Interesting. I had thought this fitted into 'things the government was legally allowed to do, even if it was completely mad because you'll have to arrest loads of old ladies".

This is of course the sensible answer (and therefore unlikely to ever happen)

Indeed. Feature not a bug.

have these people not heard of mortgages?

Au contraire, any rise in fuel duty before a) proper road pricing mechanism and b) equalising effective carbon tax rates across emissions sources, would be inequitable.

(also, how long did it take the govt to realise that facilitating fake company directors was a suboptimal policy innovation?)

Also, if landowners are complicit (as implied here), there should be a mechanism to ban them from owning land in the same way farmers can lose the right to keep livestock if found to be neglectful (yes I know these orders can be circumvented by partners, but still...)

Interesting, thanks, but is this paper still at proof stage? Can't find it on PNAS.

weirdly, I can't seem to find any trace of the article on PNAS (the OP didn't post a link), so I guess it's still at proof stage

can't believe the Mail squeezed that many words out of "f*** around, find out".

I've noticed this too! Was starting to worry* I was in the wrong
* not really, obv we're right.

The fact that 50% of the public support the death penalty only confirms that at least half the public shouldn't be listened to about penal matters. What kind of person is in favour of state executions but draws the line at putting people in the stocks? bsky.app/profile/youg...

It's basically the same vein of contemptible idiocy that leads to non vegans getting upset and self-righteous about culls of deer and feral goats, while they happily eat cage-reared chicken.

100%