ECCOnoob

So that means after hearing the defence's reasons for bringing it up and the rebuttal from the prosecution, the judge held that it had sufficient weight to be used as primary evidence. It was clearly a relevant issue. Due process in action. ---------- Post added 17-11-2018 at 14:21 ---------- We are not "judging a woman on the clothes she wears" We are considering the intentions, choices, behaviour and actions of a young woman who is accusing a young man of a very serious crime.

Maybe she was? We dont know that. We weren't there. That's the whole point of judicial process. The Prosecution raising their evidence and arguments and the Defence raisng their evidence and arguments. Its then for the Judge to control how the evidence is presented and the weight of the same and for the Jury to make a decison once they have all the facts and evidence. Using your own analogy, if Ireland is this conservative country whose Jurors are likely to be prejudicial by the sight of provocative underwear then why shouldn't a defence counsel use it to cast doubt and raise argument on what an Irish girl's true intentions were when they themselves chose to wear such underwear?? A court of law is not all one sided. Can we also not completley ignore the obvious fact that the underwear alone would not have been the sole evidence factor in which the not guilty verdict was reached.

As there has been due judicial process and a verdit of not guilty the "victim" in this matter was the 27 year old man accused of rape. I dont think any lawyer is saying if your wear such underwear that is consent. However, we are talking about a defence argument against allegations of a very serious crime. It is certainly an arguable point and should be. 17 year old girl meets guy and ends up in someone's bedroom. Sexual intercorse takes place and they claim it was not consented to and they were raped. Now, what if that 17 year old girl was evidenced to be wearing Ann Summers crotchless knickers and a peekaboo bra. What if perhaps they were were wearing a dominatrix outfit and whip under their clothing. Should the court be debarred from raising these key facts? Should they be discounted as evidence when challenging whether a girl went out with an intent of finding a man to have sex with? Should they be discounted as evidence when the defence attempt to cast doubt on the the Girl's non-consensual allegations? Its a slippery slope for government to edit what a court advocate can and cannot use as evidence when presenting their case. That's what the prosecution counsel and judge is there for. THEY should have the choice over whether something is relevant.

Probably not. But I suspect that is not the specific aim of the advert. What it has created instead is a phenomena where without having to pay a penny to them, national newspapers, internet forums, social media, bloggers, vloggers, reactionists, people in the office, people on the bus and people in the pub are all talking about it. Retweets, postings, discussions, comparisons, youtube clips, articles, features......over and over and over are saying two little words "John Lewis" The advert itself doesn't say thou must come immediately to John Lewis. Its the storm that surrounds it which plants the store in everyone's head. The simple test of this..... of the 100 or so Department Store companies in the UK, what is the one that everyone is talking about. When people are thinking department store, what is the one that instantly is in thier minds. That's the goal.

I would agree. I would also like to see the figures of much of Donald Drumpf's not taking a salary stunt its outweighted by the amount taxpayers have been forced to pay into his companies through Drumpf insisting they have government events in his hotels, or his backhanders and winks to use government money on Trump real estate investments or his hundreds of taxpayer funded trips to his own resorts or his backhanders and winks to get preferential policy and Presidential Office approval on legislation which will be advantageous to his business investments and industry. As for charitable payments... I bet its all served with a big slice of tax dodge. Lets not forget his own charitable foundation has had dozens of lawsuits and allegations into its ethics. Oh and a suspicious rapid increase in donations to "right wing" organisations from 2010 onwards. My only hope is that one day he will be called out and has a great fall from the top of his gaudy vulgar fire damaged tower.

Looks like you are so desprate to make a point you fail to read any of the rest of my post that was clearly ALSO addressing the original poster's references to activities in the railway station. I am talking about the practicalities of pausing an entire operation for two minutes and this a silent mark of respect being far more than just people not talking as you seem to think.

Oh come on. Dont be so rediculous. Are you saying that during the "2 minutes silence" mark of respect you would be perfectly happy for the trains to be screeching in and out, the despatchers to keep blowing their whistles, passengers to be disembarking, luggage and trolleys trundelling around the place..... ....You would be happy for the barristas and cashiers to carry on scanning items and frothing up their coffees as long as they did it without speaking?? I would think it perfectly obvious what happens when most businesses (particuarly) customer facing roles observe such things.

