text:
Search in titles only Search in Hutchinson, George only
Hutchinson, George
Hutchinson Content---Moved from MJK crime scene thread
Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
paul emmett
Originally posted by Suzi View Post
I'm CONVINCED Mrs M wasn't mistaken! (For what that's worth!)Suz x
Hi, Suzi.
I think it's worth quite a bit, since as they say in PULP FICTION, "that's a bold statement." And I am surprised, most surprised, that three of us agree. What then do we make of Perry Mason's earlier contention that the only way Mrs. M could be correct is if that ain't MJK in the bed.?
And all this relates to time of death and GH kinda--although I think Michael's contention was on another thread. Sorry!
Last edited by paul emmett; 03-02-2008, 09:18 PM.
perrymason
I did say that here Paul, and I think its the only rational way to explain Mrs Maxwell, if she was correct. The body on the bed, identified by her lover and landlord as Mary Kelly, was dead long before 9:30 or 10:00am. There is not one medical opinion or estimate that has her death later than 6am, and she is in the rigor state when first examined.
Its the only way Caroline Maxwell could be correct based on the medical data, and since she talked to Mary,... for all we know a "g'day",... only twice in 4 months, and since her lover who has only been moved out 8 days identifies the corpse as Mary Kelly, I believe those speak to a likely correct Id by Barnett, and an incorrect one by Maxwell.
So, if you dont think Mary is on the bed, have at Carolines contention..but be wary, because another corpse on that bed but Marys, requires a conspiracy to keep the charade up.
To accept Caroline Maxwell means that you believe Mary wasn't the one found dead in 13 Millers Court, when they enter at 1:30pm.
Although that doesnt make Caz's art any less interesting.
Last edited by perrymason; 03-02-2008, 09:43 PM.
And there lies another thing......well 'SOMEthing'.....Call me conspiritorial................and I suppose we all are at times..... BUT there's always that possibility ........Miss Albrook or whoever........
I seem to recall that RIGOR was only setting in with what was left of Mary as the 'examination' started and that must have been long into the afternoon
Mrs M saw Mary with Mr Plaidy without a doubt (whatever day that may have been).........WHO Mr Plaidy was (and to be honest a plaid coat may have raised the odd eyebrow or whatever!) hasn't really been discussed.........I guess because he's sort of been bracketed with Mrs M
Last edited by Suzi; 03-02-2008, 09:54 PM.
'Would you like to see my African curiosities?'
Originally posted by perrymason View Post
To accept Caroline Maxwell means that you believe Mary wasn't the one found dead in 13 Millers Court, when they enter at 1:30pm..
Hello, Michael. OK, so, Katie bar the door, I agree. I was just waiting to see where the other two posters who were Maxwell fans fell in. And Suzi did.
I think the fire, the key, the "Oh, Murder" and the witnesses--all say it weren't MJK. Realizing my popularity right now, let me just do the witnesses. Three for; three against. For--Barnett. McCarthy, and, you forgot, Hutchinson. Against--Maxwell, Lewis, and an "unnamed woman." Let's look at 'em. For: Barnett, who I think is implicated in all this; McCarthy, who in a contemporary paper said that the body was mutilated beyond recognition; and Hutchinson, who nobody believes about anything. So, despite Lewis's lack of credibility and the no name of the unnamed woman, I think it's at least a wash.
There is more, but let's wait 'til others weigh in. Katie, do the barrin' ; protect us from the "C" word.
Last edited by paul emmett; 03-03-2008, 05:01 AM.
Against my better judgement...
Originally posted by Ben View Post
Quote [by Caz]:
In the meantime he keeps Hutch doing the hot shoe shuffle with what the cops might already know about the killer and what they will instantly forget when Hutch fox trots down the cop shop to offer them a killer he knows nobody could have witnessed if he is the killer himself.
Where does this come from? When have I ever claimed that no witness had seen Hutchinson before 9th November?
You misunderstood me. Maybe you should slow down a bit and read a tad more carefully. I merely meant that according to your scenario, Hutch the Ripper is supposed to have offered the cops Mr A - an invented suspect who looks the polar opposite of himself. If Hutch is the killer he knows that nobody who saw him could possibly have described anyone remotely like his Mr A - a risky move if the police could be suppressing witness sightings by the bucketload of Hutch, and none of anyone resembling his Mr A.
No such problem if Hutch was never at any previous crimes scenes. He just makes up a suspect he thinks will keep the police happy. He neither knows nor cares who previous witnesses have seen - they didn't see him.
