"Law enforcement and organisations with designated regulatory powers and functions must be able to access all content hosted and streamed by pornography platforms for investigative and enforcement purposes," notes another recommendation.

Lmfao so the true purpose is free porn for cops.

Yeah I know, the post is reasonable. If the government pays for the bags, anyway.

The comment I replied to was making out that having kids lock their phones away during class was akin to denying them access to any knowledge that might contradict the teacher.

Be the change you want to see. Reddit Secret Santa was always a pretty big logistical undertaking, it would take effort to make a Fediverse one.

Also Fediverse users might be less keen on the idea generally, as it involves personal information and addresses. A very cynical take is that harvesting this data was the real purpose of the Reddit SS, which can't really be ruled out.

Secret Santa is where a group of people all get given the name of one other person, and they have to buy them a Christmas gift in secret. Someone else will buy them a gift, but no one (usually) knows who got them their gift.

Reddit Secret Santa was just the same, but on reddit, and instead of being among a small group of local friends (eg an office) it was done internationally.

Lmao you think kids sit on their phones scrolling through ebooks or something?

Cathinones are the "designer drugs" of like the 70s and 80s that are somewhat similar to amphetamines, but maybe more of a stimulant.

Well at least he isn't breaking any election campaign promises.

Freedom of Information Act 2000

This website has a good history of freedom of information laws in the UK.

Court records are typically publicly available, unless the judge seals it. There is usually an administrative cost to access court records.

Lmao I doubt you could even read that much without getting distracted and wandering off somewhere else.

This is in England.

Surely the law doesn’t require them to hire someone to police the toilets.

It pretty much does. Not specifically to have someone dedicated to check everyone, but they have to take reasonable measures and a member of staff speaking up would fall under that.

What is this “cautiosness” she’s talking about?

The law requires businesses to police toilets somewhat.

It's close, but sometimes women really do need the whole room as private gendered space, eg to wash blood off clothing.

The best solution is that each stall has its own sink, but that isn't usually practicable as it takes up more space and reduces the total number of stalls. Five Guys manage it, though.

Better an island than a whole fucking continent of more violent TERFs.

Paid for by the MP's in government who introduced it.

Specifically, the cabinet members, moreso than regular MP's that voted for it.

One senior backbencher said the security minister, Dan Jarvis, had assured Labour members that peaceful protesters would not be affected.

Especially this cunt. More MP's need to be charged with lying in the course of their duties.

This was the intention all along.

That, and MasterCard and VISA wanted more businesses to use card authentications for age checks. Businesses have been skipping authentication to save on fees, and they knew that even if other technology came along they'd still get a few more. Literally, the OSA only vaguely describes ID or face scanning (because the technology didn't really exist at the time), but spells out card transactions as the default method of age verification.

.... but why?

And who the fuck is Lisa Nandy?? Bit of a shit article, BBC.

Somewhat, but it also seems Mr Justice Jay is just an asshole to litigants in person - in direct contradiction to the rules he was supposed to follow.

Mr Justice Jay does not have a good record of dealing with litigants-in-person. Two years later, in a different case, he behaved so poorly that the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court found that he’d bullied a litigant-in-person. The Supreme Court found that he had aimed a “barrage of hostility” at the litigant-in-person, and “harassed and intimidated him in ways which surely would never have occurred if the claimant had been represented”.

We’d expect the judgment would contain the discussion of whether these restrictions were necessary and proportionate, and whether they were compatible with the exclusions in the Protection from Harassment Act. It does not. A lawyer would surely have raised these arguments, but Ms Berki of course had no lawyer.

Without going through the appeals with a fine toothed comb, I couldn't say whether she raised these arguments along the way or if this is just an observation of the author. However she never really had an appeal, she was denied the chance to any full hearing at any stage over the last 12 years.

Now DataVita, which was supposed to bring 3,400 jobs to Lanarkshire by building a 500MW datacentre

How the hell is a single data centre expected to bring 3,400 jobs?! Sounds like DataVita's claims across the board need to be reviewed.