...because America must be the best and biggest at everything.
Hmm...you seem to be trying to imply that this is a bad thing?
You don't believe that striving for excellence in all endeavors is a good thing??
The criticism here is not that striving for excellence is a bad thing. The criticism is that America does not strive for excellence, because so many of those in power believe that it is already the most excellent in the world and therefore has nothing to learn from anyone else.
To be clear, I was talking about carrier bags specifically, that being the context here. So allow me to rephrase: plastic carrier bags have not been replaced by paper ones, as the OP speculated. Other paper bags have of course always existed. Fast food, for example, usually comes in paper bags, and always has, so this is nothing to do with the carrier bag charge.
The beer can issue is again not bags, but it is new. However, I've not had problems with the new packaging of my favourite beers, so I guess that's just a McEwans problem.
1. The law on assisting or encouraging suicide is not changing, since that is already illegal. This is about extending that existing law to cover non-lethal self harm.
2. There would seem to be no realistic probability that Putin can be cyberbullied into committing suicide (if it were that easy, Ukraine would have likely already done it), so it's doubtful that any case would get far in the courts. And that's assuming anyone brought such a case, which is again improbable.
3. Would it actually be any great loss to free speech if Putin and his ilk were protected? I personally have found it rather easy to criticize Putin without having to resort to suggesting that he commit suicide, or self-harm in any other way. Indeed, I'd rather he live long enough to face trial for his war crimes and other atrocities.
The age of consent for gay (male-male) sex used to be 21, but is now 18.
It was, but was equalized fully to 16, at the turn of the millennium.
I don't think there was ever a limit on lesbian sex, and even today the legal definition of rape requires penetration. It could be sexual assault though.
You can also "assault by penetration" and "causing sexaul activity without consent" to the list of not-technically-rape charges. All a bit of a mess, and too focused on penetration, IMO.
Did you know that if you took all the economists in the world and lined them up end to end, they'd still point in the wrong direction?