Explain part 3 of the waste management and reduction act 2011 qld

The name of the law that created a corporate offense for the failure to prevent bribery is the UK Bribery Act 2010.

The name of the law that created a corporate offense for the failure to prevent bribery is the UK Bribery Act 2010.

This law is applicable to all companies that conduct business in the UK and it introduced four new criminal offenses related to bribery. One of these offenses is the corporate offense of failure to prevent bribery, which means that a company can be held liable for bribery committed by its employees, agents, or subsidiaries, regardless of whether the company knew about it or not.

The only defense for the company is to prove that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery.

This law has had a significant impact on the way companies operate and has led to increased scrutiny of their anti-bribery measures.

In summary, the UK Bribery Act 2010 created the corporate offense of failure to prevent bribery and introduced new criminal offenses related to bribery.

Know more about bribery here:

https://brainly.com/question/1088697

#SPJ11

Before a statute can be used to provide the standard of care under a negligence per se theory, the judge must determine whether the statute is applicable to the case at hand.

In order to do this, the judge will typically assess if the following criteria are met:1. The statute is clear and specific, providing a well-defined standard of care.

2. The injured party is within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect.3. The harm suffered is the type of harm the statute was intended to prevent.

4. The defendant violated the statute.If these conditions are met, the judge can apply the statute as the standard of care for a negligence per se claim.

This allows the court to find the defendant negligent as a matter of law, simplifying the plaintiff's burden of proving negligence in their case.

To know more about  negligence per se refer here:

https://brainly.com/question/31314466#

#SPJ11

One of the independent countries whose citizens can live, work, and reside indefinitely in the United States thanks to compacts implemented in 1986 and 1994 is the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM).

This is due to the Compact of Free Association (COFA) agreements between the U.S. and FSM, which allows for economic and military cooperation between the two nations.

As part of these agreements, FSM citizens can live and work in the U.S. without the need for a visa.

The flag of the Federated States of Micronesia has a blue background, as you mentioned in your question.

The other two countries with similar arrangements are the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau, both of which also have blue background flags.

To know more about Federated States of Micronesia  refer here:

https://brainly.com/question/30204889#

#SPJ11

A record in writing of the entire trial proceedings, including the testimony of all the witnesses and any discussions between the judge and the attorneys, that must be prepared and forwarded to the appeals court is called a "transcript."

A transcript is a set-up account of the whole preliminary investigation, including all the declarations of the observers and any conversations between the judge and the lawyers. It is ready and sent to the requests court to audit the preliminary court's choice.

The requests court depends on the transcript to assess the legitimate issues raised on a claim, including whether the preliminary court applied the law accurately and whether there were any mistakes made during the preliminary that require inversion or alteration of the judgment. A transcript is a significant record of the preliminary procedures, and it is vital to guarantee that it precisely reflects what occurred in the preliminary court.

Learn more about preliminary investigation:

https://brainly.com/question/31449385

#SPJ4

Answer:

The vice president

Explanation:

...

In the event that the President of the United States is incapacitated and can no longer serve in office the Vice President replaces the president.

The line of succession is determined by the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. The Act establishes that the Vice President of the United States will assume the presidency if the President is unable to fulfill their duties.

If the Vice President is also unable to serve as President, the next in line is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, followed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, and then the Secretary of State.

The line of succession continues with the other members of the Cabinet in the order in which their respective departments were created.

It's important to note that the 25th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which was ratified in 1967, provides additional clarification on the issue of presidential succession in the event of incapacity.

If the President is unable to fulfill their duties, the Vice President can assume the role of Acting President until the President is able to resume their duties or a new President is elected.

In summary, the Vice President is the first in line to replace the President if they are incapacitated, followed by the Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, and then the Secretary of State and other members of the Cabinet in the order in which their respective departments were created.

The 25th Amendment provides further clarification on the issue of presidential succession in the event of incapacity.

For more question on "Vice President" :

https://brainly.com/question/29797686

#SPJ11

Magistrate judges are the type of judges who don't have their own courts but instead operate under the authority of the district courts.

The term magistrate refers to a civilian officer who administers the law under a number of government and legal systems. A magistratus was one of the highest-ranking government officials in ancient Rome, with both judicial and executive authority. A magistrate was in charge of administration over a certain geographic area in other areas of the world, such as China.

