General News Thread

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 There never will be any justification despite the despot in the Whitehouse saying it's justified and pushing his determination to put people into poverty.

What's wrong with the man? He has no shred of compassion or humanity.

 

 

 

On Friday, moments after a federal appeals court ruled the Trump administration needs to fully fund Snap food aid payments, the White House turned to the supreme court in a further attempt to block the order.

Within hours, the top US court issued an emergency order temporarily blocking full Snap food aid payments, which nearly 42 million people rely on to put food on the table.

You know it, I know it and a lot of people seem to know it.

 

However, there appear to be quite a few people (hence the voting figures for the man) who think that there is justification. Perhaps one day we'll hear an explanation that goes beyond deflection, gaslighting and blame-shifting.

Edited 9 November 2025 by leicsmac

[Parafox]

5 hours ago, Tommy G said:

I think her presser outside downing st would suggest it’s coming - all the main media outlets did reporting on it, Sky, bbc etc. so it’s not right wing media rags. 
 

This was 12 months ago 

 

 

I've got a spending envelope too.

 

Currently it has a five pound note in it. 

[Parafox]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You know it, I know it and a lot of people seem to know it.

 

However, there appear to be quite a few people (hence the voting figures for the man) who think that there is justification. Perhaps one day we'll hear an explanation that goes beyond deflection, gaslighting and blame-shifting.

Redneck America can't see it. I really don't understand why. Surely they can't all be trailer park, gun totin' deer huntin' moonshine dumbwits?

 

Or do they think "The Hills Have Eyes" was a promotional documentary.

Edited 9 November 2025 by Parafox

[leicsmac]

Just now, Parafox said:

Redneck America can't see it. I really don't understand why. Surely they can't all be trailer park, gun totin' deer huntin' moonshine dumbwits?

No, they aren't. The stereotype of the typical Trump supporter isn't quite accurate. 

 

The culture of individualism over there has linked with social media, among other influences, to produce a style of social Darwinism that believes both in the supremacy of the particular individual, and also the particular demographic. These people are very smart, very calculated, and have rather successfully manipulated enough people into buying into those supremacist ideals. 

 

They genuinely believe that the future belongs to their "tribe", their "tribe" alone, and every other human being, every other living being come to that, is subordinate to them and to that process. Trump is just the figurehead that embodies that ideal. 

 

Of course, the whole thing is both so morally messed up and so practically incompatible with any kind of good future it isn't even funny, but as per above, one day I wouldn't mind hearing a cogent counterargument, because I genuinely want to understand.

[leicsmac]

The reaction of both the current US administration and their sycophants in the British political system over here pretty much make the point that, while the two resignations were doing the right thing, it has precious little utility with respect to having the Beeb serve its vital part in the purpose of neutralising such people. 

Edited 9 November 2025 by leicsmac

[Super_horns]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

As I said a week ago, the bbc have to stick to the rules.  The irony here is that this was made by a non bbc production company. Clearly there are inherent dangers doing this but on cost basis they have no choice.  There must be people employed by the bbc who are so clued up on all things news that they would have spotted this if had been effectively ‘proof watched’.  

One mistake/error too many I guess.

People don't like Trump understandably but the BBC and others professionally shouldn't really be trying to mis quote him or anyone.

I know the tabloids do that a lot.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

One mistake/error too many I guess.

People don't like Trump understandably but the BBC and others professionally shouldn't really be trying to mis quote him or anyone.

I know the tabloids do that a lot.

As much as this is accurate, the problems run rather deeper than that.

[Zear0]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As much as this is accurate, the problems run rather deeper than that.

Does it?

 

 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Does it?

 

 

Yeah, it does. To elaborate; the deeper problem is the rather obvious imbalance caused by one side pulling itself up for a single lie (if one can even call it that) when the other side engages in multiple far bigger lies (at least two or three in those social media quotes alone) and abuses of power which are far more consequential to us all, with seeming impunity. 

 

If that isn't addressed, it doesn't really matter how the BBC chooses to conduct itself. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

30 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Does it?

 

 

That's hilarious 

 

Reminds me of the line at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

 

"We have top men working on it right now."

 

"Who?"

 

"Top... men!"

Edited 9 November 2025 by Trav Le Bleu

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, Parafox said:

Redneck America can't see it. I really don't understand why. Surely they can't all be trailer park, gun totin' deer huntin' moonshine dumbwits?

 

Or do they think "The Hills Have Eyes" was a promotional documentary.

Dang!

[Lionator]

It’s mental how much we’re willing to strategically shoot ourselves in the foot just to placate the man child in the very short term. 

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, Lionator said:

It’s mental how much we’re willing to fvck over the biosphere, the future and overlook grotesque economic and human rights abuses just to placate the man child in the very short term. 

