General News Thread

splinterdream · 16 January

13 hours ago, Sampson said:

Ok to give you the reasoning as to why I think Farage is way worse than any other option, which is what you asked for.

I categorically disagree with you here. The civil service’s role is that it supposed to uphold the law and tell the government what they can and cannot do within the law, it is not supposed to serve the government - as you said, it should be impartial - that means being impartial against the government when the government is in conflict with the law. The civil service should be in conflict with the government and tell them what they can and can’t do by the letter of the law.

We live in a democracy. A democracy is not simply about voting, otherwise North Korea, Russia and Belarus would all be democracies - a democracy is a form of government where the ultimate power is in institutions not individuals - the government should categorically not be allowed to do just what they like - that’s called authoritarianism.

The civil service is one of the 2 most important checks and balances in a democracy along with the legal system.

And this is exactly why populists go after both the civil service and the legal system as well as international institutions so they can dismantle democracy and institutions to give themselves power to do what they like - the populist playbook that Balsanaro and Erdogan popularised in 2014 that the likes of Trump and Farage both follow. This is why Trump goes after the legal system, the civil service and every international institution going - and Farage uses all the same language - this is why Farage’s #1 ambition is to leave the ECHR and ECJ because unlike the US we have supra-national institutions in Europe built after WW2 and designed to protect us from our own governments and the ECJ has already shown itself influential in Poland by stopping populist governments filling their Supreme Court with people who’ll just bend to their will (as Trump has successfully done).

I would also add that it’s also very telling that all these foreign AI tech giants like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel are also supporting these populist parties like Reform and Trump or the AfD because they know that taking down the legal institutions and getting in the pockets of people who want more power will let them have the freedom to run riot with AI. And that’s way scarier and going to do way more damage to both our culture and job market than immigration ever will.

The law and civil service is there to protect us all as citizens. I understand people want to reduce immigration and don’t like cancel culture - but I really don’t think gutting the institutions that hold up democracy and giving the government the power to do what they like and gutting the civil service and legal systems which protect us is worth the trade off to do that - with the added bonus of all these foreign AI and social media tech bros also bring allowed to do what they like to our culture and job market, not by 100 fold.

That is my main argument as to why Farage is so much a worse option than the others. I don’t think you genuinely want to live in a country where the civil service, legal systems and international institutions are subservient to the government., that is how it works in Russia and this is exactly how we end up with a system where we have no protections to standing against some nutjob in charge

Look I was always told this - think about the systems you’re creating with the worst possible leader you can personally imagine being in charge of them. if you hate Corbyn and Sultana for example- then think about them in power with this kind of state you want to create with a gutted legal system and civil service and where we’ve got no supra-national protections from the ECHR or ECJ and they’re essentially given free roles to do whatever they hell they like.

Just looking at your argument here.... where is it stated that Civil Service should be in conflict with the government? because i believe this to be totally untrue, and only held in your opinion.

The Civil service exists to implement policy, not oppose it, how can it be impartial against the government? Their default role is to help the elected government achieve it's objectives lawfully and effectively, they can advise on legality but i suspect it's the government lawyers advice, that is taken as final. Civil servants can only advise on what a minister wants to do, but its the ministers that take the final decision.

The issue of a civil service impartiality is a complex one, you can have situations where civil servents have been hired by the government and therefore feel a duty to the governement, or that governement may be replaced, so those civil servents left in place may have their own bias which affects the smooth running of a government, and this really isn't what should be happening.

The Commons and the HoL is where potential policy/law is debated, voted on and if passed implemented, and if unlawful, the courts would step in, the government however have a duty to act on the promises that got them into power in the first place, if the Civil service is in conflict with that, it is anti democratic.

An example on this podcast with a senior civil servant Gus O'Donell (25m in) where Rory explains being frustrated with a civil servants who just wouldn't do as he asked, and that there is no mechanisms in place to put that right, Gus O'Donnell who had previously said the civil service is there to inact (within the law) the governments wishes, had no answer other than there might be something behind the scenes that the minster (Rory) shouldn't know about, and this interview goes on where it becomes clear, the system can become a bureaucratic mess. Gus Oghu

The government can do what it likes (within the law) if it has a sizeable majority, as long as it passes through the HoL, which is why governemnts look to fill the Lords with partisan ex ministers. This is democracy, the more MP's voted in, the more powerful the government, government becomes authoritarian, where it does things like shut down local elections because it fears the results of such elections.

