Probably so people don’t take the piss with the legal fees if they’re confident of winning. See the Colette Rooney vs Rebecca Vardey case for example.

Half the sentence of people who planned an environmental protest

If it makes you feel any better she doesn’t get that pension https://fullfact.org/online/liz-truss-annual-allowance/

I work for a university and there is no surprise. This has been building for a while.

The issue, not just for universities but the UK as a whole, is that foreign students subsidise UK research. When the government funds research projects it only funds 80% of the cost of the project (Look at UKRI funding terms). Higher foreign student fees are 3-4x UK nationals fees.

From another perspective we’re essentially selling off our intellectual property to non-nationals which really puts a dampener on our future competitiveness.

If the government is unwilling to pony up the cash to cover research, whilst actively discourage foreign students, then the quality and quantity of research is going to fall off a cliff.

Does retirement mean anything? Can they come back and stand in the election after this one?

We have “Visit Rwanda” advertised at premier league matches so guessing it’s pretty safe. Not saying the plan isn’t abhorrent or anything

It retcons the nuking of shady sands by 14-15 years, so undermines the entire fallout universe they are faithful to. What a boring hill to die on

Got anything for DIY, plumbing/carpentry etc… please?

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/dec/20/cruises.green

Not at all. This article is 17 years old and planes have only gotten more efficient whilst the same old cruise ships continue to so the seas.

Plus a more recent article

https://www.treehugger.com/what-is-greener-boat-vs-plane-emissions-5185547

The presenter focuses on argument 1 because he says the other points are “obviously correct” and therefore moral. Imo that’s flawed.

2. Hunger disease etc are part of a natural cycle which controls population and ecosystem balance.

3. Luxuries are of no significance is not obviously true. Our economic system means that purchasing items of “no moral significance” feeds into a system which supports livelihoods and, in a functional government, provides welfare and health care to populations.

4. There are multiple areas where money could be focused instead of Oxfam etc which could be seen as moral- R&D, luxuries as per 3

(It might just be that I don’t like philosophy)