题目内容
Questions 29 and 30 are based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer the questions. Who has NOT been suspended by Fifa
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Respect for human rights is an essential part of any legal system. Undermining a government’s ability to keep its citizens safe is emphatically not. But thanks to the way that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has been interpreted by judges in Strasbourg and Britain, that is what "human rights" have become: a means of undermining public safety, not of helping to protect it. The right to family life, for example, is now routinely used to prevent the Government from deporting dangerous criminals, including terrorists: last year, 200 foreign convicts avoided deportation by citing it. This is an absurd state of affairs. The first priority of any state is to protect its citizens. A legal system that subordinates that goal to protecting the "rights" of people who are not citizens, and who have behaved in ways which threaten the safety of those who are, has clearly got things back to front. But that is the situation in Britain today. This is not just damaging the nation’s security, but the public’s respect for the law. That is why we are launching a campaign to persuade the Government to stop "human rights" being used to prevent the deportation of foreign criminals. The right to family life is indeed enshrined in Article 8 of the ECHR. But it is not an absolute right: the convention states that it can be compromised in order to "prevent disorder or crime". Unfortunately, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has turned it into something that must be respected, regardless of whether doing so will damage national security or endanger the law-abiding. And our own judges have not only followed this interpretation, but expanded it still further. They may have hoped that by doing so, they would reinforce the importance of protecting human rights in the public mind. In fact, the opposite is true: voters are starting to view the whole notion of human rights with contempt, since their principal use appears to protect criminals. This is a dangerous development, and one that can only be reversed by reintroducing common sense to the judges’ interpretation of these rights, and especially to the right to family life. It would not be difficult to achieve: it could be done by passing primary legislation in Parliament. Strasbourg might disagree, but in practice, it has no power to enforce its will. True, Britain could, in theory, be expelled from the Council of Europe—but this is not a threat that needs to worry anyone. Italy, Turkey, Russia, and Poland regularly ignore Strasbourg’s rulings. Even Germany and France have been known to do so. And what has been the effect Nothing at all. It is an essential part of good government that the actions of the state should be reviewed and restrained by an independent judiciary. But judges are not, and should not be, law makers. Since the incorporation of the ECHR into British law, there has been an increased tendency for them to overlook this fact. It is essential for the future of our country that the right balance between democratic government and an independent judiciary be achieved. The best way to start is for Parliament to reassert its authority, and put the proper limits on the right to family life—which is why we shall campaign for it until it is achieved. The judges used human rights to prevent the deportation of foreign criminals because ______.
Questions 8 to 10 are based on the following conversation. At the end of the conversation, you will be given 20 seconds to answer the questions. Will the man do his own stunts in the movies
It’s nice that Lord Davies is thinking of us ladies; just a shame he isn’t thinking more clearly. The former trade minister this week handed in his report on why so few British women are making it to the top in business. There are currently only five female bosses of FTSE 100 companies—and three of them are American. Across the top 350 companies here, women make up just 12.5 percent of board members, and hold a measly 5.5 percent of executive directorships. Lord Davies seems to believe this is a symptom of deep-rooted misogyny in the business world. He has warmed British companies that they are in the "last-chance saloon", and set them a target: they must ensure that a quarter of their directors are women by 2015, or the Government will step in—perhaps by imposing quotas. All of which completely misses the point. It isn’t sexism that is holding women back: it’s babies. Consider the bigger picture. It starts so promisingly: girls outperform boys at school and university, get good jobs, start shinning up the greasy pole—and then, suddenly, they fall away. Across all professions, women’s careers take a nose dive the moment they reproduce. The full-time pay gap more than trebles for women in their thirties (from 3 percent to 11 percent), while the part- time pay gap increases from 23 percent to 32 percent. For a certain kind of reactionary, this just proves that women aren’t cut out for the top jobs. Pop a baby in her arms and even the most ball-breaking career woman will suddenly find she longs to be at home all day, making organic finger food and mopping up organic vomit. It’s biology, innit Well, not exactly. What happens is this. From the moment you deliver your first child, and your husband is booted out of the hospital while you get on with the business of bonding, it is made very clear that child-rearing is women’s work. Even if your husband takes his full two weeks of statutory paternity leave, you will soon be left alone to negotiate this strange new world. Because you are at home, it makes sense for you to take on the endless admin: health checks, vaccinations, nursery registrations, interviewing nannies or childminders. It is up to you, too, to keep the little critter fed, clothed and entertained—and while you’re at it, you might as well do the shopping, cooking and tidying-up. By the time your maternity leave is up, you’ll find you have been zapped back to the 1950s. You are something perilously close to a housewife, while your man has become an old-fashioned, long-hours breadwinner. Splendid, if that’s how you like it but not so good if you need, or want, to work. The division of duties, once established, is extremely hard to alter, so it is almost invariably the woman who scales back her career. 41 percent of mothers in couples work part-time, compared to just 4 percent of men. This has an obvious effect on their long-term prospects: mothers who work part time are four times less likely to hold a senior post. The working woman’s enemy is not some pinstriped, misogynistic boss, cackling evilly as he slams the boardroom door. Nor, in fact, is it men in general. There is plenty of evidence that British men want to be more involved in rearing their children. But our system of parental leave is so heavily skewed that both sexes have little choice but to succumb to an outdated status quo. In a brilliant new book, Shattered: Modern Motherhood and the Myth of Equality, Rebecca Asher shows the harm this does, not only to women’s aspirations, but to family life and the economy. Spending thousands to train and educate women, only for them to fail out of the labour market at the peak of their expertise, is a very profligate way to run a country. Asher’s solutions— which include six or seven months’ paid leave for each parent, funded by the government and taken consecutively—are affordable, if eye-wateringly radical. And unlike Lord Davies’s "targets’’, they at least address the problem, rather than the symptoms. The pram in the hall is the real enemy of female promise. And until men are able to take on as much of the work—and the pleasure—of child-rearing, that’s the way it will remain. The tone of the passage might be described as ______.
Questions 11 to 13 are based on the following passage. At the end of the passage, you will be given 15 seconds to answer the questions. According to the passage, the Ｅ.coli infections can be prevented by ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付