General News Thread

[Trav Le Bleu]

6 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

What like Iain Dale, Rory Stewert, Theresa May, David Cameron?

No.

 

Like Greville Janner, Jeffrey Archer, Edwina Currie, John Profumo.

[Jon the Hat]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Because the left wing want to see it unbiased. The right wing want to see it abolished, or at least consumed by commercial, short-term self interested cause, in the same way a lot of the print media that criticise it are. That's a pretty critical difference. 

 

The very idea of truth is being subverted, it has been for some time, and it is not just disconcerting, but also deeply dangerous for any kind of future, that people are selecting the wrong targets - or are being manipulated into doing so. 

Its sweet you think the left want to see balance.  If we learnt anything from the gender nonsense in the past few years it's that the left wants to scream down anything they don't agree with even lounder than the right.

 

That said the right clearly have quite a lot of influence on the BBC too - Jon Sopel on the newsagents noting the internal fear in news was of pissing off the right - and they have certainly over exposed Farage and his ilk and various parties over the years in the aim of balance.  No doubt the right-wing print media want to see the BBC at least severely curtailed, as they well might, as the BBC is a direct and powerful competitor.  This muddies the water somewhat, as they of course influence a lot of people.

 

Bravery has been lacking in leadership I think, in terms of backing good journalism which reaches conclusions - like Trump is lying about the 2020 election, like the Tavistock GIDS was a disgrace and so on, without fear or favour.  Panorama and Newsnight used to be good at this stuff.

[Fear Of The Fox]

44 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

I'm not trying to prove them innocent. I'm saying it would have been easy to miss when you're waving the programme through. The broadcaster may well be liable but given it wasn't them that intentionally spliced video segments, I'm just saying you can see how easy that would be to miss. 

Sorry but it seems you're not aware how BBC works and the procedures before a program is aired. They didn't miss the segment. The company who created the documentary deliberately under specific instructions doctored and stitched the different segments. Then the documentary went through the BBC quality control process and it was approved even though the "mistake" was spotted. 

I can't understand why some of you are trying to defend BBC on this matter. Do you think BBC is a national treasure or what? What happened is a total disaster, there are obvious criminal offences and it doesn't matter if Trump sues or not. As I said BBC is done and dusted and while it's sinking it will also be destroyed from the inside with more to come. 

[CornwallFox]

9 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

Sorry but it seems you're not aware how BBC works and the procedures before a program is aired. They didn't miss the segment. The company who created the documentary deliberately under specific instructions doctored and stitched the different segments. Then the documentary went through the BBC quality control process and it was approved even though the "mistake" was spotted. 

I can't understand why some of you are trying to defend BBC on this matter. Do you think BBC is a national treasure or what? What happened is a total disaster, there are obvious criminal offences and it doesn't matter if Trump sues or not. As I said BBC is done and dusted and while it's sinking it will also be destroyed from the inside with more to come. 

Instead of accusing me of trying to defend them maybe read what I wrote. I wasn't defending them and also don't have the detail you've given here. Fair enough but whether way no defence was offered. 

 

The BBC is a great British institution that needs to be saved from its attackers who simply want right wing media hegemony. I don't agree. 

[Fear Of The Fox]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

So...

 

If you're sued by a court judgement in a foreign country, how is that enforced? Is it enforceable? If it was, surely any corrupt country (sic) could sue an organisation in another country that would destabilise it.

 

Could the BBC just not recognise the litigation?

BBC is broadcasting almost everywhere in the planet. Because the program aired also in specific states of America the local courts have the jurisdiction to deal with the potential lawsuit. Any court decision against BBC for example in Florida is directly enforceable and if BBC fails to comply there will be an international order against it. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

BBC is broadcasting almost everywhere in the planet. Because the program aired also in specific states of America the local courts have the jurisdiction to deal with the potential lawsuit. Any court decision against BBC for example in Florida is directly enforceable and if BBC fails to comply there will be an international order against it. 

So what's to stop someone like Kim Jung-un suing the Beeb?

[Fear Of The Fox]

6 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Instead of accusing me of trying to defend them maybe read what I wrote. I wasn't defending them and also don't have the detail you've given here. Fair enough but whether way no defence was offered. 

 

The BBC is a great British institution that needs to be saved from its attackers who simply want right wing media hegemony. I don't agree. 

Nonsense. You spin it however it suits you. Who is the attacker? Trump and the right wing? Your great British institution committed a crime, you have the top shelf of it resigning because of it and you have the audacity to play it victim chasing right wing ghosts? 