They may or may not have suspected him. I've addressed this over and over again, and I'm literally foaming at the mouth in anticipation of regurgitating it all again. Don't you understand? If they never suspected him, it woudn't be at all surprising. They had clearly exhibited a preference for suspects with some form of medical training or experience in butchery, and those who exhibited some sort of external menace. If Hutchinson met none of this criteria why should we expect an 1888 police force - with no experience of serial crime and its perpetrators - to jump to the immediate conclusion that he must secretly be Jack the Ripper waltzing into a police station requesting an interview?
On the other hand, how could they possibly have snared him had he been guilty and they did suspect him? Not very easily, given his solitary (and thus unverifiable) actions and movements on the night in question. What are we expecting - a mysterious and convenient alibi to appear out of the blue in one of those lost-in-the-blitz reports? Or maybe we're expecting a lodging house deputy to recall the movements of one of his 400+ lodgers six weeks ago?
It's a wonder your semi-literate, working-class fiend (armed with his honours degree in Behavioural Science In An 1888 Police Station Setting) wasn't able to think all this through and save himself a trip to the cop shop then, considering he had no alibi but wouldn't need to produce one anyway if arrested later; met none of the criteria the police expected of the killer; and couldn't have been snared even if the police had picked him up at some point, popped him in an identity parade and a dozen suppressed witnesses had picked him out with a resounding "Gotcha!"
But fair dos, your suspect does decide to come forward under false pretences to legitimise potentially incriminating evidence linking him to one crime scene - Miller's Court. And it's not what I consider to be an imprudent or shortsighted move, but what killers actually do that matters. I hear you.
But what you're doing is to argue for a scenario on the basis of what you, Ben, consider to be the most likely and logical explanation for Hutch's behaviour, ie that he was the killer. Coming forward then has to become what you, Ben, consider would have been the killer's best option in the circumstances, and you can claim it was effective because the police never considered him as a suspect. You might think you know better than anyone else, right down to the small print, what the killer would have considered a prudent or imprudent move in Hutch's shoes, but your guess is really no better than anyone else's.
No matter if everyone else in the world (including the vast majority of identified serial killers) thinks it would be a truly, madly, deeply imprudent and illogical move for any killer in Hutch's shoes to make: it's what they actually do (apparently), because they - in company with you, Ben - consider it to be their most prudent option. In fact your whole case revolves around your arguments for Hutch's actions being prudent enough to avoid any suspicion falling on him at the very height of the ripper scare, while demonstrating today that he was quite clearly as guilty as sin.
Your scenario involves Hutch coming forward because he has the foresight and prudence to do so as a witness rather than wait and risk becoming a suspect later. Fair enough. If he is the killer he may well be thinking along these lines. But the reason you have repeatedly given for his fear that Lewis could identify him is his awareness that the police have suppressed previous witness testimony and could be doing so again.
This is where your layer cake of reasoning starts to teeter, because at the precise point where 'suppressed evidence' enters his brain, and he is meant to be having logical and prudent thoughts about how this might impact on Lewis's sighting if he doesn't come forward to 'legitimise' his lurking, he must simultaneously lose the plot and not see how it might similarly impact on the sightings of him at his previous crime scenes that he has no way of legitimising. (And you can't pick and choose between the terms 'description' and 'sighting' if your argument is that Hutch comes forward because he doesn't know what the hell the police might be suppressing.)
In short, you want him worried to death that suppressed evidence will place him at his latest crime scene, so he comes forward to place himself there, blind to the fact that suppressed evidence could then be used to place him at one or more previous crimes scenes.
At the same time you want him to have come forward secure in the knowledge that having no verifiable alibi is no problem, and that even if the fates are against him and he is suspected against all odds (and despite not meeting the expected ripper criteria) he can't be snared anyway, regardless of what evidence the police may be suppressing that links him to one or more of his crime scenes.
So I'm back to asking what Hutch the Ripper (not you, Ben) would think he was gaining by going to the cops, or would lose by staying well away.
He is either genuinely scared, as you claim he would be, that one suppressed sighting could scupper him, in which case he would be literally cr***ing himself over a second or third sighting he has no way of legitimising; or he doesn't actually believe any sightings could scupper him. Which is it?
You've got him dancing to your tune and doing a right old military two-step, haven't you?
Where is your evidence that you would both be so perfectly in step with each other's thinking?
And you have the cheek to expect Andy to produce evidence that Monty could have come to the East End and seen Hutch performing this precisely choreographed dance of yours!
Last edited by caz; 04-03-2008, 06:51 PM.
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Gosh, Caz, you're following me around all over the place!
