General News Thread

[foxy boxing]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Tsunami warnings across pretty much all of the northern Pacific after an 8.8 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Russia.

 

That's a biggie.

Reportedly the joint sixth biggest earthquake on record! It won't be as devastating as the 2004 boxing day tsunami  still waiting on news of the destruction it has caused!. But it reminds people that these things can happen anytime and any place. 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

Reportedly the joint sixth biggest earthquake on record! It won't be as devastating as the 2004 boxing day tsunami  still waiting on news of the destruction it has caused!. But it reminds people that these things can happen anytime and any place. 

Quite so. 

 

It's also (darkly) fascinating how because the magnitude scale is logarithmic and these things are so random, almost half of the combined energy ("strength") of all the thousands and thousands of earthquakes in the last 130-odd years was released in just the top three of all of them - Chile 1960, Alaska 1964, and Indian Ocean 2004.

 

 

[Dr The Singh]

22 hours ago, Finnegan said:

I don't really understand how the age verification stuff is supposed to protect children from predators anyway tbh. 

 

Who is getting groomed on pornhub? Content was always (supposed to be) age verified, so it's just about who views this shit. 

 

Sorry if I'm being a bit naive, I'm not exactly an expert on online grooming, but surely social media and other platforms where you actually communicate with each other are where you're mostly likely going to find predators trying to talk to kids? And you don't need to be age verified to be on TikTok, X, Bkuesky or Reddit do you? You just need age verification to, once again, look at NSFW stuff? 

 

It's not really anything to do with predators, it's just all the age old puritanical hand wringing about hiding sex from kids. 

 

But I mean, we're several generations in to teenagers growing up looking at Internet porn and most of us are still pretty well adjusted (for the most part...!)

 

Did us far less harm than the bigoted brainwashing that's flying unmoderated around TikTok that's still apparently fine to watch? 

 

Personally I'm absolutely livid that I now have to subscribe to a vpn and pretend to be Swiss just to watch @Dr The Singh on his OnlyFans. 

 

Im all for trying to stop yoing kids watching stuff they shouldn't but it can't be at the cost of our freedoms.

 

We can't have a society where a Christian preacher asks a very valid question to Islamic missionary and get arrested.  We can't live.in a society where the dawah populations, the likes of muhammed hijab, ali dawah cannot be challenged.  

[Robo61]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, the high standards of LM journalism. 

Ditto all journalism with a few notable exceptions that proves the rule.

[leicsmac]

27 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

Im all for trying to stop yoing kids watching stuff they shouldn't but it can't be at the cost of our freedoms.

 

We can't have a society where a Christian preacher asks a very valid question to Islamic missionary and get arrested.  We can't live.in a society where the dawah populations, the likes of muhammed hijab, ali dawah cannot be challenged.  

The same being the case with any religious influence on secular societal laws. 

[Wymsey]

Very lucky for those living in the UK, where things underneath the soil seem pretty stable..

[Trav Le Bleu]

Just now, Wymsey said:

Very lucky for those living in the UK, where things underneath the soil seem pretty stable..

Until the mutant earthworms take over

[st albans fox]

54 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Very lucky for those living in the UK, where things underneath the soil seem pretty stable..

As opposed to above the soil ……

[st albans fox]

Must be getting close to a verdict on the manc airport trial

 

jury unable to be unanimous so asksd to reach 10/2 by the judge 

 

the defence was basically self defence as they didn’t realise they were being challenged by police. If they get off then I’m concerned re precedence. Anyone involved in a scuffle can lump a copper and claim they didn’t realise.  The videos I saw looked pretty solid for a guilty verdict.  Whether one of the policemen needs to be disciplined is another matter. Surely that doesn’t affect the guilt/not of the defendants - isn’t it separate??

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Until the mutant earthworms take over

Yeah but if you eat their shit you get mind reading powers. And we can sell their shit as a spice to control the world economy

Edited 30 July 2025 by Sampson

[Foxdiamond]

45 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Must be getting close to a verdict on the manc airport trial

 

jury unable to be unanimous so asksd to reach 10/2 by the judge 

 

the defence was basically self defence as they didn’t realise they were being challenged by police. If they get off then I’m concerned re precedence. Anyone involved in a scuffle can lump a copper and claim they didn’t realise.  The videos I saw looked pretty solid for a guilty verdict.  Whether one of the policemen needs to be disciplined is another matter. Surely that doesn’t affect the guilt/not of the defendants - isn’t it separate??

And considering it looks like they already hit that bloke in the coffee shop area before the coppers were involved

[DJ Barry Hammond]

57 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Must be getting close to a verdict on the manc airport trial

 

jury unable to be unanimous so asksd to reach 10/2 by the judge 

 

the defence was basically self defence as they didn’t realise they were being challenged by police. If they get off then I’m concerned re precedence. Anyone involved in a scuffle can lump a copper and claim they didn’t realise.  The videos I saw looked pretty solid for a guilty verdict.  Whether one of the policemen needs to be disciplined is another matter. Surely that doesn’t affect the guilt/not of the defendants - isn’t it separate??

Guilty on 3 counts.

 

No verdict offered for one count - which seems to relate to one of the male police officers.

