I dont it is just the law.18 year old is not a biological adult he/she are still adolescents.They still have an adolescents brain.If you do a wekapedia you will see tht a biological adult starts at 19 or 20.Why cant the law consider you a legal adult at biological adult hood.I feel 18 is still inmature and litle early to be considered an adult.
Answers:
Parents that don't allow their children to grow into adults have children that aren't mature enough to behave maturely at 18.
I was on my own at 18 paying rent and a car payment, groceries and taking care of myself. How are kids so different today?
You should be. Society gives you the chance to prove it at 18.
depends on how u were raised and where u are in your own life. I for one and def much more mature because of the things I have seen and been through
Maturity has little to do with age. However I think 18 is a good age to let people know they will be fully responsible for their actions. And I think the underlying reason it's so low is so the Gov't can justify sending teenagers to war.
at 18, you capable of getting a job and becoming independent. immaturity has nothing to do with that.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Do You Agree or Disagree?
IF you take a look at at the headline on yahoo a boy was suspended for hugging his Girl friend Because of a NO TOUCHING rule now that is very rediculous in my opinion if you got a second check out the story and give me your opinion Do you Agree or Disagree all OPINION ARE WELCOME negative and positive please Be appropriate in your comments
Answers:
Are you asking whether the policy is fair or is it fair that he was punished for violating the policy? I agree with somebody getting punished for a policy violation if in fact they committed the offense. Also, I agree with the policy, but I think the penalty is rather harsh. I would start with after school detention for first offense, then impose more strict punishment for additional offenses.
I saw that article. I think that particular student got a warning.
I think it's an extreme reaction. However, it relates to a lot of the problems educators face. It's an inner city school that has 1100 students where 800 should be. My school faces similiar problems we have 500 students where 200 should be. There aren't enough bathrooms, seats in the cafeteria, too many desks and not enough room to walk as a teacher, too many people is hard to teach.
We should be focusing on why they needed to adopt such extreme measures rather than simply reprimanding them.
I don't agree, believe me if the boy was hugging another boy
it would be ballyhooed as to how tolerant our society had become.
Didn't read the article, but assume from other comments that it was a school no touching rule, and that the young man had been warned or previously reprimanded. If that's the case, then he ought to have been suspended. The school officials can't be put in a position where they're trying to differentiate one kind of touching from another on a case-by-case basis. It'll lead to people claiming that the school is treating people differently.
The rule is silly, but not as his father asserted unconstitutional. A more reasonable rule would be no harmful or offense touching.
Mala prohibita, eh? But it's too harsh a penalty.
Answers:
Are you asking whether the policy is fair or is it fair that he was punished for violating the policy? I agree with somebody getting punished for a policy violation if in fact they committed the offense. Also, I agree with the policy, but I think the penalty is rather harsh. I would start with after school detention for first offense, then impose more strict punishment for additional offenses.
I saw that article. I think that particular student got a warning.
I think it's an extreme reaction. However, it relates to a lot of the problems educators face. It's an inner city school that has 1100 students where 800 should be. My school faces similiar problems we have 500 students where 200 should be. There aren't enough bathrooms, seats in the cafeteria, too many desks and not enough room to walk as a teacher, too many people is hard to teach.
We should be focusing on why they needed to adopt such extreme measures rather than simply reprimanding them.
I don't agree, believe me if the boy was hugging another boy
it would be ballyhooed as to how tolerant our society had become.
Didn't read the article, but assume from other comments that it was a school no touching rule, and that the young man had been warned or previously reprimanded. If that's the case, then he ought to have been suspended. The school officials can't be put in a position where they're trying to differentiate one kind of touching from another on a case-by-case basis. It'll lead to people claiming that the school is treating people differently.
The rule is silly, but not as his father asserted unconstitutional. A more reasonable rule would be no harmful or offense touching.
Mala prohibita, eh? But it's too harsh a penalty.
Do websites have to tell you if they collect ientifying information from your computer?
Answers:
No, but there are various guidelines for certain kinds of businesses to have privacy statements where they tell you what information they will take from you, then government agencies check up on them to find out if they are being truthful, depending on how many people complain.
So for example, if Yahoo has a privacy policy, and you join in agreement with it, then Yahoo changes the policy and you don't notice it changed, your tough luck.
Also, lots of businesses don't know what they are doing, or claim to not know what they are doing. In a lot of the breaches, where our credit card info was handed over to the crooks, the companies claim they did not know what the software they bought and installed was doing.
