General News Thread

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Well the claim is it affected the election.

 

Two things.

 

1. It was never broadcast in the US or available by iPlayer 

 

2. He won (maybe he didn't win enough?)

Right, but at the end of all the legal argument, how exactly can he get the Beeb to pay up should he win? I honestly don't know what enforcement mechanism exists for such a situation. 

Edited 16 December 2025 by leicsmac

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Military man in jingoistic seeking of material and moral aid for a cause he believes to be important shocker.

Is he just saying this stuff to get more money or do you think there’s intel??

 

It really is a struggle to see how Russia would be a direct threat to the UK, how are they going to invade? And a random missile attack would be pointless. 

[Jimothy]

Just heard Trump claiming the BBC used AI to make him say things he never said. As far as I'm aware, they just broadcast a speech with a section missing. Surley the BBC can counter sue based on this false statement.

[Kilworthfox]

6 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Here it comes..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvd81470v1o

 

 

I have no sympathy for the BBC news team here.

 

They don't seem to be able to report on news stories of significant interest without being biased, which is the one thing they constantly claim not to be. 

 

In this case they are demonstrating exactly why they have lost the trust of those who once believed them as a premier organisation for understanding what is happening in the world.

 

Why did they decide to use this story to create a new narrative?

Seriously what were they thinking?

It was a decision so arrogant, one could question weather the people making the decisions are stupid they believed nobody would notice, or care, barring in mind this man has taken numerous media organisations to court for similar reasons and won.

 

Those people who decided to make the changes, are the ones people upset that the BBC may be finding it's viability under question, should be upset with. Not Trump because his team noticed and got upset.

 

It would be like me getting upset at the 17 other Premier League teams because they can run a football club in a somewhat professional manner and complain about them. Rather than critique my team that gets relegated. 

 

You may like or dislike the target, that isn't the issue here, as what if any media organisation was to target you with the same tactics? There has to be a precedent. A standard which must be adhered to.

 

They didn't care about the truth. You guys may quite rightly point out some flaws, why didn't they highlight those instead, of creating disinformation? Was it their intention to bring the BBC into a situation where it could potentially be destroyed? 

 

I am disappointed as a member of the public, as I believe the BBC has some local services that are of use as a community good. I believe we should find a way to retain the local services it currently offers, however it's lack of credibility in national and world news seriously endangers it's future.

 

It seems to me there is a culture currently very radically different to what it was say 40 years ago, that I don't recognise or trust the BBC that I have not used it's services for at least 5 years now. 

 

It a sad state of affairs. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Is he just saying this stuff to get more money or do you think there’s intel??

 

It really is a struggle to see how Russia would be a direct threat to the UK, how are they going to invade? And a random missile attack would be pointless. 

I'm sure there are legit indirect threats (such as cyber attacks on infrastructure), but directly? No, agreed. 

 

8 minutes ago, Kilworthfox said:

 

I have no sympathy for the BBC news team here.

 

They don't seem to be able to report on news stories of significant interest without being biased, which is the one thing they constantly claim not to be. 

 

In this case they are demonstrating exactly why they have lost the trust of those who once believed them as a premier organisation for understanding what is happening in the world.

 

Why did they decide to use this story to create a new narrative?

Seriously what were they thinking?

It was a decision so arrogant, one could question weather the people making the decisions are stupid they believed nobody would notice, or care, barring in mind this man has taken numerous media organisations to court for similar reasons and won.

 

Those people who decided to make the changes, are the ones people upset that the BBC may be finding it's viability under question, should be upset with. Not Trump because his team noticed and got upset.

 

It would be like me getting upset at the 17 other Premier League teams because they can run a football club in a somewhat professional manner and complain about them. Rather than critique my team that gets relegated. 

 

You may like or dislike the target, that isn't the issue here, as what if any media organisation was to target you with the same tactics? There has to be a precedent. A standard which must be adhered to.

 

They didn't care about the truth. You guys may quite rightly point out some flaws, why didn't they highlight those instead, of creating disinformation? Was it their intention to bring the BBC into a situation where it could potentially be destroyed? 

 

I am disappointed as a member of the public, as I believe the BBC has some local services that are of use as a community good. I believe we should find a way to retain the local services it currently offers, however it's lack of credibility in national and world news seriously endangers it's future.

