Costs in Criminal Cases Should Be Reviewed
-
i'd say there's a pretty big difference between being liberal and being fundamentally moronicOriginally posted by LazerLordz:If anyone can dismiss a libertarian as useless, I can also dismiss a conservative for being narrow-minded and so full of BS too.
Extremism is not the way.
-
Show me. Bear in mind I have been living in the UK for the past few years.Originally posted by vito_corleone:whatever you said is bollocks indeed. -
with a 2:2 you can only be a socilitor, not a barrister(info was given by an ex-lawyer who studied and practiced in london).Originally posted by lwflee:Show me. Bear in mind I have been living in the UK for the past few years. barrister 2:1 or 1st class hons. if singapore has no barristers then what do you call those buggers who represent their clients in court? -
Originally posted by vito_corleone:with a 2:2 you can only be a socilitor, not a barrister(info was given by an ex-lawyer who studied and practiced in london). barrister 2:1 or 1st class hons. if singapore has no barristers then what do you call those buggers who represent their clients in court?
Bar Vocational Course (BVC)
http://www.college-of-law.co.uk/20051.html
Entry requirements
* A qualifying law degree of at least lower second class honours or the Graduate Diploma in Law/CPE
* Students with an overseas degree should discuss their eligibility with the Bar Council
* Offers are conditional on students having a sufficient command of English to follow the course to a successful conclusionn order to be considered for a place on the BVC, applicants must normally show that they will satisfy the following criteria by entry:
http://www.law.mmu.ac.uk/postgrad/bvc/requirements.php
* be over the age of 21;
* hold a University degree in law or have successfully completed a PGDL/CPE programme
BVC students will be selected principally by reference to academic ability and will be expected to have been awarded a 2:2 or better at first degree level. This will be considered in the light of additional criteria such as evidence of commitment to the profession, your motivation in choosing to study the BVC, your interpersonal and organisational skills, and any personal circumstances which might make it difficult to study the BVC at an institution other than MMU.
People in singapore who represent clients in courts are, AKAIK, advocates. I can find nothing that suggests that qualified lawyers in Singapore need to take extra qualifications in order to be an advocate.
Edit: Singapore lawyers are known as "Solicitor & Advocate" -
Originally posted by Atobe:
[color=darkred]Notwithstanding your taking a slanted position on this issue based on the personal remarks of the Home Secretary - the fact remains that there is in the [b]UK Jurisdiction, a legislation that compensate someone who is acquitted after a trial or appeal - period.
There was also the other referenced piece which revealed the difference in views from the Home Secretary's position as advanced by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords (which is the final arbiter of English Law through the Judiciary Committee of the Privy Council) - and was last referred for you as:-
"Guilt and Innocence in the Criminal Justice System:
A Comment on R (Mullen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department"[/b]Originally posted by Atobe:
Tsk Tsk Tsk...so you need me to point out again that not only have you not read my posts, you don't even read your own posts. You say the House of Lord decision supports compensation in all aquittals and cases successful on appeal when actually it is just the opposite. You claim the House of Lords, being the premium institution of the land, supported compensation in all such cases by overturning the decision by the Court of Appeal. Actually it is the other way round...you betted on the wrong horse..maybe you need to get your eyes checked
There was also the other referenced piece which revealed the difference in views from the Home Secretary's position as advanced by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords (which is the final arbiter of English Law through the Judiciary Committee of the Privy Council) - and was last referred for you as:-
"Guilt and Innocence in the Criminal Justice System:
A Comment on R (Mullen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department"[/b]
Here are some excerpts (the article is long and readers can find out for themselves using the above link). It involves the House of Lords' decision NOT to compensate someone whose conviction was quashed on appeal:
"The House of Lords upheld the Secretary of StateÂ’s right to deny compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the ex gratia scheme to Mullen, whose conviction for conspiracy to cause explosions had been quashed by the Court of Appeal..."
Lord Steyn in the House of Lords decided that it should NOT be entirely a decision of the courts to decide whether to determine compensation, ie. The Secretary of State has the right to decide NOT to compensate:
"Lord Steyn was clear that the legal system has the monopoly on the decision whether someone is guilty of a crime for the purposes of inflicting legal punishment. But he could see no need to maintain this monopoly for the purposes of determining whether a person should be compensated following a successful appeal. He accepted (and believed that the signatories to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Seventh Protocol had also intended) that decisions by appeal courts to quash convictions could be reassessed by politicians to see whether those convictions had been quashed for reasons that would appear to the general public as ‘technical’ rather than indicating that the appellant was actually innocent of the crime."
