I know very little about the American judicial system, apart from what I’ve seen in films like Twelve Angry Men, which probably idealised it, and in any case is seventy years old. So I don’t know what is likely to happen with Trump’s stated intention to sue the BBC for between one and five billion (!) dollars, after its admitted distortion of a speech he gave on the day of the notorious MAGA attack on the Capitol building in Washington DC of 6 January 2021. Did he incite the riot directly, as the BBC’s version of his speech implied, and as many of the rioters clearly understood; or only implicitly? There’s a one-to-five billion dollar difference between the two versions.

What I don’t know is how exactly Trump and his lawyers intend to do this. Does he – can he – sue the BBC in a British court? Or in an American one? If the latter, would it be Federal or State? If in the US, I understand that it would have to be in Florida (where he mainly lives), but where we’re told the BBC programme was not aired. So it was unlikely to have done any ‘reputational damage’ to him there. Any such damage would be difficult to quantify in any case, with his having won the next Presidential election in 2024 in spite of the BBC. Surely two resignations at the top of the BBC are more than enough to appease him for this. And everyone knows – not least because of his pardoning of the main rioters after that election – that he strongly supported them, at the very least. – Then there may be other legal barriers to a prosecution: like a Statute of Limitations, if that exists. (The alleged offence was more than four years ago.) But as I say, I’m ignorant of US law.

Would it be a jury trial? (In which case we might see a Henry Fonda amongst the Twelve Angry Men. He’s the ’goodie’ in that film.) And then, how would Trump get hold of his 1 to 5 billion dollars, if he won? An international bank transfer? More tariffs? Monies from the British Treasury (i.e. from us). Or by seizing whatever assets the BBC has in the US? – In truth, it’s difficult to see any of this happening. It looks like a bluff. So the BBC were right to refuse him the money; unlike several American media companies, incidentally, which have caved in to similar blackmail.

On the other hand, I’d have quite liked it if the case had come to court. Trump himself I assume would have had to give evidence. The BBC’s lawyers would have had a field day probing into his own propaganda: his ‘fake news’, distortions, lies, and libels against almost anyone who opposes him. Surely these could be used as evidence against him? – A trial along these lines might have made terrific television, and afterwards even another film – perhaps one as good as Twelve Angry Men (with George Clooney to play the Fonda character?). So it’s a shame it’s unlikely to come to trial. But then – I repeat – I’m woefully ignorant of American jurisprudence.

The BBC must hold firm on this. There are far bigger issues involved than Trump’s self-regard. In Britain public service TV, and the political idea of public service generally, are two of them. (This is why the Right, who hate public service – ‘socialism’ – are on Trump’s side.)