General News Thread

[Zear0]

40 minutes ago, kenny said:

Interesting. I don't know much about it other than it's been on the news for a number of years and saw the r&d funding. Was it site selection that was slow or simply construction funding?

 

What has labour changed?

It just the decision making and commitment to it. It was a mess previously as we were made promises on commitment to build on the provision we had the workforce to deliver. We spent an absolute fortune in recruitment, paying massively over market rates too, to deliver the work should the go ahead proceed. Then nothing happened and the government representatives under Schapps just wouldn't even respond to any communications. Nobody trusted them to follow through on the promises and we ended up moving a lot of people on. Was just a massive waste. 

 

The main benefit was Labour actually signing contracts and memorandums within weeks of coming in giving us protection to invest. I've left since then, but speaking to former colleagues it's just the basic governance of commit accept that the previous lot didn't bother with. Politics aside, there's a lot to be said for people following processes so that companies have the confidence to invest which was lacking before. 

 

I don't really support either of the main parties, but I can't begin to say how absolutely inept the previous government was in doing simple work. They were so lazy and were just quietly quitting. 

Edited 13 November 2025 by Zear0

[kenny]

19 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

It just the decision making and commitment to it. It was a mess previously as we were made promises on commitment to build on the provision we had the workforce to deliver. We spent an absolute fortune in recruitment, paying massively over market rates too, to deliver the work should the go ahead proceed. Then nothing happened and the government representatives under Schapps just wouldn't even respond to any communications. Nobody trusted them to follow through on the promises and we ended up moving a lot of people on. Was just a massive waste. 

 

The main benefit was Labour actually signing contracts and memorandums within weeks of coming in giving us protection to invest. I've left since then, but speaking to former colleagues it's just the basic governance of commit accept that the previous lot didn't bother with. Politics aside, there's a lot to be said for people following processes so that companies have the confidence to invest which was lacking before. 

 

I don't really support either of the main parties, but I can't begin to say how absolutely inept the previous government was in doing simple work. They were so lazy and were just quietly quitting. 

Thanks.

 

Funnily enough we are suffering from the same issues with the current government on projects. It is resulting in significant redundancies as the staff were employed for projects that have not been officially shelved but have gone silent instead.

[foxes1988]

3 hours ago, kenny said:

Agreed. Most of that has been years in the making and the current government is continuing on previous government policies - which is the right thing to do.

 

What it isn't is Labour doing anything different or spectacular, it also isn't a sign that the previous government did nothing on nuclear power as I have already explained.

 

The pre-construction work at sizewell started while sunak was PM.

 

I'm not a big fan of the Tories and never voted for them perhaps never will unless my political beliefs change as I get older but I do think the Tories did a good job trying to alter our power generation.  The wind farms they managed to get built deserves praise. They didn't do enough with nuclear but at least they started the ground work.

 

Labour do seemed to of stepped this up a notch but because the can got kicked down the road a few times in the 2000s and 2010s we are a bit behind now. Really hoping they ramp up these constructions even though seems unlikely at the minute

[danny.]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Only one of those examples above pertains directly to the Tories. The other two concern a man who is already in high office across the pond, and another who is polling high here in the UK. There are also many others I could list. Evidently not so disgusting and wrong in the minds of many. 

 

If you don't think that a decent amount of people view people with power based on their ability to charm and tell them what they want to hear then fair enough, but for me it's reasonably obvious and provable that the smooth bastards get an easier ride from at least some of the public, and that's not necessarily a good thing. 

I’m not sure we should be looking to the USA for any kind of guidance for politics, they also have a very different set up to the UK and the country itself as a federation of states with a president is incompatible to the UK. 
 

I agree that people will like someone based on personality or apparent charm, but that is more whataboutery and isn’t a reason for politicians to act without integrity, especially not one that pledged to act with honesty and integrity. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, danny. said:

I’m not sure we should be looking to the USA for any kind of guidance for politics, they also have a very different set up to the UK and the country itself as a federation of states with a president is incompatible to the UK. 
 

I agree that people will like someone based on personality or apparent charm, but that is more whataboutery and isn’t a reason for politicians to act without integrity, especially not one that pledged to act with honesty and integrity. 

