General News Thread

[urban.spaceman]

Also, please don’t shit in my bed. You’re not Amber Heard. 

[Dr The Singh]

7 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Also, please don’t shit in my bed. You’re not Amber Heard. 

ok

[Torquay Gunner]

13 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Also, please don’t shit in my bed. You’re not Amber Heard. 

Or Goldilocks. 

[Clogger_]

2 hours ago, TamworthFoxes said:

What a jury decides does not change if someone has committed a crime or not. 
If someone gets off on a technicality it does not mean they were innocent. 
In the simplest terms if I come and break into your house and the police catch me in the act, if the officer makes a mistake with evidence or doesn’t caution me properly. If I then get off at court for whatever reason I am still the bloke who broke into your house.

I think what it does show is that the people jailed for last summers riots should probably have run trial. The massive reason they didn’t was that they would have been held in remand until the trial. Why this Labour fella wasn’t remanded like the rest of them is a strange one. 
All it does is play right into the hands of the people who believe there is a two tier justice system.  With this example it is easy to understand why someone might feel that there is!!

Verdict was 'Not guilty', not "gets off on a technicality".

[urban.spaceman]

[Clogger_]

There are a lot of posts skirting around the core issue related to the racist riots last year. There seems to be a level of *sympathy*: that the participants were treated harshly. I personally feel that these animals deserved everything they got and more. Their 'cause' is disgusting. The participants are utterly disgusting. 'Politicians' like Farage who stoke this are beyond disgusting. Anyone who feels even a twinge of support for the riots is disgusting. Setting fire to hotels with people inside - nothing else to say

Edited 16 August 2025 by Clogger_

[urban.spaceman]

I think we’re all forgetting about the best thing that’s ever happened at a British riot. 
 

 

 

[Muzzy_no7]

There’s speaking your mind and then there’s inciting violence.

 

Bob Vylan and Ricky Jones not convicted while Lucy Connolly was?
 

(I’m aware she pled guilty, but still she got a very lengthy sentence)

 

It’s all very alienating. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn02g0n2kepo

 

The death toll from heavy monsoon floods and landslides in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir continues to rise rapidly, with at least 307 people confirmed dead.

Most of the deaths were recorded by disaster authorities in the mountainous Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in north-west Pakistan. At least 74 homes have been damaged, while a rescue helicopter crashed during operations, killing its five crew.

Nine were killed in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, while another five died in the northern Gilgit-Baltistan region, authorities said.

Government forecasters said heavy rainfall was expected until 21 August in the north-west of the country, where several areas have been declared disaster zones.

 

That's horrible. 

 

...In July, Punjab, home to nearly half of Pakistan's 255 million people, recorded 73% more rainfall than the previous year and more deaths than in the entire previous monsoon.

Scientists say that climate change has made weather events more extreme and more frequent.

Northern Pakistan is also one of the most glaciated areas in the region, but they are fast thinning and retreating because of global warming - meaning debris such as rocks, soil, and other materials are vulnerable to being dislodged.

Monsoon rains now further destabilise the mountains, resulting in landslides.

While the exact cause of the recent floods and landslides are yet to be determined, glaciologists say that ice melt is a contributing factor. 

 

... doubly horrible when the root cause is at least reasonably obvious. 

[Clogger_]

41 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

There’s speaking your mind and then there’s inciting violence.

 

Bob Vylan and Ricky Jones not convicted while Lucy Connolly was?
 

(I’m aware she pled guilty, but still she got a very lengthy sentence)

 

It’s all very alienating. 

Why is it alienating? What do you want the freedom to say?

[st albans fox]

25 minutes ago, Clogger_ said:

Why is it alienating? What do you want the freedom to say?

Rudkin out ? 

[st albans fox]

11 hours ago, Lionator said:

Crimea would be one of the easier things to negotiate I reckon. Trump keeps going on about land but it’s all about keeping Ukraine out of the west for Putin. We’ll get a compromise soon but I can’t see anything better than a ‘Korean war’ frozen scenario. 

Some leaks that Putin wants the four oblasts and crimea.  But he may negotiate a little away from Donetsk region. 
 

obviously Ukraine won’t agree to this but trump now says he wants a peace deal rather than a ceasefire and then negs (seems Putin talked him into this). 
 

European leaders could find themselves backed into a corner 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Some leaks that Putin wants the four oblasts and crimea.  But he may negotiate a little away from Donetsk region. 
 

obviously Ukraine won’t agree to this but trump now says he wants a peace deal rather than a ceasefire and then negs (seems Putin talked him into this). 
 

