Posts by Mad Dave 182 posts • joined 21 Sep 2007
Will these companies be taking responsability for any adverse effects suffered by employees? Given that they know that some people will suffer tremendous injury as a consequence of taking this experminental vaccine, to what extent should criminal prosecution of board members be considered?
The majority of Scots voted in favour of independence at the last referendum.
The vote was only won because the vast majority of English people living in Scotland voted for Scotland to remain as part of the UK.
If the vote was restricted to Scottish people, Scotland would have already left the UK.
Source : Scottish Referendum Study by the University of Edinburgh.
>In Scotland its possible to get an appointment within a few days
Not in North Glasgow it's not. My own experience:
>Hello, can I have an appointment please?
>I'm afraid there's none left
>Can you put me on the waiting list please?
>We only run a waiting list for 4 weeks, and it's full.
>So there is no way for me to get an appointment?
>Try calling tomorrow.
Repeat x forever.
> it is responsible for the result.
Personally, I would be of the opinion that it more likely the consequence of the choices made by individuals, with women being more inclined to hold low pressure roles which pay less money.
There is very likely 0% pay gap between people doing the same work with the same output in terms of productivity.
Guideline number 7 seems a bit off. There are plenty of people who are paid to act on behalf of many organisations, in order to promote their goods, services, or act as online reputation managers. Not quite sure why it would be that this is something which is not permitted to be said.
All that guideline number 11 needs is "and no Daily Mail readers" added to it, and it could be out of any sixth form college debating guide.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
why the police think that the normal course of law does not apply to them?
If they have information that a site is being used for crime, then go to court, and get an order to close it.
If they're not going to do that, we simply have a police state where the police censor information they don't approve of.
"The identification, exposure, or termination of employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make such information public."
I'm sure this is all just a big coincidence.
The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021