 

It seems to me there is a culture currently very radically different to what it was say 40 years ago, that I don't recognise or trust the BBC that I have not used it's services for at least 5 years now. 

 

It a sad state of affairs. 

 

 

I've heard this argument before, and my response remains the same. 

 

Be all of this as it may, if someone is advocating for the Beeb to face crippling consequences for this, they are also, directly by association, advocating for a situation where the only news anyone hears is what people like Trump want folks to hear. There's no middle ground here - again, people like Trump have seen to that.

 

I'll let anyone consider what situation they'd rather have. 

[CornwallFox]

16 minutes ago, Kilworthfox said:

 

I have no sympathy for the BBC news team here.

 

They don't seem to be able to report on news stories of significant interest without being biased, which is the one thing they constantly claim not to be. 

 

In this case they are demonstrating exactly why they have lost the trust of those who once believed them as a premier organisation for understanding what is happening in the world.

 

Why did they decide to use this story to create a new narrative?

Seriously what were they thinking?

It was a decision so arrogant, one could question weather the people making the decisions are stupid they believed nobody would notice, or care, barring in mind this man has taken numerous media organisations to court for similar reasons and won.

 

Those people who decided to make the changes, are the ones people upset that the BBC may be finding it's viability under question, should be upset with. Not Trump because his team noticed and got upset.

 

It would be like me getting upset at the 17 other Premier League teams because they can run a football club in a somewhat professional manner and complain about them. Rather than critique my team that gets relegated. 

 

You may like or dislike the target, that isn't the issue here, as what if any media organisation was to target you with the same tactics? There has to be a precedent. A standard which must be adhered to.

 

They didn't care about the truth. You guys may quite rightly point out some flaws, why didn't they highlight those instead, of creating disinformation? Was it their intention to bring the BBC into a situation where it could potentially be destroyed? 

 

I am disappointed as a member of the public, as I believe the BBC has some local services that are of use as a community good. I believe we should find a way to retain the local services it currently offers, however it's lack of credibility in national and world news seriously endangers it's future.

 

It seems to me there is a culture currently very radically different to what it was say 40 years ago, that I don't recognise or trust the BBC that I have not used it's services for at least 5 years now. 

 

It a sad state of affairs. 

 

 

The BBC didn't make the programme. They broadcast it. It's common practice to use clips from across speeches to indicate the general theme. In this case the clipping was a bit close to the knuckle in suggesting a direct call to action which didn't happen. The idea this is evidence of BBC bias is laughable tbh. 

 

[danny.]

9 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Three words.

 

Con script shun.

Good luck with that 

[st albans fox]

11 hours ago, Md9 said:

So the Epstein files are meant to be released on Friday this week, which means trump will probably do something like invade Venezuela around 11.45 Thursday evening just for a distraction 

 Might be late 

I’ve heard that they’ve used all the stocks of tippex and need to wait for more to arrive from china ….

Edited 16 December 2025 by st albans fox

[Tommy G]

Unemployment ticks up again.

 

Fixing the foundations!

[Lionator]

7 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Unemployment ticks up again.

 

Fixing the foundations!

This is why we need war to reindustrialise the country. 

[Sampson]

17 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Unemployment ticks up again.

 

Fixing the foundations!

It’s inevitable with AI, heard on The News Agents podcast yesterday that graduate jobs down 33% in the space of 1 year which is utterly insane - that 1/3rd of jobs for young people are gone in a year.

That’s the problem with this government and the opposition and perhaps even more so under Reform who are in Musk’s pocket and talking about deregulating AI and let big money run riot with it - we’re currently undergoing the biggest technological revolution in human history, bigger than the Industrial Revolution, bigger than the internet and the government and so much of the opposition are sat their dicking around arguing about 0.1% growth or shrinkage and taxes being put up or down a bit. 
 

None of that is going to matter in 5-10 years when all the jobs have been replaced by robots. This isn’t just the “oh AI will create new jobs, like how deindustrialisation under Thatcher created all these service jobs” stuff anymore - service jobs done by younger people are going, blue collar jobs are going, middle class office jobs are going and there’s going to be nothing to replace them with.