A magistrate is now a judicial official in various countries who hears cases at a lower court and often deals with more minor or preliminary concerns. In other jurisdictions (for example, England and Wales), magistrates are often qualified volunteers who are appointed to handle criminal and civil cases in their communities.

To learn more about role of Magistrate judges:

https://brainly.com/question/29218261

#SPJ4

False. One of the most common reasons for fatal collisions at intersections is not wearing a seatbelt.

However, the conflict sites that come from where trails and highways overlap create situations where accidents can happen. In reality, intersections are responsible for nearly one-quarter of traffic fatalities and about half of all traffic injuries in the United States each year.

at an intersection, zone. more than at any other location along a road, junctions have greater traffic. Because so many different drivers' paths overlap at intersections, they frequently experience unexpected pauses.

To know more about fatal collisions visit:-

https://brainly.com/question/30112912

#SPJ1

The utilization of private security forces to supplement public law enforcers is an intricate matter that raises numerous essential inquiries linked to public security, neighborhood policing, and the role of enforcement in civil society.

On one side, private guards can present surplus funds to guarantee public safety within areas possibly displaying an inadequate law presence or slow response times. It also allows citizens to experience increased autonomy involving their own security and contribute to the construction of faith between inhabitants and law enforcers.

Conversely, employing private security may arouse qualms concerning responsibility, guidance, and supervision. Private security businesses could not be obligated to obey the same protocols and benchmarks as public enforcers and there might lack clearness and appropriate control regarding their operations.

Learn more about law on

https://brainly.com/question/820417

#SPJ1

Selective incorporation is the process by which the Supreme Court has applied specific rights and liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. Here are three examples of selective incorporation cases:

1. Gitlow v. New York (1925): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech applied to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, ensuring that state governments cannot infringe on an individual's right to free speech.

2. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Court held that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. As a result, any evidence obtained illegally by state law enforcement officers cannot be used in court.

3. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases applied to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. This decision ensures that individuals facing criminal charges in state courts have a right to legal representation, even if they cannot afford it.

Other examples of selective incorporated cases related to the 14th Amendment's due process clause include:

1. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - This case established that individuals must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney before being questioned by law enforcement.

2. Roe v. Wade (1973) - This case established that women have a constitutional right to access abortion services.

3. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) - This case established that the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms applies to state and local governments through the 14th Amendment's due process clause.

These cases demonstrate how the 14th Amendment's due process clause has been selectively incorporated to protect individual rights against state and local government actions and how the Supreme Court has used selective incorporation to apply specific rights and liberties from the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Learn more about the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause: https://brainly.com/question/30876059.

#SPJ11

Answer:

1 ) D. Standing.

2 ) D. Social class.

3 ) B. Hegemony.

4 ) D. Through the phenomology of self aspects of social discourse.

Explanation:

1 ) Standing refers to an individual's social position or status in society, which is shaped by the intersection of various social identities, such as race, gender, sexuality, class, and ability. When individuals from different social groups with different levels of standing interact, there is potential for power imbalances, discrimination, and oppression. Intersectionality theory emphasizes the importance of recognizing and addressing these power dynamics in order to achieve social justice and equality.

2 ) The variable that has consistently explained more variance than any other variable in criminology is social class. Research has consistently shown that individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to engage in criminal behavior compared to those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds.

3) Hegemony refers to the dominant or ruling ideology or cultural practices that are accepted as the norm and therefore wield power and control over the subaltern or subordinate groups in society. In the context of masculinity, the dominant form of masculinity, which values traits such as dominance, aggression, and control, is seen as the norm, and alternative forms of masculinity or femininity are marginalized or stigmatized. This dominant form of masculinity reinforces and perpetuates patriarchal power structures, including the subordination of women and other marginalized groups.

4) Individuals construct their understanding of the world and their place in it through their personal experiences and the stories they tell themselves about those experiences. Criminal behavior can be seen as a response to the stories that individuals tell themselves about their lives, including their sense of identity, agency, and purpose.

Under the Double Jeopardy Clause, a person generally cannot be tried again for the same offense after being acquitted, but there may be exceptions.

