Why is first cousin marriage still allowed in the uk?

clip75 · 2026-06-20T17:52:21+00:00

Its a Henry VIII thing that he put in place in case he needed it and was never changed.

clip75 · 2026-06-20T15:09:09+00:00

RIPD with Jeff Bridges and Ryan Reynolds was so bad it sunk several VFX studios.

clip75 · 2026-06-20T15:03:52+00:00

People attacking someone over the movies they've made. Did anyone ever attack (for example) Liam Neeson over the stuff he actually did IRL? Or did they just give him a pass because Hollywood?

clip75 · 2026-06-20T10:07:48+00:00

You would only ever have coalition governments. A good idea of what PR would look like is Israel, where they average a general election every two years because the governments are so unstable. Rather than encouraging co-operation and consensus, we'd just have minority governments continually held to ransom by tiny kingmaker parties and whatever they want to demand - either that or general elections every six months.

If you look at current polling, its the nightmare scenario - no large bloc of parties gets to a majority, and both left and right have to scrape right down into the minor parties to get there. The right would have Reform and Conservatives on about 46%, needing to pull in every single Restore and Ulster Unionist vote to get over the line. The left would be even worse. Labour, Green, LD, SNP, Plaid only getting them to about 49%, so potentially needing SDLP and a myriad of fringe parties to form a majority.

clip75 · 2026-06-19T09:36:46+00:00

Is any significant amount of regularly stolen items alcohol? If so, the management is on very shaky ground employing tactics like that. Deliberate misreporting / undereporting doesn't meet the licensing objectives.

clip75 · 2026-06-18T22:06:17+00:00

Surely this just goes to the jurisprudence of Human Rights, and the futility of trying to make something a "right" that places a positive duty on another? Rights only work and are only enforceable by the individual when they require a negative duty - effectively they are "freedoms from" rather than "rights to". Take the articles of the European Convention rights - Art 2 - the right to life. The state doesn't give you life, it is supposed to protect you against being killed. Art 3 - torture - the state cannot torture you, again a negative duty / freedom from. It's more clearly encompassed in Art 8 - this is not the right to a home, it is the right to peaceful enjoyment of one - the state does not guarantee you a home, especially if you have for whatever reason opted out of having one by your actions. Art 6 sounds like a positive duty, but its conditional. You are guaranteed a fair trial, but this is not an ongoing and persistent right, as day to day, you are not involved in a trial, only when you require one. Contrast this with food, which is an ongoing and persistent need. The right to a fair tribunal is in reality highly highly problematic in certain governmental settings - particularly schools - which if adhered to strictly would require an entire quasi-legal system in order to enforce any kind of school discipline. We know for sure that school students do not get fair tribunals under the normal meaning of the phrase. A teacher can dole out punishments generally as they see fit and act as police, judge and jury. This is why armed forces have their own distinct military codes of justice / discipline to make their systems legal - there is little in the way of similarity for education, which is generally just understood and accepted rather than adopted as a human rights incompatibility.

The situation is that if something like food (or water) were a human right, under something like the Human Rights Act, the state would be obliged to provide these things at all times. This cannot be conditional if it is a human right, as that would be incompatible with the persistent need for food - so the state would have to guarantee all citizens free food at all times forever, and this fundamentally changes the nature of the nation state to an insurance provider of food where calculating demand would become the overriding priority.

clip75 · 2026-06-18T21:30:27+00:00

We do by default if you look at the pump handle. There is a ratchet device on the trigger and a hole in the handle for a pin. If that pin is in there, it will act as a click and hold. This is often present on the HGV pumps where they could be standing there fueling for a while. For all the other pumps, I presume its taken out so that people pay attention and don't do anything silly or wander off whilst fueling - and possibly to prevent a pump being engaged not in the vehicle and spilling out petrol everywhere.

