They still haven't 6 months on? Shakes head.
TPL2008
TPL2008
Whoa, that was quite the post. I thought my post was an innocuous statement saying the two leading parties in the UK have, in their own peculiar ways, intentions to regulate the internet.
I don't know about that. Both leading parties have latched on to regulating the internet in the past few years.
Page 3 didn't seem to bother my nan as she bought it for years before she started buying the Daily Mail. Can't say I approve of either paper myself.
Yeah, it was 2 years between Farcry 3 and Farcry 4. 2 years to me is enough time to 'forget' the previous game enough to not feel like I'm playing the same game back to back. With Assassin's Creed, I simply got tired of playing the same kind of game every Christmas. It was the same with CoD.
I'm unaware of that, but I recall accusations that they were setting themselves up as a body to regulate and educate the industry on this issue and charging the industry to do it.
I think it's slightly odd that you need to get permission to film for profit in America.
I remember reading an article on this a couple of years ago. Underneath someone claiming to have voted for the measure voted so to get the porn out of LA rather than out of concern for performers.
I also do think that Americans can't really side-eye the UK because so many people in the country freak out about any explicit sex scene on tv and in film, but we do nothing about extreme violence.
This is part of a much broader attack on pornography in the UK. There are plans in the works to prevent British money from being paid to foreign sites that don't comply with British regulations.
There was no vote at all. The method they used to change the law requires a minister to simply file the paperwork and no MP object to it before a certain date.
Labour is no different. If they had their way back in the year 2000, then all hardcore porn would still be illegal to sell.
Did she get upset about Williams' death specifically or idea of death?
I've also seen ads for Youtube. I thought it odd that they need to advertise.
Has there ever been a magazine cover featuring a woman that hasn't been Photoshopped somehow? I once saw a magazine cover which had a man on its cover that was seemingly untouched because he had a whitehead on his cheek.
I'm not surprised. I even said it would happen:
I read it as questioning what caused the rather sudden change, when very recently sex tapes were ignored or met with glee, even on Gawker.
I wouldn't be surprised. I'd actually expect it. I've found expecting "the worst" in people saves me from being disappointed, and when it rarely turns out different, I feel slight joy.
I see that it wasn't aired because of the joke, but because of the subject of the episode.