General News Thread

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

I do hope one day we look back on this idiocy and laugh as opposed to being dragged further down this ideological insanity. 

And I hope that the cost of that isn't more people ending up like Brianna Ghey.

 

Edit: just to be clear about the point being made here, where do people think the sentiment that starts here (as necessary as it may appear) ends in the minds of some?

Edited 7 November 2025 by leicsmac

[Zear0]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And I hope that the cost of that isn't more people ending up like Brianna Ghey.

 

Edit: just to be clear about the point being made here, where do people think the sentiment that starts here (as necessary as it may appear) ends in the minds of some?

With respect, I do find it slightly odd you're willing to park your own commitment to scientific truth when it threatens your own political views.

 

Also, to try and link a woman pointing out it's women who get pregnant and to link that to that appalling crime is pretty low and shows how even the most logical can be poisoned by this culture war. 

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

With respect, I do find it slightly odd you're willing to park your own commitment to scientific truth when it threatens your own political views.

 

Also, to try and link a woman pointing out it's women who get pregnant and to link that to that appalling crime is pretty low and shows how even the most logical can be poisoned by this culture war. 

WRT scientific truth, open any biology textbook at university level or above and it becomes very clear that sexual dimorphism in humans, while broadly true, is only that - broadly. Another poster on here - The Doctor - has forgotten more on that than I and everyone else on here knows and has taken the time to educate multiple times, it just seems that people have chosen not to listen. 

 

And yes, I do see the point being made in the second paragraph (it's a long slippery slope, but that's not to say it doesn't exist) and I'll happily admit, as I have in the past, that this is one issue where I have personally seen decent people, people who have done no harm to anyone and never would, suffer because of people's ignorance of their lives, and as such it is rather difficult to stay objective. 

Edited 7 November 2025 by leicsmac

[Zear0]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

WRT scientific truth, open any biology textbook and it becomes very clear that sexual dimorphism in humans, while broadly true, is only that - broadly. Another poster on here - The Doctor - has forgotten more on that than I and everyone else on here knows and has taken the time to educate multiple times, it just seems that people have chosen not to listen. 

 

And yes, I do see the point being made in the second paragraph (it's a long slippery slope, but that's not to say it doesn't exist) and I'll happily admit, as I have in the past, that this is one issue where I have personally seen decent people, people who have done no harm to anyone and never would, suffer because of people's ignorance of their lives, and as such it is rather difficult to stay objective. 

I'm not sure if I open any biological textbook it'll say men can become pregnant. More the latter which is proving my point that you will happily park some (not all I'll grant you) scientific views for your own political ideology. 

 

And re the second paragraph. The slippery slope is the continued assault on women's lived experiences and the disgusting misogyny that goes with this ideology. Your experience, or your friends and colleagues, is no more important than that of other people so don't use it as a trump card by saying "I can't be objective when my viewpoint is right". Both are real, so stop ignoring the other viewpoint entirely and act the victim as that's going to drive the behaviours you mentioned in the previous post. 

 

I'm not for a second thinking this is an easy discussion and it's one I try to avoid as I get emotional for my own personal reasons. I'm done with this but please respond and know my violent disagreement with you on this is generally limited to this! 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

I'm not sure if I open any biological textbook it'll say men can become pregnant. More the latter which is proving my point that you will happily park some (not all I'll grant you) scientific views for your own political ideology. 

 

And re the second paragraph. The slippery slope is the continued assault on women's lived experiences and the disgusting misogyny that goes with this ideology. Your experience, or your friends and colleagues, is no more important than that of other people so don't use it as a trump card by saying "I can't be objective when my viewpoint is right". Both are real, so stop ignoring the other viewpoint entirely and act the victim as that's going to drive the behaviours you mentioned in the previous post. 

 

I'm not for a second thinking this is an easy discussion and it's one I try to avoid as I get emotional for my own personal reasons. I'm done with this but please respond and know my violent disagreement with you on this is generally limited to this! 

Fair enough, you're certainly right in that it's very much not an easy discussion and personal feelings do tend to bubble up, as has happened here in the past and has sometimes resulted in threads getting 86ed. 

 

I'll leave it at that too, hopefully amicably and with no hard feelings either way.