FYP, I hope you don't mind. 

[Jon the Hat]

13 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The reaction of both the current US administration and their sycophants in the British political system over here pretty much make the point that, while the two resignations were doing the right thing, it has precious little utility with respect to having the Beeb serve its vital part in the purpose of neutralising such people. 

On the contrary, trust is a prerequisite to achieve that aim, and the bbc must fight to win it back.

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

On the contrary, trust is a prerequisite to achieve that aim, and the bbc must fight to win it back.

That would be true if it were proven in any way that such trust was actually achievable and good faith reporting would actually sway the minds of enough people.

 

Is it, in this era and in this situation? I'm honestly not sure. 

Edited 10 November 2025 by leicsmac

[Jon the Hat]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That would be true if it were proven in any way that such trust was actually achievable and good faith reporting would actually sway the minds of enough people.

 

Is it, in this era and in this situation? I'm honestly not sure. 

Young people don’t get their news from the BBC.  

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Young people don’t get their news from the BBC.  

No disagreement there, but I'm still looking for the best way forward here that doesn't inevitably end in the very idea of truth becoming more subverted than it already is (with all the consequences that entails), in spite of what the Beeb have done here. 

[CornwallFox]

Private eye on point

[Trav Le Bleu]

Descartes: I think, therefore I am.

 

Modern day Jo: I believe, therefore I am right.

 

Credo, ergo recte sum.

[danny.]

Just now, Trav Le Bleu said:

Descartes: I think, therefore I am.

 

Modern day Jo: I believe, therefore I am right.

 

Credo, ergo recte sum.

As soon as the concept of subjective truth went mainstream this was inevitable

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, danny. said:

As soon as the concept of subjective truth went mainstream this was inevitable

Absolutely. 

 

It was called by Kojima 25 years ago, too.

[ClaphamFox]

This piece on the crisis at the BBC by Mark Urban, who worked there for 35 years, sheds light on the difficulty of maintaining a commitment to impartiality and balance when younger members of staff are increasingly activist in their outlook. Key paragraphs:

 

"For most of the time I worked on Newsnight a lively spirit of contrarianism, an ability to set aside one’s own prejudices, a commitment to seeking a diversity of views, and having a longer production day in which to debate a topic, worked in our favour. It was balanced on most issues, particularly domestic politics.

 

"But more recently, and in common with every other big developed world news organisation I know, generational change brought a younger, more dirigiste kind of progressivism onto the team. The language of ‘lived experience’, ‘don’t be a bystander’, and formulas such as ‘silence is violence’, entered the editorial conversation."

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

This piece on the crisis at the BBC by Mark Urban, who worked there for 35 years, sheds light on the difficulty of maintaining a commitment to impartiality and balance when younger members of staff are increasingly activist in their outlook. Key paragraphs:

 

"For most of the time I worked on Newsnight a lively spirit of contrarianism, an ability to set aside one’s own prejudices, a commitment to seeking a diversity of views, and having a longer production day in which to debate a topic, worked in our favour. It was balanced on most issues, particularly domestic politics.

 

"But more recently, and in common with every other big developed world news organisation I know, generational change brought a younger, more dirigiste kind of progressivism onto the team. The language of ‘lived experience’, ‘don’t be a bystander’, and formulas such as ‘silence is violence’, entered the editorial conversation."

 

No reason to doubt what this guy says whatever. 

 

However, it does rather infer that there's only one form or angle of activism that is pertinent here and requires addressing. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Absolutely. 

 

It was called by Kojima 25 years ago, too.

Trump = Big Boss?

[MaidstoneFox]

30 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

This piece on the crisis at the BBC by Mark Urban, who worked there for 35 years, sheds light on the difficulty of maintaining a commitment to impartiality and balance when younger members of staff are increasingly activist in their outlook. Key paragraphs:

 

"For most of the time I worked on Newsnight a lively spirit of contrarianism, an ability to set aside one’s own prejudices, a commitment to seeking a diversity of views, and having a longer production day in which to debate a topic, worked in our favour. It was balanced on most issues, particularly domestic politics.

 

"But more recently, and in common with every other big developed world news organisation I know, generational change brought a younger, more dirigiste kind of progressivism onto the team. The language of ‘lived experience’, ‘don’t be a bystander’, and formulas such as ‘silence is violence’, entered the editorial conversation."

 

He might be right. I worked at the beeb about 30 years ago in Shepherd's Bush and it was ruled by a male, upper-middle class, elite outlook. Certainly not diverse and radical and if you wanted that back then, you didn't go to work at the beeb. Having said that, it's a huge and unwieldy organisation with regional centres everywhere, so it's very difficult to completely control bias and stick to their remit.