In a criminal case, the prosecution attempts to prove a defendant guilty. Failure to find guilt does not mean the defendant is innocent. All it means is that the evidence is not sufficient to find the defendant guilty. The court has not found him guilty is NOT THE SAME as the court finding him innocent. To link compensation exclusively to proof of innocence would mean the claimant will not be able to claim compensation, because the legal system fails to prove that he is innocent.
Lord Schiemann in the Court of Appeal decision had actually supported the claim for compensation by saying it is impossible to prove innocence through the legal system:
"In the Court of Appeal, Lord Schiemann had argued that proof of innocence could not be a prerequisite to compensation, as the UK legal system, along with many others, has no procedure whereby proof of innocence, either at trial, or on appeal, can be determined."
In other words, he is arguing for a more liberal view towards compensation, ie. the failure to establish guilt rather than the need to prove innocence.
This was denied by the House of Lords. Lord Steyn pointed out there are rare instances where innocence can be proven by the courts, such as a third party admitting to a murder. But these are very rare instances, as the authors of the article pointed out:
" But such cases are comparatively rare. This interpretation leaves no enforceable right to compensation in cases where the new facts merely throw doubt upon the factual accuracy of the conviction, or even in cases where the circumstances of the appeal clearly indicate innocence but the Home Secretary wishes to rely on evidence or allegations that are not in the public domain."
The second Law Lord in the case also believes there is NO automatic right to compensation in such cases, unless there was no fair trial or due process of law:
"Lord Bingham, like Lord Steyn, is NOT CONVINCED that a successful appeal re-establishes a presumption of innocence that entitles Mullen to claim compensation. For Lord Bingham, a quashed conviction could only ground such an entitlement where it goes to the ‘merits’ of the conviction...‘merits’ here does not refer only to matters that show defendants to be innocent, or even matters that raise reasonable doubts as to their guilt, but include irregularities that amount to a denial of their right to a fair trial, which includes breaches of rules going to the fairness of the proceedings."
The third law lord, Lord Scott, thinks that in practice the positions of the two other law lords make little difference.
The authors make scholarly remarks about the merits and weaknesses of each law lord's arguments, but the point is, as the law stands in the UK, an acquittal or successful appeal does not automatically mean compensation, In fact, following the first law lord in this case, Lord Steyn's argument, those instances would be very rare indeed. -
singapore i dunch know, 2 years later when i come over to uk then i tell you ok ..anyway judges reign supreme in singapore or so i heard, barrister or advocate or none makes no diffOriginally posted by lwflee:http://www.law.mmu.ac.uk/postgrad/bvc/requirements.php
People in singapore who represent clients in courts are, AKAIK, advocates. I can find nothing that suggests that qualified lawyers in Singapore need to take extra qualifications in order to be an advocate.
Edit: Singapore lawyers are known as "Solicitor & Advocate" -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
wah you all very hardworking ah bother to dig up all the info
Tsk Tsk Tsk...so you need me to point out again that not only have you not read my posts, you don't even read your own posts. You say the House of Lord decision supports compensation in all aquittals and cases successful on appeal when actually it is just the opposite. You claim the House of Lords, being the premium institution of the land, supported compensation in all such cases by overturning the decision by the Court of Appeal. Actually it is the other way round...you betted on the wrong horse..maybe you need to get your eyes checked
Here are some excerpts (the article is long and readers can find out for themselves using the above link). It involves the House of Lords' decision [b]NOT to compensate someone whose conviction was quashed on appeal:
"The House of Lords upheld the Secretary of StateÂ’s right to deny compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the ex gratia scheme to Mullen, whose conviction for conspiracy to cause explosions had been quashed by the Court of Appeal..."
Lord Steyn in the House of Lords decided that it should NOT be entirely a decision of the courts to decide whether to determine compensation, ie. The Secretary of State has the right to decide NOT to compensate:
"Lord Steyn was clear that the legal system has the monopoly on the decision whether someone is guilty of a crime for the purposes of inflicting legal punishment. But he could see no need to maintain this monopoly for the purposes of determining whether a person should be compensated following a successful appeal. He accepted (and believed that the signatories to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Seventh Protocol had also intended) that decisions by appeal courts to quash convictions could be reassessed by politicians to see whether those convictions had been quashed for reasons that would appear to the general public as ‘technical’ rather than indicating that the appellant was actually innocent of the crime."
