None of the messages that were sent to people have appeared in the chat history for that person. Except there are two new chats in her messages to people that she doesn’t know, containing only the rogue message.
Interestingly, her entire chat history with me has been wiped.
Awesome cheers, I’ll give it a go
Yeah, no question
This is likely the best explanation, although there’s plenty of highly physical/athletic sports that are popular in hot countries. Football, arguably the most athletically demanding team sport, is popular in a bunch of places where I’d rather stay in the shade with a beer.
Mate, football and cricket are mandatory in those same schools, you absolute ring binder.
And 2 million people in England are registered players. That’s 3.5% of the population. That’s just official registered players, not even fans. Your comment is absurd.
Rugby isn’t popular in England? Are you mad?
How would this be possible? How would an individual employed by a company withhold tax from their wages, if they’re paid net? Surely it would need 100,000 self-employed or businesses themselves to withhold tax from HMRC?
Which led to some amazing protests.
Weirdly, watching facesitting porn in the UK is perfectly fine, as long as it wasn’t filmed in the UK.
I can just imagine trying to defend that in court. “Your honour, it’s clear to me that the muffled moans of the face-sittee are those of a Frenchman”
No, but Microsoft made claims regarding the Xbox One’s potential to use the cloud for computation within games after it was clear how much the system specifications would result in an under-performance vs the PS4.
However, those claims were also clearly bollocks, since nobody did that, ever.
No they’re not, no they don’t.
Not sure this is gatekeeping, as much as a tongue in cheek reaction to the generic, oft-repeated responses you see in many fediverse posts, regarding capitalism, enshittification, open source etc. Sometimes people just want to vent.
And I thank you for it. I had to sit through multiple kids Christmas concerts this year, and having this on my watch was a lifesaver.
Perfect joke
Yes I’m aware of this, I’m just saying that arbitrarily speculating on the potential original price for 1 item does nothing to change the current actual situation. If the cost was £10 for 1, I wouldn’t have bothered taking a photo.
Alternatively you could take the viewpoint that Next has already worked out that the price of 1 shirt is a minimum of £8, hence the costings for multiple units. Any price they put over £8 for 1 unit is additional profit, while the expected revenue per unit is £8+n where n is substantially close to zero. Latterly reducing the cost of 1 item does nothing except imply a perceived saving.
Additionally, the 2x and 3x offerings are not, and were never, discounted. The sticker reduces the price of 1 shirt, but if you were in the market for two, there’s no saving based on when you buy them. There might have been a saving originally, we assume, against the cost of buying 1 twice, but that’s irrelevant if you want two shirts at any point. Obviously the pricing would have been to incentivise the purchase of two when you would potentially only have bought one, so that is the driver for the sale, at which point the price per shirt is £8, and remains £8 per shirt for any multiple purchase, both before and after the sticker price amendment.
Yes - we don’t know what the original price was for 1x. You’re assuming it was more than £8. It could have been £5 - we’ll never know.
Either way, it doesn’t change the current value proposition for the customer, which is that a bulk purchase is meaningless.
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting was solved. You’re positing scenarios whereas I’m presenting facts - the photo. Which, for the consumer, is mildly infuriating.
If it was serious they didn’t mean it, and if they did it was a parody, and if it was we didn’t understand it, and if we did it wasn’t funny, but thank fuck mean orange man gone.