The Youth Support Act 2012 (Fictitious) sets out newly agreed services Essay

The jejuneness take for Act 2012 (Fictitious) sets out newly agreed services that Local Councils in Wales are obliged to bear for y - Essay ExampleAs fictitious character of its statutory obligations to provide support for young community, the Bangor metropolis Council has agreed to amply and part fund qualifying young people to attend Tree Tops. collect to some hostile policies of the City Council, some students cannot enjoy the provisions of The Youth Support Act 2012. This makeup go forth analyze the different grounds for bringing a claim with reference to each of the relevant parties. The paper will pay particular attention to points for both appellant and respondent. Claims for Pricilla The Bangor City Council has recently refractory that it will however fund a complete academic years attending at the youth club. As a result of this policy, the Council refuses individuals to enjoy the benefits of the fully or part championship contrivance before the age of five and if they turn fifteen within the academic year. On the ground of this keep policy, the Council refused to include Pricilla who is 14 years and 2 months old in this funding scheme. The Council argues that Pricilla can obtain only 10 months attendance at the youth club before she turns fifteen and hence she is not desirable for enjoying this particular funding scheme. Here, Pricilla can claim that the Tree Tops club provides recreational activities for young people aged between 11 and 16 and therefore she cannot attend the program if she is refused funding for the scheme on this age basis. Pointing to this, she can argue that the Council should raise the age limit to 16 so as to sanction maximum young people to take part in the Tree Tops. Furthermore, Pricilla may demand part funding scheme because she is yet to attain the age of 15. In other words, she can obtain attendance for 10 months before she turns fifteen in the current academic year and therefore she must arrest a propor tionate funding. However, these arguments may not be valid or justifiable in the look of law. It is important to note that The Youth Support Act 2012 defines a young person as mortal between the ages of five and fourteen years old1. According to this definition, Pricilla is not eligible to obtain the safeguard of this Act because she is currently 14 years and 2 months old. More precisely, she is not a beneficiary of the Youth Support Act 2012. The Bangor City Council policy framework clearly states that it will refuse to allow anyone onto the fully or part funded scheme if the candidates turn fifteen within the academic year. Hence, it cannot be claimed that the Council violated Pricillas rights provided by this Act. In an ethical perspective, Pricilla should be allowed to enjoy the protection of this Act and not be refused funding for the scheme on the ground of age eligibility cut-offs. If she is dis capable by the Council based on age criterion, she may not be possible to atte nd Tree Tops in her life because this club will not admit candidates aged over 16. Claims for Amreen and Nabeel Amreen, a 14 year old girl qualified for the full funding scheme was told by the Tree Tops that she would not be permitted to wear her sacred headscarf owing to concerns over her personal safety during game activities. Although Amreen agreed to remove her headscarf, her brother Nabeel is outraged by the decision of the Tree Tops. In this case, Nabeel can argue that the Tree Tops had refused his sisters thorough rights by asking her to remove the religious headscar