European leaders could find themselves backed into a corner 

May I ask how so?

[Zear0]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

May I ask how so?

Presume as Trump is demanding Ukraine give us the remainder of Donetsk which Europe as repeatedly said forget about. Aside the giving up territories to an imperialist conquest, this would also remove the vast majority of Ukrainian defenses between the front line and Kyiv.

 

Putin making demands Trump would accept, that Europe won't, seems like trying to put a wedge between the Western nations and weaken support. Anyone who thinks Putin doesn't want the rest of Ukraine is an ostrich at this point. 

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Presume as Trump is demanding Ukraine give us the remainder of Donetsk which Europe as repeatedly said forget about. Aside the giving up territories to an imperialist conquest, this would also remove the vast majority of Ukrainian defenses between the front line and Kyiv.

 

Putin making demands Trump would accept, that Europe won't, seems like trying to put a wedge between the Western nations and weaken support. Anyone who thinks Putin doesn't want the rest of Ukraine is an ostrich at this point. 

Sort of this - yes

 

I could conceive of an arrangement where Russia get crimea and at least three of the oblasts and they allow Ukraine to have a security agreement with western powers (USA included) where it has protection if its attacked by a foreign power.  No nato and no eu membership.  Putin may calculate that he could manipulate a friendly govt in Kyiv within the next decade. 
 

 

[leicsmac]

46 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Presume as Trump is demanding Ukraine give us the remainder of Donetsk which Europe as repeatedly said forget about. Aside the giving up territories to an imperialist conquest, this would also remove the vast majority of Ukrainian defenses between the front line and Kyiv.

 

Putin making demands Trump would accept, that Europe won't, seems like trying to put a wedge between the Western nations and weaken support. Anyone who thinks Putin doesn't want the rest of Ukraine is an ostrich at this point. 

 

38 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Sort of this - yes

 

I could conceive of an arrangement where Russia get crimea and at least three of the oblasts and they allow Ukraine to have a security agreement with western powers (USA included) where it has protection if its attacked by a foreign power.  No nato and no eu membership.  Putin may calculate that he could manipulate a friendly govt in Kyiv within the next decade. 
 

 

Appreciate the elaboration.

 

I think in that case the European powers will have known this corner was coming at some point ever since November 5th 2024 - the wedge on this matter has clearly and obviously existed between Europe and the US since that date. One would hope in that case that they now have had time to form a workable contingency, or perhaps it was all for show and they knew that bullshit Might Makes Right realpolitik in all its death, suffering and ugliness would succeed in spite of all they're trying to do yet again.

Edited 16 August 2025 by leicsmac

[Lionator]

14 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Presume as Trump is demanding Ukraine give us the remainder of Donetsk which Europe as repeatedly said forget about. Aside the giving up territories to an imperialist conquest, this would also remove the vast majority of Ukrainian defenses between the front line and Kyiv.

 

Putin making demands Trump would accept, that Europe won't, seems like trying to put a wedge between the Western nations and weaken support. Anyone who thinks Putin doesn't want the rest of Ukraine is an ostrich at this point. 

If Putin wanted full territorial control over Ukraine, he’d mobilise the country which he hasn’t. He obviously wants political control which is a completely different matter and doesn’t necessarily have to be done by military means, rather strategic patience.

 

I just can’t see a compromise at this point. Putin wants to push the end on his terms, Trump wants to end the war at any cost, Ukraine don’t want to cede anything, European countries want Ukraine to keep fighting to deplete Russia further. There’s too many different variables. It’ll only get worse for Ukraine on the battlefield albeit slowly and at high cost for Russia. It’s good that these conversations are finally happening but it’s still more likely we end up in an inadvertent WW3/nuclear Armageddon than a sustainable peace. Time to stock up. 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Lionator said:

If Putin wanted full territorial control over Ukraine, he’d mobilise the country which he hasn’t. He obviously wants political control which is a completely different matter and doesn’t necessarily have to be done by military means, rather strategic patience.

 

I just can’t see a compromise at this point. Putin wants to push the end on his terms, Trump wants to end the war at any cost, Ukraine don’t want to cede anything, European countries want Ukraine to keep fighting to deplete Russia further. There’s too many different variables. It’ll only get worse for Ukraine on the battlefield albeit slowly and at high cost for Russia. It’s good that these conversations are finally happening but it’s still more likely we end up in an inadvertent WW3/nuclear Armageddon than a sustainable peace. Time to stock up. 

