Split (1)

train · 2.59M rows

text stringlengths 12 61.1k
Workfare has also had a less direct effect on the size of the welfare rolls: It has contributed to what welfare experts call a ''smoke-out effect,'' pushing people off welfare whether they have jobs or not.
In some cases, welfare recipients who were already working off the books have decided to leave the rolls, experts say. There are no reliable estimates of how many people fall into that category, but welfare experts say that because it is virtually impossible to survive on welfare benefits alone, a significant number of welfare recipients probably rely on other sources of income.
Many others have either gone out and found work or have turned to friends and relatives for help rather than deal with the stigma of welfare or a city bureaucracy that they believe to be hostile.
For instance, Alexa Perez, a sophomore at Hunter College and mother of two little boys, decided she would go without her share of her family's benefits when the city told her she had no choice but to report to a maintenance job at a housing project on the Lower East Side. She decided that a workfare assignment that lasted from 9:30 A.M. to 1:30 P.M. five days a week would interfere with her school and child care schedules too much to be worth the $80 a month she would lose.
Since then, she has started working 30 hours a week at a clothing store near school, where she makes $200 a week.
''My grades have suffered a little, but you have to do what you have to do,'' she said, adding that she would not consider reapplying for welfare.
Not only has the Giuliani administration's welfare message pushed large numbers of people off the rolls, some experts say; the strong economy has allowed some of those who have left welfare to either find work or rely on acquaintances who have benefited from the good times.
But Irv Garfinkel, a professor at Columbia University's School of Social Work, said the economy had probably been less of a factor in New York than elsewhere in the country because the city's 9.2 percent unemployment rate is still relatively high.
Dr. Garfinkel, though, has a theory that falls somewhere in between the Mayor's and the advocates' versions of reality.
MONDAY -- A low-cost city labor force.
YESTERDAY -- The scramble for child care.
TODAY -- Trimming the rolls: Tough or too tough?
TSB backs Met with £200,000 fund to fight fraud in London after last year's IT chaos \| City A.M.
Bank TSB has invested £200,000 in a partnership with the Metropolitan Police to fight fraud and cybercrime.
The bank, which suffered a string of IT outages last year that led to the exit of its chief executive Paul Pester, said the scheme was aimed at fraud prevention and enforcement.
TSB was hit by extreme levels of fraud during its IT meltdown with up to 1,300 customers losing money and some having to wait on the phone for up to nine hours to report the losses.
Figures from Financial Fraud Action UK show fraud leads to £2m losses every day in the UK, with over 3,500 Londoners reporting fraud and cybercrime each month according to Met figures.
The partnership will focus on boroughs in south east London, with the support of the London Digital Security Centre and local authorities in Lewisham, Bexley and Greenwich.
TSB executive chairman, Richard Meddings said:“TSB’s experience earlier this year shows the scale and risk of fraud in a digital age. Fraud is a serious and organised crime, and we want to hunt down the criminals targeting customers. That’s why we’ve put our learning into practice to work with the Met to help ensure fraud is a high-risk crime."
Meddings said the bank hoped to expand partnerships like this across the UK.
“Our ambition is to roll partnerships like this to regional police forces right across the UK to support them in their fight against financial crime,” he said.
Police in Vietnam's central province of Quang Ngai Sunday caught two men transporting some rare wood following an hour-long chase.
At a check point in Duc Pho District, they ordered Le Phuoc Sang, 36, and Le Minh Trang, 26, to stop their 12-seat van, but the duo did not and instead sped away after opening a door and dumping the wood on the road, injuring several people in the process.
They ignored even warning shots by officers who then gave chase on a motorbike.
It lasted for more than an hour until the van driver lost control and ran off the road. The police then took in Sang and Trang.
The two told the officers that they had brought the wood, including cam lai (Dalbergia oliveri), listed as an "endangered" tree by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, from the adjacent province of Binh Dinh for selling.
Toylet, a urinal-mounted gaming device created by Sega, is now on the market for the general public according to the official Toylet twitter feed.
The equipment starts at 140,000 yen ($1,748) with games costing 10,000 yen ($125) apiece, according to Engadget Japan. An optional box that accepts 10-yen coins as payment is also available for 25,000 yen ($312).
Players interact with Toylet by urinating on a sensor placed inside the urinal that measures volume and pressure. That input controls the videogame, shown on a screen mounted at eye level. The games include filling coffee cans, squirting milk out of a tough guy's nose and blowing wind up a girl's skirt. Each game lasts less than a minute and can be followed by a advertisement placed by the operator.
