Usajobs resume builder book of enoch powell
Click here to ENTER
Today: The way British politicians tell it, their country is being overwhelmed by shiftless Romanians and Bulgarians who are joining the shiftless Poles already there. The reason for their alarm? From January 1, the 29 million residents of Bulgaria and Romania have been able to move to fellow European Union member Britain. Get NP Platformed delivered usajobs resume builder book of enoch powell your inbox weekdays by 4 p.
A welcome email is on its way. If you don’t see it, please usa jobs government jobs login page sixt carvana buy your junk folder. The next issue of NP Platformed usajobs resume builder book of enoch powell soon be in your inbox. We encountered an issue opwell you up. Please try again. But despite the dire predictions, only about a dozen Romanians immigrated in the first two weeks; charter airlines and bus companies also report they are carrying fewer passengers to Britain.
Many feel their Britishness is being usajobs resume builder book of enoch powell by the sheer numbers of new arrivals. These hit a peak ofa year ingovernment figures show, before falling toin Cameron says buklder wants to reduce arrivals to belowa year. Typical of the xenophobes is Leo McKinistrya columnist in the Daily Expresswho claims immigrants have been running at more thana year — a number unsupported by statistics.
Advertisement resuem. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Advertisement 2. We apologize, but this video has failed to load. Try refreshing your browser, or tap here to enlch other videos from our team. Email Address There was an error, please provide a valid email address. Thanks for signing up! Advertisement 3. Shopping essentials. Style File: 4 delightfully dainty jewelry finds From stacked hoops to a start-studded bracelet, here are our picks.
The It List: Canadian jewelry brand launches collection inspired by the night sky Toronto-based jewelry designer Dean Uaajobs has launched a new collection of pieces inspired by the “calm that comes from a velvety maple syrup reserveamerica eyeliner sky.
Enoch Powell – Wikiquote – Related Resources
If you are applying to jobs with the US Government, chances are the application will ask you to submit your resume. Resumes submitted to government positions require specific formatting . How to build a resume using the resume builder app at Sign into your USAJOBS account. Go to your Documents. Make sure you’re in the Resumes section and . But then the trends have changed, and relevance acquired Calibri and Arial fonts without serifs. Therefore it is better to use these fonts for writing a resume. If you see Times New Roman .
Usajobs resume builder book of enoch powell
A welcome email is on its way. If you don’t see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of NP Platformed will soon be in your inbox. We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again. But despite the dire predictions, only about a dozen Romanians immigrated in the first two weeks; charter airlines and bus companies also report they are carrying fewer passengers to Britain. Many feel their Britishness is being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of new arrivals. These hit a peak of , a year in , government figures show, before falling to , in Cameron says he wants to reduce arrivals to below , a year.
As the third element, the Roman Catholics say to themselves “There is trouble ahead for us”. They say to themselves that the only consequence of the course upon which Her Majesty’s Government have embarked is not the peaceful development and embodiment of Northern Ireland into an all-Ireland State. Some might desire that, some might not, but they know that that will not happen. They know that it will lead to violence—the exacerbation of mutual fears and perhaps mutual hatreds.
They know that they, as the minority, will be the greater sufferers from that. All the three points of the triangle in Northern Ireland—terrorism and its managers, the majority and the minority—are forced apart and set by the ears by this process of events. It is for the purpose of verification, and that alone, that I remind the House that I foresaw that clearly before the guillotine imposed the pro-unification institution—if I may encapsulate my argument in a single phrase—upon Northern Ireland: The legislation is a standing encouragement … to those who believe that by violence they can anticipate or ensure that the foreseen fate of Northern Ireland is in their hands.
It is a standing encouragement to those who are sufficiently lightheaded or unwise to believe that terror and the escalation of terror can be met with the escalation of terror … For 10 years or more I have been saying that it is uncertainty that takes lives in Northern Ireland—uncertainty about the purpose, intention and determination of the United Kingdom.
The Bill will undermine that determination. Those hon. Members who opposed that legislation are within the recent memory of the House, as are the grounds upon which we opposed it. I arrive at the conclusion which I sought to convey to the Government as long ago as November In the speech of 23 November from which I have already quoted, I presumed to end with an open letter to the Prime Minister.
