This makes me want to sing the Tetris theme.

This is the claim from the Guardian article about this:

Puberty blockers and hormone treatment had been given to young patients despite a lack of research into their impact

Frankly I find that hard to swallow, given that puberty blockers existed long before they were used to treat trans people. Puberty blockers were used to treat children with extremely early puberty, their effects are generally well known. Sure, there's always the classic "more study is needed" line in academia, but this almost presents it as careless implementation of a new drug, rather than a known and approved drug given to more people.

That's because there haven't been any successful economic policies since then.

Drax helps the UK government meet its climate targets because, on paper at least, the power station is treated as emission-free. This is because international carbon accounting rules state that greenhouse gas emissions from burning wood are counted in the country where the trees are felled as opposed to where they are burned.

Such bullshit. All the emissions happen here, but they don't get counted here.

Not a lot, the kids just switch to reusables, or continue to buy the same disposables from dodgy drug dealers.

My dad claimed to have seen one of these inside a plane when he was in the RAF, although he referred to it as ball lightning.

and working toward something like a wealth cap.

I don't think a wealth cap is necessary. Rather, we should look to US pre-Reagon - there was a 95% tax for earnings over $1 million, and Reagan said "If I get taxed 95% on my earnings for my next movie, I'm not going to make that movie. Then everyone else making that movie will be out of a job!" Nevermind the fact that, if they didn't have to pay him, the movie would have had far more money and been free to make something else. The workers would have had a job, the marketing may have been less effective but the overall commercial enterprise would be by and large unaffected.

Instead, we've got backhand deals. A common scandal story in the UK is an MP being paid a few £10,000s or maybe £100,000 - small fry compared to the US and their Super PAC's. However, the way the Tories have things set up is that there are 60 or so MP's who are on the party's payroll. All you have to do to write law in your favour is engage with one of them and donate to the party. The party will write a law, the whips will follow suit (just like they collectively voted against feeding children over Christmas during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic) and then the party will pay the MP that negotiated it a healthy bonus. Money is literally laundered through the party.

And the worst part is the Labour party have no plans on changing this. They just want their bite at the pie. The Tories stretch the standard for what MP's can get away with, Labour comes in and draws a line, then the Tories come back in and stretch it again.

Sack the fucking lot of them. We don't need "representatives" to go to Westminster and facetiously "vote on our behalf" anymore. A direct democracy, certainly once it's established, would be better than this.

Absolutely. He apparently doesn't like environmentalists and probably blames them for the laws that say he can't shoot any wildlife he likes.

That's not what this article is on about, at all.

My understanding is they've done bugger all. MP's behind the bill have merely said they won't use the provision, primarily because there is no sufficient technical means to do so, but the wording of the bill hasn't changed.

If the bill goes through as is then businesses may be compelled to create the means to do so, regardless of it breaking encryption - maybe they won't do it right away, but they'll have the perogative under law. It wouldn't be too much more effort to throw in a gag order and prevent public disclosure. I'm sure Signal and a few others would kick up a stink and leave if they were targeted, but I could see Facebook and Google signing up, for a price. Hell I'd be more surprised if WhatsApp didn't already have backdoors.

The data shows 70-90%. However, about half are no more than 5 mph over the limit.

It also details the caveat that almost all of the 20 mph roads measured are free-flow areas without traffic calming, and it doesn't represent the majority of 20 mph roads where traffic calming is present and traffic will naturally be slower. So, basically they're measuring compliance in 20 mph zones that don't really feel like 20 mph zones.

Compliance is much better for 30, 60 and 70 mph limits.

All food is merely a medium for sauce.