If Hutch is the killer he knows that nobody who saw him could possibly have described anyone remotely like his Mr A - a risky move if the police could be suppressing witness sightings by the bucketload of Hutch, and none of anyone resembling his Mr A
Not true. Sarah Lewis had described a pale-faced "gentleman" with a dark moustache, felt hat and a black bag bothering her and a female companion on Bethnal Green Road on the Wednesday prior to Kelly's murder on 9th. In fact it was probably this descripion that prompted a least one newspaper to observe that the Astrakhan account agreed with other sightings of the supposed murderer. Then there's Liz Long's description of a shabby genteel "foreigner". I merely suggested that the more recent sightings from the "double event" had implicated not a foreigner, but an ostensibly working-class Gentile and that Hutchinson, if he was the killer, used his being seen at the crime scene as an opportunity to divert suspicion back in the direct of his virtual antithesis - a well-dressed foreigner, not a million miles from those pesky Jews that had interrupted him on 30th Sept (Just a thought!).
It's not a difficult concept to take on board; if he wanted to both legitmize his presence at a crime scene and deflect suspicion in a convenient and vulnerable direction, what better than the already existing generic scapegoat of a conspicuous wealthy foreigner?
But then this where we try to utilize our knowledge of other serial cases, such as it is. The ones that do insert themselves into police investigations do so for a variety of different reasons, and often under very different guises. Self-preservation is often an incentive, as it was in the Huntley and Code cases, but sheer bravado may also spurn them into into action. They may want to keep appraised of investigative progress, or have the opportuninty to say "It can't be me! I was cooperative, remember?" in the event that suspicion is ever directed their way, as was the case with prostitute killer John Eric Armstrong. If Hutchinson was the killer, any one of those considerations may have prompted him to come forward.
But what you're doing is to argue for a scenario on the basis of what you, Ben, consider to be the most likely and logical explanation for Hutch's behaviour, ie that he was the killer.
Why, no Caz. Wrong, Caz. I, Ben don't know for certain why Hutchinson came forward, but if he did so because he was the killer and was spooked by Sarah Lewis' sighting of him, we shouldn't be remotely surprised about it. It's a highly reasonable explanation for his coming forward as soon as Lewis' sighting became public knowledge, but yes, he may have come forward in reponse to Lewis without having killed anyone.
Coming forward then has to become what you, Ben, consider would have been the killer's best option in the circumstances
Again, I've never said anything of the sort. I've simply referenced other cases to counter some of the less-informed hobbyist claims that "There's no way a serial killer would do that!". I've also outlined why coming forward may well have seemed like a good option in his position...whether it was or not. Nobody - not Hutchinson, you or I - could have known what the "best" option was at the time. Some killers are caught because they came forward under a false guise, indicating a wrong choice, but the fact that they did it anyway should be sufficient to counter any spurious claims about killers never doing this or that when the historical record clearly indicates otherwise.
It doesn't matter what you or I consider to be prudent or foresighted.
No matter if everyone else in the world (including the vast majority of identified serial killers) thinks it would be a truly, madly, deeply imprudent and illogical move for any killer in Hutch's shoes to make
But that isn't the case, either, so you're on to a losing wicket with that one too.
If he is the killer he may well be thinking along these lines. But the reason you have repeatedly given for his fear that Lewis could identify him is his awareness that the police have suppressed previous witness testimony and could be doing so again.
Let's be clear about the nature of these "suppressed witness descriptions". Any member of the 1888 press-reading public would have seen what an "unsuppressed" description looks like and what a "suppressed" one looked like. At the Eddowes inquest, they only saw a suppressed description of a rough and shabby man. Come 19th October, and everyone was treated to the unsuppressed version, which included a heck of a lot more detail than that imparted briefly at the inquest.
A fuller description, mind, not "Red neckerchief, peaked cap, possibly called George Hutchinson". Obviously that was never going to happen. If the police were tipped off with a name, they'd track down the suspected individual way in advance of the full description being published. He didn't have anything to fear from "Ah, Mr. Hutchinson, just the man I wanted to talk to!", but he could have feared a fuller description from Sarah Lewis, because if she made a fuller description, she may have acquired a better sighting, and if she acquired a better sighting, the chances of her identifying him subseqently increased, and if her identification led to previous witnesses being wheeled in and all or most of them fingering GH, he'd have some 'splainin to do.
he must simultaneously lose the plot and not see how it might similarly impact on the sightings of him at his previous crime scenes that he has no way of legitimising.
It does impact upon it, but thanks to his proactivity, it would have impacted in a positive way. It would have laid the foundations for the preconception that here was a helpful witness. Get dragged in as a suspect after being clocked at close quarters in a close-knit locality, and that useful preconception is nullified.
