Fucking disgusting. The right wing as a whole ignoring the clear fact. Voters in no way support this war. Or Israel’s actions as a whole.

It is so fucking clear that the rightwing is not responding to political pressure. But billionaires funding their pressure to change voters minds.

Their was a time not so long ago. Where all political donations to parties were expected to go via the party.

It is amazing how personal donations to individual politicians have expanded in the last 30 years. With huge Coralation to the growth of wealth inequality moving the UK to the top 10 most unequal nations. Matching the push to the rightwing for those at the top,

With huge poverty stricken nations all around the world. Where slums sit next to mansions.

When it comes to actual invested wealth. The UK is now in the top 10 for inequality of distribution.

I lived near a house in the UK. Where in the late 70s the same rumers of satanic abuse and witchcraft cults existed. As a so called cult had been arrested.

Turns out to have been normal child paedofilea abuse. And a political cult. Just locals turning to satan and witchcraft. As a way to make it seem further from their own beliefs.

As chat got etc is trained on human responses. This is likely exactly the same. Folks seeing political figures acting like scum. And desperately looking for ways to define them as different to their own beliefs etc.

Just as every xtians church dose when priests or members are caught being sick arseholes.

They ask. But will only give a shit about comments they personally benefit from.

IE ones that do not limit the billionaire owners bribing them.

Ain’t going to happen. Without folks joining parties that demand it.

PS it was voted as part of the YourParty constitution at conference. That no your party MP can not have a second job. Or accept any form of non party donations,

The donation thing was expected of all parties until recently. All this billionaires and foreign funded think tanks donating money to individuals rather then parties. Did not exist in the 90s.

What labour leadership Tories and reform dose now. Is new,

One hope. The mushroom texture. Along with being asked to sacrifice lives, to prevent people noticing his hiding child rape and muder evidence.

Forces Starmer to forget if not fried mushrooms down his throat.

MkMkUseless alone. But absolutely any one of your possible answer is a fucking important one

And clear indication that some change is harming people in the UK.

The important fact is the recent increase. And hopefully a motivation to discover the further issue involved.

9I have the cc2 and had the Neptune 4 pro before that.

My honest view on elegoo.

While you get some amazing deals on their latest machines. When things go wrong. As in bad design issues. You will often find the community is the only real help. And that can take some time.

Elegoo seems to have a release a new version fix strategy rather then help existing customers.

They will stand by warremtee as far as replacement parts go. But their prices honestly mean any design issues are built in for the model you buy. (Given as a company. They do work on small margins. I. A field where such issues are common. It’s hard to blame them.)

That said, the community is pretty darn good. And they are fairly open with their software etc, So alternatives etc are possible given time.

On the whole as an occasional user with a little technical ability. I consider them a good buy. But would hesitate if I needed them to be reliable for any form of business. I’m poor and find the fiddling fun sometimes. And can wait a bit and struggle when I have a project. If you do not think that way. Spend more on a printer with more support.

ATM the CC1 is likely the best deal on a core xy out there. But many community upgrades are advisable.

The CC2 fixes many of those needs. But it’s lack of internal website introduces more. IE Linux is a pain. And their website has occasional issues.

Orca are openly working on support for CC2 web issue. But ATM generating it’s GCode and moving via usb is required.

IE; He could not say no. Without biting a mushroom off.

Because school head teachers think it makes the students look well managed.

Think for a moment about UK history. Very little to non of it was implemented to ensure poor people were treated equally. And the introduction of uniforms was no more so.

Back in the day it was about wealthy schools looking like they were preparing students for work life. iE uniforms tried to match the idea that successful students would have to wear suits.

And as such uniforms were mainly used in city schools as more rural schools tought for farming or mining communities. Not office jobs,

In the 70s as less farming or mining jobs were expected.more schools tried to introduce dress codes to force dress standards for children expected to have to do so once working.

That the point isn’t it.

I’m fairly suree you just declared him histories best at puns.

That assumes those with money. Will not go separately to buy clothing. While those without telly on the school.

Sorry but that is not the way it will work. Just because schools are required to provide the uniforms. Dose not mean their will not be a market for uniforms outside the schools supply.

A case being “The Crown vs. HRH King Charles III” is perfectly feasible. The monarch being subject to law is a concept that goes back over 800 years.

Except the concept has not. At no point in that history. Has any UK king or queen ever been tried by anything other then parliament itself.