....thus making an obersation of the two minutes silence a compulsory activity for the staff and customers whether they wanted to or not. As others have said, why was such action necessary??? Why are people not free and able to pay their respects in their own ways without the forced methods, finger pointing and criticism. Its exactly the same with the railway station as brought up by the OP. They state they are "disgusted" with people not observing it and the station not announcing it but its not that simple. IF the station did announce it, the station staff would feel compelled to down tools and observe it, the drivers and conductors would have to stop and observe it, the trains would have to cease running whilst it was being observed and that would not only disrupt the timetables themselves but involve major planning from stations, line controllers, signallers and train companies. Customers would have no option but to wait whilst it was being observed and potentially be delayed as a result of it. All of which is again, is creating a compulsion on something whether or not a person wants to participate. "Lest we forget". No we certainly shouldn't. But does that necessary mean that 100 years and several generations after the event the populus should be mandatory forced into a set method of rememberence whether they are inclined to or not. Why that SPECIFIC event? There are lots of other wars. There are lots of other horrendous crimes against the human race and mass fatality. Why are they ignored and others are given the spotlight? Why are people compelled to respect THIS event but free to choose if and how they respect others? Freedom is what was fought for. Freedom is what people should have.

Really? Not everyone is that gullable. Demanding the royal heads on a plate after her drunk-drivera car accident? Demanding that the queen show her public side during a period of grief? Thousands on the streets wailing and balling over the death of someone they knew nothing about and wouldn't have looked at them twice if a camera wasnt there. The nation's hysteria over her death was quite frankly embarrassing. Sloaney Tart who bagged a Prince and who clearly had significant problems with her own emotions, attitude, and acceptance of what she was married into. She was not innocnet with the wandering eyes either and caused great embarrassment to the family because of her behaviour. Yeah, she did a lot for charity - but so do lots of other Royals Yeah, she was deemed more of a people person - but protocol had to be adhered to for others and its not so easy. Yeah, she was a good mother - but so are millions of other mothers. Yeah, Charles and Di were not a marraige made in heven - but neither are many others. Its human nature. She was a fantastic minipulator of the press and knew exactly when to turn on the tears to get her way. She gone and its over. Kate and Meghan are the new people's princesses. It was not all about her.

If your location is accurate, according to this is does. http://ratings.food.gov.uk/business/en-GB/107366/Morrison-Supermarkets-Plc-Southport So does 587 other Morrisons stores, 2622 tesco stores and 780 Asda stores. As for your link, I am really not sure of the relevance. Supermarket trolleys are supposed to go outside. Therefore by their very nature they are exposed to rain, airborne dirt, a critical passing bird and fumes blowing out from every vehicle. That's before we get to disgusting germ filled members of the public putting their grubby hands all over them and revolting children climbing in and out of them. Yes, a supermarket has some cleaning standard to adhere to but its hardly practical nor would customers be prepared to wait for them to clean and disinfect every single trolley before and after each customer. Wonder how many shoppers clean and disinfect their reusable bags after every use? Food is wrapped, bagged, canned, sealed and shrink wrapped for a reason. Its not like people are carrying around a slab of raw meat or veggies just in their hands or straight into the basket.

Look at the grammar and subheading which clarifies it. The poll is who the people of Britan chose as their most 'loved person' NOT the people choosing their most 'popular British person'.

I would be in some agreement with that. I have always had a bit of suspicion with those sort of "must buy local" statements. Yes I am sure some artisan butcher on Eccy Road or in Dore Village or at some country food market in the middle of Hathersage might well have good quality locally sourced. But I am not so sure that Bobs meat van parked up on an industrial estate has quite the same quality control. There has always been a bit of inverse snobbery against Supermarkets from people who behind closed doors eat just the same. Its like when you laughingly look through cook books from our so called celebrity chefs. Just, you know grab some quails eggs and some sqid ink and a sprinkling of smoked salt they say. Oh aye, maybe in some shops on Kensington High Street perhaps. I will just pop into my local Happy Shopper and pick them up..... oh, all they seem to have a bag of spuds, some Crispy Pancakes and a tin of peas. Back on point though, I would agree supermarkets have come on in leaps and bounds over the decades. I certainly have more faith in their standards as oppose some of the local vendors.

