UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

SirCliveSinclairdabbing · Feb 28, 2026

R8 me l8 m8

Duane Dibbley · Feb 28, 2026

Heinrich Maneuver said:
There were loud boos and whistles when the Leeds vs Man City game was paused to allow Muslim players to break their fast for Ramadan

Why couldn't they wait until half time? This seems deliberately divisive.
I've had the displeasure of visiting bellend road when my team visited there. It's paki central and littered in mosques and the home of the 7/7 terrorists.
Nuke it.

Chunky Salsa · Feb 28, 2026

Duane Dibbley said:
Why couldn't they wait until half time?

How would that help them rub their mud culture in your face if it waits until half time? Come on. Use your head now.

Heinrich Maneuver · Feb 28, 2026

Duane Dibbley said:
Why couldn't they wait until half time? This seems deliberately divisive.

muh diversity and culture in the beautiful game (cannot wait for the Iran vs Egypt Pride match at the world cup lmfao).
I bet want to push that ban on football games if you post naughty words on twitter and are using this to show how ""extreme"" football is and how we MUST crack down on those naatzeessss. Even if Restore/Reform don't make political progress, we are going to see a lot of 'make the environment so unwelcoming they don't want to come here'.

femboy fart huffer · Feb 28, 2026

Youtube Celery said:
Can't believe we've got our very own "but the food is good!" poster now.

Most foreign food is dogshit. American food is textureless slop with no flavour outside of an addictive chemical taste, or it's some abomination that looks more like it was invented as a challenge not as a real food. Indian 'food' is just fucking nothing, it's just throw whatever spices you have into a pot to try cover how rancid the rest of the ingredients are, there is no curry superior to English food, shepherd's/cottage pie or a regular pastry pie or just stew is an objectively better version. I have never eaten any african or pakistani food mostly because I value the function of my digestive tract. Chink food is fucking disgusting fatty oil grease with a couple vegetables thrown on top in the same way a fat american would tell you pizza is healthy because it has a single basil sprig on it. Chink food from China is slightly better but then you have to deal with the oil used to fry it being skimmed from the drains and the vegetables being 95% green paint to 5% actual vegetable. The only good foreign foods are French German and Italian, at least the ones that matter. It's just the americanisation of food especially through media. The idea that everything needs to be this massive amazing flavourful experience that you will never forget. I don't need some exotic food or anything like that, I have European food and that tastes good. It's just american consoomerism in disguise. Replace 'product' with 'food item' and it's incredibly obvious.

Overly Serious said:
And that's exactly the viewpoint I'd expect from the land of James Joyce, who took any kind of convention as some kind of mortal insult to creativity.

