Slashdot Mirror

You can:
- work - for an employer, as a director of a company or be self-employed
- change jobs without telling the Home Office
- do voluntary work
- travel abroad and return to the UK
- bring family members with you

You can’t:

- get public funds
- work as a doctor or dentist in training
- work as a professional sportsperson or sports coach

https://www.gov.uk/tier-1-exce...

The foreign national is the sole applicant and the holder of the visa, its not restricted to a single employer and the employer has no say in the application.

The government that slashed police numbers, meaning they were and are effectively crippled?

This doesn't look like "slashed" to me:
https://assets.publishing.serv...

Or do you want police officer numbers?
https://assets.publishing.serv...

Meanwhile in that same period (2006 to 2015) recorded crimes fell from 5.5m to 3.8m (see https://www.gov.uk/government/... )

Looks to me like you're a hyperbolic idiot. Me, I'm glad we're not spending too much on the police and don't for a moment mistake their role with that of the army.

Nice milestone, but see https://www.gov.uk/government/... for a far more informative overview. It looks like coal usage in the UK is falling off a cliff.

Even Britain knows solar is a loser, which is why almost none of their power comes from solar.

Somewhat true, but misleading. The percentage of renewable energy (mostly solar and wind) is increasing, but the increase mostly comes from wind and because coal is rapidly disappearing as an energy source. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/...

For a developing country that has more sun than the UK the tradeoff is likely to be different, of course.

I've had a quick look at UK (where I live) statistics (e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/...), but it's not much help as we've had reducing number of pedestrian fatalities since 2004 (excepting 2011 which is blamed on heavy snow).

As we have plenty of smartphones and plenty of smombies, that indicates that there's something else happening in the U.S. that's increasing fatalities, but it'd be premature to blame smartphones.

A-level students are 17, 18 years old. They're at the age where school is no longer compulsory and they've decided to stay on anyway.

Since 2015, it's been compulsory to stay at school until 18...

https://www.gov.uk/know-when-y...

I understand and accept that jobs that rely on someone simply following a process given down by management, without needing to apply judgement or on-the-spot thinking, is a piece of very low hanging fruit for automation. Baristas, fast food counter staff, checkout/till staff in supermarkets etc. are, as we already know, all going to find their jobs disappear in the near future.

However, many skilled jobs make use of IT systems for data analysis and calculations, where much of the setting up is still done by a squishy human on a PC in an office paid a high salary for their work and knowledge in using the system and explaining the results to clients. Many professional services firms are already automating much of the calculation and systems work to other countries, or to a computer.

Many first world governments are actually encouraging ways to make such work more standardised and easier to automate. The UK government's consultation into the way final salary pension schemes in the UK are valued every three years is one such example, although you have to really dig into the detail of the green paper to find it:

https://www.gov.uk/government/...

Many of these highly paid staff will see themselves as safe from automation, but their bosses certainly don't.

Contact them and inform them that they are holding incorrect information and you want it corrected under the data protection act and the new data confirmed. If they refuse to do so, or provide no contact details for data protection complaints, contact the Data Protection Registrar. https://ico.org.uk/for-organis...

You may also have a case under the UK's unsolicited email rules: https://www.gov.uk/marketing-a...

No, a thousand times no...

read their website, they're wise to this sort of approach, and they're holding no data other than IP address supplied to them by the various Copyright Mafias' 'investigators', the only people (at this point) who can match your IP address to a name is your ISP, who are the ones sending out the emails. (Expect that to change in the UK...)

If you contact them, that is the Get it Right from a Genuine Site momsers quoting their reference, then congratulations, you've just 'outed' yourself to the feckers, you're now tagged as belonging to that IP address on their databases and they've saved themselves the cost of a court order to do this..

Until it gets legal, never respond to this sort of BS, when it does go legal, bear in mind you'll be dealing with 'hired guns' employed by industries with extensive criminal involvement (just google organised crime and the entertainment industries..), get yourself a lawyer, and get them to respond..

Contact them and inform them that they are holding incorrect information and you want it corrected under the data protection act and the new data confirmed. If they refuse to do so, or provide no contact details for data protection complaints, contact the Data Protection Registrar. https://ico.org.uk/for-organis...

