Funny but no.
Its just surgery as a word is way older then our willingness to slice humans and sticknour hands in.
We only applied ot to that around thenllate 1800s.
But its forgivable that teenage nations like the US are confused. We as your parents have failed to educate you in many ways.
A valid point. But the result is that over a pretty short period of time. These C developers will find delays in how quickly their code gets accepted into stable branches etc. So will be forced to make clear documentation into how the refactoring effects other elements calling the code. Or move on altogether.
Sorta advantageous to all and a necessary way to proceed when others are using your code.
Very Much this ^.
All fines do is force too poor to walk when they cannot afford the fine or other options. If that is the goal, free/cheap access to pools and sports centres as we had in the 70s was a better solution.
If the goal is to stop driving. Points on the licence. And providing practical alternatives.
Old English vs modern. Original meaning was to alter something.
As our political system grew from royal land allocation where Lords were in control of the laws of their own serfs.
Surgeries were how locals talked with Lords abouts altering contracts and management of the land laws etc. More like a court then a town hall.
As we moved to a democratic system and the house of commons gained power. MP took over the job / terms.
It’s a first. Bizarre=scummy attempt to avoid responsibility
Pretty sure it’s a case of he found a loophole that allows him to avoid claiming his own fiscal status, using the independence of the company to avoid claiming personnel donations as party donations.
But that’s just a guess based on him being a smug toad in general.
EDIT: Also, that likely only worked until he became an MP. As an actual representative, the separation would be non-advantageous. What with acts in parliment being covered by parliamentary procedure, not legal jurisdiction.
I find it hard to imagine him looking any other way.
If it looks like etc.
Except starmer hasent.
He came forward on his own recognisance in the one occation he relised he had. And reported it to parliment.
The rest of the gifts were all reported and are entirly within the rules.
I will add as a narrowboater.
I found towpaths also have this issue with definition of surface.
I am legally blind. (Some vision but bad)
I have a few times tried to add more ditail to areas of towpath that will help the others like me know what to expect before mooring.
Seems anything that improves this will help in your issues as well.
s/" attacks on working from home were “/”"
Not really. While the green party is left of labour. Its green credentials are pretty poor. Nimbyism has made them choose some rather odd positions.
This is an issue as it is a one issue named party. So like labour making odd non worker beneficial policies harms labour among left wing. Those nimby votes harm green reputation among green.
And while the 2 Green and left are not really related. They have a freaking huge crossover on a venn diagram. So both are rejected by a large % of the left.
What politics? You are bringing up politics…
Pretty hard to talk UK immigration since 2016 and not be brining up politics. The wholer subject is about politics. Hence why.
Also, I never heard of immigration regime being subject to such things as disability anti discrimination laws.
Any law or process passed by parliament is required not to contradict other laws. That is the whole job of the House of Lords. To not be covered by discrimination laws, the immigration laws would need to specifically exclude it. They do not. Nor would the ECHR Treaties allow them to without leaving thos treaties.
Does autism is even count as disability? Maybe this is a UK or EU specific thing but it still does not pass a basic bullshit test.
Yes, it very much is counted as a disability. Historically, more so than now, As in the past autism and Asperger were considered different conditions. We now know they are just different levels of the same condition. This unfortunately has led to many uninformed people seeing all autism under the ideas that it is not a serious mental health condition. When for many it can leave you totally unable to interact with the world around you. Like all disabilities, the level can be very different. But they are still classed as a disability. And just like anyone else, government departments are required to make reasonable accommodations. And the immigration law has sp[specific exceptions to the dependency descriptions for exactly this reason.
The state generally reserves right to deny anyone entry or residency for any reason subject to some limitations.
Utter rubbish. The Geneva convention is just one example of a huge treaty covering a significant % of the planet that denies that daft claim. As it has rules about accepting asylum seekers right down to making any entry method legal is asylum is claimed.
As for this case, the ECHR has specific restrictions of the right to live as family. This means when one member of a family is accepted, dependents and those depended on must also be allowed. It also has laws that have to consider ability when classing a dependent.
Generally speaking adult children are not auto admitted, people with disabilities are not permitted to enter or stay just because they got a disability.
