General News Thread

[st albans fox]

Bomb in Delhi yesterday 

bomb in Islamabad today 

 

 

 

[ClaphamFox]

10 minutes ago, danny. said:

 

And changed the levels to make him red and completely change the look of his hat, there is much more post processing there than pasting a cut out into a backdrop of Red Square

 

They didn't do this with Williamson which WAS just a trimming path/copy/paste job

How did they 'completely change the look of his hat'? It looks virtually the same to me. And he obviously made a conscious choice to go around wearing a Lenin-style cap as he was very frequently seen in it.

 

[davieG]

31 minutes ago, danny. said:

And if someone is 75 and over they get one for free. 

Only if you get pension credit

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

How did they 'completely change the look of his hat'? It looks virtually the same to me. And he obviously made a conscious choice to go around wearing a Lenin-style cap as he was very frequently seen in it.

 

The fact that the old Leninist regime and today's Russia being incredibly far apart from each other in terms of ideology notwithstanding. 

 

Putin is a Tsar, not a Communist. 

[danny.]

8 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

How did they 'completely change the look of his hat'? It looks virtually the same to me. And he obviously made a conscious choice to go around wearing a Lenin-style cap as he was very frequently seen in it.

 

That seems to be the problem here

[bovril]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The fact that the old Leninist regime and today's Russia being incredibly far apart from each other in terms of ideology notwithstanding. 

 

Putin is a Tsar, not a Communist. 

Strong central government, one dominant political party, state corruption, poverty, cult of the leader, expansionism and Russian domination over bordering countries, crack downs on dissent and freedom of expression. Modern Russia is not incredibly far apart from the old regime.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, bovril said:

Strong central government, one dominant political party, state corruption, poverty, cult of the leader, expansionism and Russian domination over bordering countries, crack downs on dissent and freedom of expression. Modern Russia is not incredibly far apart from the old regime.

All of which were present with the Tsar, too. 

 

The critical factor here is Putin himself; IMO he carries himself like a monarch, not a Stalin. Of course, that's entirely subjective though. 

[Jon the Hat]

44 minutes ago, Sampson said:

You can't. Which is why it's ridiculous the DG and head of news have resigned over 10 seconds in an externally made programme that it took anyone over a year to recognise there was anything wrong with.

Pretty serious 10 seconds though. Anyhow, that is not why they resigned I don't think, they resigned because they were under pressure from dysfunctional board, who couldn't agree a simple apology statement in a week.

[Trav Le Bleu]

I think that what a lot of people are missing is this...

 

The BBC isn't just a couple of channels of TV, it's...

 

10 TV channels, including the only Scottish Gaelic channel.

 

10 National radio stations, free to air without stopping every few minutes for commercials trying to make you feel inferior.

 

BBC World Service - an international station, highly regard worldwide (probably less so now).

 

40 local radio stations in England, including the Channel Islands, providing information about local events, news and sport and championing the local community. Again, no adverts.

 

2 radio channels each in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, one in English, one in the native Gaelic of the region.

 

Extensive online facilities, including things such a Bitesize, weather reports, and cooking recipes.

 

What could replace that? Commercialisation would result in lowest common denomination TV and radio.

Edited 11 November 2025 by Trav Le Bleu

[Trav Le Bleu]

8 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Pretty serious 10 seconds though. Anyhow, that is not why they resigned I don't think, they resigned because they were under pressure from dysfunctional board, who couldn't agree a simple apology statement in a week.

Yeah, I'd seen somewhere that Davie had been considering it for a while. This was just the straw on the camel.

[Tommy G]

Rachel Millward getting all kinds of heat - furious that 600 asylum seekers plan to be housed on her doorstep. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I think that what a lot of people are missing is this...

 

The BBC isn't just a couple of channels of TV, it's...

 

10 TV channels, including the only Scottish Gaelic channel.

 

10 National radio stations, free to air without stopping every few minutes for commercials trying to make you feel inferior.

 

BBC World Service - an international station, highly regard worldwide (probably less so now).

 

40 local radio stations in England, including the Channel Islands, providing information about local events, news and sport and championing the local community. Again, no adverts.

 

2 radio channels each in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, one in English, one in the native Gaelic of the region.

 

Extensive online facilities, including things such a Bitesize, weather reports, and cooking recipes.

 

What could replace that? Commercialisation would result in lowest common denomination TV.

A valid argument (particularly the bolded) which has been made here a few times now and hasn't been responded to. 

 

It would be nice to see such a response. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

37 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The fact that the old Leninist regime and today's Russia being incredibly far apart from each other in terms of ideology notwithstanding. 

 

Putin is a Tsar, not a Communist. 

 

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

All of which were present with the Tsar, too. 

 

The critical factor here is Putin himself; IMO he carries himself like a monarch, not a Stalin. Of course, that's entirely subjective though. 

Imo Lenin's communism and Stalin's communism are completely divergent.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

 

Imo Lenin's communism and Stalin's communism are completely divergent.

And then you have Trotsky and the icepick incident as a third party. 

 

So it does all get a bit messy. 

[Foxdiamond]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A valid argument (particularly the bolded) which has been made here a few times now and hasn't been responded to. 

 

It would be nice to see such a response. 

Agree with argument and as you say particularly the bolded. I was critical of the BBC for the Trump speech splice but mainly because of the heat it brought on itself and gives opponents more opportunities to bash it.