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

WRT scientific truth, open any biology textbook at university level or above and it becomes very clear that sexual dimorphism in humans, while broadly true, is only that - broadly. Another poster on here - The Doctor - has forgotten more on that than I and everyone else on here knows and has taken the time to educate multiple times, it just seems that people have chosen not to listen. 

 

And yes, I do see the point being made in the second paragraph (it's a long slippery slope, but that's not to say it doesn't exist) and I'll happily admit, as I have in the past, that this is one issue where I have personally seen decent people, people who have done no harm to anyone and never would, suffer because of people's ignorance of their lives, and as such it is rather difficult to stay objective. 

I have a lot of respect for The Doctor because he always tries to argue his case, and he does it very well. However, most of what he posts is highly contentious and does not represent scientific consensus. He position on this issue is that of an activist, not a disinterested scientist. That does not mean he shouldn't be listened to—far from it—but I'm not sure his opinion carries quite the objective weight you seem to ascribe to it.

 

Regarding the wider point, I suspect that when we return to a position of sanity on this issue, tragic cases like that of Brianna Ghey will become less likely, not more. And to clarify, by 'a position of sanity', I mean a general acceptance that a minority of people prefer to present in a way typically associated with the opposite sex and they should be allowed to do this without being bullied, harassed or discriminated against for it, but that this does not automatically mean that everybody else should be compelled to make profound changes to law, policy and language to accommodate it. I suspect Stonewall's 'no debate' stance on this issue has done far more harm than good (any movement whose core objective seems to be to aggressively compel people to lie about what they see and believe is always likely to run into trouble). The BBC's willingness to be heavily influenced by Stonewall has got it into a very difficult spot that it still clearly struggling with. 

I'm an optimist by nature and I think that one day we will return to a more sane place on this issue and all the toxicity that surrounds it will become a distant memory.

Edited 7 November 2025 by ClaphamFox

[Tommy G]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

On the current taxation topic;

 

If the current ideas being floated by the government aren't going to work and a wealth tax isn't going to work because the rich people will all leave/caterwaul in the press/manipulate the media to get their own way...then what will work?

 

Honestly, what way forward is there that won't involve cutting services that turn out to be critical with the associated consequences for at least some vulnerable people? Or is what happens to them acceptable - the human cost for maintaining a "stable society"?

 

Come on, let's talk solutions, not problems. 

That’s a whole different debate - we don’t have to dive into austerity, but I think the main worry for me and many others is the chancellor is so out of her depth, completely under qualified for the role in front of her and we are going 180 on everything - their whole manifesto was about not raising taxes and they are going to do it in 2 successive budgets, inflation is too high - the BofE is only lowering rates to try and stimulate the economy and has nothing to do with anything Labour have done. 
 

When raising taxes doesn’t work this time around then what next?? If people are struggling now, give it a year or two and bookmark this post to come back to. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

 

[leicsmac]

30 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I have a lot of respect for The Doctor because he always tries to argue his case, and he does it very well. However, most of what he posts is highly contentious and does not represent scientific consensus. He position on this issue is that of an activist, not a disinterested scientist. That does not mean he shouldn't be listened to—far from it—but I'm not sure his opinion carries quite the objective weight you seem to ascribe to it.

 

Regarding the wider point, I suspect that when we return to a position of sanity on this issue, tragic cases like that of Brianna Ghey will become less likely, not more. And to clarify, by 'a position of sanity', I mean a general acceptance that a minority of people prefer to present in a way typically associated with the opposite sex and they should be allowed to do this without being bullied, harassed or discriminated against for it, but that this does not automatically mean that everybody else should be compelled to make profound changes to law, policy and language to accommodate it. I suspect Stonewall's 'no debate' stance on this issue has done far more harm than good (any movement whose core objective seems to be to aggressively compel people to lie about what they see and believe is always likely to run into trouble). The BBC's willingness to be heavily influenced by Stonewall has got it into a very difficult spot that it still clearly struggling with. 

I'm an optimist by nature and I think that one day we will return to a more sane place on this issue and all the toxicity that surrounds it will become a distant memory.

