General News Thread

[CornwallFox]

2 hours 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.

Honestly embarrassed for you that you've written out this load of absolute nonsense.

[bovril]

19 minutes 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.

Why on earth are we obliged to support our "national broadcaster" to prove our loyalty to this country?  Tinpot dictatorship behavior.

[Footballwipe]

Just to add, Trump is increasingly being has historically, and is increasingly being linked to the allegations that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been accused of.

 

Anyone in this country supporting him I assume is a big fan of Andrew??? Which again, says a lot and poses many questions about the person in question.

 

Would welcome anyone supporting both Trump and Andrew to state their case and why they support such individuals.

[oxford blue]

2 hours 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.

Do you have any evidence of your suggestions about agents and an inside job, or is this just a conspiracy theory?

 

I do agree the BBC were completely wrong in their editing of the Trump speech. However,  try reading through the transcript

https://www.rev.com/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6

He claims election was stolen through fraud (although no evidence); he urges supporters to march and yes, he refers to peacefully making voices heard, but near the end Our brightest days are before us, our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were. And again, most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, "I want to thank you very much," and they go off to some other life, but I said, "Something's wrong here. Something's really wrong. Can't have happened." And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don't fight like Hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

 

For those still listening to his usual long rambling speech it is easy to see how it would have been interpreted by his fanatical MAGA base.

 

The blanket pardons given by Trump to those convicted for violence does not help the idea he was advocating peaceful protests

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjw4vjvlgxpo

 

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

Why on earth are we obliged to support our "national broadcaster" to prove our loyalty to this country?  Tinpot dictatorship behavior.

In true FoxesTalk fashion, I will chalk that down as a firm condonement of Uncle Don.  

[bovril]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

In true FoxesTalk fashion, I will chalk that down as a firm condonement of Uncle Don.  

Let them fight imo. 

[bovril]

Amazing so many left wingers go out to bat for the BBC after the last couple of decades

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, bovril said:

Let them fight imo. 

It is all piss and wind, they may as well

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, bovril said:

Amazing so many left wingers go out to bat for the BBC after the last couple of decades

Again, only speaking for myself here but for me it's a simple matter of necessity when the world is what it is and the stakes are so high. 

 

Pretty much anything that can actually limit the damage the ideology that the current US government embodies is causing is pretty much fair, I think. 

[CornwallFox]

10 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

I like Mahmoud.

 

It's nice to see a minister taking practical steps (and learning from other countries - Denmark model), rather than just posturing.

Do you mind me asking.... Where do you generally sit on immigration and politically? 

There's not much talk of this on here ATM and I'm wondering whether any of our more right wing commentators see this as a positive, or are willing to say it could be. 

 

BBC News - UK set to limit refugees to temporary stays - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c231x8rj1zpo

 

[worthosoriginals]

39 minutes ago, bovril said:

Why on earth are we obliged to support our "national broadcaster" to prove our loyalty to this country?  Tinpot dictatorship behavior.

Yeh, gb news, the daily mail and farage will tell us all the truth

[ajthefox]

40 minutes ago, oxford blue said:

Do you have any evidence of your suggestions about agents and an inside job, or is this just a conspiracy theory?

 

I do agree the BBC were completely wrong in their editing of the Trump speech. However,  try reading through the transcript

https://www.rev.com/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6

He claims election was stolen through fraud (although no evidence); he urges supporters to march and yes, he refers to peacefully making voices heard, but near the end Our brightest days are before us, our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were. And again, most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, "I want to thank you very much," and they go off to some other life, but I said, "Something's wrong here. Something's really wrong. Can't have happened." And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don't fight like Hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

 

For those still listening to his usual long rambling speech it is easy to see how it would have been interpreted by his fanatical MAGA base.

 

The blanket pardons given by Trump to those convicted for violence does not help the idea he was advocating peaceful protests

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjw4vjvlgxpo

 

 

 

Talks about media narrative and then quotes a speech, leaving out the bit where the election loser says it was a corrupt election and that there will be no country left if you don't fight like hell 🤣

[bovril]

14 minutes ago, worthosoriginals said:

Yeh, gb news, the daily mail and farage will tell us all the truth

Is that the same Farage whose bullshit was promoted for years by the BBC, leading to Brexit? 

[splinterdream]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

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. 

 

Mate, nobody dare say anything to argue the left wing narrative on here for fear you'll get banned. Will probably get banned again for posting this 🤣

Edited 15 November 2025 by splinterdream

[worthosoriginals]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

Amazing so many left wingers go out to bat for the BBC after the last couple of decades

You keep batting for orange man and nige  then eh bov?

[bovril]

Just now, worthosoriginals said:

You keep batting for orange man and nige  then eh bov?

Pearson?

[worthosoriginals]

2 minutes ago, bovril said:

Pearson?

As you know,  your man farage

That bloke you have identical views to

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

 

Mate, nobody dare say anything to argue the left wing narrative on here for fear you'll get banned. Will probably get banned again for posting this 🤣

Well, Prussian and a few others appear to not have had that particular difficulty, so I guess your mileage may vary on that one?