In a criminal case, the prosecution attempts to prove a defendant guilty. Failure to find guilt does not mean the defendant is innocent. All it means is that the evidence is not sufficient to find the defendant guilty. The court has not found him guilty is NOT THE SAME as the court finding him innocent. To link compensation exclusively to proof of innocence would mean the claimant will not be able to claim compensation, because the legal system fails to prove that he is innocent.
Lord Schiemann in the Court of Appeal decision had actually supported the claim for compensation by saying it is impossible to prove innocence through the legal system:
"In the Court of Appeal, Lord Schiemann had argued that proof of innocence could not be a prerequisite to compensation, as the UK legal system, along with many others, has no procedure whereby proof of innocence, either at trial, or on appeal, can be determined."
In other words, he is arguing for a more liberal view towards compensation, ie. the failure to establish guilt rather than the need to prove innocence.
This was denied by the House of Lords. Lord Steyn pointed out there are rare instances where innocence can be proven by the courts, such as a third party admitting to a murder. But these are very rare instances, as the authors of the article pointed out:
" But such cases are comparatively rare. This interpretation leaves no enforceable right to compensation in cases where the new facts merely throw doubt upon the factual accuracy of the conviction, or even in cases where the circumstances of the appeal clearly indicate innocence but the Home Secretary wishes to rely on evidence or allegations that are not in the public domain."
The second Law Lord in the case also believes there is NO automatic right to compensation in such cases, unless there was no fair trial or due process of law:
"Lord Bingham, like Lord Steyn, is NOT CONVINCED that a successful appeal re-establishes a presumption of innocence that entitles Mullen to claim compensation. For Lord Bingham, a quashed con-viction could only ground such an entitlement where it goes to the ‘merits’ of the conviction...‘merits’
here does not refer only to matters that show defendants to be innocent, or
even matters that raise reasonable doubts as to their guilt, but include irregularities that amount to a denial of their right to a fair trial, which includes breaches of rules going to the fairness of the proceedings.
The third law lord, Lord Scott, thinks that in practice the positions of the two other law lords make little difference.
The authors make scholarly remarks about the merits and weaknesses of each law lord's arguments, but the point is, as the law stands in the UK, an acquittal or successful appeal does not automatically mean compensation, In fact, following the first law lord in this case, Lord Steyn's argument, those instances would be very rare indeed.
[/b] -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
This time I will need to truncate your most recent post quoted, and leave out your studious comments to my referenced piece.
Tsk Tsk Tsk...so you need me to point out again that not only have you not read my posts, you don't even read your own posts. You say the House of Lord decision supports compensation in all aquittals and cases successful on appeal when actually it is just the opposite. You claim the House of Lords, being the premium institution of the land, supported compensation in all such cases by overturning the decision by the Court of Appeal. Actually it is the other way round...you betted on the wrong horse..maybe you need to get your eyes checked
Before I commence here, did you read the hint in my previous post - in the quote from Mark Twain at the bottom of my post on 12 July 2006 05.33a.m. ?
I got the fact first, and distorted them - "a little bit" - just to check if you will take the bait - and sure enough, you did. .
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
The fact of the matter rest on your original challenge to the threadstarter :
Notwithstanding your taking a slanted position on this issue based on the personal remarks of the Home Secretary - the fact remains that there is in the UK Jurisdiction, a legislation that compensate someone who is acquitted after a trial or appeal - period.
Originally posted by oxford mushroom: 10 July 02.40pm
As usual, myopic and uninformed views of the libertarian
Name me one jurisdiction that compensates someone who is acquiited after a trial or appeal. The threadstarter made a huge boo-boo claiming that UK does that as a matter of course, which it does not.
Your dismissive and challenging remarks have been proven to be mistaken by the referenced site - given in my last post : "Compensation in the UK Justice System" : Ciminal Justice Act 1988 Section 133
Yes, I agree with you that the reference piece below - which I had "distorted the fact" - was not quite suitable :
Guilt and Innocence in the Criminal Justice System:
A Comment on R (Mullen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
However, the defendant Mullen could not be given any compensation - as he was acquitted not as a result of some miscarriage of justice and of a result of his innocence - as he is guilty as hell for the bombings - but that the miscarriage was due to a technicality in the kidnapping manner of his arrest and brought to UK for trial.