The Doctor clearly has his position on the matter, but as far as I can see most of the time he's posting peer reviewed studies and interpreting them in a scientific fashion, which is as close to fact as we're going to get on the topic, IMO.

 

WRT the rest of the post, I hope that you're right and whatever path we take forward, decent people won't have to suffer the consequences of people's bigotry on this matter, institutionalised or otherwise. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

That’s a whole different debate - we don’t have to dive into austerity, but I think the main worry for me and many others is the chancellor is so out of her depth, completely under qualified for the role in front of her and we are going 180 on everything - their whole manifesto was about not raising taxes and they are going to do it in 2 successive budgets, inflation is too high - the BofE is only lowering rates to try and stimulate the economy and has nothing to do with anything Labour have done. 
 

When raising taxes doesn’t work this time around then what next?? If people are struggling now, give it a year or two and bookmark this post to come back to. 

As far as I'm concerned, problems and solutions are inextricably linked and it's a bit poor form (yet rather common) for people to state problems without ideas for actually making things better. 

 

I'll be the first to say that I don't have a clue about the logistics of the best way forward, but I do know that inequality is rising and targeting that appears to annoy a lot of people seemingly scared of treading on the toes of the rich rather than tugging their forelocks to them. 

[davieG]

 

Just wanted to say I read through this thread and am blown away by how thoughtful and well-articulated it is. I know it has led to it being locked in the past but I believe it has resulted in raising the standard and fewer altercations.

It’s such a refreshing change from the way the media usually paints football fans—as beer-chugging, dim-witted troublemakers. This kind of discussion proves how wrong that stereotype is.

 

 

[danny.]

3 minutes ago, davieG said:

 

Just wanted to say I read through this thread and am blown away by how thoughtful and well-articulated it is. I know it has led to it being locked in the past but I believe it has resulted in raising the standard and fewer altercations.

It’s such a refreshing change from the way the media usually paints football fans—as beer-chugging, dim-witted troublemakers. This kind of discussion proves how wrong that stereotype is.

I think most of us on here try to argue in good faith and with a somewhat open mind, it's a surprisingly decent place to talk about current affairs.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, davieG said:

 

Just wanted to say I read through this thread and am blown away by how thoughtful and well-articulated it is. I know it has led to it being locked in the past but I believe it has resulted in raising the standard and fewer altercations.

It’s such a refreshing change from the way the media usually paints football fans—as beer-chugging, dim-witted troublemakers. This kind of discussion proves how wrong that stereotype is.

 

 

Just goes to show that there's a pretty broad church of Leicester fans about, with a lot of interests and knowledge that extend beyond the club.

 

And I agree, compared to other places where sensitive topics get discussed, it is very, very courteous and articulate for the most part. 

[Tommy G]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As far as I'm concerned, problems and solutions are inextricably linked and it's a bit poor form (yet rather common) for people to state problems without ideas for actually making things better. 

 

I'll be the first to say that I don't have a clue about the logistics of the best way forward, but I do know that inequality is rising and targeting that appears to annoy a lot of people seemingly scared of treading on the toes of the rich rather than tugging their forelocks to them. 

But the only people that are getting their toes trodden on here are working people - whichever daft definition of a working person is - it's not £50K a year or under which seems to be in the Treasury's cross hairs.

 

I think you also state plenty of problems without solutions, it's not mandatory to state issues without a set of fully thought out and costed solutions to everything... otherwise there would never be any debate.

 

My main point is the government are targeting anyone earning minimum wage up to additional rate tax payers, which is something they stated they wouldn't do - and are going to do it twice in a year. Less money in peoples pockets, will lead to people thinking twice about spending and we start heading towards a recession. This is what will happen mark my words. 

[danny.]

2 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

But the only people that are getting their toes trodden on here are working people - whichever daft definition of a working person is - it's not £50K a year or under which seems to be in the Treasury's cross hairs.

 

I think you also state plenty of problems without solutions, it's not mandatory to state issues without a set of fully thought out and costed solutions to everything... otherwise there would never be any debate.

 

My main point is the government are targeting anyone earning minimum wage up to additional rate tax payers, which is something they stated they wouldn't do - and are going to do it twice in a year. Less money in peoples pockets, will lead to people thinking twice about spending and we start heading towards a recession. This is what will happen mark my words. 