Now the next highlighted point, I and a major part of the Country believes, that we are living in a system where the institutions you highlighted, are subservient to the government, and that is why Reform are surging in the polls. We are seeing the most authoritarian anti democratic government thats ever been, Corbyn, Sultana and Polanski are just stupid, they have a student following as I can only assume by my own youthful ignorance, the thought something magical can happen where we're all equal and wealthy is a blissful thought, but other than a Worldwide revolution of the monetary system, it's never going to happen, and Socialism/Marxism always ends up with people more miserable and alot worse off. Sultana only seems interested in the plight of Palestine, Corbyn, an out and out Marxist would having us competing with Venezuala, Polanski, wants to ban landlords, and nationalise everything, these people cannot be taken seriously, Reform however are building something, with experienced politicians and a leader who has beenaround politics for many years and is a decent tactician. I certainly don't know whether Reform are the answer to our problems, but from my point of view, and many others in the Country, it's worth supporting, even if it moves the overton window more to the right, my major concern with Reform getting in is the institutions you highlighted, going to war with reform and actively acting against the sitting government creating a constitutional crisis.

CornwallFox · 16 January

2 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

Just looking at your argument here.... where is it stated that Civil Service should be in conflict with the government? because i believe this to be totally untrue, and only held in your opinion.

The Civil service exists to implement policy, not oppose it, how can it be impartial against the government? Their default role is to help the elected government achieve it's objectives lawfully and effectively, they can advise on legality but i suspect it's the government lawyers advice, that is taken as final. Civil servants can only advise on what a minister wants to do, but its the ministers that take the final decision.

The issue of a civil service impartiality is a complex one, you can have situations where civil servents have been hired by the government and therefore feel a duty to the governement, or that governement may be replaced, so those civil servents left in place may have their own bias which affects the smooth running of a government, and this really isn't what should be happening.

The Commons and the HoL is where potential policy/law is debated, voted on and if passed implemented, and if unlawful, the courts would step in, the government however have a duty to act on the promises that got them into power in the first place, if the Civil service is in conflict with that, it is anti democratic.

An example on this podcast with a senior civil servant Gus O'Donell (25m in) where Rory explains being frustrated with a civil servants who just wouldn't do as he asked, and that there is no mechanisms in place to put that right, Gus O'Donnell who had previously said the civil service is there to inact (within the law) the governments wishes, had no answer other than there might be something behind the scenes that the minster (Rory) shouldn't know about, and this interview goes on where it becomes clear, the system can become a bureaucratic mess. Gus Oghu

The government can do what it likes (within the law) if it has a sizeable majority, as long as it passes through the HoL, which is why governemnts look to fill the Lords with partisan ex ministers. This is democracy, the more MP's voted in, the more powerful the government, government becomes authoritarian, where it does things like shut down local elections because it fears the results of such elections.

Now the next highlighted point, I and a major part of the Country believes, that we are living in a system where the institutions you highlighted, are subservient to the government, and that is why Reform are surging in the polls. We are seeing the most authoritarian anti democratic government thats ever been, Corbyn, Sultana and Polanski are just stupid, they have a student following as I can only assume by my own youthful ignorance, the thought something magical can happen where we're all equal and wealthy is a blissful thought, but other than a Worldwide revolution of the monetary system, it's never going to happen, and Socialism/Marxism always ends up with people more miserable and alot worse off. Sultana only seems interested in the plight of Palestine, Corbyn, an out and out Marxist would having us competing with Venezuala, Polanski, wants to ban landlords, and nationalise everything, these people cannot be taken seriously, Reform however are building something, with experienced politicians and a leader who has beenaround politics for many years and is a decent tactician. I certainly don't know whether Reform are the answer to our problems, but from my point of view, and many others in the Country, it's worth supporting, even if it moves the overton window more to the right, my major concern with Reform getting in is the institutions you highlighted, going to war with reform and actively acting against the sitting government creating a constitutional crisis.

I would love to respond but there's so much nonsense in one post I don't even know where to start and just don't have the energy for it. It's like reality doesn't exist and is being viewed through a very, very one way tinted glass.

leicsmac · 16 January

May I introduce people to the concept of...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Sampson · 16 January

25 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

Just looking at your argument here.... where is it stated that Civil Service should be in conflict with the government? because i believe this to be totally untrue, and only held in your opinion.

