Entertainment
Legal experts question viability of Trump’s $5 billion defamation lawsuit against BBC
U.S. President Donald Trump vows to sue the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for “anywhere between $1bn and $5bn” over a misleading edited clip in a Panorama documentary faces a steep uphill battle in court, with legal analysts pointing to a series of formidable jurisdiction and legal obstacles.
“We have to do it, they’ve even admitted that they cheated, Not that they couldn’t have done that. They cheated. They changed the words coming out of my mouth,” President Trump told reporters on board Air Force One.
BBC have also issued a formal apology last week for an edit in October 2024 documentary which spliced two parts of President’s January 6, 2021, speech.
With the edited version, there was a “mistaken impression” that he directly called for a violent action.
While the apology prompted the resignation of the corporation’s top two executives, the news agency has refused to pay financial compensation and has cited that it “strongly disagreed there is a basis for defamation claim” as reported by Sky News.
Despite BBC’s contrition , legal experts suggest a successful lawsuit is a long shot.
Legal hurdles in the UK
The most straightforward path to file a defamation case would be in the United Kingdom, since the program was originally broadcast here. But, this avenue appears to be closed.
The one-year limitation period for a defamation claim in the UK has almost certainly expired, as the program aired in October 2024. But even if it hadn’t, President Trump would face a difficult task proving serious harm to his reputation, a key requirement under UK law.
It is anticipated that BBC’s defense would be that the edit was an error in judgment, not malice, and that Trump was re-elected as president shortly after the documentary was aired, and didn’t suffer tangible reputational damage in the UK as a result.
Legal hurdles in U.S.
The other way is to bring the case to a U.S. court, potentially in Trump’s home state of Florida, which introduces a different set of challenges, majorly concerning jurisdiction and the high bar for public figures to prove defamation.
The major problem Trump will face is that the BBC’s Panorama program was not broadcasted on any American television and was geographically restricted on the BBC’s iPlayer platform.
To sue in Florida, Trump’s legal team would have to convince the court the BBC purposefully directed its content at a Florida audience, which seems a difficult argument to make.
If a court accepts a jurisdiction, the U.S. President would then have to meet the “actual malice” standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
Since BBC has already stated that the edit was “unintentional” in its formal apology writing in retraction, “We accept that our edit unintentionally created this impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and this this gave the mistake impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.”
This statement directly contradicts the “actual malice” standard.
A political quagmire for UK Prime Minister
The situation also created a diplomatic and political dilemma for UK Prime minister Keir Starmer.
Trump told reporters that he plans to have a telephonic conversation with Starmer over the weekend.
Since BBC is a public corporation, funded by a license fee and legally independent of government, Starmer intervenes to dissuade Trump from the lawsuit, can accused him of compromising the BBC’s editorial independence.
If he remains silent, he leaves a cherished British institution facing a potentially costly and protracted legal battle with a sitting U.S. president, a fight that could ultimately be funded by British taxpayers.
In a separate interview on Saturday, November 15, recorded before his comments on Air Force One, Trump declared the lawsuit an “obligation,” adding, “If you don’t do it, you don’t stop it from happening again with other people.
However, the legal path to a multi-billion dollar payout appears with complications that may make the threat of a lawsuit more potent than its eventual filing.
Entertainment
Why Robert Duvall’s ‘napalm’ line in ‘Apocalypse Now’ is so iconic
One of the most referenced and iconic dialogues in the history of cinema that truly enjoyed a life of its own is “I love the smell of napalm in the morning.”
These timeless lines were performed by Robert Duvall in Francis Ford Coppola’s 1979 Vietnam War classic Apocalypse Now.
The chilling monologue is what is making buzz on social media again after the demise of the Oscar winner for Tender Mercies, who passed away at his home in Middleburg, Virginia, on Sunday, February 15.
Let’s find out why, decades later, the monologue has become one of the most quoted lines in cinema history.
The line was said by Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore, a daring and eccentric cavalry officer, when he set a helicopter ambush on a Vietnamese village.
Colonel Kilgore calmly reflects on the ashes left after the napalm bombing, finally coming to terms with the fact that it smells like “victory.”
The line is, “Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed for twelve hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn’t find one of ‘em, not one stinking drink body.