[danny.]

Just now, Sampson said:

It’s inevitable with AI, heard on The News Agents podcast yesterday that graduate jobs down 33% in the space of 1 year which is utterly insane - that 1/3rd of jobs for young people are gone in a year.

That’s the problem with this government and the opposition and perhaps even more so under Reform who are in Musk’s pocket and talking about deregulating AI and let big money run riot with it - we’re currently undergoing the biggest technological revolution in human history, bigger than the Industrial Revolution, bigger than the internet and the government and so much of the opposition are sat their dicking around arguing about 0.1% growth or shrinkage and taxes being put up or down a bit. 
 

None of that is going to matter in 5-10 years when all the jobs have been replaced by robots. This isn’t just the “oh AI will create new jobs, like how deindustrialisation under Thatcher created all these service jobs” stuff anymore - service jobs done by younger people are going, blue collar jobs are going, middle class office jobs are going and there’s going to be nothing to replace them with.

Spot on, not sure why people keep believing this nonsense that the jobs will just shift like they did in the Industrial Revolution. AI will just replace millions of jobs, the job openings it creates will be insignificant in comparison.

Zero joined up thinking from our politicians.

[Tommy G]

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

It’s inevitable with AI, heard on The News Agents podcast yesterday that graduate jobs down 33% in the space of 1 year which is utterly insane - that 1/3rd of jobs for young people are gone in a year.

That’s the problem with this government and the opposition and perhaps even more so under Reform who are in Musk’s pocket and talking about deregulating AI and let big money run riot with it - we’re currently undergoing the biggest technological revolution in human history, bigger than the Industrial Revolution, bigger than the internet and the government and so much of the opposition are sat their dicking around arguing about 0.1% growth or shrinkage and taxes being put up or down a bit. 
 

None of that is going to matter in 5-10 years when all the jobs have been replaced by robots. This isn’t just the “oh AI will create new jobs, like how deindustrialisation under Thatcher created all these service jobs” stuff anymore - service jobs done by younger people are going, blue collar jobs are going, middle class office jobs are going and there’s going to be nothing to replace them with.

Have you got the data where this is happening in other developed countries? I'm not sure we can blame unemployment on just AI - it's an easy way out. 

[Sampson]

17 minutes ago, Lionator said:

This is why we need war to reindustrialise the country. 

Factories and mines will all be run by machines these days, reindustrialising won’t solve the fundamental problems of technology making human labour no longer needed.

 

And “we need war”, get a grip! You’re talking about millions of people dying and everyone living in constant petrified fear of being bombed. I swear from your posts you think war is just a game of Risk with your friends over a weekend and not real people dying and living in petrifying fear on mass.  

[Mike Oxlong]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

The defence surely would be that it would be impossible to damage his reputation as it is already so poor.

Of course, this is correct but it's disappointing that a sizeable portion of Americans still view him favourably 

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Factories and mines will all be run by machines these days, reindustrialising won’t solve the fundamental problems of technology making human labour no longer needed.

 

And “we need war”, get a grip! You’re talking about millions of people dying and everyone living in constant petrified fear of being bombed. I swear from your posts you think war is just a game of Risk with your friends over a weekend and not real people dying and living in petrifying fear on mass.  

And as if the Earth doesn't pose a much larger and actually meaningful threat that the UK (and everyone else) needs to mobilise and industrialise for anyway. 

 

16 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Of course, this is correct but it's disappointing that a sizeable portion of Americans still view him favourably 

Which just goes to show how far democratic systems can be subverted by careful application of media manipulation. 

 

Edit: or there is a real problem with short term self interest with far too many people that really needs addressing quickly. 

Edited 16 December 2025 by leicsmac

[danny.]

19 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Factories and mines will all be run by machines these days, reindustrialising won’t solve the fundamental problems of technology making human labour no longer needed.

 

And “we need war”, get a grip! You’re talking about millions of people dying and everyone living in constant petrified fear of being bombed. I swear from your posts you think war is just a game of Risk with your friends over a weekend and not real people dying and living in petrifying fear on mass.  

Surely it was a joke?!