I concluded: What I have to say is that any deal or agreement with the government of the Irish Republic, whereby that government would somehow assist Britain in return for political concessions in Ulster, would be the road to disaster … there are two facts which it is vital to understand.
One fact is this. Whatever his own inclinations, Mr. Lynch”— and this applies to his successors— cannot deliver. No government of the Republic can be seen to be effectually assisting the security forces in Ulster against the IRA and survive politically.
That is the reality about the Republic. I make no complaint and no moral judgment. I only say: it is an unchanging fact of the situation. The second fact is that our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens in Ulster can only be safe when the permanence of the parliamentary Union is placed beyond all reasonable doubt, because only that can deprive the IRA of the power to terrorise and blackmail them”.
The fundamental underlying truth against which all such statements, agreements and attempts as I have been unrolling before the House sooner or later shatter is the fact that in Northern Ireland there are 1 million people who will not be part of an all-Ireland State.
One can deceive and bamboozle them, or some of them, much of the time. One can attempt, sometimes with success, even to bribe them. However, when the moment comes when the great mass of that million of our fellow citizens see where the road ahead is tending, they will not go, whatever the consequences or whatever the cost to themselves.
The later that point arrives, the longer, more complicated and tortuous the route by which it is arrived at, the more lives will be sacrificed—I was going to say “for nothing”; it would be for less than nothing.
My request—our request—to the Government is “Let your deeds match your words”. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, Her Majesty’s Government have been unequivocal in their statements about the Union—that the permanence of the Union is a matter which is in the hands of the majority in Northern Ireland in the sense that their constitutional status will not be altered without the majority will concurring. The tragedy of the past three years is that the inhabitants of all parts of Ireland have seen all too well that the actions of Government have contradicted the words of Government.
The motion is a request in form for the House to reaffirm what the Prime Minister has said over and over again at the Dispatch Box. I have put nothing into the motion which is not to be matched by the Prime Minister’s words.
What I am really asking is not that the Government should reaffirm it—that they cannot fail to do—but that from now onwards they will do nothing which is bound to be interpreted, and is interpreted, as contradicting their words and casting doubt upon their intentions.
Let them be of that resolution, and it will still fall to them to restore peace and tranquillity in Northern Ireland. It might be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this stage in the debate that has been introduced today by the right hon. Member for Down, South Mr. This has been a bad week for Ulster and a bad week for all those, either in Ulster or outside it, who wish to contribute towards the peace of that Province, which the right hon.
Gentleman, in an eloquent ending to his speech this morning, has sought to try to do. The debate last evening, the press coverage of the past few days and the general comment since Mr. Livingstone’s ill-conceived invitation, are bound to have done a great deal of harm to all who are seeking a peaceful solution.
The agonies of Ballykelly have been sufficient, but now we have added to that all the general political concern and worry that has been expressed in the press this past week.
From the motion, I was not absolutely certain what the right hon. Member for Down, South would say, but I had a pretty good idea. His whole case is based on the view that there is some conspiracy between the British Government and that of the Republic to push the North into a united Ireland. That is the basis of all that he sought to say today.
I shall seek to prove, I hope convincingly to the House, perhaps for the first—and I hope, for the last—time that that is a total misreading of the British Government’s view. The right hon. Gentleman sees a conspiracy, and as a result his argument is based on links that he then fails to prove. I shall cite several instances from his speech. At the beginning, he said that the Government of the Republic could and would play up or down a hunger strike according to their policy.
I thought that everyone knew that the Government of the Republic could have no influence on a hunger strike in the Maze prison. That is not the case. Gentleman also assumes that an Assembly, or any form of devolution, necessarily has the same objective as De Valera, just because it may be similar to some part of a scheme proposed by him.
Gentleman’s views can be no more that that, and are based on a conspiracy theory. He cannot move from those views to saying that they are facts. Gentleman used a quotation from Mr. Sloan in his speech. I shall try to illustrate that that is an extremely unreliable piece of evidence on which to draw.