This is exactly what is already happening, and why we are seeing hospitality take a nose dive. Although some people think > £45k income means you are rich, that isn't the case in 2025 and people will, and have, stopped spending because the disposable income just isn't at the same level as it was. The knock-on is not immediately but massively damaging, and it's not linear.

[Zear0]

14 minutes ago, davieG said:

 

Just wanted to say I read through this thread and am blown away by how thoughtful and well-articulated it is. I know it has led to it being locked in the past but I believe it has resulted in raising the standard and fewer altercations.

It’s such a refreshing change from the way the media usually paints football fans—as beer-chugging, dim-witted troublemakers. This kind of discussion proves how wrong that stereotype is.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, we're also all of those things. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

But the only people that are getting their toes trodden on here are working people - whichever daft definition of a working person is - it's not £50K a year or under which seems to be in the Treasury's cross hairs.

 

I think you also state plenty of problems without solutions, it's not mandatory to state issues without a set of fully thought out and costed solutions to everything... otherwise there would never be any debate.

 

My main point is the government are targeting anyone earning minimum wage up to additional rate tax payers, which is something they stated they wouldn't do - and are going to do it twice in a year. Less money in peoples pockets, will lead to people thinking twice about spending and we start heading towards a recession. This is what will happen mark my words. 

I agree the wrong targets are being selected here, but those talking about the wrong targets being selected appear to have no idea of who the right targets are either (or they do but for whatever reason think it wouldn't work), which doesn't really add up for me. 

 

I'm not asking for peer review and spreadsheets (though that would show some competence and rigour), but it would be nice for at least some pointers as to the best way forward rather than simply stating how the current one doesn't work - even if that's accurate. Otherwise we get caught in a spiral where everyone knows things are wrong but no one knows how to make them right, and where are we all left then?

 

NB. I've stated a few solutions to various issues in the past, some folks just seem to think that some ways to make the future better are somehow too "radical" or won't work due to Appeal to Nature fallacies or somesuch.

[Zear0]

I'm sure this was posted already as its a few days old. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v80n7mz2jo

 

But when 70% of income tax revenue is covering sickness related pay, raising it by 2% isn't going to make a jot of difference. Especially when it's, allegedly, being offset by a reduction in NI which funds the services getting people into work. My own political leaning is for higher taxes and better services, but Labour giving up on Welfare reforms means they're absolutely screwed as it'll just balloon further and make no tangible difference. They're sweeping the problem under the rug if they don't actually implement welfare reform.

 

If they use this extra revenue to create the services and infrastructure to reduce the welfare burden by helping people into work, that'll be fine, but it won't be as Reeves is treating her job as an accountancy exercise. 

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

I'm sure this was posted already as its a few days old. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v80n7mz2jo

 

But when 70% of income tax revenue is covering sickness related pay, raising it by 2% isn't going to make a jot of difference. Especially when it's, allegedly, being offset by a reduction in NI which funds the services getting people into work. My own political leaning is for higher taxes and better services, but Labour giving up on Welfare reforms means they're absolutely screwed as it'll just balloon further and make no tangible difference. They're sweeping the problem under the rug if they don't actually implement welfare reform.

 

If they use this extra revenue to create the services and infrastructure to reduce the welfare burden by helping people into work, that'll be fine, but it won't be as Reeves is treating her job as an accountancy exercise. 

This is an interesting issue

 

First port of call is to ask what the situation is in France, Germany, Denmark, Italy and Spain.  Do they have the same problem ?  if they do then we just have to deal with it. If they don’t then we need to ask why we’re being taken for a ride by too many shirkers (who do the genuine claimants no favours whatsoever) 

[Innovindil]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

On the current taxation topic;

 

If the current ideas being floated by the government aren't going to work and a wealth tax isn't going to work because the rich people will all leave/caterwaul in the press/manipulate the media to get their own way...then what will work?

 

Honestly, what way forward is there that won't involve cutting services that turn out to be critical with the associated consequences for at least some vulnerable people? Or is what happens to them acceptable - the human cost for maintaining a "stable society"?

