Law & Justic

Archive for the ‘Crime’ Category

It does not matter whether you are fresh out of high school, trying to look for a higher position within your present career, looking for a change in your career path or you simply wish to obtain a higher level of education in your life, You have plenty of education opportunities available to you to pursue your dreams and one of the best way to do this is through online learning. However, before you start head on with this type of education, you should know a little more about this type of opportunity. Comparing the pros and cons of online learning will let you observe that it is almost similar to those for most schools. Figuring out what will be the best for you based on your personal priorities and even circumstances should be the first thing in your mind. If you always prefer face-to-face contact with your instructors to further expand your educational experience, you might not want to go a larger school or university. In this case, online learning is not suited for you, as the most contact you have with instructors and classmates is through e-mail or discussion boards. On the other hand, this lack of interaction might be of more interest to you, if you are the type of student who might be wary of first impressions or biases in class. Of course, teachers, professors and instructors are also humans, just like the rest of the population in the world. Nobody is perfect, as the saying goes. We all have our own inherent flaw that causes us to unintentionally produce biases towards people within the first time of interacting with them. Physical interaction will be pretty limited in these kind of environment, therefore, most if not all of these kinds of behaviors is limited or will not exist. This will help persons with this kind of attitude to focus on studying than interacting with his peers. Thus, the flow on information will be sterile and it will not provide an impression of a boring lecture or a teacher you do not like.

not consider the scientific impossibility of ten tons of steel and titanium, the amount of material comprising the engines of the Boeing 757 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, being consumed in a kerosene jet fuel fire as incontrovertible evidence that a Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon. Furthermore, if the sore lack of 757 aircraft wreckage and the dearth of remains of, what would inevitably be, a large quantity of engine material does not point to misrepresentations by the 9/11 Commission, what would? If it was a scientific impossibility for such a crash to yield almost zero wreckage of airframe and engine materials, and if the only conclusion that one could have drawn was that such an aircraft could not have crashed into the Pentagon, where, pray tell, are the alleged passengers that supposedly perished in the crash? Moreover, if a Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon, as alleged by the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, what doubt does that throw on the government’s allegations that terrorists in high-jacked commercial airliners were totally responsible for the collapses of the WTC towers?

If there is not one bold senator or representative in Congress willing to officially contest the findings of the 9/11 Commission, this republic is in serious trouble. If, perchance, charges were brought against the Speaker of the House for personally murdering an associate member of the House, supposedly at the same time he was standing in full view at the podium, presiding over the House chamber, I am doubly sure that at least one representative, of either party, would have the temerity to stand and refute the charges on the basis of the impossibility of the Speaker committing the act. Therefore, if at least one representative would be willing to challenge murder charges against the Speaker of the House, on the basis of incontrovertible evidence and, perhaps, out of mere political loyalty, why wouldn’t at least one representative rise to challenge the scientific impossibility of the 9/11 Commission Report? Have we gone so far astray from the principles of law and justice in this republic as to allow the Executive Branch of the federal government to deceive the nation with impunity?

electric cigarette

The Agency Worker Regulations (AWR) have been introduced to protect “vulnerable” workers from exploitation by way of low pay or fewer employment rights than permanent workers. It is European legislation drawn up in Brussels where there is a much smaller flexible workforce than in the UK. Basically the legislation states that after 12 weeks on the same site (or at the same place of work) the agency (or temporary worker) is entitled to mostly the same hourly rate of pay and holiday entitlement as the permanent worker doing the same job.

The legislation doesn’t define “vulnerable” and so it applies to absolutely any agency or temp worker whether you are a labourer or a doctor.

As is always the case in the UK, we don’t know what this means legally until the first cases have been heard at tribunal, once judgement is made on a few cases we may have a better understanding of what is deemed a “vulnerable” worker.

Many temporary workers receive a higher hourly rate than their permanent equivalent and so do not necessarily gain anything from the legislation, although they may get a less favourable holiday entitlement. We will have to wait until a judge has decided if higher pay but fewer holiday’s breaches the AWR.

Some low paid, unskilled workers, the people the legislation is intended to protect should be concerned. Within the construction industry for example there is no inclination to increase pay rates of unskilled workers and there is plenty of supply in this area of employment. In this sector the thought is that end user clients will just dispense with the services of agency workers on 12 weeks service and request replacements. As long as the same person doesn’t get sent to the job again they will not be in breach of AWR. The legislation that was intended to protect these workers will actually be a detriment.

The definition of a temporary work agency has a wider scope in the AWR legislation and includes not just employment agencies (or work finders) but intermediaries such as Umbrella Companies and Offshore service providers.

AWR states that the genuinely self-employed are out of scope and the regulations do not apply, however in English law there is a type of person called a “worker” who is neither an employee, not genuinely self-employed. They can provide their services in a self employed capacity for tax reasons, but are considered a worker for employment law purposes.

In the past few months there have been many “solution providers” advertising their services as taking people out of AWR by making them self-employed. This will not work but agencies and end clients do seem to be falling for the ruse. The vast majority of these solutions are based on what is written in a contract but as we know from the case of Autoclenz v Belcher and Others, Employment Tribunals look past the written contracts and at the actual real world relationship to determine whether someone is an employee, a worker or genuinely self employed. If a person turns up on a site as they have been requested to do by name and they are instructed on what to do and how to do it, they are not going to be considered to be self-employed for the purposes of AWR.

Beware of these schemes and viewing them as a magic elixir.