mindlesscrollyparrot

You don't have to make it harder to drive. It's a question of separating the cars from the bikes. Designate some streets for bikes and some for cars. That is better for both.

Where they cross, some junctions should prioritise cars and some bikes.

Also separate the pedestrians from the bikes on the same basis.

Having checked, it seems that the Fairtrade standards now allow producers that are not cooperatives.

OK, I missed that one, but it is also slightly strange, right? Since neither Lipton nor Twinings use the Fairtrade mark, why do they have it? Who else do they supply?

Still, I have to accept that Fairtrade International didn't reply "no, that isn't one of ours" when asked for comment.

The article repeatedly lumps Rainforest Alliance and Fair Trade together, but they are not the same at all, and I didn't see any examples of inspection failures for Fair Trade.

To be certified for Fair Trade, the producers must be a cooperative. That is relatively easy to check and it means that there is no-one to impose harsh conditions on the workers.

I think we have to thank people like this for demonstrating that losing your collection isn't just a theoretical risk.

OP is saying that she "stole" from the bank, and it seems that there is no evidence to say that she even fiddled her expenses.

Your comment implies that the BBC didn't bother to look for said evidence, but I'm not convinced. How do they even know that there was an investigation? It wouldn't be public information. Somebody inside the bank must have told them. Wouldn't that person also have told them what the outcome was?

For that matter, if the bank concluded that she'd been fiddling her expenses, wouldn't it have dismissed her?

They specifically say that they do not know whether the bank concluded that the expenses were improper.

Well thank goodness that Microsoft isn't pushing AI on us as hard as it can, via every channel that it can.

The implication of saying that you need the extra scrutiny is that either the Commons doesn't reflect the will of the people; or that the will of the people is not what ultimately makes law. If the people elect idiots and get bad legislation, that is democracy for you.

Of course, FPTP more-or-less guarantees that the government has a majority in Parliament without having a majority of the vote.

Defenders of FPTP often say that one advantage is that it means that the government has a clear majority. If that were such a good thing, why would we need a second chamber to balance it?

The Lords cannot ultimately block legislation. First Past the Post is a much bigger problem.

I cannot see how they could comply with both that and the GDPR, so the UK is asking Apple to choose between operating in the UK and operating in the 27 countries of the EU. Tough call.

He probably did it to troll people and spark outrage but that does not mean that he isn't also a Nazi / fascist.