If the campaigners are right and what he’s done is illegal then opinions don’t really matter, he shouldn’t be allowed to conitnue pushing this course of action.

That was my thought, but it could also have been aimed at the people fighting against the depedestrianisation.

I’m intrigued, which part of the story are you saying that about?

Once upon a time the use of the exercise was to… question the PM. Nowadays it’s little more than a tool for political point scoring.

I’m with you, I want to watch but I also want the PM to actually answer a bloody question every now and then. I feel there needs to be some kind of requirement for the PM’s response to actually answer the question given.

I would even much rather they just say “I don’t have than information to hand” or “I can’t answer that question right now but will provide a response within X timeframe” rather than waffle and spin their way to their preferred talking point that they think will appeal to the voters.

I’m all for political figures being given the right to change their minds, it’s just a shame that in this case they’ve gone from the right decision to the wrong one.

Also, obligatory eye-roll at using the Mirror as a source.

I can’t find any more info on the Saudi law, but I believe the EU law at least has provisions for moving to a new standard in the future if a better alternative comes along. So when USB-D arrives, if it is seen to be a better standard, the EU can mandate that it becomes the new charging standard.

An intriguing idea, but they seem a little vague about where they’re actually getting their traffic data from, just a “third party”. For crowd-sourced traffic data to be at all useful it needs to be coming from software that a lot of drivers happen to have on their phones, so I wouldn’t be surprised if Google or Apple aren’t to be found somewhere in the pipeline.