General News Thread

[leicsmac]

51 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

The BBC are literally being sued for editing footage and misleading their audience 

Then let it be proven in court, and at the same time, prove that what they've done is in fact worse than the vast majority of the other stuff out there and so also prove that Trump, along with a lot of people with a bee in their bonnet about this matter, aren't a bunch of raging hypocrites. 

 

There's so much Perfect Solution Fallacy being used as a blunt instrument to justify that hypocrisy on this one it's not even funny. 

[WigstonWanderer]

4 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

Not expertise but I have read up on it quite a bit. 

The starting point is understanding that money and debt are the same thing. 

Money is only created in two ways: either a central bank creates additional money (and when that money is sent into the economy it becomes a government debt as something has been given out and is repaid when returned), or it's created by banks (who are licensed to literally create money when they lend, they don't have to actually have the money) when borrowed by people or businesses. Again that creates a debt. So all money creates a debt. And so all money is either government debt or private debt. And to grow the economy, more money must be created. Which means government debt and/or private debt must increase, because money doesn't grow on trees, it must be created through creation of debt. 

 

Next tax. MMT says that governments with a fiat currency cannot run out of money, they can always create more money, but inflation is an issue - nobody wants a loaf of bread to cost a trillion pounds, so tax is used to dampen the effect of new money entering the economy, which is inflationary. Tax doesn't fund the government. Tax doesn't go into a special fund that's used to pay for things, it just gets removed from the economy. The government simply creates the money it spends and tax is an anti-inflationary device. Where taxation falls in the economy, and therefore where wealth is allowed to accrue, is an entirely political decision. 

 

There's lots of other aspects, including around why national debt isn't necessarily a bad thing, but that's the starting point. 

It's worth watching some Richard Murphy videos on YouTube who is an MMT advocate. 

Thanks for that. It’s pretty much how I understood it and I’ve been watching RM’s videos and some others. The bit I don’t get is how using interest rates to control inflation can be replaced by using taxation. RM seems to imply that using interest rates Is largely illusory, but at least it’s relatively easy to effect and is accepted by the public. Taxation is much more controversial and less easy to fine tune on a regular basis.

 

Personally I’m all in favour of separating the super wealthy from their money, or as much as is required to avoid oligarchy, but actually doing so seems impossible.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Of course the footage is editted. You want to watch the whole 54 minute rant? Wouldn't make great viewing, not least cos he tends to (and in fact does in this instance) repeat himself, either exactly or in paraphrase.

 

Selective editting like this happens all the time. The error here is that it appears seamless. Had there been an obvious editting cut, then I think there would be no argument.

 

Interestingly he said yesterday, "they changed the words coming out of my mouth", which they arguably didn't, just the timing.

 

He has also repeatedly called BBC "fake news", so surely the BBC can counter-sue him for bringing their name into disrepute, which is essentially Trump's claim against them.

Edited 15 November 2025 by Trav Le Bleu

[Robo61]

4 hours ago, JonnyBoy said:

Incorrect, the house prices won’t fall, even if they did would be marginal and still price out some first time buyers 

If landlords are going to sell up,  then who is going to buy them up.  I am confused by what you are claiming,  the number of houses available to either rent or buy is not going to change as a result of landlords selling up.  

Edited 15 November 2025 by Robo61

[CornwallFox]

6 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Thanks for that. It’s pretty much how I understood it and I’ve been watching RM’s videos and some others. The bit I don’t get is how using interest rates to control inflation can be replaced by using taxation. RM seems to imply that using interest rates Is largely illusory, but at least it’s relatively easy to effect and is accepted by the public. Taxation is much more controversial and less easy to fine tune on a regular basis.

 

Personally I’m all in favour of separating the super wealthy from their money, or as much as is required to avoid oligarchy, but actually doing so seems impossible.

I'm not sure it's about replacing. Tax is by it's nature anti inflationary, because it's taking money out of the economy.  I don't think it's about fine tuning taxes as such. I think his general point is giving the wealth of the nation to the richest is a political choice and you should have the same team revenue by making different tax choices that target the rich so the poor can keep more and be taxed less.

