Read and Memorize these 3X0-104 real questions and forget worries

Accessibility of genuine, legitimate, refreshed, and most recent 3X0-104 bootcamp is a large issue on the web. We have conquered the circumstance by gathering 3X0-104 PDF Download and real questions and making a data set for our contender to download from killexams.com and remember. These 3X0-104 practice exam questions and answers are adequate to finish the test at the first endeavor.

Exam Code: 3X0-104 Practice test 2022 by Killexams.com team
Linux Security, Privacy and Ethics (Level 1)
Sair Security, questions
Killexams : Sair Security, questions - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/3X0-104 Search results Killexams : Sair Security, questions - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/3X0-104 https://killexams.com/exam_list/Sair Killexams : Social Security & You: Questions seldom asked

Because I’ve been writing this column for about a quarter-century now, you probably can guess that there are questions I’ve been asked hundreds (if not thousands) of times during the past 25 years. And I don’t think there is a single Social Security-related question I’ve never been asked. But it dawned on me as I was answering my emails this week that there are questions I’m seldom asked, and I thought I’d gather a few of them together and put them in today’s column.

Q: My wife, who stopped working a couple years ago, is approaching age 62 and wants to sign up for her Social Security then. But I’m 65 and still working and making $250,000 per year. We file a joint tax return. Will the fact that I make that much money (well above the Social Security earnings penalty limits) cause problems for my wife’s eligibility for Social Security?

A: No. How you file a tax return has absolutely nothing to do with your or your wife’s eligibility for Social Security benefits. Just in case other readers didn’t understand your question, the earnings penalty you refer to is a law that says because your wife will be under her full retirement age when she files for Social Security, she must ensure any earnings she might have are under $19,560 per year or she will start to face reductions in her Social Security benefits. But you said she’s retired. So, she doesn’t have any earnings. And even though you file a joint tax return, all those earnings are yours, not hers.

People are also reading…

Q: I have a question about my 68-year-old father. I know it might not be popular to admit this, but when he was 20 years old, he snuck across the border from Mexico. He’s been living and working in the U.S. ever since. In fact, he’s still working today, doing lawn and yard maintenance in Southern California. Shortly after he arrived in the U.S., he somehow managed to obtain a Social Security number and card — not from the government, but from someone who sold people false documents. Over the years, he’s used that number when working at various jobs. (He of course has also been forced to work “under the table” for many other jobs.) What I am wondering is this: Is there any way my father can collect Social Security benefits? (In case you are wondering, many times my siblings and I have tried to talk my father into pursuing one of the government’s “pathways to citizenship,” but he is just too old and stubborn — and I think a little scared — to do this.)

A: I’m sorry, but as long as your father is living here without proper documentation, there is just no way he will ever be able to qualify for Social Security benefits.

Q: I bet you don’t get asked a question like this every day. I am a 68-year-old woman, and I recently married a 39-year-old man. It’s the second marriage for both of us, and we just adopted a 3-year-old girl. I currently get widow’s benefits from my first husband. But at age 70, I plan to switch to higher benefits on my own record. Can our daughter get benefits on my first husband’s record? How about on my record once I’m 70?

A: I’ve been asked questions similar to yours many times in my career, but they have always been from an older man married to a younger woman. So, yours is the first with the roles reversed.

As long as you are getting widow’s benefits, there is no way your adopted daughter can get any Social Security benefits. But once you switch to your own retirement benefits, she would be eligible for dependent child’s benefits on your record.

In fact, that might be an incentive for you to make the switch now, rather than waiting until 70. If you wait until 70, you’d get an extra 32% added to your retirement benefit. If you make the switch now, at age 68, you’d get about 20% more. So, you’d lose that extra 12% by switching now. But you’d gain the extra benefits payable to your daughter. It would be a monthly rate equal to 50% of your benefit amount. You’d just have to sit down and do the math and see if it’s worth switching now. (My guess is it would be.)

Q: I’m 71 years old and single and I have never signed up for my Social Security. Why? Because I’m very lucky financially (I have a seven-figure trust fund) and I just don’t need the money. But someone recently told me there is a law that says once you are 70 years old, you must file for Social Security benefits. Is that true?

A: It’s not true. There is no law that requires you to file for Social Security at 70, or any other age for that matter.