The Civil service exists to implement policy, not oppose it, how can it be impartial against the government? Their default role is to help the elected government achieve it's objectives lawfully and effectively, they can advise on legality but i suspect it's the government lawyers advice, that is taken as final. Civil servants can only advise on what a minister wants to do, but its the ministers that take the final decision.

The issue of a civil service impartiality is a complex one, you can have situations where civil servents have been hired by the government and therefore feel a duty to the governement, or that governement may be replaced, so those civil servents left in place may have their own bias which affects the smooth running of a government, and this really isn't what should be happening.

The Commons and the HoL is where potential policy/law is debated, voted on and if passed implemented, and if unlawful, the courts would step in, the government however have a duty to act on the promises that got them into power in the first place, if the Civil service is in conflict with that, it is anti democratic.

An example on this podcast with a senior civil servant Gus O'Donell (25m in) where Rory explains being frustrated with a civil servants who just wouldn't do as he asked, and that there is no mechanisms in place to put that right, Gus O'Donnell who had previously said the civil service is there to inact (within the law) the governments wishes, had no answer other than there might be something behind the scenes that the minster (Rory) shouldn't know about, and this interview goes on where it becomes clear, the system can become a bureaucratic mess. Gus Oghu

The government can do what it likes (within the law) if it has a sizeable majority, as long as it passes through the HoL, which is why governemnts look to fill the Lords with partisan ex ministers. This is democracy, the more MP's voted in, the more powerful the government, government becomes authoritarian, where it does things like shut down local elections because it fears the results of such elections.

Now the next highlighted point, I and a major part of the Country believes, that we are living in a system where the institutions you highlighted, are subservient to the government, and that is why Reform are surging in the polls. We are seeing the most authoritarian anti democratic government thats ever been, Corbyn, Sultana and Polanski are just stupid, they have a student following as I can only assume by my own youthful ignorance, the thought something magical can happen where we're all equal and wealthy is a blissful thought, but other than a Worldwide revolution of the monetary system, it's never going to happen, and Socialism/Marxism always ends up with people more miserable and alot worse off. Sultana only seems interested in the plight of Palestine, Corbyn, an out and out Marxist would having us competing with Venezuala, Polanski, wants to ban landlords, and nationalise everything, these people cannot be taken seriously, Reform however are building something, with experienced politicians and a leader who has beenaround politics for many years and is a decent tactician. I certainly don't know whether Reform are the answer to our problems, but from my point of view, and many others in the Country, it's worth supporting, even if it moves the overton window more to the right, my major concern with Reform getting in is the institutions you highlighted, going to war with reform and actively acting against the sitting government creating a constitutional crisis.

Thank you for replying. I can do a longer reply at some point if you like, however I would like you to clarify your meaning first, because it seems to make 2 completely opposite points and I find it hard to respond to without fully understanding your argument. I might be misunderstanding context which is why I’m missing clarification.

The first half of the post is about how institutions are not subservient enough to the government and stifle them which was your original argument about “the blob” as to why Reform are popular.

Then the 2nd half of your post you say the exact opposite and say that people are voting Reform because the institutions are too subservient to the government meaning we are too authoritarian and the government has too much power.

I’m not really sure what your argument means and how to respond to it because you simultaneously seem to be saying that people are voting Reform because the balance of power between institutions and the government is too much in favour of the institutions so governments are too hamstrung to do anything; and that people are voting for Reform because the balance of power between government and the institutions are too much in the favour of the government so the government has too much authority to do what it likes.

I can respond the democracy/authoritarianism point though as I understand the point here - and I will just say I flat out disagree that’s how it works in 2026. That’s how it worked in the 1970s, but most authoritarian governments have elections nowadays - they don’t shut down elections; they instead just create a culture of fear about what happens if they’re not elected like in Belarus and Venezuela (to give both examples of populist right wing governments and populist left wing governments) - we saw what happened where people protested against Luchashenko’s victory in 2020 and how that caused the 2025 to be barely fought because people we’re realistically too scared to stand against him.