[CornwallFox]

8 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Landlords will just become companies and corporations, rather than your average bloke from down the street. 
 

We need more social housing and we need homes built fast, but when you’re importing hundreds of thousands of people each year, you’re swimming against the tide. 
 

Not all landlords are bad, and not all tenants are perfect. I’ve seen a good honest bloke move in with their partner, rent their house out for 12 months to get screwed over for 15k+ due to tenants refusing to pay or leave. 

Not if you stop that as well.

[LCFCCHRIS]

They should post a story “Why Trump could be a nonce” or “why trump is potentially protecting nonces” when he blocks the release of the files. 
not slander surely as it’s a decent chance of being true 

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Of course the footage is editted. You want to watch the whole 54 minute rant? Wouldn't make great viewing, not least cos he tends to (and in fact does in this instance) repeat himself, either exactly or in paraphrase.

 

Selective editting like this happens all the time. The error here is that it appears seamless. Had there been an obvious editting cut, then I think there would be no argument.

 

Interestingly he said yesterday, "they changed the words coming out of my mouth", which they arguably didn't, just the timing.

 

He has also repeatedly called BBC "fake news", so surely the BBC can counter-sue him for bringing their name into disrepute, which is essentially Trump's claim against them.

Tough to proceed with this one: He said this as a US citizen, in the US. It falls under Free Speech.

And bringing a former or present US president to court? Good luck with that. I'm still waiting for a court date for George W. Bush (9/11, Iraq invasion), Barack Obama (crimes against humanity, Guantanamo, Afghanistan) or Joe "Sleepyhead" Biden (incompetence).

Edited 15 November 2025 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

40 minutes ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

They should post a story “Why Trump could be a nonce” or “why trump is potentially protecting nonces” when he blocks the release of the files. 
not slander surely as it’s a decent chance of being true 

And at the very least, all the details would have to come out in court. 

 

4 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Tough to proceed with this one: He said this as a US citizen, in the US. It falls under Free Speech.

And bringing a former or present US president to court? Good luck with that. I'm still waiting for a court date for George W. Bush (Iraq invasion), Barack Obama (crimes against humanity) or Joe "Sleepyhead" Biden (incompetence).

This exact argument can be used in the other direction. 

 

If Trump can prove direct dishonesty and defamation and therefore slander in court, the Beeb can certainly prove it the other way round as well. 

Edited 15 November 2025 by leicsmac

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Then let it be proven in court, and at the same time, prove that what they've done is in fact worse than the vast majority of the other stuff out there and so also prove that Trump, along with a lot of people with a bee in their bonnet about this matter, aren't a bunch of raging hypocrites. 

 

There's so much Perfect Solution Fallacy being used as a blunt instrument to justify that hypocrisy on this one it's not even funny. 

So it's ok when the BBC does it? If you're fine with them continuing to lose their credibility, go ahead.

 

I think it's a sad state of affairs. The Trump delusion and sick desire for clickbait content rears its ugly head. Remember, this is a state-funded institution that receives millions billions in taxpayer money each year.

To me, it's just another example of a cherished brand that built a reputation for being reliable being destroyed by activism within.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

So it's ok when the BBC does it? If you're fine with them continuing to lose their credibility, go ahead.

 

I think it's a sad state of affairs. The Trump delusion and sick desire for clickbait content rears its ugly head. Remember, this is a state-funded institution that receives millions billions in taxpayer money each year.

To me, it's just another example of a cherished brand that built a reputation for being reliable being destroyed by activism within.

 

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Then let it be proven in court, and at the same time, prove that what they've done is in fact worse than the vast majority of the other stuff out there and so also prove that Trump, along with a lot of people with a bee in their bonnet about this matter, aren't a bunch of raging hypocrites. 

 

There's so much Perfect Solution Fallacy being used as a blunt instrument to justify that hypocrisy on this one it's not even funny. 

This applies here too. 