The first part of the motion deals with the efforts of the security forces in Northern Ireland”. All hon. Members can accept that part of the motion. Indeed, I am sure that we all do accept it. We recognise and enormously appreciate the part that the security forces play and have played. We all appreciate the dangers that they face and what they do for the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole. In the past few days we have had abundant evidence of those dangers.
The Government recognise the importance of the security effort and have, in the past few days, announced a considerable increase in the number of Royal Ulster Constabulary officers and reservists as well as civilians. Therefore, we are doing all we can, and we appreciate that the House recognises the part played by the forces. Grateful and appreciative though we are, we recognise that the security forces of themselves will not be sufficient: to end terrorism and counter terrorism and restore tranquillity to the Province”.
I certainly accept that. I have sought to develop that theme during the past few months. Members recognise that terrorism is a more complex and deep-rooted phenomenon and cannot be readily ended just by the enforcement of the law, even though some may say that the law could be changed to make it more effective.
Events will come right only when there are developments on all fronts—security, politics and the economy—which serve at one and the same time to prevent terrorism and to remove the circumstances that allow it to continue. There is nothing new, or perhaps very profound, in that. Members, including—judging by the terms of the motion—the right hon. Member for Down, South, have given support. Therefore, we must strive to create a situation in which the terrorist cannot survive, in which young people are not frustrated by the prospect of continuing unemployment in the years ahead and in which both sides of the community feel that they are fully recognised and can play their full part in the affairs of the Province and in support of the forces of law and order—when, in other words, on the one hand, the terrorist is brought to justice by the security forces, and when, on the other, the people recognise that he offers nothing towards a civilised future and is an evil serving only to injure and kill.
That is what we have sought to achieve by a combination of taking every measure that we feel able to take on the security front, and, at the same time, doing what we can on the economic and political fronts.
In doing so, we recognise that the whole community—both sides of it—has a part to play. I shall turn later to some of the wider questions that the right hon. Member for Down, South raised in the second proposition in the motion. However, I shall deal first with its core, which is the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.
Gentleman has based his case for peace on that. Gentleman knows the constitutional position, but this may be a good opportunity to set out the Government’s views fully and clearly. The constitutional position is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and the Government have made it repeatedly clear that it will remain so, unless the majority in Northern Ireland wish that position to be changed. The principle of self-determination is enshrined in section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act , which itself replaced a similar long-standing provision in terms of a majority in the old Northern Ireland Parliament.
This provides for the wishes of the Northern Ireland electorate to be tested from time to time through border polls. Indeed, they are tested in several other ways, such as by elections. It shows beyond any doubt that a majority of Northern Ireland people want Northern Ireland to remain within the United Kingdom.
Even if there were no legislation and even if there had never been that requirement in the old Northern Ireland Parliament, which had to have a majority for any change, and even if there were nothing in the constitution Act, I am absolutely convinced that that border could never be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
Although it is right that that should be written into the constitution, I have always regarded it as being—in the words of the right hon.
Member for Down South, used in another context—almost a superfluity. I believe that it would be impossible to make any change in that constitution without the consent of the people. Would the right hon. Gentleman be interested to know that the terms of the guarantee—the old one and the current one—were a concession made to the Government of the Irish Free State as one of their objectives in their negotiation with the British Government?
I also know that following the Sunningdale agreement—which does not win much favour with the right hon. Gentleman—for the first time the Government of the Republic stated clearly that they agreed and accepted that there could be a change in the constitution of Northern Ireland only with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That was a considerable step forward by the Government of the Republic at that time. When does my right hon. Friend intend to hold the next border poll? I cannot say.
Although under the statute it would be possible to hold a border poll next year, for the reasons that I have given I do not believe that a border poll would tell us anything that we do not know already. A border poll is superfluous when it is absolutely clear what the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland are.
If a poll were broken down by polling district, which the last poll was not, it might indeed tell us something that we do not know. The recent elections told us something about the different emphasis between areas. That cannot in any way help the argument for a united Ireland. We know that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Whether that is the constitutional position, written into the legislation, or not, it is a fact of life that we should accept. I do not wish to make too much of this point, but last night the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East Mr. Benn said that he was a supporter of Labour Party policy because Labour Party policy was now for a united Ireland.
