Example sentences of "[pron] they [verb] be [adv] " in BNC.

  Next page
No Sentence
1 These duties were also listed by the assistants as the ones which they felt were most helpful both to the child and the teacher and were also the ones which they enjoyed most and felt most competent in completing .
2 Some claimed that the powers which they tapped were either from God or from their own subconscious mind .
3 Lewis and Meredith ( 1988 ) reveal similar tensions and problems although the picture which they draw is less bleak , showing a number of women whose recollections of caring for their mothers are predominantly positive , even if stressful .
4 As Table 9 , below , shows , the response of the public to the exhibitions which they saw was generally favourable .
5 By placing the paragraphs on the node-link-node triples , the traversal of the semantic net and the generation of cohesive linear documents is also facilitated , as paragraphs are invoked only when the two nodes which they connect are simultaneously considered .
6 Some of the people who complain most bitterly about the community charge are those who discover after their homes have been repossessed that they must pay the charge not only on their new property — because it is imposed on the individual — but on the property which they lost , and which they thought was now the responsibility of the building society .
7 They are normative representations , reverential in tone , recuperative in effect and the ideological positions which they reflect are conveniently distanced from those of the SI .
8 Dutch scientists have developed catalytic converters which they claim are both cheaper and more environment-friendly than conventional ones .
9 Anglers are to challenge Yorkshire Water at a public hearing today over plans to abstract half the 10 million gallon flow of the river Hull , which they claim is already running dangerously low .
10 The libertarians , in common with the ideologists of the left , whose tactics they often self-consciously copy , frequently find themselves in conflict with their own party , which they claim is insufficiently ideological ( Durham , 1985 ; Gamble , 1986 ) .
11 Members of two Norwegian environmental groups have staged spectacular protests against oil exploration in the Barents Sea , which they claim is too risky because the inhospitable climate and months of winter darkness would make a clean-up operation impossible in case of a pollution accident .
12 But even if American anti-imperialism were diluted in practice , the British knew they still faced an uphill struggle after the war to regain the degree of international power and influence which they believed was rightly theirs .
13 The differences between virus nucleic acids and those of the hosts which they infect are very subtle .
14 The prior evidence to which they refer is largely work on ‘ flashbulb memories ’ ( e.g. Brown & Kulik , 1977 ) which will be discussed later in the chapter .
15 In the more seasonal forests , hummingbirds may be migratory , but in all forests they tend to breed at the time when the flowers on which they depend are most abundant , though as with the thrips and the Shorea species , there is some staggering of flowering times and avoidance of competition for pollinators between plants .
16 The lower frequency words exhibit statistically unstable behaviour , because the sample of contexts in which they participate is too small to be an adequate representation .
17 By notice of appeal dated 22 April 1992 the father appealed on the grounds , inter alia , that ( 1 ) the judge was wrong in law to reject the submission that any consideration of the children 's welfare in the context of a judicial discretion under article 13 ( a ) of the Convention was relevant only as a material factor if it met the test of placing the children in an ‘ intolerable situation ’ under article 13 ( b ) ; ( 2 ) the judge should have limited considerations of welfare to the criteria for welfare laid down by the Convention itself ; ( 3 ) the judge was wrong in law to reject the submission that in the context of the exercise of the discretion permitted by article 13 ( a ) the court was limited to a consideration of the nature and quality of the father 's acquiescence ( as found by the Court of Appeal ) ; ( 4 ) in the premises , despite her acknowledgment that the exercise of her discretion had to be seen in the context of the Convention , the judge exercised a discretion based on a welfare test appropriate to wardship proceedings ; ( 5 ) the judge was further in error as a matter of law in not perceiving as the starting point for the exercise of her discretion the proposition that under the Convention the future of the children should be decided in the courts of the state from which they had been wrongfully removed ; ( 6 ) the judge , having found that on the ability to determine the issue between the parents there was little to choose between the Family Court of Australia and the High Court of England , was wrong not to conclude that as a consequence the mother had failed to displace the fundamental premise of the Convention that the future of the children should be decided in the courts of the country from which they had been wrongfully removed ; ( 7 ) the judge also misdirected herself when considering which court should decide the future of the children ( a ) by applying considerations more appropriate to the doctrine of forum conveniens and ( b ) by having regard to the likely outcome of the hearing in that court contrary to the principles set out in In re F. ( A Minor ) ( Abduction : Custody Rights ) [ 1991 ] Fam. 25 ; ( 8 ) in the alternative , if the judge was right to apply the forum conveniens approach , she failed to have regard to the following facts and matters : ( a ) that the parties were married in Australia ; ( b ) that the parties had spent the majority of their married life in Australia ; ( c ) that the children were born in Australia and were Australian citizens ; ( d ) that the children had spent the majority of their lives in Australia ; ( e ) the matters referred to in ground ( 9 ) ; ( 9 ) in any event on the facts the judge was wrong to find that there was little to choose between the Family Court of Australia and the High Court of England as fora for deciding the children 's future ; ( 11 ) the judge was wrong on the facts to find that there had been a change in the circumstances to which the mother would be returning in Australia given the findings made by Thorpe J. that ( a ) the former matrimonial home was to be sold ; ( b ) it would be unavailable for occupation by the mother and the children after 7 February 1992 ; and ( c ) there would be no financial support for the mother other than state benefits : matters which neither Thorpe J. nor the Court of Appeal found amounted to ‘ an intolerable situation . ’