You may also have a case under the UK's unsolicited email rules: https://www.gov.uk/marketing-a...

3. No limits on the maximum duration of the workweek. The EU's working time directive is a good start.

Luckily we do not live in the EUSSR. If I want to work 80 hours a week, that's my problem. If I don't, I can work somewhere else (H1-Bs can do that too).

OK. I'm in the EU (for the moment), so I'll respond to this. You as an individual can opt of the 48 hour week. That is your choice. However you can't be forced to opt out (expect in those occupations where it would be dangerous to do so).

https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours/weekly-maximum-working-hours-and-opting-out

So what's with the "EUSSR" label?

It applies to EVERY driver. NEW drivers (who will primarily will be young) only have 6 points to lose before they have their licence revoked. Once they have been driving for 2 years it goes up to 12 points before a ban. So if an older driver is caught on their mobile twice within 3 years (offences expire) then they will be lose their licence. You also get points for speeding, no insurance, illegal tires & a host of other offences. https://www.gov.uk/penalty-poi...

From the article:
"Drivers must have B1 level English, or the equivalent of a GCSE in the subject".

FYI This is nowhere near A level.

I provided a link with comparison of equivalencies, which lists B1 as "British general qualifications: GCE AS level / lower grade A-level".

It is so cause B1 is not a grade one gets on a test NOR is it a kind of a test one does.
It's a descriptor of a group of tests and minimum scores which one would need to take and pass in order to qualify for a visa.
Most equivalent tests are not a pass-fail test, so there is some overlap between grades and equivalency between the tests as well as the range of scores which fall under the B1 group.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, these tests were intended for people who are COMING INTO UK.

Someone taking an IELTS test, which is one of the approved tests for a B1 level qualification, would be tested either for an academic or a general training grade.
I.e. For the purpose of enrollment into a university OR or into some other school - or to immigrate into UK.
It's the same test in both cases. The scoring and grading is the same. It's just that the "content, context and purpose of the tasks" are different.
I.e. Academic version uses bigger words.

The only difference being that one needs a slightly higher minimum grade to enroll into a university than one needs to immigrate into UK.
5.5 vs. 4.0, which are REALLY REALLY CLOSE due to rounding up of the raw scores as they are recalculated to a band scale.

Thus the situation is that the only people with a ready B1 (or higher) qualification are - LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
There is no equivalence for a UK-born citizen, as B1 is a level intended for approximate equalization and naturalization of foreigners to UK, not the other way around.
They might as well be asking for a non-UK birth certificate.

ONLY point where both groups intersect in qualification being the enrollment into university.
Which for Brits means taking their GCE A-levels - and for immigrants taking the same IELTS test, only the "bigger words" version.
Which they already did to get in. UK and the university.
And while immigrants who DO take that test are ALL coming with an intent to enroll into a university - 55% of UK highschoolers decide not to.

Thus, a B1 level requirement becomes equivalent of an "university enrollment" for UK-born citizens of UK - and either an immigration visa or a study visa for immigrants.
Which doesn't sound as counter-intuitive when you consider Uber's standards.

Uber's driver-partners are highly educated. Nearly half of Uber's driver-partners (48 percent)
have a college degree or higher, considerably higher than the corresponding percentage for taxi
drivers and chauffeurs (18 percent), and above that for the workforce as a whole as well (41
percent). Only 12 percent of Uber's driver-partners have a high school degree or less, whereas
over half (52 percent) of taxi drivers and chauffeurs have a high school degree or less. Seven
percent of Uber's driver-partners are currently enrolled in school, mostly taking classes toward a
four-year college degree or higher.

Hey... That's their workforce in the US. People who took their college entry tes

From the article:
"Drivers must have B1 level English, or the equivalent of a GCSE in the subject".

FYI This is nowhere near A level.

I provided a link with comparison of equivalencies, which lists B1 as "British general qualifications: GCE AS level / lower grade A-level".

It is so cause B1 is not a grade one gets on a test NOR is it a kind of a test one does.
It's a descriptor of a group of tests and minimum scores which one would need to take and pass in order to qualify for a visa.
Most equivalent tests are not a pass-fail test, so there is some overlap between grades and equivalency between the tests as well as the range of scores which fall under the B1 group.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, these tests were intended for people who are COMING INTO UK.