He talked little about the other part of that policy which is that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland is required. There is a great danger that in emphasising Labour Party policy, which is for a united Ireland, the part about the consent of the people might tend to get left out. What is more, the right hon. Member said last night that since time immemorial British Governments have talked to terrorists and that in the end terrorism pays off because it results in a change in constitution.
Gentleman then drew on the experience in Cyprus and Rhodesia to try to prove his point. That is irrelevant because it can be argued that in Cyprus or in Rhodesia on or in some other ex-colonial or colonial territory a vast majority wanted a change in the constitution, and freedom. In Northern Ireland it is abundantly clear that there is no such desire by the people for that to happen.
There is also the fact that the people of the south recognise that a united Ireland can come about only by consent and should certainly never come about through violence. There is a fundamental difference. One has to recognise that a large minority want a united Ireland.
There was no recognition of that in the speech by the right hon. Member for Down South this morning. That minority is entitled to its view and it must be taken into account. That minority view is very important and cannot be wished away by any formula about the constitution that one might have. Gentleman has talked, rightly, at great length about the principle of consent, whether it is a matter of pragmatic practice or of constitutional principle.
All the concentration on that aspect should not ignore the fact that it is open to Governments of any political party to consider alternatives and to seek to persuade people that there are alternatives. If the Government continue along that line, notwithstanding the somewhat paranoic approach that has been expressed today, not for the first time, in the speech by the right hon. Powell , they will get the support of all those who seek a peaceful political solution and do not just have an obsession with a constitutional point which, rightly, has been written into law.
That is a difficult argument to answer off the cuff. My view is that it is not the Government’s duty to persuade people against their will to adopt a different course. In the context of Northern Ireland the Government’s duty is to persuade people who hold fundamentally opposed views to find some manner by which they can live peacefully together, the one accepting the identity and traditions of the other.
That is something that we can aim to do. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Brent, East Mr. Freeson for what he said about violence. After last night the message that might go out from the Labour Party—and it is a wrong message—is that we had better start dealing with the terrorists because in the end we shall give way to them.
That is the wrong message to be drawn from any debate in the House. The Secretary of State referred to persuasion and to the majority and minority communities in Northern Ireland. The creation of the border did not involve persuasion, because the British Government of the day imposed the border. No one in Northern Ireland, Protestant or Catholic, voted for the institution of the border. Do the Government accept that the majority of people in county Fermanagh and county Tyrone want to be united with the rest of the island?
Do the Government accept that they were included in a Northern Ireland State by the sheer force of the British Government? When determining whether there is a majority who will fight to stay in the United Kingdom, or fight to get out of the United Kingdom, one must remember that Fermanagh and Tyrone might fight one way and Down and Antrim fight another way. All the elements for conflict are there. Does the Secretary of State accept that it is possible that a majority of people in Fermanagh and Tyrone do not owe their allegiance to the British connection and would, given an opportunity, vote themselves into an Irish republic?
Will that opportunity be given to them? The hon. Member for Belfast, West Mr. Fitt has argued on several occasions that the drawing of the border was entirely arbitrary. Therefore, one has had to give much thought to whether the argument that the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain in the United Kingdom is fair. I answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that, as it is accepted by the people of the Republic that there can be no change except by consent and that any change must be by peaceful means, there is no excuse for violence.
Gentleman has never suggested anything other than that. Although it might appear now that the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone would wish to join the South, I am not certain that, if it were put in that context, they would.
However, the arguments are always so starkly put. There are many “nationalists” who are content to stay and who see many advantages in staying in the United Kingdom, but because they feel that they have suffered from being in a minority position for some years and that they have been the underdogs, they are so opposed to the Unionist point of view that they would opt for the alternative.
We need a period of peace and consultation in which to try to make progress along the lines of a developed Assembly that would enable the views and rights of the minority community to be represented properly both in Government and in Parliament.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the supreme irony of the Unionist view is that, by their objection to any form of power sharing and any real involvement of the minority community in the administration of Northern Ireland, they make the bulk of that community more sympathetic to ending the Union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain?
I recognise the fact that power sharing is a difficult, although not impossible, formula for Government. It has many inconsistencies. However, many forms of government that do not involve power sharing would give the minority in Northern Ireland an opportunity to play its part in the government of the Province.