Toylets are designed to operate only in urinals and will not work in a traditional sit-down toilet. Also, the listed fees only include the cost of the machine itself – you've got to buy your own porcelain.
The unorthodox game device turned heads last winter when Sega tested the machines in select Tokyo locations. Since then, it has placed them in establishments across the country.
According to the official Toylet website, the games' positive testimonials have a variety of benefits for business owners: Customers make less of a mess at the urinals, Toylet-advertised products sell twice as much, and overall sales rise because customers stay longer.
Burlesque performers from all over the world performed at the Florida Burlesque Festival at the Cinema Paradiso stage in Fort Lauderdale on September 6, 2014.
The inaugural fest showcased more than a dozen burlesque performers from all over the world at Fort Lauderdale's Cinema Paradiso Sept. 5 to 6. The event featured vendors selling burlesque-related merchandise, stripteasing classes and appearances by an international lineup of acts, including Las Vegas' Dusty Summers, Germany's Fleur d'Amour and Cupcake Burlesque's Jenna Beth.
After storms ravaged Oklahoma and Texas over the weekend, parts of central Texas are still flooded. Austin Pets Alive!, a no-kill shelter in Austin, is among the homes and businesses affected by the severe weather.
The shelter called for volunteers to foster animals up for adoption, and animal lovers stepped up to the plate, lining up to give dogs and cats temporary homes.
Austin Pets Alive! posted pictures of the flooded building, showing why the shelter needed help housing their adoptable animals.
Their plea was answered — a Reddit user shared a photo of Austinites forming a line that went up the block.
Fortunately, they were able to find housing for all the animals at the shelter, so all the dogs and cats will have a warm, dry place to sleep.
The waters have now receded, and Austin Pets Alive! volunteers are cleaning up to get the shelter back in working order. Austinites are continuing to provide support for the shelter, donating money, bringing in dry towels and taking care of dirty laundry.
Meanwhile, volunteers are sharing heart-melting pictures of their foster pets enjoying their new homes.
Image: Facebook Austin Pets Alive!
Latest in "East and South-East Asia"
Written by: Kotwal N. All articles by Kotwal N.
Indian human rights workers do not want to engage with the police, but to enact real change, both sides must work together. A contribution to the openGlobalRights debate on engaging perpetrators.
Preventing torture goes beyond understanding individuals—it requires changing an entire system that allows for extreme violence. A contribution to openGlobalRights’ series on engaging with perpetrators in human rights.
Perhaps you saw the full-page Wells Fargo ad in the paper over the weekend. It was heartbreaking. It was all about how the evil, one-sided media had made the corporation cancel its "employee recognition event," which apparently is corporate-speak for a four-day trip to Las Vegas, specifically to the spiffy Wynn hotel and its "twin," the Encore Hotel.
The event was for "top performers" in various departments. The one in Vegas was specifically for "our terrific mortgage team that helped us originate $230 billion in loans last year." How many of these loans are being repaid, one can't help but wonder, partly because Wells Fargo was in enough financial distress to qualify (if that's the word) for $25 billion in TARP bailout funds. This money was undoubtedly useful when Wells Fargo turned around and acquired Wachovia Corp.
Were any actual customers helped? No, Wells Fargo does not hold "recognition events" for its customers, the people who actually pay the interest and, oh yes, the taxes that went into the bailout. Sometimes the customers get a free candy cane, though, and who doesn't like candy?
I've talked to people who've been to these "recognition events," which under various names are common throughout the corporate world. Often they involve an inspirational speaker, seminars that allow top managers to congratulate themselves and hand out plaques to various people who'd much rather have a raise, and "team-building events," like trust exercises or, in the case of one Bank of America outing, a mandatory "Olympics" of various loopy games, all played outdoors in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 100-degree heat.
Nothing like dehydration as a bonding experience.
But of course there's lots of time for drinking, eating, swimming, unwise one-night stands, inappropriate inebriated rants within earshot of the wrong people and perhaps a little minor property damage. In my experience, most employees consider these "fun events" a chore and would much rather be fishing for trout somewhere far away from every other co-worker.
But let's get back to the corporate whining, signed by John Stumpf, who in 2007 (according to Forbes magazine) enjoyed a total compensation of $12,568,917. But still, he's worried about the little people, the tellers and phone bankers and operations clerks.
"For many," he explains, these recognition events are "the only time in their lives that they're publicly recognized and thanked for a job well-done." (Then why not do it more often? - ed.) "This recognition energizes them. It inspires them and their team members to want to create an even better experience for our customers. Another annual event - which our top performers in community banking all looked forward to - was to have been held in May. But not this year. Who loses besides our team members? The workers who depend on our business. The hospitality industry. Hotel housekeepers. Restaurant servers. The airlines."