Someone taking an IELTS test, which is one of the approved tests for a B1 level qualification, would be tested either for an academic or a general training grade.
I.e. For the purpose of enrollment into a university OR or into some other school - or to immigrate into UK.
It's the same test in both cases. The scoring and grading is the same. It's just that the "content, context and purpose of the tasks" are different.
I.e. Academic version uses bigger words.

The only difference being that one needs a slightly higher minimum grade to enroll into a university than one needs to immigrate into UK.
5.5 vs. 4.0, which are REALLY REALLY CLOSE due to rounding up of the raw scores as they are recalculated to a band scale.

Thus the situation is that the only people with a ready B1 (or higher) qualification are - LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
There is no equivalence for a UK-born citizen, as B1 is a level intended for approximate equalization and naturalization of foreigners to UK, not the other way around.
They might as well be asking for a non-UK birth certificate.

ONLY point where both groups intersect in qualification being the enrollment into university.
Which for Brits means taking their GCE A-levels - and for immigrants taking the same IELTS test, only the "bigger words" version.
Which they already did to get in. UK and the university.
And while immigrants who DO take that test are ALL coming with an intent to enroll into a university - 55% of UK highschoolers decide not to.

Thus, a B1 level requirement becomes equivalent of an "university enrollment" for UK-born citizens of UK - and either an immigration visa or a study visa for immigrants.
Which doesn't sound as counter-intuitive when you consider Uber's standards.

Uber's driver-partners are highly educated. Nearly half of Uber's driver-partners (48 percent)
have a college degree or higher, considerably higher than the corresponding percentage for taxi
drivers and chauffeurs (18 percent), and above that for the workforce as a whole as well (41
percent). Only 12 percent of Uber's driver-partners have a high school degree or less, whereas
over half (52 percent) of taxi drivers and chauffeurs have a high school degree or less. Seven
percent of Uber's driver-partners are currently enrolled in school, mostly taking classes toward a
four-year college degree or higher.

Hey... That's their workforce in the US. People who took their college entry tes

It's not really about English language skills. It's about reducing immigration. Discourage people from coming to the UK to do these kinds of job by setting a high bar for them.

B1 level English is already a prerequisite for immigration.

If anything, B1 being a level of the same tests one takes whether one is coming to UK to study or work (university enrollment has a slightly higher minimal grade), this requirement practically guarantees that only immigrants will be driving for Uber.
They had to get that qualification in order to enter the country.
All some UK citizens have is a driver's license.

Both groups still need a Private Hire Vehicle license, a valid credit/debit card and a proof of residence.
And while these can be... worked around... driving without a valid driver's license would be inviting disaster for a potentially illegal immigrant.
Cops routinely stop people. Even people born in UK.

...still need subtitles and a dictionary to fully understand a Guy Ritchie movie.

On the other hand... the B1 level which is required is the equivalent of "GCE AS level / lower grade A-level" which is the equivalent of a 13th-grade exam.
Which about 55% of UK students don't take.

Meaning that 55% of UK citizens, raised and educated in UK, don't qualify.
Or that they would have to fork up 200 pounds to take (and pass) an "expected for university admission" level of knowledge of English.

In the UK there are quite a few restrictions on knives, actually.

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carr...

Utter bullshit.

Here in commy United Kindgom, 25% went on "Social Protection" which while it includes free handouts also includes things like childrens homes for orphans etc. so not all of that is free money either. Just shy of 20% when on health care but that's not free handouts of money to people. Then 12.8% went on State Pensions but to get a state pension you have to pay National Insurance so not really free money either. Then came education at 12%, that's not free money, interest on national debt came to 5.3%, then defence at 5.2%. The next bit of free money is Overseas aid at 1.2%

So lets be generous and assume that all "social protection" was free money being handed out, as is state pensions, overseas aid and the 1.1% that went to the EU then that comes to 40.1%, which being less than 50% is not the majority.

Being less generous and only including the "social protection" and overseas aid then 26.2% is no where near the majority.

Here is Her Majesties Treasury's web page on the subject for the tax year 2015/16. Note the UK's tax year runs from Lady Day (otherwise known as Feast of the Annunciation no 25th March) plus the 11 days from the shift from the Julian to Gregorian calendar in 1752.

https://www.gov.uk/government/...

