egg

Correct. I though I'd made that clear. How I spend my time is a matter for me, and I choose not to waste my time addressing your non answers, or your questions.

None of that considers the legal fees. The BBC are looking at $10m + to defend a claim. Lose, they pay his fees, and any damages. They won't want the risk, and my guess is they'll look to settle at a level below their likely legal fees. Let's see if the BBC are "pussies".

Nuisance value is a term used in litigation to refer to the legal costs, time and aggravation of fighting a case. In addition to that, there's the litigation risk, ie the risk of losing, and what that looks like. If the BBC are looking at £10m in legal fees to defend a potential loser, that's part of the nuisance value. I'm with you completely on the spread of the article, and any reputational loss. Personally I think it'll settle, unless Starmer can have some sway. Let's see what happens - we can all speculate differently.

The short response is that I think malice is arguable. If not malicious, what was the intention of that piece of editing?

It'll be Florida, a red state. The BBC must consider the nuisance value. Christ not what to US lawyers for an unknown outcome. If they lose, it's the embarrassment, plus the damages, plus his legal fees. There's also the minor issue of our state broadcaster going toe to toe with the US president. Personally, I think a court in a red state will look at that and see malice. Let's face it, on any assessment, they didn't edit it like they did with good intentions, and they knew full well that they massively changed the context of hks words. It'll settle.

I'm not wasting my time evidencing how you've wasted my time.

I think you're looking for what you want to see. They can roll the dice and fight if they want, that's their call but they have a duty to the license payer and will need to do a proper risk analysis.

That only serves it highlight the stupidity of splicing different sections of his words together to create a different impression. I despise Trump, but, the BBC got this very wrong.

Absolutely. Freezing the allowance is cowardly.

We've done this to death mate. You've been wrong throughout, and miss the point, namely that our military isn't particularly strong.

I don't want anything to go to the idiot, but, the BBC got that very wrong. They'd inevitably lose any litigation in a red state imo, so settlement is the least worst option.

Litigation in a Red state is likely to favour the Republican boss man I'd imagine. To be fair to Trump, and as ridiculous as his financial expectations are, that was a disgraceful piece of editing, and the explanation given by the BBC is disingenuous. They need to settle.

Jesus wept, that's something I thought I'd never see.

Yep to all of that. The spend on tribunal judges and specialist members, plus the consequential pension costs, is vast. Diverting those resources to LA's to make the correct decisions at the outset is infinitely more sensible than paying judges and specialist members to tell them to spend unbudgeted monies further down the line. The system needs an urgent root and branch review and restructure.

Ah gotcha. Agreed.