One of more of the following:
1) Self-preservation.
2) A desire to keep-appraised of police progress.
3) Bravado and arrogance that isn't remotely uncharacteristic of serial killers (nor is it remotely uncharacteristic for that bravado and arrogance to manifest itself in such a fashion).
4) To sow the seeds of an erroneous preconception as to his role if ever additional incriminating evidence was to surface against him. "I contacted you guys, remember?"..were John Armstrong's purported words.
5) Legitimise his presence (see 1).
6) Deflect suspicion (or rather sustain it) in a false direction (see 1 again).
You've got yourself making laboured dance-analagies because you were stung by my suggestion that you favoured an upper-class suspect, haven't you?
Please try to put that behind you. I intended no malice.
Last edited by Ben; 04-03-2008, 08:27 PM.
Wading in...
Sarah Lewis describes a man wearing a widewake hat. Let's hypothesize that Hutchinson is known to wear such a hat. Let's further hypothesize that he was seen by other people in the area of Millers Court around the time of the murders. He may think it better to come forward with a ****-and-bull story rather than to wait for the police to come to him. At least he looks like an honest and open witness rather than someone who has to come up with an alibi--which clearly he can't.
Please note that I am not a Hutchinson Did It person. I am merely pointing out a reason why Hutchinson the killer might come forward rather than running like hell.
Ah, yes my Children...I see you need my help. :-)
Sarah Lewis was not describing Hutchinson!
She was describing (drumroll)....Blotchy!
I've heard all these arguments a hundred times before. But you are still putting your own head on Hutch's shoulders and insisting things like 'he would have some explaining to do' if previous witnesses had been called in and had identified him as a result of Lewis being able to identify him before he had come forward as a witness.
But whenever I remind you that coming forward at all in those circumstances would have presented the very real risk of the police realising he was Lewis's lurking man (since your scenario demands that Hutch himself believes it and that's precisely why he comes forward, and is just lucky if the police don't actually make the connection), and therefore needing to eliminate him as Lewis's potential suspect, in addition to looking for the new suspect he was selling them, you instantly change tack and insist that Hutch would have considered it a risk worth taking because he would have known the police couldn't snare him even if they did call in previous witnesses as a matter of routine (because of the Lewis sighting) and they identified him! I've never seen such flatly contradictory reasoning.
And you still don't get it, do you? One more time and I'll give up:
If Hutch is the killer he knows that nobody who saw him, Hutch the Killer, could possibly have described him, Hutch the Killer in a way that resembled his Mr A - a very risky move if the police could be suppressing reliable witness sightings of the killer, ie Hutch himself.
He cannot know for sure that the police are not suppressing some distinctive feature that they might recognise or look for the instant he showed up, and you cannot possibly know that Hutch didn't have any such features. If you now say he would not have shown up if he had such a feature... I will not be the least surprised.
No matter if everyone else in the world (including the vast majority of identified serial killers) thinks it would be a truly, madly, deeply imprudent and illogical move for any killer in Hutch's shoes to make...
Er, how can you possibly know that, Ben? Are you psychic now? Name one person (killer or otherwise; I'm not fussy) who actually thinks that a killer finding himself in Hutch's circumstances would be acting prudently and logically by coming forward, rather than lying low or taking himself off to Romford or somewhere.
Even if you could find an actual killer who came forward after finding himself in Hutch's shoes, you couldn't say for definite that he thought he was being prudent or logical at the time (despite being caught in the end), because you flip-flop yourself between possibilities like self-preservation or simple bravado and arrogance being your suspect's motivation.
I realise you are just covering all possible bases so you can deal with each objection to your hypothesis as it arises. But your overall case might benefit from actually taking on board one or two of the objections to your individual arguments (even if you don't consider them to be fatal ones) and picking the motivation for Hutch that you consider most plausible and sticking with it.
If I were you I would probably stay well away from the 'prudent/logical/fearful/self-preserving/suspicion-deflecting' end and cultivate the 'irrational/incautious/cocky/self-publicising' angle, because there can be fewer objections if you just claim the guy was a psychopath, gagging to see if he could outwit the cops and keep them guessing.
But I won't argue with you any more over the same old same old. You know my objections and I know how you deal with them.
Hmmmm, yes, a bit like Tony Blair saying, "Please let's move on" when he has been caught making things up.
I'm sure there's not a malicious bone in your body, Ben (when you're not accusing Hutch of the slaughter in Miller's Court, that is).
