an accident of technological history. Read David Kahn's "The Codebreakers" - a great unified history of code breaking. Bit outdated in a couple of places - but very readable.
In the late 1950s, encrypting TV signals was attempted. The technology was going to be used for the BBC and several US channels. Creating an encryption system that provided even modest security proved to be impossible, with the technology of the day. So the license fee was the backup plan.
This is first of all to provide a universal service for all, free at the point of delivery - which for radio (however accessed) but not TV is the case now. This gets too little mention.
The second is a unique worldwide power of newsgathering and expert journalism, currently loads less good than it was but still OK by world standards. Combined with fine coverage of state stuff - Remembrance, Coronations, elections,
The third is a sort of add on, the consistent quality stuff, culturally, artistically etc that other providers can't do as well, done without dumbing down (as currently with R4 and R3 who are seriously dumbed down). The cost of this is peanuts compared with, say, Premiership football.
Everything else is done better by others.
Building merchant Travis Perkins changes its payment terms for suppliers from 30 days to 60 days.
https://x.com/colefusionhq/status/1987830032132178377
I think he'd struggle to do that even here (if he were allowed to bring a case, which he isn't). Selective edit or not, it was his own words, and virtually every news program ever will edit any politicians words when they broadcast them (indeed Trump regularly benefits from being edited into some form of coherence on a daily basis).
The BBC were right to apologise - and not one, but two of their senior leadership have resigned over this affair.
But there is no legal liability whatsoever, and any UK politician suggesting otherwise is a fool, or worse.
On Rainbow Crossings, I've criticised them here - but I've probably lead with the issue of road safety and confusing assistance dogs etc. We have a rainbow crossing at our local hospital, which I've mentioned as unacceptable for that reason to reception staff. In this case, the white lines elsewhere are so faded on campus that a mini-roundabout has entirely vanished. I do, though, usually steer clear of the PB tans wars.
I think the whole Rainbow Crossing thing is a very effective bit of marketing by a company selling thermoplastic and MMA resin surfaces, creating a market for themselves.
I'm more sympathetic to "rainbow" things (eg murals), than to "flag" things as we have now, as the latter are specifically aimed at driving division imo.
I'm quite happy with items such as the NHS Rainbow Lanyard project which identifies staff with a specific training in questions around LGBT in the NHS etc, who can then be approached for advice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/clygpld0jj9o
Oh - and it's short too - like Garfield's time in office
The employment rate - PB's favourite stat - is actually up year-on-year. The inactivity rate has fallen too.
Longer term the trend isnt their friend.
"....genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism.... by no means the racist and chauvinist aspects of National Socialism that determined the nature of its ideology. The excesses of this ideology in Germany are a matter exclusively of the Germans ... while Russian fascism is a combination of natural national conservatism with a passionate desire for true changes."
What has Fucker Carlson ever done wrong? Apart from....
{continues to page 94}
Politely but firmly stand up to the blowhard and he would likely fold.
It will be a prop in their US-focused commentary on Trump - they also suffer to some extent from the Mainfest Destiny and Best Country Effer assumptions.
In the UK there's a much better chance of him prevailing. (Albeit it's still by no means certain.)
But the problem is that maximum payouts in the UK are really low. And the BBC would chuck a million quid offer in at the start of proceedings, and the Judge would say "so long as damages awarded are less than or equal to 1m, then any costs incurred past this point will be the responsibility of the plaintiff."
Politicians work for us and once the voters have cast their ballots then the result should be determined as soon as possible and without delay.
It’s the same concept as having a removal van parked outside Downing Street on the day of the general election.
Caesar: remember that you are mortal
Let the journalists do their job. Separate news from comment. Root out hidden agendas
However there's a solid history of Green activity locally, so maybe ......
And an offer of fifty quid would have been sufficient, anyway.
The legal advice to the BBC I am told is that President Trump was not meaningfully damaged by Panorama’s manipulation of his 6 January speech, and that therefore there is no legal necessity to pay him compensation.
The BBC board is therefore likely to resist and fight his demand to be “appropriately compensated” out of court, and will risk him carrying through on his threat to seek $1bn in damages by going to court.
https://x.com/Peston/status/1988148691308367905
(OK, it's Peston, but even the stopped clock, etc.)
https://x.com/JohnSimpsonNews/status/1988163852853539130
The report on bias issues is there. Have you read it?
Get Alan Carr to record a video saying "The BBC is really really sorry and thinks Donald Trump is great", whilst wearing that green cloak and carrying that lamp.
Everyone understands at their level of understanding, everyone is happy.
Today we must also remember that it is appeasement, not strong defence, that leads to war
https://x.com/BenWallace70/status/1988153564603039940
This figure was released as part of a promo for decision to charge for BBC.com for US audience.
That was when Danish territorial waters were opened up to international transit. There is some similarity to the Montreux Convention which regulates the Bosporus.
https://youtu.be/95t6-kyaF0M?list=PLJnf_DDTfIVCYlsANGtNkzMeM9Fdmqzxr&t=2183
life, too. A Dutch data protection agency warned just last week that
chatbots were nudging voters towards political extremes when voters use them
to decide how they should vote by over representing the same two fringe
parties. Their research showed that chatbots lumped together left-leaning
voters with the Green Labor Party and voters on the right with the far-right
party for freedom. They found that the other more mainstream parties didn't feature in the chatbot recommendations..."
"Elon Musk's Anti Woke Encyclopedia", Patrick Boyle, YouTube. The quote appears at 14:14 mins in, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkQUogcOaiU&t=854s
His opening $1Bn is usually low for his blowhard legal threats, incidentally.
Reeves has one last chance to grasp the nettle and actually put things in play to get a Labour win. But I suspect she will fail to take it.
https://x.com/Ronxyz00/status/1987660678472327284
Outgoing BBC boss to address staff after resignation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozrMH87SMdM
What’s really happening in the ocean’s “dark zones”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tuS1LLOcsI&
It's an absurd system in the 21st cent. Should have gone with encrypted channels when the digital broadcast changeover happened.
@GarethoftheVale2 a great header. Two comments:
1 - On "official agreements". We would do well to remember that Labour and the Lib Dems had an "unofficial official agreement" in 1997, when strategists met up without telling many people.
Here's a report about it by Duncan Brack:
https://www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/1997-labour-lib-dems-progressive-alliance/
There's also an (I think) Compass Online podcast somewhere.
2 - I think you underweight the prospect of RefUK disintagrating. There are a lot of people embedded with extreme views / affiliations, and Farage is stepping back from dealing with them.
I'd suggest that the biggest threat to Reform is a Conservative revival, a limited recovery and Labour cling on, 10% or more and the Conservatives probably emerge as next Govt.