However, this does not mean that Compensation in the UK had failed as shown in the following list of successful awards and claims made against the Legal System for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, wrongful detention,
Police Misconduct – challenges : Bhatt Murphy Solicitors
In the following report from the Guardian : - dated 20 April 2006 - headlined as :
From another UK site which mentioned "a landmark decision in the UK High Court in awarding two falsely accused Newcastle nursery nurse in the High Cout in London on 30 July 2002 is a landmark decision .................... after a trial of 74 days, Dawn Reed and Christopher Lillie were each awarded Pounds 200,000 IN MAXIMUM DAMAGES for having been maliciously libelled by a Newcastle City Council"
Anger at legal compensation shakeup
Clarke's bid to overhaul law on wrong convictions attacked by justice groups
It was mentioned that the Home Office had paid Eight Million Sterling Pounds a Year for compensation due to the miscarriage of justice based on wrong convictions; and its plans to review and cap the limit to such compensation is being met with anger by Civil Group.
Will you still insist that you are "Correctt" with your remarks, when it is clear as daylight that you are so obviously "Wrong" ?
Is it so difficult to swallow your small pride and extend your apology to the threadstarter (and the lawyer whom she quoted) - for the disparaging remarks that you have made to both parties ?
Should one professional insult someone from another profession ?
Facts are facts and will not disappear on account of your likes.
Jawaharlal Nehru (1889 - 1964)
Pride is a powerful narcotic, but it doesn't do much for the auto-immune system.
Stuart Stevens, Northern Exposure,
Brains, Know-How, and Native Intelligence, 1990
Those who wish to appear wise among fools, among the wise seem foolish.
Quintilian, De Institutione Oratoria
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616), "As You Like It", Act 5 scene 1 -
Hahaha! Never read my posts as usual...my objection is to the assertion that there is automatic compensation in all acquittals or successful appeals. I have agreed that the Home Secretary can pay compensation to some cases of wrongful conviction, depending on the circumstances BUT NO AUTOMATIC COMPENSATION JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS ACQUITTED.
No substance to your posts as usual...just merely repeating your tried responses and avoiding the obvious errors in your own referenced as I have pointed out.
Let the readers decide...you made a big boo-boo by not even reading your own posts. Still trying to dig your grave? From another UK site which mentioned "a landmark decision in the UK High Court in awarding two falsely accused Newcastle nursery nurse in the High Cout in London on 30 July 2002 is a landmark decision .................... after a trial of 74 days, Dawn Reed and Christopher Lillie were each awarded Pounds 200,000 IN MAXIMUM DAMAGES for having been maliciously libelled by a Newcastle City Council"
From wrongful conviction to libel...shifting the goalposts again? One can sue the police for wrongful arrest or prosecution if it was done negligently or maliciously...you have to prove malicious intent or negligence. NO AUTOMATIC COMPENSATION. Once again, never read your own posts
'Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.' *wasting my time arguing with you...moving to a different topic* -
don't bother to argue with him la he's stuck in his own little worldOriginally posted by oxford mushroom:Hahaha! Never read my posts as usual...my objection is to the assertion that there is automatic compensation in all acquittals or successful appeals. I have agreed that the Home Secretary can pay compensation to some cases of wrongful conviction, depending on the circumstances BUT NO AUTOMATIC COMPENSATION JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS ACQUITTED.
No substance to your posts as usual...just merely repeating your tried responses and avoiding the obvious errors in your own referenced as I have pointed out.
Let the readers decide...you made a big boo-boo by not even reading your own posts. Still trying to dig your grave? -
I know this is off topic but...Originally posted by vito_corleone:singapore i dunch know, 2 years later when i come over to uk then i tell you ok ..anyway judges reign supreme in singapore or so i heard, barrister or advocate or none makes no diff
If you intend to study law in the UK and you intend to practise here, and you are a non-EEA national, then you should be aiming for 1st class honors degree or a very very good 2:1. This applies regardless if you are trying to be a solicitor or a barrister. This is because it is very difficult for non-eea nationals to secure a work permit here and employers will not generally bother to help you apply for the work permit unless you are 'special'.
Even if they help, there are no guarantees that the home office will approve the application.
Soooo - go in with your eyes open. -
Originally posted by vito_corleone:
Opinions, opinions, opinions, - all persumptious and judgmental.
don't bother to argue with him la he's stuck in his own little world 
Have you learn nothing in your First Year ?
