Was it simpler times? Or just pre watershed TV. Impossible to know.
Starting to look like voting Labour is helping reform win
More takes like this please
You can literally just ban them as unsafe. If you tax them, people will just pay the tax
What were these women doing immediately before the date they ‘thought’ they could claim their pension? If they were working, surely you would just continue, and if you weren’t working, well then there’s no change is there. Don’t get it really
Who do the other footprints belong to?
Also personally quite annoying for me as I wear a pair of thick rimmed Ray Bans
I was very surprised they’d got involved in this tech for this reason. A very high risk move for them I think.
Evanescence Cluedo is amazing. Stealing that!
What’s their deal! ? Shady American money?
If you don’t hammer them they’ll assume their appeasement of the far right is working so I think it really is important to keep hammering them.
I mean, it was sustained through quite a bit of might as well.
And without a bowl, where do you put waste liquids while you’re washing up? In the water? Urgh. If you have a second sink, then absolutely no excuse for a basin. But if just one sink it’s an unfortunate necessity
Yes 100%.
As someone prohibited from driving by virtue of poor eyesight, I don’t like this argument. Your options are slightly restricted by not driving but you are not cut off from society. A quarter of the population manage it and most of those haven’t killed anyone!
Unfortunately I suspect the headache HS2 has caused the last couple of governments means that future rail infrastructure spending will not happen on any scale. HS2 could have been the launchpad for all these other projects people in this thread talk about, but what government would risk that now?
Why have the Guardian completely shat the bed on this issue? I’ve spent the last 20 years reading their opeds saying governments should invest in public transport and then when it happens… this.
Something weird happens in high end estate agents where normal supply and demand rules don’t apply. I think they see it as a loss of status if they drop the price so they just keep it on the market for ages and presumably inflation takes care of the value eventually.
I’m predicting this will actually increase cases in the system as a) the CPS will feel empowered to push a load of borderline cases before these judge panels which it never would have put in front of a jury, and b) that will generate loads of appeals from wrongful convictions
The opposite end of this is people justifying costs in terms like ‘50p per household per day!’ Who measures costs like that? Totally meaningless. I assume you only do this when you think the actual cost is too high and you need to break it down to its smallest possible unit.
What a waste of a perfectly good house.
Wow. Is this… in the present day?
Yeah I think we’re agreeing
I think we’re all agreeing that nobody gets near the £4k limit. I think where we differ in whether the government should restrict it or not.
No, and it didn’t get me to £4k. Maybe half that. But you keep citing the limit rather than what the bulk of people spend. Children’s safety kit is specifically included by design: the gov wants me dropping my kids at school by bike on the way to work to reduce car journeys. This helps that happen
My point was in defence of the scheme!
It includes the cost of gear too, including, in my case, child seats etc. So it’s quite easy to get to a seemingly large number without being unreasonable
That chicken nuggets case is such a bollocks example anyway. The case was overturned in a higher court saying that the first tier tribunal erred in law. So our existing frameworks can and did deal with that issue
Hi. Real life example of one of those here, and yes.
