The Royal College of Nursing has warned that too many UK nurses are being lured to work in Australia. Last year almost 5,000 nurses formally signaled an intention to find work in Australian hospitals. Howard Catton, The RCN’s head of policy conceded nurses were receiving attractive offers, but said the UK still needed the nurses it was training. He said: "The Australians have stepped up their recruitment activity on the basis of what they believe is unemployment and downsizing in the UK." The Australian recruitment agencies that I’ve spoken to since I’ve been here are making very attractive offers. "It’s not just the starting salaries. The packages include air travel for nurses’ families as well--relocation expenses, temporary accommodation and the promise that they’ll support an application for permanent residency." A couple of employers even offer a "meet and greet" service at the airport with chauffeur-driven limousines, so the nurses are made to feel welcome as soon as their feet touch the ground. "We still believe there are nursing shortages in the UK both in the NHS and the private sector." According to Howard Catton, why do more nurses tend to work in Australia()。
A. Because of attractive salaries and a series of incentives.
Because of starting salaries and recruitment activity.
C. Because of the convenient air travel between two countries.
D. Because of the permanent residency and accommodation.
The tradition of christening and commissioning a ship dates back to ancient times when the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and Vikings called upon the gods to protect their ships and crew from the perilous sea. Religion played an important role in these ceremonies. In fact, christenings originated as a way to appease the gods of the elements. Christening gave a ship its identity, and over the years, different cultures and people changed and shaped the way ceremonies were performed.Some of these traditions have been carried over into modem times. A ship is traditionally christened or given its name at the time it is launched into the water. When a ship is christened, it is a tradition to break a bottle across the ship’s bowl. This practice began in Britain in the late seventeenth century. Previously, an official would sip wine from a "standing cup," a large loving cup made of precious metal, then pour out the remaining wine onto the deck or over the ship’s bow. The cup was then tossed overboard. This practice soon became too costly and a net was used to catch the cup so it could be re-used at other launchings. Wine was the traditional liquid used to christen a ship, although other liquids were used such as whiskey, brandy and water. At the close of the nineteenth century champagne became the popular liquid with which to christen a ship. However, during prohibition in America, ships were christened with water.Ships’ sponsors were generally royalty or senior naval officers. In the nineteenth century, women became ship sponsors for the first time. Women sponsored ships more and more frequently, although it was not the rule. The actual physical process of launching a new ship from a building site to the water involved one of three principal methods. Oldest, most familiar and most widely used, was the "end-on" launch in which the vessel slid, usually stern first, down an inclined slipway. The "side launch," whereby the ship entered the water broadside, came into nineteenth-century use on inland waters, rivers and lakes. It was given major impetus in America by the World War II building program. Another method involved ships built in basins or graving docks, which were floated by admitting water into the dock. The commissioning ceremony then completed the cycle from christening and launching, to full status for active service. According to the passage, one practice became too costly because()。
A. it was found that champagne was cheaper than other wine
B. the cup was thrown away
C. prohibition ended and the tradition of using champagne returned
D. whiskey and brandy were used without water
W: Hello, Freddy.M: Hello, Mary. How nice to see you again. How’s everything goingW: Fine. Busy these daysM: Yeah. With lots of things to do. Would you like to join me for a drinkW: Ok, thanks.M: Any news recentlyW: Oh, well, I read in the local paper the other day that the government is planning to build an airport here, you know thatM: I’m afraid not.W: Well, my real objection to this idea of a new airport is, is the whole thing is so wasteful, I mean, we know we are currently in fuel crises, we know that we’ve got to conserve oil and fuel and all the rest of it, and get here the government seems quite deliberately to be encouraging people to,... to travel, to use and these jets use a hack of a lot of oil, I mean it takes a ton of oil, a ton of petrol before one of these big jets even takes off.M: Mm...W: It seems so completely short-sighted to me. Quite apart from all the ways to the land and so on, I can’t see, I can’t see the rationale behind really wanting an, an airport at all.M: Well, surely you must have to admit that the existing airport nearby are becoming swarmed. I mean, why should people, uhh...W: Well, they aren’t being swarmed.M: ... be treated like cattle when there is a chance of... a new airport here.W: But, but really people shouldn’t be traveling as much, that’s, that’s why most of the journeys, I mean, they swamped because there is far too much unnecessary tourism and soon. It isn’t necessary for people to travel so far or even so often.M: Well, you take the climate here in this country. Now just before Christmas, there was this dreadful cold spell, and there was a tremendous increase in number of people who wanted to leave and spent Christmas and the New Year in a reasonable climate of sun and, and a certain mild climate. And, and in summer, the same situation occurs. It is unbearably hot here and people want to go somewhere cool.W: Well, yes, I can sympathize with that. But it is still not really necessary to do, well, as it is necessary to, to conserve fuel and it is necessary to, well, not to Waste land. I mean land for a new airport could be used for far more important things which would benefit the people here far more. I mean it could be used for farming for instance.M: True.W: It could also he used for housing, or it could be used for parks, you know. People then could come and enjoy themselves without having to travel far.M: But, airports do bring some local advantages. They bring roads, there is obviously extra employment, for instance, new hotels, shops, restaurants will have to be built. This means more jobs for the locals and it is good for local economy.W: But you ask the people, you ask those who are now living near the airports, for instance, whether, whether they reckon that airports bring them advantages, although, all the airports bring in are noise and vast motorways, and the whole area is, is desolated, isn’t itM: But the airport infra,..., infrastructure relies on housing and other facilities for the great number of people who would be employed in the airport, the pilots even, the stewardess, they have to live somewhere near the airport, rightW: Yeah, but it’s, it’s just so, so damaging to the whole area. I think, airports, from my point of view, the whole concept is outdated, really. Umm, with modern technology, we can make a lot of travel unnecessary, really. For example, it won’t be necessary for businessmen to fly out to a foreign county to talk to somebody. They can just leave it to the telephone in the office, press the button, and say to the person they want to do business with. You see, business deals can be made without having to travel back and forth, rightM: Yes, you are right. But for a lot of people, personal contact is important. And this means travel, and means quick travel, air travel. And we just need a new airport. Mary doesn’t seem to favour the idea of a new airport because()。
A. the existing airports are to be wasted.
B. more people will be encouraged to travel.
C. more oil will be consumed.
D. more airplanes will be purchased.