cleopatra2

There is no rail independent pay review body.

The assumption is incorrect. The first issue is to define the terms proficiency and fluent. In the clinical profession many Thai words already exist and do not require an English transliteration.

from the thai text it means a period of 3 consecutive days here is the relevant text มําตรํา ๓๒ ให้ลูกจ้ํางมีสิทธิลําป่วยได้เท่ําที่ป่วยจริง กํารลําป่วยตั้งแต่สํามวันท ํางําน ขึ้นไป นํายจ้ํางอําจให้ลูกจ้ํางแสดงใบรับรองของแพทย์แผนปัจจุบันชั้นหนึ่งหรือของสถํานพยําบําล ของทํางรําชกําร ในกรณีที่ลูกจ้ํางไม่อําจแสดงใบรับรองของแพทย์แผนปัจจุบันชั้นหนึ่งหรือของ สถํานพยําบําลของทํางรําชกํารได้ ให้ลูกจ้ํางชี้แจงให้นํายจ้ํางทรําบ sorry this site will not let me link to the Krisdika site where the act is

The office of council of state uses the same terminology. It is unlikely you will find an official translation which will differ. On a brief reading of the English translation it looks ambiguous. "Leave" means a day upon which an employee takes sick leave, leave for sterilization, leave to attend necessary personal business, leave for military service, leave for training or developing his/her knowledge and ability, or maternity leave. The issue here is that Leave is being counted as days , not periods of leave. Section 57 An employer shall pay an employee his/her wage for a day of sick leave referred to in Section 32 at a rate equal to the wage for a normal working day for the entire period of time taken as sick leave but not exceeding thirty working days each year. Here we can see the term 'period ' in use. section 32 (part) An employee is entitled to sick leave on days that he/she is actually ill. For sick leave taken for three or more working days, the employer may require that the employee show a medical certificate Here it simply states 3 days or more It is unclear what the drafters intended. It could be just a poorly drafted act or translation. I would recommend trying to decipher the Thai language version, as that is the version in law.

On notifying the conditioning of the condo the owner took remedial action. You stayed there 3 days therefore accepted the Condo condition at that time., If it was unsuitable you should have left immediately asking for monies returned due to condition.

The dicincentive aspect dissolved with the court case. There is a debate if it ever existed considering the Rwanda pre-conditions of not accepting families, those under age of majority or persons with a criminal record. The UK Court case re-affirmed the requirement that the HO have to asses each individual that the UK wish to send Rwanda. This means that each case can be appealed in UK justice system causing a lengthy and costly process for the HO. Given the courts finding of 19 legal failures of the 8 persons that the HO sought to send to Rwanda, does not inspire confidence the HO at present is capable of such requirements. Given that the HO initial objective of the scheme were to automatically send asylum seekers to Rwanda.The requirement now to carry out assessments, the scheme long term future looks dead.

I will give you the first link Meghan is to American Meghan can be a 500 per cent nightmare,' some close friends of Harry are among the first to admit. 'The never-ending PR. She's just so . . . American!' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9726785/Prince-William-called-Meghan-Markle-bloody-woman-treated-staff-badly.html

The reason why Meghan is hated are as follows Meghan is American and not from the British Aristicracy Her black ancestry Unconvential family relations. Which goes against the Royal Family appearance of a pure and clean image. Proffesion as an actor. She goes against Royal Traditions She is blamed for the royal split.

So you not recall the newspaper articles Harry's girl on pornhub. If they had a child it would have rich and exotic blood. Straight out of Compton The protocol breaking press statement from Harry in 2016 about the smears and abuse being directed at his girlfriend.

90% of traffickers could be eliminated tomorrow. All it requires is that the UK set up safe routes for asylum seekers to submit requests. This does not mean the UK becomes an open door. It would require the UK to assess the applications.

It is not going to stop the traffickers. Although the scheme is lawful, the previous application of the scheme was unlawful. The Home Office has to review every individuals circumstances before they can be sent to Rwanda. The result is a huge cost in both monies and resources for the Home Office to carryout the assessments. In addition these assessments can be further appealed.

Jeremy Clarkson shortly after attending a Christmas lunch with the Queens Consort writes an article attacking H&M

I understand now. If a person does not look British they cannot be British

The first 2 questions are when put now in context are ambigous. It was not clear if LH was referring to the charity or the individual. The responses to me appear clear.

The questions were directed at the individual not the flag. What nationality are you. No , really where do you come from When did you first arrive I am going to have difficult getting you to tell me where your from Are youre Caribean Are all questions about the individual not the flag or dress.

LH was not asking about the flag or dress. LH was asking about the individual , evidenced by the question when did you first come here question

The previous dialogue was not evasive When asked nationality the response was British. Lady Hussey further response no, where are you really from. You are actually highlighting the racism , was it correct for Lady Hussey ask no really where are from after being told the person was British. Would the same question be put to a white person in this context.

This is not the actuall account from the transcript. Lady Hussey was informed that Ngazi was British and British Born. Lady Hussey response , no really where do you come from. The reasoning of the question makes it racist , ( malicious intent or not ). After Lady Hussey is informed of Ngazi nationality , what prompted Lady Hussey to then ask , No really where are you from. Would the same question have been proposed to a white skin person who had informed Lady Hussey that they are British. Lady SH: “Where are you from?” Ms Fulani: “Sistah Space.” SH: “No where do you come from? Ms Fulani: “We’re based in Hackney.” SH: “No, what part of Africa are YOU from?” Ms Fulani: “I don’t know, they didn’t leave any records.” SH: “Well, you must know where you’re from, I spent time in France. Where are you from?” Ms Fulani: “Here, UK” SH: “No, but what Nationality are you?” Ms Fulani: “I am born here and am British.” SH: “No, but where do you really come from, where do your people come from?” Ms Fulani: “‘My people’, lady, what is this?” SH: “Oh I can see I am going to have a challenge getting you to say where you’re from. When did you first come here?” Ms Fulani: “Lady! I am a British national, my parents came here in the 50’s when…” SH: “Oh, I knew we’d get there in the end, you’re Caribbean!” Ms Fulani: “No lady, I am of African heritage, Caribbean descent and British nationality.” SH: “Oh so you’re from….”

I cannot agree with you on this Lady Hussey was told that the person was born , lived in Britain and was British. Lady Hussey response , no where do your people come from It was explained how Ngazi parents came to Britain , at which point Lady Hussey declared Ngazi Caribbean. It somehow evaded Lady Hussey that Ngazi could be British even though being born and living in Britain and being British.

The red hair comes from the Spencer lineage. Look at Charles Spencer. James Hewitt time-line simply puts him out for being the father of Harry. Prince Harry was already 2 years old when Diana met Hewitt. Photographs of King Charles at the age 11 show a remarkable resemblance to Prince Harry at the same age.

The member states proposed the amendments as is usual. The amendments were not secret , the US proposals were reported back in January this year.

To the OP The description of breakthrough is disengenious. The ability to produce more energy than supplied was always going to be achieved. This marks a milestone in reaching that point. However the real challenge is overcoming the parasitic energy required to reach that state. Some 300MJ was needed to power the lasers. Thus the actual energy produced represented under 1% of the total required.

OK I found it International Health regulations I think this mostly concerns governments of countries.

A quick scan of the WHO constitution, and I cannot find the clause being referenced or any similar clause currently in existence. Admittedly I have not listened to the audio. However would appreciate if the OP could point where the clause in question currently resides. within the WHO charter

Yes we do know. There was another male colleague present at the meeting. The manager who slapped her made the comment. " Sorry I had to do that". When the woman complained to the other male present, both males treated it as a joke.