Hill starts are quite easy when you get the hang of them: keep one hand on the handbrake (parking brake), and bring the clutch up to the biting point until you feel the car struggle a little against the brake then slowly release the handbrake while you give it a little more throttle.
It's almost exactly the same as pulling away normally except you let the clutch bite a little more before you release the brake. Failing that, you find the owner of the other car and tell them what an inconsiderate tool they've been; either they move or you find yourself unconscious only to wake with the offending vehicle having mysteriously vanished.
There's ample evidence for animal worship by palaeolithic humans. I was specifically thinking of the Celts, but it doesn't seem that far of a stretch for me to assume that humans in general would try to treat their prey well. Humane slaughter formed quite a large part of abrahamic religions still practiced today, but even the oldest branches of those don't stretch back quite as far as flint as far as I know.
If that's not good enough a citation then fine, you win. Now I'm curious how you can justify the ethics of bow hunting just for mere target practice in case civilisation somehow comes to an end. You might as well argue that soldiers should have to practice with longbows in case their guns all decide to fall apart at exactly the same moment.
There's reasons why people practice this form of hunting for a hundred thousand years.
Because they hadn't invented guns yet. Give a subsistence hunter a choice between a bow and a rifle with free ammo and see what they choose. Even back when people were hunting with bits of flint on the end of sticks they cared about reducing the suffering of what they killed; that's to say nothing of wanting a more reliable means to bring down one's next meal.
You might think it's a good idea to kick everyone who comes up with a terrible idea out of society, but it really isn't.
I didn't say anything about kicking her out of society, but having someone who can seriously suggest such an idea shouldn't be in a position to give an ostensibly reasoned opinion on ethics and, due to their position, have it given weight by others.
But hopefully not for too much longer.
Cloakroom attendants are used to seeing human waste, that doesn't mean I do my business on the floor. Firefighters sometimes come across charred bodies, but that's no reason not to take basic precautions against fires.
I'm not worried about this actually happening. It'd be shot down by the ECHR and at best would just give the Telegraph another reason to complain about them.
I'm more concerned that someone who calls themself a doctor could even concieve of such a thing; I'm going to have to assume that Ms Roache isn't that kind of doctor, otherwise I'm in danger of losing any lingering faith I have in the innate goodness of Man.
Don't go there. It's not about politics it's about money.
You say that as though there was a difference.
I use a press but I have a big problem with it: they're all apparently made of thin glass. This means that, by the time the coffee is brewed, it's almost cold. Thankfully I had an old tea cosy around, but now I'm pestered by people asking why I have an ugly hat standing on my desk.
Talk about first world problems. What I'd really like to see is a coffee pot that's made of, well... pot.
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?