We can easily save money by contracting out assisted death to the private sector. Let G4S or Serco have a crack at it.

People on low salaries are exactly the sort of people who would be vulnerable to being bribed by foreign adversaries.

Yeah you’re right, immediately thought I’d low balled it.

Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) sought a lead cyber security expert and advertised annual pay of £41,935

That’s fucking shocking. And after they can’t fill that role they’ll bring in a contractor and pay 4 times as much.

What a weird cause to champion.

If she gets a retrial/appeal they will have to go through all the evidence with a fresh start, unless the prosecution withdraw their case (as what happened to Lucia De Berk).

They’ll justify it by saying she’s “one of the good ones”.

Apparently she’s quite popular among the Conservative base. Jenrick might be a bit too Ukippy for them.

Does anyone know what chemical weapons are being used? It can’t be nerve agents surely?

Edit: Chloropicrin

“Your cheque is in the mail Comrade, trust me.”

Stop thinking of them as people, they are just meat space for brands. Like a billboard or those little posters above urinals.

Waitibg for the headline “Comedian to retire her Liz Truss character.”

Any day now.

Most of the blame for SpaceX’s dominance can be laid at the feet of Boeing.

Credit where credit is due, that device was sublime in it’s ingenuity. It took the CIA almost 20 years to build their own!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Easy_Chair

Cocaine

I’m not sure it’s a law per se but more guidance that schools should endeavour to serve children a balanced diet which will include portions of meat/fish/poultry/dairy.

Says party donor who happens to own vegan catering business that supplies schools.

The civil servant’s advice was made public as Wallace was giving evidence to the inquiry that he did ultimately commission in response to allegations that up to 80 Afghan civilians had been summarily killed by members of the elite force.

Tory MP ultimately did the right thing? Am I reading that right?

This article doesn’t explain exactly why the statistical anomaly should be inadmissable in court.

Were they asking for it to be inadmissible? My take was the RSS are implying the court allowed the jury to be misled as to its significance by not having a statistician on hand to explain it. It’s almost an exact replay of what happened in the Lucia De Berk case, later overturned and since described as “the greatest miscarriage of justice” in the Netherlands. Worth a read if you’re interested.

I thought these PFI things were generally considered a bad idea?