In the US, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment by and large keeps an individual from being attempted once more for a similar offense subsequent to being vindicated. In any case, there might be exemptions for this standard, for example, on the off chance that new proof emerges that was not accessible at the hour of the first preliminary.

In the situation portrayed, assuming the individual admits and shows columnists a video of the wrongdoing subsequent to being cleared, this might be viewed as new proof that might actually prompt another preliminary. Be that as it may, the particular conditions of the case would be painstakingly inspected by lawful specialists to decide if another preliminary would be admissible under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Learn more about Double Jeopardy Clause:

https://brainly.com/question/30751215

#SPJ4

When a bill is given to the President of the United States, there are several options available to them. They can sign the bill into law, veto the bill, or allow the bill to become law without their signature.

If the President signs the bill into law, it becomes an official piece of legislation and goes into effect immediately. The President may also choose to issue a signing statement with the bill, which outlines their interpretation of the legislation and how it should be implemented.
If the President decides to veto the bill, they send it back to Congress with their objections. Congress can then vote to override the veto with a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. If they are successful in overriding the veto, the bill becomes law despite the President's objections.
Finally, if the President does not sign or veto the bill within ten days (excluding Sundays), the bill automatically becomes law without their signature. However, if Congress adjourns during this ten-day period, the bill does not become law and is said to be "pocket vetoed."

In summary, when a bill is given to the President, they can sign it into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without their signature. Each option has different implications for the bill and the legislative process.

Know more about the President here:

https://brainly.com/question/924435

#SPJ11

Answer:

Explanation:

The significant difference between intentional interference with contract and intentional interference with prospective economic relations is that intentional interference with contract involves an existing contractual relationship between two parties, while intentional interference with prospective economic relations involves a potential or anticipated future business relationship that has not yet been formalized by a contract. In other words, intentional interference with contract occurs when a third party intentionally induces one of the parties to breach an existing contract, while intentional interference with prospective economic relations occurs when a third party intentionally disrupts or prevents a potential or anticipated business relationship between two parties, even if no contract has been signed.

PLS MARK ME BRAINLIEST

Answer:

Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment.

Explanation:

Quid pro quo harassment the type of sexual harassment in the workplace in which there is no link between jobs and sex.

This form of harassment takes place when a manager or other authority figure suggests or promises to give the victim something (such a pay increase, a promotion, or improved working conditions) in exchange for the victim complying with a sexual demand.

One of the two forms of workplace harassment claims covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act—the other being hostile workplace harassment—is quid pro quo harassment.

Learn more about on sexual harassment, here:

https://brainly.com/question/9647226

#SPJ2

A maggot trail is a trail of maggots that are left behind by insects that feed on decomposing flesh. When a body starts to decompose, it releases a gas that attracts these insects, which lay their eggs on the body.

The eggs then hatch into maggots, which feed on the flesh and leave a trail behind as they move across the body.
Maggot trails can tell investigators a lot about a crime scene.

For example, the presence of a maggot trail can indicate that a body has been moved from one location to another, as the trail will show where the body has been dragged or carried.

It can also give investigators an idea of the time of death, as the rate at which maggots move and feed is influenced by factors such as temperature and humidity.
In addition, maggots can also provide valuable forensic evidence. They can be analyzed to determine the type of insect that laid the eggs, which can help identify the location and timing of the death. They can also be tested for DNA, which can help identify the victim or suspect.

Overall, maggot trails are an important piece of evidence in forensic investigations and can provide valuable information to help solve crimes.

Know more about the maggot trail here:

https://brainly.com/question/31631096

#SPJ11

In the case of Summers v. Tice, the court held that both defendants were jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

This decision was based on the principle of "alternative liability," which occurs when two or more parties have acted negligently, and it is impossible to determine which party specifically caused the harm.

The case involved a hunting accident where both defendants fired their shotguns in the plaintiff's direction simultaneously.

As a result, the plaintiff was struck by birdshot, but it was unclear which defendant's shot caused the injury.

Since both defendants were negligent in firing their weapons, the court held them jointly and severally liable, meaning each defendant is responsible for the entire amount of damages awarded.

This ruling shifts the burden of proof onto the defendants to prove which one did not cause the injury, ensuring that the plaintiff receives compensation for the harm suffered.

To know more about plaintiff refer here:

https://brainly.com/question/30362912#

#SPJ11