General News Thread

[Trumpet]

2 hours ago, Md9 said:

Trump has tried so hard to try get everyone to forget about Epstein by bombing Iran he must be fuming she had brought it up again for absolutely no reason what so ever 😂 what ridiculous world we live in right now 

I’m thinking rather than allegations about to come her way, the speech could’ve been her doing the right thing and putting the files in the spotlight again.

[Clogger_]

2 hours ago, kenny said:

Its a good job there is no election for 3 years, you are going to explode at the next one if that is your thought process.

 

 

They do so much wrong. Getting wound up about this is really odd IMO particularly as its a sensationalist headline about things that are factual and easy to check.

 

Its kept me amused instead of writing boring reports. Probably not much of a spectator sport though (no pun intended) so i'll stop and go back to reports. Yawn.

 

The weekend is nearly here. Time to enjoy some football eh?!

[kenny]

14 minutes ago, Clogger_ said:

The weekend is nearly here. Time to enjoy some football eh?!

Hopefully the bus won't turn up then I can have the afternoon off. I can see the DM headlines now:

 

“Polanski’s 55mph Britain? Football fan misses kick-off in travel farce”

[davieG]

[Jattdogg]

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Vance must be squirming a little bit right now seeing how the administration he belongs to is picking a fight with his (alleged) chosen religious sect. 

He will become Hindu and not care. Any guesses on the religion he chooses after?  Lol

 

7 hours ago, skolfoxes said:

Nah, the winters in Russia are too cold and long, he wouldn't be able to golf for 365 days  of the year.

Agreed.

[Free Falling Foxes]

What does MAGA stand for again?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce84rvx0e6do

[davieG]

If True?  Melania and Ghislaine with a bunch of teenagers!!

 

Bet she wished she'd kept quiet.

[worthosoriginals]

Invade Greenland, 

get the iran war and epstein files out of the news.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Donald.

[Jon the Hat]

15 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

But it isn't a plan is it? 

This is the point. 

It's dishonest. 

Why not pick out an actual policy and then rip it to shreds, instead of pretending there's a plan to do something when they haven't even got a policy, let alone a plan to enact one. 

Really don't understand what you aren't understanding here. 

You’re right, we should point out their uncosted dream policies, desire to give doctors a 35% pay rise, plan to destroy the economy with net zero by 2040 and the fact their leader was selling the idea that women could make their tits bigger through hypnosis a few years ago.

[CornwallFox]

14 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You’re right, we should point out their uncosted dream policies, desire to give doctors a 35% pay rise, plan to destroy the economy with net zero by 2040 and the fact their leader was selling the idea that women could make their tits bigger through hypnosis a few years ago.

As I say, if it's policy or involves direct quotes from a leader then it's fair game to discuss and disagree over. 

 

Why do you think net zero would destroy the economy out of interest? There are huge economic opportunities through net zero. 

 

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

As I say, if it's policy or involves direct quotes from a leader then it's fair game to discuss and disagree over. 

Why do you think net zero would destroy the economy out of interest? There are huge economic opportunities through net zero. 

 

 

Simply we are killing industry with our high energy costs.  All while pretending that industry going to other countries who burn coal to power their manufacturing isn't anything to do with us.

 

[CornwallFox]

17 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

 

 

Simply we are killing industry with our high energy costs.  All while pretending that industry going to other countries who burn coal to power their manufacturing isn't anything to do with us.

 

The cost of energy here is all pegged to gas. Net zero has nothing to do with it. You can clearly see in your graph that we have the highest prices excluding taxation. Renewables are the cheapest form of energy. What we need to do is unpick the link between energy pricing and gas. 

 

Finland is shown as having the cheapest energy. In 2025, they were 42% renewables, 20% nuclear and 34% fossil fuel. Of the total, gas is 3% and coal 6.4%.

 

In Sweden, in 2025 they were 99% low carbon energy. Nuclear is 27%, hydropower 41%, wind 23%. Oil is 0.1% and coal 0.3%. 

 

France was 97% low carbon 

Slovakia 86%.

Denmark 86%.

Portugal 70%

Spain 79%.

 

Britain had 0 coal used but gas fluctuated and at times could be up to 50% of the total. At other times renewables accounted for 60%. This is the reason our energy is costly. We need to go further and faster as getting away from expensive fossil fuels, and in particular gas. Fortunately, we have a government that are committed to doing this. 

Edited 11 April by CornwallFox

[Trav Le Bleu]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

 

 

Simply we are killing industry with our high energy costs.  All while pretending that industry going to other countries who burn coal to power their manufacturing isn't anything to do with us.

