andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2012-06-29 12:00 pm
andrewducker) wrote2012-06-29 12:00 pm
Interesting Links for 29-06-2012
- The internet will never catch on! (Article from 1995. Looks like satire from this perspective.)
- More details (and insider info) on what happened to RBS with their "software glitch".
- 35% of Scottish electricity needs came from renewables in 2011 - and 2012 is up 45% on 2011 so far!
- If the writers of computer programming books wrote arithmetic textbooks
I have seen so many coding books which use examples that are whole, useful programs to illustrate things, rather than tiny snippets that a beginner can actually understand.
- JPMorgan's $2Billion Trading Loss May be a teensy bit higher
- Money-laundering and corruption charges rock Edinburgh council.
As Zornhau put it "HEADS ON SPIKES! BRING BACK IMPALING FOR CORRUPT OFFICIALS!"
- When SCOTUS Upheld Obamacare
- People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare
- A great review of Season 1 of The Legend of Korra which highlights all the things that annoyed me about it.
- Is 40% the maximum level for UK public expenditure?
- Labour’s cowardice on immigration is sickening (Lib Dems also far too quiet)
- Upcoming Science Fiction and Fantasy Movies That Aren't Remakes, Sequels or Prequels
- Ursula the Sea Witch Forced to Get Liposuction for Disney Villains Beauty Line
- Verdict on 'not proven' sought from Scottish public
- Time to scrap the tax on e-books
- Scientists come up with spray on battery
- Israel stages Holocaust survivor beauty pageant
- A touching story of intolerance that brought a tear to my eye.
- The Nordic Model - I thoroughly approve
no subject
Historically, the two verdicts available to Scots juries were that the case had been "proven" or "not proven". However in a dramatic case in 1728 the jury asserted "its ancient right" to bring in a "not guilty" verdict even when the facts of the case were proven (see jury nullification). As the "not guilty" verdict gained wide acceptance amongst Scots juries, Scots began to use "not guilty" in cases where the jury felt the "not proven" verdict did not adequately express the innocence of the defendant. Shrewd defence then further encouraged this interpretation in order to persuade juries unwilling to bring in a "not guilty" verdict that the "not proven" could be brought in as a lesser or "third verdict".
no subject
"When there is insufficient evidence to convict, but the words "not guilty" stick in the throat, then your verdict is "not proven."
no subject
no subject
There are little bits of Scottish law is are cross-fertilisation from England (mainly) but then you could argue that most of Scots Law is a cross-fertilisation of Dutch law with a vague memory of Roman Law.
I recall an interesting case (possibly English) where some guy was arrested and his defence was entrapment, which is a doctrine that exists in the US but not in the British legal systems. The guy has basically been watching too much LA Law.
no subject