But there's also no sting in your tail when you make suggestions that can only have come from your imagination, and not from any post I have written since you arrived on these boards. So just before I move on, sting me properly if you can, and tell me which upper-class suspect(s) I favour, because I'm damned if I know. You can't be thinking of Maybrick because you are well aware that he was no more upper-class than I am, and I don't even consider him to be a suspect. I certainly don't favour Druitt, Sickert or a royal over anyone from the lower-middle or working classes and never have. So who can it be, since you obviously have the key to my private thoughts as well as to Hutch's?
Have a lovely weekend, and if you can't take on board my friendly suggestion for improving your case against Hutch, don't worry - I've put that behind me already.
Yes, but Caz, now you're the one putting your head on Hutch's shoulders. This rather obvious flaw in his idea may not have presented itself to him. In the 21st Century, we have grown up with cop shows etc that demonstrate that the police always keep stuff to themselves and don't tell the press anything. But In 1888 I doubt that would have occurred to Hutch or anyone. They probably believed that the cops spilled their guts to the coroner and the press. They didn't have the benefit of movies and tv shows and books where that point is made over and over.
Honestly, we'll never know why Hutch came forward if he was not in fact the genuine witness he presents himself to be. (And which I don't think he was!) He could be the killer. He could be an attention-seeker or some other kind of deluded wackjob who saw the whole thing in a dream and had to come up with some kind of 'real life' thing so he could tell the cops. One thing I'd like to find out, and that is how long he had been in Romford and whether he could any witnesses forward that would corroborate his account of his time there.
Hi Caz,
But whenever I remind you that coming forward at all in those circumstances would have presented the very real risk of the police realising he was Lewis's lurking man...
In the scenario I posited, he would have been perfectly happy for the police to identify him with Lewis loitering man because he would have got his story in first. Coming forward as a witness is infinitely preferable to being dragged in as a suspect and then being asked to explain his presence. If they identified him with Lewis' man, it would probably have been a case of "Oh, that was just Hutchinson waiting and watching for Jack the Ripper to emerge". An 1888 police force were more likely to arrive at that conclusion than "Here's Jack the Ripper walking into a police station and requesting an interview".
None of that is contradictory reasoning. That's merely observing a tactic that serial killers have resorted to in the past for various reasons and suggesting Hutchinson might have done similarly. If we know that it happens, and have evidence of it happening, it doesn't matter how illogical and imprudent we think it is.
Not at all, because by introducing the "Mr. Astrakhan" fabrication/misdirection he'd be re-empahsising the importance of the witness sightings that either weren't of him at all (Lewis' Bethan Green Road man), or related to a description that didn't mesh up with the circumstances of the sighting (Liz Long), thus reducing the impact of any suspicion that might have been temporarily placed on Mr. Generic Local in the wake of Lawende's sighting etc. In other words, "Focus on the Jewishy Leather Apron-esque sightings because they were of the REAL ripper (like mine!), and don't worry about the gentile ones...because they weren't".
He cannot know for sure that the police are not suppressing some distinctive feature that they might recognise or look for the instant he showed up, and you cannot possibly know that Hutch didn't have any such features
And you can't possibly know that he did (what a weird, weird argument!). As I've explained to you before, there is a difference between a description and a sighting. It is quite possible to see someone, remember their face and identify them subsequently without necessarily having the ability to deliver a good description. Hutchinson would have had more to fear from a good sighting than from a good description for obvious reasons.
But in an attempt to negate this equally basic concept, you're now positing the imaginary existence of distinctive stand-out features! Well...
Er, how can you possibly know that, Ben?
Easy, you said:
You don't know that "everyone else in the world" thinks that, so of course you're onto a losing wicket by pursuing that argument.
But your overall case might benefit from actually taking on board one or two of the objections to your individual arguments (even if you don't consider them to be fatal ones) and picking the motivation for Hutch that you consider most plausible and sticking with it.
I appreciate the suggestion, but it isn't as simple as that because I cannot responsibly impose "limits" on his possible motivations and restrict it to the one I like best. He might have been prompted by a number of the considerations I outlined above; arrogance, bravado, a desire for self-preservation and misdirection all have a historical precedent amongst serial killers whether they come forward under false guises or not.
...So does being ilogical and imprudent and "crazy", so I can't even rule that option out!
I don't need the "prudent/logical" argument to lend weight to the notion that Hutchinson came forward as the killer. Even if I said something like "Yep, he'd be completely bonkers to do that!" I'd need only refer to cases in which serialists have behaved in a similar fashion and the "bonkers versus prudent" angle is rendered irrelevant. Personally speaking, I don't consider it bonkers at all, and can see quite clearly why such a proactive measure as the one I've suggested may be considered quite prudent.
