The General News Thread


How do you stop it though? And why does it keep happening?


People that peform these vile attacks are absolute cretins of the highest nature. Acid bath sounds absolutely perfect.




Honestly for every day that passes I am increasingly happy I don’t live in London.


Since 2010 there have been more than 1,800 reports of attacks involving corrosive fluids in the capital. Last year, it was used in 458 crimes, compared to 261 in 2015, according to Met Police figures.

So far this year - excluding Thursday night - the Met has recorded 119 such attacks.

Disgusting, vicious attacks. What could drive someone to such things? :neutral_face:


Looks like every Londoner will need to carry a flask of vinegar on them in case of acid attacks.


What the hell is going on? So glad I don’t live in or around east London.


This could cause a nice little stir :popcorn:

The BBC has launched a pre-emptive defence of how much it pays its leading talent, claiming fewer than a quarter of 1% of its TV and radio stars are on more than £150,000 a year.

Anticipating the potential furore that will come when it publishes the figures on Wednesday, the corporation is striving to minimise the impactof their disclosure.

The publication comes following sustained pressure from the government for the corporation to increase transparency on pay. Last year David Cameron ordered the BBC to disclose what it paid on-air talent earning more than £450,000 a year. This is likely to include stars such as Chris Evans, Fiona Bruce and Graham Norton.

But the figure was slashed to £150,000 under Theresa May in a move that means what the corporation pays a series of other well known faces – who are likely to include its political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, and the Today presenter, John Humphrys – will also be disclosed.

The latest BBC annual report records that 109 TV and radio presenters earn above £150,000 – more than the prime minister. It is thought that about 30 of those on the higher salaries work in news and current affairs.


Yeah get ready for the incoming shit storm led by the sun and mail haha.

I actually like and rate most of the political journalists on the BBC. Plus I really don’t get the hate laura kuenssberg gets. Some may consider her too right wing, others too left, but she is an easy target for many. She’s very challenging on politicians and gives some very good political anylises.

I guess with the top earners at the BBC getting released she won’t be the only one


The BBC is one of the largest news organisations in the world. Obviously their political editor (and others in similar roles) will be well paid, otherwise they’d be working elsewhere.

If the BBC isn’t going to try to be competitive on news then it may as well not exist.

I have more issue with pointless people like Graham Norton earning a shitload unless they’re somehow making that money back on him? That was at least the excuse for Top Gear etc. Jonathan Ross took his show to ITV and he’s doing fine and society went on.


Is Graham Norton pointless or do you think it’s partly that you aren’t interested? Because to be fair he is probably one of the best in the world at the chat show stuff, you can tell because all the Hollywood A listers love coming on his show and he’s basically put competitors out of business on other channels, like Alan Carr on Channel 4 who basically said so himself.

Maybe I’m arguing the opposite because I like his show lol. I don’t make a point of watching it, but when I do its really good by the standards of chat shows which really aren’t my thing.


No I really like the show actually, it’s one of the few things I’ll actually bother watching on the BBC. I just don’t see any reason for it being on a tax funded service other than you don’t have adverts every 15 minutes. As a show it doesn’t bring anything new to the table and he could easily do the exact same thing for Channel 4. I feel the same about stuff like Family Guy repeats too btw.

I think if it wants to produce original content then that’s fine and there’s plenty of documentaries about trains and Russian poets on BBC4 that I’m never going to enjoy but they have a purpose because Channel 4 aren’t going to make those, but shows like this to me feel like they’re there because they’re ratings winners and executives can pat themselves on the back about how well they’re doing, but if you’re not selling adverts then there shouldn’t really be a need to chase ratings.


But I think the BBC are capable of doing more with such talents. I think his show is better since than it was on Channel 4. Don’t people think Clarkson etc al were better whilst working for the BBC? I ask that genuinely as I don’t like their show and tend not to watch it. I preferred Jonathan Ross’ show in his BBC days.


Following this BBC pay thing with alot of interest.

Alot of reform is needed at the BBC. The aim of the organization should be provide a counter balance to nasty practices of private TV’s commercial greed. This should mean giving opportunities to groups who are typically discriminated against in media and promoting talent that wouldn’t be given a chance anywhere else.

Alot of these high salaries are unnecessary.


"we will not surrender to anti-Zionism because it is a reinvention of anti-Semitism.”

Get fucked Macron


How much revenue France make from the weapons and cars they sell to Israel?


Shearer is awful. Should be on a fraction of that. Joker.


Matt Baker is only on £50k more than Alex Jones despite presenting two shows compared to her one :eyes:


Bollocks. Many jews criticize Israel as well.


Self-hating Jews clearly :roll_eyes: