@AdiAvanzi@Feargal_Sharkey Even if they got them all for free, they still could not afford to run them. As they demonstrated in the 100 years prior to privatisation.
They are absolutely entitled to their own rules.
And anybody who is punished for a free speech reason is absolutely entitled to sue.
And 1A violations are:
A. Very expensive when you lose
B. Virtually indefensible (so you will very likely lose)
C. Carry a personal liability (so the person enforcing the rule can be personally sued, as well as the organisation).
@PolitlcsUK@robinmonotti Inside the U.S.: Foreign nationals—including permanent residents, temporary visa holders, and undocumented immigrants—are fully protected by the First Amendment.
@savoy_girl@midgard_misfit@PolitlcsUK Inside the U.S.: Foreign nationals—including permanent residents, temporary visa holders, and undocumented immigrants—are fully protected by the First Amendment.
Could get VERY expensive for FIFA
This week we learned that Starmer made a tough decision to not invest in defence.
Answer me this (You won't):
If the water companies needed investment this week, how much would they have got?
And that is the reason they needed to be nationalised in the first place - DECADES of under-investment.
so Feargal, answer me this (I know you won't because you are a fraud):
The Government is about to have a massive in-fight due to the defence budget not being given enough money to defend the country.
How much money would the water companies be given if they were publically owned?
Chance of a reply from the grifter: Zero.