Punctuation was invented for the same reason that the bible was never translated from Latin for centuries. The higher ups wanted to make normal life and conversation harder for the general man. The idea that you must learn this secret code to be able to understand writing, that instead of just being squiggles that represent noises you make that instead you have to also adhere to all of these other rules or you are doing it wrong and that is just not acceptable. No one reads punctuation. No one looks at an em dash or whatever and goes ahh yes this means I must take a 0.125 second breath and emphasise the next syllable. The only things that have even a tiny use is full stops or commas and even then they only exist to help the foreigners to understand our language. No white man needs to be told when to stop to take a breath because they have spoken English their entire life and simply just understand the language and it's cadence so will do it automatically. It's like splleing shit worng you don't even notcie. It is just wasting time and adding needless formalities so that the gentry could stick their pinkie out and snort at the little commoner who could never understand something as complex as writing. It's not an insult to creativity it's an insult to society. It's yet another needless custom that we all autistically stick to not because it's right or makes sense but because not being different is more important that being correct. Some customs make sense or are simply just enjoyable, we wipe front to back because I don't want shit on my balls, punctuation is the shit on my balls. I can do whatever I want, I can spell shit wrong and use no punctuation or any of that shit and no one will care, it is my language to use how I please and everyone else who speaks it will also be able to understand unless they have a low iq in which case I don't want them to listen either way. It's like slang and regional shit, I could type this entire thing out the way I speak and you would be able to understand it, I don't need to tell you where to breathe for the same reasons I don't need to put a little aside telling you what a nonce is or what diddling is, I would if you didn't grow up with this language but even then an american could still infer what most slang means from context and cultural understanding. Or fake words, unironically is not a real word, you know what it means though. Noncy is not a real word. I can butcher and reform any word in English that I want to and you will still be able to understand what I mean by it. Especially when it comes to literature. If one of the main reasons you read a book is to engage with a story then why should the writer tell you exactly how to do so? If you read a story you are not meant to literally read the words as they're written, you're meant to engage with them and speak them internally where there is no point in punctuation because you are speaking the words and therefore put the punctuation in yourself when you need to. I don't need to be told what to do because I am engaged enough with your book and have enough brain function to be able to instinctively understand what is going on. If I get something 'wrong' then that doesn't matter, that's why it's a story not nonfiction. If I was to write a book then I would rather have a finished book with everything I wanted to say in there instead of a book where I got distracted and lost my train of thought because I needed to google if it was alt 1835 or 1836 for the semi hypheomma to emphasise that a character just stubbed their toe on the table and it feeling that sort of staticy numbing type of pain in their toe instead of the more burning inflamed sort of pain. If I was to tell a story I would tell it as I would normally, why should I suddenly change the way I speak and think because some retards need dots and little lines on a page to be told how to read them? What am I going to give a shit that the faggots in oxbridge tell me that I should have used a comma and that I used a word incorrectly? There is no such thing as incorrectly, anything I say is correct because I invented the fucking language, I invented the style, no I'm not using shit wrong I'm just writing in an antishakespearian Joyce-McCarthyist inspired FFH style that I invented and made popular. You can't say I'm wrong because I'm just playing a different game. Yea you can't bhop in halo but I'm playing tf2, both got the same controller and hardware, I'm just using mine to play by a different set of rules. Or chess right, back as a kid me and my best mate we had super chess, the pawns had laser guns and could move sideways too. Were we playing chess wrong? No we were just using the existing pieces in a different context. Yea cool thanks mr Henry Chess for the pieces but you cannot make me use them in a certain way, I have a right to do whatever the fuck I want with your little brony mlp horse fella. What I'm saying is that forcing me to use punctuation is fascism. Like uno. Everyone knows you can play a +4 on a +2 but that's not in the rules. Are the xhosa speaking English wrong because they pronounce x as a meaty k tongue click? No. They're just not speaking English, they're using the same pieces just in a different context entirely. I fucking hate English in schools and I despise literary analysis. In another context I could explain it but I don't want you to find my critically acclaimed fanfics. Sometimes the door is just red and we don't need to be 13 year old girls in the group chat gossiping over what the intention of a guy saying 'oi ur well fit u r' to you on bbm means outside of the obvious 'i want to stick my willy in you' meaning. I think that trying to glean meaning from something when it isn't explicitly written is not you finding something hidden but instead projecting your own life and experiences on top of the original meaning. You're not analysing the story, you're speaking over it and pretending to be doing something different. You're saying you know better than the writer and know what they were thinking. Your version of the story and your analysis is valid and correct, but it is not the reality of the writer. That is how you interpreted the story, not what the story is. Pretending that your interpretation is the 'correct' one is a narcissistic delusion of grandeur. It's just trying to divine static yet again. You're the ai woman right? Not Amelia but the other one. I could right now take every single letter in this message and have them relate to a brightness value and create an image of static using what I have written here and shove that in an ai generator as the seed image. If I did that and asked for Miku with massive tits then it would do that, if I asked for Miku with flat tits it would also do that from the same piece of static. Does that therefore mean that somewhere in this message I have stated my preference for the size of Miku's tits? Maybe that makes me a schizophrenic jewish Hitler, or maybe it makes me a literary prodigy. That's not for me to decide. Whatever I write you interpret, I cannot make you interpret it 'correctly'. I can only be earnest and trust that you are white enough to reciprocate. I'll speak the queen's English when the bitch rises from the grave.

>IMPLYING said:
(I consider solar a waste of time in the UK and wind power a short-term response a long-term issue, but geothermal plants and dams are nifty.)