It looks like you are not taking your own advise which you so liberally give to others - what does this tell of your character ? -
Double post
-
well well look who's talking you still haven't answered my very last question, which school did u graduate from?
-
rly? i heard from HENG@ that you can stay for up to 1 yr to find a job and and its nt really super troublesome for commonwealth peeps and such. btw where'd u live and wot'u do?Originally posted by lwflee:I know this is off topic but...
If you intend to study law in the UK and you intend to practise here, and you are a non-EEA national, then you should be aiming for 1st class honors degree or a very very good 2:1. This applies regardless if you are trying to be a solicitor or a barrister. This is because it is very difficult for non-eea nationals to secure a work permit here and employers will not generally bother to help you apply for the work permit unless you are 'special'.
Even if they help, there are no guarantees that the home office will approve the application.
Soooo - go in with your eyes open.
http://www.workingintheuk.gov.uk/working_in_the_uk/en/homepage/schemes_and_programmes/hsmp.html
"What is the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme?
The programme is designed to allow highly skilled people to migrate to the United Kingdom to look for work or self-employment opportunities. The scheme has a separate assessment for applicants aged under 28 as well as an assessment for those 28 and over.
The Highly Skilled Migrant Programme is different from the work permit scheme because you do not need a specific job offer in the UK to apply.
It is different from business routes such as the Innovators scheme or other business categories because you do not need a detailed business plan; you do not need to create jobs; and you do not need to invest in the UK.
How can I apply?
You should apply to the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme Team at Work Permits UK (WPUK) in Sheffield. You can apply from abroad. In most cases, you can also apply from inside the UK if you are here with Home Office permission.
Your application will not be successful if you are in the United Kingdom as a visitor, on temporary admission, or without permission.
How do I qualify as a highly skilled migrant?
There is a points-based immigration scheme. Points are scored in five main areas:
* educational qualifications;
* work experience;
* past earnings;
* your achievement in your chosen field; and
* your husband's, wife's, civil partner?s or unmarried partner's achievements.
There are also separate arrangements for those who are applying through the MBA Provision and further points can be awarded for those applying through the Priority Application Process for General Practitioners.
A separate young person's assessment also exists whereby an extra 5 points can be awarded if the applicant is under 28 years of age at the time of application.
You need to score 65 points or more to qualify as a highly skilled migrant.
Self-employed General Practitioners qualified to practice in the UK may also apply under the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme.
How long will I be allowed to stay in the United Kingdom as a highly skilled migrant?
At first, we give you permission to stay in the UK for up to 24 months to seek work or self-employment opportunities.
After 24 months, you can apply to stay for longer but you must be economically active.
As a highly skilled migrant, can I stay in the United Kingdom permanently?
If you live here continuously for five years with Home Office permission, you can apply near the end of the 5 years to live here permanently.
How can I get more information?
To get more information about the programme you should read the FAQs on this site. Guidance notes and the application forms for the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme are available from the forms section of this site." -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
How petty can a professional be - especially one who boast of being a doctor - whom one will expect at least a modicum of honor, humility, and self-respect ?
Hahaha! Never read my posts as usual...my objection is to the assertion that there is automatic compensation in all acquittals or successful appeals. I have agreed that the Home Secretary can pay compensation to some cases of wrongful conviction, depending on the circumstances BUT NO AUTOMATIC COMPENSATION JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS ACQUITTED.
No substance to your posts as usual...just merely repeating your tried responses and avoiding the obvious errors in your own referenced as I have pointed out.
Let the readers decide...you made a big boo-boo by not even reading your own posts. Still trying to dig your grave?
Still trying to worm your way out of an embarrassing spot and refusing to apologise for the disparaging and derogatory remarks to the Threadstarter (and for your insult to the lawyer whom she had quoted) ?
It was a matter of time when this "automatic" caveat of yours will pop up, but it was interesting to see that you continue to engage with my postings.
The Threadstarter had quoted a letter from a lawyer - in which the following was stated and which you seem to have taken umbrage at :
Your argumentative first response to the Threadstarter - as posted on 17 June 2006 - 05.13PM had stated - without the 'automatic caveat' :
The position in Singapore contrasts sharply with that in England. The law in England states that if a person is acquitted, the court should normally make an order of costs in his/her favour unless there are positive reasons for not doing so.
