Re: Collateral damage
I really don't think Christmas will have appreciated it
8 posts • joined 15 Nov 2017
I would respectfully disagree. In the sense used by the author (described movement not joining threads to make cloth), is perfectly correct on either side of the pond.
Language does change: my mum (an English teacher) was taught as a child that the correct spelling of the word "show" is "shew". Not any more.
Collins English Dictionary
The form weaved is used for the past tense and past participle for meaning e.g.
if you weave your way somewhere, you move between and around things as you go there.
The cars then weaved in and out of traffic at top speed. [VERB preposition]
He weaved around the tables to where she sat with Bob. [VERB preposition]
Here’s what the Yanks say:
“Weaved, wove, woven
The verb weave is usually inflected wove in the past tense and woven in the perfect-tense and past-participial forms. But weaved is more common where weave means to move in and out or sway from side to side. This is the case in all the main varieties of English, though British writers are particularly wont to use weaved for all senses of the word—a growing phenomenon.”
Old codgers today, eh?
This all seem perfectly in line with the Facebook approach to the UK - if he and his company won't pay taxes here, then why would he take advantage of our public services by visiting a bunch of public sector drones seeking to gain favourable publicity whilst filling their otherwise dreary days? After all, this what empires do: suck out money whilst contributing little.
Ahem - according to a clarification issued by one Mr. Gove (admittedly post-referendum) this was clearly "an option". An option, equally clearly, is not a lie. Since it is an option, equally clearly, those wise souls guiding the battered Good Ship Britannia may opt one or more of the other options.
I trust that that is clear.
Historically, the UK has opted out of the EU laws which protect employees. I don't know whether there are any EU directives or regulations which would protect an employee from a clause on their contract which operates as stated.
I do know that a clause which prohibits an employee from joining a competitor is enforceable under English law. The general philosophy is that it should not be a "restraint of trade". A period of a year would usually be enforceable, particularly where a senior employee intends to join a direct competitor.
I would guess that this approach is one which the US imported from England.
Actually, they also display a map from a satnav as well as reverse angle when reversing. But I've only been in one the once. Cool gadgets but this looks like the usual road user makes a minor error (cyclist or driver) on a country road and cyclist pays the price. A minor error by a cyclist deserves the death penalty. The point is that an 80-year old cycling on a public road died in a road accident. Whatever the "data" shows to satisfy those who think its a question of pointing the finger, it's not acceptable.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019