It certainly isn't a reason for a lack of integrity, but it does rather explain it and also highlights a rather damaging double standard at play which does have consequences and so forms an important part of the discussion. There's rather too much Single Issue Fallacy going on right now.  

 

I'm thinking it was ever thus, though. 

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

Well not in a brown paper bag …….

Not in any form. 

Assuming this point was made about the football regulator appointment and the fact he had donated to Starmar, the appointment decision was made by the Secretary of state for culture etc, who simply asked starmar if he was content with that appointment, which starmar confirmed he was. Starmar had previously recused himself from decision making regarding the position because of his links to football, but that single exchange was what starmar apologised for as it appears to be a rubber stamp, when actually decision making sat with the secretary of state. 

[WigstonWanderer]

On 12/11/2025 at 05:27, Fear Of The Fox said:

You assume I'm anti BBC because I've expressed my disappointment regarding the specific criminal act. I've already said I'm still paying the fee despite not needing one. You're just chasing dragons and failing to see my point of view. 

BBC must publish a lengthy sincere apology but instead of doing this they're siding with politicians making the situation worse. 

Donald?

[Raj]

On 12/11/2025 at 10:05, st albans fox said:

If the cloud cover is kind tonight then it’s likely an excellent chance to see the aurora !!!!

As much chance of seeing them "properly" in Leicester as Daka scoring.

 

 

 

*By properly i mean colours with the naked eye rather than just seeing a blur through your smartphone pictures!

[st albans fox]

4 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

Not in any form. 

Assuming this point was made about the football regulator appointment and the fact he had donated to Starmar, the appointment decision was made by the Secretary of state for culture etc, who simply asked starmar if he was content with that appointment, which starmar confirmed he was. Starmar had previously recused himself from decision making regarding the position because of his links to football, but that single exchange was what starmar apologised for as it appears to be a rubber stamp, when actually decision making sat with the secretary of state. 

Didn’t know it was about the football regulator

 

my point stands though. Politics is full of lobby groups. All sorts of shady stuff happens that we never find out about. Sometimes it might take a decade for people to receive their pay off but I assure you that they do. 

Edited 13 November 2025 by st albans fox

[leicsmac]

Epstein stuff gathering pace again then. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Epstein stuff gathering pace again then. 

It's a handy counter-punch for the Beeb.

 

Fair play to them. They're reporting this as expected and therein lies the problem with commercial news services. In the position the Beeb are in, they could be leveraged into playing the story down.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

It's a handy counter-punch for the Beeb.

 

Fair play to them. They're reporting this as expected and therein lies the problem with commercial news services. In the position the Beeb are in, they could be leveraged into playing the story down.

It is, ideal timing for it.

 

We'll have to see how it all pans out.

[Legend_in_blue]

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.

[Wymsey]

9 minutes 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.

Think had read somewhere recently that the Leicestershire one has split the responsibility for two people (?).

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9v10rdj1jko

 

Edited 13 November 2025 by Wymsey
Edit: Wasn't too off, having just found the article on it.

[Parafox]

4 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

BBC must publish a lengthy sincere apology

 

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?

[st albans fox]

BBC faces fresh claim of misleading Trump edit https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr5e9erpnzlo
 

if a us court can assert jurisdiction (unclear atm) then this won’t help the BBC’s case 

[st albans fox]

1 minute 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?

maybe to put an end to this?  If the bbc are confident that they won’t get successfully sued in the states then they could just ignore it from now on.  But trump and his minions won’t let it drop and will reference it at every opportunity which will undermine the corporation’s news journos over there.

 

irrespective of what you think of trump, no one has claimed that what the bbc did was defensible.  it’s no big deal to apologise profusely for that and they could word the apology in a way that highlights the irony of having to apologise to the kings of manipulation. 

[Parafox]

19 minutes 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.

 

It was pointless tinkering in the first place.

 

I didn't vote at any point as I didn't know anything about the candidates and I still don't.

 

As far as I can ascertain they made no discernible positive changes, certainly not to the police service in our area that seemed effective.

