data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f7f7b/f7f7b6acfbdedff38b3817cdfb9aa756ec7508f5" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f2f93/f2f939022ffae29e4decb326a98f4493d0a2e13e" alt=""
Yeah cause leaving companies and the super rich to self regulate has worked so well.
Yeah cause leaving companies and the super rich to self regulate has worked so well.
It wouldn’t make it easier to arrange meetings because you’d have no clue if you were arranging the meeting for when people would be at work, have finished for the day, or fast asleep at night.
Pays for Bruce Banner to have therapy and anger management to work through his PTSD and anger issues.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it’s not in the public sphere but your private collection, so you do you chap.
In my opinion privately owned art of a high enough cultural value should either not be allowed to be privately owned, or if it is then it should have to be on permanent loan to free admission public galleries. But that’s not the case.
Oh and it’s called 6th form cos you’re in year 6 of secondary school. Which is also called year 12!
I think it’s a hold over from some time in the past where the year numbers started over again at secondary school, as I understand you’d do your O levels in 5 form, then A levels in 6th.
Is “6th Form” not used as an alternative to College anymore (it was archaic when I went to 6th Form 20 years ago so wouldn’t be surprised if it has bitten the dust)
You could argue the money might be better spent investing in low carbon energy. Acting as an investment fund for companies and individuals that want to increase their solar capacity but don’t have the funds to do so. That way they’re helping to stop carbon getting into the atmosphere in the first place.
They use Bing as a backend. So it’ll be Microsoft if anyone.
The defendant saying that they did it doesn’t mean that they did. That could be helping the real guilty party get off.
Definitely not. There are the obvious issues with miscarriages of justice but also I think that an eye for an eye justice is archaic.
Still partially in use the UK. We’ve got a really messed up system where metric is used for some things and imperial for others.
We tend to cook in metric but weigh ourselves in imperial (but stone and pounds not just stone)
Distance is metric for DIY and metric for driving.
Liquids are metric for most things and imperial for milk and beer.
Then reinstated quietly after the election (if Tories win)
No it doesn’t seem to be in there. According to the highway code
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
No where does it say if an area is named specially as a must not, and another area is named as a should not in the same rule then the should not must be treated as a must not.
Or is there some case law maybe that you’re referring to?
Do you have something to back that up? It seems very odd that London would be named specially as must not then a second clause for the remainder of the country that sounds different. Surely it should either be “you must not park on the pavement” or if there’s some archaic reason that London needs specific wording "you must not park on the pavement in London, and you must not park on the pavement elsewhere "
Chan I love Derek Jacobi in this episode tho
I think you’ve misread it. Not that it’s that much better.
20 months sentence (though probably half of that will be custodial the rest on licence/parole)
3 years and 10 month ban then an “extended” drivers test to get it back.
No matter what it was a massive fuck up to say that. It goes to show how politically stupid Sunak is. He could have kept to his rehearsed talking point of claiming that Stamer flip flops (as though Sunak isn’t as changeable what his advisors think will be advantageous) and just left off the part about the definition of women.
But instead he just stuck to the transphobic script.
The Tories haven’t recovered in the polls since partygate and Truss, something has finally stuck.
If we banned private healthcare the rich would have an incentive to make socialised healthcare better.
Better than spending it giving tax breaks to the rich or subsidising companies that are destroying the planet.