There are entire swathes of land that are just piles on piles on piles of old wind turbine blades. Solar is even more of a joke because it's fucking England, even if the massive amounts of pollution to mine and process the heavy metals needed to make them was somehow ignored and they became 100% recyclable instead of just shoved onto the 3rd world to hope they will scavenge whatever valuables they can from them, they'd still be pointless because we get two hours of sun a day if we're lucky. I forget exactly but there was something along the lines of anything more northern than london is so northern that in a solar panel's entire lifetime it will not generate more energy than was used in it's creation. Solar panels only last a bit over a decade before their power output starts to drop. That combined with the fact we decided to shove them on a fucking roof instead of a pivoting stand so it can point at the fucking sun instead of just hoping the sun happens to line up. Solar power is feasible, they're called solar furnaces/power towers and it's just a giant array of mirrors pointed at a central boiler to create steam like we've done since before we even created electricity. Though even that's something that wouldn't really work too great in England for all the same reasons.

But wind turbines are somewhat useful. The problem is that to be useful you have to create giant blocks of resin and fiberglass which is worse for the environment that if you had just burnt some coal. Normally you can just burn the things, you can throw plastic bags into an oil power plant perfectly fine, but the glass content renders the resin content unburnable in any regular burner. I don't consider wind power a solution to anything other than optics. We have the ability to make nuclear power plants that are incredibly safe and effective but instead we decide to pump out tonnes upon tonnes of fucking resin and fiberglass that needs replacing every other decade. Yea microplastics are cool and all but how about our brand new microfibreglass, all the cool benefits of microplastics but now sharp and pointy instead.

teriyakiburns said:
Richard and Peter have both been banging on about the state of the military for much of the last 20 years, charting its decline

Regardless of how good our military is relative to 20 years ago it doesn't matter that much anymore. Two years ago I would have agreed it's a massive issue. But just watch any footage from Ukraine. No military is up to date or experienced anymore, not even the ones pioneering modern warfare. There is no modern war doctrine or composition, there are attempts and trials to see what works, but the conclusions are far from being reached and the books on it are even further from being written. If we sent our current military into war every single piece of armour would be destroyed in a week. None of it is designed to face the current threats of primarily top down attacks, none of our armour is heavily armoured on top, no anti drone capability, nothing. Our military is fine if we were fighting the taliban and it was 2005 again. But it's not. Maybe the challenger 3 will be ok but the majority of the work was done on it pre invasion. Obviously it's easier to modify a tank before it's mass produced or while it is still in production than afterwards. But idk. I guess it's fitting at least. 100 years ago we had the same problem. Our military is currently designed and trained to fight a wwi war but it's 1940. How are you meant to hold any position when the enemy will just clusterbomb the entire area and drone strike anyone they see? How are you meant to assault any location when the time to get there is longer than the time it takes for a drone to spot and bomb you? The entire Ukraine war is a cycle. Transport drops a squad of soldiers at a location, turns around and books it as fast as possible hoping to not get bombed. Soldiers then advance on the target and just throw explosives at it. They rarely use their guns to shoot people, their guns are for suppression so that someone else can get close enough to throw an explosive in. Then they hope the explosive killed whoever was hiding, though they do this exact same thing to every structure even if there are 0 signs of it being occupied. And repeat until a million of your men are dead and you have to import fucking jeets to fill their spaces domestically. If they win then the enemy will just withdraw and continually shell the entire area with cluster munitions to the point of leveling any housing and making any actual area to hold just rubble. We don't use guns in war anymore, we just use bombs and explosives. Something that our military is not trained in.

