I know: see earlier discussion between me and @stevepeers.bsky.social.

pps

Posts above on assumption that Trump sued BBC in England, where the programme was broadcast .

I am not an American lawyer, and a different analysis would be needed if he somehow sued BBC in US court.

Huge First Amendment issues there, which he himself benefits from when he defames opponents.

ps Anyone old enough to remember Truss threatening to sue Starmer for saying she crashed the economy?

That was in January this year.

Unless the libel case was a pretext for BBC to pay Trump a lot of money by means of settlement (and BBC as public body may not be able to do this), this claim would probably not fare well in the high court.

Perhaps he will sue BBC in US? Still high threshold for libel unless malice can be shown.

On currently available information: even if Trump was able to show this was a libel causing substantial damage, BBC likely to succeed with defence that "sting" of the libel was substantially true.

Some preliminary points:

Trump is unlikely to succeed in a claim for defamation against the BBC (on information available).

Even if he succeeded, damages for this alleged defamation would be no more than about £50k, probably less. Even the worst libels, now no more than about £100k.

£1bn? No way.

Thank you for explaining libel law to me.

BBC: "While President Trump has not disclosed any legal cause of action against us, we wish to apologise unreservedly to him, lick his boots, cancel shows that he doesn't like and which we never had any intention of broadcasting, and give him all our licence-fee payers' money by way of settlement"

If the BBC is guilty of anything it has been far too ready and willing to follow the right-wing media narratives pushed by the billionaire press barons, instead of pursuing its own independent journalism based on exposing and uncovering the truth – regardless of whether people want to hear it.

See also the prison service, universities, local government, and the rest.

And the response of this government?

No - not to fund and run them better and prepare the ground for success.

But to join the baying mob. 2/2

Good points.

The BBC simply is not a robust, independent institution.

Those who clap and cheer at these resignations are only having a short-term fillip - for this capitulation indicates a less-than-healthy wider polity.