More like. UK high court dose not have the authority to enforce gov treaties. Only laws as created by the UK parliament.
If the UK parliament allows laws that break treaties like the Geneva Convention. Only other signees of that convention can do anything to stop them.
This whole idea of international law is not really a thing. Just agreements between nations and political will to enforce them.
Do you have confirmation
Just a news article. Can't even remember where I saw it. So yeah. You are likely correct.
That said. If the US refused to support the UK. I find it hard to believe we would not quickly have difficulties maintaing f35s. And given how much they really on software to fly. I'd be more surprised if the US did not have a backdoor.
I'd add that to anything the US sells that they would have reason to fear if turned against them.
I really think is the EU and or the UK want to be independent of the US. Arming with modern US weapons is about as safe as. Well issuing Chinese smart phones to all our politicians.
The US has never been entirely trust worthy when it comes to them Vs the world. Less so now.
Pancreatitis not cancer.
It is inflammation. Can be minor(short term pain and gastric issue), But when acute can lead to death. Mainly as it seriously harm other organs and has a systemic effect on the body when the pancreas fails.
The side-effects would need to be pretty extreme
Pancreatitis ranges from minor to life threatening.
It can become systemic harming multiple organs.
So idepending on what this study shows when done. A high number of severe cases. Could def be worse for the NHS then obesity. Considering 1 in 4 adults meet the obesity Def now. And 1 in 5 cases of pancreatitis are classed as severe. Mass roll out could be a disaster if the study shows high numbers suffer this effect.
Unfortunately the new nukes that fit to the f35 we agreed to buy from the US.
Require US permission to use. So we are far from reducing our reliance on them.
Flatpac version is the easy way to avoid dependency issues. Blender releases this way now.
Both companies question if the 2002 law applies. Saying they think the gov is wrong.
Neither give a shit if they morally should be advertising a dangerous product. Let alone in front of children.
Ain't capitalism great.
I mean I grew up with tobacco advertising. And below 10 my father sending me to the shop to buy him fags. The 70s were a very different time.
But for all the evil tobacco companies did. They were trying to stay afloat. With a model that started before the health disadvantages were understood. Shitty greed was clearly a motive. But at least some element of survival instinct can be applied. To their desperation to fight the science.
Sainsbury's knew the harm from day one. Had no business to protect by trying to skirt the law. A law clearly intended to stop exactly what they planned to do. And openly supported by the waste majority of modern British citizens. Heck even my father's age group tends to agree with the law.
But openly decided to do harm purely to increase profits..
Well it's sky so I'm not going to disagree with the intent.
But it's very open to interpretation. Many right wing readers may interpret it that way. But the tittle just questions the cost. Reading the article it seems more like a warning.
"For elderly females that dogs may be a bad pet for them and the NHS."
I worry more that it makes no effort to compare the huge cost saving regular walking of dogs has on elderly heart and muscle health. And companionship has on mental health.
But that's less click baity. And really clicks is all they care about.
Nods saw it on social media so tried it with my little dog.
Was stunned how effective and quick it was.
Not to mention. The concession is basically. Wait for a report. With 0 requirement to follow the results of that report.
So you can fuck over the support for disabled independence. But must wait a while. If the MPs considered this in anyway a requirement. They would wait for the report before passing the law.