 

Is thinking that a fair few matters really should transcend political compassing itself a political position? One for the philosophers, that, I reckon. 

[Parafox]

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

I'd like answers as to what really transpired that day – truth and justice

 

If you're expecting the Trump administration to come clean then that's quite naïve. You'd be cold in the ground before (if ever) that happens,.

 

Same with the Epstein files. 

[splinterdream]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, Prussian and a few others appear to not have had that particular difficulty, so I guess your mileage may vary on that one?

 

Is thinking that a fair few matters really should transcend political compassing itself a political position? One for the philosophers, that, I reckon. 

I have no idea what you are going on about half the time.

 

What do you mean our mileage differs? Is it because hes posted more or been a member longer? 

 

What are you trying to say in your last section?  

[ajthefox]

18 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

 

Mate, nobody dare say anything to argue the left wing narrative on here for fear you'll get banned. Will probably get banned again for posting this 🤣

Jeez give it a bloody rest, we get it you're the victim!

 

18 minutes ago, worthosoriginals said:

You keep batting for orange man and nige  then eh bov?

 

13 minutes ago, worthosoriginals said:

As you know,  your man farage

That bloke you have identical views to

I know Bovril can speak for himself but  you're pretty wide of the mark taking one thing he said about staunch BBC advocacy and equating it to support of Farage. 

[Parafox]

7 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

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

Misleading maybe, but let's face it we all know that Trump lies about everything that is negative and lies about "positives and the good things he's doing to create the image of supreme power. You might conclude that this shows BBC bias and you may be correct. But how biased is what "Truth Social" puts out as well as MAGA supporting news outlets and media in America?

 

He hates being challenged in/by whatever forum tries it on. He ALWAYS has to be right.

 

Plus the Panorama program wasn't broadcast in the USA and that's quite a crux for DT and his attempt to sue.

Edited 15 November 2025 by Parafox

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

I have no idea what you are going on about half the time.

 

What do you mean our mileage differs? Is it because hes posted more or been a member longer? 

 

What are you trying to say in your last section?  

Sorry, to clarify:

 

By "your mileage may vary" I mean that the idea you put forward that "challenging the left wing narrative gets you banned" is clearly open to debate, given that it's clearly untrue for at least some posters. 

 

And for the last section, that's me saying there are some issues too important to be left to daft "left" or "right" political compassing and it's annoying how pretty much every public issue, including those issues, appear to have a political slant these days.

Edited 15 November 2025 by leicsmac

[MC Prussian]

55 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

If you're expecting the Trump administration to come clean then that's quite naïve. You'd be cold in the ground before (if ever) that happens,.

 

Same with the Epstein files. 

I'm not that naïve. As I've mentioned before, it doesn't matter what party holds the power in the US, neither one of them wants to clean the closet. They're both as bad as the other.

But is it better to stick one's head into the sand?

Everything's open for debate these days.

 

At least they've released (some of) the JFK files. Haven't heard much news on that one, though.

Edited 15 November 2025 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

4 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

Honestly embarrassed for you that you've written out this load of absolute nonsense.

I think it's great that you're able to elaborate on your point of view so succinctly.

 

4 hours ago, oxford blue said:

Do you have any evidence of your suggestions about agents and an inside job, or is this just a conspiracy theory?

 

I do agree the BBC were completely wrong in their editing of the Trump speech. However,  try reading through the transcript

https://www.rev.com/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6

He claims election was stolen through fraud (although no evidence); he urges supporters to march and yes, he refers to peacefully making voices heard, but near the end Our brightest days are before us, our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were. And again, most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, "I want to thank you very much," and they go off to some other life, but I said, "Something's wrong here. Something's really wrong. Can't have happened." And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don't fight like Hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

 

For those still listening to his usual long rambling speech it is easy to see how it would have been interpreted by his fanatical MAGA base.

 

The blanket pardons given by Trump to those convicted for violence does not help the idea he was advocating peaceful protests

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjw4vjvlgxpo

 

 

 

As for the plainclothes agents, I refer to this hearing, for example:

 

It's still not clear how so many votes in favour of Biden suddenly popped up OVERNIGHT, even the AP cannot explain the highly unusual spike:
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-9647421250

 

The march and the attacks on the Capitol started before Trump had finished his speech. There were people hell-bent on getting into the building, regardless of the speech.

Blanket pardons? Not all protestors were pardoned; 14 sentences were commuted (for fringe activists with the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys).

 

3 hours ago, ajthefox said:

Talks about media narrative and then quotes a speech, leaving out the bit where the election loser says it was a corrupt election and that there will be no country left if you don't fight like hell 🤣

And?

Verbatim, he said the election was stolen. That's his opinion, down in parts to him being a sore loser, not overly tactful, I concur.

He did not say "trash the Capitol", he said fight for your country (in a patriotic sense).

If I say something stupid and the other side takes it literal, who's at fault? Probably both.

Edited 15 November 2025 by MC Prussian