MPDTT

Wow, nothing gets past you! I am a life long Gooner - but I've been a season ticket holder at Selhurst for 4 years (since buying my first flat in Crystal Palace back in 2013). Anyway, this is class:

EEEEAAAAAGLES!!!

Correct. In an employment disciplinary, reasonable belief will suffice.

Brilliant!

I was thinking that there was no way that could be true.....but Google proves you right! My god! Charlotte Church was 15 years old when Britain’s best-read daily newspaper began a public countdown to the day on which she could be legally fucked. The singer, now 25, told the Levenson inquiry into press ethics and standards that the feature made her “feel horrible”, and described over a decade of bullying by the Murdoch media group and others.

Maybe I'm being over dramatic. We've all done things we aren't proud of.....even if it was just using Napster back in the 90s......I'm sure you understood the point though.

The one on the left was an absolute steal about 6 months ago from Creation watches - and its still at the same price! It's an Orient Star (Orient's luxury line). Here is a better image of it: Sapphire crystal, display case back showing the movement (which is in-house made) and really nice stainless steal strap. Its a deleted line, but Creation still have some retailing for £278 (plus import duty). Its original list price was over £900. It's actually my favourite. Orient are part of the Seiko Epson group. https://www.creationwatches.com/products/orient-watches-252/orientstar-retrograde-power-reserve-sde00001w-mens-watch-5089.html Creation have it in black and silver also (but they are more expensive):

@BigJag I decided to get a watchbox after seeing yours. Thanks for the inspiration!

Some of the worlds most expensive watches are as ugly as they come! Who would buy some of these: $167,000 $140,000 But the worst has to be the Hublot Mp 05 Laferrari - this watch is on sale at Jomashop for $248,400!!

But in the workplace, you don't need to prove anything 'beyond reasonable doubt', you need 'reasonable belief', so the burden of proof is lower.

It really doesn't work in practice - its pretty much an aquittal in disguise. https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,the-only-difference-between-not-proven-and-not-guilty-is-the-spelling-why-c_14833.htm

I was responding to a post 4 hours ago from Michael_3165, which suggested a change in the burden of proof. And on your second point - I agree - there is a big difference between not dismissing allegations / treating them seriously and automatically assuming the accused is guilty as charged. But the burden must alwaye be on the accuser to prove it in a court of law....even though, regrettably, conviction rates are unbelievably low as a result. If anyone can come up with a way of increasing conviction rates without relaxing the burden of proof principle, I'd be all for it.

A cornerstone of British law is the protecting of innocence & 'innocent until proven guilty' - and rightly so in my opinion. This harks back centuries to the "Blackstone's ratio" - all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously, for the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. And as much as I despise criminals in all forms, especially rapists and sex offenders, I'd be very uncomfortable with a shift away from presumed innocence - it moves the needle from being a democractic, liberal legal system to one that is more authoritarian. So wrestling with the issue of low conviction rates for sex crimes is very difficult - I want to see more justice done, but not at the expense of this pivotal aspect of our judicial system. Further, I recall many voices stating when Carl Beech was proven to be a liar (the man who falsely accused senior politicians of sexual abuse and murder), that the law should be changed to protect the anonymity of those suspected of serious crime (as well as accusers) until they are charged with any offence to protect reputations. Indeed this is a goal of the Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform (‘FAIR’) organisation. Then there is the use of social media - which we've seen is an incredible tool to bring about real change in the form of #MeToo and now #Speakingout, outing people like Harvey Weistein and Co and now the wrestlers who have allegedly behaved in such a disgusting (and in many cases illegal) manner. Yet I find the assumption of assumed guilt an incredibly difficult one, but when they are convicted of a crime - by all means throw the book at them!!! However I don't believe compromising on the burden of proof to secure more convictions is the way to go.

Well that's what it says on AEWs Twitter account

So Jimmy Havoc is off to rehab and counselling