General News Thread

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

although their lawyers may advise that they don’t do this until trump’s case has fallen apart. 

 

Agreed. 

 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

In case you've ever watched John Woo's Hollywood debut movie Hard Target and thought, what a ridiculous premise...

 

Italy probes claim that tourists paid to go to Bosnia to kill besieged civilians - BBC News

 

https://share.google/K8HDstswDLctFdOvY

[Jattdogg]

4 hours ago, Parafox said:

I agree to a point, but the BBC will overcome that and I doubt it will undermine their journalistic credibility. But still, why should the BBC apologise?

 

I'll repost my earlier contribution. Maybe you should read it from a neutral POV.

 

The Trump administration has to prove the following:

 

1) The content was false and defamatory: Trump must show that the BBC's edited presentation of his January 6, 2021 speech was factually false and harmful to his reputation. The core of his claim is that the documentary "intentionally sought to completely mislead its viewers" by splicing together two parts of his speech, making it appear as if he explicitly encouraged the US Capitol riot.

 

2) He suffered harm: He would need to demonstrate that he experienced "overwhelming financial and reputational harm" as a direct result of the specific BBC program. Proving a monetary value for such harm, especially the $1 billion being sought, would be a significant challenge, as he would have to demonstrate major losses.

 

3) "Actual Malice": As a public figure, Trump faces a high legal bar under US law and must prove the BBC acted with "actual malice." This means he must provide evidence that the BBC either knew the statement was false or acted with "reckless disregard of whether it was true or false". Proving the internal thought processes or intentional deception of the BBC's editors could be difficult. 

 

Additionally, a key initial hurdle for Trump's legal team is to establish the court's jurisdiction by proving that the specific Panorama documentary episode was actually available to be viewed in the state of Florida. The documentary was aired in the UK on iPlayer, which is generally not available in the US. 

 

3 hours ago, Zear0 said:

$2bn now. 

He might just throw some tariff on you guys to get money somehow and/or manipulate the stock market for his own gain.  Nothing to see here

 

The current administration are gangsters.

[WigstonWanderer]

5 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

Why? To suck up to a virtual dictator? Just because say's it's so, it doesn't mean it is.

 

The Trump lawyers on this have got a lot to prove and it's unlikely they can conclusively do so.

 

Are you Vance in disguise?

You have wrongly attributed the post you have quoted to me. It was posted by @Fear Of The Fox not me! I just made a silly joke about his post.

 

Please remove the attribution as I don’t want to be associated with the ravings in his post.

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

 

The current administration are gangsters.

Surely this should be in the LCFC forums?

[Super_horns]

Another U- turn ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/14/rachel-reeves-to-abandon-plans-to-raise-income-tax-rates-in-budget

Suppose the trouble is whatever they do isnt going be well liked particularly.

[Jon the Hat]

14 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Another U- turn ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/14/rachel-reeves-to-abandon-plans-to-raise-income-tax-rates-in-budget

Suppose the trouble is whatever they do isnt going be well liked particularly.

Its pretty pathetic.  Unless they are willing to control costs, they have to admit they need to raise taxes.  Anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

[Footballwipe]

12 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Police and crime commissioners to be scrapped in England and Wales - BBC News

 

Those being paid a 6 figure salary are sure to be deeply disappointed at this news.

 

Perhaps the wastage can be saved on everyone's council tax bills come April?  Doubt it though.

Just to make the point that (and these are rough numbers I've sourced from Google) someone paying Band D council tax pays around £300 towards Leicestershire Police.

 

0.7% of that element goes to fund the office of the PCC, so at some point, when the office is abolished (and it appears it won't be as quick as April 2026 anyway) you'd, in theory, be getting about £2.10 back off your council tax.

 

Although as has been made clear in the announcement, the money will go towards policing rather than a political office, which I assume people would rather see.

 

Seems like you'll have to budget for your bottle of Coke elsewhere.

[Super_horns]

22 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

It’s pretty pathetic.  Unless they are willing to control costs, they have to admit they need to raise taxes.  Anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Issue is they said that wouldn’t happen so kind of dug a hole for themselves.