There's your battlefield. That's what Ukraine looks like right now aside from normally the buildings are a lot closer to rubble than this. Every single one of those wires is a fiber optic cable used for a drone to prevent radio jamming. How the fuck do you fight this? Before counter battery fire needed these massive portable radars. Massive radar dishes stuck to even bigger computers that would track the trajectory of the artillery and then be able to compute where it came from. Can't do that now. Obviously you can for artillery but you can't do that for the drop attack drones that literally just drop an artillery shell from directly above. Before top down attack missiles were incredibly expensive. A single javelin missile is 200,000usd, not including the launch platform that's around 300,000usd. An fpv drone can do the same thing for 1% of the price. Yes, they only have a 20% hit rate, so they can do the same thing for 5% of the price. Before you'd shoot 200,000usd at something that cost in the same ballpark. Russian main tank is around 4Musd, German or American ones are around 20Musd, challenger 3 is £10M. Cost for a BMP or Bradley infantry fighting vehicle is around 4Musd. An MRAP is about a million usd. Incredibly ballpark numbers. But using 200,000usd to shoot something worth 20,000,000usd makes sense. The tank might survive that. The missile might be intercepted. And you still have to actually shoot it and get a lock on the tank. It's still expensive and javelin systems are incredibly bulky and either required one person just to be the javelin guy if they were being used offensively. Now we can throw a 200usd drone with a 500usd artillery shell on it for the same result and you can fit 10 of them in a backpack. Now those losses become much much more painful. Not to mention shit like the shahed drones that effectively do what missiles do but now they cost tens of thousands instead of hundreds of thousands. Yea a load of them get shot down, Ukraine has something like an 80% success rate, that's still more economical than a single missile (which could also be shot down). Yea there's ways to counter them. Anti drone drones are a thing. Shotguns are seeing a resurgence for anti drone uses. They are putting massive nets over large areas to physically obstruct drones. There's countless hedgehog and turtle type tanks being tested to varying success rates. There's countless videos of helicopters shooting down the slow and kinda goofy lethargic shahed drones. And yet there is an even higher number of videos showing them not be shot down and do exactly what they're intended to do. Current air defences are designed for singular high value targets, they're designed for missiles and planes, not for an entire swarm of cheap mass produced drones. Any drone swarm would completely swamp and overwhelm any antiair defence the west has not to mention how much it would cost relative to the cost of the drones, mostly because it fucking does that in Ukraine where the antiair defences are the most densely packed in the continent.

Basically it has become incredibly cheap to destroy and bomb anything your enemy has. The cost to intercept those attacks has not changed. It is easier to destroy and harder to preserve. A £10,000,000 challenger 3 could be defeated by a £10,000 drone swarm. It is impossible to attack without being seen and it is impossible to defend without being shelled and droned. I cannot emphasise enough just how much current war is not what our army was trained to deal with. We do not live in an era of goatfuckers with an rpg and an ak.

teriyakiburns · Feb 28, 2026

femboy fart huffer said:
Regardless of how good our military is relative to 20 years ago it doesn't matter that much anymore. Two years ago I would have agreed it's a massive issue. But just watch any footage from Ukraine. No military is up to date or experienced anymore, not even the ones pioneering modern warfare. There is no modern war doctrine or composition, there are attempts and trials to see what works, but the conclusions are far from being reached and the books on it are even further from being written.

I agree, however the problem with the armed forces is more fundamental than merely which shitty vehicle the CSC is obsessed with this year. The military will not be able to develop any sort of doctrine to counter drone warfare because it is culturally incapable of any level of creativity or innovative thinking. The entire military is moribund and trapped in modes of thought that were outdated 30 years ago. The only places you see any sort of doctrinal innovation is the sub service, or the SAS, because they're historically independent commands. Everyone else might as well not bother getting out of bed in the morning.

What I'm saying is, you're right, but it gets worse.

Duane Dibbley · Feb 28, 2026

femboy fart huffer said:
But wind turbines are somewhat useful.

Wind turbines are great, excellent even, though they become less so on mass scale. A small-scale wind turbine on the roof of every home would see energy demand plummet overnight and energy bills drop like a stone. Of course that's the reason it doesn't happen.

femboy fart huffer said:
No military is up to date or experienced anymore, not even the ones pioneering modern warfare.

With the exception of drones, I disagree. Afghan and Iraq were not fought in open deserts, it was downtown, urban warfare. Before that we had Bosnia and Serbia in the mid 90s which was fighting in towns and cities no different to ours. A lot changed because that was the first urban war we have fought post ww2.

Unfortunately, we have a generation of weak men so no matter how good our forces are, they will be predominantly manned by girlymen and sissies.

Muppetstudios · Feb 28, 2026

I bet Corbyn has the feels,

"Are those marmalade sandwiches halal?"

LXXVII Brigade · Feb 28, 2026

femboy fart huffer said:
Regardless of how good our military is relative to 20 years ago it doesn't matter that much anymore. Two years ago I would have agreed it's a massive issue. But just watch any footage from Ukraine. No military is up to date or experienced anymore, not even the ones pioneering modern warfare.