But why let your money just sit there in the Social Security trust funds? It’s doing no one any good. Why not sign up for Social Security and do something constructive or helpful with the money? I mentioned at the beginning of this column that there probably is not a single Social Security-related question I haven’t been asked. And I’ve run into a few guys with questions like yours over the years. One of those guys ended up using his Social Security benefits to fund a college education for some lucky and deserving kids. Another just turned the money over to his favorite charity.

And here’s another thought. Because you are 71 years old, when you file for Social Security, you can claim six months’ worth of retroactive benefits. Assuming your monthly benefit is in the $3,000 per month range, that’s $18,000. To someone with your wealth, that probably doesn’t mean anything. But just imagine how it could help someone in need.

If you have a Social Security question, Tom Margenau has a book with all the answers. It’s called “Social Security: Simple and Smart.” You can find the book at creators.com/books. Or look for it on Amazon or other book outlets. To find out more about him and to read past columns and see features from other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.


Subscribe to stay connected to Tucson. A subscription helps you access more of the local stories that keep you connected to the community.

Sun, 09 Oct 2022 04:15:00 -0500 en text/html https://tucson.com/business/social-security-you-questions-seldom-asked/article_290053f8-3f48-11ed-9759-5ba0f47ff665.html
Killexams : Say yes to reason on Question 3

rgj.com cannot provide a good user experience to your browser. To use this site and continue to benefit from our journalism and site features, please upgrade to the latest version of Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.

Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:00:00 -0500 en-US text/html https://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/2022/10/15/say-yes-reason-question-3/10510150002/
Killexams : Common Retirement Questions: When Should I Start Taking Social Security? No result found, try new keyword!Dana Anspach from Sensible Money meets with Robert Powell to discuss when you should start taking Social Security benefits and why. Bob Powell: What are the 10 most common retirement questions? Wed, 05 Oct 2022 05:35:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.thestreet.com/retirement-daily/video/when-should-i-start-taking-social-security Killexams : Question Time

British Prime Minister Liz Truss answered questions from members in the House of Commons. In response to criticisms of the Conservative Party’s economic plan that includes tax cuts for large corporations, the prime minister said she does not plan to cut public spending to fund tax cuts, but that her government was “making sure we spend public money well.” Other courses included energy prices, mortgage rates and housing costs, clean water infrastructure, and health care investment and research. close

Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:36:00 -0500 en-us text/html https://www.c-span.org/video/?523461-1/british-prime-minister-liz-truss-defends-mini-budget-parliament-plans-spending-cuts
Killexams : Trump skirts testimony question in hostile 14-page Jan. 6 response

Former President Trump on Friday skirted the question of whether he would testify under subpoena in a 14-page response to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, instead doubling down on his disproven claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

Trump posted a letter to Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the committee’s chairman, one day after the panel voted unanimously to subpoena him for testimony about his role in the events of Jan. 6, when supporters of the former president stormed the Capitol to halt the certification of the 2020 election results.

“This memo is being written to express our anger, disappointment, and complaint that with all of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on what many consider to be a Charade and Witch Hunt, and despite strong and powerful requests, you have not spent even a short moment on examining the massive Election Fraud that took place during the 2020 Presidential Election, and have targeted only those who were, as concerned American Citizens, protesting the Fraud itself,” Trump wrote in the letter, which is dated Oct. 13.

The document includes numerous photos meant to demonstrate the crowd size at his Jan. 6 rally, as well as a state-by-state breakdown renewing baseless claims of election fraud in five states Trump lost to President Biden. 

There was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election — something Trump’s own campaign concluded. Courts on 62 different occasions ruled against Trump when he brought suits seeking to challenge the election based on fraud claims. 

Trump’s response is not a formal compliance with the subpoena, which has yet to be sent after the committee voted unanimously to compel testimony from Trump.

“Trump’s unsworn ‘statement’ about the work of @January6thCmte is not a substitute for testimony under oath. We await a serious response from the former president,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) tweeted Friday.

“Seven previous presidents have honored their responsibility to appear before Congress. Trump should do the same.”

Such documents have to be served and, in the case of prior subpoenas sent by the Jan. 6 committee, include a list of courses the panel wishes to discuss in a formal deposition as well as a breakdown of documents and other evidence that must be turned over. 

