It's English, but not as we know it, Jim.
Translated it reads: "The Liberal Democratic Party will ruin everything" competition between two left-wing parties in mid-Bedfordshire by-election could split votes and result in a win by the Conservative Party.
This reminds me of two recent posts that I got involved in here.
The first was about Wales' upcoming 20mph zone, where people were complaining that "they're just trying to generate revenue". Well, only if you decide to break the law, surely?
The other was a discussion on the cyclists who were "caught" speeding in Devon. Drivers were outraged and wanted cyclists to adhere to the speed limits (good luck without a speedometer). But they would get apoplectic when you suggested that they should do the same.
As a cyclist it always strikes me that we probably don't need any new laws to make the roads safe, we just need the current laws to be enforced and obeyed. If every driver gave every cyclist 1.5m of space, priority at junctions, kept out of the cycle lanes, etc. as they'resupposed to then the roads would be a lovely place to cycle.
FYI the English name of that cask is "tun".
As mentioned in the article the American Bully XL isn't a recognised breed, so the name likely came from the owners themselves making it up.
I've found it interesting how many more pro-car and anti-bike people their are in the lemmy version of fuckcars compared to the Reddit one.
Indeed, 30mph is far too fast for anything to be travelling in a built up area. That's why I support 20mph zones.
Once upon a time the use of the exercise was to... question the PM. Nowadays it's little more than a tool for political point scoring.
I'm with you, I want to watch but I also want the PM to actually answer a bloody question every now and then. I feel there needs to be some kind of requirement for the PM's response to actually answer the question given.
I would even much rather they just say "I don't have than information to hand" or "I can't answer that question right now but will provide a response within X timeframe" rather than waffle and spin their way to their preferred talking point that they think will appeal to the voters.
Single family housing is a massive contributer to (sub)urban sprawl and car dependency. Increased residential density can reduce the need for cars by reducing the distance between people's homes and their workplace, shops, etc.
Modern petitions seem pointless at the best of times, but petitioning a private company seems particularly futile. They have zero obligation to even recognise the petition, let alone act on it.
An incredibly tone-deaf choice of words just one day after her hot mic "sitting on their arses" comment.
I don't think it would be up to us to decide if it is acceptable or not. We don't ask the cow if they think it's okay that we take their milk, their skin, their meat. Likewise, I doubt a more advanced alien species would bother asking for our permission if they decided they had a use for us.
On a more philosophical point though, there's also the matter of sentience. As far as we're aware the animals we use for food, labour, etc. don't have the mental capacity to really understand the situation they find themselves in. They can't process and understand the fact that they are being used. As we are a species that can, the chances that we'd let another species, even one more advanced than us, exploit us without resisting are probably pretty low.
I seem to recall Nadine Dorries proposing an end to the TV license, which apparently would come about in 2027 if it happens. But with a complete roster change in the tory government since then and a likely loss in the next election, we'll have to wait and see what Labour decide to do about that.