The American Dream can be described as a belief in freedom that allows all citizens and residents of the United States of America to achieve their goals in life through hard work.  For some, it is the opportunity to achieve more prosperity than they could in their countries of origin; for others it’s opportunity for their children to grow up with an education and career opportunities, and for others, it is the opportunity to be an individual whithout the contraints imposed by class, caste, race, or ethnicity.

Illegal immigrants are pouring into the United States.  I know this from having worked in the contruction
industries.  Pro-immigration rallies and anti-immigration rallies alternated with equal fervor, while the number of illegal’s living in the country continued to grow towards 20 million.  It’s true that immigrants want to work when they get to America.  The get jobs as soon as they can and yes, they are willing to work cheaply.  Immigrants not only work cheap, but are willing to work seven days a week if asked.  They fill jobs like construction laborer, electrician, HVAC, plumbing, landscapers, dishwashers, and basically they fill the jobs that Americans simply want higher pay on.  It’s easy to see that the employer benefits from paying cheaper labor for the same job offered to an American.  If an employer is paying $15 an hour for a contruction labor position and say another guy is willing to do the same job for $10 an hour, the employer is sure to higher the guy who is willing to work for less pay and who happens to be Mexican.  The employer has no obligation to pay the higher price.

Read the rest of this article »

Drunk driving is the act of operating and/or driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs to the degree that mental and motor skills are impaired. It is illegal in all jurisdictions within the U.S. The specific criminal offense is usually called driving under the influence [of alcohol and/or other drugs] (DUI), and in some states driving while intoxicated (DWI), operating while impaired (OWI), or operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI). Such laws may also apply to boating or piloting aircraft. In the United States the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 17,941 people died in 2006 in “alcohol-related” collisions, representing 41 percent of total traffic deaths in the US. Over 500,000 people were injured in alcohol-related accidents in the US in 2003. NHTSA defines fatal collisions as “alcohol-related” if they believe the driver, a passenger, or a nonoccupant of the vehicle (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.01 or greater. NHTSA defines nonfatal collisions as “alcohol-related” if the accident report indicates evidence of alcohol present. NHTSA specifically notes that “alcohol-related” does not necessarily mean a driver or nonoccupant was tested for alcohol and that the term does not indicate a collision or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol. On average, about 60 percent of the BAC values are missing or unknown. To analyze what they believe is the complete data, statisticians simulate BAC information.

All states in the U.S. designate a “per se” blood or breath alcohol level as the threshold point for an independent criminal offense. A second criminal offense of driving “under the influence” or “while impaired” is also usually charged in most states, with a permissive presumption of guilt where the person’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is .08 percent or greater (units of milligrams per deciliter, representing 8 g of alcohol in 100 deciliters of blood). Some states (e.g., Colorado) include a lesser charge, sometimes referred to as driving while ability impaired (this may apply to individuals with a .05 percent or above, but less than the .08 per se limit for the more serious charge. Prior to wider emphasis on drinking and driving in the 1980s, standards of .10-.15 percent were in place. The legal limit for commercial drivers in the U.S. is set at 0.04 percent. All states also observe a much stricter standard for drivers under the age of 21, commonly of .01-.02; these are often referred to as “Zero Tolerance” laws. Federal Air Regulation 91.17 (14 CFR 91.17) prohibits pilots from flying aircraft with an alcohol level of 0.04% or more, and/or within eight hours of consuming alcohol, and/or while under the impairing influence of any drug. The same prohibition applies to any other crewmembers on duty aboard the aircraft (flight attendants, etc.). Some airlines impose additional restrictions, and many pilots also impose stricter standards upon themselves. Commercial pilots found to be in violation of regulations are typically fired or resign voluntarily, and they may lose their pilot certificates and/or be subject to criminal prosecution under Federal or State laws, effectively ending their careers. Unlike DUI, DWI, or OWUI cases that involve alcohol, there is generally no “per se” or legal limit that is employed for persons accused of driving under the influence of prescription medication or illicit drugs (although this is not the case in Ohio). Instead, the key inquiry focuses on whether the driver’s faculties were impaired by the substance that was consumed. The detection and successful prosecution of drivers impaired by prescription medication or illegal drugs can therefore be difficult. Similarly, although urinalysis toxicology screens can detect the presence of such substances in the driver’s bloodstream, these analyses are unable to demonstrate that the substance was actually causing impairment at the time of driving.In response to these problems, several jurisdictions[attribution needed] are currently considering legislation that would establish “zero tolerance” laws for those drivers arrested for DUI and found to have drugs or medication in their system. Additionally, breathalyzers have been developed for the purpose of administering roadside or laboratory tests that can detect the actual level of a controlled substance in an individual’s body. Many jurisdictions require more serious penalties (such as jail time, larger fines, longer DUI program, the installation of ignition interlock devices) in cases where the driver’s BAC is over 0.20, or 0.15 in some places. These additional sanctions are an attempt to deter and punish the operation of a vehicle at extremely high BAC levels and the concomitant danger posed to the safety of persons and property by heavily impaired drivers. In many cases, the reason given for these additional sanctions is because an average person would have passed out from that much alcohol.Read more..