 

And to add, to my mind the man shouldn't be facing libel issues like this, because he should already be in prison for directly inciting an overthrow of the results of a free and fair election (evidently the friendly US Senate was too afraid of his populist wrath) and for policy decisions representing a threat to a great many people short term and everyone long term. But, as you say, Presidential immunity goes a long way and so it isn't going to happen, so making sure his life ends up uncomfortable in as many smaller ways as possible will have to do. 

[MC Prussian]

24 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

This applies here too. 

 

And to add, to my mind the man shouldn't be facing libel issues like this, because he should already be in prison for directly inciting an overthrow of the results of a free and fair election (evidently the friendly US Senate was too afraid of his populist wrath) and for policy decisions representing a threat to a great many people short term and everyone long term. But, as you say, Presidential immunity goes a long way and so it isn't going to happen, so making sure his life ends up uncomfortable in as many smaller ways as possible will have to do. 

Well, if you still believe the January 6 narrative the media has spun, there's plenty of video material to prove otherwise (with regards to "storming the Capitol"). To this day, there's serious questions as to how many agents were present as instigators in the crowd that day or why Capitol police was pretty much nowhere to be seen and/or understaffed (that particular day). Or why the protestors were led inside the building without much resistance – and then even shown around.

Or the amount of deaths that day (1 being the result of a direct break-in; two were unrelated heart attacks, one a drug overdose, one was a stroke, plus four suicides in the days after).

 

Which brings us back to the edited video of Trump's speech, in which he said: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

How is that inciting violence or instructing a crowd to overthrow a newly-elected government?

 

On a sidenote: Remember the pipe bomb story from that day? There's talk about it being another inside job, executed by a police officer turned agent.

 

Just as many others, millions of Americans and people across the globe, I'd like answers as to what really transpired that day – truth and justice.

Edited 15 November 2025 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Well, if you still believe the January 6 narrative the media has spun, there's plenty of video material to prove otherwise (with regards to "storming the Capitol"). To this day, there's serious questions as to how many agents were present as instigators in the crowd that day or why Capitol police was pretty much nowhere to be seen and/or understaffed (that particular day). Or why the protestors were led inside the building without much resistance – and then even shown around.

Or the amount of deaths that day (1 being the result of a direct break-in; two were unrelated heart attacks, one a drug overdose, one was a stroke, plus four suicides in the days after).

 

Which brings us back to the edited video of Trump's speech, in which he said: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

How is that inciting violence or instructing a crowd to overthrow a newly-elected government?

 

On a sidenote: Remember the pipe bomb story from that day? There's talk about it being another inside job, executed by a police officer turned agent.

 

Just as many others, millions of Americans and people across the globe, I'd like answers as to what really transpired that day – truth and justice.

I would think a lot of people want a bit more transparency about what happened that day... and the key players on it, as well. 

 

So, considering the above, I've just thought of a few more questions. 

 

- Why were the people there, if not to interrupt and/or stop the confirmation of the results?

 

- if that wasn't their intent, why were a lot of them headed for the room where there the results were being confirmed with flexicuffs and weaponry?

 

- if Trump really wanted a peaceful proceeding that day, why did he not comment while it was happening?

 

- if he thought what the people did there was wrong, why did he pardon so many of them?

 

- and (connected to a question above) if he really wanted a peaceful transition of power and accepting the loss, why all the talk about a "stolen election" and looking for more votes in Georgia, "stop the count" etc?

 

I'm really looking for a reason to trust the word of Trump over other parties on this matter, given his record of deception and self interest, is there any reason at all to trust him on this? Genuinely interested. 

 

And by the by, it's good to see you commenting again. There's been far too much disingenuous deflection going on from people who likely are Trump advocates but for whatever reason don't want to say it out loud. Your honesty about that is refreshing and it's good to see around here once more. 

[LCFCCHRIS]

Why did they need to march to the capitol at all? Sore loser mentality. 

[Dahnsouff]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Then let it be proven in court, and at the same time, prove that what they've done is in fact worse than the vast majority of the other stuff out there and so also prove that Trump, along with a lot of people with a bee in their bonnet about this matter, aren't a bunch of raging hypocrites. 