Be very careful when taking lessons from Ukraine. As much as the media likes to make out how good they are and how much kit we've given them they're still not a 1:1 comparison for NATO.

For one the airspace in Ukraine is still contested, severely limiting the effect of air power for both sides. The Ukrainian Air Force is outdated and underdeveloped compared to NATO. Both sides still carry out strikes from the air but it's not realistically a major method of delivering fires in the war. Drones have started to take over this role but are still lacking in terms of payload and precision. If you've seen how the Ukrainians have managed to strike deep inside of Russia with their limited capability just imagine what the US could do with a fleet of B-21s and you'll get my point.

We shouldn't make the mistake of preparing for Ukraine when the next war turns out to be nothing like Ukraine. Drones will play a part as well as the rise of Open Source Inteligence (which is pretty much any cunt with a smart phone) but don't go in expecting stagnant trench warfare. That is pretty much the mistake the allies made back in 39 and looked how that ended.

The Green Man · Feb 28, 2026

Hoi Polloi said:
Spoke at length with the missus about this Green swing, urdu ad, family voting shit today. She's very Palestine sympathetic, will probably vote Green, and is generally an extremely empathetic person to her own detriment. Found her reactions and opinions to it very interesting (particularly that all she'd heard was that this was a massive win for the Greens, and that alleged Labour van).

The all urdu anti-Modi ad gave her some serious cognitive dissonance when I showed it to her (alongside the obvious gerrymandering to convert the ward from an almost all white bloc to a significantly muslim bloc in 2023).

Based on this I'm cautiously optimistic that the utterly shameless, obviously divisive courting of Muslim voters (while encouraging infighting with the jeets, no less) is going to be a blackpill for at least some of the more open minded libs. I explained this as being barely different to Reform fanning anti-immigrant sentiment for votes. Also a blatant indictment of the multicultural melting pot, your particular diaspora is only catered to if it comprises a considerable and predictable voting movement.

Only thing I couldn't quite get her head around is why family voting would be of particular concern to muslims; I imagine many people just can't wrap their head around the idea that Muslims legitimately just blindly follow whatever their Imam says, and vote on behalf of their illiterate wives.

I think a good way to conceptualise the subtle political acknowledgement of an islamic monolith to people is to point out nobody ever means white people when they talk about "community tensions" nor are there white "community leaders". This verbiage really only ever refers to Muslims.

Just thought it was interesting.

You should probably dump her. She's a retard.

Kofi Drinka · Feb 28, 2026

War technology is still an unknown unknown. What we see in the Ukraine is massively out of date and mostly a money laundering scheme. The US has tech we've never heard or seen of and if they actually went "To war" not just destabilizing random brown countries we would be shocked. No one is going to show they have anti-drone tech they can use to defend themselves until they use it. Because other wise the attackers will find a way to get round it.

femboy fart huffer · Feb 28, 2026

Duane Dibbley said:
With the exception of drones, I disagree

The problem there being that drones have caused 100% of warfare to change. The way people walk is different, the way they move is different, they now have to be aware of not just 180* infront and 45* above them for urban combat but now 180* and 270*. They have to split their attention to an even wider area than before. I'm not saying that this is the first time door kicking has ever been a thing or that it was safe before. It's been a thing since wwii, arguably earlier with sieges. The thing that has changed is that now you do not kick the door, you are a door kicker in name only. You do not enter the building and shoot people inside it. You do not fight who is inside. You throw grenades inside until the building is on the verge of collapse, or you call in artillery to just actually collapse the entire building. Before door kicking was dangerous. It is now not. That is good for the door kickers. That is not good for the people inside. We are both the people inside and the people kicking doors. The main impact it's had is now even a small group of people can clear a relatively large urban area. The typical ratios and doctrines for defence are completely outdated. You no longer need a numerical advantage, you can clear 1:1 or less. If we're invading somewhere then great. If we're not?

It's not a case of fighting anymore. The vast majority of urban 'fighting' in Ukraine is both sides throwing explosives into places they think a person might be and hoping for the best. Artillery and such has always been somewhat similar but this is just an entirely new level of 'unfair' for a lack of better word. There's no 'sportsmanship' or 'superiority' or anything like that. It's not about drive and passion or any of those things. You're not storming the beaches and kicking doors because you want to fight Hitler and do what is right. You are sitting alone in a basement for days while listening for anyone nearby until you have a grenade dropped on your head before you can even react. It's not a case of me being stronger than you, being a better swordsman or marksman. It is not a case of one person being better than the other and therefore winning. It is just you die before you even knew anyone was near. You have no chance to fight, no chance to win, no chance to surrender. You are blown up before you can do anything.

