Leaving Cert business papers 'nice' while Junior Cert German was 'approachable exam'
The higher and ordinary Leaving Certificate business papers were "nice", while the Junior Certificate German paper was an "approachable exam", according to teachers.
Commenting, Studyclix subject expert and business teacher, Claire O'Brien of Colaiste Muire, Crosshaven, Cork, said: 'Overall, the Higher Level paper looked to be a nice paper; students in our school said that they were happy with the paper but found some of the short questions tough.
Advertisement
"There were a lot of short questions focused on units 6 and 7, including questions on Inflation, Taxation, European Union, Global Business and International Trade. This highlights that global current topics are always related to the Business course and exam.
'The Applied Business Question this year was on units 2, 3 and 4, so there was no surprise that part A asked about entrepreneurial skills and characteristics.
"Part B asked about the management activity of control, asking students to evaluate, meaning they need to share their opinions with relevant business knowledge. Some students can find this difficult.
"Part C was about the functions of Human Resource Management, which is a nice question, but students would have had to be careful to relate the functions to the text about Inis Bia."
Advertisement
O'Brien said in the long questions there was, again, a link to current affairs, with the European Union and International Trade being reflected on.
"This question brought in Global Marketing, which allowed students to connect between units and highlight their global knowledge, again linking to the real world," she said.
"There was a nice mix of the units throughout the long questions that helped students to have more choices on the paper. Questions from Contract Law, Employment Equality, Government's effects on businesses, Unfair Dismissal Act, Management Skills (Communication and Management), Insurance, Change, Business Expansion and Marketing.
"There were a few mathematical questions, with a calculation on pay and the break-even chart. This again would have helped with students' choice as it gave a break from the theory questions.'
Advertisement
On the ordinary level Leaving Certificate business exam, O'Brien said it had a "nice mix" of short questions using a lot of different techniques, like ticking the box, giving definitions, labelling diagrams, and matching the terms.
"Again, we see real life example coming into the ordinary level paper's long questions, with the high-ticket prices for Oasis to Apple's €13 million tax bill ruled by the European Union.
"Overall, seems to have been a nice paper with a range of questions to cover all the units."
Junior Certificate German exam
Commenting on the Junior Certificate German exam, which was common level, Studyclix subject expert and German teacher Geraldine Dwyer said it was "pleasant" and covered a range of topics.
Advertisement
Lifestyle
Leaving Cert Irish Paper 2 'very manageable' with...
Read More
Dwyer, who teaches German at St Mary's Secondary School, Macroom, Co Cork, said the paper covered a range of topics in the Reading Comprehensions, such as signs, compound nouns, celebration and food, holidays, travel, and German school tradition.
"The exam included different question formats, such as match up, multiple choice and questions to be answered in English," she said.
"The comprehensions to be answered in English required considerable detail and a good range of vocabulary. The written section was like the format in past papers, as it contained a fact file and blog.
"The blog covered a range of topics and gave an opportunity to use knowledge on various topics, such as siblings, weekend, pet, pocket money, school, school trip, languages and Christmas Holidays in the past tense. In all, the exam had a good variety of topics and was an approachable exam.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘He left us with nothing': the British investors swindled by a German property firm
'He took everything, left us with absolutely nothing,' says David Middleton, one of thousands of British and Irish investors who racked up huge losses from the collapse of a German property ponzi scheme. The 72-year-old pensioner from Northern Ireland is referring to Charles Smethurst, the German-British businessman who set up Dolphin Capital in 2008, later renamed Dolphin Trust, then German Property Group (GPG), with 200 affiliated companies. In July 2020, the business filed for insolvency, owing more than €1bn to up to 25,000 investors around the world. Smethurst was convicted this month of 'serious fraud' and sentenced to six years and 11 months in prison by a regional court in Hildesheim, in northern Germany. As part of a plea bargain, he admitted to four of 27 counts of commercial fraud, filed against him by the Hanover public prosecutor's office last October, for total damages of €56m. The other charges were dropped in return for his confession to speed up the trial, which was due to run into August. Dolphin's glossy brochures promised readers double-digit returns for investing their money in a scheme that pledged to restore historic buildings across Germany – including the ruins of castle Dwasieden on the Baltic Sea island of Rügen – and turn them into luxury apartments. However, few were ever restored. Investors were mainly from the UK, Ireland, France, Singapore and South Korea and included financial institutions and individuals, many of whom lost their pension pots or other savings after regular interest payments dried up in 2019. Smethurst's fraud conviction related to €60m in investments made by the French fund manager Horizon AM, including €30m in the Pariser Strasse project in Berlin. The court heard that the building was never bought, but the funds were used by Smethurst's company to meet other obligations. He served a prison sentence for fraud between 2000 and 2003 in an unrelated case. Horizon said it was 'led to believe we were partnering with an experienced and reputable real estate developer' as Dolphin provided the firm with 'highly detailed due diligence documents' and sent regular reports wrongly suggesting projects were 'progressing as planned'. The investor was not aware of Smethurst's previous fraud conviction. 