There is a third possibility, taking into account the normal modus operandi of security-related law-creation in the UK

1. lawmakers propose outrageous idea that no sane person could possibly agree to
2. after outrage, lawmakers say they will redraft the law in consultation with the public
3. lawmakers proudly present a 'watered down' version that any reasonable person would still say was kafta-esque, were it not for the previous suggestions of step 1
4. the laws they wanted all along make it onto the statute book

This simple process was used time and again by former home secretary David Blunkett, and the Conservative party have learned his methods well.

Since embedded computers are so pervasive in domestic appliances, it seems as though some lateral thinking by the security services could result in all sorts of breaches of the law.

EG:

People have fridges with embedded computers, that can re-stock themselves with food by ordering online. Disrupting that computerised fridge could be seen as attempting to starve them to death with a computer:

Until 1998, we had the death penalty as a punishment for high treason against the crown, so under that law it would have been possible to punish a computer offence with death if the defendant had disrupted a computer network with the intention of committing treason.

But not only was the death penalty for treason abolished; we're prohibited from restoring the death penalty (for any offence) as long as we're signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Have you been to Hong Kong?

The accidents that occur on bamboo scaffold in HK are nothing to do with its inherent safety.

Almost all scaffold in HK is bamboo, even up to 40 storeys. And the HK scaffolders who put it up are, to put it mildly, quite reckless. In fact, recklessness (fearlessness) is almost seen as a positive attribute by HK scaffolders.

The steel scaffolds are usually put up by foreign building firms who use lanyards and other correct safety equipment and procedures.

talking of music... 1980's digital musical equipment, especially Roland and Yamaha, didn't seem to have obsolescence built-in.

My Roland MC500 MKII (1988) and Yamaha TX802 (1987) have been gigged around the world & are still going strong.

Anyone who's had children knows that sleep deprivation, and all-nighters, are routine during the first two years.

Although, arguably, bringing up kids involves a certain amount of inherent brain damage anyway.

Then how do you explain multiplayer tetris-rage?

That's not 'entertainment purposes only'. Those little blocks are life or death.

Well The Guardian newspaper, who originally ran this story, also spelled it incorrectly.

Waterboarding isn't torture, it's just an enhanced interrogation technique

Europe is already covered by the European data protection directive, recently updated in 2012 and 2013.

The directive, essentially, makes the whole of Europe a data enclave, out of which data can only be passed if it's subject to the same laws as would apply within that enclave.

Third countries is the term used in legislation to designate countries outside the European Union. Personal data may only be transferred to third countries if that country provides an adequate level of protection. Some exceptions to this rule are provided, for instance when the controller himself can guarantee that the recipient will comply with the data protection rules.

We (UK personally) already have the data protection legislation in place. The law is very clear on what's allowed. But the laws just aren't being followed.

He also brought in lens flares. A lot of lens flares.

At least, like George Lucas, he has an ego the size of a Death Star.

Keep your friends close and enemies closer.

Bring all the companies who've been complaining they can't reveal the NSA's information requests into your privileged enclave - to make them feel special.

And in the process, ensure those companies are even more firmly ensconced in the laws that prevent them from revealing anything.

The really simplified answer is that they're very expensive to build, very expensive to knock down and ONR, the UK nuclear regulator, requires the plant operator to set aside some of the money they make to cover the knocking down costs.

In addition, most nuclear plants don't operate for their full life expectancy, so their turnover often doesn't cover the cost of building and decommissioning.

China does have a fair point here, and that's speaking as a UK citizen, and not trying to play the devil's advocate. The UK has had a history of terrible management in pseudo-private sector enterprises since the 1960s, from British Leyland to British Rail.

Nuclear power in the UK has, so far, been a loss-making enterprise, kept afloat only by government subsidies, and looks set to continue in this way. If I was any overseas investor looking to protect my money, China included, I'd want to make damn sure my investment wasn't just being used to reduce the UK's subsidy.