egg

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.

The reality is that LA's refuse to assess when they know they should, then get told by the tribunal that they must, then once they do they refuse to issue a plan, then get told by the tribunal that they must, then try stick the kid in a school unsuitable, then get told by the tribunal to go with the parent's (appropriate) choice of school. Every tribunal step takes a year or so of the child's life. LA's play the system to buy time. They don't want to, but don't have the resources.

Ditto the SEND system, equally unaffordable in its current guise. We have LA's who can't afford to properly educate SEND after kids under it's jurisdiction, only to be told by Judges that they must do things that they haven't got money for. It's a broken system. If the approach people want to take to PiP etc was taken to SEND kids, there'd be an erroneous assumption that those kids are all putting on their Autism, global development delay, disability, etc, and left to rot at home https://www.countycouncilsnetwork.org.uk/councils-warn-send-system-faces-total-collapse-without-major-reform-to-services/

I'm not going to answer what you want me to, mostly because you swerve many questions put to you. That's why I didn't ask any questions of you - there's no point. I've merely made points.

Ha! Interesting post and perspective. I'm in no doubt that Russia don't have their SU era weight and muscle, but you wholly ignore where we're at, and dismiss Alex's pointers to the reality as a wind up. At the end of the day, we had people like you telling us that Russia will run out of people and ordnance. You've always had that bizarre opinion, and seemingly still have your own perception. Whether they have, in your opinion, bureaucracy etc issues, is completely irrelevant to the fact that they haven't run out of gear, and won't. Kid yourself all you like that we still have a mighty military, and that Russia can barely knock up a bullet without North Korea's help, but that's a reality in your head only.

That's a unique take on it. There's no appeasement to the "socialist left". Not wanting to make slashing cuts, and a return to austerity, is a central ground stance, not a socialist one. We're skint. You say tax raising aren't the answer. I say austerity isn't the answer. I also say taking benefits from people who need them is wrong, and if the government needs a system that sorts the needy from the greedy, then assuming they're all greedy and should go without isn't the way a decent society operates imo. The rest of your post is just bollox.

Numbers, self sufficient supply chain, etc. Russia have been able to replenish at rate we couldn't get near.

You've missed the point of the discussion. It was a simple comparison of our military Vs Russia. Nobody seems willing to concede that ours is worse. Yes, NATO plus ours is decent, but that avoids the point.

You've said throughout this that Russia's military is weak, that they'll run out of stuff, etc. You were wrong. Do you believe that our military (ours alone) is stronger than Russia's? Yes, I know that we're part of NATO so with US support we'll be fine, but that wasn't the point at issue.

I haven't said that they have a plan. Or even an intention. No idea where you got that idea from.

Bollox. It's a non story. Manifesto. No income tax rise. Decision. No income tax rise. There's no non U-turn to herald because there's not been a U-turn.

It doesn't sound like our huge military spend stretches as far as Russia's...