General News Thread

[danny.]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

..."I'm a "wartime" leader! That means I can be as corrupt as I like!"

Works for Zelenskyy!

Edited 30 November 2025 by danny.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, danny. said:

Works for Zelenskyy!

Assuming that he is personally involved, I guess time will tell, there.

 

In any case, there's a world of difference between both the military and political situations and the personal motivations of those two men. 

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

6 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Loved living in my flats in town. Needleworks on Albion Street and Cotton Mill on Wellington. Was full of professionals and, for the most part, no d**k heads so was really nice place. There's snobbery with flats but they're great when you're younger. 

 

I remember going your gaff off New Walk post Mosh and thinking "this is as good as it gets"

[Zear0]

11 minutes ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

I remember going your gaff off New Walk post Mosh and thinking "this is as good as it gets"

You've been home with half this forum. Hussey. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

39 minutes ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

I remember going your gaff off New Walk post Mosh and thinking "this is as good as it gets"

@Zear0 lives in Woof Watch?

[CornwallFox]

12 hours ago, kenny said:

Whenever I visit a city abroad we stay in an apartment.

 

When you drive around the countryside of foreign countries, you don't see sprawling low density small houses everywhere. (You also see less traffic.....)

 

Every apartment scheme I've designed in Leicester recently has been filled in a matter of weeks.

 

It's a British obsession that defines happiness at home on whether you have your own roof or whether you share it.

Every city here and abroad is flats/apartments. 

The countryside everywhere is houses.

[CornwallFox]

11 hours ago, kenny said:

We have been to 42 countries so far. I agree that isn't enough and im very jealous of some those on this board that have amazing travel plans and ambitions.

 

I would tentatively suggest that I am above average in the travelled stakes.

 

I would also tentatively suggest that I have seen many more properties of all types that the average person as that is my job.

 

But what do I know. Once the countryside is paved over, it won't ever be unpaved. As I keep stating is encourages a car based lifestyle which is not what we should be doing in the future.

 

There is a reason that when you drive in other densely populated countries their roads are smaller than ours yet seem to have hardly any cars on them. (I don't mean North Italy of course, worst driving experience ive had abroad.)

Also because they kept local shops etc rather than Americanising their cities and driving culture.

We have too many cars but lots of bits of the country aren't like the Midlands.

Nobody is arguing to pave over the entire country. Just pointing out wholly city or apartment living is a ridiculous concept.

[CornwallFox]

10 hours ago, kenny said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/sep/24/almost-15m-homes-could-be-built-on-brownfield-sites-in-england-report-finds?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

According to some reports, Labour could build their entire 5 year target on brownfield only. With more than half already having planning permission and could start to building within weeks if required.

More on board with this. Need to threaten developers. Use it or lose it.

[kenny]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

Every city here and abroad is flats/apartments. 

The countryside everywhere is houses.

Very true. But it brushes neatly over that we have the least dense cities in Europe. So the majority of our population live in 2 storey houses even in the city boundary. It tends to be 3-5 storey apartments in Europe in the area. 

 

Even London isn't particularly dense compared to many places.

 

We think either houses or high rise. The middle ground is the optimum IMO.

 

   

Edited 30 November 2025 by kenny

[CornwallFox]

Tory press still going full steam ahead attempting to smear Rachel reeves as a liar simply because the public finances are better than they thought. Such absolute tosh. Actually amusing watching them attempt to turn a big positive into a weird negative. 

[Jon the Hat]

41 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Tory press still going full steam ahead attempting to smear Rachel reeves as a liar simply because the public finances are better than they thought. Such absolute tosh. Actually amusing watching them attempt to turn a big positive into a weird negative. 

That's not quite what is happening though is it.  She has been telling everyone this is about a black hole, and there is no black hole.  Labour MPs are also pissed off.  Taxes have gone up to pay for their welfare increases, and to give Reeves headroom against her own fiscal rules.  Meanwhile they have broken their promise not to increase taxes on working people.  

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

That's not quite what is happening though is it.  She has been telling everyone this is about a black hole, and there is no black hole.  Labour MPs are also pissed off.  Taxes have gone up to pay for their welfare increases, and to give Reeves headroom against her own fiscal rules.  Meanwhile they have broken their promise not to increase taxes on working people.  

If she'd given herself zero additional headroom it would have been the smallest headroom of all time and the Tory press would have battered her for 'risking bankruptcy' or some such nonsense. 

Don't lower yourself to pretending there's anything even slightly wrong with her approach as there's not been at all. You're just repeating Tory nonsense. 

And there was no manifesto promise not to increase taxes on working people. There was an explicit promise not to raise VAT, income tax or NI on working people. And that haven't. Unless you're about to argue that not rising income tax thresholds counts as increasing income tax, which I doubt you were arguing when the Tories were doing it year after year after year.

Edited 1 December 2025 by CornwallFox

[Jon the Hat]

56 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

If she'd given herself zero additional headroom it would have been the smallest headroom of all time and the Tory press would have battered her for 'risking bankruptcy' or some such nonsense. 

Don't lower yourself to pretending there's anything even slightly wrong with her approach as there's not been at all. You're just repeating Tory nonsense. 

And there was no manifesto promise not to increase taxes on working people. There was an explicit promise not to raise VAT, income tax or NI on working people. And that haven't. Unless you're about to argue that not rising income tax thresholds counts as increasing income tax, which I doubt you were arguing when the Tories were doing it year after year after year.

There is a lot wrong with her approach, she has increased welfare spending and done sod all to help business or deliver growth, on top of the employers NI increase last year.

