General News

[Dunge]

26 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Thank you, I always appreciate your insights! 
 

I get the impression this is just raising the stakes before Trump starts work as president (and potential improvement of US-Russia relations) but it’s still disconcerting.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Trump’s team have been on the phone to the Kremlin over the last couple of days apologising profusely and begging Putin not to react.

 

And of course Putin putting the phone down afterwards and laughing.

[Wymsey]

Loughborough Shopping Centre is set to close.

 

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/second-store-claims-leicestershire-shopping-9727109

[les-tah]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Fixed

[Dunge]

6 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Loughborough Shopping Centre is set to close.

 

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/second-store-claims-leicestershire-shopping-9727109

I’m not surprised; there’s nothing in there.

[Grebfromgrebland]

3 hours ago, bovril said:

Non woke - BLT, chicken, cheese and pickle, egg and cress, coronation chicken, tuna and sweetcorn, ham, sausage

 

Everything else is pretty woke. 

Chicken is woke sandwich filling 

[Parafox]

3 hours ago, Dunge said:

I had an All Day Breakfast sandwich from the Co-op today. There’s surely no way an All Day Breakfast is woke, but I’m worrying whether the Co-op might be.

Bacon, sausage, black pudding, all fairly firm but what about fried/poached egg, beans, tomato.

 

Not to mention brown sauce.

 

Did you need one of these?

 

[kenny]

2 hours ago, Dunge said:

I’m not surprised; there’s nothing in there.

Except that hidden underground pub. Hope that survives any development and gets reopened.

[FoxyPV]

Clarkson being a bell as usual when talking about IHT for farms despite boasting about it for years.

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

11 minutes ago, FoxyPV said:

Clarkson being a bell as usual when talking about IHT for farms despite boasting about it for years.

Strikes me as a reasonable policy. This is the best analysis I’ve seen on it:

 

 

To be honest it stinks of the tabloids misrepresenting the facts again to pressure the government and back their wealthy mates.

[Md9]

Be lovely if musk arranges a flight to space for him and his new mate trump and takes farage Laurence fox and katy Hopkins with them and it accidentally explode 

[The Horse's Mouth]

I don’t agree with IHT in general, personally 

the issue I’ve found with it this in particular, is it’ll probably work in terms of detering people like Dyson and clarkson buying them for that reason. But the super wealthy will always find a way to dodge the tax bill. I think the main concern is this’ll just turn into a massive land grab from corporations, and maybe a little suspicious from me but potential government contracts on this land to support the new wind initiative. 

[SecretPro]

52 minutes ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

Strikes me as a reasonable policy. This is the best analysis I’ve seen on it:

 

 

To be honest it stinks of the tabloids misrepresenting the facts again to pressure the government and back their wealthy mates.

Spot on. Nothing wrong with the policy. Just the usual vocal country set kicking up their usual stink because they're sad the tories lost and at some point will have to face the reckoning of out-of-date traditions such as bloodsport, extremely poor land management practices inflicting untold damage on biodiversity and the wider environment (despite, apparently, being the 'guardians of the countryside) amongst a wide array other things. 

 

The only business on earth where you can make a profit by not making a profit, essentially being given thousands upon thousands of pounds of tax payers money in subsidy just to exist. Even the Queen used to take in well over a million quid a year in farming subsidies. The system is laughable, has long needed reform, as has land management in general, and this first argument of many is basically trying to get in there early to try and halt any further progress by driving the 'oh, poor farmers' narrative.

Edited 19 November 2024 by SecretPro

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I don’t agree with IHT in general, personally 

the issue I’ve found with it this in particular, is it’ll probably work in terms of detering people like Dyson and clarkson buying them for that reason. But the super wealthy will always find a way to dodge the tax bill. I think the main concern is this’ll just turn into a massive land grab from corporations, and maybe a little suspicious from me but potential government contracts on this land to support the new wind initiative. 

Tbf any cost of introducing carbon neutral energy generation will be less than the consequences of not doing so. This is reasonably obvious.

 

I get that such initiatives should ideally be bottom up rather than top down though, but not doing them at all will be much, much worse than either.

[The Horse's Mouth]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Tbf any cost of introducing carbon neutral energy generation will be less than the consequences of not doing so. This is reasonably obvious.

 

I get that such initiatives should ideally be bottom up rather than top down though, but not doing them at all will be much, much worse than either.

If this cost is reducing our natural production to the food supply to then resort to import even more goods that’ll surely do more damage?

[leicsmac]

Just now, The Horse's Mouth said:

If this cost is reducing our natural production to the food supply to then resort to import even more goods that’ll surely do more damage?

In the short term, certainly.

 

In the long term (a few decades), not pursuing such projects will result in a cost that is so high it may be absolute.

 

(There has to be a way to balance both food and carbon-neutral energy generation as needed for the future, and I'm sure there is.)

[SecretPro]

5 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

If this cost is reducing our natural production to the food supply to then resort to import even more goods that’ll surely do more damage?

This argument just never really stacks up. Irks me when I hear the same tropes about using 'farmland' for other means will lead to us all starving. 

 

The single biggest threat to agriculture in the UK is climate change, the second is soil degradation (caused by modern farming) and the third is biodiversity loss. 

 

Land is not and never will be an issue. In fact, if we change the now extremely archaic way we farm this Country we could produce much more food with far less space. 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/united-kingdom-food-security-report-2021/united-kingdom-food-security-report-2021-theme-2-uk-food-supply-sources

Edited 19 November 2024 by SecretPro

[South Shire Fox]

26 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Spot on. Nothing wrong with the policy. Just the usual vocal country set kicking up their usual stink because they're sad the tories lost and at some point will have to face the reckoning of out-of-date traditions such as bloodsport, extremely poor land management practices inflicting untold damage on biodiversity and the wider environment (despite, apparently, being the 'guardians of the countryside) amongst a wide array other things. 