Stumpf's concern for the housekeepers and restaurant workers is touching. Maybe he could give them each an interest-free loan so they could buy a house. That would be a "recognition event" with teeth.
Or maybe they'd like a plaque. Wells Fargo apparently has a few left over.
Did I mention that Stumpf is a member of the National Republican Congressional Committee, an organization that tries to help Republicans running for national office? Its former treasurer was recently accused of diverting as much as $1 million for his personal use - maybe he just needed a recognition event. The committee is just not having that good a year.
Onward with the ad: "The funds to pay for events such as these do not come from the government. They come from our profits." According to Reuters, Wells Fargo posted a loss of $255 billion for the last quarter of 2008. There's so much about high finance I do not understand. "Competition to be recognized makes everyone worker harder and smarter. ... Events such as this are the heart of our culture because our product is service, delivered by caring, energized, talented, loyal team members who earn competitive, fair wages and benefits."
No, Mr. Stumpf, the heart of your culture is hanging on to our money. I don't care if the teller is sweet to me or not; I do care if my tax money has to go to helping you get over the hump when you've made a series of predictably unwise business decisions. I expect my banker to be greedy; I do not expect him to be shortsighted. If Wells Fargo can't get along without $25 billion from the government every so often, then maybe Wells Fargo should stop whining about the press and start making loans to people who can repay them, for instance.
Maybe in the next ad, you could apologize to people for the last ad.
I'd like to apologize to the cooks and dishwashers and maids - only those in the country legally, of course - for what the media did to your pathetic little lives.
The overwhelming majority of Britons believe in climate change but fewer than one in five is very worried about it, new research has revealed.
Despite warnings from UN scientists, politicians and even Prince Charles that time is running out to avoid catastrophic global warming, the number of people describing themselves as "very concerned" has more than halved over the past decade.
The proportion of Britons who believe the world's climate is changing now stands at 88 per cent - the highest level since 2005, when it hit 91 per cent.
Belief levels are up significantly from only 72 per cent in early 2013, according to a survey of 1,002 people conducted as part of Government-funded research by the Universities of Cardiff and Nottingham.
Severe flooding that hit the Somerset Levels in winter 2013-14 - which David Cameron linked to climate change - may have influenced opinion, the researchers suggested.
The uptick in belief also covered the period in which Typhoon Haiyan, which was also widely linked to global warming, caused devastation in the Philippines and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued major reports on global warming.
The vast majority - 84 per cent - also believe that climate change is either partly or mainly man-made.
Yet the number describing themselves as "very concerned" fell to just 18 per cent, the survey shows. That was down from 44 per cent in 2005.
Overall, those who were either very or fairly concerned were still the majority, at 68 per cent, but much lower than 2005 highs of 82 per cent.
Dr Stuart Capstick, one of the report's authors, said: "Whilst on a technical or 'cognitive' level people may be more willing to accept the reality and human aspect of climate change, this does not necessarily translate into very high levels of concern at a more personal, emotional level.
"It is possible also that people have perhaps grown more used to the topic over time: the warnings of 'time running out'... have been around for some time now."
He said it was important to distinguish between whether people were personally concerned and whether they thought it was an important issue at a national level. The survey found that a "surprisingly high proportion of people" named climate change as one of the major national concerns, he said.
The researchers found that people who had been directly affected by the flooding in the Somerset Levels were "even more convinced of the reality and seriousness of climate change".
A separate survey of 135 people whose properties were damaged by the flooding found higher levels of concern than among the general population, at 78 per cent.
Professor Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University and lead researcher, said: "Our findings demonstrate that an association between last year's winter flooding and climate change has been forming in the minds of many ordinary people in Britain, who also view these events as a sign of things to come."
As a result of the reporting on the London Bridge terror attack, we've become aware of the British public awareness campaign to "Run, Hide, Tell" in the wake of an active killer event.
Tell? Tell who, the unarmed policeman?
Certainly, in this modern age of terrorism, we need to rethink this strategy.
These public awareness campaigns are not as influential as we might think or want them to be. However, if we're going to spend the money, time and resources to promote them, then we owe the public the best that we can give them. I don't think "Run, Hide, Tell" is adequate.
I've previously discussed my reservations about the "Run, Hide, Fight" model that is popular in the United States. It suffers from several flaws, one of which is that it doesn't give the user permission to choose to fight early in the decision cycle, when the tactical circumstances demand it.
Run and hide are frequently the best options for unarmed and untrained people, but the grim reality is that sometimes they are the worst options and only an immediate fight response is appropriate.