 

Should have not made that promise pre election.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Yawning chasm in your life? Itch you just can't scratch? Probably for all the usual reasons but also because I've not posted a George Monbiot opinion piece from the Guardian for a while.

 

Don't say I never give you anything:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/14/climate-crisis-communication-super-rich

 

I think he's completely right, but it's one of these things that's perhaps too big an issue for us to collectively even acknowledge, let alone try and do anything about. 

 

I'm sorry to strike a pessimistic tone for a Friday morning but I am starting to think that we are truly f****d

 

[leicsmac]

30 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Yawning chasm in your life? Itch you just can't scratch? Probably for all the usual reasons but also because I've not posted a George Monbiot opinion piece from the Guardian for a while.

 

Don't say I never give you anything:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/14/climate-crisis-communication-super-rich

 

I think he's completely right, but it's one of these things that's perhaps too big an issue for us to collectively even acknowledge, let alone try and do anything about. 

 

I'm sorry to strike a pessimistic tone for a Friday morning but I am starting to think that we are truly f****d

 

Yep, in all honesty what he's saying here is both almost entirely accurate and nothing new under the sun; it's been discussed quite often in a few places, including here. 

 

The unwillingness to see a single point of truth on some matters, including this one, will end horribly. It has in the past, but today the stakes are so much higher, and so the consequences for such ignorance are so much more severe. 

 

But what can decent folks do other than keep trying and, if it all comes to naught, at least leave a record of who was responsible so that those who come afterwards can administer justice in their own way and also not repeat our mistakes?

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, Super_horns said:

Another U- turn ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/14/rachel-reeves-to-abandon-plans-to-raise-income-tax-rates-in-budget

Suppose the trouble is whatever they do isnt going be well liked particularly.

 

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Its pretty pathetic.  Unless they are willing to control costs, they have to admit they need to raise taxes.  Anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

It's not u turn when it's something that isn't announced and it's just paper headlines. The budget is the budget. Everything before is press noise. 

 

 

Also the economy isn't so binary. You can decide to borrow to try to induce growth. Cutting removes money from the economy and it's counter productive when growth and business investment is your aim. 

[CornwallFox]

51 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Yawning chasm in your life? Itch you just can't scratch? Probably for all the usual reasons but also because I've not posted a George Monbiot opinion piece from the Guardian for a while.

 

Don't say I never give you anything:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/14/climate-crisis-communication-super-rich

 

I think he's completely right, but it's one of these things that's perhaps too big an issue for us to collectively even acknowledge, let alone try and do anything about. 

 

I'm sorry to strike a pessimistic tone for a Friday morning but I am starting to think that we are truly f****d

 

We are. We're maybe a decade/decade and a half away from everybody realising it. The effects of global warming are picking up pace. They'll be undeniable within that sort of timeframe. We've already missed 1.5°C. we're pretty much nailed on to miss 2°C. Maybe there's just enough traction to stop before 2.5°C but without the US on board it's uphill.

 

I sorta suspect we'll end up much higher and it'll be truly existential. Even at 2.5°C we're talking large numbers of deaths, swathes of the earth becoming very inhospitable, mass movements of people.

 

Tbh I've long suspected the likes of the US are thinking that we'll see the human population reduce, that they have enough military to stop mass migration inwards. 

Edited 14 November 2025 by CornwallFox

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

We are. We're maybe a decade/decade and a half away from everybody realising it. The effects of global warming are picking up pace. They'll be undeniable within that sort of timeframe. We've already missed 1.5°C. we're pretty much nailed on to miss 2°C. Maybe there's just enough traction to stop before 2.5°C but without the US on board it's uphill.

 

I sorta suspect we'll end up much higher and it'll be truly existential. Even at 2.5°C we're talking large numbers of deaths, swathes of the earth becoming very inhospitable, mass movements of people.

 

Tbh I've long suspected the likes of the US are thinking that we'll see the human population reduce, that they have enough military to stop mass migration inwards. 

Yeah, there are clearly those for whom a massive population crash is acceptable, because they think it won't affect them.

 

They're mistaken.

 

And if they're not mistaken right away, it will be the job of those left to make sure that they are mistaken. 