It may have escaped your attention but we dont have votes based on the "population" we have a thing called the electorate. Population includes newborn babies, children, protected persons with insufficient mental capacity, incarcerated prisoners. NONE of whom have any relevance to electoral proceedings. Now, how many more times do you need to be told. Out of the 72% percentage who bothered to turn out to vote. The MAJORITY result was the leave vote. Just like in every other election and referendum in history - no shows, dont knows and spoilt ballots dont count. That is democracy. Your obsession with this meaningless "40%" figure is becoming tedious. For all I wish we did, the fact is that we do not have compulsory voting in this country. You cannot evidence that that 28% gaping hole are automatically remainers just like I cannot prove they would automatically be leavers. We therefore go on the results calculated on the turnout. Just like we have done for decades previous. Its over. The people (within the boundaries of the electoral system) have spoken. If you want to change the system for future referendums and elections - campaign for it.

What's wrong with letting the people paid to do the job of running the country get on with it. When they have sort out a proposed deal and then we can consider those things called FACTS. Quite frankly I am bored with the endless speculation, opinion and prediction. Makes me wonder if people had actually let the relevant powers get on with sorting out a deal without constantly undermining, having tantrums, name calling and generally spewing their bile all over the press and broadcasts we might have progrssed with a first draft a lot quicker.

Ah right. Thanks for that. If proved wrong and get called out, change the subject.

Are you going to withdraw your unnecessary insult. Look at the facts. 72% of the electorate voted in this referendum. Leave voters took the highest % share. In a two option vote highest share wins. Why is that so hard to understand?

From BOTH sides. I dont buy into this nonsense that it was only the leave side that exaggerated, misinformed, politically spun, minipulated statistics, used the media for mass speculation and filled the airwaves with doomsday prophecy. Both were at it. Yes, I would like democracy to be respected. I would like all voters to be fully informed. The public have freedom of choice just like they do on every election. The public have freedom to research, review, study, read and accept and/or reject anything they are fed with. I voted remain myself and YES, I wont deny I was shocked and disappointed with the result. However, I accept that it was a democratic vote and I am certainly not going to insult the intelligence of the 17.5 million leave voters by making them out to be brainwashed morons who blindly followed whatever the campigners and biased media fed them.

38 beats 36. Leave won. What exactly is the complexity here? It was not a general election. There is no majority seats. There are no constituancy results. Two options on the form and one result. Unless you are going to do some impossible mathematics and and show that exactly 16,775,991.5 people voted for each option and gave a 50/50 drawn result there is no ambiguity. Why bring up the non-voters?? They dont count. Never have counted. If somebody chose not to vote or couldn't make up their mind - tough. Their own problem. As for England wants this, the rest of the UK wants that is also wholly irrelevant. It was a UK wide vote and ALL votes from all countries were included in the results. Its done.

https://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/sheffield-mp-jared-o-mara-fails-to-vote-on-universal-credit-in-parliament-1-9410830 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42336727 https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/sheffield-s-missing-mp-how-jared-o-mara-s-political-dream-became-a-nightmare-1-8959343 https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/the-yorkshire-post-says-disability-rights-jared-o-mara-mp-speaks-out-over-autism-1-9410105 Sometimes actions (or in Omara's case a complete lack of) speaks louder than words. PS: He seemingly did say in back in December https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/suspended-labour-mp-jared-omara-11864327 "...In early December, the 39-year-old, who has cerebral palsy, announced he would not be attending Parliament on the advice of his doctors. But he said he would be “serving his constituents in other ways...”