Indian Administration Service,a very old method to solve problems of Indians.This adopted by “British Empire” to rule Indians before giving us freedom.
This is the best service to work for people but I am very sorry to say,the administrator are not so humble to liston to common man.In early days male IAS administrators are in majority but now a days some good ladies administrators are also enters in IAS & they might working effectively than male
adminstrator.

Why this is happening? in my opinion,ladies adminstrator think more humanist than male.Ladies has more humanitarianism in their nature,they are more humble.Whenever they have to take tough decision,they always hear their inner voice along with rules.If you are honest,your inner voice will never misguide you.Male administrator take decision by rules only where ladies administrator add some human values to solve common man’s problem.You will be successful if you took decision with sympathy for them who are in trouble and expecting something more from you.It doesn’t mean you disobey rules.
Ladies are more expert to find out solutions with humanity.A mother in every lady always wish good for everybody.Is it wrong to adopt in Administration? definitely not,This is the quality used by ladies administrator for success.

Read the rest of this article »

The combination of a slowing UK economy and his chancellor’s first budget may finally force Gordon Brown to shelve any plans he had for calling a general election in early 2009, as voters will be forced to tighten their belts over the next year.



Rumours from Labour insiders suggested that the beleaguered PM had hoped that he could secure the keys to number 10 for another five years by calling an early election. But, the effects of the global credit crunch are hitting the UK economy harder than expected, thus prompting Brown’s advisors to believe it would be unwise to risk being ousted at the first attempt.



Chancellor Alistair Darling indicated during his first budget statement that public finances, now well in the red, are not expected to return to credit until 2010 at the earliest. Brown must call an election by May 2010 at the latest, so he may well wait until the absolute limit, hoping that the current economic woes will be reversed by then. Even revised growth figures for 2008 - 2010 issued by the chancellor are viewed as optimistic by many financial analysts, who believe there is definitely more gloom ahead, before signs of any recovery.



Recently, leading lender Nationwide announced that house prices had fallen for the fifth consecutive month, and with mortgages costing most far more than in previous years many homeowners are feeling the pinch. Those borrowers who own cars and like to drink or smoke have also been affected by the chancellor’s tax increases during his first budget; the cost of a bottle of spirits rose by 55p and a pint of beer will now cost 4p more, while cigarettes cost another 11p for a pack of 20.



Increases in vehicle excise duty have also added to motorists’ woes. The cost of motoring has risen drastically, even before the budget increases. Buying a vehicle is now more expensive as car credit rates have increased in line with base rate rises and other lending options. In addition, petrol now costs 20 per cent more than it did at this time last year, and insurance costs have also risen faster than inflation.



Add increased motoring costs to council tax rises, throw in the impact of inflation-busting increases in domestic fuel and utility costs, and then top it off with increased duties then it’s easy to see why the ‘feel good’ factor has rapidly eroded. With so much financial misery on the horizon, if you were Gordon Brown, would you opt for a general election right now?



No, and neither will Gordon!

Victoria Cochrane is a freelance writer for both online and print media. She lives with her husband and son, and enjoys travelling when not writing.

Alistair Darling has hit motorists hard in his first budget as chancellor and he is justifying his swingeing tax and fuel duty hikes as ‘cracking down on pollution’.

Even though the chancellor delayed the 2 pence per litre increase in fuel duty due to be imposed in April until October, it is only temporary respite for motorists who have seen fuel prices soar in recent months. In addition to increasing running costs, many motorists face higher-than-inflation duty charges on their vehicles as Darling aims to penalise the highest polluting drivers.

The existing emission bands have been re-classified and the new highest - band M - will contain vehicles that emit over 255g of carbon dioxide per kilometre driven. From April next year, owners of vehicles in that band – so-called gas guzzlers - will pay £440 per year to tax their cars. To make matters worse for those drivers, from April 2010 purchasers of brand new band M vehicles will pay an increased first year duty of £950, which will then be reduced to £445 in subsequent years.

Of course, the flip side of such draconian tax increases means that if you are happy to pay the new duty, you will be able to pick up a bargain 4 x 4, as used car prices have literally tumbled overnight. Even those who don’t have cash to burn may be tempted to say yes to car credit in order to secure a superb deal on a used 4 x 4, whose used car values dropped eight per cent in just 24 hours.