Edited 14 November 2025 by leicsmac

[Sampson]

If there's one thing this BBC thing has shown me it's that despite claiming to be patriots, it's clear the right in Britain are actually hitching themselves to an international MAGA movement and care more about supporting Trump's America than they do Britain and British values - genuinely can't believe the shadow foreign secretary saying our state broadcasted should "grovel" and bend over to a foreign leader - wtf? It''s one of the most bizarre and anti-patriotic things ever said in parliament but it's been completely normalised.

 

I fully expect Reform (and the Tories if they still have Badenoch or Jenrick at the top but I'm less sure about the direction they'll go) to be full MAGA by 2029, probably after having a load of American money pumped in and social media spamming.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Sampson said:

If there's one thing this BBC thing has shown me it's that despite claiming to be patriots, it's clear the right in Britain are actually hitching themselves to an international MAGA movement and care more about supporting Trump's America than they do Britain and British values - genuinely can't believe the shadow foreign secretary saying our state broadcasted should "grovel" and bend over to a foreign leader - wtf? It''s one of the most bizarre and anti-patriotic things ever said in parliament but it's been completely normalised.

 

I fully expect Reform (and the Tories if they still have Badenoch or Jenrick at the top but I'm less sure about the direction they'll go) to be full MAGA by 2029, probably after having a load of American money pumped in and social media spamming.

It's a bit ironically perverse, really; it's an ethnonationalist movement, but actually leans towards superiority of demographic rather than any one nation. 

 

If it wasn't horrible in every possible way, then I could almost admire the degree of international unity. 

[Parafox]

9 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

You have wrongly attributed the post you have quoted to me. It was posted by @Fear Of The Fox not me! I just made a silly joke about his post.

 

Please remove the attribution as I don’t want to be associated with the ravings in his post.

Apologies.

 

Now deleted 

[Tommy G]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

 

It's not u turn when it's something that isn't announced and it's just paper headlines. The budget is the budget. Everything before is press noise. 

 

 

Also the economy isn't so binary. You can decide to borrow to try to induce growth. Cutting removes money from the economy and it's counter productive when growth and business investment is your aim. 

Well it is a U turn, a welcome one too - there has been complete uproar from within their own party and the general public raising income tax when pretty much everyone is struggling. If they hadn't received such a monumental backlash they would of gone ahead and done it. 

[Zear0]

Policies are taking a back seat to a prevailing view that they don't know what they're doing which is more concerning for me.  Appreciate they've inherited the proverbial poo sandwich, but have a plan and stick to it.

[Greg2607]

8 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Well it is a U turn, a welcome one too - there has been complete uproar from within their own party and the general public raising income tax when pretty much everyone is struggling. If they hadn't received such a monumental backlash they would of gone ahead and done it. 

albeit, there is a rumour of reducing the thresholds that people enter a certain tax band... which basically has the same effect. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Policies are taking a back seat to a prevailing view that they don't know what they're doing which is more concerning for me.  Appreciate they've inherited the proverbial poo sandwich, but have a plan and stick to it.

There's something in that.

 

That being said, the bigger problem might be however stuff like this is being leaked before it's being properly discussed as policy anyway. 

 

They should know that most of the print media aren't going to do them any favours, so it's not great to keep giving them the fodder to do so. 

[danny.]

3 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

albeit, there is a rumour of reducing the thresholds that people enter a certain tax band... which basically has the same effect. 

But doesn’t technically break their manifesto pledge, so seems the smarter option 

[Tommy G]

21 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

albeit, there is a rumour of reducing the thresholds that people enter a certain tax band... which basically has the same effect. 

Correct, I saw that they were freeing the threshold's until 2030 instead of 2028 - and with inflation that does have the same effect. 

 

OAPs on the hook for tax from next year!

[kenny]

18 minutes ago, danny. said:

But doesn’t technically break their manifesto pledge, so seems the smarter option 

The smarter option would be to help businesses and encourage growth. Reducing NIC would be a good place to start as would business rates.

[SMX11]

7 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Correct, I saw that they were freeing the threshold's until 2030 instead of 2028 - and with inflation that does have the same effect. 

 

OAPs on the hook for tax from next year!

Just typical underhanded policy pursued by all parties. Fiddling at the margin and not prepared to do anything radical to change anything.