Although 100 is merely the number of lies Donald Trump tells before breakfast.

One of the faux-king idiot's biggest lies is how is "restoring respect" for the USA around the world.

State visit to England because he may be protecting a royal family member from embarrassment? Asking for a friend...

The one i know of suffered plenty of embarrassment and condemnation when it came out, to the point of being very much in background for a royal. Basically, no longer allowed to do public events and such.

Im sure the crown does NOT want the Epstein files released...

them being released than some in the u.s. Didn't Starmer just fire someone in his administration that had created a card that was in the birthday book?

The apparent "final straw" was Bloomberg publishing emails from Mandelson to Epstein, written after the latter's conviction, saying how outrageous it was that he'd been convicted, and it never would have happened in the UK (never mind that Epstein did a plea deal to get an obscenely light sentence). Starmer already knew before appointing him that Mandelson had planned to stay in Epstein's apartment while Epstein was serving his sentence (Mandelson apparently told Starmer that he hadn't actually stayed there, so that was supposed to be alright. Whether he did stay there or not, I don't know). Starmer took Mandelson at his word, decided everything was fine, and appointed him. Which casts huge doubt on Starmer's judgement.

"The British" as in the people would be fine with everything Epstein-related published; Andrew is widely despised. "The crown" is embarrassed by him, so would like the whole thing to go away, but I don't think they want to do anything to cover it up, since that would probably come out, and actively covering it up would be worse still for "the crown".

I knew Starmer had fired someone for being involved with epstein, just couldn't remember the exact why.


Edited to add: in my 1st post i had typed in "the Brits" but autocorrect changed it to British when I hit send.

Of course, US media doesn't actually call them lies; they just broadcast them repeatedly on behalf of Fuckface47.

use the word "lie," nor certainly a flat-out charge such as "He's lying" or "This is a lie." Doing so would invite a libel suit. Instead, they show video of the person allegedly lying or quote them directly if video is not available, then run a story contradicting what they said.

Last edited Mon Sep 15, 2025, 09:21 PM - Edit history (1)

And if he can, in fact, be so easily demonstrated to be lying, then his libel suit will fail outright.

Very occasionally I've heard NPR and a precious few other formal outlets contradict his unambiguous lies. The NPR's ombudsman during Trump's first interminable administration famously engaged in astonishing contortions to explain why Trump's objectively verifiable lies aren't lies, in fact.

So I'd welcome a new trend in which the media actually contradicts his lies in real time by running such contradictory stories. Better still, don't catapult his lies 24/7 while offering only a tepid refutation.

Guess I made it up, then.

lay down and stick out their tongues for The Felon to walk on in his golf shoes.

Maybe you could remind us of the great job that Garland did?

with tee vee news?

Rue Brittania

Rue Britannia ... Britannia rues the waves...

We never, never, never shall be slaves.

There’s BBC 1 thru 4
Channel 5
ITV
Channel 4
And unfortunately GB News (right wing)

And there’s a number of smaller speciality channels but they’re not that important

Loved it. Especially the commercials and cricket.

I like checking in on Channel 4, as well as other BBC Radio channels.

can we obtain this broadcast??????

And search under audio and radio.

It’s not the BBC

is not the same as BBC Radio 4?
Well thanks for the enlightenment.

There's, as you say, "BBC Radio 4",which is the national speech channel (NPR being the nearest American equivalent) - in a sense, this was the original "BBC" dating back to 1922, but they gave it "4" in the 1960s.

There's Channel 4, which is a non-profit national TV channel (though funded with ads, while the BBC channels are funded from the fixed licence fee), started in the 1980s, with a remit to be "alternative" to what existed then (which was 2 BBC channels - BBC One and BBC Two - and ITV, the for-profit channel started in the 1950s. If Channel 4 make a profit, it goes into the "Film 4" arm, which has made many of the best-known British films in the last few decades.

There's BBC Four, a TV channel started around 2000 (when digital TV allowed many more channels). This is a niche, low-budget channel, only starting at 7pm, with lots of documentaries, foreign films/TV series and comedies they're trying out. Plus lots of repeats.

(Plus there is also S4C - a Welsh language channel - Emrys would be the DUer to tell you about this)

At the end of a Monty Python episode (I don't remember which), the camera is fixed on a sign that lists them. They sere something like £12/6 for TV plus radio, £9/6 for TV only and £2/6 for radio only. I imagine they've gone up quite a bit ove 50-plus years.

(They also did a joke about a man who was hanged for not having a licence for his car radio.)

£58.50 if your TV is only black-and-white - which meant something back in the 60s or 70s, but I imagine is almost no one now. Applying for that would probably draw more attention than not buying a licence at all. Radio is free (has been for as long as I remember, so since the mid-70s anyway).

Roasted nuts.

It would be great for morale!

somebody is doing something!

Rather different from our own "mainstream" media, I would say.

not part of the BBC. The BBC's too often afraid of its own shadow nowadays and wouldn't dream of challenging Trump (and our government, which is desperately and pathetically trying to suck up to him - hence the latest state visit) in such a way.

Unfortunately, Channel 4 is quite strict about not allowing its content to be streamed outside the UK. Some try to use VPNs to stream its content via the Web elsewhere in the world, but Channel 4 is reportedly quite savvy about detecting and blocking VPN users.

I'd hope if the programme makes enough of a splash the channel or someone else will find a way to make it available in the USA (and hopefully everywhere else).

You can register to watch Channel 4, but you can't watch anything without a VPN since it won't play in the US.

Jeez, he does that in a week.