In taking the vote in a public setting, lawmakers on the panel stressed the importance of hearing directly from Trump.

“We are obligated to seek answers directly from the man who set this all in motion,” said Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the vice chair of the committee, shortly before the vote. “And every American is entitled to those answers.”

The subpoena is likely to kick off another legal battle for the former president. Others subpoenaed by the committee, including Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows, have gone to court to block the subpoena.

And some of those who have refused to comply have landed in legal trouble as well — though often only after a lengthy back-and-forth between committee lawyers and representation for those who have been subpoenaed.

But in the face of refusal to comply, the committee has moved to hold in contempt of Congress those who have rebuffed them, a matter that has to be taken up by the full House in order to make a formal criminal referral to the Justice Department.

The House has done that four times since the committee has begun its work, but the Justice Department has only acted on two of the referrals: one for former White House strategist Stephen Bannon, and another for White House adviser Peter Navarro. Bannon was found guilty and is awaiting sentencing next week.

In other cases where the committee has subpoenaed high-ranking figures — including five Republican lawmakers — the panel has done little to enforce its subpoenas. It also remains unclear whether they will subpoena Vice President Mike Pence.

Thursday’s hearing synthesized much of the information already presented by the committee, underscoring that Trump’s early declaration of victory on election night 2020 was premeditated; that he was aware he had lost the election but publicly claimed otherwise; that he wanted to join his supporters at the Capitol; and that he stood by while the attack unfolded. 

Trump’s letter rehashes many of the same claims he’s made in the more than 18 months since the riot. He claimed he had authorized thousands of National Guard troops to defend the Capitol, a claim that his former acting Defense secretary has refuted in testimony to the committee.

And he repeated his claims that election results in Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were all dubious because of reports of irregularities or suspicion about movement of ballots. But in each state, officials certified the results after audits and recounts. Testimony from Justice Department officials to the committee laid out how the department looked into each of Trump’s claims and was able to debunk or explain each of them.

Trump closed his letter to Thompson by defending the rioters as “great American patriots” who questioned the election results, even as the Justice Department has prosecuted numerous members of the mob for their actions that day.

“The people of this Country will not stand for unequal justice under the law, or Liberty and Justice for some. Election Day is coming. We demand answers on the Crime of the Century,” Trump wrote.

Updated at 4:29 p.m.

Fri, 14 Oct 2022 01:51:00 -0500 en-US text/html https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3688097-trump-skirts-testimony-question-in-blistering-14-page-jan-6-response/
Killexams : Baltimore’s Question H says it would ‘establish’ a city police department. What does that mean?

It’s the shortest of the 11 questions on the ballot for Baltimore voters to consider this fall, and it’s leaving some of them scratching their heads to figure out what it’s about.

“Question H is for the purpose of establishing a Baltimore City Police Department, the head of which is the Police Commissioner.”

Advertisement

No, it’s not about “re-funding” or “defunding” the police. It’s not about Baltimore’s federal consent decree to Improve its police department, either.

The city of Baltimore, of course, already has a police department, and a police commissioner already leads it.

Advertisement

The question on the ballot is about control of the department, which for more than 160 years has been overseen by the state. In 1860, state lawmakers wrested control from the city in hopes of quelling deadly political street fighting under the reign of the Know-Nothing Party.

The General Assembly last year cleared the way for the issue to appear on city ballots, so now voters are being asked if they would like to take control back. If voters ratify the change to the city’s charter, City Hall could take control of the department as early as Jan. 1.

So why is the referendum worded the way it is? That was deliberate, said Dana Moore, one of two co-chairs of the city’s Local Control Advisory Board. The 18-member board has been meeting for the last year to discuss how the city law department should write the ballot question and the details of what local control would mean.

While the department has long existed, it is not recognized in the charter in the way other city agencies are, said Moore, the city’s chief equity officer. The board, with input from the law office, the city Department of Legislative Reference and Democratic City Council President Nick Mosby’s office, concluded the ballot question needed to stick to the basics and simply seek to establish the department as a city agency, Moore said.

“That language aligns with language that is already in the charter with other agencies,” Moore said. “We kept it really, really simple so we could ask the voters whether they want this as a city agency or not.”