[Trav Le Bleu]

41 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Factories and mines will all be run by machines these days, reindustrialising won’t solve the fundamental problems of technology making human labour no longer needed.

 

And “we need war”, get a grip! You’re talking about millions of people dying and everyone living in constant petrified fear of being bombed. I swear from your posts you think war is just a game of Risk with your friends over a weekend and not real people dying and living in petrifying fear on mass.  

It's more like Scythe nowadays.

[Trav Le Bleu]

46 minutes ago, Sampson said:

It’s inevitable with AI, heard on The News Agents podcast yesterday that graduate jobs down 33% in the space of 1 year which is utterly insane - that 1/3rd of jobs for young people are gone in a year.

That’s the problem with this government and the opposition and perhaps even more so under Reform who are in Musk’s pocket and talking about deregulating AI and let big money run riot with it - we’re currently undergoing the biggest technological revolution in human history, bigger than the Industrial Revolution, bigger than the internet and the government and so much of the opposition are sat their dicking around arguing about 0.1% growth or shrinkage and taxes being put up or down a bit. 
 

None of that is going to matter in 5-10 years when all the jobs have been replaced by robots. This isn’t just the “oh AI will create new jobs, like how deindustrialisation under Thatcher created all these service jobs” stuff anymore - service jobs done by younger people are going, blue collar jobs are going, middle class office jobs are going and there’s going to be nothing to replace them with.

Calm down John Connor.

[Kilworthfox]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sure there are legit indirect threats (such as cyber attacks on infrastructure), but directly? No, agreed. 

 

I've heard this argument before, and my response remains the same. 

 

Be all of this as it may, if someone is advocating for the Beeb to face crippling consequences for this, they are also, directly by association, advocating for a situation where the only news anyone hears is what people like Trump want folks to hear. There's no middle ground here - again, people like Trump have seen to that.

 

I'll let anyone consider what situation they'd rather have. 

It seems every conversation these days has to be dumbed down to a binary choice, I have no idea why. I am tired of this never ending simplistic train of thought. It turns me off contributing to the majority of discussions that become A Vs B. 

 

I don't understand why it is difficult to report all relevant facts for each story. That doesn't mean I need to know the wind direction, it means crucial details. 

 

We are simply getting lied to. You can dress it up as you wish. 

 

That's unacceptable.  People lose trust, then they will resent having to pay for it hence the surge in unpaid licence fees. 

[Sampson]

17 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

It's more like Scythe nowadays.

Should be a game of Cosmic Encounter. At least that turns war into a riotously fun bluffing and negotiation game where you can blow up your own planets and steal other player’s firepower.

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

Should be a game of Cosmic Encounter. At least that turns war into a riotously fun bluffing and negotiation game where you can blow up your own planets and steal other player’s firepower.

I thought you knew your boardgames

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Have you got the data where this is happening in other developed countries? I'm not sure we can blame unemployment on just AI - it's an easy way out. 

The eurozone has unemployment up since lows in 2024.

Same with the EU.

US has highest unemployment since 2021.

 

[Tommy G]

Just now, CornwallFox said:

The eurozone has unemployment up since lows in 2024.

Same with the EU.

US has highest unemployment since 2021.

 

Source?

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Kilworthfox said:

It seems every conversation these days has to be dumbed down to a binary choice, I have no idea why. I am tired of this never ending simplistic train of thought. It turns me off contributing to the majority of discussions that become A Vs B. 

 

I don't understand why it is difficult to report all relevant facts for each story. That doesn't mean I need to know the wind direction, it means crucial details. 

 

We are simply getting lied to. You can dress it up as you wish. 

 

That's unacceptable.  People lose trust, then they will resent having to pay for it hence the surge in unpaid licence fees. 

I understand the frustration. But this is a dichotomy with next to no nuance, and that is because the parties directly involved in it think only in those terms. I don't like it either because usually there is complexities to such things, but I'm not going to lie about that, either. If you want someone to blame, I would suggest blaming those who have been so reductive in the first place, rather than those who simply recognise the reduction. 

 

I emphatically agree that we're being lied to, by a variety of sources and that's not acceptable. But nor is it acceptable to not consider an unintended but predictable consequence of trying to stop those lies will be a world with more of those lies in, not less.