Nope, you might as well expect it. Even if you make your restriction settings very private (cookies, etc.), I'd still be careful. If you have no idea what I'm talking about above, find a computer geek friend who will gladly explain it to you and how to "help" prevent it.
Do we truely have 'Free Speech' in England?
Even if we as individuals can say all we want, if there are people in England unable legally, or through fear of violence from others, to say what they want to say. Can we still claim to have free speech in England?
Answers:
No, it's illegal to deny the holocaust, to say racist/sexist things etc.
People say that this is good, which may be right, but without being able to say these things we have no free speech. Harsh but true.
...as long as you speak the Word! ...of our Lord Almighty!
Nope
not free speach on this site u have to be careful of what u say
Great illusion.
Its like that anywhere. At least you legally have the soap box to stand on. I just have my bathroom mirror.
there is no such thing as 100% free speech
especially on YA
If it is anything like it is here, i would say not any more.
Add a degree of politically correctness and you are limited to what you can say.
Probably not, but I think Free Speech is something we aim for, rather than something we ever actually achieve.
Unless you live alone and never get into contact with anyone else, you will take into account other people's feelings and reactions before you speak. That's not always a bad thing.
No one really has freedom of speech anywhere, not even in the US. Something that you say may offend someone and then there are reprocussions for it later. I think its the same way in the US, we just say things and get put on television for it
Not now no..too much red tape as regards racial equality
well whats is real free speech..if by that you mean i can say whatever i want to you..? ...or freedom within certain bounderies.?.theres enough anger etc in the world so it cant be free to say anything..
No! I don't think so! It may not be illeagle to say certain things, but if you voice an oppinion that is against the masses woe betide you!
NO WE DONT THE ONLY PPL WHO DO ARE THE IMMEGRANTS AND FOREIGNERS AND THEY CANT EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH SO WE ARE ALL PHUCKED, CANT WAIT TO GET OUT THE U.K!
no we dont, personally I'll always voice my opinion because Im not scared and Im not worried about what people think, but alot of people are and dont always speak up. People need to understand that we all have different opinions, if we were all the same and agreed with everything life would be bloody boring :)
Free speech involves responsibility and common sense. Not all people are going to agree on what is offensive or not. By being civil toward others, we become a civilization.
No no no!As you know its freedom of speech as long as you dont say too much
i feel really strongly about this issue and believe that no, we dont have that freedom to say what we like due to either fear of the authorities or fear of our own kind. people should be able to make themselves heard as individuals.
No.
Far too much to go into on this subject.
Gatherings are limited in size, protests are not allowed near certain areas, shop signs must be in metric not imperial.
The list is endless.
In one job centre, a business owner was told she could not ask for a ''hard working'' person, as it is discriminating against those who do not work hard.
Good question.
Legally yes, but I think there was never real "free speech" anywhere. One always has to take other people into consideration. Try telling all the people you think are ugly what you think about them. Hurting or offending people has consequences, free speech is Utopian.
Nah.
the government of england , not only england , almost the rest of the countries know that
Free Speech = Rebellion ( somewhat )
Even democratic country wont give their citizens 100% rights to talk what they wanna talk.
I think this question was inspired by the venom spat against the Mc Canns by several Internet sickos.
Take a look at the Libel Law in the UK and others should take care what they say
in england, we have free speech until the coppers 'nick' us, or we get our point across. Tbh, we hardly have free speech cos the coppers always claim its about to get violent, even when the protestors are still claiming to be peaceful. What a country we live in.
no
this country has lost free speech. you may speak freely, but only if the government agrees with what your are saying! (makes sense?don't think so) an elderly man was arrested last year because he call a statement made by the government 'nonsense'! the term 'Christmas' may now be banned from schools in case it offends any people of the Muslim faith, although any Muslims i have spoken to agree this is a ridiculous idea! this country is changing from a democracy to a dictatorship
Yes. Right now you can pretty much say what you want provided that it is not libellous or an incitement to violence. If you air an opinion that is at odds with the government/media brainwashing you can expect to be vilified by the media but you probably won`t be tortured or imprisoned. It takes guts to take a stand against a Government as right wing as ours but there are truly courageous people who have done it and lived to tell the tale. For example George Galloway.
Next year the situation may have changed as Britain becomes more and more a clone of the U.S. I think in another ten years and you may well be stoned to death for saying JEHOVAH. Let`s enjoy it whilst we can JEHOVA JEHOVA JEHOVA.
