General News Thread

[LCFCCHRIS]

4 hours ago, bovril said:

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

Looking more and more likely trump is potentially a nonce or at least a nonce enabler. I know which one I’d rather root for. 

[Zear0]

17 minutes ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

Looking more and more likely trump is potentially a nonce or at least a nonce enabler. I know which one I’d rather root for. 

Enabler? 

[Super_horns]

Some good news regarding the guard who protected so many people.

https://news.sky.com/story/rail-worker-who-protected-passengers-during-mass-stabbing-on-huntingdon-train-discharged-from-hospital-13470762

[ALC Fox]

The BBC has a policy of neutrality and trying to let all voices be heard. That inherently probably makes them more left-wing than right-wing although that probably depends on your viewpoint.

 

They manage to p!ss off a large amount of people on both sides of our increasingly divided political spectrum, whether it's through the consistent usage of Farage/UKIP/Reform over the years when they've been a minority party leading to many believing that they're complicit in Reform's current popularity and the more extreme viewpoints espoused by some of their MPs and councillors, or the perceived right-wing bias of their most senior political journalist (Kuenssberg), or - on the other side of things - the continuation of Gary Lineker's employment at the corporation while posting firm, left-wing opinions on his personal social media.

 

Honestly, it isn't perfect. But I don't think it ever was or ever will be. But the programming is fantastic, both TV and radio. And, although not every bulletin is perfect and they occasionally omit certain things that people would deem essential to include, it does aim for neutrality and - in my view - is the most trustworthy news broadcaster in the country. GB News, genuinely, is a disaster zone in comparison. I don't know how anyone can think that channel is a fair representation of what is going on in the country.

 

From what I've heard in the news, there seems to be a good degree of confidence that Trump won't win in any attempt to sue the BBC, and nor should he. The Panorama episode was badly edited and, yes, perhaps the editing does, as a result, show bias. There should have been something to make clear that Trump's speech was edited. But if Trump actually thinks that he did not contribute to what happened on Jan 6th then he's supremely naive (he isn't, he knows what he did). Time and time again, for days and weeks he stoked the fire, screaming about a stolen election, fraud with voting machines and postal voting, etc.

 

He's a liar, a cheat, a bully, a convicted felon, a narcissist, a possible predator and a possible war criminal, besides much, much else. The entire country should be against him suing the BBC.

Edited 16 November 2025 by ALC Fox

[Super_horns]

10 minutes ago, ALC Fox said:

The BBC has a policy of neutrality and trying to let all voices be heard. That inherently probably makes them more left-wing than right-wing although that probably depends on your viewpoint.

 

They manage to p!ss off a large amount of people on both sides of our increasingly divided political spectrum, whether it's through the consistent usage of Farage/UKIP/Reform over the years when they've been a minority party leading to many believing that they're complicit in Reform's current popularity and the more extreme viewpoints espoused by some of their MPs and councillors, or the perceived right-wing bias of their most senior political journalist (Kuenssberg), or - on the other side of things - the continuation of Gary Lineker's employment at the corporation while posting firm, left-wing opinions on his personal social media.

 

Honestly, it isn't perfect. But I don't think it ever was or ever will be. But the programming is fantastic, both TV and radio. And, although not every bulletin is perfect and they occasionally omit certain things that people would deem essential to include, it does aim for neutrality and - in my view - is the most trustworthy news broadcaster in the country. GB News, genuinely, is a disaster zone in comparison. I don't know how anyone can think that channel is a fair representation of what is going on in the country.

 

From what I've heard in the news, there seems to be a good degree of confidence that Trump won't win in any attempt to sue the BBC, and nor should he. The Panorama episode was badly edited and, yes, perhaps the editing does, as a result, show bias. There should have been something to make clear that Trump's speech was edited. But if Trump actually thinks that he did not contribute to what happened on Jan 6th then he's supremely naive (he isn't, he knows what he did). Time and time again, for days and weeks he stoked the fire, screaming about a stolen election, fraud with voting machines and postal voting, etc.

 

He's a liar, a cheat, a bully, a convicted felon, a narcissist, a possible predator and a possible war criminal, besides much, much else. The entire country should be against him suing the BBC.

Particularly as it would be us paying him !

 

 I have found rather than complaining about this particular incident people have been using it as another example where in their view the BBC are biased in other aspects of reporting like over Gaza and the trans issues .

I cannot image anyone is really that bothered if Trump got a bit upset and certainly don’t want to having to cough up a few quid to pacify him .

Could set a bad precedent if the BBC cave in .

Edited 16 November 2025 by Super_horns

[MaidstoneFox]

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

 

 

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

 

 

You could make the same point about Republican voter suppression in many red states. Biden won in 2020 by 7 million votes and the turnout across the board was much higher that year. Even in 2016, when it was widely considered to be a race of two unwanted candidates, Trump got 3 million votes less than Clinton. Here is a graph showing his current approval rating amongst Americans:

 

So he is already lower than he was in 2017.

