For football teams? Sure, maybe.

But that’s not the main point in the case, is it? To me this decision seems like it says you could decide not to hire someone because they don’t drink (since that’s basically what was being argued). Couldn’t that then be used to legally discriminate against, say, Muslims? Or people more committed to family than work?

Oh damn, I was going to get a heart attack if you hadn’t posted, so perfectly timed from my perspective. Thanks for the reminder!

As others have mentioned, I don’t think Labour will do well in the next election based on what they’ve been doing so far. So voting for “third” parties is inevitable. It’s just a question of whether we can get a majority of progressives, or we just end up spread out and Reform sweeps the win.

I think maybe the ideal solution would be if the progressive parties formed some sort of coalition ahead of time, centred around electoral reform. Discuss who contests which seats, etc, and how they’d vote as a coalition.

Well the most ideal would be if they did that with the express purpose of getting electoral reform done and then calling a general election right after. That way even conservatives and right wingers might vote for them.

It really is past the time when Britain finally went through some actual changes.

Starmer, but also Labour as a government as a whole, has really felt like they are trying to do a Tory Best Of / Greatest Hits of the Last Decade tribute.

The Tories have been doing austerity and tending further and further to the right for a while, which seems to have fairly obviously contributed to them losing the election. No idea how anyone looked at that and thought “good idea”.

Yeah… Would be smart. So Labour, who are trying to be the Tories but from 5-10 years ago, will not do it. Gotta court those undecided centre-right and right-wing voters: the people who still believe in Brexit, even though polls show that’s definitely not a majority.

Sigh.

I’m not entirely sure what scene I would’ve said had me similar when I could still more surely remember those first years. Possibly a game I’ve forgotten since. Maybe one of the Bionicle Mata Nui Games or some other big online game. Or Imperium Galactica 2.

But a moment that will always stick with me is from the first Homeworld game: when you return from your first hyperspace voyage. That entire game was epic, including the intro sequence, but it’s that sequence that I think can stand forever as a masterpiece.

I’ve also said this before and I’ll say it again: names of suspects and even convicted criminals should not be shared unless necessary*. That just makes no sense for rehabilitation as it opens people up for judgement in a court of opinion. Justice is the job of the justice systems and should not generally involve the wider public.

Could there be issues with the judgement or other events where the only way to achieve justice is via the press? Sure, probably, but I don’t think the default should be that if I google the name of someone I can find if they or someone with a similar name (and god forbid, appearance) were involved in a crime.

*: unless necessary here can cover cases like trying to find an individual on the run, or when their previous crime is meant to exclude them from specific lines of work, although even that should be on a need-to-know basis imo, not public info.