My grandad who fought in WW1%262 said
" This is a free country as long as you do as you are told"
We have not had Free speach since before Cromwell became protector and even then couldnt criticise the crown.
Sadly No is the answer to that. There is far too much Political Correctness involved. Our Government uses that to control the ideas and opinions we are allowed to express.
Freedom of Speech is just an Illusion.
Piltdown man, are you obsessed with the Mccann's?
No we don't. There can be no criticism of any minority race, religion, sexuality, or creed, and absolutely no discussion about the same. You are not free to criticise the government, as the tabliods will slaughter you.
Answers:
No, it's illegal to deny the holocaust, to say racist/sexist things etc.
People say that this is good, which may be right, but without being able to say these things we have no free speech. Harsh but true.
...as long as you speak the Word! ...of our Lord Almighty!
Nope
not free speach on this site u have to be careful of what u say
Great illusion.
Its like that anywhere. At least you legally have the soap box to stand on. I just have my bathroom mirror.
there is no such thing as 100% free speech
especially on YA
If it is anything like it is here, i would say not any more.
Add a degree of politically correctness and you are limited to what you can say.
Probably not, but I think Free Speech is something we aim for, rather than something we ever actually achieve.
Unless you live alone and never get into contact with anyone else, you will take into account other people's feelings and reactions before you speak. That's not always a bad thing.
No one really has freedom of speech anywhere, not even in the US. Something that you say may offend someone and then there are reprocussions for it later. I think its the same way in the US, we just say things and get put on television for it
Not now no..too much red tape as regards racial equality
well whats is real free speech..if by that you mean i can say whatever i want to you..? ...or freedom within certain bounderies.?.theres enough anger etc in the world so it cant be free to say anything..
No! I don't think so! It may not be illeagle to say certain things, but if you voice an oppinion that is against the masses woe betide you!
NO WE DONT THE ONLY PPL WHO DO ARE THE IMMEGRANTS AND FOREIGNERS AND THEY CANT EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH SO WE ARE ALL PHUCKED, CANT WAIT TO GET OUT THE U.K!
no we dont, personally I'll always voice my opinion because Im not scared and Im not worried about what people think, but alot of people are and dont always speak up. People need to understand that we all have different opinions, if we were all the same and agreed with everything life would be bloody boring :)
Free speech involves responsibility and common sense. Not all people are going to agree on what is offensive or not. By being civil toward others, we become a civilization.
No no no!As you know its freedom of speech as long as you dont say too much
i feel really strongly about this issue and believe that no, we dont have that freedom to say what we like due to either fear of the authorities or fear of our own kind. people should be able to make themselves heard as individuals.
No.
Far too much to go into on this subject.
Gatherings are limited in size, protests are not allowed near certain areas, shop signs must be in metric not imperial.
The list is endless.
In one job centre, a business owner was told she could not ask for a ''hard working'' person, as it is discriminating against those who do not work hard.
Good question.
Legally yes, but I think there was never real "free speech" anywhere. One always has to take other people into consideration. Try telling all the people you think are ugly what you think about them. Hurting or offending people has consequences, free speech is Utopian.
Nah.
the government of england , not only england , almost the rest of the countries know that
Free Speech = Rebellion ( somewhat )
Even democratic country wont give their citizens 100% rights to talk what they wanna talk.
I think this question was inspired by the venom spat against the Mc Canns by several Internet sickos.
Take a look at the Libel Law in the UK and others should take care what they say
in england, we have free speech until the coppers 'nick' us, or we get our point across. Tbh, we hardly have free speech cos the coppers always claim its about to get violent, even when the protestors are still claiming to be peaceful. What a country we live in.
no
this country has lost free speech. you may speak freely, but only if the government agrees with what your are saying! (makes sense?don't think so) an elderly man was arrested last year because he call a statement made by the government 'nonsense'! the term 'Christmas' may now be banned from schools in case it offends any people of the Muslim faith, although any Muslims i have spoken to agree this is a ridiculous idea! this country is changing from a democracy to a dictatorship
Yes. Right now you can pretty much say what you want provided that it is not libellous or an incitement to violence. If you air an opinion that is at odds with the government/media brainwashing you can expect to be vilified by the media but you probably won`t be tortured or imprisoned. It takes guts to take a stand against a Government as right wing as ours but there are truly courageous people who have done it and lived to tell the tale. For example George Galloway.
Next year the situation may have changed as Britain becomes more and more a clone of the U.S. I think in another ten years and you may well be stoned to death for saying JEHOVAH. Let`s enjoy it whilst we can JEHOVA JEHOVA JEHOVA.
