General News Thread

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, danny. said:

Immigration is mentioned here as a reason: https://www.essex.ac.uk/research/showcase/why-britain-really-voted-to-leave-the-european-union

The collapse of power in the Middle East
The series of protests, demonstrations, riots, coups and civil wars that began in 2010 across the Middle East and North Africa and have become known as the Arab Spring, created new waves of immigration into Europe. Many voters concluded that not only had successive UK governments mishandled this issue but so had the European Commission.

If we assume that is correct based on the data they used (and I'd say anecdotally that tallies with people I spoke to around then), they wanted less immigration from the ME and NA. Since 2020, however, migration did not go down, it went sharply up, with the bulk being non-EU citizens - so I don't think it's reasonable to assert that people who may have voted for that reason (as opposed to other reasons such as trading, bureaucratic reasons etc.) were listened to.

I think that could well be accurate. 

 

If it is, however, it begs the two questions that; was Brexit ever really a vehicle that could deliver that purpose, and now that it hasn't, exactly whose fault is it for the incorrect expectations and the failure in delivery?

Edited 3 December 2025 by leicsmac

[bovril]

8 minutes ago, danny. said:

Immigration is mentioned here as a reason: https://www.essex.ac.uk/research/showcase/why-britain-really-voted-to-leave-the-european-union

The collapse of power in the Middle East
The series of protests, demonstrations, riots, coups and civil wars that began in 2010 across the Middle East and North Africa and have become known as the Arab Spring, created new waves of immigration into Europe. Many voters concluded that not only had successive UK governments mishandled this issue but so had the European Commission.

If we assume that is correct based on the data they used (and I'd say anecdotally that tallies with people I spoke to around then), they wanted less immigration from the ME and NA. Since 2020, however, migration did not go down, it went sharply up, with the bulk being non-EU citizens - so I don't think it's reasonable to assert that people who may have voted for that reason (as opposed to other reasons such as trading, bureaucratic reasons etc.) were listened to.

If I buy something from a clearly dodgy website, and ignore people who tell me it's a dodgy website, and the package never arrives, the problem is not that I "haven't been listened to".

[Dahnsouff]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think that could well be accurate. 

 

If it is, however, it begs the two questions that; was Brexit ever really a vehicle that could deliver that purpose, and now that it hasn't, exactly whose fault is it for the incorrect expectations and the failure in delivery?

Whoever voted leave, its their fault. You can say 'they lied' to which I would say 'you should have looked closer'.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Whoever voted leave, its their fault. You can say 'they lied' to which I would say 'you should have looked closer'.

Agreed, but those who did the lying have their share of the fault too. 

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Agreed, but those who did the lying have their share of the fault too. 

For sure, and that lying for votes is now a mainstay of global politics. I think my comment was quite unfair in reality, as even if it is true fundamentally, in reality where the time we can oft assign to uncovering the truth is limited, we have little real option but to listen to those who purport to serve us.

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

that rewards the most violent who can take control 

single secure cells 

part roofed to provide some shelter

food delivered by drone 

Any health issues - tough sh1t 

Didn't they do something similar 200 years ago?

 

Think they call it Australia now.

[foxes1988]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prime-ministers-strategic-steer-to-the-nuclear-sector/prime-ministers-strategic-steer-to-the-nuclear-sector-following-the-2025-nuclear-regulatory-taskforces-review

 

Fair play to them that could be pretty big.

 

With the SMR, Sizewell C and now this I'm glad we are finally taking nuclear serious it's been way too long.

 

 

[CornwallFox]

5 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Nursery worker admits sexually abusing children https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2k4qd8q97eo

 

Sometimes I cant get my head around the fact that we are judged on being a civilised society by not beating the crap out of this guy every day until he’s dead. 
by spending sparse tax revenues on keeping him warm, fed and protected in a small room, probably with some kind of device to keep him ‘entertained’. 

 

still think my deserted Scottish island idea has merit 

If your idea is to dump weirdos on an island and leave them to fend for themselves on the outside of our society.... I've often wondered the same. 

 

But then I still think we should split the country in half, let Brexit supporters have one half, and the rest of us have the other half to rejoin the EU.

[CornwallFox]

2 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prime-ministers-strategic-steer-to-the-nuclear-sector/prime-ministers-strategic-steer-to-the-nuclear-sector-following-the-2025-nuclear-regulatory-taskforces-review

 

Fair play to them that could be pretty big.

