Better than spending it giving tax breaks to the rich or subsidising companies that are destroying the planet.

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.

¯\_(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.

Meanwhile:

GCU The Gravitas Meme is so Last Year: I’m gonna sort out that extension event, then we should probably send a couple of Special Circumstances operatives to guide them in the right direction. In the past picosecond I’ve absorbed and analysed their global information net so know exactly what actions we need to take to give them the correct nudge.

Not this shit again

But you wouldn’t text another iPhone. You’d WhatsApp the person.

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 "

Fair. It’s hard to know sometimes if someone has English as a first or second language. People can be really technically good, but then not understand more subtle cultural things.

Never know maybe both of our comments will help some people.

It’s common in English to refer to a collective like a company or government as though it were an individual. I think it’s just a simple short hand really.

Eg “The whitehouse said today…” We know that the whitehouse (a building) doesn’t have the power of speech and that really means “a whitehouse spokesperson working in an official capacity on behalf of the government said today”.

Really the headline should be something along the lines of “what, exactly, are Xbox business strategists thinking?” But because of the common knowledge of how this shorthand works they can just use the headline they did.

There’s probably a fancy linguistic name for it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Might be worth letting the uni know. Surely they’ll want to fix the site!

X Window System (X11, or simply X) is a windowing system for bitmap displays, common on Unix-like operating systems.

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.

Water is wet, says thinktank.

Cunt off you fuck.

Yeah which is why the NHS was better under labour, because it was constantly more than 4% above inflation.

A big part of the killer though is the second part. Yeah the overall budget was (barely) above inflation, but the wage cap was often below inflation. During the time Labour were in power the amount of nurses went up by around 80,000. Since the Tories took power over 200,000 have quit. We can only imagine how many fewer would have left if it weren’t for the 1% pay cap and Brexit.

The public discourse around the NHS would lead you to think that NHS spending had been squeezed over the last 14 years - but it hasn’t.

NHS budget has actually consistently grown faster than inflation under a decade and a half of Tory health secretaries.

It has been squeezed though.

Under labour the NHS consistently received funding around 4% above inflation, under the Tories it was barely clearing 1% most years Fig 1

There’s also the other side of it, the NHS was not exempt from the 1% pay cap.

Should always go up above inflation to retain and attract staff as well as morally to improve people’s standards of living (and economically to grow tax receipts and grow the economy)

The two things together it becomes clear how the crisis started. Now add to that Brexit and a large reduction of the labour pool, other countries attracting staff with generous packages.