Allegations are being made today about whether the BBC is impartial.
I have just posted this comment on X:
Those discussing impartiality should be pointing out that Trump needs to get some decent legal advice because any claim for $1 billion in damages is going nowhere in the UK, especially as he won the 2024 election and has subsequently massively increased his personal fortune, making it almost impossible to imagine how he could prove he has lost anything even if the BBC did commit errors of judgement. This is the sort of case where £1 damages look likely, even if the claimant wins. He should be warned that this has happened.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I heard a US psychiatrist say that an objective analysis of Trump’s behaviour shows that he may be defined as a Malignant Narcissist. His impulsive behaviour towards Canada’s PM Carney, when the Ontario leader published a video of Reagan speaking against tariffs, is another recognisable and defined personality trait. Lying and sadism are others. Naturally, the US national association of psychiatrists – and the mainstream media – are wary of making any public statement on Trump’s dementia. I will quite understand if you choose not to publish this. I might have to buy you Maxwell House, not just a coffee…
An example of what was discussed in an earlier blog about the distractions that we must endure instead of the real news.
Abandoning the two-child benefit cap, if it happens, taking 300,000 children out of poverty is what we should be focused upon. Also, a random knife murder in Birmingham by a man who probably has untreated mental illness. Why? That would be proper journalism, not this BBC nonsense, which will be forgotten by Friday( we hope).
Agreed
Exactly! Sometimes I think there’s something called a Degree in Hysteria that’s mandatory to become a journalist. The main purpose of the degree is to train individuals to have an hysterical reaction first before bothering to do any fact checking or research!
Public service broadcasting in the UK is in the greatest danger it’s ever been – what with “Trumpgate” at the BBC, and a merger between ITV and Sky currently on the cards.
Agreed
Though it isn’t Sky as we knew it. For several years it has been owned by Comcast – an American multi media giant. So ITV will be American owned like so much else if this goes through.
Still it implies forces somewhat hostile to the concept of PSB.
Actually Grok’s estimate is a Total Expense: £300,000 to £500,000
In May 2009, Richard Murphy settled a libel claim brought by Lord Ashcroft and two associated Belizean banks (Belize Bank Ltd and Belize Bank International Ltd) over a blog post on his Tax Research UK website. The post wrongly implied that the banks facilitated tax evasion and money laundering based on a misunderstanding of a third-party article. As part of the settlement, Murphy issued a public apology, removed the post, and agreed to two key financial obligations: paying the claimants’ legal costs and making a substantial (but undisclosed) donation to Crimestoppers, a charity co-founded by Lord Ashcroft.
Exact figures weren’t disclosed publicly, but we can estimate based on comparable UK libel cases from the era and general practices:
Claimants’ Legal Costs: Murphy, who represented himself (keeping his own expenses minimal), had to cover Ashcroft’s and the banks’ fees. UK libel cases were notoriously expensive due to “no win, no fee” arrangements and high hourly rates (up to £800/hour). Though settled before a full trial, proceedings had advanced enough to incur significant costs. Similar settled or preliminary-stage cases around 2009 often saw loser-pays awards of £200,000–£400,000 for the winning side’s fees—for example, the 2010 Singh libel preliminary hearing cost £200,000, and the 2002 Campbell v. Mirror settlement involved £1 million in total costs (adjusted for inflation to about £1.3 million by 2009).
Thats a hit..
You estimate very wrongly.
I made no contribution to costs, at all.
I had no costs.
And the donation to Crimestoppers was annoying, but not big.
It was as if they wanted to settle and not pursue the point. Your estimate is so wildly inaccurate it is ridiculous.
” agreed to two key financial obligations: paying the claimants’ legal costs and making a substantial (but undisclosed) donation to Crimestoppers, a charity co-founded by Lord Ashcroft.”
Are you now saying you didn’t pay Ashcrofts legal costs?
I did not. Not a penny. That was agreed before we went to court. The order was a mistake and not enforced.
End of comment.
Well said Cosmo – I too was quite alarmed when I heard about the ITV/Sky merger. Am equally disturbed by Warner Bros being sold in the US, specially if it falls Ellisons hands.
Id recommend reading Eric Beechers ‘The Men Who Killed The News’ and ‘Propaganda Blitz: How the Corporate Media Distort Reality’ by David Cromwell and David Edwards.
For a running commentary on this distortion I follow Media Lens.
Another test of standing up for the nation facing Starmer. He has a constant traitor to deal with in Farage, out and out racists in Lowe and Yaxley Lennon, and now giving a British salute to Trump. As Greta Thunberg would say “small dick energy” seems likely. An excuse for a PM.
$1bn in damages – one supposes for loss of “reputation”… what reputation? The most unpopular president ever (after +/- 11 months in office) and we have yet to “enjoy” what comes out of the Epstein saga. Trump is giving grifting a bad name.
We can be clear. Aside from being a convicted felon, adjudicated sexual assaulter and worse, on sanctioning violence he has, demonstrably, presided over extra-judicial killings in international and/or foreign territorial waters, and declared that he doesn’t want to seek a declaration of war to even potentially legitimise future killings, which on the face of it appears to make him guilty of war crimes.