However, many motoring organisations have suggested the chancellor’s claims that the increases are being imposed for ‘green reasons’ don’t ring true. Their protests appear to be backed up by simply looking at the Treasury’s revenue projections for duty; the chancellor is expecting to rake in £465m in 2009-10, rising to a staggering £735m the following year.

Those figures have prompted many to claim that the chancellor is all stick and no carrot, leading CBI director-general Richard Lambert to fiercely denounce the move. He points out that the so-called ‘green measure’ is a cynical exercise to raise revenues and that the majority of the UK public would see it as such.

Although the green lobby are applauding the chancellor’s move, whether the majority of the public will see it as a necessary tax on the most polluting vehicles remains to be seen; but in the meantime chancellor Darling is certainly looking forward to counting his increased tax revenues.

American law firms are braving European shores in ever increasing numbers, bringing with them knowledgeable lawyers who have experience this area, and are poised and hoping to be ideally based to capitalise when the time comes.



Addressing a conference on Collective Redress last year, Meglena Kuneva, European Commissioner for Consumer Protection, tried to ease nerves, saying that she did not anticipate the advent of class actions on her watch.



So how exactly does Ms Kuneva plan to strengthen consumer law rights? She suggests that there should be a system of group action whereby consumers with similar claims about the same company come together - either represented by an EU body or their own national consumer body. “The commission is intent on creating a single set of consumer rights and obligations throughout the EU”, she said.



Kuneva also addressed the fact that almost half of Member States have at present systems of collective redress – the rest do not. This is a clear sign of inequity and inefficiency across the EU, she said.



It seems that at least some of the drive behind the speech was to let US firms, who seem to want to bring their class action system to Europe, know that this will not be the case. At present France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland all have systems which allow for some kind of collective redress.



Kuneva stated that there were many possible options to consider, ranging from a market-led approach to the establishment of an out-of-court collective redress scheme; a convergence process leading to the extension of Member states or a EU consumer collective redress scheme. Near the end of her speech she definitively stated that any form of “collective redress [would] not be punitive.”



There would be advantages to the introduction of a class action system in Europe. Firstly, it would ensure there was access to justice for those who had been wronged. It would also lead to legal certainty throughout Europe with a more reliable procedural mechanism that could be used. Also, it would mean that the expense of parallel actions did not occur and it would also encourage some element of corporate responsibility even if this was punitively based.



The downsides are also clear to see. The whole system is very lawyer-driven and in many cases can be seen to benefit lawyers more than clients. Also, when a large amount of claims are grouped together it can make it easy for weaker and unjustified claims to be lobbed in the pile and put through without proper consideration. The size of the group can have also an unfair influence on the whole process.



Finally, would it place an unfair responsibility on corporations and companies?
Class actions are a hot topic of discussion within legal circles, but while such may ensure greater consumer protection; legal practitioners in Britain are keen to avoid US-style litigation culture which many fear will come about as a result of collective redress and will in turn create a demand for these types of cases.

Paul McIndoe is an online, freelance writer from Scotland. When not writing, he enjoys playing golf and is a keen gardener.

Although Europe has not seen much class action litigation to date, it is a subject on the agenda. Already allowed in the UK, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and Portugal, other countries are looking also exploring the possibility. As the likes of US law firm Coughlin Stoig Geller Rudman & Robby hits London intent on recruiting pension funds to support its actions, the major European law firms are not taking the threat lightly.



It is also on the radar of the European Commission which is encouraging more private enforcement of Competition law.



The prospect of US-style class action litigation has seen lawyers in firms such as Lovells and Allen & Overy fighting back with the launch of class action units to handle major litigation and disputes on behalf of their corporate clients.



A survey carried out by a major US law firm Bryan Cave found that about 60 per cent of companies expect class actions in London within the next three years, whilst two in three expect products liability to be a major focus of such litigation.



But whilst many a litigation lawyer may be rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of such lucrative fees, the firm believes that legal fees would be lower than those paid in the US – with one in three believing that some form of US contingency fee will be involved.



The UK has already seen class action litigation with individuals suing corporates over major disasters, with personal injury law firms such as Irwin Mitchell and Pannone & Co representing victims of disasters over many years.



And the recent Northern Rock saga saw small shareholders looking to sue the government after expressing “disgust” at compensation proposals. According to the UK Shareholders’ Association (UKSA), valuation of the shares will not be fair or independent, although this is disputed by the Government.



This group is represented by law firm Edwin Coe, which represents around 7000 of the smaller shareholders of Northern Rock and which is calling on each of these to pay £50 each to raise money to sue.