Many Unionists recognise the fact that we must work towards that objective. Member for Down, South always uses the words “this House”, but he underestimates the tremendous urge and determination of the people in Northern Ireland that they should have a bigger say in their arrangements. Whatever we may say, they do not believe that this House operates either to their advantage or to their satisfaction.
That has already been clearly illustrated by some of the debates in the Assembly. Gentleman’s motion links his two propositions and states that if all concerned are convinced that there will be no agreement with other countries on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, the restoration of tranquillity to the Province will be more readily achieved.
But the terrorist already knows our firm statutory commitments to make no change in the status of Northern Ireland unless a majority of the people wish it.
Despite that, the terrorist still tries by violence to bring about a British withdrawal. He does not care what the majority wishes. It is unrealistic to believe that one formula or another will determine whether the terrorist commits murder.
It is sometimes said that border polls, local elections and general elections stir up trouble and that violence would be diminished if they did not take place. However, the terrorist objective is much simpler: it is to kill as many members of the security forces as possible and not to worry too much about the innocent who are hurt in the process.
In doing that, the terrorists wish to drive the Government of the United Kingdom to abandon their responsibilities and they attack the institutions of the Republic in the hope of creating a united Ireland in a form of their choosing. We should not forget that. The hard-core terrorist is persistent and determined in those objectives and no formulation in this House will deter him from such activities. The most valuable assistance that the security forces can have is the active support of people in all sections of the community.
They need, especially, support from people in areas where the terrorists try to operate. That is why the Government’s concern to encourage the cooperation of those people is so important to the security effort. Gentleman, in his motion and his speech, gave nothing like enough time and consequence to the views of the minority community.
Gentleman’s motion contains certain matters to which we do not take exception, but it is flawed. That is why it is important to analyse more clearly the wider context in which he fitted it. Much is said about Anglo-Irish relations and I wish to put the subject into context. The Government have devoted many efforts to securing close and fruitful Anglo-Irish relations, and they will continue to do so.
They have declared their belief that good relations can do nothing but benefit the people of both countries, wherever they live. Two years ago, the Government embarked upon an attempt consciously to make relations closer. In doing so, they had in mind not only the mutual interests of the two States but a belief, to which I shall return, that close Anglo-Irish relations between London and Dublin were an important element in reducing intercommunal tensions in Northern Ireland.
The Government greatly regret the deterioration in Anglo-Irish relations during the past few months, but we should remember that close relations should not be remarkable. The two islands, as the two States, are closely linked. We live in close proximity. There is much shared history and many similar traditions. There are also close connections between our economies and we are both members of the European Community.
There are close links between professional, business and sporting activities and institutions in the two countries, some of which go back a long time. I recognise that Anglo-Irish relations give rise to fears as well as to hopes.
I recognise why those fears exist. They are not allayed simply by the Government saying that they are unfounded. We frequently do that. There is no need for those who oppose Irish unity to believe that close relations between the two States are taking them along a road that they do not wish to follow. It is also an illusion to believe that good relations on their own can provide answers to the problems that we face in Northern Ireland. Those who embark on the conduct of those relations with such expectations are bound to find that their hopes are unrealised.
Close relations are desirable for their own sake and ought to be unremarkable, simple because they should reflect, in the broadest possible way, the circumstances in which both our countries find themselves. I am certain that Anglo-Irish relations must be conducted frankly and openly. That is where some of the troubles have arisen. That is one of the reasons why I welcome the fact that the Assembly in Northern Ireland provides a forum for democratic activity.
It can watch what has been done in the knowledge that matters will not be settled behind its back. Involvement of the Assembly will enable those who are enthusiastic to participate, and those who are suspicious to monitor what takes place.
Suspicion and baseless fears are banes of political life in Northern Ireland and they are ones upon which the right hon. Member for Down, South is constantly harping. I believe that the Assembly has a chance—I hope that it will grasp it—to do much to remove those fears. Why does my right hon. Friend think that the minority population, about whom he has spoken so much, does not share his enthusiasm for the Assembly that he has set up?