Given the question is whether the show overstated his support for violence on Jan 6th, what damage to his image is possible when he has been on televised interviews confirming his support for the US military engaging in murder?
He would need to prove some kind of damage to his reputation here. As most of us here think an inflatable baby Trump in a nappy is an accurate depiction of the guy, he won’t get much traction.
It sounds like it would be trying the case somewhere like Florida rather than the UK because he’s already missed the 1 year deadline for claiming in the UK.
That might leave higher damages possibly but also then faces the higher bar from first amendment protections on free speech
I am not sure you can just choose a jurisdiction, publication by the BBC was in the UK. If it were published in the US, was it published there by the BBC?
The UK would be the ‘correct’ place. I gather that’s not possible because of time limits. The argument seems to be that it’s somehow valid to try to raise it somewhere else like Florida because it’s also ‘accessible’ there.
It doesn’t seem reasonable to attempt to make the case in Florida to me either, I’m just noting what I’ve read. If there is an absolute impediment to raising the case here, then Trump’s first question is whether he has a jurisdiction that will accept the case. Even if he does, then appears to go against the higher freedom of expression rights in the US and still makes for a more difficult case from that point, although on the flip side the US courts seem more willing to agree to outrageous compensatory figures.
I’m very much on the side of BBC not capitulating to Trump when he’s trying to abuse his wealth and power to bully even large foreign corporations to effectively enrich himself with made-up levels of harm.
[…] And does Trump have a hope of winning a libel claim, let alone one for $1 billion? Not at all, in my opinion. […]
My antipathy towards the BBC means that I ignore them completely for current affairs.
That post about Lord Ashcroft by the poster posing as the Clash’s bass player, why did you post that? Nasty stuff.
Because my response provided new information that is factually appropriate.
The whole notion of BBC needing to be ‘impartial’ or ‘balanced’ is the antithesis of what investigative journalistic curiosity should be about – namely getting to the truth.
The BBC find themselves unable to tell the truth – such as in their censored film Doctors Under Attack because ‘it could give the impression of partiality’. In other words , if the truth couldn’t be ‘balanced’ against an untruth or opinion it cannot be said.
Yet no one challenges the sacrosanct ‘impartiality’. It was impartiality that gave us ten years of climate change denial by Nigel Lawson’s opinions which were frequently ‘balanced’ against the science.
In the Trump 6th January edit for which BBC apologised – didn’t they still get the gist correct – that Trump was encouraging them to march on the Capitol, and wasn’t he indicted for that?
I think they did get the gist right.
Apparently the corrupt liar is going to sue in the Florida courts, where damages would presumably be higher. However, as the Panorama film was on the iPlayer there is a question of whether it was available to view at all in the US during the time it was on there. And US courts have more respect for freedom of speech than UK ones and our notorious libel laws.
As with his cases against US media companies, it is all about bullying, egotism and his total unwillingness to ever admit he was wrong. A trait I note shared by a certain A.Hitler. So far, just as in Hitler’s case, these tactics have worked with US companies settling with him. Unless expert lawyers say he actually has a very strong case, the Beeb should call his bluff. Appeasment never works with people like Trump.
And as this article from The Guardian shows, this story was never really about so-called BBC bias. https://www.theguardian.com/media/ng-interactive/2025/nov/10/make-no-mistake-this-was-a-coup-the-extraordinary-downfall-of-the-bbcs-top-bosses.
Since we’re in the season of flag waving virtue signalling patriotism, lets see some support for the BBC from our wonderful politicos against an American president who is a proven liar, convicted criminal and grifter. John Griffin is right to call Farage a traitor, and to ask whether Starmer will support the Beeb.
You are quite correct, sickoftaxdodgers, the BBC content was never available in the US. A litigation lawyer was on BBC Breakfast this morning (yes, I’m ashamed to say I do watch it), pointing that out, and also that there is a 12 month limitation on bringing a case to court so it is too late. The limit is 2 years in the US but it is unlikely any US court would acccept jurusdication. So all the usual bluster by Trump with no substance.
Thanks
Of all the things to cause resignations at the BBC – being told by the Daily Torygraph that you’ve upset Trump!
Let’s forget about the wholly biased coverage of the independence referendum in 2014, the ridiculous treatment of the independence movement and half the Scots electorate since and to date, and the coverage of the war crimes/genocide in Gaza. No resignations there just contemptuous harrumphs.
Will PSB be reformed and protected in this country? Put mildly – I’m not holding my breath!
Nigel Farage has appeared on Question Time 38 times.
Jeremy Corbyn has appeared on Question Time 4 times.
Farage has been an MP for 14 months
Corbyn has been an MP for over 40 years (party leader for 5 years)
There is a good and detailed legal analysis on David Allen Green’s Law and Policy Blog
https://davidallengreen.com/2025/11/a-close-look-at-trumps-1-billion-claim-against-the-bbc/
Thanks
As I expected