[Fear Of The Fox]

8 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

So what's to stop someone like Kim Jung-un suing the Beeb?

What are you talking about? I can understand international law isn't your field and also you need to be aware which countries are under international sanctions. I still don't understand your point. You can sue whoever you want if you believe they commited an offence. 

 

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Its sweet you think the left want to see balance.  If we learnt anything from the gender nonsense in the past few years it's that the left wants to scream down anything they don't agree with even lounder than the right.

 

That said the right clearly have quite a lot of influence on the BBC too - Jon Sopel on the newsagents noting the internal fear in news was of pissing off the right - and they have certainly over exposed Farage and his ilk and various parties over the years in the aim of balance.  No doubt the right-wing print media want to see the BBC at least severely curtailed, as they well might, as the BBC is a direct and powerful competitor.  This muddies the water somewhat, as they of course influence a lot of people.

 

Bravery has been lacking in leadership I think, in terms of backing good journalism which reaches conclusions - like Trump is lying about the 2020 election, like the Tavistock GIDS was a disgrace and so on, without fear or favour.  Panorama and Newsnight used to be good at this stuff.

Get back to me when the debate about gender is more damaging in terms of policy than climate change denial or anti-vaccine sentiment, among other ideas.

 

No disagreement whatsoever about muddying the water, and I think we've talked about this before - when it comes to truth, that cannot be subject just to the highest bidder as then you're just telling people what they want to hear rather than what really is.

 

Fair point on more bravery being required, too - though lest we forget, Trump was and is categorically lying about the 2020 election and he did incite what was functionally a coup attempt on January 6th 2021. That is a matter of record from various other sources, regardless of what the Beeb have done. 

[Jon the Hat]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Get back to me when the debate about gender is more damaging in terms of policy than climate change denial or anti-vaccine sentiment, among other ideas.

 

No disagreement whatsoever about muddying the water, and I think we've talked about this before - when it comes to truth, that cannot be subject just to the highest bidder as then you're just telling people what they want to hear rather than what really is.

 

Fair point on more bravery being required, too - though lest we forget, Trump was and is categorically lying about the 2020 election and he did incite what was functionally a coup attempt on January 6th 2021. That is a matter of record from various other sources, regardless of what the Beeb have done. 

To be fair to the BBC I don't think they have got much wrong on climate or vaccines in general - although some of the slavish repetition during covid was painful.

[CornwallFox]

6 hours ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

Nonsense. You spin it however it suits you. Who is the attacker? Trump and the right wing? Your great British institution committed a crime, you have the top shelf of it resigning because of it and you have the audacity to play it victim chasing right wing ghosts? 

Audacity? Why are you taking so much personal affront.

 

I'm not denying the BBC has made an error in this case. 

 

I still think the BBC is needed and important. 

 

These are two separate things. 

 

Why are you incapable of reading responses without finding some sort of offence you can take? 

[st albans fox]

8 hours ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

Then you're absolutely missing the point. If you believe any media can stitch and manipulate criminally speeches, events etc you have issues understanding the foundations of journalism and the basics of democracy. BBC is done and it's shocking how they've managed to self destruct. 

 

I’m not referencing this particular incident

i was first on here saying that it was terrible for the bbc.  At that point I hadn’t realised it was an independent production company responsible but as with other programs they’ve broadcast without doing enough due diligence, they carry the can. 

 

im speaking about how they manage to upset both left, right and centre across many issues. if you’re upsetting everyone then you’re probably putting forward all perspectives. 

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

Sorry but it seems you're not aware how BBC works and the procedures before a program is aired. They didn't miss the segment. The company who created the documentary deliberately under specific instructions doctored and stitched the different segments. Then the documentary went through the BBC quality control process and it was approved even though the "mistake" was spotted. 

I can't understand why some of you are trying to defend BBC on this matter. Do you think BBC is a national treasure or what? What happened is a total disaster, there are obvious criminal offences and it doesn't matter if Trump sues or not. As I said BBC is done and dusted and while it's sinking it will also be destroyed from the inside with more to come. 

OK, so let's say this does occur, and as a result media championed by Trump and his ilk have the freedom to shape and broadcast the "truth" as they see fit, with all the consequences that entails. 

 

Is that a desirious outcome, and if so, might I ask why?