Thanks, Caz, and have a great weekend yourself.
Last edited by Ben; 04-05-2008, 02:40 AM.
In all probability, Cox and Lewis were both describing the same man.
A short, stout man, wearing a dark wideawake(billycock) hat. AKA - the man with blotches on his face.
Hi Marlowe,
It's possible, I guess, although the wideness of the brim is slightly (if not appreciably) at variance.
Billycock:
http://www.hatshapers.com/images/Dic...y/Dictio17.gif
Wideawake:
http://www.gentlemansemporium.com/st.../001068_sm.jpg
Not quite the same, and yet not hugely dissimilar. In fact, a quick google reveals that the two are occasionally regarded as synonymous.
Of possible interest here is Ada Wilson's description of her attacker; 5"6' in height, wideawake hat and sunburnt complexion. Not a bad match for either Cox's or Lewis's suspect, and Rosacia is a medical condition that may cause a face to appear blotchy and sunburnt; exacerbated, rather than caused by, excessive alcohol consumption.
Thanks Ben,
It's odd, but I had originally written two fairly long posts saying roughly the same thing regarding how the two hats were frequently used interchangably. But both posts disappeared somewhere? lol....So I decided to post a short one just in case...
Anyway, I think the main point here is that some people used wideawake and billycock interchangably, whether or not they were technically the same. Probably Mary Ann Cox could just as easily have said "wideawake".
If so, then it changes the chess board positions of the knights...on that night.
New possibilites arise!
Although I personally have no problem accepting that Hutchinson may have been involved with Marys murder is some form,as Ben has intimated, it would seem though that some still have a problem with a possible suspect or killer himself placing himself at a crime scene...as a witness.
Well...even though there are precedents for such occurrences, should you still be skeptical, you might just remember that Hutch did indeed put himself in Suspects shoes, not a Witnesses. Wideawake Man becomes odd but friendly after Hutch came in Monday night, switching the potential suspicious appearance of Wideawake outside a soon to be murder scene, to one of concern for Mary's safety.
Anyone that suggests after months of pressure to offer Pardons to entice information, that they suddenly gave in on Saturday the 10th, within 24 hours of Marys investigation commencement, and after learning of a suspect seen watching the courtyard, is kidding themselves. When that paper was prepared and signed, it was due to the fact that they now had a witness account of someone watching someone near a supposed Ripper crime scene, before the crime occurs. Sarah gave them a possible Accomplice or possibly even the killer himself,scouting,... and Hutchinson changed him into a witness friend of Marys, just looking out for her, after seeing her with the most lavishly embroidered suspect description in all of these cases,... the last man seen with Kelly.
To ask why was Abberline taken in disregards any humanity and the fragility of hope left in the man. To ask why wasn't Hutchinson a serious suspect himself..... after they dispensed with Astrakan, and reverted to Blotchy Man...who for the weekend, held the post of Suspect # 1.....is to me anyway, one of the most puzzling aspects of saga of the Police and George Hutchinson.
Best regards all.


text:
LatestStyleSneakersCulture
Chinatown Jeweler A$AP Eva Gives Us a Lesson in Links
(Highsnobiety Magazine) 2020-03-17 15:13 in AccessoriesWords By Max Berlinger
Highsnobiety / Filip Setmanuk
When it comes to bling, trends may come and go, but the noble gold chain is impervious to the whims of change. "They're approachable and durable," says Chiok Va Sam, the Chinatown jeweler affectionately known as A$AP Eva. Since founding her store Popular Jewelry in 1988, Eva has benecklaced clients from Kim Jones to Jake Gyllenhaal and Travis Scott. Here, she gives us her chain reactions to six iconic links.
Click here to order the new issue of HIGHStyle, a Magazine by Highsnobiety
"The Cuban Link emerged in the 1970s, around the same time as the birth of hip-hop. It's a thicker and more rounded variant of the traditional curb link, which is more flat and faceted. The exact origin of the style is unknown, and its mystique adds to its intrigue. One theory is that it actually started in the disco era, and MCs later adopted the style, bell-bottoms and all."
"The Figaro Link is a three- or two-link pattern that is interspaced with a longer, oval-shaped link. This style originated in Italy, hence the name Figaro, a reference to Mozart's famous opera. We mostly manufacture our Figaro links domestically in our own factories, but a good portion of them are still produced overseas, in their original motherland."
"The original intention of the Tennis Chain was to give off a feeling of casual luxury. This necklace is for those who want to flaunt their wealth and clout as shamelessly as possible. Or, contrarily, for those who don't mind eating cup noodles for a few months on end!"
