Not exact matches
I think that public
policy in a pluralistic system (which can not be based on the mere belief of a citizen, since by definition it can not give precedence to any belief) must be justified
only on utilitarian
grounds.
The
policy statement's case does not rest on socioeconomic
grounds alone, insisting that energy issues involve ethical choices and therefore concern us not
only as citizens but also as Christians.
Read the previous press release, «Full judgement published in Richmond Catholic schools judicial review»: http://humanism.org.uk/2012/12/14/full-judgement-published-in-richmond-catholic-schools-judicial-review/ Read the previous press release, «Vince Cable accuses Michael Gove's officials of breaking Coalition Agreement on «faith» school admissions»: http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/1150 A survey by the Accord Coalition published on 12 November found that 73 % of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that «state funded schools should not be allowed to select or discriminate against prospective pupils on religious
grounds in their admissions
policy», while
only 18 % disagreed.
In addition, «27 states [now] require annual evaluations for all teachers, compared to just 15 states in 2009;» «17 states include student growth as the preponderant criterion in teacher evaluations, up from
only four states in 2009... An additional 18 states include growth measures as a «significant» criterion in teacher evaluations;» «23 states require that evidence of teacher performance be used in tenure decisions [whereas no] state had such a
policy in 2009;» «19 states require that teacher performance is considered in reduction in force decisions;» and the «majority of states (28) now articulate that ineffectiveness is
grounds for teacher dismissal» (p. 6).
It is important to know that your landlord's insurance
policy only covers the building and
grounds, not the personal possessions in your rented home.
I would support such
policies only if I were convinced (a) that there were good
grounds for them and (b) that the returns would exceed those from alternative use of resources.
What Article 28 (3) with its omission of public
policy grounds seems to suggest in my view is that — to a certain extent — the mere fact of a 10 years residence has created a link between the EU citizen and the host Member State that is similar to the link between a national and its state; as a consequence expulsion can
only be a valid means if this link is deliberately destroyed by the EU citizen; this would be the case of a serious security threat, i.e. an individual determined to engage in actions that jeopardize the security of the host Member State's society at large, which could indeed be the case of organized crime.
Nonetheless, CBSA
policy states that personal device exams should be conducted
only if there are
grounds or indications that «evidence of contraventions may be found on the digital device or media,» says the privacy commissioner's website.
That right of permanent residence confers on its beneficiary protection against measures of expulsion, which can be taken against him
only on serious
grounds of public
policy or public security.
The court said that the discrimination could
only be justified on
grounds of public
policy, public security, or public health.
(ii) NOAMS who have acquired the right of permanent residence in the HMS may
only be expelled by the HMS on the
grounds of serious public
policy, public security or public health.
Unlike homeowners insurance, a renters
policy covers
only the property you keep inside the home, not the structure or the
grounds.
Basically, if you conceal secrets or lie to an insurance company, even if it's
only about something trivial, and the insurance company discovers it, they have
grounds to void the entire
policy.
It is important to know that your landlord's insurance
policy only covers the building and
grounds, not the personal possessions in your rented home.
The building owner's
policy only covers the building,
grounds and property of the owner.