 

The countries at the top of that graph all use renewable green energy far more than us. In particular Finland and Sweden having 90%+ renewables.

 

Fossil fuel isn't the answer.

[Md9]

If the news isn’t depressing enough Leicester city play football (or some kind of sport using a ball) today 

 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

The cost of energy here is all pegged to gas. Net zero has nothing to do with it. You can clearly see in your graph that we have the highest prices excluding taxation. Renewables are the cheapest form of energy. What we need to do is unpick the link between energy pricing and gas. 

 

Finland is shown as having the cheapest energy. In 2025, they were 42% renewables, 20% nuclear and 34% fossil fuel. Of the total, gas is 3% and coal 6.4%.

 

In Sweden, in 2025 they were 99% low carbon energy. Nuclear is 27%, hydropower 41%, wind 23%. Oil is 0.1% and coal 0.3%. 

 

France was 97% low carbon 

Slovakia 86%.

Denmark 86%.

Portugal 70%

Spain 79%.

 

Britain had 0 coal used but gas fluctuated and at times could be up to 50% of the total. At other times renewables accounted for 60%. This is the reason our energy is costly. We need to go further and faster as getting away from expensive fossil fuels, and in particular gas. Fortunately, we have a government that are committed to doing this. 

 

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

The countries at the top of that graph all use renewable green energy far more than us. In particular Finland and Sweden having 90%+ renewables.

 

Fossil fuel isn't the answer.

... and to add to this, the most important argument will always remain that the world has to transition away from fossil fuels for energy generation (the UK not excepted), or reasonably soon things will happen that, in worst case, will ensure that the only economy is "time for a run to Gas Town to swap aquacola for their guzzolene. And don't forget some bullets from the bullet farm".

 

The world is changing in terms of events affecting crops, livestock and access to potable water already and I have no idea why some people can't apparently get their heads around what's going on and how bad it could get. That denial is as dangerous as it is ludicrous. 

[davieG]

Sir Keir Starmer has shelved his Chagos Islands deal amid worsening relations with Donald Trump after the US failed to formally confirm its approval.

Trump had urged Starmer to scrap the deal despite earlier expressing support for the treaty. In January the president called the plan an "act of total weakness".

UK government officials have said they are not entirely abandoning the agreement - which would hand sovereignty of the British territory to Mauritius - but have run out of time to pass legislation before Parliament is prorogued in the coming weeks.

However, a new Chagos bill is not expected to feature in the King's Speech in mid-May.

It is understood the UK has still not received a formal exchange of letters from the US - a legal necessity required for the treaty to be enacted.

The Chagos Islands - officially known as the British Indian Ocean Territory - are located in the Indian Ocean and Britain has controlled them since the early 19th Century.

The deal would see the UK cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius, and pay an average cost of £101m ($136m) a year to lease back a joint UK-US military base on the largest island, Diego Garcia.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

Sir Keir Starmer has shelved his Chagos Islands deal amid worsening relations with Donald Trump after the US failed to formally confirm its approval.

Trump had urged Starmer to scrap the deal despite earlier expressing support for the treaty. In January the president called the plan an "act of total weakness".

UK government officials have said they are not entirely abandoning the agreement - which would hand sovereignty of the British territory to Mauritius - but have run out of time to pass legislation before Parliament is prorogued in the coming weeks.

However, a new Chagos bill is not expected to feature in the King's Speech in mid-May.

It is understood the UK has still not received a formal exchange of letters from the US - a legal necessity required for the treaty to be enacted.

The Chagos Islands - officially known as the British Indian Ocean Territory - are located in the Indian Ocean and Britain has controlled them since the early 19th Century.

The deal would see the UK cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius, and pay an average cost of £101m ($136m) a year to lease back a joint UK-US military base on the largest island, Diego Garcia.

What an absolute clusterfvck this whole matter has been.

 

Either be fine with the Americans using the place as a torture blacksite (among other things) or don't, just don't spend time and money dithering around either way, especially when it makes it look like Felon#47 is calling the shots.

[Jon the Hat]

5 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

The cost of energy here is all pegged to gas. Net zero has nothing to do with it. You can clearly see in your graph that we have the highest prices excluding taxation. Renewables are the cheapest form of energy. What we need to do is unpick the link between energy pricing and gas. 

 

Finland is shown as having the cheapest energy. In 2025, they were 42% renewables, 20% nuclear and 34% fossil fuel. Of the total, gas is 3% and coal 6.4%.

 

In Sweden, in 2025 they were 99% low carbon energy. Nuclear is 27%, hydropower 41%, wind 23%. Oil is 0.1% and coal 0.3%. 