'According to findings from the insolvency administrator and the criminal investigation, a significant portion of the funds was diverted abroad to jurisdictions with strict banking secrecy, notably the British Virgin Islands and possibly the Cayman Islands,' Horizon said. 'These jurisdictions do not cooperate with European authorities, which means that the money trail goes cold. This illustrates the systemic failure of cross-border cooperation in cases of fraud, and why victims like us are left without meaningful recourse. 'We are still wondering where the money went, what remains, and whether it is still possible to recover anything to compensate Horizon and its investors.' UK individual investors told the Guardian they are angry, and fear that Smethurst will be released early for good conduct and recover the hidden funds for himself. Middleton and his wife, Janet, invested in Dolphin in 2015: his pension lump sum of £100,000 and her inheritance of £120,000. Their financial adviser, the late Alastair Hooks, told them it was low-risk and supported by the German government, Janet Middleton recalls. 'To be honest, I was nervous about it and strongly stated that as pensioners we could not afford to lose this amount of money, but again we were assured there was no risk.' After Dolphin filed for insolvency, Hooks did not return their calls, and the couple discovered he had unregistered from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in 2012. She says they have explored every avenue – even as they dealt with David being diagnosed with bowel cancer – but have not recovered any of their investment. Janet says Smethurst's sentence 'seems very lenient to me … Smethurst may well serve his sentence and even get early release for good behaviour while other people like David and I now serve a sentence in our retirement economically'. A former NHS nurse, she says the couple had been looking forward to a comfortable retirement but have had to budget their outgoings; they have not had a holiday in years and both drive 20-year-old cars. The Hildesheim court said it did not order Smethurst to make any payments to investors because it could not establish that he had personally siphoned off any funds. Justus von Buchwaldt, of the law firm BBL, the insolvency administrator who testified in June, subsequently said: 'I fear that this is only the tip of the iceberg. It is still unclear if other people were involved in this large-scale fraud and where most of the investments ended up.' Of an estimated €1.3bn of investments received by the property company, about €800m is missing. The Hanover prosecutor's office said it had investigated other company officials but could not find evidence of any wrongdoing. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion It is one of Germany's biggest investment scandals since the second world war, and the German authorities have been criticised for being slow to intervene, even though the property company stopped filing financial accounts in 2015. Alison Moncrieff-Kelly, 63, a freelance musician from Kent and former director of the Rye arts festival, was a Dolphin investor. She said: 'This seems a pathetically small price for Smethurst to pay for such heinous and convoluted levels of crime. Where's the money gone is the big question … and six years 11 months doesn't touch the sides.' Most of the listed buildings acquired by GPG were never redeveloped and left derelict. Von Buchwaldt at BBL has sold 20 of 75 properties so far, for more than €87m, and has yet to distribute the proceeds to investors. Those sold include castle Dwasieden, a listed former brewery in Bad Aibling in Bavaria and a period villa in Fürstenberg/Havel in Brandenburg. The property sales are expected to take years as the legal situation is often complex. Almost 8,000 creditors have filed claims with BBL against the collapsed property group, out of an estimated 15,000 to 25,000 investors globally. Von Buchwaldt has said BBL would work with the UK's FCA, Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). Debbie Kay Randles, 67, invested £25,000 in Dolphin in 2015 and, like others, has also lost money in other investment schemes. She paid £6,000 to a financial claims company in an attempt to recover her Dolphin investment, but 'they just disappeared'. She even enlisted a private detective to track down the claims firm. 'It's just been an absolute ongoing nightmare,' she says. 'I've not got a lot left, so I'll just keep working, probably until I'm 75, and then retire.' A former TSB employee, she now works for a window blinds business and lives in York. Moncrieff-Kelly says the trial 'doesn't address this issue of how incredibly badly regulated financial affairs are in the UK … I don't know if it's happening so much in any other country in the world.' She points to the 'middlemen' – financial advisers who are typically paid commission of 20% to 30% and 'kept that money' despite 'selling a fraud'. She invested in Dolphin after her financial adviser suggested it. Moncrieff-Kelly has recovered about half her £80,000 investment – money she inherited from her late mother – from the FSCS, with the help of a claims company that took the other half as payment. The FSCS says it has paid compensation to more than 1,900 customers in relation to Dolphin/GPG investment products, and a further 150 people have open claims. Compensation may have been triggered in relation to unsuitable financial advice that customers were given. It says it cannot put a figure on the compensation paid because it includes payouts for other investment losses. The SFO declined to comment while the FCA said it could not comment on individual firms. 'People don't understand the trauma and the damage that [fraud] has done,' says David Middleton. 'People think [with] white collar crime, slick City crime, there's no victim. There is a victim.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Starmer urged to act after Trump threatens Commonwealth ally Canada