That is for it to answer but I shall try to answer the question as well. At the moment, it does not believe that it has been given enough safeguards to enable it to play a full part. I think that it is wrong. I think that such provision is written into the Act. That is abundantly clear, for why else would my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon Mr. Proctor and others have raised so much trouble when we discussed the measure? I should have thought that that was a real sign that safeguards for the minority exist.
The army cannot be ‘impartial’ towards an enemy, nor between the aggressor and the aggressed: they are not glorified policemen, restraining two sets of citizens who might otherwise do one another harm, and duty bound to show no ‘partiality’ towards one lawbreaker rather than another. They are engaged in defeating an armed attack upon the state. Once again, the terminology is designed to obliterate the vital difference between friend and enemy, loyal and disloyal.
Then there are the ‘no-go’ areas which have existed for the past eighteen months. It would be incredible, if it had not actually happened, that for a year and a half there should be areas in the United Kingdom where the Queen’s writ does not run and where the citizen is protected, if protected at all, by persons and powers unknown to the law. If these areas were described as what they are—namely, pockets of territory occupied by the enemy, as surely as if they had been captured and held by parachute troops—then perhaps it would be realised how preposterous is the situation.
In fact the policy of refraining from the re-establishment of civil government in these areas is as wise as it would be to leave enemy posts undisturbed behind one’s lines. I am one of what must be an increasing number who find the portentous moralisings of A. Solzhenitsyn a bore and an irritation. Scarcely any aspect of life in the countries where he passes his voluntary exile has failed to incur his pessimistic censure. Coming from Russia, where freedom of the press has been not so much unknown as uncomprehended since long before the Revolution, he is shocked to discover that a free press disseminated all kinds of false, partial and invented information and that journalists contradict themselves from one day to the next without shame and without apology.
Only a Russian would find all that surprising, or fail to understand that freedom which is not misused is not freedom at all. Like all travellers he misunderstands what he observes. The British electorate regularly disprove this by electing governments in the teeth of the hostility and misrepresentation of virtually the whole of the press.
Development Studies. Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics. Asian Economics. Behavioural Finance. Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics. Econometrics and Mathematical Economics. Economic History. Economic Systems. Economic Methodology. Economic Development and Growth. Financial Markets. Financial Institutions and Services. General Economics and Teaching.
Health, Education, and Welfare. History of Economic Thought. International Economics. Labour and Demographic Economics. Law and Economics. Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics.
Philosophy of Economics. Public Economics. Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics. Welfare Economics. Adult Education and Continuous Learning.
Care and Counselling of Students. Early Childhood and Elementary Education. Educational Equipment and Technology. Educational Strategies and Policy. Higher and Further Education. Organization and Management of Education. Philosophy and Theory of Education.
Schools Studies. Secondary Education. Teaching of a Specific Subject. Teaching Skills and Techniques. Climate Change. Conservation of the Environment Social Science. Environmentalist Thought and Ideology Social Science. Natural Disasters Environment. Pollution and Threats to the Environment Social Science. Human Geography. Cultural Geography. Economic Geography. Political Geography. Interdisciplinary Studies.
Communication Studies. Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences. African Politics. Asian Politics. Chinese Politics. Comparative Politics. Conflict Politics. Elections and Electoral Studies. Environmental Politics. European Union. Foreign Policy. Gender and Politics. Human Rights and Politics. Indian Politics.
International Relations. International Organization Politics. Irish Politics. Latin American Politics. Middle Eastern Politics. Political Behaviour. Political Economy. Political Institutions. Political Communication. Political Methodology. Political Philosophy. Political Sociology. Political Theory. Politics and Law. Public Policy. Public Administration. Quantitative Political Methodology. Regional Political Studies. Russian Politics. Security Studies. State and Local Government.
UK Politics. US Politics. Regional and Area Studies. African Studies. Asian Studies. Japanese Studies. Latin American Studies. Middle Eastern Studies. Native American Studies. Scottish Studies. Research and Information. Research Methods. Social Work. Addictions and Substance Misuse. Adoption and Fostering. Care of the Elderly.
Child and Adolescent Social Work. Couple and Family Social Work. Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work. Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work.
Emergency Services. Human Behaviour and the Social Environment. International and Global Issues in Social Work. Mental and Behavioural Health.