It would further the cause of criminal justice in Singapore if this approach were adopted here.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Your argumentative line refuse to see that the Lawyer was stating a fact that "Singapore's system contrast sharply with that in England ".
In common law jurisdictions including the UK, you are not eligible to compensation unless you can prove that the police and law authorities acted maliciously or negligently. {Truncated}
Nothing in the quoted Lawyer's letter had mentioned that the English compensation law is automatic either - as he had stated that "The law in England states that if a person is acquitted, the court should normally make an order of costs in his/her favour unless there are positive reasons for not doing so ".
How did your supreme reading ability perceived the lawyer's letter to be otherwise, and started your journey to impress with your blusterous interpretation of English Law by insulting the learned Lawyer's ability ?
Was the goalposts shifted, or is your usual myopia caused by the hypertension beyond the control of yourself as a doctor attempting to be a lawyer - and being good at neither profession ?
Originally posted by Atobe:
From another UK site which mentioned "a landmark decision in the UK High Court in awarding two falsely accused Newcastle nursery nurse in the High Cout in London on 30 July 2002 is a landmark decision .................... after a trial of 74 days, Dawn Reed and Christopher Lillie were each awarded Pounds 200,000 IN MAXIMUM DAMAGES for having been [b]maliciously libelled by a Newcastle City Council"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From wrongful conviction to libel...shifting the goalposts again? One can sue the police for wrongful arrest or prosecution if it was done negligently or maliciously...you have to prove malicious intent or negligence. NO AUTOMATIC COMPENSATION. Once again, never read your own posts
It seems that your reading ability is no better - especially when you only read with a nit picking mind set to jump at the slightest glint of perceived error.
If you had read the referenced site that was included before this post, you would have found that the words were not mine, but truncated extracts from the article.
The two nurses who were EACH awarded 200,000 pounds were found to have been falsely accused by the Newcastle City Council and subsequently tried in the High Court of London; subsequent investigations acquitted these two nurses, who were found to be innocent. If you had read the referenced piece, the two nurses were subject to public spite and threats as a result of the "false accusations", and as such they were found to have been "libelled".
These were the findings of the High Court - and the words printed are not mine either - if you had been honest and diligent enough to have quoted in full including the url link that was given in my last post as -
From another UK site which mentioned "a landmark decision in the UK High Court
So you see some humility in admitting yourself as a fool - according to Shakespeare's words quoted in my last post - or perhaps it is just too much to expect from a blusterous and self-opinionated person boasting to be a doctor, simply thinking too highly of himself ?
'Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.' *wasting my time arguing with you...moving to a different topic*
Nothing is a waste of time if you use the experience wisely.
Rodin (1840 - 1917) -
Where else can a "kopi tiam ah boy" graduate from ?Originally posted by vito_corleone:well well look who's talking you still haven't answered my very last question, which school did u graduate from?
MacDonald University ? .
At least there is no more First Year Notes and Exams to worry about. -
Not really. I think recently there have been changes such that Masters Graduates can stay for one year to try and find a job. But I have to say that chances of you securing a job will be difficult at best.Originally posted by vito_corleone:rly? i heard from HENG@ that you can stay for up to 1 yr to find a job and and its nt really super troublesome for commonwealth peeps and such. btw where'd u live and wot'u do?
The problem is that under EC and UK law, a employer who wants to emply a non-EEA national will have to show, inter alia, that 1)There is a genuine vacancy and 2) no EEA national can do the job. What that entails is, AFAIK, basically, the employer has to advertise the position for a certain period and try to justify why they decided to choose you instead. The result is that no employer will bother. That is the hurdle that most people will fall at. If you are a fresh graduate and you are not exceptional, I think it would be very difficult fro employers to justify hiring you instead of an EEA national.
While it is true that commonwealth nationals have an advantage, that addvantage is, imo, very very tenuous. Basically, commonwealth nationals are able to apply for most civil service positions. However, that is only the case if you have PR (They call it 'Indefinite Leave to Remain'). To get PR, the normal way would be to live and work in the UK for 5 years. To live and Work here, you need a work permit. I have already detailed the difficulties in getting a work permit here.
Re HSMP, if you are merely a fresh graduate with no working experience, then you have very very little chance of qualifying, unless you have an MBA from an approved Unviersity.
In short, do not come here thinking that you can get a job after you graduate. It is not impossible but unless you can get very good grades, I would advise you to have a backup plan.
Re what I do and where I stay, I will go no further than say that I am doing my degree in the UK.