 

With the SMR, Sizewell C and now this I'm glad we are finally taking nuclear serious it's been way too long.

 

 

This is what people are missing: they're genuinely doing the hard yards on the big stuff.

[Dahnsouff]

6 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prime-ministers-strategic-steer-to-the-nuclear-sector/prime-ministers-strategic-steer-to-the-nuclear-sector-following-the-2025-nuclear-regulatory-taskforces-review

 

Fair play to them that could be pretty big.

 

With the SMR, Sizewell C and now this I'm glad we are finally taking nuclear serious it's been way too long.

Agree, this is very encouraging. Realise the proof is in the pudding, but this is all the right noises.

[Parafox]

6 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Undoubtedly true, however too many people assume a culture because of a person's race.

 

Religion (and in much of Western Europe, its absence) plays a large part of a person's culture and it's not racially exclusive, but many people make assumptions.

 

Not every Arab is a Muslim and within Islam there's different views on how the Qur'an should be interpreted.

 

Goa in India? Catholics abound thanks to the Portuguese influence there and their culture reflects that. In fact, the subcontinent is a melting pot of different cultures.

That's just a small part of common misconceptions. Everyone has heard the saying, "you can't judge a book by it's cover", yet so few seem to acknowledge it's wisdom.

 

[splinterdream]

1 hour ago, Robo61 said:

Isn't that pretty much what he has tried to say.   Much more likely to have blown over had he issued a full and frank apology,  but just like Trump he is uncapable of such humility. 

I agree, he should have said i dont remember anything like that, and kids will be kids, but if somebody is still harbouring something I said 50 years ago then I apologise 

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

Whoever voted leave, its their fault. You can say 'they lied' to which I would say 'you should have looked closer'.

Collectively or individually or both?

Should they all hang their heads in collective shame because they got duped or believed what the Daily Mail said?

 

Sadly, the readers of the MSM generally form their opinions based on what they read which usually supports and feeds into their own personal beliefs  whether it be left or right rhetoric, so DM/Mirror readers will believe there's migrants on every street corner waiting to rob them. Readers of the Grauniad will think every asylum seeker is genuine and should be given homes and money. 

It's a battle most "right" (logical) thinking people will never win because of such self centred biased press. 

We just have to accept that no ideal is right above any other because whatever we as individuals think or want to make society the best it can be will be undermined by the many ideologist pressure groups who will push and push for the right to be a voice for their own beliefs (not religion).

Society has become so fractured by all of the above that no-one knows where their feet should fall. What or who to believe, afraid to challenge for fear of a random accusation of being "somethingist" . 

 

I have gone off at a bit of a tangent but I just want to live in a world without the constant anxiety of how I conduct myself, what I can and can't say for fear of offending someone with a green beard or a lifestyle that I don't understand. Minority groups need to accept that. They Don't. It's all about them.

 

[kenny]

52 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

This is what people are missing: they're genuinely doing the hard yards on the big stuff.

Looks like a continuation of tory policy plus legislation to force the planning process to be quicker.

 

Be interesting to see if it works. The planning system is very very good at remaining slow where it wants to.

[Dahnsouff]

4 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Collectively or individually or both?

Should they all hang their heads in collective shame because they got duped or believed what the Daily Mail said?

 

Sadly, the readers of the MSM generally form their opinions based on what they read which usually supports and feeds into their own personal beliefs  whether it be left or right rhetoric, so DM/Mirror readers will believe there's migrants on every street corner waiting to rob them. Readers of the Grauniad will think every asylum seeker is genuine and should be given homes and money. 

It's a battle most "right" (logical) thinking people will never win because of such self centred biased press. 

We just have to accept that no ideal is right above any other because whatever we as individuals think or want to make society the best it can be will be undermined by the many ideologist pressure groups who will push and push for the right to be a voice for their own beliefs (not religion).

Society has become so fractured by all of the above that no-one knows where their feet should fall. What or who to believe, afraid to challenge for fear of a random accusation of being "somethingist" . 

 

I have gone off at a bit of a tangent but I just want to live in a world without the constant anxiety of how I conduct myself, what I can and can't say for fear of offending someone with a green beard or a lifestyle that I don't understand. Minority groups need to accept that. They Don't. It's all about them.

