This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
I think the "three to nine months" confused you. They don't work for that long, they have to have been unemployed for more than three months, but less than nine months to qualify for the scheme.
Ahh, fair enough, yes. I assumed that the 240 hours would be spread across that period of time, since that's the only time they qualify.
I'd be for that too, if they were getting paid minimum wage (because if they aren't, then the people that are currently hired to do such things may lose their positions to unpaid workers too.
I'd actually be using them for things that you don't currently have people hired for. Essentially, you only hire people for tasks that are profitable ventures - that the gain outweighs the cost of hiring. In the case of these people, the tasks that they'll be doing are ones with more marginal gains, that won't displace people who are doing more productive tasks.
25 to 30*, still agree?
Actually, I do still agree. Uni students in their final year of study might be doing 20 hours of class time and 20-30 more hours of study, but that doesn't stop them from sending out a dozen job applications a week and attend round after round of graduate interviews. A full working week is around 40 hours. What you're saying is that not being able to spend more than 2-3 hours a day on job applications is going to hinder their prospects? God help all the poor people who are actually working full time who want to leave their jobs!
I've got a friend who was working at an investment bank, doing 60-70 hour weeks. That didn't stop her looking for and applying for jobs at night. So no, I don't think that any amount of working time severely hampers a person's ability to look for jobs, unless those working hours prevent the person from actually attending interviews (which I don't think would be the case under the UK system, and if so, that's the only thing that really *needs* to be changed).
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
The Pope
teaches
that In Vitro fertilization is a sin. I'd love to see where the Bible says that. But, the Catholic Church isn't known for Christianity. But, I guess the Pope knows better than God, or so he thinks. This is what gives Jesus a bad name. This stuff.
Post by
gamerunknown
I wondered why that was myself actually and the arguments are neatly summarised
here
. If life does indeed begin at conception then IVF will inevitably lead to the deaths of many zygotes.
Post by
MyTie
I wondered why that was myself actually and the arguments are neatly summarised
here
. If life does indeed begin at conception then IVF will inevitably lead to the deaths of many zygotes.
I wasn't aware of that.
I dislike the use of the term zygote as if
it
were not human. Yeah, I get it being a medical term. Still dislike it though.
Post by
Squishalot
Not being able to apply for other jobs is only one of the issues: there was a case recently of a geology graduate who was volunteering at a museum while on Jobseekers, she was actively helping her chances of getting a job by working at a place of business relevant to her degree where she was getting useful experience, only to be forced to leave this job to go stack shelves at Poundland.
To me, that's an issue, although I would suggest that the program could be more flexible to allow relevant volunteering work to be taken in lieu of the mandatory work, rather than scrapped altogether.
Based on this, I can not condone innocent people being forced to do unpaid word equal to what we make minor criminals do as a punishment. It can not be both.
I disagree. The principle behind the community service work is that the infringers are repaying a debt to society for their misdemeanours, not 'penalty in lieu of serving gaol time'. I don't see community service for medium-term unemployment welfare recipients as anything other than repaying their debt to society. In that respect, I don't see any issue with it.
@ MyTie - I've never known the Catholic Church to approve of IVF, and always expected them to disagree with it for the reasons (I'm assuming) in gamer's link.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
Ho Ho Ho! I love S B Cohen!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17175112
Can't stand him. :|
Post by
Adamsm
Ho Ho Ho! I love S B Cohen!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17175112
Can't stand him. :|
Agreed; guy's a moron and not that funny. And as usual, Leno get's it right:Speaking to BBC Radio 5 live, US chat show host Jay Leno said, "only in Hollywood does that dictator override Libya" as a major news story. "And somehow that's more shocking.
Post by
gamerunknown
Agreed; guy's a moron and not that funny.
Say what you like about his sense of humour, he did graduate from Cambridge. My opinion on him varies: sometimes I think he does a great job illustrating deep seated biases through satire, sometimes I think that the responses are engineered.
Post by
Adamsm
Agreed; guy's a moron and not that funny.
Say what you like about his sense of humour, he did graduate from Cambridge.That really doesn't mean much when he doesn't use the intelligence for all that much and seems completely intent with being an idiot.
My opinion on him varies: sometimes I think he does a great job illustrating deep seated biases through satire, sometimes I think that the responses are engineered.It's all engineered.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Saw this on CNN.
Short of it: A couple of girls- 10 and 11- meet up to fight after school. They have a fistfight for "less than a minute", no weapons, and then they part ways. Six hours later, one of the girls dies from blunt force trauma to the head. The police are treating it as a homicide investigation. Opinions?
Post by
Azazel
I think it's odd that they fight for a minute and then one of them dies 6 hours later..
Post by
MyTie
I think it's odd that they fight for a minute and then one of them dies 6 hours later..
It's either a duel, or a homicide. It fits the definition.
Post by
Adamsm
Saw this on CNN.
Short of it: A couple of girls- 10 and 11- meet up to fight after school. They have a fistfight for "less than a minute", no weapons, and then they part ways. Six hours later, one of the girls dies from blunt force trauma to the head. The police are treating it as a homicide investigation. Opinions?
Should be accidental manslaughter/homicide, since I doubt the kids intended on killing each other.
I think it's odd that they fight for a minute and then one of them dies 6 hours later..
Aneurysm's; you can get hit in the head, then die like a week later after the clot finally cuts off the blood to your brain.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
In England it's different I think, if one intends to cause bodily harm and the person is killed instead, the mens rea is present. It's a little rough though, there was a case of an adolescent that was kidnapped and raped and hit their attacker with a frying pan in order to escape. Their attacker was killed and the adolescent was convicted of murder charges. In the US I think there's more leniency for variance in circumstance.
Post by
Adamsm
This.
For a homicide (ie: murder) to be proven, they must prove intent, which from what I understand, is clearly not the case here.
To be honest, if the fight lasted less than a minute, I find it hard to beleive they could even prove GBH occasioning death, let alone Manslaughter.
Could still end up as Manslaughter though; but as the kid is 10 and it sounds like from the article both of the children intended on having the fight, I doubt they'd get any time and would probably just end up in some therapy.
In England it's different I think, if one intends to cause bodily harm and the person is killed instead, the mens rea is present. It's a little rough though, there was a case of an adolescent that was kidnapped and raped and hit their attacker with a frying pan in order to escape. Their attacker was killed and the adolescent was convicted of murder charges. In the US I think there's more leniency for variance in circumstance.
That would fall under self-defense, which can still be put under a Manslaughter charge(I believe); but not like anyone would actually go through with a charge like that heh.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
You could maybe argue intent to cause GBH based on the fact that it was a planned fight, but you are right, as they are so young, no jury is going to convict on that.
Aye, but even then, because of how the one kid died, it would be incredibly hard to prove Grievous Bodily Harm(for those who don't know what the short hand means), and would still end up falling under the accidental category.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.