Urban warfare is not new, I agree. However it is not the same, not even close. Not even the same doctrine anymore. The high ground is no longer an advantage. It is now better to be in a basement than high up for the first time in the entirety of defence. I assume that's what you mean at least. If you mean the shit about economics and armour then just go watch any Ukraine footage and look up the cost of the explosive and the cost of the target.

Duane Dibbley said:
A small-scale wind turbine on the roof of every home would see energy demand plummet overnight and energy bills drop like a stone.

Yea and so would building a nuclear powerplant in every village. Either way it'd still create a massive amount of disposable short lived items that cannot be recycled or reused in any way. Local power generation is great. Obviously. That does not mean that it should be on me to do everything while the government lets actual infrastructure rot. I always saw solar and wind as a way to do small niche things outdoors. It's good for what it is, but it has it's drawbacks and those are massive if you are looking at it environmentally and it will never replace an actual organised power grid. Though, on the topic of drone warfare. It would be incredibly easy for anyone to severely cripple the power grid, a dedicated group with a couple bricks of explosives could easily destroy enough power infrastructure to cause absolutely massive damage, considering most of these things are either outside or in a generic brick hut that you could probably push over. Now a foreign entity could do so from further away and easier. All of our most important infrastructure is just out in the open and to be incredibly frank it should fucking terrify you.

teriyakiburns said:
The military will not be able to develop any sort of doctrine to counter drone warfare because it is culturally incapable of any level of creativity or innovative thinking.

Looking at military expos is bleak. I do not know whether it speaks to a lack of critical/innovative thinking, or simply just an extreme level of confidence. But most of the things I see being shown at those sorts of places are drones. Here's our new loitering drone, here's our new drop attack drone, here's our drone this and drone that. What about the anti drone shit though? Where's the large section of people mounting shotguns or whatever onto an antiair system or whatever? Where's the defence? Why is is all about bombing the targets and not ever considering that we could be those targets? I mean, I know why. It's because that's cheaper and these 'people' just assume a constant influx of men to absorb the bombs for them. Admittedly, there is some cool shit like drone based medevacs but just look at the number of drones and bombs compared to the number of things designed to stop them.

LXXVII Brigade said:
As much as the media likes to make out how good they are and how much kit we've given them they're still not a 1:1 comparison for NATO.

It's not a case of how good they are. Yes if Russia invaded and the entirety of nato declared war on them then it would be a different story in terms of outcome. That does not mean that the fundamental changes to how war happens and the doctrines that work would suddenly not be applicable. War has changed, no number of men or tanks will revert that. Is Ukraine different to nato because they are somehow worse at fighting, or is it just that nato has more manpower and equipment? Are we better or are we just more numerous? We shouldn't go into the next war expecting Ukraine. We also shouldn't go into the next war expecting wwii tank on tank warfare. We shouldn't expect the next war to be Ukraine. We should however listen to what Ukraine is telling us. Either way with the number of top attack things be them drones or javelins or whatever, the current ideas on what parts of a tank need to be armoured is rather outdated, so is the type of armour. I don't think that bombers and air superiority would change much when it comes to armour and infantry, it would certainly change the outcome of the war if Ukraine had a nato approach and arsenal for air superiority. That does not change the fact that the way urban buildings are cleared, the way intelligence is obtained, the way drones are used, the way positions are held, the way vehicles are used, the way vehicles are made and armoured, all of that stuff has changed. If we are involved in a war in Europe soon then it won't be Ukraine 2, but it will be much closer to that than Afghanistan 2.

What I'm saying is that no matter what, drones are a part of modern warfare. They are something that we will simply just have to deal with and learn how to fight. As well as changing our training and doctrine to match. Our vehicles need to be updated and our design ethos does too. At the current moment we are doing very little of that. We are watching and should be taking notes. Maybe we are. Maybe there's just lag and there will be an explosion of anti drone weapons in the coming years. Maybe we are training and changing even without any real experience. Maybe we are. I would prefer to have something more concrete than a 'maybe' when it comes to the possibility of a sadistic faggot flying a grenade directly into my brain though.

