Nah I dunno, Sunak had to call an election within the next few months, and economically this was the best time - just after a slight fall in inflation, which will only go back up again by the end of the summer.
With Marcon here, he's in a pretty secure position, I don't believe he needs to call an election within the next few months and he seems to only be doing it to have some sort of "round 2" that he blindly hopes he'll win. That, to me, reminds me more of Cameron.
Twitter was wrecked with the purchase, it's been on borrowed time since. The business is now worth less than the $13bn loan it took out to buy itself on Musk's behalf. It was a leveraged buyout, just like every business that goes under after "being saddled with debt".
You don't have to start a war against China to defend the people of Hong Kong and openly help evacuate them against an oppressive invasive force. Let China be the one to take aggressive action.
What do you think about my suggestion of holding the bill payer liable? Obviously this wouldn't help with pay phones, but any service where someone pays through a traceable means could work. Do you think that would help reduce the number of fraudulent calls?
Absolutely, but proving all of that is a tall order. Turning it into a civil offense where the bill payer is automatically liable sets a much lower bar, where successful prosecution is far more likely.
They also need to address the false calls. I think the phone bill payer should automatically be liable for the deployment costs of a false call, unless they point the finger at the person who actually made the call. That wouldn't quite be justice, as it wouldn't necessarily make them liable for the false report, but it would go a long way to stopping them.
The lawsuit wasn't coming because they were in a strong grey area with one physical copy per digital. By offering unlimited copies they directly invited a lawsuit.
And then their legal defense had absolutely no competency behind it. They didn't come with any legal principles, they basically just said "we shouldn't be punished because we're nice", and then they tried the same style of argument during appeal, basically throwing money away on legal expenses. All the while they were campaigning for donations - the people that supported them were paying the lawyers, not for the IA's regular activities.
If only they hadn't shot themselves so hard in the foot during covid with their book lending, and dug the hole so much deeper with their piss poor handling of the lawsuit.
While I do very much support what they do, I'd be reluctant to give them money, if only because it might go to paying their dumbass lawyer.
She offered exactly that, they refused. Hell, even to begin with she was willing to pay the $12,000 she was originally quoted, but was told there was a very slim chance that it would be successful and that euthanasia was the best course of action. The shelter even coached her into putting the dog down.
You really should read more before you run your mouth.
If you put a > in the lines between paragraphs you'll make one continuous quote. That's how markdown normally works, reddit was unique in that it automatically joins them.
The company responded, but the shareholders voted on each of the proposals. While certain shareholders made the proposals, the shareholders overall voted against it.
The board recommended voting against it, but the shareholders collectively did that.
Nah I dunno, Sunak had to call an election within the next few months, and economically this was the best time - just after a slight fall in inflation, which will only go back up again by the end of the summer.
With Marcon here, he's in a pretty secure position, I don't believe he needs to call an election within the next few months and he seems to only be doing it to have some sort of "round 2" that he blindly hopes he'll win. That, to me, reminds me more of Cameron.