That is true but trump had several months of complaining about it when he could have bought a claim but didn’t. In any case there’s no incentive to claim in UK because there would be nothing to win, except he might get his legal fees back (but even that isn’t guaranteed).
He couldn’t, as he started complaining about it over a year after it was broadcast, when the BBC Board published its report into their investigation of the progtamme.
But back to my main point, even if he was libelled (he wasn’t) he wouldn’t win anything in the UK. The whole point of the legal action is to try and silence anything critical of the regime and the only way that can be successful is under us law.
Several months after broadcast, a memo on the subject of impartiality, written by an external advisor to the BBC’s Editorial Standards Committee, raised concerns about the editing of the programme.
A few months after this, the memo was leaked by the Telegraph, leading to the resignation of the Director General and of the CEO of BBC News. The BBC Board was forced to make the matter public. This is when the White House learned of it, 12 months after broadcast.
…and yet the offending clips were broadcast in full on national tv less than 12 months before trump sued, and the full documentary available to view on iPlayer within that 12 month period (I literally only watched it on iPlayer because of the controversy)
Regardless, under UK law the time limit can be increased if you only become aware of the libel after the deadline has passed.
Oh, man. I’d love to see him on the witness stand. Especially if it’s in the UK and the judge wears one of those funny wigs.
Unfortunately the case is being heard in Miami, Florida.
… because under UK (English) law you can only claim damages for actual harm which is basically zero.
Its because libel cases need to be brought within 1 year of publication.
That is true but trump had several months of complaining about it when he could have bought a claim but didn’t. In any case there’s no incentive to claim in UK because there would be nothing to win, except he might get his legal fees back (but even that isn’t guaranteed).
He couldn’t, as he started complaining about it over a year after it was broadcast, when the BBC Board published its report into their investigation of the progtamme.
Why would they investigate without a complaint.
But back to my main point, even if he was libelled (he wasn’t) he wouldn’t win anything in the UK. The whole point of the legal action is to try and silence anything critical of the regime and the only way that can be successful is under us law.
Several months after broadcast, a memo on the subject of impartiality, written by an external advisor to the BBC’s Editorial Standards Committee, raised concerns about the editing of the programme.
A few months after this, the memo was leaked by the Telegraph, leading to the resignation of the Director General and of the CEO of BBC News. The BBC Board was forced to make the matter public. This is when the White House learned of it, 12 months after broadcast.
…and yet the offending clips were broadcast in full on national tv less than 12 months before trump sued, and the full documentary available to view on iPlayer within that 12 month period (I literally only watched it on iPlayer because of the controversy)
Regardless, under UK law the time limit can be increased if you only become aware of the libel after the deadline has passed.
Doesn’t matter. The window closed 12 months after original broadcast. You don’t get a reset each time its viewed.
Gross. So not only do we not get a silly wig, we’ll probably get a Trump crony judge too.