“The smell, you know, the gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like… victory.”
What follows is, “Some day this war’s gonna end.”
It was a quiet introspection of what war takes and steals from human lives.
Why does the line continue to resonate?
The dialogue has taken on a life beyond the film, becoming a symbol for glorifying chaos, dark irony, and battlefield arrogance.
Cultural critics have been referencing it across pop culture, memes, viral trends, and television shows, often using it with a taste of sarcasm to introspect obsession, destruction, or self-indulgence.
Above all, Robert Duvall’s iconic performance in the film, especially in the immortal sequence, has been etched into the memories of cinema lovers, as long as the shadows of war continue to loom over our planet.
Entertainment
Chinese ‘Year of Fire Horse’ to bring luck for Mamdani, challenges for Trump
China has welcomed its Lunar New Year with nationwide celebrations of fireworks, lanterns, and festivities.
2026 is the Year of the Fire Horse, which symbolises power and speed.
A feng shui expert Raymond Lo has made predictions on how the new year will be for prominent American personalities, including the United States (U.S.) President Donald Trump, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Hollywood sensation Timothee Chalamet.
For context, a Feng Shui Master is a professional, often rooted in traditional Chinese metaphysics, who interprets and manipulates environmental energy (Qi) to enhance harmony, health, and prosperity in homes and businesses.
In an interview with CNN, Master Lo said, “The horse represents a powerful fire element. So it’s a pure fire year. Fire is very strong and very energetic.”
He added that it will bring protests and anti-government demonstrations in the U.S. that could not be so peaceful, adding, “Fire is not a favourable element for President Trump, so it will stimulate his enemies.”
Master Lo said Trump will likely face fierce opposition and significant obstacles in the year of the fire horse.
The year is predicted to be favourable for New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who was sworn-in last year after winning the election against political heavyweights.
Master Lo said, “Mamdani has a strong metal element in his chart, and fire is a power to metal people. He will gain power. It’s a very favourable year for him.”
The predictions don’t always come true as Master Lo’s prediction about then-President Biden having a good year in 2024 and Trump having a bad year did not come true, as Trump went on to win the 2024 presidential election despite Lo’s forecast.
Entertainment
Police identify shooter Robert Dorgan, say attack tied to family dispute
Police have identified the shooter in the Pawtucket ice rink shooting that left three dead. Officials said the suspect, Robert Dorgan, who also went by the name of Roberta Esposito, has allegedly died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
On Monday afternoon, February 16, 2026, at around 2:30 p.m., a lone shooter opened fire on people in a local skating rink, Dennis M. Lynch Arena, in Pawtucket, Rhode Island and killed three people while leaving three others in critical condition.
Pawtucket Police Chief Tina Goncalves stated the said authorities have not yet released the victims’ identities. She said that the shooting appears to be targeted, adding, “It may have been a family dispute.”
The unfortunate incident occurred during a high school hockey game between Coventry/Johnston and Blackstone Valley Co-op.
Witnesses described the horrific scenes and confusion after the tragic shooting as the spectators and players ran to seek shelter and flee towards the exit.
Melissa Dunn, the mother of one of the players, said, “It was supposed to be a special day for the team, and it’s really sad.”
A sophomore goalkeeper from Coventry High School, Olin Lawrence, described the situation as complete chaos, saying, “We ran to the locker room and just tried to be safe. We pressed against the door and just tried to stay safe down there. It was very scary. We were very nervous. There were a lot of shots.”
-
Business7 days agoAye Finance IPO Day 2: GMP Remains Zero; Apply Or Not? Check Price, GMP, Financials, Recommendations
-
Fashion7 days agoComment: Tariffs, capacity and timing reshape sourcing decisions
-
Tech1 week agoRemoving barriers to tech careers
-
Entertainment7 days ago‘Harry Potter’ star David Thewlis doesn’t want you to ask him THIS question
-
Fashion7 days agoADB commits $30 mn to support MSMEs in Philippines
-
Fashion7 days agoSaint Laurent retains top spot as hottest brand in Q4 2025 Lyst Index
-
Sports7 days agoWinter Olympics opening ceremony host sparks fury for misidentifying Mariah Carey, other blunders
-
Fashion4 days ago$10→ $12.10 FOB: The real price of zero-duty apparel
