That will take years to be heeded, I'm sure. Even then, it's possible some companies will provide that access only to customers from the EU (given it removes the monopoly these companies hold on their services).
One major thing for me was just sticking to three --appropriately sized-- meals a day (and perhaps a snack later in the night). Doesn't really matter what the meals are. Grazing is a substantial reason why I gained a fair amount of weight.
That and switching from sugar in my teas and coffees, and getting diet when I occasionally drink pop.
I'm lucky enough that my walk commute to work is enough exercise for me.
The £9k a year figure is mostly smoke and mirrors though. All British citizens are eligible for a tuition "loan" that covers it. That "loan" (and the maintenance loan too) is the equivalent of a graduate tax, as it's a percentage (9% for the current lot of students) charged on income made past a certain amount (above £25,000 for this lot). The loan is wiped 30 years after graduation (this what will happen for the majority of students).
I see no reason why this wouldn't be serious. To put these comments into context, it's in preparation of the government's Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill[1] coming before the Commons. The Bill would set up an Animal Sentience Committee to scrutinise policies' effects on sentient animals. The government have brought this forward in preparation of future changes to British animal welfare legislation, now Britain has legislative independence in this area, post-EU exit. The Queen's Speech in May announced Britain would pursue "the highest standards of animal welfare", and the government said it would make Britain a "global leader" in this area[2]. As the Bill currently stands, it limits the Committee in considering only vertebrate animals (and therefore it cannot report with regards to others, including octopuses and lobsters). These MPs want to amend it to cover these other animals. Whether or not the Sentience Committee's reports are properly considered in policy is another matter.
A big reason why the Roundheads wanted to make Cromwell king was to limit his power. His status as Lord Protector was not King, and therefore had none of the constraints on power that the kingdom had evolved over the centuries.
He wasn't widely popular outside the parliamentarians, who were the ones in power. The "godly", who made up the majority of the Roundheads were reviled by a substantial portion of the British. Cromwell held the Commonwealth together, that's for sure, but the cohesion amongst the Roundheads dried up once he died.
Source: The English and their History by Robert Tombs
Which is exactly what is done with Britain. News item, queue "they get what they deserve". How about the EU gets what it deserves for being a undemocratic, big bungling bureaucracy?
>Firefox rarely copies Chrome features (or Chrome's anti-features).
In so far as web technology goes, it certainly does. Lots of half-baked, non-standard features get added to Chrome, sites start using them, and then Mozilla has to follow suit in order to maintain web compatibility.
Thinking you wouldn't be badly affected (and by Johnson's demographic, statistically it was likely he wouldn't have been), doesn't mean you think it doesn't affect others badly.
I'm in my twenties and fit, and going by the vast majority of cases that means I'll have very mild symptoms. That doesn't prevent me being considerate how badly it affects others.
You're also completely ignoring the context that at that point the country had been locked down: you couldn't leave your house except to get supplies and 1 hour of exercise. Does that sound like the decision of a man that denied the gravity of Covid?
Nonsense. Nothing in your comment is "denial". The guy got progressively iller. He "felt rough" at one point, and then felt worse. He was commenting on his own state and his perception of it, not making some great statement of it being nothing. He self-isolated throughout during his illness, before going to hospital.
This was all against the background of the government shutting down the country's economy in response to the virus. A torturous definition of "denial" if I've heard one.
I've not heard "denial", a la Trump, from Johnson.
That's the trade off every country is making: dangers of the virus Vs long term effects of response to the virus. It's a balancing act. What would you prefer, wanton destruction of everyone's livelihoods in overreaction? Not everyone is lucky enough to have a job that can be done from home, such as us on this site (typically). Every country is trying to avoid shuttering everything.
The quote from Johnson isn't talking about what you're inferring. It was a broad statement of what was going to happen (and it has, across the world): people will still die, in spite of the lockdown. It was a public address, not a policy statement.
It isn't purely the economics: I've had friends and relatives that have had significant effects to their health (including a death) because of being locked in their houses for months.
Why are you equating the response of the UK to Brazil or the USA? The UK locked down for months on end, and continues to lockdown areas depending on infection rates. To me, a Briton, the description of Johnson as "far right" is bizarre -- he's about as "far right" as Harold Macmillan.