[Trav Le Bleu]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A valid argument (particularly the bolded) which has been made here a few times now and hasn't been responded to. 

 

It would be nice to see such a response. 

The fact there are no commercial Gaelic channels tells you all you need to know. Not going to make any money broadcasting to Benbecula, Stromness and Dunvegan.

[Trav Le Bleu]

It's worth noting that Trump has previous for suing media companies for ridiculous amounts of money and they ultimately were either dismissed completely, or settled for a couple of million or less.

 

It's hard to argue damage to your reputation when your reputation is terrible.

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Agree with argument and as you say particularly the bolded. I was critical of the BBC for the Trump speech splice but mainly because of the heat it brought on itself and gives opponents more opportunities to bash it.

Definitely a problem from that perspective, yes. 

 

That being said, the stakes are much higher than this one incident and so there should be an expectation on people to look at more than it alone.

 

16 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

The fact there are no commercial Gaelic channels tells you all you need to know. Not going to make any money broadcasting to Benbecula, Stromness and Dunvegan.

The "invisible hand" does a lot of striking down of minority/vulnerable groups. Thus it's the choice of the social Darwinists.

[Fear Of The Fox]

Some of you are trying to deflect what actually happened by making historical references to the BBC, making the issue political etc. In none of my posts I've mentioned anything about left or right wing.

They've made a "mistake", they need to be held accountable and pay the price. It's simple like that. Any trust is broken beyond repair. 3 of my colleagues at the office already cancelled their licence fee and it looks like millions will follow suit. This was a shocking own goal and unfortunately it will have deep consequences on the broadcaster. 

They don't even try to do some  damage control and apologise properly. Today they're talking about "fighting for journalism". These guys live in an alternate own universe and they're making things even worse. 

[Fear Of The Fox]

4 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

It's worth noting that Trump has previous for suing media companies for ridiculous amounts of money and they ultimately were either dismissed completely, or settled for a couple of million or less.

 

It's hard to argue damage to your reputation when your reputation is terrible.

Again it doesn't matter if Trump sues or not. The damage is already done for the BBC and all trust is gone. You seem to be obsessed with the compensation. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

Some of you are trying to deflect what actually happened by making historical references to the BBC, making the issue political etc. In none of my posts I've mentioned anything about left or right wing.

They've made a "mistake", they need to be held accountable and pay the price. It's simple like that. Any trust is broken beyond repair. 3 of my colleagues at the office already cancelled their licence fee and it looks like millions will follow suit. This was a shocking own goal and unfortunately it will have deep consequences on the broadcaster. 

They don't even try to do some  damage control and apologise properly. Today they're talking about "fighting for journalism". These guys live in an alternate own universe and they're making things even worse. 

The wider context is vital to the discussion. This incident didn't happen in a vacuum and I'm not sure why it should be considered as such. 

 

4 hours 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. 

I'm going to ask this again, for the answer or benefit of anyone (as opposed to just the OP), because, again, I think it a vital question. 

 

NB. And, I hasten to add, I haven't mentioned either wing either. This is about, truth, lies, the amount of them and the damage they cause - that goes beyond the political sometimes. 

Edited 11 November 2025 by leicsmac

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 minute ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

Some of you are trying to deflect what actually happened by making historical references to the BBC, making the issue political etc. In none of my posts I've mentioned anything about left or right wing.

They've made a "mistake", they need to be held accountable and pay the price. It's simple like that. Any trust is broken beyond repair. 3 of my colleagues at the office already cancelled their licence fee and it looks like millions will follow suit. This was a shocking own goal and unfortunately it will have deep consequences on the broadcaster. 

They don't even try to do some  damage control and apologise properly. Today they're talking about "fighting for journalism". These guys live in an alternate own universe and they're making things even worse. 

They should be punished. Should they be put out of business? Should license payers pay for it?

 

$1bn is ridiculous. The BBC wouldn't survive. However, as I've previously stated, Trump usually settles for much less.

 

Bring it on, I'd say and then counter-sue.

 

You reap what you sow.

[Trav Le Bleu]

8 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

all trust is gone.

Diminished yes; gone no.

 

Otherwise why would there be several posters here defending the BBC?

 

Absolutes are incredibly rare.

[CornwallFox]

20 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

Some of you are trying to deflect what actually happened by making historical references to the BBC, making the issue political etc. In none of my posts I've mentioned anything about left or right wing.

They've made a "mistake", they need to be held accountable and pay the price. It's simple like that. Any trust is broken beyond repair. 3 of my colleagues at the office already cancelled their licence fee and it looks like millions will follow suit. This was a shocking own goal and unfortunately it will have deep consequences on the broadcaster. 

They don't even try to do some  damage control and apologise properly. Today they're talking about "fighting for journalism". These guys live in an alternate own universe and they're making things even worse. 

It's a really minor thing being blown up as part of trump's anti news agenda. Hysterical people are cancelling paying over it. People look for any excuse, they'd have to have a particular mindset to claim that in the first place. 

[CornwallFox]

20 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

Again it doesn't matter if Trump sues or not. The damage is already done for the BBC and all trust is gone. You seem to be obsessed with the compensation. 

Trust hasn't gone for anybody that didn't already dislike the BBC. It's an incredibly minor issue.