Trouble is, despite protestations to the contrary, the government DO have control over the BBC. As part of this fall out, Lisa Nandy came out and said that Robbie Gibb's behaviour hadn't met the threshold for dismissal, because if it had, she would have sacked him. Again, any award is going to be decided by the courts - confiscation of assets is nothing more than conspiracy theory, however plausible you feel it may be. If Trump was going to do that, he wouldn't have bothered with a court, would he?
I see where you are coming from - one is also ineffective, clearly, as the BBC have been here before time and again. The UK and it's many "beloved" institutions, be that police, NHS, BBC, social services etc are absolute experts at the "lessons have been learned" routine and then go on to do the same thing, or worse, time and again.
The BBC isn't sorry though. It thinks what it thinks about Trump is what matters, and that vilification trumps accuracy when it suits. It may be sorry it got caught out, but it will carry on reporting in its usual biased way.
If the BBC wasn't funded by the British public I'd say do your worst Trump, but unfortunately anything Trump gets from the BBC will just be paid for by a rise in the TV licence. So, by proceeding with this he is alienating a fair section of the British public who didn't think he is a total arsehole.
I am less sure. Firstly, any settlement is likely to be in the millions rather than the billions he is quoting, which against the BBC's annual funding could be fairly easily found - indeed, they are bound to have some form of insurance too. What it may do is catalyse the conversation about the funding model and how it is ran - the licence fee is a layover from the thick end of 100 years ago and the world has moved on massively since then. Part of the funding in the past was to build and maintain the broadcast infrastructure which was also used for things like national time signals and the RTS that controlled parts of the electric grid; what little of that is left now is funded by fees paid by broadcasters such as ITV etc, so a chunk of the 'excuse' for licencing is gone.
I suspect any self respecting insurance company will refuse to cover liabilities arising from lies @Fat Controller . However, Trump would have to sue in the UK if he expects any payment and, historically, the UK judicial system on libel and such does not think in silly numbers and may well, given Trump's character and history, award damages of £1 and make him pay costs if his claim is seen as frivolous.
US civil court verdicts ar enot enforceable on the UK @pete. Transatlantic litigation - enforcing US judgments in England and Wales
Won't stop them making an awful lot of noise first though. My view is the BBC deserves this. It's been a long time coming. If it precipitates "change or collapse", I think that's a good outcome.
Interesting! Laura K's Sunday morning show is concentrating on asylum and immigration. Presumably the BBC thinks this is pretty much the only topic that viewers are sufficiently incensed about to remove the spotlight from the BBC itself. Unfortunately, as per, the arguments Laura is presenting are all on the side of those arriving, not those already here. Will they never learn? Well, we know the answer to that from long experience.
I was always taught that it was empty cans that made the most noise. This reminded me of: "Where have all the flowers gone? Long time passing Where have all the flowers gone? Long time ago Where have all the flowers gone? Girls have picked them every one When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?" It's interesting that this is still as relevant today as it was when first written.