 

There is more to my post, as I later confessed that even though the point is fundamentally true, it is not in reality reasonable to expect everybody to walk the web of lies to unpick the eventual truth. We do have responsibility to some degree to look for the truth, but we are prevented or discouraged from reaching it. Therefore we must trust at some point in who we are prepared to listen too.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

There is more to my post, as I later confessed that even though the point is fundamentally true, it is not in reality reasonable to expect everybody to walk the web of lies to unpick the eventual truth. We do have responsibility to some degree to look for the truth, but we are prevented or discouraged from reaching it. Therefore we must trust at some point in who we are prepared to listen too.

And this is a massively fundamental point.

 

The current conflict and inequality comes from division.

 

That division comes from far too many people seeing different truths.

 

That comes from a lack of trust in any single point of truth. 

 

That trust in whatever single source of fact, is key to social cohesion. 

 

And, at least on certain matters, that trust needs to return, because if it doesn't, division and conflict based on the subversion and confusion of the very idea of fact will be all there is.

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

 

It certainly is.

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

And this is a massively fundamental point.

 

The current conflict and inequality comes from division.

 

That division comes from far too many people seeing different truths.

 

That comes from a lack of trust in any single point of truth. 

 

That trust in whatever single source of fact, is key to social cohesion. 

 

And, at least on certain matters, that trust needs to return, because if it doesn't, division and conflict based on the subversion and confusion of the very idea of fact will be all there is.

 

And then the question becomes who to believe and why.

 

Who is trustworthy?

 

How do we judge?

 

There seems to be no truth anymore. People we elect to be our voice in government just aren't doing what we expect of them. They lie, they deceive they're self serving. 

 

There is no real truth in political and social matters any more. Each and everyone in government is entirely bent on their own personal goals. We, the electorate are mere cannon fodder in their quest for supremacy.

 

I won't go so as far as to say ultimate power, but they will certainly shove the electorate under the bus in order to achieve what they want.

 

"Representing the constituents" is a thing of the past.

 

I'm sick of hearing politicians in the media saying "whenever I knock on doors... when I speak to people in the street...  my constituents come to me and express their concerns....

 

****ing liars. Our MP has an office which is open by appointment. Dr Liam lives in London. He has visited his constituency to open the new NHS assessment centre for which he takes credit for achieving even though it was in the plans for years of previous NHS plans.

 

Politicians, I HATE, HATE ,HATE them. I wish the world could function without them but clearly it cant. 

 

All most of us want is honesty and transparency and accountability.

 

Edited 3 December 2025 by Parafox

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

If your idea is to dump weirdos on an island and leave them to fend for themselves on the outside of our society.... I've often wondered the same. 

 

But then I still think we should split the country in half, let Brexit supporters have one half, and the rest of us have the other half to rejoin the EU.

rejoining the eu is a very simple statement but potentially more complicated than leaving 

 

eu would be in quite a tricky situation. Of course they want us back. Assuming that they believe we are serious and not going to do it all again in ten years time, would we be allowed to still opt out of the euro?  Would think all of our other opt outs would be consigned to history.  so we’d end up much ‘closer’ to Brussels than we were in 2016.  Can see a similar scenario as after we voted leave. People saying ‘hang on, I didnt realise what leave really meant’’ - just replace leave with rejoin.  Whereas the leave vote was a pretty vague campaign, I imagine a rejoin campaign would be subject to a lot more detailed questioning that may make a few percent that are currently content to change their vote rethink that. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

31 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

And then the question becomes who to believe and why.

 

Who is trustworthy?

 

How do we judge?

 

There seems to be no truth anymore. People we elect to be our voice in government just aren't doing what we expect of them. They lie, they deceive they're self serving. 

 

There is no real truth in political and social matters any more. Each and everyone in government is entirely bent on their own personal goals. We, the electorate are mere cannon fodder in their quest for supremacy.

 

I won't go so as far as to say ultimate power, but they will certainly shove the electorate under the bus in order to achieve what they want.

 

"Representing the constituents" is a thing of the past.

 

I'm sick of hearing politicians in the media saying "whenever I knock on doors... when I speak to people in the street...  my constituents come to me and express their concerns....

 

****ing liars. Our MP has an office which is open by appointment. Dr Liam lives in London. He has visited his constituency to open the new NHS assessment centre for which he takes credit for achieving even though it was in the plans for years of previous NHS plans.

 

Politicians, I HATE, HATE ,HATE them. I wish the world could function without them but clearly it cant. 

 

All most of us want is honesty and transparency and accountability.

 

I'm sure you're not the first person to feel that way towards our elected officials and I can offer no compelling evidence to the contrary.