My grandad who fought in WW1%262 said
" This is a free country as long as you do as you are told"
We have not had Free speach since before Cromwell became protector and even then couldnt criticise the crown.
Sadly No is the answer to that. There is far too much Political Correctness involved. Our Government uses that to control the ideas and opinions we are allowed to express.
Freedom of Speech is just an Illusion.
Piltdown man, are you obsessed with the Mccann's?
No we don't. There can be no criticism of any minority race, religion, sexuality, or creed, and absolutely no discussion about the same. You are not free to criticise the government, as the tabliods will slaughter you.
Do we still need to have a right to bear arms in the US constitution?
If you were suddenly granted the power to edit the constitution as you saw fit, would it stay or go?
Answers:
Not just yes, but hell frikin YES!
WOW you got your little gun hateing party kinda rained on here didn't you? Not one person I read above me says yes get rid of them, brings a tear to my eye, nice to be in such good company!
Look, sweety, if your affraid of guns, the best thing to do is learn about them, isn't that what you'd do with just about anything else? "Know thine enemy" Sun Tsu from The Art of War. If you learn enough about guns I promise you'll want one and won't fear them anymore, and you and your loved ones will be safer for it. In the code of boshido, it is said that the main reason a man wants to pick up a sword is to protect something he loves, same goes for guns.
When our minds are powerful enough to kill a bear with our thoughts, then the liberals might have a logical leg to stand on about getting rid of guns, but then why would we need them? The next time you go out of doors less than 5 miles from bear territory, try and remember a bear can eat you and leave long before the cops can get to you to save your gun-ignorant butt.
The next time you want to do something the government doesn't like just remember its OUR guns that allow you to be able to, just think how little your cardboard protest sign will do against Government assualt rifles.
Live and let live, please for freedoms sake!
It's not whether we need it or not, it's a constitutional right and in this time of not-to-subtle fascism; we should be guarding all of our rights with ferocity. And no, I would never edit the Constitution--maybe add to it.
The answer is, according to John Ashcroft, you have an individual right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulation by the government.
Personally if I could edit the constitution, I might change a lot of things, but the 2nd Amendment would be edited to make it clear that you have an individual right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulation by the government.
Which means, virtually no changes except modern language.
it would stay, the main reason for the right to bear arms was to guarantee the American people the ability to defend themselves against a government that became out of control. It was actually granted for the states to have and keep a well armed militia, which became known as the national guard. It is now under Federal Control, which can exercise power over the states by using their own well armed militia against them. so basically the right to bear arms has already been done away with, without a constitutional amendment.
It would stay, and possibly be put in words that can less easily be manipulated to try to eliminate the right.
The US Supreme Court has on numerous occasions re-affirmed that the individual citizen has the ABSOLUTE right to keep and bear arms. Jurisdictions that forbid such are in violation of US Law, and in those cases that have been actually heard by the Supreme Court have time and again ruled that way.
We certainly need the right to bear arms. I would change the constitution and amend the 2nd amendment. I would require that every household have a gun. The right to bear arms was written into the constitution as a way to protect the people from their own government. I was a way of ensuring that no dictatorship arose in this country. It gave the people a way of fighting its own government if it went bad. The 2nd amendment is part of the checks and balances that ensures that democracy never dies. Besides, what country would possibly be stupid enough to invade the U.S., knowing that the citizens are armed and would fight them. The second amendment keeps our shores safe from foriegn invaders.
It would stay, along with the freedom of speech, right of assembly, etc.
If powers were to be granted, I'd rather have the power to make elected officials enforce laws we already have on the books.
I'd also like to make them follow through on processes their supposed to complete.
If they had followed through on the investigation of Seung-Hui Cho from earlier incidents, there's a fair chance the murders at Norris Hall would never have happened.
But because government didn't do their job the first time, we're supposed to make new laws that burden the law-abiding citizen. Then we will have additional laws that don't do squat, because their not enforced.
Ask the people of new Orleans who were left defenseless against gangs and looters! YES WE NEED THE SECOND AMENDMENT! on that note, if my guns are taken away and i have no way to defend myself, will I get the constitutional right to sue my local law enforcement for failing to protect me?
yes it would stay if we loose our right to bear arms what happens if the government decides to take over and rule as a dictatorship or our government falls? we would be helpless to defend ourselves or our family and loved ones! If or military fell or was too weak to fight effectively and the enemy was on or home ground-- what could we do? As for me i will fight for my loved ones or die trying!! I would rather die as a free man then be butchered like a helpless lamb!!