That language might be clear if you’re a student of the charter and are familiar with the state’s very particular legislation that allowed the ballot question, said Democratic Councilman Ryan Dorsey, who has used social media to urge people to vote yes on Question H.

However, he acknowledged, most people will find it confusing. Dorsey said including some context in the question would have helped significantly.

But he’s not thinking about the ballot question failing. Voters who are active and planning to participate in the election are likely aware enough to figure out the question’s intent, he said.

Advertisement

“I expect it to pass, but if by some chance it doesn’t, I fully expect people to blame the poor wording of the question,” Dorsey said.

History suggests the issue is likely to be approved. In the last two decades, Baltimore voters have considered hundreds of ballot questions and rejected only one — a proposal to lower the minimum age to run for City Council.

The push to reestablish local control of police in Baltimore has been decades in the making. While Baltimore taxpayers have remained responsible for funding the department, it took until 1976 for the state to return the right to pick the city’s police commissioner.

Black leaders in the city had lobbied intensely to provide the mayor the authority to nominate a commissioner for the council’s approval and to fire him (all have been men so far) when necessary. They argued the agency was in urgent need of reform and was unresponsive to community demands.

Calls for further changes in policing and oversight of law enforcement were renewed following the fatal injury that Freddie Gray suffered in city police custody in 2015 and after Minneapolis police killed George Floyd in 2020.

Without local control, Baltimore’s mayor and City Council have lacked the clear authority to directly require specific changes on issues such as disciplinary polices, whether officers should have to live in the city they patrol and what technology can be used.

Advertisement

Weekly

Keep up to date with Maryland politics, elections and important decisions made by federal, state and local government officials.

Democratic Mayor Brandon Scott championed the issue of local control when he was on City Council. He drafted and lobbied for the legislation the state legislature passed overwhelmingly in 2021 to get the issue on the 2022 ballot in the city.

Moore conceded that the question’s wording could confuse voters, which is part of why the board has undertaken a campaign to educate voters on the referendum. Several meetings were scheduled for this week, and another will be held Oct. 20 at Morgan State University.

Ashiah Parker, head of the No Boundaries Coalition and a co-chair of the Local Control Advisory Board, said her organization and many others represented on the board also have been doing outreach to make sure voters understand the reasons for wanting to move to local control.

“As we work toward lower crime and safer neighborhoods, we’re letting residents of Baltimore City know that this could be one of the first steps of many ... in making sure the police department is functioning in a constitutional way and just ensuring we can govern our city in a safe way,” Parker said.

A ballot issue committee, headed by local control board member Ray Kelly, registered with the state election board as the Committee for Local Control to support the measure. A campaign finance report filed by the committee in September showed no money raised or spent advocating for the issue.

Moore said she feels confident voters will approve the measure.

Advertisement

“This is what Baltimore wants and what Baltimore needs,” she said. “But I think we have to work hard. I take nothing for granted. Baltimoreans ask a lot of questions, and we have the answers. We’re going to keep answering them until polls close.”

Thu, 13 Oct 2022 07:06:00 -0500 en-US text/html https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/elections/bs-md-pol-baltimore-local-control-ballot-question-20221013-jnkeck73d5e7vbvbllqskxkuae-story.html
Killexams : Jorgen Vik: Answering questions about Social Security benefits

Social Security questions continue to hit my inbox. Here are some of them.

Q: I do not meet the 10-year work requirement for Social Security. Can I still receive a spousal benefit?

A: Yes, you can. The amount your spouse is promised at full retirement age (67 for those born after 1959) is called the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA). When you reach your own full retirement age, you’ll be eligible for half of your spouse’s PIA. However, your spouse must already have filed before you can collect the spousal benefit. You can also file as early as age 62 and receive a reduced spousal benefit.

Q: I receive significantly more Social Security than my spouse. What will my spouse receive if I die first?

A: Your spouse will receive your amount and not his or her own. The way to think about this is that the higher amount lasts for both lifetimes. Therefore, I think couples who have not yet filed should consider that at least the higher earner delays filing, as his or her amount will last until the second death.

People are also reading…

Q: I lost my husband eight years ago. I am 59 and want to remarry but heard that I should remain unmarried to collect survivor benefits. Is that true?

