Def possible. But given starmers use of anti terrorism laws to silence opposition. Support for and aiding in genacide. And siding towards reform on. Well pretty much everything.
I'd not be so confidence of one more democratic election.
I can Def imagine a near future where the US shuts down elections over questionable world emergency.
And the current government declaring a WW2 like ending of elections alongside them.
Tech Secrettary Peter Kyle has fuck all idea how modern AI works and how limited it actually is.
IE it is in no way capable of comprehension. Only pattern advanced matching. Comprehension will always be needed to be as capable as a human.
Hence why taco bells attempt need to be programmed/trained how to reject order of 18000 cups of water. And just crashes. While a human would automatically know such was not considered normal or acceptable.
Not entirely true. Yes flags have always been used when tribes etc go to war.
But historically those same tribes often considered the result of winning a war. To include absorbing the population of the other. Tribe. Or the outsiders.
Many different attitudes towards those outside members have existed with different nations and tribes over time.
Vikings for example were nothing like the image we see in movies etc. those images were created by a single British priest as open properganda,
He is documented as having declared them as stealing UK woman by being over clean and inclusive of their wants and desires. (Paraphrased)
Rome was I little more questionable, but very much encouraged outsiders to join their culture. Not just as slaves. That generally only applied to opposition fighters. And those who refused to see Rome as the authority. But their Class system very much placed Rome born above others. But much like modern western nations. Immigration into Rome for employment as free citizens was very encouraged for those with any usable skills.
Added to UK law on self defence is very anti predictive risk as a motive. You would be required to show the reformer had a gun or some other intent to harm you. More accurately that you had reasonable cause to feel threatened.
Now if reformers actually started doing so. iE you had evidence that GB news presenters had been successful in inciting such attacks.
You would still need to show evidence you though the reformer was going to attack.
So no shooting random reformers presenting no evidence of holding a weapon or aggression. But you would have a much easier time convincing a jury etc that you thought his fishing rods were a riffle.
I hope this advice helps with any decisions you may be forced to make.
To be honest a call to kill disabled claiment is less an ofcom broadcast issue. Then a police incitement of violence/riot issue.
I mean it is clearly both and ofcoms answer is very much as expected given the current govs attitude to the right wing. And as someone who holds an ofcom licence (ham).I am fucking disgusted with them and will complain officially.
But the police duty to arrest the presenters for calling for viewers to hunt down and kill disabled people. Drastically outweighs the broadcast licence issue.
Anyone who saw the show should be calling the Met Police and reporting a crime.
In 1997, the borders of Ukraine were the internationally recognized borders it inherited upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, which included its territory from the Black Sea to its borders with Belarus, Russia, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Moldova. This was confirmed by the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, known as the "Big Treaty," which legally bound Russia to respect Ukraine's existing borders.
So Russia agreed to respect the 1991 borders. Then broke that agreement.
Besides the point. Ukraine only indicated a desire to Join NATO indicating a desire. Even in its constitution is not breaking the agreement. But a act of democratic will.
You are basically arguing.
"Oh it looks to me that Ukraine's population wants to break a treaty we have already proven we will not abide by. We had a right to attack in the past. "
You are talking out your arse and have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about.
So after Russia invaded breaking it's treaty commitment to respect the borders and sovereignty of Ukraine. Ukraine no longer followed it's commitments under the broken treaty.
Yes that is the way things work.
Now maybe Russia should hand back the fucking nuke it got in return for agreeing to respect that soverinty.
Your argument are no more then trollinsh bollocks with zero merit.
Ukraine never joined NATO. Inventing bullshit arguments about friendships with nations you dislike. In no fucking way counts as a treaty violation. Invading another fucking nation dose.
Not only do the vaste majority know what they did. They know Starmer as a lawyer successfully defended very similar actions under the Blair administration. As not criminal due to intent to save lives.
The level of hypocrisy within the current government is beyond belief. Starmer is clearly the puppet of someone. What or who is the only thing up for debate.
Because in the early 2000s Open office was given a fuck load of publicity by sun and then oracle. As such it is still the first name many less OS informed think of when they think of an open source office suite.
Libreoffice has simply never had that sa,e level of publicity.
It is still to this day a fucking fight to convince many who look for an alternative to Microsoft. That Libreoffice is the true OpenOffice replacement.
So why the fuck did Russia need to be the one to start it.
If they thrive on war. Surely they would have been invading russian territory. Rather then sitting and Following the treaties with Russia. That Russia chose to break and invade Ukraine.
Simple Google search on why Camila is not consort will confirm it.
Consort has not historically been used for the exact reason I indicated. In Pre Stuart time. More Pre Henry 8th. As he was more deeply religious then most kings before him. Hence the divorces and CofE. It was common as a tittle for the kings Favourite Courtly female.
Except Charles ruled an end to the term Consort as out dated when he was Corrinated.
Paraphrased seriously
The word Consort has negative historical conections within the family. IE as a sex partner rather then a real spose. As Queen Regent Vs Queen already separated a sovereign from a kings wife. While Prince is used for a Queen Regents Husband. He ruled the Royal family. Using consort was not appropriate in this century.
My personal Guess Camila disliked the term. And honestly I would not blame her.
As an old fart. Bike Lighting in the 80s. Not seeing well may be understandable, but most were more then able to avoid what at the time were rarer parked cars. Excessive shopping carts dumped along cycle tracks etc etc.
Given how insanely good available bike lights are now. Not to mention cheap to buy and power. Compared to the tungston bulbs and D-cell batts of then. There really is no excuse. For poor lighting.
We never really had reflective clothing then. But police would pull you over for no lights. Travelling any distance at night without lights was really not an option. At least in a urban area.
That is in part why cyclist legally needs lights in the dark. If you cannot see what's in front of you. Slow down. It may be a pedestrian and or a disabled person.
This is defiantly inconvenient. And a big oops.
But the idea it is dangerouse due to dark. Is a compleate failure by some cyclists to recognise their own responsibility.
Or ATM any recent PM.