Social Justice and Human Rights. Social Policy and Advocacy. Social Work and Crime and Justice. Social Work Macro Practice. Social Work Practice Settings. Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice. Welfare and Benefit Systems. Childhood Studies. Community Development. Comparative and Historical Sociology. Economic Sociology. Environmental Sociology. Gender and Sexuality. Gerontology and Ageing. Health, Illness, and Medicine.
Marriage and the Family. Migration Studies. Occupations, Professions, and Work. Population and Demography. Race and Ethnicity. Social Theory. Social Movements and Social Change. Social Research and Statistics. Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility. Sociology of Education. Sociology of Religion. Sport and Leisure. Urban and Rural Studies.
Warfare and Defence. Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research. Military Administration. Military Life and Institutions. Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution.
Weapons and Equipment. Browse all content Browse content in. Advanced Search. Search Menu. Expand Front Matter. Copyright Page. Prologue: Reveries of race, April Federation: the final crisis Federation: the final crisis.
Repercussions Repercussions. Cub Alport: consensus eclipsed Cub Alport: consensus eclipsed. The metropolitan right The metropolitan right. Expand End Matter. Bill Schwarz Bill Schwarz. Oxford Academic. Google Scholar. Cite Icon Cite. Permissions Icon Permissions. Select Format Select format. Abstract This tells the story of Britain’s last great imperial experiment: the founding, and destruction, of the Central African Federation comprising Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia, and Nyasaland in the s and s.
You do not currently have access to this chapter. Sign in Get help with access. Get help with access Institutional access Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases.
If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways: IP based access Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. Sign in through your institution Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Click Sign in through your institution. Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution’s website to sign in.
When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account. Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.
Sign in with a library card Enter your library card number to sign in. Society Members Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways: Sign in through society site Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic.
When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Sign in using a personal account Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. Personal account A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.
Viewing your signed in accounts Click the account icon in the top right to: View your signed in personal account and access account management features. View the institutional accounts that are providing access. Signed in but can’t access content Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products.
– Immigration wavelet catches Britain with its prejudices showing | National Post
For your resume to be searchable and efficient, take your time to learn the subtleties of the federal resume builder USAJOBS has created. We have come up with the top 4 tips that will help you avoid the common mistakes that often prevent the candidates from being recognized as qualified for the job. Read the announcement carefully! Before appl ying for a position, go to the Qualifications section in the vacancy announcement and preview the vacancy announcement questions.
And more detailed Qualifications list for a Strategic Marketing Analyst position :. As we can see, Qualifications requirements may vary depending on GS position, education, expert level skills or other specific knowledge relevant to a job announcement.
So make sure to select a corresponding answer to each question prior to appl ying for a job posting. This is indeed a tedious task but it is totally worth the effort. Although having similar titles, the different job announcement will be using different keywords to describe their requirements for the candidate. Keep your resume brief, describe your work experience and education relevant to the position you apply for. The advantage of the resume builder is that you get a consistent federal cv, which can be found by a recruiter using a keyword search.
Building a resume that is perfectly in tune with the specific announcement will help your application score more points in the competition. It is true that a resume should normally be kept brief but with the federal government resumes, it is all about the perfect balance between being concise and being informative. This shows how literally complete your resume is.
Proofread Believe it or not but such an obvious step in the resume writing process is often neglected by the applicants. Typographical errors, not to speak of grammatical and spelling mistakes, will seriously impair the impressions of the federal HR specialist even about a seemingly perfect resume. Determine which keywords to use.
Get the federal job you want. Includes dozens of samples federal resumes in online resume builders. The Federal Resume Guidebook was announced as one of the top 10 most in-demand job hunting books in U. I spoke with an agency official who asked me about availability of candidates. We’re doing a starting the groundwork for a social media documentary about this, and we’d like to hear from you.
There is a surge in federal job hiring. Most people don’t know that there are more than US Government agencies and that many of them are hiring right now. As a matter of fact, as of this writing there are over thirty thousand US Government Jobs available. If you are wondering if one of these jobs is “for you” then how about this: – How would you like your student loans paid off?
There are invaluable tips on: – How to navigate the federal job websites – How to write a winning federal resume – How to ace a federal interview – and much more