That was a big question during the trial, too

What a great idea! Let’s call it The Final Solution

/s

Yeah, it’s an adapted toilet for a disability and also built into a wall (old house, weird architecture), so the easy attachable ones don’t cut it. Even if they did, I’d still prefer the separate bidet unit, tbh. Just personal preference and what I’m used to, which would require someone to fit it

Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find a bidet attachment that fits my toilet. When we move, I’m getting one for sure but I’ll still use toilet roll at times too

That being said, I’m not sure the cost-benefit really fits here. The initial cost (£100-500, depending on quality and type) plus fitting (£100-200 depending on plumbers in your area) would take about 10 years to break even when spending £40 on toilet roll per year. And by then, I’m sure I would have moved house or the bidet would have broken or something

I often see people say to buy the expensive toilet roll but I always go for the low end of the midrange rolls. I don’t need 4ply, scented, quilted shit, I just need two pieces of paper stuck together.

There is a balance, you don’t want to get the 1ply stuff you’d find in a stingy office. But just look at the label and price-per-sheet

(If you can afford it, buy a year’s supply in bulk from the company)

Nah, that’s taking it a bit far. The Madagascar Plan is enough, surely.

Eyeball licking. It’s, um, unusual. And prone to infection. Proceed with caution

It would certainly solve all of Israel’s problems, though

Migrating a whole group of people, whatever could possibly go wrong?

Sincere question: would a baggy coat or rain mac be acceptable on the outside, since it still disguises the figure?

Also, if you’re out and about and wearing a coat underneath but then decide that you’re too hot, what’s the best way to remove it whilst keeping your modesty?

Everything that Salman said.

This sounds exactly like me and my partner: a small thing can ruin his day and it ruins my day because then I have to put up with his bad mood. What’s helped him was some intense solution-based therapy to address his shitty childhood as well as an awareness that several ‘bad’ things in a row is just a coincidence and not the world (his family) out to get him.

With our kids, I’m making sure to say ‘oh well’ and not fix it immediately everytime a mild frustration happens. They see their dad getting upset and have started to copy his behaviours so we’re trying to encourage them to just brush things off before they get stuck in the mindset.

Also, I’m sorry to say but I think the vast majority of people would be boring. We all have 1 or 2 interesting things happen to us in our lives but the humdrum of taking a shit and sleeping for 8 hours would get old fast

Tapeworm

For anyone new to British politics, Maultasche isn’t being figurative…

You need a subscription to read it

Sometimes it’s not a big difference. Using several different quotes in one article, all of which use the word ‘terrorist’ or other emotionally loaded words, is a clear indication that they think he’s a terrorist whilst technically remaining ‘neutral’ because they’re only quoting rather than forming a position

Well sure, I agree. But the BBC isn’t taking the moral high ground here. They have previously and will again use the word ‘terrorist’ to evoke an emotional response for international attacks.

It’s a decision that senior lawyers are criticising - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/11/bbc-not-calling-hamas-terrorists-ofcom-top-lawyers/

Interestingly, on their Bitsize page, they describe the Palestinian Liberation Front as a terrorist group, which is true. The mere fact that they have a page on ‘terrorism’ indicates that they don’t take a moral position against the word, just against calling Israel (and Israeli factions/allies) terrorists - https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zy7nqhv/revision/1

Bullshit. They’ve used the word ‘terrorist’ for every other attack in the past two decades (9/11, London Bridge, Manchester Arena, 7/7, etc.). Was that not ‘choosing sides’ then?

They just can’t admit that the UK fucked up and condemn Israel because the lawyers told them not to

No, it’s announcing their cowardice. They use ‘terrorist’ for any other non-Israel/Palestine attack (9/11, London Bridge, 7/7, etc) so the entire argument is invalid.

The lawyers told them not to because everyone’s scared of being called anti-semitic, that’s all