FedPostalService · Mar 1, 2026

The Green Man said:
You should probably dump her. She's a retard.

I’m guessing she’s really hot though.

Otterly · Mar 1, 2026

Duane Dibbley said:
A small-scale wind turbine on the roof of every home would see energy demand plummet overnight

I’m sure I’ve heard you can’t do this because the vibration damages the structure. Might be wrong.

teriyakiburns · Mar 1, 2026

Otterly said:
I’m sure I’ve heard you can’t do this because the vibration damages the structure. Might be wrong.

There's a lot of obstacles to get past before you have to consider vibration damage. A turbine sized to fit on a house roof wouldn't provide much energy to begin with. The "terrain" at rooftop level makes the wind turbulent and unpredictable, which would further reduce the output. Assuming you get past those issues, you'd quickly face diminishing returns with each new turbine installed, as they create a long, cone-shaped "wind shadow" in their wake, full of turbulent air with much reduced wind speed. The entire point of wind energy is to extract energy from the motion of air, which means the air necessarily slows down as energy is transferred, so any turbine behind in the wake of another is going to be producing far less power as a result and likely won't be able to operate. The entire concept is fantasy.

Otterly · Mar 1, 2026

teriyakiburns said:
There's a lot of obstacles to get past before you have to consider vibration damage. A turbine sized to fit on a house roof wouldn't provide much energy to begin with. The "terrain" at rooftop level makes the wind turbulent and unpredictable, which would further reduce the output. Assuming you get past those issues, you'd quickly face diminishing returns with each new turbine installed, as they create a long, cone-shaped "wind shadow" in their wake, full of turbulent air with much reduced wind speed. The entire point of wind energy is to extract energy from the motion of air, which means the air necessarily slows down as energy is transferred, so any turbine behind in the wake of another is going to be producing far less power as a result and likely won't be able to operate. The entire concept is fantasy.

It’d create an updraft as well, your garden would desiccate

Heinrich Maneuver · Mar 1, 2026

True ecochads know nuclear power is the only way. I want a fission reactor in every home.

Iranians and Jews in London celebrate the kebab'ing of the Ayatollah and chant 'Keir Starmer's a Wanker'
Iran has launched missiles at Cyprus, where RAF Akrotiri is. John Healey declined to explicitly back strikes by the United States and Israel on Iran and said Iran did not mean to target the RAF. He says everything the UK does is 'within international law'. RAF Typhoons were in the air over Qatar and Cyprus yesterday.

Two missiles from Iran were fired in the direction of Cyprus, where the UK has military bases, the defence secretary has revealed.

John Healey said the government did not believe they were targeting the bases intentionally, but said “it shows how indiscriminate” the Iranian retaliation to Saturday’s US-Israel strikes was.

He also said that 300 UK military personnel were close to targets that were hit in Bahrain.

John Healey told Sky News's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips programme: "This is a really serious and deteriorating situation, (with) rising risks of increasing Iranian indiscriminate retaliatory attacks.

"Let me give you a couple of examples. Yesterday, we had 300 personnel on that Bahrain base that was attacked by Iranian missiles and drones, some of them within a few hundred yards of where they landed.

"We had two missiles fired in the direction of Cyprus. We don't believe they were targeted at Cyprus, but nevertheless, it's an example of how there is a very real and rising threat from a regime that is lashing out widely across the region, and that requires us to act."

The revelations came a day after Sir Keir Starmer said the UK had ordered “planes in the sky” over the Middle East on defensive operations to protect our allies.

Mr Healey repeated the prime minister’s calls for Iran to end its missile strikes and “steps back from its increasing uncontrolled indiscriminate attacks in the region” and “gives up its weapons programs.”

It came as the US and Israel launched waves of missile strikes on Iran in preemptive actions, taking out military infrastructure and the country’s leadership, including the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

Mr Healey added: “Few people will mourn the Ayatollah’s death.”

The defence secretary said he was now more concerned about the repercussions of the attacks on Iran in the wider region.