 

I've asked variations of this question a few times now but I'm still looking for an answer, because people appear to want the Beeb to suffer punishment for this lapse (which, I hasten to add, I don't disagree with), but don't seem to have much of a vision of the future after that occurs. I believe that showing such foresight is rather important to a good cover of the discussion. 

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

To be fair to the BBC I don't think they have got much wrong on climate or vaccines in general - although some of the slavish repetition during covid was painful.

Naturally I agree, and then the issue becomes that other sources are getting things wrong on those matters, that is causing damage, and yet it's causing much less brouhaha than this. 

 

As much as the Beeb has to set an example regarding journalism and truth, examining them for that integrity while focusing precious little attention on those supposed to be following that example, especially when enough people believe those sources for it to become a matter of policy, is a problem rather bigger than this one imo. 

[CornwallFox]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

OK, so let's say this does occur, and as a result media championed by Trump and his ilk have the freedom to shape and broadcast the "truth" as they see fit, with all the consequences that entails. 

 

Is that a desirious outcome, and if so, might I ask why?

 

I've asked variations of this question a few times now but I'm still looking for an answer, because people appear to want the Beeb to suffer punishment for this lapse (which, I hasten to add, I don't disagree with), but don't seem to have much of a vision of the future after that occurs. I believe that showing such foresight is rather important to a good cover of the discussion. 

You won't get an answer. Just a lot of noise about how offensive the BBC is. It's nonsense. News broadcasts routinely splice together bits of speeches to give a general sense of them. Trump absolutely did cause the January 6th riots.

 

David Yelland, former editor of the Sun wrote on X: “What has happened today at the BBC is nothing short of a coup, a national disgrace, the corporation’s board has effectively been undermined and elements close to it have worked with hostile newspaper editors, a former PM and enemies of public service broadcasting. The only honourable players here are Tim Davie and Deborah Turness.”

 

Journalist and environmental activist George Monbiot said: “Once every 20 years or so, the director-general of the BBC is forced to resign for being insufficiently rightwing. Alastair Milne in 1987. Greg Dyke in 2004. Tim Davie in 2025. The great irony is that the BBC was in all cases profoundly biased towards established power. But just not biased enough…”. 

 

Journalist Ian Dunt said: “This is the most abysmal, pathetic thing. The BBC head resigning because the corporation is not supine *enough* to the far-right.”

 

Political editor of Byline Times, Adam Bienkov, wrote on Bluesky: “The BBC’s senior leadership resigning en masse over one dodgy edit in one programme, simply because the right wing press demands it, tells you everything you need to know about where the power really lies in that relationship.”

Edited 11 November 2025 by CornwallFox

[st albans fox]

8 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

I'm not getting into all of these but critical race theory doesn't exist in the UK. Net zero and climate change are scientifically cast iron. Having people argue against cast iron science isn't 'giving both sides', it's pretending one side is equal to the other when it isn't. Israel/Palestine the BBC like every other organisation has played to the Israeli side. Gender ideology I think everybody has lost their heads over a minor side issue tbh. Brexit largely happened because of the BBC giving farage a platform when he was a nobody in the years before. 

A lot of the right these days seen to think balanced reporting equals everything they believe being reported as fact. You're giving that impression yourself.

most of those have some nuance and your post reveals more about your politics than the bbc.  That’s not an issue (and you’re on the majority view)  but it illustrates my point about the bbc pissing everyone off. 

 

6 hours ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

Sorry but it seems you're not aware how BBC works and the procedures before a program is aired. They didn't miss the segment. The company who created the documentary deliberately under specific instructions doctored and stitched the different segments. Then the documentary went through the BBC quality control process and it was approved even though the "mistake" was spotted. 

I can't understand why some of you are trying to defend BBC on this matter. Do you think BBC is a national treasure or what? What happened is a total disaster, there are obvious criminal offences and it doesn't matter if Trump sues or not. As I said BBC is done and dusted and while it's sinking it will also be destroyed from the inside with more to come. 

Is there evidence of this 

 

6 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

So what's to stop someone like Kim Jung-un suing the Beeb?

my assumption is that if a North Korean court found against the bbc, then n Korea could ban bbc from n Korea……….

similarly, if a Florida court finds against the bbc then it’s a short step to bbc programming being banned in the USA 

 

there is a difference between those two outcomes for the bbc 

 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

You won't get an answer. Just a lot of noise about how offensive the BBC is. It's nonsense. News broadcasts routinely splice together bits of speeches to give a general sense of them. Trump absolutely did cause the January 6th riots.