[Bellend Sebastian]

The Telegraph admitting that Brexit may not have been a good thing. 

 

I know most people won't give two hoots about what they think but given the current administration's apparent over caution in going head on against the right wing media this feels potentially significant on at least some level

[kenny]

3 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

If she'd given herself zero additional headroom it would have been the smallest headroom of all time and the Tory press would have battered her for 'risking bankruptcy' or some such nonsense. 

Don't lower yourself to pretending there's anything even slightly wrong with her approach as there's not been at all. You're just repeating Tory nonsense. 

And there was no manifesto promise not to increase taxes on working people. There was an explicit promise not to raise VAT, income tax or NI on working people. And that haven't. Unless you're about to argue that not rising income tax thresholds counts as increasing income tax, which I doubt you were arguing when the Tories were doing it year after year after year.

“People on average earnings are paying more in tax because they are dragged into higher tax brackets.

That is a sign of failure. The government is picking the pockets of working people.”

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgk1l4lrrdo

 

Two former heads of all UK Special Forces suppressed evidence of possible SAS war crimes, a former high-ranking officer has told a public inquiry in closed evidence sessions.

The officer, who was among the most senior in special forces, said he had passed what he called "explosive" evidence suggesting "criminal behaviour" to the then-director special forces in 2011.

The officer also told the inquiry that the subsequent director special forces, who took over in 2012, "clearly knew there was a problem in Afghanistan" and failed to act.

It was "not just one director that has known about this", he said in his evidence, adding that UK Special Forces leadership was "very much suppressing" the allegations.

 

Alleged bad behaviour from the cream of the crop in Afghanistan then. 

 

That being said, IMO the whole idea of the "rules of war" and that one side or another is somehow more into obeying them when the screaming starts, the blood starts flowing and the adrenaline begins pumping is laughable to me anyway. There's only one rule in war - win. If you do that, you can behave as you like and tell whatever justification for whatever horrors you have committed you like. 

Edited 1 December 2025 by leicsmac

[Tommy G]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

That's not quite what is happening though is it.  She has been telling everyone this is about a black hole, and there is no black hole.  Labour MPs are also pissed off.  Taxes have gone up to pay for their welfare increases, and to give Reeves headroom against her own fiscal rules.  Meanwhile they have broken their promise not to increase taxes on working people.  

Finally someone who understands this isn't just a labour smear. She needs to go. 

[CornwallFox]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

There is a lot wrong with her approach, she has increased welfare spending and done sod all to help business or deliver growth, on top of the employers NI increase last year.

That's not the complaint is it. 

[Tommy G]

4 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

If she'd given herself zero additional headroom it would have been the smallest headroom of all time and the Tory press would have battered her for 'risking bankruptcy' or some such nonsense. 

Don't lower yourself to pretending there's anything even slightly wrong with her approach as there's not been at all. You're just repeating Tory nonsense. 

And there was no manifesto promise not to increase taxes on working people. There was an explicit promise not to raise VAT, income tax or NI on working people. And that haven't. Unless you're about to argue that not rising income tax thresholds counts as increasing income tax, which I doubt you were arguing when the Tories were doing it year after year after year.

Why are you using the Tories as a yardstick to justify a labour policy? 

 

 

[CornwallFox]

39 minutes ago, kenny said:

“People on average earnings are paying more in tax because they are dragged into higher tax brackets.

That is a sign of failure. The government is picking the pockets of working people.”

That's not the complaint though. 

Absolutely fine to take that opinion. 

But that's not what I'm on about

[CornwallFox]

2 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Why are you using the Tories as a yardstick to justify a labour policy? 

 

 

I'm not. 

I'm clearly saying labour have done nothing wrong in terms of pre budget discussions etc. 

I'm not discussing the policy at all. 

And the only mention I make of the Tories is pointing out potential hypocrisy. 

Edited 1 December 2025 by CornwallFox

[leicsmac]

Just now, CornwallFox said:

I'm not. 

I'm clearly saying labour have done nothing wrong in terms of pre budget discussions etc. 

I'm not discussing the policy at all. 

And the only mention I make of the Tories is pointing out your hypocracy. 

Additionally, I reckon that any critique of policy like this that doesn't involve comparative and instead just focuses on criticism is absolutely pointless anyway. 

[CrazyKopCorner]

23 hours ago, Livid said:

Rachel Reeves struggling to answer a single question on the BBC. 

Hopeless, clueless, gormless and a liar as well. 

 

 

 

 

[Zear0]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Additionally, I reckon that any critique of policy like this that doesn't involve comparative and instead just focuses on criticism is absolutely pointless anyway. 

Why?  It's not a criticism of policy, it's a criticism of dishonest behaviour.

 

Both her and Starmer were absolutely clear that due to an impending productivity downgrade there was money to be saved or accrued via tax.  She knew this downgrade wasn't as severe as previously thought but took the same remedial actions anyway.  Where you support tax rises to fund welfare rises is irrelevant in the complains people have against what she's done.  It was at best dishonest, and at worst manipulating bond markets to make her budget work.

 

It's not just mud slinging, it's pointing out dishonestly in office.  I voted for these idiots and it was a decision almost as hideous as Corbyn/Boris.  We called out the Tories for having their hand in the till, and we need to call out the current government when they make mistakes, not just continue to gaslight the country.

[CornwallFox]

Just now, CrazyKopCorner said:

Hopeless, clueless, gormless and a liar as well. 

 

 

 

 

Economy doing better than the opposition thought somehow equals the chancellor being a hopeless liar eh?

What nonsense