He noted the 20 terror plots on the UK’s streets organised by Iran, the death of tens of thousands of its own citizens and the supply of 50,000 drones to Russia to attack Ukraine.

“Make no mistake that this is a regime which harasses other countries and can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.”

Mr Healey declined to comment on whether the US-Israeli strikes on Iran were legal.

He told Sky News: "No one who has seen the way that Iran has menaced us and sponsored terror around the world, been a source of instability in the region, is developing a nuclear weapons program, can be under any doubt about the character of this regime, and the threat it poses."

Asked again whether the US action was legal, he said: "That is for the US to set out and explain. It's not for me, as defence secretary of the UK, I'm here to speak for the UK.

"I can speak for the very active participation that we have in coordinated defence across the region."

He noted that “everything the UK does is within international law”.

But Mr Healey also declined to say whether the UK may be drawn into joining the US and Israel in direct operations on Iran.

Describing UK operations, Mr Healey said: "When our UK planes fly from Qatar, they are protecting against any missiles or drones directed towards Qatar.

"When they fly from Cyprus, they're doing the same for Cyprus.

"But of course, when our planes are in the air and they see things, missiles or drones directed towards other countries, they'll take them down.

"So when I talk about Britain playing a role in reinforcing regional stability as part of co-ordinated regional defensive operations, that's what I mean."

Kofi Drinka · Mar 1, 2026

Maybe instead of turning every house into a windmill we go the opposite direction and start saving electric in sensible ways? Turn off all the CC TV cameras blanketing every inch of the land, including the spy network of ring cameras. Go back to proper cars and not exploding Ridge racer looking things. Return to oil lanterns for street lights, which will create more jobs and make the streets look nicer too. Close down all hotels full of foreigners and send them back home so they're using less electric. Ban hair straighteners, irons and hair driers. Women will learn to use a towel and stop crying their hair takes a fortnight to dry. Get rid of gyms. All those machines use electric, so you can bench press in the dark or go for a jog round the park. Instagram sluts will just have to deal with showing they don't flush the toilet in their selfies. Give every married couple a pack of nudie playing cards, so they can entertain themselves with games of Snap, 21s or Solitaire instead of using televisions, phones and computers.

Hire me Restore. I can fix the energy crisis and I will never say anything controversial to make you look bad.

teriyakiburns · Mar 1, 2026

Heinrich Maneuver said:
John Healey declined to explicitly back strikes by the United States and Israel on Iran and said Iran did not mean to target the RAF.

It's typical of this government. They want to play tough and run with the big boys, but they also want to pretend they're not actually doing any of that (hence denying the US use of our facilities, because "muh international law" or whatever). Starmer refuses to commit to one path or the other, so we end up with our planes flying circles and risking getting shot at for no real purpose.

Minister Josh Simons resigns after Labour Together claims. Another scandal that Starmer is trying to weasel out of. Labour Together is where McSweeney developed the whole idea of running Starmer, so Starmer is neck deep in the whole thing.

Otterly · Mar 1, 2026

Kofi Drinka said:
Ban hair straighteners, irons and hair driers. Women will learn to use a towel and stop crying their hair takes a fortnight to dry.

Look I’m fine with the widespread genocide of millions, repatriation, and revolution, then you say something ridiculous like this. Be reasonable.
Next up will be complaints ‘why does my wife look like late stage Kate bush dragged through a hedge backwards? Why are women so slovenly!?’

UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

SirCliveSinclairdabbing

I'm on the ZX Spectrum.

Duane Dibbley

Chunky Salsa

Heinrich Maneuver

it's just you, me and this wire

femboy fart huffer

Brapping for Biden since '09

teriyakiburns

If anyone tried stealing my pot, I'd wrestle them.

Duane Dibbley

Muppetstudios

LXXVII Brigade

中国第一。打倒西方帝国主义。

The Green Man

Kofi Drinka

femboy fart huffer

Brapping for Biden since '09

FedPostalService

Null yearns for Big Bulgarian Cock

Otterly

Immerse your soul in love

teriyakiburns

If anyone tried stealing my pot, I'd wrestle them.

Otterly

Immerse your soul in love

Heinrich Maneuver

it's just you, me and this wire

Kofi Drinka

teriyakiburns

If anyone tried stealing my pot, I'd wrestle them.

Otterly

Immerse your soul in love