Corporates and banks are the new target for class action lawyers as the arrival in London of the US class action lawyers proves. Coughlin Stoig, which recently won $700 million dollars for Enron investors since the energy giant collapsed in 2001, has raised the game to a new level and caused corporate and banking lawyers to take note. The firm is looking to recruit pension funds and claims to have 25 clients including Standard Life and Scottish Widows.



Richard Elsen of Byfield Consulting, a legal Public Relations company, predicts that the US class action firms have their eye on the banks in the aftermath of sub-prime, with the banking sector being an especially fertile source of class actions and litigation.



He attributes this to the fact that it is difficult for the major UK law firms to sue banks, which leaves a gap in the market for the US entrants. The battle for Europe is set to begin and the big corporate law firms and lawyers are getting ready to defend against the American class action invaders.

Paul McIndoe is an online, freelance writer from Scotland. When not writing, he enjoys playing golf and is a keen gardener.

It comes as no surprise to many that the UK has more CCTV cameras per person than anywhere else in the world; leading human rights lawyers to warn that their almost constant use in our everyday lives raises data protection and wider privacy concerns, since they can be used in an intrusive way.



But what are the limits? At the workplace, employers are permitted to monitor workers in so far as it is necessary and proportionate to the management’s reasons. CCTV monitoring is often undertaken for security reasons and is thus widely viewed as reasonable. It follows that employees naturally inspire reassurance from their respective employers that they are using CCTV responsibly.



The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published its first CCTV Data Protection Code of Practice in 2000 to help CCTV operators comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and follow good practice.



The Code of Practice: Monitoring at Work gives guidance on how to avoid employees calling in the lawyers over breaching the provisions of the DPA. The Code provides that before such monitoring is introduced, an impact assessment must be carried out to determine what (if any) monitoring is justified by the benefits of that monitoring. Under the DPA, any CCTV monitoring must normally be open and backed by fulfilling reasons.



The assessment should consider targeting the monitoring only at the areas of particular risk, confining it to areas where people’s expectations of privacy would be low, using video and audio monitoring separately - cases where the use of both to be justified becomes rare. Its operation should only be where deemed necessary rather than continuous - although continuous monitoring may be justified where security is at risk. Finally, whether comparable benefits can be obtained by less intrusive methods and what adverse impact it may have on workers.



In making the assessment it is advisable for the employer to consult trade unions/employee representatives.



If the monitoring is introduced to enforce certain rules and standards, the employer must ensure that the workers are aware of and understand them.
According to one employment lawyer, the use of CCTV to monitor the actions of employees has potential implications in respect of the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). If the surveillance is excessive, the implications may vary depending on whether the employer is a public or private body or individual.



If the employer is a private organisation or company, then direct reliance on HRA is not possible. Nevertheless, all contracts of employment contain an implied term that employers will not - without reasonable and proper cause - conduct themselves in a manner likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust between themselves and employees. Yet, it is doubtful that CCTV cameras in obvious places in the workplace would violate this implied term.



On the other hand, an employer in a public body has an obligation to respect workers right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (as enacted by HRA). However, this right is a qualified right which means that it may be interfered with for a legitimate purpose in accordance with law and is necessary in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The interference must be proportionate in achieving its aim. An example of disproportionate use may arguably be where cameras are put in toilets or changing rooms.



Ultimately, it should be borne in mind that despite the points outlined there is very little scope to impede employers making recordings. Placement and retention of footage must be in accordance with regulations under DPA. As this is a relatively recent development in the law, there are very few decided cases (the DPA does not apply to individuals’ private or household purposes).



Assistance for employees comes from either expressing direct concerns to the employer which is the easiest way to resolve the situation or from a union if the worker is a member.



Any personal data collected must be stored securely. Also, regard should be had to the fact that anyone who is captured on CCTV will have a right of access to that footage under the DPA.

Adam Singleton is an online, freelance journalist and keen gardener. He lives in Scotland with his two dogs.

Foreign exchange trading involves buying and selling different currencies. It works on the theory that is similar with share market. As we know that to make the profit, you have to buy at lower price and sell at higher price, or we can also sell at higher price first and buy at lower price. But its not as easy as it sounds. By studying certain market conditions, you can actually make profits in forex. All you have to do is to analyze the forex in a correct way and do the good trade.

Why to go for Foreign exchange trading? There is an option to invest in stock market also but here are a few important advantages of currency trading over stock market.

Read the rest of this article »

The average British household now spends less on food and more on housing in a complete reversal of the situation that existed 50 years ago, according to the Office of National Statistics (ONS).

It is the 50th anniversary of the ONS Family Expenditure Survey and to celebrate the significant date the agency has highlighted the differences in how household income is spent.

Read the rest of this article »