It's time for a bit of a lecture on the hierarchy of law in this country. I did run this past a renowned attorney yesterday (which was a Sunday). This is the way it works - I did have a drawing that explained it but it didn't come out in the post.
At the very top we have the constitution, not that the thieving zuma seems to think that it's on top. It is. Below that we have legislation – Acts and then we have sub-legislation which are like codes of good practice. The case law is on a par with the common law. It's law.
Everything else below that is merely an opinion and has no legal standing at all. Why do thing that the awesome awdoz and her band of merry social constructists get so pissed off when her opinions are ignored? It's because they are opinions, and carry no weight, hence my predictably rude piece on the awdoz a few years ago.
A certain issue has arisen with YES4Youth expressing an opinion. The story starts with a VA declining to give my client YES recognition after the process had been completed and absorption could be proven. My problem was that the client had already received the YES recognition in the prior certificate, this was in the early stages of the process. I argued that the YES code (and YES it is a code) focuses on absorption only, getting recognition at the beginning of the process is one thing, but that's a bonus. If you can prove absorption then you are entitled to the recognition.
Not so said the VA and referred me to the Y4Y FAQs somewhere in these FAQs it suggest that you can't count the YES people twice. I rejected this because it's an opinion. The VA then sent an email to Y4Y asking for clarity.
QUESTION
Company A registered for YES program in 2020 financial year which was their first year. The YES program ran until midway through the second measurement period (2021). The measured entity got recognition for the uptake in the previous verification, now they are being verified for 2021. They wish to claim for absorption under YES even though they did not register the "new" YES for 2021 financial year. Are they allowed to get points for absorption from the 2020 uptake?
They received this response
No,
They have already received their level up.
You cannot get an enhancement again based on absorption only. To qualify the ME would need to do another YES Programme ie a YEAR 2 and have 8 months by verification.
Trust this provides clarity
I have two problems with this. The first is that Y4Y is not the dtic, the second is that this is very clearly not backed by any code. I think this is superfluous, the dtic cannot pronounce on this issue unless it's from a gazetted code. Naturally I followed up with a pone call. I don't want to incriminate anyone here and this is not an incrimination - it's my opinion about an opinion. I have a decent relationship with the people at Y4Y. They take my calls and are helpful. But I could not back this opinion up with a piece of legislation, sub-legislation or otherwise. The person suggested that I should read the codes (which I fucking do because I have no life and I write about them a lot) and then told me about a clarification note issued by the dti (as it was then known) from February 2020. I was aware of it but hadn't read it. I was obviously caught out. I looked for it on the DTIC's website. I couldn't find it, I looked in the publications, the speeches and it wasn't there. It does exist because it's on the y4Y's website. It is a lofty document that says you recognise the YES programme in the first year but you must demonstrate a commitment for absorption when you request this recognition. Once you've finished the process you need to go back to the verification agency showing that the people have been absorbed. The implication being that you can only have it recognised once. There's no signature on this document all we have is a dti letterhead and a issued by THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY - 24 FEBRUARY 2020.
I mulled over this for a week. And then It occurred to me that this is an opinion, it's not a code. Hence it carries no weight. We can't rely on this. I actually sent the dti (as they were then known) an email this morning for comment – I was quite surprised the email didn't bounce.
I then spoke to the same person at Y4Y this morning and told them what is in fact the reality. The email that this person sent to the verification agency is wrong and has to be preceded by IT IS OUR OPINION THAT……… Because they based it on an opinion. In fact I would suggest that their FAQs now need to be either redrafted or preceded by a disclaimer that this is their opinion.
You may remember when some moron at the DTI published a gazette claiming that you were not allowed to recognise broad based scheme for all the ownership points. This was a gazette – it's official government policy. No one expected this and from what I head the bolsh was taken by surprise as well. He was forced to withdraw it within a few weeks. You can understand how a document of this stature can cause immense damage to the economy. The dti document in question is noise, but offers some clarity should you want use it.
I'll let you know what the dtic says should they bother to respond to my email – it hasn't bounced yet.
Everybody has their own opinions.
Comments