"The Franco Chain, also known as the Box Cuban, is ideal for those who don't want a flat-looking link, or those that like the box chain but want something a bit more intricate."
"The Rope Chain is approachable because it resembles such a historic, universal object. It's ideal for those who want to have a solid chain with a pattern, without it looking too link-y and full of holes. Plus, it adds a rustic look to your style."
This story appears in the new issue of HIGHStyle, a Magazine by Highsnobiety. Click the link below to order a copy.
Words:Max Berlinger
a$ap eva
HIGHStyle
Max BerlingerContributor

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Platysenta discistrigia is een vlinder uit de familie van de uilen (Noctuidae). De wetenschappelijke naam van de soort is voor het eerst geldig gepubliceerd in 1894 door Smith.

discistrigia

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Original: Annual chapters
The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Act
S.M. 1988-89, c. 17
Bill 28, 1st Session, 34th Legislature
(Assented to December 20, 1988)
HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, enacts as follows:
DEFINITIONS AND PURPOSE
1 In this Act,
"agency" means the Agricultural Producers' Organization Certification Agency established under section 3; («Bureau»)
"agricultural product" means
(a) agricultural produce grown or harvested in Manitoba;
(b) livestock or poultry raised or kept in Manitoba, whether alive or slaughtered; and
(c) milk, eggs and honey or any product of agricultural produce, livestock or poultry produced in Manitoba; («produit agricole»)
"certified organization" means the organization certified by the agency under Part III; («organisme accrédité»)
"minister" means the member of the Executive Council charged by the Lieutenant Governor in Council with the administration of this Act; («ministre»)
"person" includes a partnership, limited partnership, syndicate, trustee, joint venture, and any association of persons; («personne»)
"producer" means a person who produces and markets an agricultural product in Manitoba; («producteur»)
"purchaser" means a person who purchases an agricultural product for resale or processing; («acheteur»)
"qualified organization" means an organization determined by the agency to be a qualified organization under section 14; («organisme admissible»)
"regulations" means the regulations made under this Act. («règlements»)
Purpose of the Act
The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the funding of
(a) a certified organization; and
(b) other organizations that represent producers of specific agricultural products;
by requiring the purchasers of agricultural products to assist in the collection of fees for those organizations.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS' ORGANIZATION CERTIFICATION AGENCY
Establishment of agency
There is hereby established an agency known as the Agricultural Producers' Organization Certification Agency.
Except as provided in subsection (3), the agency shall consist of not less than four and not more than five members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council who shall include the following persons:
(a) the Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture of the University of Manitoba;
(b) the Director of the School of Agriculture of the University of Manitoba;
(c) the President of the Manitoba Institute of Agrologists; and
(d) the President of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities;
or the person holding the equivalent office, unless any of those persons is unwilling to accept the appointment.
Where not all of the persons referred to in subsection (2) are willing to accept an appointment, the agency shall consist of those persons willing to accept an appointment under subsection (2) and such additional persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as are necessary to constitute an agency of not less than three members.
The term of office of a member of the agency shall be the period specified in the order appointing the member, and where that period has passed, the member shall continue to hold office until a successor is appointed.
The members of the agency shall be paid remuneration determined by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and such reasonable expenses as the minister may approve.
Agency is corporation
The agency is a corporation.
Chairperson and vice-chairperson
The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall designate one member of the agency as the chairperson and another member as the vice-chairperson of the agency.
Duties of chairperson
The chairperson shall preside at meetings of the agency.
Duties of vice-chairperson
The vice-chairperson shall act as chairperson when the office of chairperson is vacant or when the chairperson is absent or unable to act.
A quorum at meetings of the agency is three.
Majority decision
A decision of the majority of the members present and voting at a duly constituted meeting is a decision of the agency.
The agency may determine its own procedures in performing its responsibilities and exercising its powers.
Such employees as are necessary for the proper administration of the agency may be appointed under The Civil Service Act.
The agency is responsible for the following:
(a) determining what organizations are qualified organizations under Part III;
(b) determining a certified organization under Part III;
(c) recommending the designation of organizations under Part IV; and
(d) exercising and performing any other powers and duties assigned to it by this Act and the regulations.
Definition of "dependant"
In this section, "dependant" means a person who resides with a member of the agency and who is
(a) the spouse of a member, including a person who is not married to the member but whom the member represents as his or her spouse; or
(b) a child of the member.