Edited 16 November 2025 by MaidstoneFox

[South Shire Fox]

8 hours ago, Footballwipe said:

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.

You could literally say the same thing about how can anyone support the BBC when it was a breeding grounds for nonces (Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris, Huw Edwards, Chris Denning, etc etc.) The BBC and Mountbatten can get to fck. Seems a lot of the BBC fan club have forgotten that part though. 

Edited 16 November 2025 by South Shire Fox

[South Shire Fox]

Civil war in Corbyns Black September party

Edited 16 November 2025 by South Shire Fox

[foxes1988]

11 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

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

 

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).

 

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.

It's been over five years and still no compelling evidence of the election being stolen.  Makes no sense Dems/Biden getting a spike in votes is not exactly a smoking barrell

[Zear0]

8 hours ago, MaidstoneFox said:

 

You could make the same point about Republican voter suppression in many red states. Biden won in 2020 by 7 million votes and the turnout across the board was much higher that year. Even in 2016, when it was widely considered to be a race of two unwanted candidates, Trump got 3 million votes less than Clinton. Here is a graph showing his current approval rating amongst Americans:

 

So he is already lower than he was in 2017.

Graph is upside down, fake news. 

[ClaphamFox]

5 hours ago, South Shire Fox said:

Civil war in Corbyns Black September party

What an unexpected turn of events.

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, South Shire Fox said:

You could literally say the same thing about how can anyone support the BBC when it was a breeding grounds for nonces (Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris, Huw Edwards, Chris Denning, etc etc.) The BBC and Mountbatten can get to fck. Seems a lot of the BBC fan club have forgotten that part though. 

Taking this as rote for a moment, I'm inclined to think there's a difference in that there was at least admission of guilt and efforts at reform on the part of the Beeb. 

 

That being said, I'm still looking for an answer from those looking to kneecap the BBC regarding the wider picture of news sources and truth here. 

[leicsmac]

Related to the above:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wv4dx05q5o

 

[leicsmac]

"The Mail on Sunday, external reports that the White House is angry that Dutch author Rutger Bregman - who it describes as a fierce critic of Donald Trump - has been asked to deliver the annual Reith lectures. The paper says he used the events to draw parallels between Trump's America and the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The BBC said the views expressed were always those of the speaker, not the corporation."

 

I'm sorry...where is the lie there? I don't see one. There are numerous obvious parallels.

[CornwallFox]

Just now, leicsmac said:

"The Mail on Sunday, external reports that the White House is angry that Dutch author Rutger Bregman - who it describes as a fierce critic of Donald Trump - has been asked to deliver the annual Reith lectures. The paper says he used the events to draw parallels between Trump's America and the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The BBC said the views expressed were always those of the speaker, not the corporation."

 

I'm sorry...where is the lie there? I don't see one. There are numerous obvious parallels.

Really kinda sick of the trump white house thinking they can shut down dissent across the globe by threatening legal action and tariffs against people, organisations and countries. We really should be shunning America for the next 4 years and very clearly tell their people why. They're no longer an ally that can be trusted.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Really kinda sick of the trump white house thinking they can shut down dissent across the globe by threatening legal action and tariffs against people, organisations and countries. We really should be shunning America for the next 4 years and very clearly tell their people why. They're no longer an ally that can be trusted.

I've said before - Treat them the same way the UK treats the Chinese, a potentially hostile belligerent who shares few of the UKs ethical values but with whom some cooperation on global matters is needed.

[Trav Le Bleu]

15 hours ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

Looking more and more likely trump is potentially a nonce or at least a nonce enabler. I know which one I’d rather root for. 

Great name for a punk band.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Interesting quote from this Reuters article...

 

Does Trump have a defamation case against the BBC? | Reuters

 

https://share.google/dylwAOlNNCOLYXO3R

 

Quote

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and gives the press some of the world's strongest legal protections against defamation claims.

 

The BBC would have those protections in any U.S. court. In Florida, the broadcaster could also rely on a state law that allows defendants to swiftly dismiss defamation lawsuits that have no merit or are brought to retaliate against legally protected speech.

The broadcaster could argue that the documentary was substantially true and that its editing decisions did not create a false impression, legal experts said. It could also claim the program did not damage Trump's reputation.

Trump has said it caused him "overwhelming reputational and

financial harm."

 

 

It's difficult to tarnish a tarnished reputation.

 

I don't seem to remember anyone at the actual time it happened reporting Trumps speech as anything but inflammatory (save perhaps a few right wing media).

 

Been trying to find different reports of the riots from the day after, but my searches frequently come up with just the recent BBC Panorama stuff or are behind paywalls.

Edited 16 November 2025 by Trav Le Bleu

[DennisNedry]

21 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

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

 

 

I don't mind at all.