 

Come on, let's talk solutions, not problems. 

Get people that can work, working. My brother hasn't worked a single day for going on 16 years now, because why would he. He's a single parent, has his house paid for, gets enough money to live on comfortably. He's mentally and physically more than capable of having a job, and worked full time for almost a decade before having his kid, there is zero reason he should be free riding, other than the fact that he can. 

 

Also, get this bill passed that'll let old people die like they should. It's ridiculous that people that have been checked out mentally for YEARS, are constantly pumped full of half a pharmacy worth of drugs a day and looked after 24/7/365 by a team of people are kept alive for no reason other than people are squeamish about death. Wouldn't wish that sort of torture on anyone. 

 

You can't keep having more and more people living for longer, and more and more people living without working. Start there, then come raid my paypacket, AGAIN, if needed. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Get people that can work, working. My brother hasn't worked a single day for going on 16 years now, because why would he. He's a single parent, has his house paid for, gets enough money to live on comfortably. He's mentally and physically more than capable of having a job, and worked full time for almost a decade before having his kid, there is zero reason he should be free riding, other than the fact that he can. 

 

Also, get this bill passed that'll let old people die like they should. It's ridiculous that people that have been checked out mentally for YEARS, are constantly pumped full of half a pharmacy worth of drugs a day and looked after 24/7/365 by a team of people are kept alive for no reason other than people are squeamish about death. Wouldn't wish that sort of torture on anyone. 

 

You can't keep having more and more people living for longer, and more and more people living without working. Start there, then come raid my paypacket, AGAIN, if needed. 

Fair to say on both counts.

 

As much as R. Buckminster-Fuller was right about "specious notions", too many folks are clearly not ready for that degree of change yet, so an paradigm based on as much employment as possible until the day such things can properly change is the best idea. 

 

And though preservation of life and health should take precedence over any monetary concern as both are beyond price, it really should be a fundamental right that a person can choose the time, and the manner, of passing from theirs, if that is their steadfast wish. 

 

The above things being said, increased automation/AI developments are going to cause a big change soon enough anyway. Either it goes utopian and does in fact level the playing field with some kind of universal basic income structure, or it goes dystopian and the gap between the haves and have-nots goes straight back to the Gilded Age, with all the trouble that entails.

[Tommy G]

14 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Get people that can work, working. My brother hasn't worked a single day for going on 16 years now, because why would he. He's a single parent, has his house paid for, gets enough money to live on comfortably. He's mentally and physically more than capable of having a job, and worked full time for almost a decade before having his kid, there is zero reason he should be free riding, other than the fact that he can. 

 

Also, get this bill passed that'll let old people die like they should. It's ridiculous that people that have been checked out mentally for YEARS, are constantly pumped full of half a pharmacy worth of drugs a day and looked after 24/7/365 by a team of people are kept alive for no reason other than people are squeamish about death. Wouldn't wish that sort of torture on anyone. 

 

You can't keep having more and more people living for longer, and more and more people living without working. Start there, then come raid my paypacket, AGAIN, if needed. 

As a country I think we're finished - I genuinely feel sorry for 18-25 year olds - very bleak prospects.

[Trav Le Bleu]

51 minutes ago, davieG said:

 

Just wanted to say I read through this thread and am blown away by how thoughtful and well-articulated it is. I know it has led to it being locked in the past but I believe it has resulted in raising the standard and fewer altercations.

It’s such a refreshing change from the way the media usually paints football fans—as beer-chugging, dim-witted troublemakers. This kind of discussion proves how wrong that stereotype is.

 

 

Poopface!

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

As a country I think we're finished - I genuinely feel sorry for 18-25 year olds - very bleak prospects.

If the sentiment is true, it won't just be the UK that's finished. 

 

That particular generation is facing problems in so many places. And, more importantly, no government or organisation with both the power and foresight to actually address those problems properly. 

[Tommy G]

Just now, leicsmac said:

If the sentiment is true, it won't just be the UK that's finished. 

 

That particular generation is facing problems in so many places. And, more importantly, no government or organisation with both the power and foresight to actually address those problems properly. 

My point is, which you may of missed, is there are plenty of prosperous places to set roots now rather than the UK.