18 By notice of appeal dated 22 April 1992 the father appealed on the grounds , inter alia , that ( 1 ) the judge was wrong in law to reject the submission that any consideration of the children 's welfare in the context of a judicial discretion under article 13 ( a ) of the Convention was relevant only as a material factor if it met the test of placing the children in an ‘ intolerable situation ’ under article 13 ( b ) ; ( 2 ) the judge should have limited considerations of welfare to the criteria for welfare laid down by the Convention itself ; ( 3 ) the judge was wrong in law to reject the submission that in the context of the exercise of the discretion permitted by article 13 ( a ) the court was limited to a consideration of the nature and quality of the father 's acquiescence ( as found by the Court of Appeal ) ; ( 4 ) in the premises , despite her acknowledgment that the exercise of her discretion had to be seen in the context of the Convention , the judge exercised a discretion based on a welfare test appropriate to wardship proceedings ; ( 5 ) the judge was further in error as a matter of law in not perceiving as the starting point for the exercise of her discretion the proposition that under the Convention the future of the children should be decided in the courts of the state from which they had been wrongfully removed ; ( 6 ) the judge , having found that on the ability to determine the issue between the parents there was little to choose between the Family Court of Australia and the High Court of England , was wrong not to conclude that as a consequence the mother had failed to displace the fundamental premise of the Convention that the future of the children should be decided in the courts of the country from which they had been wrongfully removed ; ( 7 ) the judge also misdirected herself when considering which court should decide the future of the children ( a ) by applying considerations more appropriate to the doctrine of forum conveniens and ( b ) by having regard to the likely outcome of the hearing in that court contrary to the principles set out in In re F. ( A Minor ) ( Abduction : Custody Rights ) [ 1991 ] Fam. 25 ; ( 8 ) in the alternative , if the judge was right to apply the forum conveniens approach , she failed to have regard to the following facts and matters : ( a ) that the parties were married in Australia ; ( b ) that the parties had spent the majority of their married life in Australia ; ( c ) that the children were born in Australia and were Australian citizens ; ( d ) that the children had spent the majority of their lives in Australia ; ( e ) the matters referred to in ground ( 9 ) ; ( 9 ) in any event on the facts the judge was wrong to find that there was little to choose between the Family Court of Australia and the High Court of England as fora for deciding the children 's future ; ( 11 ) the judge was wrong on the facts to find that there had been a change in the circumstances to which the mother would be returning in Australia given the findings made by Thorpe J. that ( a ) the former matrimonial home was to be sold ; ( b ) it would be unavailable for occupation by the mother and the children after 7 February 1992 ; and ( c ) there would be no financial support for the mother other than state benefits : matters which neither Thorpe J. nor the Court of Appeal found amounted to ‘ an intolerable situation . ’
19 They wanted to drink , failing a quick thrash with a woman , and then tumble back into the field and race shouting into the forest to make the kill of which they had been unkindly baulked .
20 Sleeping cars with en-suite bathroom , shower and toilet were barely recognisable as the BR Mk 1 vehicles from which they had been skilfully converted .
21 The brandy , which they had been too polite to refuse , had made them drunk in a very short time , as they were not used to drinking anything stronger than beer .
22 They also lost their entitlement to housing benefit and income support , upon which they had been very dependent as they were unemployed .
23 The general approach which they make is extremely varied , from being quite clandestine to being rather pushy. 1 think the more senior one becomes , the more serious any headhunting approach becomes .
24 The fact that the rights which they exploited were only exercisable overseas was irrelevant in the absence of any financial interest in the subsequent exercise of the rights by the sub-licensee .
25 Japan and Hong Kong called on July 17-19 for stricter control of anti-dumping measures , which they claimed were sometimes being applied in violation of normal price competition procedures .
26 The researchers were highly critical of the continued evacuation programme , based on these measurements , which they claimed was both medically unwarranted and psychologically traumatic .
27 When the British paid got away they were well at the back and could only climb to 13th , a second year in which they have been badly obstructed .
28 Hall ( 1988 ) , in particular , has argued that the power of that brand of New-Right Conservatism known as Thatcherism consists largely of the skilful way in which it has disconnected a number of themes — self-help , anti-statism , public order , anti-trade unionism , nationalism , share ownership — from the basically bourgeois discourse in which they have been traditionally lodged .
29 Once the door has been ‘ unlocked , ’ he submits the court should be obliged to consider whether it is appropriate in all the circumstances to decline to order the return of the children to the country from which they have been wrongfully removed .
30 The question for the court in any case where the discretion falls to be exercised , one or other of the gateways provided by article 13 having been opened , is whether or not the child or children should be returned to the jurisdiction from which they have been wrongfully removed .
  Next page