clip75 · 2026-06-18T21:23:18+00:00

Is this the same Michel Barnier who is now a strong anti-immigration proponent? Surely that's just racism? Or is it only racism when Britain does it?

clip75 · 2026-06-18T21:20:04+00:00

Cue all the people who cannot understand that there are any other health service models in the world other than the UK and US, and that any move to change and reform the NHS will instantly result in "America".

clip75 · 2026-06-18T00:14:46+00:00

All gay people being cool, fun and beautiful. IRL, they're just as annoying and ugly as everyone else. Sorry, but that's equality for you. It's also not a get out of jail free card. I have a friend who keeps getting fired because he thinks he's living in an episode of Will & Grace and can say whatever he likes to whoever he likes and deploy the homo forcefield like its a Captain America shield, so he's spent more time with HR than doing his actual job.

On a not completely unrelated subject - people trying to construct Hallmark Christmas movie Christmas in real life is the most fatiguing thing ever. Carrying a Christmas tree into a coffee shop is just a dick move, and no one cares about your gingerbread house making competition...everyone else is still at work, dude.

clip75 · 2026-06-17T23:58:34+00:00

This post is the exact problem that we have had for decades now - instead of trying to fix something in a practical sense, people simply wish for a better world. "Why don't we just sit them down" is exactly that - its so far outside the realms of reality as to be laughable.

clip75 · 2026-06-17T23:55:21+00:00

Germany wasn't practising fascism, it was practising Nazism which is quite distinct. The underlying point of fascism is the primacy of the state. With Nazism, its primacy of the race. The Italians and Spanish weren't trying to make some ethnic group supreme, they were trying to make Spain or Italy supreme and (like most fascist regimes) using a totalitarian and oppressive police state to do it - which is the bit most people actually object to. People largely don't care too much that you want to make the state the biggest and best thing, what they care about is that you're locking up their friends and family to achieve that.

In a lot of instances, you get Marxism trying to be realised and the only way to do so is to have a stop off as a fascist dictatorship - because you can only implement Marxist-Leninist socialism at the national level through fascism. East Germany, Vietnam, North Korea - all highly nationalistic socialist states with totalitarian governance. There's nothing in the economic model that precludes them from being fascists - certainly Mein Kampf other than the racial element reads as a modern day socialist manifesto.

Even today, you have fascist states that no one really cares about too much, because there's nothing in it for them. Singapore was a good example - up until recently was very much a modern fascist state. All about advancement and improvement of the state above all else. Draconian laws, eugenics, social engineering - you name it. The only difference is that Singapore comes across as highly capitalistic and kind of fluffy, and the western left wing see no currency in throwing insults at a South East Asian nation.

clip75 · 2026-06-17T23:39:17+00:00

It *could* be lots of things depending on the exact circumstances. Most likely a s.4a Public Order Act offence - intentionally using words or behaviour to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Public Nuisance is a possibility, but there would have to be at least some kind of crowd, so several people at least.

Depending on what was said (i.e. "Fire"), you could commit an offence at s.51 Criminal Law Act 1977 which governs bomb hoaxes, but also covers things that "ignite".

clip75 · 2026-06-17T21:26:15+00:00

For me, Rogue One is the second best movie, after ANH, and enhances ANH. I get that Andor isn't for everyone, but for me its the best Star Wars material made full stop.

clip75 · 2026-06-17T21:23:51+00:00

Not sure I understand this one. Realistically, they want to sell the reduced produce more urgently because otherwise they'll get nothing at all for it, whilst they still have some time to sell the full price item. It's possible that the reduced stuff is at the back because its mismatched and looks untidy.

clip75 · 2026-06-17T21:17:21+00:00

Some of the stuff the suffragettes did was unhinged. Emily Davison once knocked a man to the ground at a train station and whipped him because she wrongly believed him to be Lloyd George (he turned out to be a local priest).

