andthenthreemore

Don't. Life's too short.

If you're enjoying it but it's a hard read take a break and try again. If you're just not enjoying it sack it.

That's the trap the restaurant uses to get out of giving 10% off.

The defendant saying that they did it doesn't mean that they did. That could be helping the real guilty party get off.

Definitely not. There are the obvious issues with miscarriages of justice but also I think that an eye for an eye justice is archaic.

One of my cats does the same. My assumption is he was taken from the mother cat too young so never learned how to do things properly.

For the smell maybe try grain free food.

Still partially in use the UK. We've got a really messed up system where metric is used for some things and imperial for others.

We tend to cook in metric but weigh ourselves in imperial (but stone and pounds not just stone)

Distance is metric for DIY and metric for driving.

Liquids are metric for most things and imperial for milk and beer.

🤣

Then reinstated quietly after the election (if Tories win)

Didn't work for me. How do you turn that on?

No it doesn't seem to be in there. According to the highway code

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

No where does it say if an area is named specially as a must not, and another area is named as a should not in the same rule then the should not must be treated as a must not.

Or is there some case law maybe that you're referring to?

Do you have something to back that up? It seems very odd that London would be named specially as must not then a second clause for the remainder of the country that sounds different. Surely it should either be "you must not park on the pavement" or if there's some archaic reason that London needs specific wording "you must not park on the pavement in London, and you must not park on the pavement elsewhere "

Fair. It's hard to know sometimes if someone has English as a first or second language. People can be really technically good, but then not understand more subtle cultural things.

Never know maybe both of our comments will help some people.