 

The only business on earth where you can make a profit by not making a profit, essentially being given thousands upon thousands of pounds of tax payers money in subsidy just to exist. Even the Queen used to take in well over a million quid a year in farming subsidies. The system is laughable, has long needed reform, as has land management in general, and this first argument of many is basically trying to get in there early to try and halt any further progress by driving the 'oh, poor farmers' narrative.

You mean the people that work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day to provide our food.. and who we would be totally fcked without? 

Edited 19 November 2024 by South Shire Fox

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, South Shire Fox said:

You mean the people that work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day to provide our food.. and who we would be totally fcked without? 

And the first people to really be hit by the way the world is changing due to our reticence in switching energy generation and the resultant global consequences of doing so.

[SecretPro]

17 minutes ago, South Shire Fox said:

You mean the people that work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day to provide our food.. and who we would be totally fcked without? 

That's a very, very simplistic view and ignores a massive amount of issues affecting that system. 

 

Farming is a choice, nobody is forced to farm so I'm not going to be swayed by the 'they work really hard' argument. If you work in manufacturing creating something that doesn't sell, you don't get paid, therfore you diversify into doing something where you do get paid. Any industry which has to be paid purely to survive clearly needs a rethink. Lack of diversity and an inherent reticence to adapt and modernise and get on board with the struggles facing the world today is all part of the problem, should we prop that attitude up with public money? I'd argue not. Farming can be and has proven to be by the few who dare do it be both very profitable financially and environmentally, so I won't have sympathy for anybody still dragging their heels in a bygone era. 

 

As for 'without them we are fooked'. No. Many of them are part of the problem, not the cure, and the damage is untold. They've profiteered on the same scaremongering you're using for decades and it's wearing thin at a juncture where their lack of adaptation is costing the planet. I will happily back those willing to diversify and serve both plate and planet, but there aren't enough of them and that's as much by choice and tradition as it is by any lack of funding or backing. 

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

Strikes me as a reasonable policy. This is the best analysis I’ve seen on it:

 

 

To be honest it stinks of the tabloids misrepresenting the facts again to pressure the government and back their wealthy mates.

It’s astounding how many working class people go into bat for idiots like Clarkson that brag about how they’re getting around paying taxes. 

[Zear0]

22 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

That's a very, very simplistic view and ignores a massive amount of issues affecting that system. 

 

Farming is a choice, nobody is forced to farm so I'm not going to be swayed by the 'they work really hard' argument. If you work in manufacturing creating something that doesn't sell, you don't get paid, therfore you diversify into doing something where you do get paid. Any industry which has to be paid purely to survive clearly needs a rethink. Lack of diversity and an inherent reticence to adapt and modernise and get on board with the struggles facing the world today is all part of the problem, should we prop that attitude up with public money? I'd argue not. Farming can be and has proven to be by the few who dare do it be both very profitable financially and environmentally, so I won't have sympathy for anybody still dragging their heels in a bygone era. 

 

As for 'without them we are fooked'. No. Many of them are part of the problem, not the cure, and the damage is untold. They've profiteered on the same scaremongering you're using for decades and it's wearing thin at a juncture where their lack of adaptation is costing the planet. I will happily back those willing to diversify and serve both plate and planet, but there aren't enough of them and that's as much by choice and tradition as it is by any lack of funding or backing. 

Also worth adding that whilst domestic food production should be encouraged, we've been net importers of food since the early 19th century. Why the Nazis kept torpedoing supply convoys. 

 

As you say, we'd not be "fooked", as we already are, if you think they self sustain our population. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Also worth adding that whilst domestic food production should be encouraged, we've been net importers of food since the early 19th century. Why the Nazis kept torpedoing supply convoys. 

 

As you say, we'd not be "fooked", as we already are, if you think they self sustain our population. 

And as per above, no one, least of all farmers, can survive without changing the way they do things anyhow.

[SecretPro]

1 minute ago, Zear0 said:

Also worth adding that whilst domestic food production should be encouraged, we've been net importers of food since the early 19th century. Why the Nazis kept torpedoing supply convoys. 

 

As you say, we'd not be "fooked", as we already are, if you think they self sustain our population. 

Exactly

 

And if, as the argument often goes 'if we lose land (or change how we do things) we won't be able to produce food to feed you' then it wouldn't really make much sense to export £30b worth of farmed produce each year and be the third largest exporter of lamb on the entire planet. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

4 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Also worth adding that whilst domestic food production should be encouraged, we've been net importers of food since the early 19th century. Why the Nazis kept torpedoing supply convoys. 

 

As you say, we'd not be "fooked", as we already are, if you think they self sustain our population. 

That reminds me of my fun quiz question, and it sounds like you might know the answer.

 

In the run up to World War 2, how much of our food did we have to import?

[The Horse's Mouth]

1 hour ago, SecretPro said:

This argument just never really stacks up. Irks me when I hear the same tropes about using 'farmland' for other means will lead to us all starving. 

 

The single biggest threat to agriculture in the UK is climate change, the second is soil degradation (caused by modern farming) and the third is biodiversity loss. 

 

Land is not and never will be an issue. In fact, if we change the now extremely archaic way we farm this Country we could produce much more food with far less space. 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/united-kingdom-food-security-report-2021/united-kingdom-food-security-report-2021-theme-2-uk-food-supply-sources

Well that wasn’t really my argument, the argument was the less farmers and less production we do for our own food supply, it will just result in us importing even more and ultimately being a big effect on the environment. I definitely agree that a lot of farming methods can be evolved, but it’s usually down to funding and farmers don’t really get compensated for the work they do.