Example sentences of "does [adv] [pers pn] [verb] [that] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | Does not he think that we are a bad example to tell people to act through the United Nations when we as a Government have failed to do so ? |
| 2 | Does not he feel that unwise comments such as those that he made do not help an already difficult situation ? |
| 3 | Why does not he admit that since last year 's Budget more than 500,000 people have been added to the dole queue ? |
| 4 | But does not he realise that throughout Scotland he and his cronies are seen as a ’ wee parcel of rogues in a nation who were bought and sold for English gold ’ ? |
| 5 | Does not he realise that there is a serious danger of recreating the student ferment of 1969 ? |
| 6 | Does not he realise that , in making his announcement , he has , to some extent , signed his political death warrant ? |
| 7 | Does not he recognise that it is a broadly based representative body in which it was open to the Conservative party to participate and that for him to call now for a debate , once its work is completed , is extraordinary ? |
| 8 | Does not he understand that it is action , not words , that the elderly , sick and disabled of Britain require of him ? |
| 9 | But look a little more deeply and you will see that something else has happened too ; if a number of people have gone down with the cold , does not it mean that a number of people have not gone down with the cold ? |
| 10 | Does not it mean that we are the party of hot money , not hot air ? |
| 11 | It does though I know that that programme that 's all being recorded there 's a funny atmosphere . |
| 12 | Does n't he remember that at the General Election the tabloids and so-called quality newspapers slaughtered Labour leader Neil Kinnock who did not have an affair with an actress or take freebie holidays ? |
| 13 | Does n't it mean that you 're presented with a set of faits accomplis ? |
| 14 | So , if erm so your , your , your principal complaint , I maybe wrong it maybe not your principal , look at page a hundred and twenty seven for your assistance , erm standard form of agreements restricted competitions , the service of the petitions or the agents provided so this is names and thereby restrict the competition as the agents them say erm then impose on that it was a regime etcetera , erm that the , the competitive the anti competitive one is your sub paragraph one is n't it ? , on page one , two , seven your saying look here is a of , of dictated through their bi-laws , a standard form that all agents must use , you say , erm , er that that restricts competition because it means that agents are free , or as free as they ought to be , erm to compete with each other or providing services to outside names , I follow that , I did n't say I except it , but I follow that entirely , erm , but does n't , does n't , if you 're right does n't it follow that the agreements are void ? |
| 15 | but the second way in which section fourteen arises is this slightly more oblique way , erm , it 's , it 's not really the question of competition law it 's more a question of administrative law or constitutional law , erm whether it arises on the question er , your Lordship will have to decide , but , if , if it does then we believe that our case is extremely strong , because what one is saying here is , is section fourteen a block to an article eighty five action , erm does it make it either virtually impossible or something lesser excessively difficult , er and we say er that that 's one aspect and two can we show it 's discriminatory , well we say first of all it is discriminatory because even on analysis of the bad faith argument they are putting in a claimant with an article eighty five case to an extraordinary length in order to make good his case , he first of all has to super declaration presumably that he is entitled to damages , but he ca n't get damages all he 's entitled to is the declaration if then do n't satisfy that claim by paying up and their not going to be ordered by the court to pay up because that 's a claim for damages and you ca n't have that then you have to sue them again on the basis of breach of bad faith , er no other provision in English law would go to that effect and that of course even , even that assumes whether rightly or wrongly and we say possibly wrongly that er , er the failure to comply with the judgment of the declaration would be bad faith within the meaning of the act , but even assuming it 's right it puts a plaintiff suing for breach of article eighty five in the worst position possible |