Defending the BBC against Trump - an idea that might turn the tables and amuse the nation.

So President Trump wants to sue the BBC for damages related to 'harm' he believes he experienced as a result of some biased editing by the BBC around his speeches before and during the Jan 6th 2021 attack on the US Capitol. The law suit is being raised in Florida since the statute of limitation for libel in the UK is 12 months but up to 2 years in Florida.

Apparently Trump wants to sue our Beeb for over $1bn. This is typical of the widely ambitious law suits he's filed many times before, but if he wins, which he rarely does, courts tend to settle for far less. It's all part of his tactics to scare the opposition into settling out of court rather than drag out very expensive 'lawfare', as it's known.

Far from being able to afford $1bn if he's successful, the BBC probably can't even afford to defend itself using American lawyers, let alone the best of them. But the BBC is much loved by the British people, who own it. Attacking our precious institution, the home of David Attenborough, Monty Python, Traitors and the best news channel in the world, is an attack on the British People. We've GOT to win, and we can... magnificently.

Here's my idea... Let's assemble the biggest, strongest, smartest legal team that's ever been assembled to defend (or prosecute) any action in history! Let's make a reality TV show out of it.

Britain is good at many things, but we are the best in the world at Law and in making TV shows. My suggestion is to merge these two strengths and invite the country's very best legal brains to get behind the BBC, and entertain us with how we make mincemeat out of the American team put up by Trump. In fact I bet the BBC could make a fortune out of it.

Sorted!

Comments

To kill or not to kill.

Had an interesting discussion with a Muslim friend today about the ethics of killing. Could it ever be morally justifiable? Abrahamic scriptures, especially the old testament, are awash with murders and killings, some sanctioned by the prophets and assorted mouthpieces for god. Some killing is even mandatory. For example all Jews are instructed in the old Testament to kill everyone belonging to the 7 Canaanite tribes for example - Deut 20:17 , or to slaughter Amaleks, especially their children - Deut 25:19 . So accepting for a moment that these draconian instructions were written in times when tribal leaders had fewer options available to them with respect to managing miscreants and maintaining some sort of law and order, I suspect that most people today would agree that killing people is a bad thing and should not be condoned except under extraordinary circumstances. My friend and I then proceeded to try to list those circumstances. We started with self-defence or perhaps protecti...

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo...

Don't Use My Taxes to Kill Syrians. Use Them to Educate Refugee Children

We (the UK and US) are about to start killing Syrians just like we killed Libyans, Iraqis and Afghans in the name of freedom and democracy... Only to end up with a bigger mess of warring tribes than we started with. We need to confront the reason they are killing each other, not perpetuate the hatred. Why do our press and politicians instantly jump to the conclusion that the only people who were likely to have used chemical weapons were the Syrian army? I believe it's because we still harbour the idea that if 'the people' rise up against their leaders, then we're witnessing democracy in action - and democracy equals freedom of choice... which we support. BUT when 'the people' are religious fundamentalists determined to enforce their brand of delusional beliefs and customs on their neighbourhood, should we really be supporting them? What's the difference between uprisings of these people in our own countries (London 7/7, 9/11, Boston Marathon etc), and u...

Grombles

Search This Blog