It is very possible, however housing near the better state schools is typically very expensive, so for many families it is considerably cheaper to shell out for private school instead.

Additionally, the high achieving state schools have selective entry, so even if you buy the expensive house within the catchment area, your child isn’t necessarily getting in even if they’re bright and studious.

Then both of you are old enough to remember those creepy Monchhichi dolls which were everywhere, that these new dolls look like descendants of.

Idk, politicians seem dirt cheap!

One wonders what, exactly, these fetid ghouls deployed to get their rancid snot-encrusted whinging acted upon.

AWS can fuck right off.

If the UK decides to put any funding toward AI, it must be publicly owned & run, with Amazon’s grubby, grasping paws barred from any access to it or to any part of our grid.

The method by which the Crown assents to petitions is via signing bills which the elected government of the day and the House of Lords have voted to bring into law.

In theory, the Crown could refuse to do so, or attempt to bypass Parliament by issuing a royal decree. In practice they’d find such efforts ignored at best, more likely their constitutional role far further curtailed (thence leading to a rapid diminution of their ceremonial duties and privileges, if not outright abolition).

The situations under which the Crown could flex their power and have a reasonable chance of survival are extreme. Even here, they’d de facto be acting in tandem with the populace to defend against a coup and preserve (or restore) Parliament as the source of law within a representative democracy. Whether or not they’d do so in a very clear cut scenario is moot; in the dense fug of populism as a cover to usher in authoritarianism, absolutely not, let alone the drear realities of a clumsily formed electoral system chafing and fraying in a complex world. Against that, neglecting to intervene in defence of the realm from clear attack could also prove fatal to the Crown, albeit far less hazardous to the monarch themselves & their family, having greater opportunity to go into exile beforehand.

Either way, they’d have to be confident that a large majority of the Armed Services, Police and other key institutions, all members of which swear an oath of loyalty to the Crown, were up for obeying orders issued by the Crown against a hostile takeover of democratic institutions.

Whether as a temporary measure to defend the nation in an emergency, or any other cause including those which are malign, a monarch acting as a supreme leader would likely have to use a good deal of their personal wealth to fund their activities. In this they can quite easily outspend many actors.

Broadly, it may be more effective for the Crown or the monarch in their own right to discreetly support an array of resistance groups, than wield regnal power with overt grandeur in the face of grubby onslaught. Meantime… we all best be glad that is vanishingly unlikely that the current monarch or his heir would decide to avail of a severe crisis as an opportunity to seize absolute power.

From voice messages between them in the days after the felling, having something they did become a news item may have had some allure.

Though why they’d want that so badly, and why they’d opt for destroying an ancient sycamore & damaging part of Hadrian’s wall to obtain such attention is another matter.

Land wasn’t theirs, they didn’t live near it nor on land which people cross to visit the tree. They didn’t take the wood. Nothing has emerged to suggest they did it on behalf of someone else.

The pair went out on a stormy winter night, making a special trip to fell the tree, and leaving shortly after. Despite the darkness & lashing rain, one made a very grainy video recording of the other felling the tree with a chainsaw.

So far, they are pleading not guilty, so it’ll be interesting to see whether they raise a defence or merely introduce doubts about the reliability of the evidence brought against them.

Idk, I feel it could have been an induction ritual for some group they hope(d) to join, or flagging up their willingness to conduct sabotage operations for hire, but more likely an unfortunate dissociation from reality caused by viewing the world and their own lives through the distorting lens of social media.

Attending the hearing yesterday, one had his face & hair entirely concealed as he passed press photographers waiting outside, which doesn’t fit with a craving for fame. The only footage presented by the news of the other man was taken at a court appearance for an unrelated matter a few weeks ago - it isn’t clear whether he somehow escaped their attention yesterday, or simply hadn’t attended.

How is it “lecturing” to decide that a publicly-funded state company will not use products built by enslaved people?

It is straight bizarre to suggest the current Labour government (who’d like to abolish the monarchy fwiw) should embrace the evils of slavery because British capitalists often embrace the evils of slavery.

Love this, and think it may well do more to raise awareness than more conventional campaigns.

Also giggling at the idea of a real curlew seeing this and believing they are witnessing a god.

Majority view amongst TERFs, and yes, a foot in the door.

Additionally, though the ruling places no onus on toilet* users, it does place obligations on toilet providers, and in any case will be used to harass and bully people who just need to pee in peace. Most of those who’ll be persecuted by TERFs & friends will be cis, many will be intersex, a tiny handful may be trans.

In this sense your landlord is spot on, but he himself may find his business targeted for civil action under this new ruling on the interpretation of Equalities Act, should a TERF learn of his approach.

Worse, toilet providers are now prohibited from abandoning gendered toilets in favour of unisex toilets - if they have a unisex toilet, they must also provide a ladies’ toilet.

Am wondering how best to help our trans & intersex & gender non-conforming siblings, besides writing to representatives, and protests. Could we agree to use our much greater numbers to swiftly demonstrate through our own toilet selection that the law is an ass which must be amended (and reversed to the previous status quo pending that amendment).

*using “toilet” throughout my reply as a placeholder for many single-sex spaces and not only toilets.

Tbh, the critical stuff has mostly been sold off to Chinese, Saudi Arabian & Indian companies. No doubt US firms own more than is desirable, but I think the interdependence of defence technologies & intelligence is the bigger issue with regard to the US.

The French State meantime owns quite a bit, but are allies with similar geopolitical needs, and for all that the relationship is often that of squabbling siblings, won’t wish matters to sour with such a near neighbour.