A field. The thing to remember. Llangollen is unlike most canals in the UK. It is used to move water so actually has a current. Meaning way more water would be in that field then just that stored between 2 locks.

Note: This is in no way me supporting the gov. Just considering the thought process.

While the gov seems not to care about public opinion.

It seems likely drawing that conclusion and banning a well known person. May be such a bad move even Starmer was hesitant. His option likely were.

Allow her in. Knowing she will protest. At least he can jail her.

Reject her where she will still protest and have huge access to the media while explaining the UKs argument.

Same place he puts promises to pay his contactors.

And anyone dumb enough to continue to follow someone with such a history of broken promises.

Up his arse

Atkinson hyperledgable. Made by the RNIB.

I’m visually impaired and it really helps.

It is also a good font in general for easy reading.

There is also a next version. Little more modern looking and a mono version.

Unlikely. Why folks choose them is pretty easy. 2 mins charge time. And no battery damage from fast charging. Unless 2065 has super capacitor like charging and fials totally to teach the history of science.

The question will be more. Why the hell did voters allow there govs not to invest the same in an electric support infrastructure. As they did in fossile fuels back in the 1950s

This outright ignores multiple facts.

1 we have known how bad this shit is since the 1970s. When Exxon was the company that released the research. Yes Exxon discovered climate change.

The company then changed leadership and spent a fortune trying to bury their own research.

The simple fact is. Without government bans. Corperations have 0 motive to change their previous investment strategies. And huge motive to fight any competition that dose.

People have known electrical power is more efficient and cheaper since the 1900s. But as oil corps have been investing in infrastructure and government control since then. They have sold convenience as an intrinsic element of fossil fuel. Dispite the huge huge investment tax payers have been forced to spend to create this network.

Very likely we discovered how to start fire accidentally.

It’s relevant because in a population of nearly 70 million. 39 thousand people, are in no way shape or form responsible for all the crap these flag waving ultranationalist are claiming.

There is a reason we call them fascists. It is because every argument they make matches the crap spread by every fascist leader in history. Turning to nationalism and groups of other to divide and distract opposition from the real cause of issues. Is exactly what wealth has done to oppress working class votes. Since the forming of democracy.

Hence why the military. That sort of thing is very within the CRE capability set.

The military has 150k full-time personal. But numbers is not the reason to use military. Skills set is. The UK military is built from professionals with skills to help resolve and organise groups exactly in emergencies like this.

As for standing obligations. Most of that is training and preparing for war or emergencies just like this.

Wrong. Paying debts allows banks to lend money to companies they would never consider worth the risk. If they did not think the gov was to scared to help.

No truly private company making the choices Thames Water etc al have done. Would have been lent the money they were.

Debt was given by private banks where other companies artificially upping share price while failing to maintain assets. Would be told to fuck off. The banks depended on gov refusing to let the shareholders suffer. And profited from it.

As such those debts value should be the same as any other bankrupt corperation. The assets were never theirs but placed in trust with them as management contractors. That did not manage. And turned to the gov for funding for any expansion. So they had no assets to secure the debt. We should not be supporting stupid banks again.

Fair outcome.

Allow them to go bankrupt with absolutely no help from gov.

Use Millarory stand pipes like in 76 to distribute water to everyone while they vanish as a company.

Then build a new nationalised water system rapidly repairing all assets. Using military to manage and offering well paid work to any unemployed (many of who will be ex water employees) willing and able to take on the job.

Then have government site and stare manically at electrical and gas companies. Asking. " So how do you guys plan to get prices below the world average?"

Sorry but rubbish.

Civil service cuts had nothing to do with paying doctors. The 2 events were years apart in announment.

And austerity was very much a government choice. One you are welcome to agree with. But it being the only option was an out right lie. And it funded huge cuts in corperation taxes etc. Not the NHS.

As for above inflation. Only if you totally ignore 14 years of no or below inflation pay rises. Is it in anyway possible to say the last one was above the recent yearly inflation.

Cheers my spelling is crap

Honestly. The gov should force any case to be in UK courts.

Trump and his lawyers have no hope of using judges who owe him their position.

Add to that the UK is (correctly) famouse for having extream liable protections, so most would see it as advantages. It is also very much a fact that truth is a defence, so the fact that multiple US courts etc have supported the claims.

Adding. There is no way trump can stand up in a UK court and fail to commit perjury. He is just incapable. And will piss judges off no end.

Yes we can. By opening up safe route into the UK for asylum seekers. Rather then shutting them down and removing huge amounts of funding from HMRC to process such claims in a efficient manor.

Or did you some how think the boats increase during torys 14years. And over stressing in the right wing media was not related to Tory austerity measures.

I assume you ignore the actual numbers of illegal immigration. Vs legal. It’s under 5%. Of all immigration.

One or multiple examples where it did not happen. Is in no way an argument against 1000s of years of history, where it has. And a rather stupid argument.

It is illegal to consider the way an asylum seeker enters a nation. As a limitation on there right to claim asylum. That is also part of the Geneva convention.

It is there to stop the right wing actions of multiple Tory govs who intentionally limited access to the UK. In an attempt to end claims. Why did the convention do this after WW2. Because nations supporting Germany attempted the same crap when people ran from nations attacked by the fascists there.

The right wing gov trying to stop the boats is the illegal action. Not the boats.

The law should be changed because you have fallen for right wing bull crap.

The law was created in the 1950s with the UK as a major proponent of that law. Yet we have had 0 wars on UK soil since then.

Where as nations bordering wars have had multiple wars expand into their territory as refugees run to escape. Seriously, you seem totally unable to base any of your arguments on facts or logic. But just emotional rubbish pushed by right wing lies and folks fighting for fascism.

You are inventing divisions where non existent.

For starters there is absolutely no law or history where war refugees are required to settle in the first safe nation. Much the opposite the Geneva convention makes it illegal to use access or distance to limit the movement of refugees. This is specifically their as forcing nations nearest a war zone to accept refugees would increase the odds of the war spreading into their borders.

As for the difference between EU and refugees. Given the whole Brexit history that is an utterly dumb complaint. It has absolutely no marit in this debate as the flag was specifically used to argue against all type of immigration in recent times.

This is a good question.

It changed because the statement people hung the flag for decades is entirely recent history. Anyone over 50 knows it is not the case,

It is true of the union jack. Although since Victorian times not hugely so and often seen as tacky. But the St Georges flag dropped from use before the 1980s.

The reason is pretty clear. From about the mid 1800 most major English political parties have been unionist. It is a part of the Tory party name. But all 3 major parties and most smaller parties in England have been unionist.

We have no major England separation party. Whereas the other 3 nations all have such parties. Calls for England as an independent nation. Have never had a majority or even significant following.

As such the flag of England dropped out of use in the mid 1800s. As the main parties were successfully pushing the Union Jack as the main flag for England. In an attempt to diminish the separation parties of other nations. And no vocal group in the nation of England was opposing the lose.

As such when the National Front. Then BNP etc etc started to use the St Georges flag as a call to remove all non white from the UK. Opposition was very much directed at the ideals. Not the use of a flag few felt a link to.

Even now. Few have any real link to England as a separate nation. Just no real opposition to the flag any more then a link to it. It is seen by the vaste majority. More as the harm created by multiple negative party affiliations. Then as some national symbol of the English.

You realise this in no way argues against the bias argument right.