Drop the expensive Sea Salt and Fleur de Sel, you can see the colored pieces of plastic with the naked eye in the salt.

Nowadays salt from inside a mountain is way better.

Apps like Wotja can create live ambient music on-device—no streaming fees, no copyright issues.

Big chickens are always a hit.

Unlike you, I'm at the right side of the bell curve.:-)

Half the people have an IQ of under 100%

If they get the size and the taste right, who cares?

Do they have these on glass negatives?

I thought judges were supposed to CHECK what cases lawyer cite.

It already read ALL the schoolbooks of the last 100 years in most languages.

Some people even complain about it.

And it never will be.

For others, it means Apple doesn't get their percentage, here they get 100%.

Most crashes come from a "scenario that prevent a jet from staying airborne."

Android takes over the 1on1 porn.

If you don't take the food, you ARE food.

The minister does not have direct legal authority to command the Alan Turing Institute to change leadership or mission.
Here's why:

The Alan Turing Institute (ATI) is an independent research organisation. It’s publicly funded, but not a government department. That means ministers like Peter Kyle can:

– set broad funding conditions
– suggest policy priorities
– threaten future funding adjustments

but they cannot legally compel the ATI to adopt a specific internal structure or research direction. The board and leadership remain independent under UK charity and corporate governance laws.

The language in Kyle’s letter, suggesting a “renewed purpose,” hinting at leadership overhaul, tying funding to strategic alignment, is political pressure, not legal command.

Unless legislation changes ATI’s founding structure or the government rewrites grant agreements to force realignment, the institute can legally ignore such instructions.
But doing so risks funding cuts, which is the real leverage here.

In short: the minister can influence with purse strings, not command by law.