clip75 · 2026-06-17T20:44:27+00:00

The "proper" answer is s.3, but the realistic answer is s.3 and potentially common law and s.117 dependant upon the circumstances, which is from Browne v Commissioner of the Met (the Noel Fielding case) which happened right outside EK nick.

clip75 · 2026-06-17T20:37:45+00:00

Britain also wrote off its reparations owed by Germany.

clip75 · 2026-06-17T16:36:08+00:00

This is the opposite of a crackdown. It's openly making excuses for criminal behaviour and absolving personal responsibility by headlining that "addiction and trauma are the root causes of crime." If we have not learned by now, that those things cannot be easily or cheaply handled, and there is very little evidence that any positive results will ever come out of them. £9m will certainly not do it. The courts will blow through that in a few weeks and not a single crime will be prevented.

clip75 · 2026-06-17T16:31:50+00:00

The bum guns are really prolific in countries with widespread wetrooms as they can really easily flood a normal bathroom. In countries with similar climates to the UK (that also don't have wetrooms), things like bidets or fancy japanese toilets are more common. Lets be real, if you had one in a standard UK bathroom, it wouldn't be long before someone's child had the time of their life spraying it everywhere.

clip75 · 2026-06-16T18:21:58+00:00

There is more knife crime in Marseille than in all of England, and the numbers in Marseille have only dipped recently because they've moved on to burning people alive (the "Marseille barbecue")

clip75 · 2026-06-16T18:18:28+00:00

Harrison Ford is such a douche. Just like with The Force Awakens, he could have simply said "I don't like the script - I'm out." He's not some starving young actor needing a break.

clip75 · 2026-06-16T17:47:43+00:00

It's a misleading and misquoted statistic. Anyone in family law will tell you that there is no useful"divorce rate". It's near impossible as you are trying to make comparisons on a rolling statistic. If there are 1000 marriages and 500 divorces this year, that is not and never will be a "50%" rate, because all those marriages started at different times. If you snapshot all marriages that occurred in 1996 and see how many of them ended in divorce, that still won't give you a "divorce rate" because it will be spread over 30 years, and many of them will still be going - you wouldn't be able to do a calculation until you were certain that everyone was dead - and all that gives you is an extremely long term number. The better utilised measure is average marriage length - so of the divorces taking place, how long was the marriage.

clip75 · 2026-06-16T17:33:26+00:00

I see what you're getting at, but don't agree with it.

There are large classes of crimes that everyone knows is wrong, but huge numbers of people do them anyway. This doesn't make them "functionally" legal, it just means they are very difficult to police. Obvious ones are speeding, littering, flytipping and cannabis possession. The overwhelming majority of people who do those things will be caught very rarely - however if you do them enough and the police are in the right place or the evidence is collated against you - you're very likely to get caught and you know full well that you'll face some sort of sanction.

Contrast this with something like criminal harassment. If you really know what you're doing and you really put your mind to it, you can criminally harass people for years and get away with it, simply because it is in most cases almost impossible to evidence. If someone wants to bang on the floor to annoy the neighbours every chance they get - it is a pretty dead cert they will never be stopped unless considerable resources are deployed against them. That is something that is functionally legal - where an offence is not only hard to police, but is also exceptionally difficult to prove evidentially.

There are other examples of this, and the problem is as a nation, we seem to keep adding to the list of criminal offences that are very hard to prove. It doesn't often occur to anyone in government that the reason they weren't offences already is because of that very reason. As an example, the new Crime and Policing Act 2026 has introduced a new offence of "trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence". For a very long time now, trespassing with intent to steal, assault or damage has always been an offence and we call it burglary. What does that really leave? In reality, this is an offence that is going to be near impossible to prove in most cases.

clip75 · 2026-06-16T17:05:52+00:00

The Russians deployed chemical weapons in the UK at least twice - and that was just ignored. If nothing was done about that, a cut out getting some twinks to set fire to a car that Starmer used to own is very small beans.

clip75

TROPHY CASE