The first link (a fairly long article I admit) then links to an official gov.uk document that explains the purpose of the subsidies. Here's an excerpt from the introduction:

Petroleum revenue tax reduction
Who is likely to be affected?
Oil and gas companies that operate in the UK or on the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS).
[...]
Policy objective
This package of measures supports the government’s objective of providing the right
conditions for business investment to maximise the economic recovery of the UK’s oil and
gas resources, at a time when the North Sea industry is facing considerable challenges.

(the link is to: https://www.gov.uk/government/...)

From the 2nd link I randomly looked for any source with the named subsidy or benefit. Those that clearly are specific to fossil fuels and can be traced to industry associations rather than fossil fuel opposition groups include:

Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels (annual subsidy: $14 billion)- IRC Section 45K. This provision provides a tax credit for the production of certain fuels. Qualifying fuels include: oil from shale, tar sands; gas from geopressurized brine, Devonian shale, coal seams, tight formations, biomass, and coal-based synthetic fuels. This credit has historically primarily benefited coal producers.

Exclusion of Alternative Fuels from Fuel Excise Tax (annual subsiy: $343 million) - IRC Section 6426(d). This section applies to liquified petroleum gas (LPG), P-series fuels (defined at 42 U.S.C. 13211(2)), compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied hydrogen,3 liquid coal, and liquid hydrocarbon from biomass.

To me it looks like YES, there are broad tax breaks for anyone, and Yes, there are tax breaks/subsidies that are specific to fossil fuel industries. It would take a much more detailed reading and serious factchecking of all these documents and tax codes to figure out just how big the tax credits and subsidies are, and whether that industry has an expecially good (or bad!) deal with the government. For now though, I think it's clear that there is more than Jedi handwaving, and that decisions to stabilise prices and sweeten some tax deals for coal/oil companies are taken both by the UK and the USA governments.

You can't claim unfair dismissal until you've been working for the employer for two years. So until then it's as close to it as makes any difference.

https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-sta...

gov.uk does too, but of course if you are in disagreement with your suspected employer it's always the courts who have to decide in the end.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-...

Here is the thing: just because someone says something you don't think is right, or you disagree with, THEY ARE NOT A TROLL. Please show me that the definition of a contractor is the ability to set your own rate, you troll!

Let me google this for you: https://www.gov.uk/employment-...

• 
         
• they’re in business for themselves, are responsible for the success or failure of their business and can make a loss or a profit
         
• they can decide what work they do and when, where or how to do it
         
• they can hire someone else to do the work
       
• they’re responsible for fixing any unsatisfactory work in their own time
         
• their employer agrees a fixed price for their work - it doesn’t depend on how long the job takes to finish
         
• they use their own money to buy business assets, cover running costs, and provide tools and equipment for their work
         
• they can work for more than one client

Well obviously it depends on where you are, but in the UK for example it's one of a series of tests.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-...

Even other EU nations are trying for decryption :)
From Germany
https://netzpolitik.org/2016/p...
Re "Keyboard logging before encryption? lol."
The UK's Code of practice for the use of equipment interference by the security and intelligence agencies can be found at
https://www.gov.uk/government/...
Recall Bullrun, Edgehill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Revealed: how US and UK spy agencies defeat internet privacy and security (6 September 2013)
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

in the EU in only gets to be the buyers location once a stores annual sale to a country exceeds some amount, i.e. small companies doesn't have to deal
with tax in multiple locations and big companies can't dodge tax by shipping everything from a low tax location

Kinda-ish.

In the UK, you don't have to register for VAT if you book less than 81,000 pounds of VATtable income (including things zero rated for VAT, but not of course non VATtable). That's not a small business, that's a *tiny* business.

As it happens I've had an unregistered company for contracting. It just so happens that the vast majority of my clients have been non EU, so my VATtable income has been substantially below the threshold, and being contracting, my outgoings weren't large enough to make it worth the accounting hassle to switch to being VAT registered. In fact all of my EU clients were UK ones, so I didn't have to worry about VATMOSS at all, only domestic VAT.