 

France was 97% low carbon 

Slovakia 86%.

Denmark 86%.

Portugal 70%

Spain 79%.

 

Britain had 0 coal used but gas fluctuated and at times could be up to 50% of the total. At other times renewables accounted for 60%. This is the reason our energy is costly. We need to go further and faster as getting away from expensive fossil fuels, and in particular gas. Fortunately, we have a government that are committed to doing this. 

The pricing system is undoubtedly stupid, but we have gas, and we will continue to need gas for a long time to come, although admittedly some of that is because of the massive delays in delivering nuclear.

[Jon the Hat]

19 minutes ago, davieG said:

Sir Keir Starmer has shelved his Chagos Islands deal amid worsening relations with Donald Trump after the US failed to formally confirm its approval.

Trump had urged Starmer to scrap the deal despite earlier expressing support for the treaty. In January the president called the plan an "act of total weakness".

UK government officials have said they are not entirely abandoning the agreement - which would hand sovereignty of the British territory to Mauritius - but have run out of time to pass legislation before Parliament is prorogued in the coming weeks.

However, a new Chagos bill is not expected to feature in the King's Speech in mid-May.

It is understood the UK has still not received a formal exchange of letters from the US - a legal necessity required for the treaty to be enacted.

The Chagos Islands - officially known as the British Indian Ocean Territory - are located in the Indian Ocean and Britain has controlled them since the early 19th Century.

The deal would see the UK cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius, and pay an average cost of £101m ($136m) a year to lease back a joint UK-US military base on the largest island, Diego Garcia.

Good, stupid idea in the first place.  

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

The pricing system is undoubtedly stupid, but we have gas, and we will continue to need gas for a long time to come, although admittedly some of that is because of the massive delays in delivering nuclear.

If this is true, it's reasonably certain that the nature of that dependency may become very...changeable.

[st albans fox]

9 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

You’re right, we should point out their uncosted dream policies, desire to give doctors a 35% pay rise, plan to destroy the economy with net zero by 2040 and the fact their leader was selling the idea that women could make their tits bigger through hypnosis a few years ago.

 Couple of things a can get behind then ..

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

Sir Keir Starmer has shelved his Chagos Islands deal amid worsening relations with Donald Trump after the US failed to formally confirm its approval.

Trump had urged Starmer to scrap the deal despite earlier expressing support for the treaty. In January the president called the plan an "act of total weakness".

UK government officials have said they are not entirely abandoning the agreement - which would hand sovereignty of the British territory to Mauritius - but have run out of time to pass legislation before Parliament is prorogued in the coming weeks.

However, a new Chagos bill is not expected to feature in the King's Speech in mid-May.

It is understood the UK has still not received a formal exchange of letters from the US - a legal necessity required for the treaty to be enacted.

The Chagos Islands - officially known as the British Indian Ocean Territory - are located in the Indian Ocean and Britain has controlled them since the early 19th Century.

The deal would see the UK cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius, and pay an average cost of £101m ($136m) a year to lease back a joint UK-US military base on the largest island, Diego Garcia.

My only real issue with this is Kemi Badenoch claiming the Tories have forced Labour down when it was the Tories that negotiated 95% of the deal. Really not a fan of dishonesty in media or politics.

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

The pricing system is undoubtedly stupid, but we have gas, and we will continue to need gas for a long time to come, although admittedly some of that is because of the massive delays in delivering nuclear.

Why will we need gas? Our neighbours are showing us we really don't need gas. So why do people continue to say we're going to need it.... Based on what? The fact that fossil fuel investors in the British media keep telling us we need it? Clearly we don't.

 

Also, has does this conversation fit with your thought that the greens would apparently destroy the economy with net zero policies? 

Edited 11 April by CornwallFox

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Why will we need gas? Our neighbours are showing us we really don't need gas. So why do people continue to say we're going to need it.... Based on what? The fact that fossil fuel investors in the British media keep telling us we need it? Clearly we don't.

Based on the idea that it's totally fine to let the future burn for the sake of profit in the present, clearly.

[kenny]

13 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Why will we need gas? Our neighbours are showing us we really don't need gas. So why do people continue to say we're going to need it.... Based on what? The fact that fossil fuel investors in the British media keep telling us we need it? Clearly we don't.

 

Also, has does this conversation fit with your thought that the greens would apparently destroy the economy with net zero policies? 

We need gas for same reason China uses coal. It's because its a form of power that can be turned on quickly when we have no wind or the sun isn't shining.

 

Nuclear is good as it's on all the time but you can't fire it up between windy days.