I hear that there is a deadline on Friday concerning issues that the plaintiff would like to inhibit news organisations from discussing. I'm sure this suit is in no way connected with that.
There is also a theme of punitive damages, e.g. the objective at 9, "to prevent future journalistic abuses". At 52, they make the point that the splicing was intentional.
I feel sure there will be those pushing the BBC to "settle and make it go away". They need to think very carefully about the knock on effect of all those who will immediately cancel their licence fee direct debit.
Seriously. The licence fee is not a normal kind of tax, subject to modern monetary theory: that is literally, and not figuratively, *our* money, and the BBC have no right whatsoever to hand over a penny of it to Trump without being compelled to by a court order.
IMMENSE likelihood! IMMENSE! LIKELIHOOD! Look upon my likelihood and despair, ye dogs!!
But seriously though, that's so embarrassing for an actual lawyer to have written out in a document laid before a court. If I had done that, I would have died inside.
Thank you for the analysis. I am still puzzled though as to whether or not the unauthorised dissemination of the documentary could allow a claim to be made. Might it be that the person illegally publishing it, rather than the Beeb, would be liable?
In response to, "As this sort of post takes a lot of effort, often with opportunity cost, it is under a paid subscription wall - at least for now. (I hope it is worth a paid subscription!)", it's plain beyond argument that it is worth the paid subscription!
Yet another excellent post, for which readers will be grateful.
Brilliantly insightful to a lay person, as usual. Thanks for taking the time to write and share this. Surely when a lawsuit quotes "No less an authority than..... Liz Truss" it proves itself to have no merit and should be thrown out immediately. Talk about grasping at straws.
I hear that there is a deadline on Friday concerning issues that the plaintiff would like to inhibit news organisations from discussing. I'm sure this suit is in no way connected with that.
There is also a theme of punitive damages, e.g. the objective at 9, "to prevent future journalistic abuses". At 52, they make the point that the splicing was intentional.
However, https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0768/Sections/0768.72.html makes clear for punitive damages the BBC must be "personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence". Surely it is the separate legal entity that did the splicing, and not the legal entities mentioned in the suit, that were the ones personally guilty of that?
I feel sure there will be those pushing the BBC to "settle and make it go away". They need to think very carefully about the knock on effect of all those who will immediately cancel their licence fee direct debit.
Seriously. The licence fee is not a normal kind of tax, subject to modern monetary theory: that is literally, and not figuratively, *our* money, and the BBC have no right whatsoever to hand over a penny of it to Trump without being compelled to by a court order.
I am very much here for legal commentary that deploys the word flapdoodle.
IMMENSE likelihood! IMMENSE! LIKELIHOOD! Look upon my likelihood and despair, ye dogs!!
But seriously though, that's so embarrassing for an actual lawyer to have written out in a document laid before a court. If I had done that, I would have died inside.
Thank you for the analysis. I am still puzzled though as to whether or not the unauthorised dissemination of the documentary could allow a claim to be made. Might it be that the person illegally publishing it, rather than the Beeb, would be liable?
In response to, "As this sort of post takes a lot of effort, often with opportunity cost, it is under a paid subscription wall - at least for now. (I hope it is worth a paid subscription!)", it's plain beyond argument that it is worth the paid subscription!
Yet another excellent post, for which readers will be grateful.
Brilliantly insightful to a lay person, as usual. Thanks for taking the time to write and share this. Surely when a lawsuit quotes "No less an authority than..... Liz Truss" it proves itself to have no merit and should be thrown out immediately. Talk about grasping at straws.