Agriculture

That’s a service export. And the EU offered to include it in the deal but the Tories said no.

Was called a Swiss kiss iirc

They’ll eventually comply. I suspect only on new models. I’m guessing they’ll try and find a war around it

Source?

Laws literally define what torture is. How could it be enforced otherwise? How could they create coercive techniques that avoided it being torture?

Torture was outlawed in the Bill of Rights in 1689.

So it wasn’t torture, then it became torture? Seems contradictory. Perhaps you should stick to the legal definition of the time, otherwise it makes discussing the subject impossible.

So what was it prior to the change?

I’m not making any attempts, desperate or otherwise. I’m just stating facts.

You are just using presentism to make your point, which is moot.

The article is about interrogation techniques that were not torture at the time and now are.

That’s because there is no growth in Europe

It’s not about what you think it means though.

They were designed to not be torture. Coercive techniques were also discovered to be ineffective.

Why do you think that?

It wasn’t though, “torture” was almost exclusively understood as extreme, direct physical violence intended to cause severe bodily injury or pain.

The techniques were developed to specifically avoid being called torture.

They were subjected to now banned methods of torture which involve sensory deprivation, such as completely covering someone’s head with a sack and bombarding them with noise.

Those were the 5 techniques. Those SAS soldiers went through the same thing during training. Are you suggesting the British army tortured trainees?

It was classified as torture by the UN in 1984.

The 5 Techniques were used for ~8 years until 1972 when they were banned.

The UN classified techniques like these as torture in 1984.

Again, please point out where I defended it.

But incapable of understanding nuance