Legally, the level and effect of that disability must be considered under the compelling compassionate exception rule of the immigration act. But your definition ( just because they got a disability). Is sorta correct. It requires the effect of that disability on the dependents’ ability to live alone to be taken into account. But the article indicates clearly that this girl has one of the more extreme cases of autism. As many do.
The law can include the exception but presumably discretion rests with the reviewing paper pusher.
No, in pretty much every case within civil service jobs. The paper pusher is required to follow a procedure. And that is why this turned to politics. Just after announcing the election, the Tory party changed those procedures to be more strict. Without changing the laws to match that change. This is not something legal for a government to do. This has been the reason the government loses 60% or more of court cases where they reject disability claims for benefit. (since 2010). Adding the same changes to HMRC is another mess that is just starting to show.
Is there evidence that this paper pusher acted in bad faith or mis applied the law?
The evidence is still to be addressed, but the accusation is the government miss applied the law when issuing changes to HMRC policy during the election period.
Why should “compassionate exemptions” apply to a 19 year old? did they supply evidence that she is in fact dependent on them beyond “we pay for her shit because we got money”
Covered very completely above. The law requires it if her condition means she is unable to live independently, as the article claims.
Nonone is letting. If uou have better idea to stop the boats Feel free to start a party and try and fund it.
Failing is not the same as letting and to suggest any curremt party has a policy of no action on small boats is dumb.
What you see here is your own interpretation from US politics. More to the point a lack of insight into the UK resent legal history.
The law specifically includes compassionate exemptions to the dependents’ requirement. Because the UK has disability discrimination laws that also apply to mental health. Those laws come from the European court of human rights.
Something our last government was specifically creating guidelines to disobey. In an attempt to win support to remove the UK (a founding member of that court) from its treaty.
The result of this is abusing immigrants (this doctor cannot fight the law without leaving his dependent daughter)
The Tory government did loads of this crap to try and provoke division amongst those opposing them leading up to the election.
sorta but not.
The application was based on compassionate reasons. That potential exclusion is written into the law specifically to allow exceptions like this.
The HMRC specifically responded that no evidence of a compelling compassionate reason was provided.
So it is fair to assume someone in HMRC saw an application for an autistic 19yo dependent where the parents had stated she was not in a mental state to self-care. And decided that was not a valid reason to make the compassionate exception.
I suppose it’s possible they won’t make a pig’s ear of it and that the two-ish party rigidity of our system could be broken
It will only be broken when voters work together to ensure it.
The left as a whole are too willing to divide the vote. So fptp harms us more than the right, as empathy and emotion is a lower effect on their voting intentions. (I am in no way saying PR would end the right, just increase the power of the left to match actual vote share. )
So the only possible way w can change FPTP if for the left to agree voting reform is the primary importance. Everything else must take a back seat to this. And even then it would take a few parliaments before the effect was powerful enough.
Because it is also true there. Any nation with fptp voting will push towards a 2 party system.
Alleged = self reported as soon as advised, it is a requirement.
Hardly an act of corruption. And considering, his wife is not in an elected position or working for the gov in any way. Hardly surprising, he was unsure of the requirement.
Tories are pretty fucking desperate to paint the Labour Party as no better than their own corruption.
Spose not surprising when they have little actually policy difference to attack.
Well thinking logically rarher then morally.
Fear has a lot to do with the difference.
Providing weapons to isreal while morrally corrupt. Is not likely to turn a nation anyone fear against them.
While Russia however badly maintained has the equiv nukes to the whole of nato.
So if they decide to srart a world war. Even if only 1 % of their 6k plus nukes works. The result is pretty bad.
Media is curript as hell. But plenty of people object to isreal wrapo s sales.
It is hardly suprisi g that a little more hesitence is shown by citizens to providing weapons against russia. Even if deep down many (me included) feel it is right. The risk is real.
This fails to answer the biggest question.
For most T1D is not about not producing insulin. That is a symptom. Not the desease.
Its a genetic vondition where the immune system attacks insulin producing cells. Pancras transplants have existed since the 90s. In most cases the patients become t1d again the future.
As t1ds have already done this to there own insulin producing cells. How dose adding our own stem cells help long term?