I'm hoping that I will because I genuinely want to understand the train of thought here rather than drawing my own conclusions about it, because in recent times I have had to have a rather large pencil. 

[st albans fox]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

OK, so let's say this does occur, and as a result media championed by Trump and his ilk have the freedom to shape and broadcast the "truth" as they see fit, with all the consequences that entails. 

 

Is that a desirious outcome, and if so, might I ask why?

 

I've asked variations of this question a few times now but I'm still looking for an answer, because people appear to want the Beeb to suffer punishment for this lapse (which, I hasten to add, I don't disagree with), but don't seem to have much of a vision of the future after that occurs. I believe that showing such foresight is rather important to a good cover of the discussion. 

Under this govt, the bbc will not disappear.  If farage got in then it will survive but not as we know it. 

 

my guess on this and previous similar issues is that its down to cost cutting (outside production companies being used) and a related lack of due diligence on the content in these programs.  

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Under this govt, the bbc will not disappear.  If farage got in then it will survive but not as we know it. 

 

my guess on this and previous similar issues is that its down to cost cutting (outside production companies being used) and a related lack of due diligence on the content in these programs.  

No disagreement there (though I wouldn't be certain about it), but I was referring more to what people calling for its abolition (or radical change) actually want from their future on this and other matters. IMO it's good to have people consider the long game critically more. 

[st albans fox]

7 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

You won't get an answer. Just a lot of noise about how offensive the BBC is. It's nonsense. News broadcasts routinely splice together bits of speeches to give a general sense of them. Trump absolutely did cause the January 6th riots.

 

 

News broadcasts routinely splice together bits of speeches to give a general sense of them    They do but this was really poor.
 

Trump absolutely did cause the January 6th riots     Well yes and no.  He’d not be found guilty in a court of law but he’d be probably be struggling in a civil action to evade responsibility. 

[CornwallFox]

7 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Its sweet you think the left want to see balance.  If we learnt anything from the gender nonsense in the past few years it's that the left wants to scream down anything they don't agree with even lounder than the right.

 

That said the right clearly have quite a lot of influence on the BBC too - Jon Sopel on the newsagents noting the internal fear in news was of pissing off the right - and they have certainly over exposed Farage and his ilk and various parties over the years in the aim of balance.  No doubt the right-wing print media want to see the BBC at least severely curtailed, as they well might, as the BBC is a direct and powerful competitor.  This muddies the water somewhat, as they of course influence a lot of people.

 

Bravery has been lacking in leadership I think, in terms of backing good journalism which reaches conclusions - like Trump is lying about the 2020 election, like the Tavistock GIDS was a disgrace and so on, without fear or favour.  Panorama and Newsnight used to be good at this stuff.

As a leftie, the gender thing was a pet of a small group on the left that were allowed to be very noisy. Most of us want people to be allowed to live how they want but see no reason for a spectrum of pronouns etc. 

 

The right doesn't want rid of the BBC because it's biased or exposing them. It wants rid of the BBC because it has a large audience and providing as unbiased information as it can - mistakes excepted - means it challenges the outright lies printed by mail, express, telegraph etc. 

 

Trump has been attacking the BBC throughout the year. I'm the summer his press secretary spent an entire press conference ripping into the BBC for it's coverage of Israel/Gaza when she was incorrect throughout. This is part of a coordinated attack on the truth by trump and across much of right wing media. 

Edited 11 November 2025 by CornwallFox

[CornwallFox]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

News broadcasts routinely splice together bits of speeches to give a general sense of them    They do but this was really poor.
 

Trump absolutely did cause the January 6th riots     Well yes and no.  He’d not be found guilty in a court of law but he’d be probably be struggling in a civil action to evade responsibility. 

I accept both of those answers TBF 

[bmt]

Soaring unemployment rates and stagnating economy. Reckon this needs spending cuts and income tax rises. 

 

If 8 year olds did economics 

[StanSP]

People will say defund the BBC then wonder why their favourite programmes start to cease showing up on the guides... 

[bmt]

36 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

News broadcasts routinely splice together bits of speeches to give a general sense of them    They do but this was really poor.
 

Trump absolutely did cause the January 6th riots     Well yes and no.  He’d not be found guilty in a court of law but he’d be probably be struggling in a civil action to evade responsibility. 

To add to the first point they do that to shorten the time they put them on whilst keeping the core message not to change the substance.

 

And second point he would just use this to show there was an institutional movement against him which would give him even more support among his supathetic.

 

It's patbetic.