 

There's so much Perfect Solution Fallacy being used as a blunt instrument to justify that hypocrisy on this one it's not even funny. 

Oh I don't know, a slightly uncomfortable manic giggle seems wholly appropriate on this occasion....

 

But all those tearing down such institutions are culpable in silencing dissent, even if it is a very mild form.

 

Mice in a maze.

[MC Prussian]

3 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Of course the footage is editted. You want to watch the whole 54 minute rant? Wouldn't make great viewing, not least cos he tends to (and in fact does in this instance) repeat himself, either exactly or in paraphrase.

 

Selective editting like this happens all the time. The error here is that it appears seamless. Had there been an obvious editting cut, then I think there would be no argument.

 

Interestingly he said yesterday, "they changed the words coming out of my mouth", which they arguably didn't, just the timing.

 

He has also repeatedly called BBC "fake news", so surely the BBC can counter-sue him for bringing their name into disrepute, which is essentially Trump's claim against them.

That's a nice way of describing deceitful editing. To me, that is malicious intent.

And the fact that it happens so often today makes it all the more troubling.

 

What would it have cost in editing to include a disclaimer originally, stating the two shots were 54 minutes apart?

 

We all know Trump's a rambler, so I'd take anything he says with a pinch of salt. Judge him by his actions.

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Oh I don't know, a slightly uncomfortable manic giggle seems wholly appropriate on this occasion....

 

But all those tearing down such institutions are culpable in silencing dissent, even if it is a very mild form.

 

Mice in a maze.

And aren't we seeing so many attempts at that right now...

 

Such are the times we appear to live in. 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

And aren't we seeing so many attempts at that right now...

 

Such are the times we appear to live in. 

As the saying goes, 'what a time to be alive'

[MC Prussian]

32 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Oh I don't know, a slightly uncomfortable manic giggle seems wholly appropriate on this occasion....

 

But all those tearing down such institutions are culpable in silencing dissent, even if it is a very mild form.

 

Mice in a maze.

You‘ll find that the BBC is tearing itself down, for everyone to see.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

You‘ll find that the BBC is tearing itself down, for everyone to see.

Even if that were true, it does mot feel particularly celebratory.

[MC Prussian]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

Even if that were true, it does mot feel particularly celebratory.

I agree.

 

Tell me that despite the sheer endless amount of funding pouring in, cutting costs or sacking longtime employees is helping?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-62723769#:~:text="A big one that we,) and left by choice."

 

Or the fact that the Beeb has lost a considerable amount of its TV audience in recent years?

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66369532.amp

 

They have in their own hands to rectify their reputation issue.

[Footballwipe]

Says an awful lot about British people championing Trump suing the BBC.

 

Supporting someone like him over your national broadcaster says a lot about your politics, biases and loyality to this country.

 

The irony that those pinning themselves to the British flag are supporting a foreigner who is increasingly being linked to someone like Epstein. Does make you wonder.

[leicsmac]

26 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

As the saying goes, 'what a time to be alive'

Most definitely. 

 

And, for the purposes of the current discussion, the current US administration has more than enough media that it's cowed into being its mouthpieces for its own deception and subversion of the truth. It would be horrendous if the Beeb were even looking like joining them. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Footballwipe said:

Says an awful lot about British people championing Trump suing the BBC.

 

Supporting someone like him over your national broadcaster says a lot about your politics, biases and loyality to this country.

 

The irony that those pinning themselves to the British flag are supporting a foreigner who is increasingly being linked to someone like Epstein. Does make you wonder.

 

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Yep, as said before, it's a bit weird. 

 

It's ethnonationalism, but clearly valuing the ethno over the nationalism as the movement itself appears rather international in structure. Rather different beast to what's come before. 

Think this applies here.

[CornwallFox]

3 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

The BBC are literally being sued for editing footage and misleading their audience 

The BBC's legal letter to him is pretty robust in terms of their defence.