And I strongly disagree that governments should be allowed to do what they like if elected because that’s how you lead to authoritarianism - governments can take full control of both the mainstream media and social media to control information, they can buy off judges to let them stay in power indefinitely otherwise - that’s why institutions exist to stop the government having the power to do what they like - this is why authorities are seperate from the government and why the civil service and legal system have to be separate from the government, because the government should be allowed to be taken to court or face legal challenges just as much as Joe Bloggs in the street should

Edited 16 January by Sampson

splinterdream · 16 January

15 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Thank you for replying. I can do a longer reply at some point if you like, however I would like you to clarify your meaning first, because it seems to make 2 completely opposite points and I find it hard to respond to without fully understanding your argument. I might be misunderstanding context which is why I’m missing clarification.

The first half of the post is about how institutions are not subservient enough to the government and stifle them which was your original argument about “the blob” as to why Reform are popular.

Then the 2nd half of your post you say the exact opposite and say that people are voting Reform because the institutions are too subservient to the government meaning we are too authoritarian and the government has too much power.

I’m not really sure what your argument means and how to respond to it because you simultaneously seem to be saying that people are voting Reform because the balance of power between institutions and the government is too much in favour of the institutions so governments are too hamstrung to do anything; and that people are voting for Reform because the balance of power between government and the institutions are too much in the favour of the government so the government has too much authority to do what it likes.

The accusations thrown at the civil service, and various public service institutions, the judiciary, police heirachy etc is they have a left wing bias so are not impartial, so they would be more subservient to the labour party, rather than the previous government, which they sought to frustrate, evidenced by previous ministers testimony and that of Rory in the podcast which is worth a listen.

Lionator · 16 January

1 hour ago, bovril said:

Stuff like men being able to use female changing rooms is probably a bigger deal for a lot of people than small fluctuations in GDP or employment rates because it is such a fundamental change to what people are used to. Economic problems you kind of come to expect and aren't as big a deal to a lot of people as some think.

What about transgender females using female changing rooms though like the article talks about??

by the way, this person had used these toilets for 5 years then suddenly around 2023 it became an issue for some members of staff, almost as if it was politically motivated.

Edited 16 January by Lionator

bovril · 16 January

11 minutes ago, Lionator said:

What about transgender females using female changing rooms though like the article talks about??

by the way, this person had used these toilets for 5 years then suddenly around 2023 it became an issue for some members of staff, almost as if it was politically motivated.

According to the article I read, multiple women complained about Henderson's conduct. Perhaps that started in 2023, perhaps nurses who started later were the ones who had issues, or maybe it really was "politically motivated", though that seems unlikely to me.

Your wider point seems to be that stuff like this shouldn't matter to people and us a distraction from real issues, which seems very unrealistic to me.

Sampson · 16 January

42 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

The accusations thrown at the civil service, and various public service institutions, the judiciary, police heirachy etc is they have a left wing bias so are not impartial, so they would be more subservient to the labour party, rather than the previous government, which they sought to frustrate, evidenced by previous ministers testimony and that of Rory in the podcast which is worth a listen.

Thank you for clarifying. I didn’t understand you meant specifically the current government. I will watch the video you posted. But as said, I fundamentally disagree on what authorianism looks like in 2026 and how much power a government should have compared to institutions - and that’s why I dont fundamentally think Reform is the only choice - because I’m extremely sceptical about how all the language they use is reminiscent of other populists like Trump Balsanro and Erdogan but made in the context of British culture; and also very sceptical of the support coming in from all these foreign ultra-wealthy tech elite when we’re on the cusp of AI smashing apart our culture and job market.

Lionator · 16 January

43 minutes ago, bovril said:

According to the article I read, multiple women complained about Henderson's conduct. Perhaps that started in 2023, perhaps nurses who started later were the ones who had issues, or maybe it really was "politically motivated", though that seems unlikely to me.

Your wider point seems to be that stuff like this shouldn't matter to people and us a distraction from real issues, which seems very unrealistic to me.

And Henderson was acquitted against all allegations of harassment, which says it all.

Demonising and stripping rights from trans people because of some moral panic is a real issue I guess but I suppose that’s not the way the narrative has been shaped.

That’s all I’ll say because I don’t want to get banned from this forum for defending trans people from becoming second class citizens.

leicsmac · 16 January

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qpy952xvno

"Welcoming parties" don't make threats, you disingenuous hillbilly.