While I have issues with the way that the fight option is prioritized and timed in the "Run, Hide, Fight" model, at least it's in there. I advocate for "Move! Escape or Attack!", but would greatly prefer "Run, Hide, Fight" to the British model. In that model, a fight or attack option is completely absent, and that's unacceptable.
If you subscribe to the theories of Natural Rights and Natural Law, then you believe that life is precious and every man is justified in using force to defend his life against unwarranted aggression. Our Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by these classic, liberal philosophies and enshrined them in the documents which created and govern our nation, discussing "unalienable rights" such as "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," and recognizing a right to keep and bear arms to achieve these ends.
While we sometimes struggle with these concepts in America today, our culture predominantly recognizes a right to self-defense, including armed self-defense. Sadly, these values are not held in the same esteem in contemporary English society.
The average British citizen has long since been disarmed by his government and the use of force in self-defense is treated with such hostility by the legal system that even legitimate and moral uses of force are immediately suspect. In recent years, numerous high-visibility cases have demonstrated that the British legal system is biased against those citizens who would take up arms in their own defense, including improvised arms, even under justifiable circumstances.
This extends to British law enforcement, as well. The majority of British police officers are not trusted with lethal force tools and the officers who are actually equipped with firearms operate in a culture where their use is highly discouraged by authorities. In comparison to the discretion that American police are given to use lethal force, the British police seem handcuffed.
The nation which gave us men like Hobbes and Locke, the English philosophers most responsible for promoting the theories of Natural Rights and Natural Law, has turned its back on the notion of armed defense. The result is that even in a model that's intended to promote survival in the wake of a violent, armed attack, the British government and police still can't quite bring themselves to use the word fight.
Winston Churchill, in a 1940 address "We Shall Fight on the Beaches", told the House of Commons, "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."
Imagine what Winston Churchill, who exhausted the use of the word fight, would think of a government that was afraid to say it now.
With "Run, Hide, Tell," the British government and police have withheld their approval for the public to consider the use of force in their own defense. They have tacitly declared that the government maintains a monopoly on the use of force and that only government personnel should be allowed to use force to stop an attack. Additionally, they have promoted the fiction that they can respond quickly enough to stop an attack, if only they are notified by the public.
Yet, in the end, there may be no other alternative for the public but to fight. Running and hiding may work, depending on the circumstances and a person's proximity to the epicenter of an attack, but for some people, there will be no suitable alternative but fighting. Telling the police may eventually result in a suitably-armed response, but in the intervening minutes, approximately eight, in the most recent London Bridge attack, the unopposed threat will continue to murder and maim.
Individual police officers and citizens figured this out in the opening moments of the latest London Bridge attack. A policeman armed only with a club confronted the three knife-armed killers and was badly injured. Another unarmed, off-duty officer tackled an attacker and was also badly injured in the process.
Many courageous citizens threw objects or grappled with the attackers, using all the tools at their disposal to stop the killers. Some of these brave defenders were also badly injured by the attackers with their superior arms.
Yet, despite the fact that these defenders were unable to completely stop the attackers, they bought precious time for others to escape, barricade and summon help. Because some people fought, others had the opportunity to run, hide and tell. Why won't the British acknowledge this in their public safety model?
The recent attack at the London Bridge is the latest in a string of terror attacks that have plagued the United Kingdom. Less than two weeks ago, an attacker detonated a bomb outside a concert in Manchester, killing 22 and injuring 119. Just ten weeks prior, an attacker used a vehicle to run over pedestrians at London Bridge, and then stabbed an unarmed policeman outside Parliament. This latest trio of attackers must have taken notes on that previous London Bridge attack and improved the plan with the addition of more personnel and fake bomb vests to enhance their chances of success.
In the wake of these events, the British need to ask themselves if adopting a public policy and safety model that openly displays their aversion to the use of force in self-defense is a wise move. Is it possible that "Run, Hide, Tell" is not only inadequate as a safety model, but also an encouragement to evil people looking to harm innocents? Is it possible that the British are emboldening these attackers by failing to demonstrate their resolve and their commitment to confronting evil with force?
I know what Churchill would say.
It was a night out at London's Natural History Museum for Prince Harry and his wife Meghan on Tuesday as they attended the production of ''The Wider Earth'' to raise awareness on forest conservation. Rough Cut (no reporter narration).
It was a night out at London's Natural History Museum for Prince Harry and his wife Meghan on Tuesday as they attended the production of "The Wider Earth" to raise awareness on forest conservation. Rough Cut (no reporter narration).

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.