The UK Tends to warn not ban travel.

We have levels of warning that equate to. You are all on your own if shit happens.

Down to the be very careful to follow rules level the US is currently under.

But proscription of travel only happens in a open we are at war setting. And rarely even then,

The US on the other hand will do it for political disagreements. Like Cuba.

I asked what they did to cause it. Not why it happened.

IE How did having the Tories in charge. Directly help building companies not build. That was not possible with labour in charge before 2010

Given this is total house building. So basically how willing or able private construction companies are to build.

I’d be interested to know exactly what the Tories did to discourage private building.

Personally I’d rather blame the development companies who have been openly accused of limiting building numbers. To increase profits value of properties they do build.

Likely town halls and or GP offices.

Or leisure centers where local Auth ownership still applies. But not many of those left outside London.

and routinely fucked over Brit

Stop bragging. You will get blamed for your government funded sex life.

Honestly. I think the current gov is significantly to the right of Cameron on immigration, disability rights and equality in general.

Wow a potentially positive move for a change. Depending how it’s funded. And how the huge staff shortages (enhanced by new NHS immigration rule). Limit it.

But for 40 year the NHS has had centralisation into big city hospitals. Increasing the cost difficulty and CO2 footprint of mobility limited travelers to get help.

Moving more specialist care into local community centers. Would be a huge positive.

Pretty sure some guy gets paid to play Thor.

This is just insane. Since the Windrush. The NHS has had a high dependency on immigration. Mainly due to our own lower pay of staff. Many qualified British medical staff can get higher paying work elsewhere. Both foreign and non NHS UK jobs. This is why multiple governments from both parties haver always offered NHS training and employment as a way to encourage immigration from lower paying nations.

If the gov does not have the funding (wish to raise taxes). To pay NHS staff and UK care staff a wage that competes with higher paying jobs in the UK or aboard. This will directly lead to a collapse of the NHS. With ) benifit to the UK.

Except Maybe gaining privatisation of the NHS. Exactly like the Tories have been trying for decades.

Do you have confirmation

Just a news article. Can’t even remember where I saw it. So yeah. You are likely correct.

That said. If the US refused to support the UK. I find it hard to believe we would not quickly have difficulties maintaing f35s. And given how much they really on software to fly. I’d be more surprised if the US did not have a backdoor.

I’d add that to anything the US sells that they would have reason to fear if turned against them.

I really think is the EU and or the UK want to be independent of the US. Arming with modern US weapons is about as safe as. Well issuing Chinese smart phones to all our politicians.

The US has never been entirely trust worthy when it comes to them Vs the world. Less so now.

Pancreatitis not cancer.

It is inflammation. Can be minor(short term pain and gastric issue), But when acute can lead to death. Mainly as it seriously harm other organs and has a systemic effect on the body when the pancreas fails.

The side-effects would need to be pretty extreme

Pancreatitis ranges from minor to life threatening.

It can become systemic harming multiple organs.

So idepending on what this study shows when done. A high number of severe cases. Could def be worse for the NHS then obesity. Considering 1 in 4 adults meet the obesity Def now. And 1 in 5 cases of pancreatitis are classed as severe. Mass roll out could be a disaster if the study shows high numbers suffer this effect.

Unfortunately the new nukes that fit to the f35 we agreed to buy from the US.

Require US permission to use. So we are far from reducing our reliance on them.

deleted by creator

Both companies question if the 2002 law applies. Saying they think the gov is wrong.

Neither give a shit if they morally should be advertising a dangerous product. Let alone in front of children.

Ain’t capitalism great.

I mean I grew up with tobacco advertising. And below 10 my father sending me to the shop to buy him fags. The 70s were a very different time.

But for all the evil tobacco companies did. They were trying to stay afloat. With a model that started before the health disadvantages were understood. Shitty greed was clearly a motive. But at least some element of survival instinct can be applied. To their desperation to fight the science.

Sainsbury’s knew the harm from day one. Had no business to protect by trying to skirt the law. A law clearly intended to stop exactly what they planned to do. And openly supported by the waste majority of modern British citizens. Heck even my father’s age group tends to agree with the law.

But openly decided to do harm purely to increase profits…

according to my neighbours, you can buy kittens, not do any of that and then just let them be feral around your neighbourhood

Ignoreing the not having to care for them. And legally cats must be chipped now. But that is a very very recent rule change.

This is very much a majority opinion in the UK that cats kept inside is cruelty to the cat. Your opinion that all cats are required to be inside creatures is the rare one. More common in the younger generation. But not one backed up by evidence.

Bird deaths are the most common sighted evidence. But cats are not proven to be the cause of a change in total population. Cats have been in the UK at least since the Romans first arrival. So 2000+ years. And have been used as pest control on farms extensively since at least that period. Most UK bird species have come here via Europe where cats were for much longer. Urbanisation may mean more cats. But the expansion of humanity and removal of habitate is the real issue.

Well it’s sky so I’m not going to disagree with the intent.

But it’s very open to interpretation. Many right wing readers may interpret it that way. But the tittle just questions the cost. Reading the article it seems more like a warning.

“For elderly females that dogs may be a bad pet for them and the NHS.”

I worry more that it makes no effort to compare the huge cost saving regular walking of dogs has on elderly heart and muscle health. And companionship has on mental health.

But that’s less click baity. And really clicks is all they care about.

Nods saw it on social media so tried it with my little dog.

Was stunned how effective and quick it was.

Nods saw it somewhere on social media myself. I have an over eager chihuahua I inherited from an ex.

So gave it a try. Half an hour of doing this he stopped pulling.

I’m far from an expert.

Moving to a nation you are not a citizen off is not simple. More so when the nation you are a citizen of is consided an agressor to the one you want to visit.

But more to the point. No government can force you to. So even if he could. The UK is required to consider all asylum/refugee claims under his percieved risk at his home nation. It’s part of the Geneva convention.