Keir Starner is facing calls to act after Donald Trump cut off talks with Canada and threatened the Commonwealth country with more trade tariffs. Just weeks before president Trump is due to meet King Charles, Canada's official head of state, on a visit to the UK, he claimed he had 'such power' over the country but added 'I'd rather not use it.' In a move that caused market turmoil amid fears of a renewal of Trump's trade war, he said he would tell Canada the levies they will have to pay on goods entering the US '....within the next seven day period.' The call for Starmer to intervene comes after a similar diplomatic row exploded earlier this year when the PM declined to back Canada against Trump's ambitions to turn it into the 51st state of the USA. A Conservative MP in Canada and a former ambassador were among those to criticise the UK prime minister for failing to stand up for their country. The latest attack on Canada comes at a a difficult time for the Labour leader. He is hoping to woo President Trump on a historic second state visit to the UK in September, when he will meet the King, a keen champion of the Commonwealth. Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper said: "Once again, Donald Trump has shown contempt for his allies by continuing his damaging war on trade. With such an unreliable partner in the White House, the government needs to strengthen our economy, by establishing a bespoke UK-EU Customs Union, and work closer with our European and Commonwealth allies to create a coalition of the willing to end Trump's trade war." SNP MP Stephen Gethins said: 'The Trump project, just like Brexit, is about throwing up barriers to trade with our partners that will cost jobs and damage public finances. The UK needs to be building bridges with states like Canada and the EU that will help deliver sustainable economic growth. There have to be serious questions around the Labour government's judgement over the offer of a state visit to Trump.' The latest row erupted over Canada's plans for a digital services tax. In a post on Truth Social, the president complained that he had 'just been informed' of the move, which could leave some American technology companies with large bills. Trump called the plans 'a direct and blatant attack on our Country.' 'They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also,' he wrote, added that as a result the US was 'hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately.' Trump later claimed the US has 'a great relationship with the people of Canada' but that its government, headed by the former governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney, had made things 'very difficult'. He added: 'We don't want to do anything bad, but ... economically ... we have such power over Canada. I'd rather not use it, but they did something with our tech companies today, trying to copy Europe.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Prepare for economic collapse: last week the 2026 British financial crisis became inevitable
Make a note of last Friday's date: June 27 2025. It was the day that Britain's coming financial crisis became inescapable. In backing away from his attempt to slow, however feebly, the rise in benefits spending, Sir Keir Starmer was signalling to the world that Labour would never bring Britain's budget back into balance. The storm might break in 2026 or 2027 or even later. Labour politicians will do everything in their power to postpone the reckoning. But debts are not just paper liabilities; they end up being recovered. We have all just watched a hopeless and hapless PM throw away his majority and, with it, any hope of reform. And the bond vigilantes saw what we saw. What were Labour's rebels thinking? Their constituents will be hammered when the money runs out, when salaries and savings lose their value and imports become luxuries. They will be swept from office just as surely as were Greece's socialist MPs after the euro crisis. Do they even believe their own claims? Do they truly imagine that they are shielding the vulnerable? Do they picture themselves posed heroically over some wheelchair-bound child, fending off the ghost of Margaret Thatcher? I doubt it. They have, after all, seen the numbers. They know that one working-age adult in ten is now on benefits. They know that the number is rising, with a thousand people a day applying for Personal Independence Payments (PIP) – a rise which, tellingly, is not mirrored in any indices of sickness. They understand how PIP works. They know it can be accessed on grounds of, for example, anxiety, alcoholism, or ADHD (there are 50,000 claimants in this last category). They are aware that most new claims are for mental health conditions that are hard to verify. They will have seen the online videos explaining how to make a successful claim – you get this many points for saying that you have trouble getting dressed, this many for saying that you can't sit still, and so on. They might even be dimly acquainted with the age breakdown of the claimants. The fastest rise is among 25- to 34-year-olds, an incredible increase