JonnyF

So did they allow shorts on the day when it was over 30 degrees? Or did the boys have to wear a skirt in order to cool down? Even in low 20's, it can get pretty hot inside, especially when kids aren't used to the heat. Why ban shorts if the boys are feeling the heat in non air con classrooms? They wouldn't wear them if it wasn't hot. Doesn't seem very kind (or logical) to me.

Yes there is currently a heat wave in the UK, do try to keep up dear. As for the Woke idiocy, it's quite common for people who are part of the problem to be blissfully unaware of it. Case in point. Why would you mock genuine concerns about children that are forced to wear trousers all day while sat in a classroom with no air conditioning and temperatures exceeding 30 degrees? I thought all you leftists were all about 'being kind'? Surely that's not some kind of ruse?

I had some hash chocolate brownies recently. Not sure what % THC was in there but I was absolutely stoned out of mind within an hour and had the best night's sleep I'd had in ages. I suspect not everyone is following this 0.2% rule. I'll be buying some more of those brownies, plus some weed and a pipe for smoking next week.

Seems like a stupid rule. Irrespective of the Woke idiocy plaguing many areas of life, why not allow boys/girls to wear shorts? Why should a heterosexual boy be forced to wear a skirt in order to stay cool in a heat wave?

Life without parole would have been more suitable for this piece of human trash. Let's hope he never sees life outside those prison gates again.

Should have worn his mask. We all know they are 100% effective.

Who is this “opposition” you speak of? Surely not Labour, led by Sir Keir, the woke, fake “working class hero” who doesn’t know what a woman is and is completely devoid of personality? ???? There is no opposition sadly.

It wouldn't stop the attacks. Irresponsible owners would simply buy different (but equally dangerous in the wrong hands) breeds and you'd see an increase in attacks by those breeds instead.

Yes big/strong dogs can inflict more damage. So what do you propose? A max weight limit? Height limit? Strength tests?

Yeah, it's all the fault of right wing extremists. ???? They're the ones to blame, not the rapists. The fact is, the police were slow to react due to the demographic of the Paedophiles. They feared being labeled as racists, Islamophobes etc. if they took any action. And they were probably right, as the Lefty apologists would have jumped all over it.

"Such animals"? Breed specific legislation? Don't be silly. It's nothing to do with the breed. Owners need to be educated on how to raise a dog. In isolated incidents like these the dog in question should be euthanized and the owner held accountable.

Producing a foreign passport should be an exemption from these stupid 2-5pm rules. Also an exemption for the ban on alcohol on election days/religious days when foreigners can't even vote and are generally not Buddhist (and if they are, they should still be allowed to choose). They have no problem discriminating against us with dual pricing etc. Why not flip the script on this one? Preventing a Catholic from having a glass of red wine with his meal because it's Makhu Bucha day sounds like Religious Bigotry to me.

Freudian slip. It's absolutely a social measure. It reminds everyone who is in charge and suppresses individuality, leaning more towards a collective notion of 'the greater good'. It also promotes the paternalistic style of governance that this mob in charge love so much, whilst providing the wearer the feeling of being a good, compliant little citizen a bit like a certain colour of shirt did a few years back. Anutin frequently doesn't wear one, which also serves to remind that he is above the law and doesn't have to wear his slave mask if he doesn't want to.

Back in the day we had a name for people who got sick from minimal amounts of weed. Lightweight.

Indeed. They are very selective about which rules they enforce and which ones are more, 'flexible'. Supporting Ukraine against the Russians? Flexible. Punishing Britain for leaving the club? Enforced with steely determination. Morality. EU style.

The EU. Unable to stop member states paying for Putin's gas in roubles, meanwhile pouring all it's resources into stopping Cumberland sausage ending up in Donegal. Their morality and ineptness laid bare for all to see. ???? Thank god we've left that corrupt mob.

For gods sake, could the mods post a sticky or whatever it is to clarify that the 0.2% applies only to extract. Buds are not extract. Ergo, the 0.2% does not apply to bud. https://lagunatreatment.com/drug-abuse/marijuana/buds-versus-extract/

Maybe you can dig up another Guardian article where an "Unnamed Source" confirms that "They" are terrified of the mighty EU and the "Rumoured" consequences. That would be case closed ????. Don't link it though. The pop ups begging for donations to keep paying the hacks blind me.

Which only proves that their obsession with their precious single market supersedes their concerns with the war in Ukraine in which thousands of innocent women and children are being killed. Not to mention their fake concerns about peace on the island of Ireland. Classic EU. Very telling that you find it so amusing as well. The true nature of hard leftist Europhiles is often easily exposed.

It's a Guardian article ????. Who said it? Who are "They"? You just accept this at face value ? ????

We will have to see if it is deemed that international law has been broken. I do not believe that it will be. What is the EU going to do? They have enough problems trying to agree on Russia. https://www.ft.com/content/854d129e-7eac-44a6-b097-449ffca9b586 Unity? What unity?

Who in the government said that? The article doesn't say as far as I can see. The Northern Ireland Secretary doesn't agree. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-61774429

Article 16 of the protocol is a safeguard clause within the Northern Ireland Protocol that allows either party to take unilateral "strictly necessary" measures if applying the protocol "leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade".

It allows us to take unilateral measures pertaining to the protocol. Hence, there should be no need to abrogate it, we can simply change parts of it within international law.

I am not pointing fingers at anyone. We are independent now, and we can hold our government to account if they do not enact article 16 as the protocol allows i.e. we can take take unilateral measures without breaking international law.