However, being non VAT registered doesn't exempt you from VATMOSS.

See here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/...

For some odd reason, the government has some truly outstanding web pages on a huge amount of legislation written for the non expert, I kind of wonder how that aberration happened.

There's a campaign for a VATMOSS threshold, which everyone agrees with in principle, but the devil is in the details. They need to figure out a way so that Amazon can't skip out on VAT by registering 200,000,000 minute companies to book sales through and escaping VAT by having them all below the threshold.

I should have added: in addition to paying duty on imported goods, you may also have to pay "import VAT". This page explains it all.

PS: In my experience while their online documentation isn't too bad, HMRC are completely fucking useless to talk to. I once had a personal semi-complex tax query for them and rang them up, after being on hold for an hour I was connected to a staff member who was completely unable to answer the question in any way, and the only path to resolution was for me to put it in writing, post it in, and wait six months for them to reply with a yes/no answer. I guess the Brits love their bureaucracy!

In addition, this is all clearly defined by HMRC.

VAT registration. Basically you must collect VAT on behalf of the UK government if you sell in excess of £83,000 per year.

There is also a very helpful page that outlines what to do if you are selling goods into the UK from outside, which is called "distance selling". Basically, if you sell under £70,000 of goods per year into the UK then you don't have to do anything.

Note that VAT is not duty and is a separate tax. Duty is payable on many items, and if you buy something online and it gets delivered to you, then you are typically responsible for paying the duty on it. Here in the UK it is not uncommon to have your parcel withheld at the post office until you pay the duty. The duty threshold is £20 which is absolutely ridiculous. The Australian threshold for GST is $1000, which "feels" much more reasonable.

In addition, this is all clearly defined by HMRC.

VAT registration. Basically you must collect VAT on behalf of the UK government if you sell in excess of £83,000 per year.

There is also a very helpful page that outlines what to do if you are selling goods into the UK from outside, which is called "distance selling". Basically, if you sell under £70,000 of goods per year into the UK then you don't have to do anything.

Note that VAT is not duty and is a separate tax. Duty is payable on many items, and if you buy something online and it gets delivered to you, then you are typically responsible for paying the duty on it. Here in the UK it is not uncommon to have your parcel withheld at the post office until you pay the duty. The duty threshold is £20 which is absolutely ridiculous. The Australian threshold for GST is $1000, which "feels" much more reasonable.

As listed on pages 210 to 214 of the draft Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

Also, interesting titbit from page 37:

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
[Name to be replaced] has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
In my view the provisions of the Investigatory Powers Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.

Really? Who? And is that even relevant (not that it makes a difference) if you are not part of the EU?

People recall PRISM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and the Freedom that gets "NSA Can Access More Phone Data Than Ever" (Oct 20, 2016)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/nsa-p...
"... the percentage of available records has shot up from 30 percent to virtually 100. Rather than one internal, incomplete database, the NSA can now query any of several complete ones."
The other fun part is the UK and its ability to legal to do "equipment interference" on any device connected to any UK network. So the tech exists. i.e. key logging. From the UK side
"Equipment Interference DRAFT Code of Practice Autumn 2016"
https://www.gov.uk/government/...

It's certainly the case over here too: it's called IR35, or at least that's the segment of it which has potentially applied to me when I've been contracting.

On the off chance you're interested: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ir...

It turns out that the part of the civil service responsible for putting legal information online is really really REALLY top notch. First thought when encountering it is "who are you and what have you done with my government??". I expect they'll be cut soon.

For anyone who is interested, take a look at the IR35 regulations, which HMRC are cracking down on massively...

http://www.contractorcalculato...

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ir...

These are just one of the rules designed to prevent the contractor-not-employee tax avoidance schemes in the UK.

Looking specifically at England, they used to provide the tests in other languages. Apparently this is no longer the case because:
https://www.gov.uk/government/...
- potential road safety implications
- the risk of fraud
- the cost of providing translations

Apparently it's perfectly safe...so vaping companies say AND there's been some studies to say that vaping is so much better for you than smoking...

You should believe vaping is safe...except if you suspect that the lack of decades of data makes it difficult to determine AND if you suspect studies are influenced, falsified, wrong or completely malicious.