Its is an extremely well thought out point of view. Using the internet to give an opinion or even criticise someone or something is one thing. A person peddling a completely mistargeted petition for the sole reason that a country they have no connections with reaches a deomcratic result THEY disagree with is totally ludicrous. I stand by my statement. Slacktivism at its finest. Ill informed. Ill researched. Unconnected to the situation. Detached from reality. No thought that perhaps a large number of the 58 million people who chose to vote that way are not facebook drones incapable of making up their own mind. No thought that perhaps a large number of the 58 million people who chose to vote that way have their own valid reasons for choosing to do so. Typical clickbait protestor feel good syndrome. I dont like it and therefore anyone who does is wrong. Waaaa, im going to start a petition and get all my friends to click on a mouse too. So far the petition signatories (most of which have sod all to do with Brazil) makes up the equivillent of 0.74% of those who voted for Bolsonaro. They really think that they have a legitimate ground for blaming Zuckerburg for this situation??? They really think that all those 58 million were all forced into voting against their independent choice by external influence?? ---------- Post added 04-11-2018 at 19:12 ---------- No, PERSONALLY I dont. Just like PERSONALLY I think building a wall on the mexican border is a stupid idea, Brexit is a stupid idea, buggery laws still being active in Singapore is a stupid idea..... I could go on. BUT, I am not a brazilian citizen. I am not voting for the leader of my country. If the majority of the people have voted for this president then they have just as valid reason to want him than I would to criticise it. That's democracy. I might even be more inclined to accept such a petition if it was about that very subject or even, by some tenuous link it was actually attacking the president himself. However, its not. Its lazily attacking Zuckerburg and his facebook organisation because its an easy target and the Bogeymen of the media at the moment.

Shame, I would have taken the opportunity to politely mention it. Maybe I would have taken a picture and popped it in to a local newspaper perhaps. The man is clearly playing the disability card and taking the Michael. He is supposed to be a public servant paid from us taxpayers to do a job. Since he clearly cant be sacked a bit of PR damage might make him and his "people" take notice. Reputation Management seems to outweigh over everything else these days.

What a load of crock. Nearly 58 million people voted for him but of course, its the fault of Zuckerburg not controlling fake news???? "nobody wanted to vote for him".... Yeah whatever!! Hey, here is an idea. Instead of pushing your link to a slacktivism site racking up mouse click signatures from unaffected and unknowledgeable randoms all over Europe, USA, Australia and the Far East how about you think about what the electorate of Brazil actually want as a leader of their own country and leave them to pick it through oh, I dunno, maybe a democratic vote. .....just a thought.

What lack? "public toilets" does not necessarilly have to mean on street council run operations. There are 7 official public toilets in the city centre signed up to the Community Toliet Scheme which have to offer their toilet facilities to the public regardless of whether you are a customer or not. https://www.sheffieldbid.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/LAVS-MapFeb18.pdf There are toilets in both the main and arundel gate interchanges. There are toilets in the railway station. There are toilets in the Town Hall, Howden House and Central Library. There are mandatory toilet provisions in every single cafe, bar, pub, restaurant, department store, cinema, theatre and hotel for customers. There are mandatory toilet provisions in every office building, university building and clinic for employees and authorised visitors. How many do you need???

Really. What about the remain campaign. All sweetness and light right? They NEVER used misinformation, media minipulation, spin and scaremongering did they. They never spent a load of taxpayer money producing a leaflet through everyone's door filled with woe is me doomsday scenarios. Yes, I complete forgot. All rigged wasn't it. All lies. 17.5 million voters are all gullable idiots with no thought for themselves eh.

The same grounds as every other democratic vote with two simple options. Nobody gives a toss what the "electorate" percentage is. The numbers that matter are who actually bothered to turn up and vote. If someone didn't choose to do so, tough. Dont bother to vote and you have no grounds to moan about the result. 17,410,742 or 51.9% voted leave 16,141,241 or 48.1% voted remain. 51.9 is higher than 48.1. Leave won. Even if someone wants to be all childish about it, out of the overall electorate figure it is reported that over 72% went out to vote. Its clearly more than arguable that a representative figure of the population went out an had their opportunity to have a say. That's how democracy is supposed to be. If the government thew its dummy out every time a vote went against what THEY personally wanted then what is the point? Might as well turn into one of those dictatorship things. They offered us a vote. We had it. Leave won. We are leaving. What more is to be said.