A: You might be able to have it both ways. If you wait to marry until you’ve turned 60, you’ll be eligible to file for survivor benefits on your deceased husband’s record. At 60, you could file early and receive 71.5% of your deceased husband’s stipulated PIA at the time of his death. However, an earnings test will apply on this benefit until you reach 67. At age 60, $1 would be deducted for every $2 your earnings exceed $19,560.

Keep the questions coming. For more info you can also go to www.ssa.gov.

Jorgen Vik is a certified financial planner and partner with SKV Group LLC.

Sat, 08 Oct 2022 19:28:00 -0500 en text/html https://dailyprogress.com/lifestyles/jorgen-vik-answering-questions-about-social-security-benefits/article_1acc0c9c-4447-11ed-b91f-9fe65e9b0703.html
Killexams : Android security warning: These crooks phone you and trick you into downloading malware
Image: Getty / 10'000 Hours

An Android banking malware attack is tricking people into entering their phone number and other sensitive information into phishing websites – which cyber criminals then use to call victims and dupe them into installing malware on their smartphones. 

The telephone-oriented attack delivery (TOAD) technique is designed to infect Android users with Copybara Android banking malware, which steals usernames and passwords for online-banking accounts – as well as information that allows attackers to bypass security questions. 

The campaign has been detailed by cybersecurity researchers at ThreatFabric, who warn the attack is targeting multiple different banks and their customers. 

Attacks begin with SMS phishing messages containing a link that claims to be from an online bank. The page the victim is directed to depends on which bank is being imitated, but researchers say the attackers have impersonated several banking websites. 

Each fake banking website asks the user to enter similar forms of information, including account number, PIN code and telephone number.  

AlsoHow to keep your bank details and finances more secure online

But it isn't via these phishing links that the malware is installed. Instead, anyone who enters their data into the forms is told that a "support operator" will be in touch – and soon afterwards, they'll receive a call. 

The call, which claims to be offering support to the Android user, is actually from a scammer who coerces the victim into installing what they're told is security software onto their device.  

This is done under the false premise of providing remote support to the victim, but what's really happening is that the cyber criminal is gaining control of the device in order to carry out further fraud – in a way that means victims might not understand they're being tricked. They may even trust the voice on the other end of phone, just because they've said they're here to help. 

"The 'support operator' with the help of social-engineering techniques convinces the victim to install the malware, thus leading to high quality infections and less suspicious victims," Alexander Eremin, mobile threat intelligence lead at ThreatFabric, told ZDNET. 

"The 'operator' can guide the victim through the process of installation and granting all the necessary permissions, including enabling accessibility services," he added. 

If successful, this technique allows the attacker to install the 'security software' onto the smartphone. But this tool doesn't help the victim at all and is actually Copybara Android malware, which first appeared last year. 

The malware provides attackers with remote access to the infected devices, allowing them to use the information that has previously been stolen in the phishing attack to gain access to and raid bank accounts.  

Also, by abusing accessibility services, the malware can install additional apps, perform clicks and swipes, as well as being able to enter text – all abilities that could be used to further defraud victims. 

Also: The biggest cyber-crime threat is also the one that nobody wants to talk about

Copybara also allows attackers to create and display fake input forms, which they can tailor towards the victim in order to gain access to additional passwords and accounts. 

While the campaign analyzed by researchers is currently restricted to Italian banks, researchers warn that if it proves to be successful, the attack technique will spread. 

"We expect further evolution of similar services providing flexible and convenient ways of maintaining hybrid fraud attacks, leading to more campaigns in this field," said Eremin. 

To avoid falling victim to this or any other form of malware attack, users should exercise caution when clicking links sent in SMS messages, particularly if the message is unexpected or is suggesting urgency – and especially if the link asks you to obtain something that isn't from the official Google Play app store. 

Users should also be suspicious of calls that claim to be from their bank and that require you to provide out your personal information or install remote access software on your device, as that's likely to indicate it could be a scam.  

If you are thinking a warning could be legitimate – or that you've installed banking malware – you should call your bank directly using the phone number listed on their website. 

Users who think they've fallen victim to mobile malware are urged to reset their device – and to reset their passwords. 