Because respectable bodies of research were never going to lie for money and they never do:

This -> https://www.statnews.com/2016/...

The eagle-eyed reader will notice this is a research about sugar. Nothing to do with smoking or vaping...after all another supposedly respectable body already said vaping is 95% healthier. Public Health England, a government affiliated body no less. -> https://www.theguardian.com/so...

Some searching leads to this 113 page piece of "research" that was no carried out by the UK government of course but rather an "independent researcher" which actually are:
McNeill A, Brose LS, Calder R, Hitchman SC
Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology &
Neuroscience,
National Addiction Centre,

Hajek P, McRobbie H (Chapters 9 and 10)
Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine

A link deeper and you find the actual full paper -> https://www.gov.uk/government/...

This is some people's minds cements the belief that vaping is 95% safer than smoking cigarettes. the author of that "study" which is more like a search on Pubmed gave two key factors for this 95% figure:

That there is less than 5% known carcinogens in vaping (assuming your sucking on the same "juice" and that there is currently no associated health risk.

Read it if you like -> https://www.gov.uk/government/...

So really this thought that vaping is so much healthier has some good concepts behind it what it lacks is proof and data. All we found is that we have no data to say it's unhealthy. If it causes genetic damage or increased mutation that is only apparent many years later we have no clue.

Just think what the tobacco industry is worth. What the vaping industry will be worth...can you honestly beliee they will not pub their weight into anything much like the sugar lobby once did? -in fact we already know the tobacco industry has covered up decades of research and used their expertise to counter anything that made them look bad.

95% healthier...once this flawed concept is in the public's mind it takes another fucking decade to tell them otherwise. Once upon a time Kent cigarettes had asbestos filters that increased cancer rates many times over compared to regular smoking. They were the product of "research" and were thought to be "healthy"...remember that.

Just continue vaping. It's safe. Anything coming out of a miniaturized "fog machine" is so much better for you. Honest.

As an added bonus it's cheaper than your previous addiction platform too!

Apparently it's perfectly safe...so vaping companies say AND there's been some studies to say that vaping is so much better for you than smoking...

You should believe vaping is safe...except if you suspect that the lack of decades of data makes it difficult to determine AND if you suspect studies are influenced, falsified, wrong or completely malicious.

Because respectable bodies of research were never going to lie for money and they never do:

This -> https://www.statnews.com/2016/...

The eagle-eyed reader will notice this is a research about sugar. Nothing to do with smoking or vaping...after all another supposedly respectable body already said vaping is 95% healthier. Public Health England, a government affiliated body no less. -> https://www.theguardian.com/so...

Some searching leads to this 113 page piece of "research" that was no carried out by the UK government of course but rather an "independent researcher" which actually are:
McNeill A, Brose LS, Calder R, Hitchman SC
Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology &
Neuroscience,
National Addiction Centre,

Hajek P, McRobbie H (Chapters 9 and 10)
Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine

A link deeper and you find the actual full paper -> https://www.gov.uk/government/...

This is some people's minds cements the belief that vaping is 95% safer than smoking cigarettes. the author of that "study" which is more like a search on Pubmed gave two key factors for this 95% figure:

That there is less than 5% known carcinogens in vaping (assuming your sucking on the same "juice" and that there is currently no associated health risk.

Read it if you like -> https://www.gov.uk/government/...

So really this thought that vaping is so much healthier has some good concepts behind it what it lacks is proof and data. All we found is that we have no data to say it's unhealthy. If it causes genetic damage or increased mutation that is only apparent many years later we have no clue.

Just think what the tobacco industry is worth. What the vaping industry will be worth...can you honestly beliee they will not pub their weight into anything much like the sugar lobby once did? -in fact we already know the tobacco industry has covered up decades of research and used their expertise to counter anything that made them look bad.

95% healthier...once this flawed concept is in the public's mind it takes another fucking decade to tell them otherwise. Once upon a time Kent cigarettes had asbestos filters that increased cancer rates many times over compared to regular smoking. They were the product of "research" and were thought to be "healthy"...remember that.

Just continue vaping. It's safe. Anything coming out of a miniaturized "fog machine" is so much better for you. Honest.

As an added bonus it's cheaper than your previous addiction platform too!

it "will be entering into a consultation process to help those affected by the redundancies."

