Posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2021, at 15:37:14
In reply to Re: internet privacy, posted by alexandra_k on May 6, 2021, at 15:24:08
> Easier to process visas for criminals wanting to run here and once they are here rescind previous citizenship.
> Make here the land for the psychopaths and abusers.
I mean, that's what they do. By only processing the visa applications of people who bribe them.
I don't think they are processing them by ordinary or normal means or methods.
They only process 'exceptions'.
The government has put a halt on pay increases for government employees earning over $100,000 per year. And a halt on increases for people earning more than $60,000 per year -- unless there is a 'good reason' for the increase (where $59,000 per year if the average or mean or median I forget).
But there is a clause about 'exceptions'. Because something about how a blanket rule without the ability for discretion is not okay / acceptable. There needs to be a method or mechanism for processing special things. That is to say it can't be purely mechanical. There needs to be a role for humane or humane judgment. The problem is we don't have the capacity for people to make good and humne judgments for the right reasons.
We just have bribes and people doign whatever they want whenever they want because they want. Expression of power.
So... The only visas that have been processed over the last little while ALL seem to have been granted on 'special exceptional exemption' grounds whereby a partiuclar person judged or deemed it okay to sign off on them (even though other people similar in respects that are relevant to a well or good decided decisition had theirs declined).
And people pretend to be (else they actually are) too f*ck*ng stupid to tell the difference between 'good reasons' or 'bad reasons'. People think bad reasons are good reasons. Or because they want is a good enough reason.
And that persists through to the higheset level of our courts.
Thus far EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN NZ THAT I HAVE TALKED TO thinks that if a rule says 'based on reports of examiners the dean may decide (1) to accept the thesis as is (2) to accept the thesis with only minor changes (3) to accept the thesis subject to substantive changes to be signed off by supervisor or examiner within 10 weeks (4) to have oral examination followed by another round of reports (5) to return the thesis to the candidate and require re-enrolment for at least 6 months and another round of examination (6) the studnet has failed to meet the required standards and no degree will be awarded.'
EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN NZ THAT I HAVE TALKED TO says the rule gives the dean the power to choose anything she likes. that is to say the dean can say that the studnet failed to meet the required standard because the standard required is decided by the dean.
So... Best spend your time stucking up to the dean, then. If the Dean decides.
Why does it go to external examiners at all, then? I mean, if the Dean decided quite independently of the reports of examiners?
See...
When I do multiple choice as a student I am required to choose the 'best answer' where only one answer is best. Where the best answer is in fact the answer that is best supported by the text. or the answer has the strongest or best basis in the text.
so the text is the reports of examiners.
and so if the reports of examiners do not say that re-enrolment and re-examination is required then requiring these things of the studnets goes well beyond the text.
That is to say there is no basis for the dean to require these things.
And I have been saying this since the end of 2018.
and apparently it doesn't matter. because NZ is not amendable to reason. Teh judges of the high court cannot seem to understand this.
nobody understands this in nz.
WHERE IS MY DEGREE?/
There's nothing here.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1114871
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20210419/msgs/1114897.html