Absolutely. Anyone who has researched this should know that the main purpose of that amendment was to ensure that the people remained "the true sovereigns of the country." And that a tyrannical government could not deprive the people of their natural rights such as to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," etc. etc. Secondly it provides for the personal protection of self, family, property reducing the need for law enforcement to be omnipresent to prevent crimes. It's worthy to note that the courts have repeatedly made rulings such as this:
"...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."
Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686 F.2d 616 (1882)
The only possible change I could see would be adding more explicit language that makes it more clear and something to the effect that there shall be no laws passed which restrict the right of any law-abiding citizen of good standing (i.e. there could be restrictions upon violent felons, etc.).
It's pretty well known that gun restrictions/laws/bans have no effect whatsoever on criminals who will obtain a gun illegally, and in many cases easier than any law-abiding person can.
Read the Parker vs DC court opinion. A link to the full text can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/parker_v._d...
Keep it. I would add amendments not take away.
Answers:
Not just yes, but hell frikin YES!
WOW you got your little gun hateing party kinda rained on here didn't you? Not one person I read above me says yes get rid of them, brings a tear to my eye, nice to be in such good company!
Look, sweety, if your affraid of guns, the best thing to do is learn about them, isn't that what you'd do with just about anything else? "Know thine enemy" Sun Tsu from The Art of War. If you learn enough about guns I promise you'll want one and won't fear them anymore, and you and your loved ones will be safer for it. In the code of boshido, it is said that the main reason a man wants to pick up a sword is to protect something he loves, same goes for guns.
When our minds are powerful enough to kill a bear with our thoughts, then the liberals might have a logical leg to stand on about getting rid of guns, but then why would we need them? The next time you go out of doors less than 5 miles from bear territory, try and remember a bear can eat you and leave long before the cops can get to you to save your gun-ignorant butt.
The next time you want to do something the government doesn't like just remember its OUR guns that allow you to be able to, just think how little your cardboard protest sign will do against Government assualt rifles.
Live and let live, please for freedoms sake!
It's not whether we need it or not, it's a constitutional right and in this time of not-to-subtle fascism; we should be guarding all of our rights with ferocity. And no, I would never edit the Constitution--maybe add to it.
The answer is, according to John Ashcroft, you have an individual right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulation by the government.
Personally if I could edit the constitution, I might change a lot of things, but the 2nd Amendment would be edited to make it clear that you have an individual right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulation by the government.
Which means, virtually no changes except modern language.
it would stay, the main reason for the right to bear arms was to guarantee the American people the ability to defend themselves against a government that became out of control. It was actually granted for the states to have and keep a well armed militia, which became known as the national guard. It is now under Federal Control, which can exercise power over the states by using their own well armed militia against them. so basically the right to bear arms has already been done away with, without a constitutional amendment.
It would stay, and possibly be put in words that can less easily be manipulated to try to eliminate the right.
The US Supreme Court has on numerous occasions re-affirmed that the individual citizen has the ABSOLUTE right to keep and bear arms. Jurisdictions that forbid such are in violation of US Law, and in those cases that have been actually heard by the Supreme Court have time and again ruled that way.
We certainly need the right to bear arms. I would change the constitution and amend the 2nd amendment. I would require that every household have a gun. The right to bear arms was written into the constitution as a way to protect the people from their own government. I was a way of ensuring that no dictatorship arose in this country. It gave the people a way of fighting its own government if it went bad. The 2nd amendment is part of the checks and balances that ensures that democracy never dies. Besides, what country would possibly be stupid enough to invade the U.S., knowing that the citizens are armed and would fight them. The second amendment keeps our shores safe from foriegn invaders.
It would stay, along with the freedom of speech, right of assembly, etc.
If powers were to be granted, I'd rather have the power to make elected officials enforce laws we already have on the books.
I'd also like to make them follow through on processes their supposed to complete.
If they had followed through on the investigation of Seung-Hui Cho from earlier incidents, there's a fair chance the murders at Norris Hall would never have happened.
But because government didn't do their job the first time, we're supposed to make new laws that burden the law-abiding citizen. Then we will have additional laws that don't do squat, because their not enforced.