Spudulike · 16 January

14 minutes ago, Lionator said:

And Henderson was acquitted against all allegations of harassment, which says it all.

Demonising and stripping rights from trans people because of some moral panic is a real issue I guess but I suppose that’s not the way the narrative has been shaped.

That’s all I’ll say because I don’t want to get banned from this forum for defending trans people from becoming second class citizens.

No rights have been stripped from anybody.

Sampson · 16 January

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qpy952xvno

"Welcoming parties" don't make threats, you disingenuous hillbilly.

It’s not surprising. US is extremely open that they see us as its adversary and not its ally nowadays. Dunno why we would kid ourselves to think otherwise.

leicsmac · 16 January

3 minutes ago, Sampson said:

It’s not surprising. US is extremely open that they see us as its adversary and not its ally nowadays. Dunno why we would kid ourselves to think otherwise.

It really isn't surprising. I just find the blatant lies and doublespeak linked with the blatant sociopathy offensive to the senses.

The only reason I can think of that someone would kid themselves in the way you describe is either extremely naive or someone cut from similar sociopathic cloth to the current US administration who approves of what they're up to.

Lionator · 16 January

40 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

No rights have been stripped from anybody.

Recommendations imposed from the cass review suggest otherwise

bovril · 16 January

30 minutes ago, Sampson said:

It’s not surprising. US is extremely open that they see us as its adversary and not its ally nowadays. Dunno why we would kid ourselves to think otherwise.

Were hardly a great ally anyway

Spudulike · 16 January

15 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Recommendations imposed from the cass review suggest otherwise

Not true. Banning puberty blockers is not stripping a right.

worthosoriginals · 16 January

50 minutes ago, bovril said:

Were hardly a great ally anyway

The Orange toddler is doing well enough knackering the world up without us

FoxesDeb · 16 January

BBC News - Trump threatens new tariffs on countries opposed to Greenland takeover as US lawmakers visit Denmark to ease tensions - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qpy952xvno

Won't somebody please make him stop?

And how anyone is actually taking him seriously at this point is beyond belief

CornwallFox · 16 January

5 hours ago, splinterdream said:

The accusations thrown at the civil service, and various public service institutions, the judiciary, police heirachy etc is they have a left wing bias so are not impartial, so they would be more subservient to the labour party, rather than the previous government, which they sought to frustrate, evidenced by previous ministers testimony and that of Rory in the podcast which is worth a listen.

Accusations created by liars I'm afraid.

Edited 16 January by CornwallFox

CornwallFox · 16 January

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

BBC News - Trump threatens new tariffs on countries opposed to Greenland takeover as US lawmakers visit Denmark to ease tensions - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qpy952xvno

Won't somebody please make him stop?

And how anyone is actually taking him seriously at this point is beyond belief

I really want to see our government actually stand up for what is right if they end up having to make a decision. No fence sitting.

leicsmac · 16 January

33 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

I really want to see our government actually stand up for what is right if they end up having to make a decision. No fence sitting.

Well, given the other players in this are all about the binary choices, the UK may well end up having to pick a side rather than hedging their bets.

worthosoriginals · 16 January

14 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Do you think he'll wear the medal in bed?

Yeh, with his superman cape

leicsmac · 17 January

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm24k6kk1rko

The Canadians choosing to back a different horse. Funny, that.

CornwallFox · 17 January

Sly · 17 January

Trump to impose tariffs on European countries over Greenland

BREAKING

US President Donald Trump has announced a new set of tariffs for a swathe of countries that export goods to the US, beginning on 1 February.

Trump says these will remain in place until "such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland" by the US.

Writing on social media, Trump says countries including Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland will be "charged a 10% tariff" on "all and any" goods sent to the US.

On 1 June, this will be increased to 25%, he writes on Truth Social.

As a reminder, tariffs are taxes on imported goods, and are usually paid to the government by companies bringing in foreign products.

Sign In

General News Thread

Recommended Posts

splinterdream

CornwallFox

leicsmac

Sampson

splinterdream

Lionator

bovril

Sampson

Lionator

leicsmac

Spudulike

Sampson

leicsmac

Lionator

bovril

Spudulike

worthosoriginals

FoxesDeb

CornwallFox

CornwallFox

leicsmac

worthosoriginals

leicsmac

CornwallFox

Sly

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members

Home

Activity

Match Ratings

History