Donald Trump's 'huge hurdles' outlined by lawyer as BBC's 'sloppy editorial work' faces lawsuit

Issuing an apology to the President on Thursday evening, the BBC called its doctoring of his January 6 speech during an episode of Panorama an "error of judgement", declaring the programme will "not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms".

However, the broadcaster has rejected to compensate Mr Trump ahead of his imposed deadline of 10pm tonight.

Discussing how much of a case Mr Trump's lawsuit has against BBC, Mr Bloom explained: "He has a case for an apology, for sure. I don't think he has a case for significant damages. I'm reminded of Ian Fleming's Goldfinger about 65 years ago when he said 'once is happenstance, twice as coincidence, three times is enemy action'.

"So far we've only had two instances, and I'm waiting for the third. If there's a third, then he can say, look, it's enemy action. But at the moment it seems to me to be two examples of sloppy editorial work rather than a concerted attempt to be his enemy."

Martin Daubney argued that if Mr Trump were to be successful, it would be the "BBC's insurance premium" that would pay, not the licence fee payer.

Mr Bloom agreed: "I think you may be right there. The problem is that this case, if he brings it, it can't be brought in the UK."

The Media Lawyer explained: "We know that the programme that he complains about and the one that has just come to light was three years ago. The limitation period for bringing an action has has gone, so he has to bring it in Florida. Florida's got a two year limitation, so it can be.

"What their problem is that the program that he complains about was never shown in the States, and the element of defamation does require that the person who claims to have been defamed was aware of it, that it was published in the jurisdiction in which he sues, and it wasn't. So if he could get round that, he can bring it."

Detailing how the US President has "three limbs of damage" he can argue against the BBC, Mr Bloom told GB News: "The first of them is the shame, the humiliation, the mental anguish. Now, how much mental anguish did he suffer for a program that he never saw, and no one in the state saw either?

"The second is lost earnings. The claim's $1billion, it's a fanciful figure, it's plucked out the air. There's no evidence that he lost $1billion, there's nothing that's been put forward to suggest he did.

"And the third is punitive damages to encourage the defendant never to do it again, and to warn others if you libel someone in that way, the heavens will pour down on you."

Mr Bloom stated: "There are huge hurdles before he can even get anywhere near that sort of money, and the fact is that a week after transmission in the UK alone, he became President. And what damage did he suffer? What financial loss did he incur? Nothing has been particularised. This looks like Donald Trump doing to the BBC what he did to ABC and CNN."

Martin interjected: "And it worked! He got a stack of money out of them, that's the point."

The lawyer responded: "It's lawfare on his part, and because he could bully them, he thinks the BBC may be a softer target. Of course the BBC did do him wrong, and they've apologised, they want to draw the line there. Does he really want to go for them to get money where the damages are so uncertain?"

Noting the implications the row may have on Sir Keir Starmer's relationship with Mr Trump, Mr Bloom concluded: "If he wants, he can ban the BBC from press briefings in the White House. He can also say to his good friend Sir Keir Starmer, those tariffs that I was going to impose of 10 or 20 or 50 per cent might be 50 or 60 per cent, how do you feel about that?

"It's got so many more implications than just this narrow claim against a poorly edited Panorama case. We don't yet know where it's going, we do know that later today the deadline expires. And at the moment, the BBC have met him halfway. They want it to be enough, but does he? That's the big question."