Datacentres are indeed shooting up all over the place at an astonishing rate. I know, I’m involved in them. However I don’t think they need such protection from the government - the companies building them already have enough money (and the datacentres themselves make a ton of money) that they don’t really need handouts.

Delaware is where a lot of the Ukraine PrivatBank money laundering ended up being spent.

I, for one, wish the Greens would turn to violence over more of their issues.

Ahh I think you mean like the old idea of smoking break rooms

Yes pretty much. This was discussed and rejected in the UK when the smoking bans came in, however other places in Europe implemented indoor smoking just fine. As vaping is a lesser harm than smoking, and in particular vapors don’t linger like smoke does, it should be easier to implement. But UK politicians wants to maintain a hardline ban in spite of any rational reasoning.

I dont think your analogy of driving a car fits

It was just the first thing that came to mind, which is why I threw in cycling as well. Cycling is often done for recreation rather than utility, but does still carry risk to others nearby. Cars also pollute, though, which is a similar harm to smoking, yet people are against outright banning combustion vehicles. It generally boils down to “I do it, and I shouldn’t be banned, but I don’t do that other thing so that should be banned.”

For the record I don’t even smoke, in fact tobacco smoke makes me feel sick. But I don’t think people should be outright prohibited, not when a reasonable compromise can be reached.

I’m all for more study into the long term effects, and don’t think that vaping is completely harmless or that it necessarily has positive effects. However nothing is truly harmless, and many people are considered well within their rights to do things that have the potential to cause harm to themselves - or even others. Driving, for example, carries a significant risk, and even cycling could create a situation where you crash into another person and injur them.

I just think that allowing vaping rooms indoors would be a better solution for everyone. People who vape get to keep warm, while people who want to breathe unrestricted air could find themselves better off because the vapers are indoors and out their way.

Unfortunately that’s all anyone could really hope for from Starmer’s Labour.

They are making the NHS worse, though. “Expansion of private contracts” is just privatisation with extra steps.

Car pollution fucks you up, too, probably more so. And before you say “people need cars to get places”, nicotine (and caffeine) fuelled the industrial revolution - nicotine makes your brain work faster, which can make people more productive.

Yes in your own house, but not in your garden or with your windows open, because that’s too close to me!

You sound ridiculous.

Vaccination in the past has been obligatory, eg for polio.

Vapes are already banned indoors in most places, basically everywhere smoking is banned. The issue with vapes is a lack of enforcement.

Frankly, I think vapes should be allowed in certain areas indoors, provided they are segregated from others. Vapes are drastically less unhealthy than smoking, to the point where being outside in the cold is probably a greater health risk.

While you’re generally right about triage, it’s absolutely believable that she could have been prioritised by Palestinian staff over patients with a similar level of urgency, in spite of them waiting longer. However she definitely shouldn’t go around saying that - it reflects badly on the staff.

Apparently it’s more than just wording, it requires the employer to give a valid reason for refusing.

FYI archive.md and all those others are not affiliated with archive.org, run by Internet Archive.

Yeah but those archive sites are a bit dodgy, they poison DNS requests and it cannot be resolved with many privacy-focused DNS providers.

archive.md, archive.ph, archive.today should not be confused with archive.org, aka The Way Back Machine, run by Internet Archive. The former are basically impersonating them (although they do at least get around paywalls better).

but Rwanda can only take about 150 people a year

Don’t forget the vulnerable refugees that the UK will be taking from Rwanda, per Article 19 of the agreement.

It’s more than that in the UK, unfortunately. Suella Braverman’s father ran British concentration camps in Kenya, she’s trying to restart the family business (funded entirely by the taxpayer), the reason they haven’t been processing people is simply so they have enough occupants for their new camps.

Most civil servants are good (for government workers) but the Home Office has been stacked with people by all the vile Home Secretaries the Tories have had over the last 14 years. Sacking them is prudent.

Currently Network Rail owns and operates (nearly) all the railways, signals and ticket offices. Not sure about stations. Train companies rent rail stock, but they pay a high price for this and subsequently pass that onto the consumer, while maintaining that it’s necessary to charge expensive fares because their costs are so high.

The government owns Network Rail. The government will take over the rail companies, and this will probably end up staggered as different companies have different contract dates. The rail stock itself will probably remain under the same ownership with more or less the same ridiculous rental charges.

So all in all this probably won’t make that much difference.

Exactly. The rolling stock is where all the money goes, meanwhile the public-facing train companies you buy tickets from (who rent rolling stock) operate at or near a loss. This way the train companies can negotiate better contracts with local governments - “Look, we’re barely making any money, we have to charge ludicrously high fares for piss poor service!”

“Promises”.