And the one time parliament did it. It was done in parliament exactly because the constituency of the crown being different from the current monarch is not well defined. It’s only separation definition is in the right for ownership and duty to be passed.

Other then the king. The only people fully free of the justice system. Are MPs when acting in parliament itself.

They are not free of the whole justice system. They have limited parliamentary privileges mainly related to what they can say without consequences, but they couldn’t murder their opponents.

Actually no that is not how the sovereignty of parliament in defined.

Yes actions are only free of judicial jurisdiction when acting in parlimentry session. But those actions are in no way related to speech alone.

While no an MP could not murder someone during parliamentary session.

The normal justice system would not be responsible for protecting that person. Parliament will. This is exactly why the tower of London was originally considered the be the kings and then parliaments prison. And not the judiciary.

This is why parliament has a chief Marshall to enforce it’s authority. And why the tower of London has it’s own guards independent of the UK police and military.

While this all seems to be just of historic interest. And honestly the orders (people involved) are no longer armed or trained in a way that would be official to actually enforce the law. Not to mention the tower is no longer in a position to provide a reasonable or effective prison.

The legal structure has very much not been replaced in any way.

And if (cos I am biased after all.)

N Farrrage was to suddenly jump up and strangle J corbyn during PMs questions.

It would be an odd situation. Likely in 2026 it would involve parliament and the Chief marshall asking the met to actually help out. And quickly passing laws to support it. It would not be automatic.

You may want to look at school funding and the attitude of the last 1t years of government to such.

Before considering that the future of school provided uniforms will be any newer or in any better condition.

International law dose not exist. It is just a collection of treaties signed by different nations that they agree to. IE it is entirely contract law.

And given how little the UK has cared about such agreements. IE openly committing genocide. Against the Geneva convention treaty. Arresting protesters and abusing disabled people against the ECHR treaties.

There is absolutely no way parliament is going to consider any of them to outright override UKparlimentry sovereignty.

And when you remember our constitution literally applies the historical authority of the king. Being passed to parliament. Any agreement we sign. Is very much only down to the current majorities willingness to follow.

A point very important to remember given current polling for the next election.

Makes you wonder.

A) We’re the economists that predicted a £11.5bn in December. Incompetent.

B) are the economists predicting £30.4bn surplus now incompetent

Or

C) is the lose of Peter Mandelson etc corrupt influence. Changing the lies the government want to convince voters of.

While Cromwell’s far from a great example of democracy.

He is the example of parliament creating a law that made killing a king illegal. And the very creation of our current constitutional monarchy. His actions basically created most of the constitution changes the nation now works on.

Hence why the example was made.

You are correct in the fact that telling secrets in parliament is technically legal. It is worth noting that parliament has the power to enforce rules upon itself. Technically to the point made by Cromwell.

IE in the event and MP was to announce secrets in parliament. Without gov approval and more so now it is televised. (This was not the case in my youth. When recording parliament was illegal for that very reason.)

Parliament would technically be able to have the MP imprisoned. Although as of now parliament has no where to store them. It was the tower of London in the past.

But yep it would have to be parliament that enforced such rules. And doing so would require a majority. Hence why bojo tried to close parliament and got prevented.

The kings authority to refuse is not recognised.

If a king or past queen were to be accused. It is technically impossible. As our whole criminal justice system is based on the king Vs the defendent/accused.

But that dose not apply to other royal family members. Other then the purely technical idea that the kings name used against a relative is sorta rude without authority.

But parliament has the full Auth to ignore his opinion. And as we saw under Cromwell. If the king was accused of a crime high enough. Parliament itself can try him. But it’s far from uncomplicated,

Other then the king. The only people fully free of the justice system. Are MPs when acting in parliament itself. This is done purely to prevent a majority party making opposition illegal. And even then it only applies to in parliament actions.

IE up till a few days ago. MPs could support PA in the house of commons. But doing so in public would have still be a crime. As dumb as that sounds.

That said. Legal and technical Vs the actual actions of people in a position with the prejudices involved. Are hardly equal.

Yep it’s about giving secret gov data to Epstein. So while the peado accusations will likely be investigated as a result. Based on motive gathering.

ATM no new evidence of actual SA with minors has been shown in the files.

Just pics of him kneeling over a fully clothed shortish female of indeterminate age.

Will not stop wealthy parents buying new.

Will just take burden of poor while continuing to hilight the difference in quality.

Well that has changed. Because back in the early 200p the requirement existed.