That's because they have to by law. https://www.gov.uk/redundant-your-rights/consultation

You're a moron:

https://www.gov.uk/government/...

"There are no records since 1981 of any person being infected as a result of disturbing soil for building or any other purpose." (35 years, and that's probably only because there were no records kept before that)

"There is no evidence of any worker or member of the public being infected with anthrax as the results of development of brownfield sites including abattoirs and tanneries, areas traditionally associated with anthrax, or greenfield sites previously used for livestock."

The others are all pretty much the same, you only have to do a bit of Googling.

Or you could use your brain and say "I have no fucking idea where the soil in my garden has come from, what it might have had, who it might have been buried with over millions of years of diseases and plagues, and yet I don't die whenever I turn it over".

Sure, eating that shit probably isn't a great idea because there are all kinds of fungi, spores and bacteria in it. But no less in plague pits from hundreds of years ago than in a bag you get from B&Q today. Fuck, most of the peat we use is tens of thousands of years old.

If that's the real reason, rather than preserving those sites (if they are scheduled sites for archaeology, for example), then Edinburgh need to hire some fucking scientists. If only they had a university...

If you can catch it from the soil, it's still active and killing people in the local area every day. That's not what's happening. Disturbing soil a couple of hundreds years old is like the crap that the pyramid had curses and diseases in them. Absolute bollocks. After that period of time, anything that can infect a host would have been without hosts for hundreds of years, and would have died at the first winter.

Wait, what? Is this knife regulation gone to far, or is a plastic fork now some drug paraphernalia?

knife regulation gone to far...
Sorry it's a Torygraph link..
and I quote
'..But Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice David Steel, disagreed. He said: "I would accept that a sharp or pointed blade was the paradigm case - however the words of the statute are unqualified and refer to any article that has a blade."'

For your amusement..UK Government - Buying and carrying knives: the law
and I quote
'..A court will decide if you’ve got a good reason to carry a knife if you’re charged with carrying it illegally.'

Have a good look at some of the UK's offensive weapons legislation sometime if you're bored, it all started with banning flick and gravity knives back in the 50's (probably something to do with those damn'd Teddy Boys and these menaces to decent society) and has gotten progressively weirder..e.g using the precedent created by the above-mentioned Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice David Steel specifically mentioning that '..the words of the statute are unqualified..' then The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, Schedule 1.(k) prohibits peashooters...for your further amusement on that one, see here (yet they won't sell crossbows and other quite legal items)

Weasel wordcrafting lawyers who draft legislation at the behest of their police state masters....got to love them...

In the 80's, I used to travel around the UK with a 4.5" sheath knife prominently fixed to the outside of my rucksack, nowadays I make sure I've not even got a normal fixed blade screwdriver in it, just in case (no point being hung for a lamb...).

"He needs to do the following:"

No, you need to read the fucking article and realize that's ALREADY what's happening.

And to boot, he's calling them into court to answer for violating These simple fucking advertising rules.

It's really sad that I seem to know your own country, and laws, better than you do. Maybe that's because I've done actual business there.

Citation? The only thing I could find was here that say it may be restricted to 50% in some industries. It also talks at length about manufacturing without mentioning this requirement.

It's already covered in the UK govt report: https://www.gov.uk/government/...

Flip to page 75. The report is fairly well written, and surprisingly not someone trying to prove pre-defined results via poorly conducted experiments.

This is only applicable to mechanized vaping tests. Essentially, you need to burn the vaping chemicals rather than atomize them. As someone that quit vaping, I can testify that you know when your vaping unit get cranked to the max while being in your pocket and fried the coils, along with some of the nicotine liquid. It is extremely unpleasant. Theoretically a person could continue to try to inhale the results, but it would be a spectacularly unpleasant experience. It's extremely noticeable

. It's called a 'dry hit' and it's pretty rare under normal circumstances. I've had... three, maybe? It's certainly not good for you, but probably not as bad for me as my old pack a day of cigarettes would be if I continued smoking.

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carr...

The maximum penalty for an adult carrying a knife is 4 years in prison and a fine of £5,000.

The government also says (on page 39) that the new law provides nothing more than what is already present in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000).