[Parafox]

15 hours ago, st albans fox said:

maybe to put an end to this?  If the bbc are confident that they won’t get successfully sued in the states then they could just ignore it from now on.  But trump and his minions won’t let it drop and will reference it at every opportunity which will undermine the corporation’s news journos over there.

 

irrespective of what you think of trump, no one has claimed that what the bbc did was defensible.  it’s no big deal to apologise profusely for that and they could word the apology in a way that highlights the irony of having to apologise to the kings of manipulation. 

 

Edited 14 November 2025 by Parafox
wrong poster

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

BBC faces fresh claim of misleading Trump edit https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr5e9erpnzlo
 

if a us court can assert jurisdiction (unclear atm) then this won’t help the BBC’s case 

So, an edit of the same matter but on a different programme?

 

The Telegraph really do want that lovely Trump $$$ and "prestige", don't they?

 

As before: the Beeb should just say to see you in court, and if you want to even have a chance to win, you'll need full disclosure. Who will that hurt more?

Edited 13 November 2025 by leicsmac

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, Parafox said:

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. 

the legal side is irrelevant to what is responsible journalism in a world of actual fake news. 
whilst the Beeb may well be able to defend any case for the reasons you have stated (and more), they need access to the white house to do their job over the next few years.  Apologising for doing what they did isn’t such a stretch although their lawyers may advise that they don’t do this until trump’s case has fallen apart. 

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

maybe to put an end to this?  If the bbc are confident that they won’t get successfully sued in the states then they could just ignore it from now on.  But trump and his minions won’t let it drop and will reference it at every opportunity which will undermine the corporation’s news journos over there.

 

irrespective of what you think of trump, no one has claimed that what the bbc did was defensible.  it’s no big deal to apologise profusely for that and they could word the apology in a way that highlights the irony of having to apologise to the kings of manipulation. 

I've been thinking about this a bit recently. 

 

There appears to be an insistence in some circles that criticism and "takedowns" of Trump are done "honestly", that being dishonest in the way that he is practically all the time in order to neutralise him is somehow not cricket, and should be entirely verboten.

 

In principle, this is entirely right.

 

However, in practice, how exactly is such honesty working out in terms of actually addressing people like him and making the world a better place as a result? Current evidence appears...spotty in that regard. 

 

Principles without the power to apply them are as much use as a fart in a hurricane. (Oh, and thanks to Trump's policy decisions, those hurricanes will on average be getting worse year on year too.)

[Zear0]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

BBC faces fresh claim of misleading Trump edit https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr5e9erpnzlo
 

if a us court can assert jurisdiction (unclear atm) then this won’t help the BBC’s case 

$2bn now. 

[RobHawk]

8 hours ago, foxes1988 said:

 

I'm not a big fan of the Tories and never voted for them perhaps never will unless my political beliefs change as I get older but I do think the Tories did a good job trying to alter our power generation.  The wind farms they managed to get built deserves praise. They didn't do enough with nuclear but at least they started the ground work.

 

Labour do seemed to of stepped this up a notch but because the can got kicked down the road a few times in the 2000s and 2010s we are a bit behind now. Really hoping they ramp up these constructions even though seems unlikely at the minute

I'm just gonna come in and completely disagree with this, the Tories were idiots and screwed more renewable energy projects that were ready to go because of 'price' that would have turned out to be much cheaper than the cost of fuel the last few years. 

 

I've said this on the forum before, my wife worked for a research project in the local university. They were doing work for the tidal lagoon in Swansea and the Severn barrage. Both were, first of their kind and both could have been replicated across the country, getting cheaper with each project as obviously the first ones would always cost more. 

 

The head of the project was regularly dealing with politicians and I remember him being adamant that both projects would go ahead as tidal energy was such an underused resource and this would be the start of true renewable energy that could really we've the country due to it's replication potential. 

 

Tories scrapped both projects, refused the funding and did not see any long term benefit even given the relative higher cost of energy at the time. 

 

The infrastructure this could have built, the investment in this country and the amount it would have taken away our energy reliance on Russian gas was huge and now WE are paying even more because of their stupidity. Short sighted stupidity

[Lionator]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Epstein stuff gathering pace again then. 

I feel sorry for the people of Venezuela who will likely feel the consequences.