 

Immigration - very much to the right. 

Generally - a mish mash. Economically left leaning, socially right leaning. But I take a position on each topic on each merits so am a bit all over the place in terms of the left-right scale.

 

It's very telling that Mahmoud is taking some pragmatic and practical steps, something that tough talking Tories (like Patel or Braverman) etc al never did. 

 

 

[MaidstoneFox]

14 hours ago, South Shire Fox said:

You could literally say the same thing about how can anyone support the BBC when it was a breeding grounds for nonces (Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris, Huw Edwards, Chris Denning, etc etc.) The BBC and Mountbatten can get to fck. Seems a lot of the BBC fan club have forgotten that part though. 

Considering how many people work for and have worked for them over the years, statistically you are likely to get a few paedophiles. Some of these cretins worked for other channels as well.

 

When I worked at the beeb, there was some gossip about a few people, but it never came out and hasn't yet. Obviously I can't mention their names here. However, I just felt there was an environment of upper class entitlement there, where the wealthy and famous got away with bullying, abuse and worse, some of which I experienced myself. I think things have been done more recently to address some of these issues, though its been a wider problem in media companies particularly.

[CornwallFox]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Taking this as rote for a moment, I'm inclined to think there's a difference in that there was at least admission of guilt and efforts at reform on the part of the Beeb. 

 

That being said, I'm still looking for an answer from those looking to kneecap the BBC regarding the wider picture of news sources and truth here. 

As if you'll get an answer 😆

[bovril]

22 hours ago, ajthefox said:

 

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. 

I woke up this morning and had to check I didn't dream this whole episode

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Interesting quote from this Reuters article...

 

Does Trump have a defamation case against the BBC? | Reuters

 

https://share.google/dylwAOlNNCOLYXO3R

 

 

It's difficult to tarnish a tarnished reputation.

 

I don't seem to remember anyone at the actual time it happened reporting Trumps speech as anything but inflammatory (save perhaps a few right wing media).

 

Been trying to find different reports of the riots from the day after, but my searches frequently come up with just the recent BBC Panorama stuff or are behind paywalls.

And this is where a big issue is arising. 

 

The Trump administration, along with their friendly media contacts and other useful contributors, are using that uncertainty to try to rewrite the entire narrative of that day. The intent being, of course, to paint Trump as at least simply an innocent bystander while things were happening, and at most a tragically wronged man of peace victimised by paid infiltrators and agitators. 

 

Neither of those things are true, of course - anyone who witnessed the events of the day would know that - but memories are short and digital information is forever, so they have seen the opportunity to twist pretty much every truth about that day. And, without news agencies like the Beeb to hold them to account, they could well succeed.

 

This is about so much more than this one event. This is about highly malicious people seeking to control the very idea of truth, so they can lie and abuse their power as they wish for their own self interest. That's the kind of stuff you read about in dystopia stories, pretty much to the letter, with all the same consequences.

 

And there appear to be so many people either wittingly or unwittingly complicit in all that, both abroad and in the UK itself. 

 

16 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

As if you'll get an answer 😆

I'd like one, because as I've said before in absence of it I'm having to draw my own conclusions, and I have a very big pencil. See above. 

[MaidstoneFox]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And this is where a big issue is arising. 

 

The Trump administration, along with their friendly media contacts and other useful contributors, are using that uncertainty to try to rewrite the entire narrative of that day. The intent being, of course, to paint Trump as at least simply an innocent bystander while things were happening, and at most a tragically wronged man of peace victimised by paid infiltrators and agitators. 

 

Neither of those things are true, of course - anyone who witnessed the events of the day would know that - but memories are short and digital information is forever, so they have seen the opportunity to twist pretty much every truth about that day. And, without news agencies like the Beeb to hold them to account, they could well succeed.

 

This is about so much more than this one event. This is about highly malicious people seeking to control the very idea of truth, so they can lie and abuse their power as they wish for their own self interest. That's the kind of stuff you read about in dystopia stories, pretty much to the letter, with all the same consequences.

 

And there appear to be so many people either wittingly or unwittingly complicit in all that, both abroad and in the UK itself. 

 

I'd like one, because as I've said before in absence of it I'm having to draw my own conclusions, and I have a very big pencil. See above. 

Interesting to see how this plays out. Trump is increasingly aware that this is it, in terms of his Presidency and is looking more to his legacy. Hence the reframing as a world-wide peace-maker.

[Super_horns]

7 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

 

I don't mind at all.

 

Immigration - very much to the right. 

Generally - a mish mash. Economically left leaning, socially right leaning. But I take a position on each topic on each merits so am a bit all over the place in terms of the left-right scale.

 

It's very telling that Mahmoud is taking some pragmatic and practical steps, something that tough talking Tories (like Patel or Braverman) etc al never did. 

 

 

Will any of them actually come into place or be blocked in someway?

 

Lawyers will probably be busy.