[foxy boxing]

3 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Guilty on 3 counts.

 

No verdict offered for one count - which seems to relate to one of the male police officers.

Politicians sighing with relief, any other verdict other than guilty would have resulted in mass riots!.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

4 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

Politicians sighing with relief, any other verdict other than guilty would have resulted in mass riots!.

The defence’s argument of “self defence” couldn’t really qualify for the attacks against the two female officers - so guilty verdicts on those were pretty much slam dunks, as was the charge relating to the earlier head butting of a man within the terminal that prompted the police’s involvement in the first place.

 

But the “no verdict” on Count 2, which I think relates to Officer Stampy is interesting.

 

That suggests the jury felt there were merits to the claims of “self defence” here and that by implication calls into question the officers initial approach to the men.

 

This could mean there’s more to follow here - could one, some or all of the officers end up being disciplined for their part in this yet?

 

And it’s worth noting, the “no verdict” on count 2 means one of the brothers does remain “free” at the moment, because he was facing no other charges - The CPS will need to decide whether to go for a retrial for that particular charge.

 

 

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

The defence’s argument of “self defence” couldn’t really qualify for the attacks against the two female officers - so guilty verdicts on those were pretty much slam dunks, as was the charge relating to the earlier head butting of a man within the terminal that prompted the police’s involvement in the first place.

 

But the “no verdict” on Count 2, which I think relates to Officer Stampy is interesting.

 

That suggests the jury felt there were merits to the claims of “self defence” here and that by implication calls into question the officers initial approach to the men.

 

This could mean there’s more to follow here - could one, some or all of the officers end up being disciplined for their part in this yet?

 

And it’s worth noting, the “no verdict” on count 2 means one of the brothers does remain “free” at the moment, because he was facing no other charges - The CPS will need to decide whether to go for a retrial for that particular charge.

 

 

good assessment 

 

as you say,  the charges relating to pc stampy are unproven (for now)

 

I would expect that the cps will go for a retrial under pressure from the police and politicians.  I think this would be the correct route forward. 

I also think that the prosecution would find it easier to get a guilty verdict on retrial (especially against the brother already convicted ) 

 

[Spudulike]

5 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

The defence’s argument of “self defence” couldn’t really qualify for the attacks against the two female officers - so guilty verdicts on those were pretty much slam dunks, as was the charge relating to the earlier head butting of a man within the terminal that prompted the police’s involvement in the first place.

 

But the “no verdict” on Count 2, which I think relates to Officer Stampy is interesting.

 

That suggests the jury felt there were merits to the claims of “self defence” here and that by implication calls into question the officers initial approach to the men.

 

This could mean there’s more to follow here - could one, some or all of the officers end up being disciplined for their part in this yet?

 

And it’s worth noting, the “no verdict” on count 2 means one of the brothers does remain “free” at the moment, because he was facing no other charges - The CPS will need to decide whether to go for a retrial for that particular charge.

 

 

May have been slam dunks but somehow they still pleaded not guilty. Very odd how they thought they could get away with it. Obviously deserves to get the most harsh sentence available but not expecting it given the judges summing up and declaration of previous good character.

 

Also the MP's that were quick to judge will apologise to the police officers.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

7 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

May have been slam dunks but somehow they still pleaded not guilty. Very odd how they thought they could get away with it. Obviously deserves to get the most harsh sentence available but not expecting it given the judges summing up and declaration of previous good character.

 

Also the MP's that were quick to judge will apologise to the police officers.

The judge has to do that though - they have to point the jury to all the relevant matters they should consider when try to come to a verdict.

 

They can’t show any deference during the trial - I expect the sentencing remarks will be a little different.

[Spudulike]

3 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

The judge has to do that though - they have to point the jury to all the relevant matters they should consider when try to come to a verdict.

 

They can’t show any deference during the trial - I expect the sentencing remarks will be a little different.

I thought that previous conduct was only read out after the verdict so as not to influence the jury? Does that mean that the judge would've mentioned previous convictions if there were any?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

5 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

I thought that previous conduct was only read out after the verdict so as not to influence the jury? Does that mean that the judge would've mentioned previous convictions if there were any?

Previous convictions are not allowed to be disclosed.

 

But ‘good character’ can be used as a defence.

[Spudulike]

8 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Previous convictions are not allowed to be disclosed.

 

But ‘good character’ can be used as a defence.

By disclosing good character tells the jury the accused have no previous convictions. Influenced?

[leicsmac]

Technical issue within the ATC system results in a lot of delays:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cewd49znze4t

[Foxdiamond]

8 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

By disclosing good character tells the jury the accused have no previous convictions. Influenced?

Whatever happened between the mother and the bloke that was head butted? If she had kept her trap shut and not wound the sons up then everything could have been avoided

[Trav Le Bleu]

A bit like how Darth Vader had previous good character.

[Spudulike]

7 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Whatever happened between the mother and the bloke that was head butted? If she had kept her trap shut and not wound the sons up then everything could have been avoided

She accused him of racism. An accusation that was being shouted by other relatives at police officers along with claims of police brutality as the issue unfolded. Shocking.

[Super_horns]

Another week another problem for the airline industry then ?

Edited 30 July 2025 by Super_horns