Ask the people of new Orleans who were left defenseless against gangs and looters! YES WE NEED THE SECOND AMENDMENT! on that note, if my guns are taken away and i have no way to defend myself, will I get the constitutional right to sue my local law enforcement for failing to protect me?
yes it would stay if we loose our right to bear arms what happens if the government decides to take over and rule as a dictatorship or our government falls? we would be helpless to defend ourselves or our family and loved ones! If or military fell or was too weak to fight effectively and the enemy was on or home ground-- what could we do? As for me i will fight for my loved ones or die trying!! I would rather die as a free man then be butchered like a helpless lamb!!
Absolutely. Anyone who has researched this should know that the main purpose of that amendment was to ensure that the people remained "the true sovereigns of the country." And that a tyrannical government could not deprive the people of their natural rights such as to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," etc. etc. Secondly it provides for the personal protection of self, family, property reducing the need for law enforcement to be omnipresent to prevent crimes. It's worthy to note that the courts have repeatedly made rulings such as this:
"...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."
Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686 F.2d 616 (1882)
The only possible change I could see would be adding more explicit language that makes it more clear and something to the effect that there shall be no laws passed which restrict the right of any law-abiding citizen of good standing (i.e. there could be restrictions upon violent felons, etc.).
It's pretty well known that gun restrictions/laws/bans have no effect whatsoever on criminals who will obtain a gun illegally, and in many cases easier than any law-abiding person can.
Read the Parker vs DC court opinion. A link to the full text can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/parker_v._d...
Keep it. I would add amendments not take away.
Do we renters need a law for landlord regarding mice and bedbugs ?
landlords must give back rent ,scurity ,moving fees, medical fees ; for the first 2 month moving in .
Answers:
landlord/tenant laws vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but you likely have protection for the right to habitability. If the place is unliveable, you should demand the conditions be fixed. Some states you can withhold rental payments for fixing the problem, or the condition may be so bad it results in constructive eviction. you need to find out your local laws though.
yes. you need a law.
yes you do. I am sure your not going to want to live in a house full of mice and bedbugs. I would sue 'em, live somewhere else, inform as many people as you can especially people who live there and people who are planning on living in that area, and make them call a extermenator.
Most states have a "warranty of habitability" for residential leases, under which a tenant can recover damages if the residence is not reasonably fit for human habitation. In other words, get thee to a personal injury attorney and sue that slumlord.
Answers:
landlord/tenant laws vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but you likely have protection for the right to habitability. If the place is unliveable, you should demand the conditions be fixed. Some states you can withhold rental payments for fixing the problem, or the condition may be so bad it results in constructive eviction. you need to find out your local laws though.
yes. you need a law.
yes you do. I am sure your not going to want to live in a house full of mice and bedbugs. I would sue 'em, live somewhere else, inform as many people as you can especially people who live there and people who are planning on living in that area, and make them call a extermenator.
Most states have a "warranty of habitability" for residential leases, under which a tenant can recover damages if the residence is not reasonably fit for human habitation. In other words, get thee to a personal injury attorney and sue that slumlord.
Do we really have to have a no smoking sticker in a company car?
and I'm not talking about the rest of europe who do what they like!
Answers:
YEP U DO BECAUSE IT IS CLASSED AS A PLACE OF WORK, SUCKS REALLY BUT HEY NEVER MIND
Why Not..Need to make this world a smoke free place for EVERYONES lungs sake.
No excuse if you get caught
With the new laws (England) that come into force on 1st July I'm afraid you do...
yes its a place of work
not if we work for a cigarette company.
im in ireland and my hubby smokes in the company car,hes not in a building and the window is down,though i do tll him to carry a tin of deodarant and spray now and again!
If you're the only employee who uses the vehicle, you can smoke in it.
I am asking every smoker to boycott pubs,clubs, football grounds etc for as long as it takes to make large companies and fat cats to go crying to Govt to modify law into common sense compromise.
Who is with me??
Answers:
YEP U DO BECAUSE IT IS CLASSED AS A PLACE OF WORK, SUCKS REALLY BUT HEY NEVER MIND
Why Not..Need to make this world a smoke free place for EVERYONES lungs sake.
No excuse if you get caught
With the new laws (England) that come into force on 1st July I'm afraid you do...
yes its a place of work
not if we work for a cigarette company.
im in ireland and my hubby smokes in the company car,hes not in a building and the window is down,though i do tll him to carry a tin of deodarant and spray now and again!
If you're the only employee who uses the vehicle, you can smoke in it.
I am asking every smoker to boycott pubs,clubs, football grounds etc for as long as it takes to make large companies and fat cats to go crying to Govt to modify law into common sense compromise.
Who is with me??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)