of 69 per cent in just five years. Incredible in every sense. Such a sudden and cataclysmic rise in disability would be visible on every street. Do you think Labour MPs, who meet PIP claimants in their surgeries, genuinely suppose that they are all incapacitated to the point of being unable to earn a living? No, this was never about justice for people with disabilities – still less about justice for taxpayers. Indeed, the most immediate consequence of guaranteeing existing but not future claims is to deter people from coming off benefits, knowing that there will be a lower rate if they go back. What we are seeing is the lowest and most cynical short-termism from MPs who want to keep their seats. In parts of urban Britain, Labour's election strategy involves distributing postal votes to welfare claimants along with the warnings that the Tories are coming for their benefits. From a purely partisan point of view, it suits Labour MPs to have constituents who claim state handouts. Sure, handouts are debilitating for the recipients and burdensome for the contributors; but the politicians who arrange the transfer often get an electoral reward. Labour MPs' WhatsApp groups have been pulsing with links to a study by the Disability Poverty Campaign Group which shows that, in nearly 200 Labour constituencies, the number of people claiming PIP is higher than the parliamentary majority. Among the MPs who are, so to speak, dependent on dependents, are Shabana Mahmood, Wes Streeting and Jess Phillips. You have to spend time around politicians to understand the extent to which such surveys strike icy daggers into their hearts. Never mind the moral case for self-reliance; never mind the debts we are loading onto our children. What looms in the feverish fears of MPs is having to mount the stage in their local sports centre and make a concession speech. Yet, paradoxically, they are making their defeat almost certain. The British state spends an unbelievable £52 billion a year on disability and incapacity benefits. According to the DWP, that figure will rise to £70 billion at today's prices by the end of the present Parliament. The changes that were first proposed would not have reversed that rise. They would not even meaningfully have slowed it. They would have shaved only £5 billion from the scheduled increase. In the event, that tiny dent was unacceptable to Labour MPs, fresh from running charities and NGOs, unused to hard decisions, unprepared for unpopularity, uninterested in economic reality. Asked in a BBC interview how she would make up the shortfall, one of the rebel leaders, Meg Hillier, replied airily that that was up to the Chancellor. In truth, the Chancellor's decision has been made for her. Labour backbenchers would rather pull the sky down on our heads than risk a bad local headline. Labour Whips, knowing that the only thing they have going for them is the split between the two Right-wing parties, will do anything to avoid a similar split on the Left. Labour is thus incapable of reducing expenditure. If it could not stick to its commitments on reducing the winter fuel allowance, capping child benefit or slowing the rise in PIP, it is plainly not going to attempt a radical overhaul of benefits. Without spending cuts, two options remain: yet higher taxes or yet more borrowing. Both damage growth – or at least they would if there were any growth to damage. In an economy that is flatlining (at least when we strip out the impact of immigration and consider GDP per head) they will topple us into recession. Which brings us back to the coming gilt strike. Who knows what the trigger will be? It might occur overseas. When bond markets turn, they are not interested in geography, justice or moral hazard. Rather, they look coldly for the weakest wildebeest in the herd, the spavined, limping laggard. And among major economies, that is Britain. Our politicians are shockingly complacent when it comes to the possibility of a full-scale financial crisis. We haven't had a proper one since 1976 and, frankly, even that was tame by global standards. Yes, the markets stepped in to punish Labour's profligacy, short-termism and cowardice. But our national debt back then was 47 per cent of GDP and falling; now it is 96 per cent and rising. Spending a chunk of my teenage years in South America in the 1980s, I am perhaps more alive than some of my countrymen to what a debt crisis looks like. I have seen, not just the inflation, the unemployment, the poverty – but the consequent lurch into authoritarianism. If twentieth-century South America seems too exotic, cast your mind back instead to the euro crisis. Ireland took it best, gulping down its medicine and making serious economies. Public sector salaries were reduced in real terms and there were rounds of redundancies. From cabinet ministers to claimants of child benefit, everyone had to take a cut. I suspect that, under Labour, our crisis will be more Greek than Irish. In other words, we will continue to vote 'against the cuts'. Our politicians will raise taxes in ways that would have made Charles I blush. We will elect parties that promise to 'end austerity'. And, as a result, we will end up having to make deeper cuts. And Labour? Labour will go the way of Greece's PASOK, as voters blame it for having failed to make softer savings while there was still time. It is true that voters themselves are in no mood for such savings yet; but good luck with using that as an excuse. Starmer might manage to limp on until the next election, a prisoner of the 400 standard-issue big-government Labour MPs who want him to stick to the Corbynite policies on which he was elected party leader. Either way, Labour itself is finished. Last week will be remembered as the moment when its MPs took the decision to check out.