It specifically refers to "the ability to remove any encryption applied by the CSP to whom the notice relates" (my emphasis), and not to end-to-end encryption.

It's not that simple. What the government means when it refers to a "CSP" or Communication Service Provider is not limited to just an ISP or a mobile network. It also covers those who "facilitating the creation" of messages over a telecommunication system regardless of whether they control the system itself. That could be interpreted to cover those who release software with end-to-end encryption capability, and the government rejected the suggestion to make it clear that this was not meant. In addition, as the definitions do not including wording like "in the course of business", it could also easily be read to include free software developers.

(11) “Telecommunications service” means any service that consists in the provision
of access to, and of facilities for making use of, any telecommunication system
(whether or not one provided by the person providing the service).

(12) For the purposes of subsection (11), the cases in which a service is to be taken
to consist in the provision of access to, and of facilities for making use of, a
telecommunication system include any case where a service consists in or
includes facilitating the creation, management or storage of communications
transmitted, or that may be transmitted, by means of such a system.

The government also says (on page 39) that the new law provides nothing more than what is already present in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000). It specifically refers to "the ability to remove any encryption applied by the CSP to whom the notice relates" (my emphasis), and not to end-to-end encryption.

the Uk Government keeps a public list of these people

An easily accessible public list.

https://www.gov.uk/types-of-br...

There are 6 different types of British nationality. These are:

        British citizenship
        British overseas territories citizen
        British overseas citizen
        British subject
        British national (overseas)
        British protected person

https://www.gov.uk/types-of-br...

Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United Kingdom was called a ‘British subject’.

All citizens of Commonwealth countries were British subjects until January 1983.

Since 1983, very few people have qualified as British subjects.
Who is a British subject

You became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if, until then, you were either:

        a British subject without citizenship, which means you were a British subject on 31 December 1948 who didn’t become a citizen of the UK and Colonies, a Commonwealth country, Pakistan or the Republic of Ireland
        a person who had been a citizen of the Republic of Ireland on 31 December 1948 and had made a claim to remain a British subject

You also became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if you were a woman who registered as a British subject on the basis of your marriage to a man in one of these categories.

https://www.gov.uk/types-of-br...

There are 6 different types of British nationality. These are:

        British citizenship
        British overseas territories citizen
        British overseas citizen
        British subject
        British national (overseas)
        British protected person

https://www.gov.uk/types-of-br...

Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United Kingdom was called a ‘British subject’.

All citizens of Commonwealth countries were British subjects until January 1983.

Since 1983, very few people have qualified as British subjects.
Who is a British subject

You became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if, until then, you were either:

        a British subject without citizenship, which means you were a British subject on 31 December 1948 who didn’t become a citizen of the UK and Colonies, a Commonwealth country, Pakistan or the Republic of Ireland
        a person who had been a citizen of the Republic of Ireland on 31 December 1948 and had made a claim to remain a British subject

You also became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if you were a woman who registered as a British subject on the basis of your marriage to a man in one of these categories.

£35, and I can add that fee to the claim, since you ask.
https://www.gov.uk/make-court-...

Famuyide's record includes armed robbery.

And yes, the UK is trying knife control: https://www.gov.uk/buying-carr...
Note that self-defense is not one of the listed valid reasons for carrying a knife.

Maybe. In the Europe even old cars have to meet emissions standards, even old ones. So we don't really have a problem with people running broken cars belching out smog, because they are required not to.

That's considered Racist in the US, liberals think poor people are black or brown, and being forced to have a well maintained automobile is a subtle form of discrimination. The real truth is Black and Latino culture highly value their automobiles and often maintain them far beyond what their white peers will.

Yell at my neighbours because their piece of shit 1970s automobile spews a cloud of toxic black crap every time they pull out of the driveway?

Maybe. In the Europe even old cars have to meet emissions standards, even old ones. So we don't really have a problem with people running broken cars belching out smog, because they are required not to.

Why should you accept someone polluting the shared air that you both have to breathe?

I don't know what we're supposed to do beyond that, though.

You already did a lot, and you should be commended for that. Beyond that the best thing now is probably to keep pressure on politicians to address the issue. The US has a huge problem with denialists in government. Get them to follow the lead of those countries that are making a big effort to address the issue, like Germany.