380

King Charles’ €500K lobster dinner blows hole in French presidency’s budget (www.politico.eu)

submitted 3 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A decadent dinner costing nearly €475,000 for the U.K.’s King Charles III helped push France’s Élysée Palace — the office of President Emmanuel Macron —to a record high deficit last year.

France’s love for grand gestures and opulent dining are fully in evidence in the pages of a damning yearly audit of the Élysée’s budget, released on Monday by the Cour des Comptes, France’s top audit court.

The Élysée’s spending, which includes costs related to the president’s diplomatic and presidential duties as well as administration, personnel, security and estate management, reached a whopping €125 million, plunging the books €8.3 million into the red.

Among the biggest deficit drivers were two luxurious state dinners, with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and King Charles III.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Politico Europe Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

Politico Europe is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

Bias: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: High
Country: Germany
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politico-europe-bias/

Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News

Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.

Footer

Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.

Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.

[-] naught@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago

Curious why this bot gathers downvotes - can anyone say?

[-] RCTreeFiddy@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Personally, it’s absolutely maddening to see this long ass reply in every thread. I know I can block it, but I choose to downvote instead. Perhaps the bot creator could shorten the reply to a single line and a link?

Just my $0.02

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

It's only a long reply because whatever client your using doesn't parse spoiler tags.

This is what it should look like:

Not one line, but also not especially obtrusive.

[-] RCTreeFiddy@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Good point. I guess several mobile clients are having issues with the spoiler tag.

[-] breakingcups@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

I dunno. I think it adds something of value without being obtrusive.

[-] Deestan@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

I think it rated a news outlet as "moderately credible / left bias" causing some to feel attacked.

[-] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

The usual complaint that I see people bring up is that the people behind it have a pro-Israel bias. But for a quick glance, it's fine. The issue is that on Reddit, you'd have like 5 bot replies for 1000 human replies, and on Lemmy you'll have 3 for 15 of the same, so they stand out more. In my opinion, anyway.

[-] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

My complaint is kind of in this vein. I joined Lemmy to get away from this kind of bullshit. I go to comments to read what other people are saying, not to have a bot shove it's opinion in my face on literally every fucking thread. Especially if the article has 1 or 2 comments so you go to the comments to see what people are discussing just to find it's 2 fucking bots, so no discourse is actually happening.

The bullshit response of "well block it" is actually worse... Cause then you miss any responses made under it. So every time I see it, I just downvote it and move on. I do this with basically every bot I run into on here.

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 2 points 3 months ago

People question the ability for it to be objective due to it being created and run by a single person combined with being an automated process that implies it is authoritative in the context of the communities where the bot is automated.

I think MBFC is about as good as is available, kind of like Snopes. Both have a history of trying to be objective even if they aren't perfect.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Although Snopes' verdicts are far less important, being on things like urban myths.

[-] naught@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

They frequently report on conspiracies and political myths, too

this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024

380 points (96.6% liked)

World News

38936 readers

2090 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.