 

So yes, then, who to believe?

 

I think then it becomes a matter of other institutions found to be trustworthy. 

 

Media sources? A possibility, but they all act upon second-hand information, and very few report the truth directly.

 

Medical and scientific institutions? A much better shout, they (at least almost always) have the welfare of life and helping make the world a better place as their primary concern, but then quite often they're far from the best communicators and when something isn't communicated well it's easy for it to be interpreted wrongly, with resultant distrust. The failures there are ones of execution, very rarely intent. Additionally, they lack the power and influence that either the media or politicians have.

 

What's the solution? Goodness knows, but we do need one. And soon.

[foxes1988]

1 hour ago, kenny said:

Looks like a continuation of tory policy plus legislation to force the planning process to be quicker.

 

Be interesting to see if it works. The planning system is very very good at remaining slow where it wants to.

They started some important work tbf but my criticism of them is they dithered too much as did Labour last time they were in government but to claim continuation of Tory policy I'm not sure is quite right.  For example The Sizewell and Hinckley Point power plants were proposed when Labour were last in Government but both parties have been pretty pro nuclear but both just very slow in action and policy.

 

Hinckley point C the Tories obviously got the majority of the work done and the initial SMR work they started but what's impressed me about Labour is they really seem to just get on with it much more decisively which has been Nuclear Powers biggest hurdle to overcome.

[kenny]

3 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

They started some important work tbf but my criticism of them is they dithered too much as did Labour last time they were in government but to claim continuation of Tory policy I'm not sure is quite right.  For example The Sizewell and Hinckley Point power plants were proposed when Labour were last in Government but both parties have been pretty pro nuclear but both just very slow in action and policy.

 

Hinckley point C the Tories obviously got the majority of the work done and the initial SMR work they started but what's impressed me about Labour is they really seem to just get on with it much more decisively which has been Nuclear Powers biggest hurdle to overcome.

Sizewell also started construction under Sunak.

 

My point on this is always that the Tories 'did nothing' and labour are doing loads and it's not spoken about rhetoric is plain daft. The last government was disorganised and distracted by world events so I'm not surprised to hear they were slow on decision making.

 

Projects like these take years spanning multiple governments. Unless they are scrapped altogether HS2 style then believing a single government resolves everything with a set of policy documents is unrealistic.

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, kenny said:

Sizewell also started construction under Sunak.

 

My point on this is always that the Tories 'did nothing' and labour are doing loads and it's not spoken about rhetoric is plain daft. The last government was disorganised and distracted by world events so I'm not surprised to hear they were slow on decision making.

 

Projects like these take years spanning multiple governments. Unless they are scrapped altogether HS2 style then believing a single government resolves everything with a set of policy documents is unrealistic.

And world events aren't distracting right now? Covid was a mad-sized matter (though some Conservative backbencher might disagree), but...

 

Certainly agree about the nature of long term projects needing to be bipartisan, though. 

[StanSP]

11 hours ago, Parafox said:

I have gone off at a bit of a tangent but I just want to live in a world without the constant anxiety of how I conduct myself, what I can and can't say for fear of offending someone with a green beard or a lifestyle that I don't understand. Minority groups need to accept that. They Don't. It's all about them.

Bizarre lack of empathy here if I've read that right. 

 

You don't understand something so you appear to choose ignorance over educating yourself, at least just to try and understand? 

Edited 4 December 2025 by StanSP

[Trav Le Bleu]

11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sure you're not the first person to feel that way towards our elected officials and I can offer no compelling evidence to the contrary.

 

So yes, then, who to believe?

 

I think then it becomes a matter of other institutions found to be trustworthy. 

 

Media sources? A possibility, but they all act upon second-hand information, and very few report the truth directly.

 

Medical and scientific institutions? A much better shout, they (at least almost always) have the welfare of life and helping make the world a better place as their primary concern, but then quite often they're far from the best communicators and when something isn't communicated well it's easy for it to be interpreted wrongly, with resultant distrust. The failures there are ones of execution, very rarely intent. Additionally, they lack the power and influence that either the media or politicians have.

 

What's the solution? Goodness knows, but we do need one. And soon.

The truth shall make ye fret - Ankh-Morpork Times.

 

But for me, two telling quotes are...

 

A lie will travel halfway round the world before the truth has even got its shoes on.

 

What is truth?

 

The later one pointing out that most people have their own personal truth, not based on anything other than belief and perception. Both of which can be wrong.