If you're right about this, then IMO there's not much point in stocking up as no one sane would want to live in the world that would exist afterwards.

 

The dead, those who went instantly and painlessly, would be the luckiest. I've never understood survivalist rhetoric in a world that would be nothing but suffering even though the idea of death terrifies me.

[Lionator]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

If you're right about this, then IMO there's not much point in stocking up as no one sane would want to live in the world that would exist afterwards.

 

The dead, those who went instantly and painlessly, would be the luckiest. I've never understood survivalist rhetoric in a world that would be nothing but suffering even though the idea of death terrifies me.

Maybe there would be a de-escalation before, but mindsets are so entrenched now. Do you think Putin would back track? Do you think the British government would settle for an Ukraine defeat at this point, or would we be forced to escalate to save face. Our government would rather have a nuclear war v Russia than to compromise. 

[Torquay Gunner]

17 minutes ago, Lionator said:

If Putin wanted full territorial control over Ukraine, he’d mobilise the country which he hasn’t. He obviously wants political control which is a completely different matter and doesn’t necessarily have to be done by military means, rather strategic patience.

 

I just can’t see a compromise at this point. Putin wants to push the end on his terms, Trump wants to end the war at any cost, Ukraine don’t want to cede anything, European countries want Ukraine to keep fighting to deplete Russia further. There’s too many different variables. It’ll only get worse for Ukraine on the battlefield albeit slowly and at high cost for Russia. It’s good that these conversations are finally happening but it’s still more likely we end up in an inadvertent WW3/nuclear Armageddon than a sustainable peace. Time to stock up. 

Quite a few of your posts repeat this domesday hypothesis.  You got shares in Heinz by any chance? 

[Lionator]

2 minutes ago, Torquay Gunner said:

Quite a few of your posts repeat this domesday hypothesis.  You got shares in Heinz by any chance? 

I wish. Usually the dooming is on the main LCFC forums. The world is an evil place. If nuclear apocalypse doesn’t get us first, climate degradation will unless the Chinese finally get this nuclear fission energy thing going. 

Edited 17 August 2025 by Lionator

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Maybe there would be a de-escalation before, but mindsets are so entrenched now. Do you think Putin would back track? Do you think the British government would settle for an Ukraine defeat at this point, or would we be forced to escalate to save face. Our government would rather have a nuclear war v Russia than to compromise. 

I think that's entirely possible, but my point about any sane human not wanting to be part of the world after all that still stands. 

 

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I wish. Usually the dooming is on the main LCFC forums. The world is an evil place. If nuclear apocalypse doesn’t get us first, climate degradation will unless the Chinese finally get this nuclear fission energy thing going. 

The first could easily set off the second there. 

 

Nothing gets guns firing like lack of vital resources, which increased global average temperature will happily facilitate if our species lets it.

[Torquay Gunner]

3 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I wish. Usually the dooming is on the main LCFC forums. The world is an evil place. If nuclear apocalypse doesn’t get us first, climate degradation will unless the Chinese finally get this nuclear fission energy thing going. 

The world is indeed an evil place, but then you could argue it always has been.  I don’t see it ending anytime soon though. 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Torquay Gunner said:

The world is indeed an evil place, but then you could argue it always has been.  I don’t see it ending anytime soon though. 

There's plenty of good and altruistic mixed in with the evil, both past and present. 

 

However, while humans have stayed humans, our technological power has not, and therefore the stakes are higher than they have been at any time since the dawn of recorded civilisation. So things do have to change, because if they don't, the next time the wheel is spun and it lands on a zero, the consequences will not be limited as they have been in historical examples, simply because of how far we've come along the tech tree. 

 

The old ideas can't survive the new times. 

Edited 17 August 2025 by leicsmac

[Heathrow fox]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

Maybe there would be a de-escalation before, but mindsets are so entrenched now. Do you think Putin would back track? Do you think the British government would settle for an Ukraine defeat at this point, or would we be forced to escalate to save face. Our government would rather have a nuclear war v Russia than to compromise. 

This is total nonsense.As much as the British government wants a war with Russia in it’s dreams.It will always have to do as it’s told.

The USA will never sacrifice NewYork Chicago and LA  to save London Paris and Berlin.Never.So it’s a bit of a stretch to expect them to wave goodbye to Houston for the sake of bloody Sunderland.Not aimed at you but it’s astonishing how many mugs still believe this.

A change in leader by any which means would speed things up a bit.