"The best option is to perform factory reset of the infected device, which will remove the malware from the device," said Eremin.  

MORE ON CYBERSECURITY

Wed, 12 Oct 2022 12:00:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.zdnet.com/article/android-security-warning-these-crooks-phone-you-and-trick-you-into-downloading-malware/
Killexams : Your questions answered about Biden’s marijuana pardon announcement
A demonstrator waves a flag with marijuana leaves depicted on it during a protest calling for the legalization of marijuana, outside of the White House in 2016. President Biden is pardoning thousands of Americans convicted of simple possession of marijuana under federal law, as his administration takes a dramatic step toward decriminalizing the drug and addressing charging practices that disproportionately impact people of color. (Jose Luis Magana, AP File)

President Biden announced Oct. 6 that he would grant mass pardons for anyone convicted of a federal crime for simple possession of marijuana, a step long sought by advocates as many states are legalizing cannabis for recreational use and reckoning with the reality that criminalization has disproportionately impacted communities of color.

The president also said his administration would expedite a review of whether marijuana should continue to be listed as a Schedule I substance, a classification that also applies to heroin, LSD and ecstasy.

Here’s what to know about his announcement — and who it would impact and how.

Tue, 11 Oct 2022 07:51:00 -0500 Perry Stein en text/html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/07/pardon-marijuana-possession-decriminalization/
Killexams : Boris Johnson faces questions about whether $150,000 speech broke rules

Boris Johnson is facing questions over whether he followed rules on paid employment after leaving No 10 after receiving $150,000 (£135,000) for a speech to a group of US insurance brokers.

The former prime minister gave a speech to the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers in Colorado Springs this week, only just over a month after leaving Downing Street.

Johnson did not seek approval from the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) before giving the speech. Sources close to the former prime minister suggested there was no need because it was a one-off.

Former ministers need to apply for permission to take up outside employment only if they have signed an ongoing contract with a business, such as a speakers’ agency. Cabinet ministers are also expected to wait three months before taking up employment.

Johnson was recently added as an available speaker to the website of an agency called the Premium Speakers Agency but his profile disappeared and those close to him claim he was mistakenly listed.

Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, challenged Johnson to prove that he has stuck to the rules.

“Boris Johnson might claim that this was just a one-off but the rules state that ex-ministers … joining agency circuits or scribing newspaper columns must submit an application before accepting them.

“The disgraced former prime minister and now part-time MP once again has questions to answer about whether he has followed the rules he was once responsible for.

“The anti-corruption watchdog was already toothless, but under the Tories, it’s been muzzled and neutered, leaving an open door to former ministers who want to line their pockets as soon as they leave office. Labour will clean up politics by ensuring proper and enforceable sanctions for rule breaking and banning former ministers from lobbying government for at least five years after they leave office.”

The Times reported on Wednesday that Johnson’s Colorado speech was greeted with a standing ovation. He made jokes about it having been expensive for him to have been born in the US – he renounced his US citizenship in 2016 but prior to that had faced hefty tax demands – and gave his assessment of the situation in Ukraine.

His appearance involved a 30-minute speech and a 45-minute “fireside chat” but no questions from the audience.

Johnson also set up his own office this week, likely to be the vehicle for accepting earnings, registering The Office of Boris Johnson Ltd with Companies House.

Johnson previously broke Acoba rules when he failed to declare a column from the Daily Telegraph after leaving office as foreign secretary.

However, there are no formal sanctions for a breach of the rules, leading to accusations that Acoba is a toothless watchdog.

John Penrose, Johnson’s former anti-corruption tsar, has suggested ministers should have to sign legal deeds agreeing to abide by Acoba’s rules before taking office.

He told the Guardian earlier this year: “Acoba isn’t fully legally binding at the moment, and it ought to be. So what [the Boardman review] has suggested is that civil service contracts should make Acoba’s decisions binding and, because ministers aren’t technically employees, the equivalent for them is that they sign a legal deed that says: ‘I will be bound by the decisions of Acoba.’ It’s a nice, simple way of giving Acoba the teeth and claws it needs.”

Thu, 13 Oct 2022 00:43:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/12/boris-johnson-colorado-speech-questions-rules
3X0-104 exam dump and training guide direct download
Training Exams List