Yes. The licensing approval for things like this need to include a plan for continued support if/when the company goes belly up. That would have to include the govt agreeing to pick up the slack, which would require some kind of trust fund for each individual implant to cover a lifetime of maintenance. Or, you know, nationalisation. But this is the world we live in ... so even the most basic solution won't happen because it might get in the way of some rich fuckers turning people into money.
They do not include the peer reviewers in their list of people who missed it. Which means that either the peer reviewers did pick it up and for some reason it didn't get addressed (unlikely) or this was a straight up pay-to-play and whoever runs that particular bit of the racket for Elsevier fucked up.
However, given the current system, it seems odd to me that they give credit (if we can call it that) for pretrial detention based on detaining the person attempting to flee.
The sentence is based on the crimes they were convicted of, including any aggravating factors. In this case it was a plea deal, so some charges were dropped in exchange for a guilty plea to the remainder.
Time spent in prison on remand is counted towards any eventual custodial sentence because anything else would be outrageously unfair. Not least because the court system grinds so slow, many are held on remand for longer than any eventual sentence (assuming they're convicted at all).
Because the 'splaining phenomenon is about perceived but unearned superiority which leads the 'splainer to 'splain to someone who knows a great deal more than they do and, crucially, someone who the 'splainer ought to realise knows more than they do but doesn't because of the illusion created by the society they live in.
I'd have added "(born) middle-class" because that's an important part of it too.
It fucks your whole life up even if you're eventually found innocent.
I'm not a fan of carceral solutions but this is not something only abolitionists should care about. Remand (and also, short prison sentences) are viciously unfair, causing disproportionate harm which can never be compensated for.
I’ve overheard directors talk about how they purposely didn’t produce a P45 out of spite
Wow.
HMRC might be interested in that information (this form might work?) And your MP if you can be arsed. That's criminal behaviour and ought to land them in court. Trivially easy to prove if their actions match their reported words.
That's why you need the appendices, so that you can check the details behind what is in the paper.
Journals have word limits, due to the restrictions of print, and because a 200 page paper is too much for most readers. But some of them will need some or all of those 200 pages (which is usually a shed load of tables and figures, not much text apart from protocols etc).
The quality of the research, and the way it was written up, cannot be assessed by those readers unless all the information is published. And the research cannot be implemented in practice unless it is described in full. There are thousands of papers out there that test a new treatment but don't give enough detail about the treatment for anyone else to deliver it. Or develop a new measurement scale but don't publish the scale. Or use a psychometric instrument but don't publish the instrument. This research is largely useless (especially if the details were never archived properly and there's no one still about who knows how to fill the gaps).
We don't (or should not) publish papers for CV points. We publish them so that other researchers know what research has been done and how to build on it. These days we don't just publish all the summary tables and all the analyses, we ideally make the data available too. Not because we expect every reader to want to reanalyse it but because we know some of them will need to.
As it should be. There's no point doing research if you don't publish all the relevant information. Now that journals are electronic, you can and there's no excuse not to.
If you don't know why the appendix exists, try reading it.
A very small measure of justice. I hope this brings a measure of closure for the victims, and encourages thousands more to come forward. This was not a one off and these are not the only police perpetrators.
For years, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has been investigating how the retirement age rise was communicated by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to women most likely to be impacted by the change.
In 2021, its initial finding of maladministration by the DWP centred on a delay in providing direct information to this group of women.
While some women were aware of the general policy change, they did not know it would affect them personally. The ombudsman said that letters should have been sent directly to these women more than two years earlier than they were. For some, the delay was much longer.
And, just in case you're feeling all hard done by, pension rights were only equalised in 2005 (because civil partnerships meant the inequality affected men as well as women). It was not retrospectively applied and my mother has retired by then. So her pension scheme will pay the widows of the men in her pension scheme but her widower will get nothing. And the same applies to most of the pension contributions made by women before 2005; top-sliced to subsidise the men in the same pension schemes. Quit your whining.
The lack of a helpline doesn't make any difference, if you get put on an emergency tax code it'll stay there until the end of the tax year anyway. This usually only happens if your new employer is shit or your previous employer was shit and/or stealing your taxes.
Not defending this, mind. Underfunding tax collection and making it really hard for people without expensive accountants is ... exactly what we have come to expect of the robber barons who run the country.
Yes. The licensing approval for things like this need to include a plan for continued support if/when the company goes belly up. That would have to include the govt agreeing to pick up the slack, which would require some kind of trust fund for each individual implant to cover a lifetime of maintenance. Or, you know, nationalisation. But this is the world we live in ... so even the most basic solution won't happen because it might get in the way of some rich fuckers turning people into money.