Disqualification of agency members
No member of the agency shall participate in a determination by the agency under Part III that an organization is a qualified organization or that a qualified organization is the certified organization if
(a) the member is, or has been within a period of six months immediately preceding the date on which the determination or certification is to be made by the agency, a member of the executive, or an employee of the organization or any qualified organization that is being considered for certification;
(b) any of his or her dependants is a member of the executive, or is an employee of the organization or any qualified organization that is being considered for certification; or
(c) the member has, within a period of six months immediately preceding the date on which the determination or certification is to be made by the agency, acted as solicitor, counsel or agent for the organization or any qualified organization that is being considered for certification.
Immunity from liability
No member or employee of the agency or of the government is personally liable for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith and without negligence in the exercise of any power or the performance of any duty under the authority or supposed authority of this Act or the regulations.
Report to the minister
The agency shall advise the minister
(a) of a determination of an organization as a qualified organization;
(b) of a determination that an organization is no longer a qualified organization;
(c) of a certification of a qualified organization as the certified organization; and
(d) of an approval for fees of the certified organization under section 26;
within seven days of making a determination or certification or granting an approval of fees.
Report to the legislature
Each report provided to the minister under subsection (1) shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly within 15 days after its receipt by the minister if the Legislative Assembly is then in session or, if it is not then in session, within 15 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session.
FUNDING OF THE CERTIFIED ORGANIZATION
Application for qualification
An organization that considers itself entitled to be determined a qualified organization may apply to the agency in writing for such a determination.
Consideration of application
Upon receipt of an application under subsection (1), the agency shall
(a) review the charter and by-laws of the organization; and
(b) take whatever steps or proceedings it considers necessary or desirable to determine whether or not the organization meets the requirements of a qualified organization set out in section 14.
Determination of qualified organization
If an organization is a corporation without share capital incorporated under The Corporations Act, and in the opinion of the agency
(a) includes in the restrictions to its undertaking, the promotion of the interests of Manitoba producers and the development and promotion of a unified policy voice for Manitoba producers;
(b) is generally prepared to accept into its membership all individuals actively engaged in farming in Manitoba upon the payment of an annual membership fee; and
(c) is not a purchaser;
the agency shall determine that the organization is a qualified organization.
Loss of qualification
It is a condition of maintaining its status as a qualified organization that a qualified organization,
(a) in the opinion of the agency, continues to meet the requirements of section 14; and
(b) submits any changes in its charter or by-laws to the agency immediately following the making of any such change.
Agency to determine loss of qualification
For the purpose of subsection (1), the agency shall determine whether an organization is no longer a qualified organization.
Application for certification
A qualified organization may apply to the agency for certification as the certified organization.
Certification limited
Only one qualified organization may be certified as the certified organization at any one time.
Automatic certification
If on October 1 in any year
(a) no qualified organization has been certified as the certified organization; and
(b) the agency has received only one application under subsection 16(1);
the agency shall, prior to October 31 of that year, certify that qualified organization as the certified organization.
Effective date of certification
The certification under subsection (1) shall be effective from January 1 of the following year.
More than one application
(b) the agency has received more than one application under subsection 16(1); the agency shall, prior to November 30 of that year, certify as the certified organization the qualified organization which in the opinion of the agency represents the greatest number of producers in Manitoba.
Review by agency
Before certifying a qualified organization under subsection (1), the agency
(a) shall review lists of persons who have currently paid annual membership fees to the applicants; and
(b) may take whatever steps or proceedings that it considers necessary or desirable to make its decision, including holding hearings or conducting a referendum.
Term of certification
Any certification shall be valid for a period of two years from the effective date of the certification.
Automatic renewal of certification
A certified organization shall automatically continue to be certified for subsequent consecutive two year terms unless the agency receives an application for certification from one or more other qualified organizations under subsection 20(1).
Challenges to certification
If the agency receives an application for certification from one or more qualified organizations prior to October 1 of the second year of the term of certification of the certified organization, the agency shall prior to November 30 of that year certify from among
(a) the applicant qualified organizations; and
(b) the certified organization;
that organization as the certified organization which in the opinion of the agency represents the greatest number of producers in Manitoba.
A certification under subsection (1) shall be effective from January 1 of the following year.
(b) may take whatever steps or proceedings which it considers necessary or desirable to make its decision, including holding hearings or conducting a referendum.
Loss of certification
Notwithstanding subsections 19(1) and 22(3), certification under this Part shall automatically cease immediately upon the certified organization ceasing to be a qualified organization under section 15.
Interim certification
Notwithstanding sections 17, 18, and 19,
(a) if 90 days after this Act comes into force, the agency has received only one application under subsection 16(1), the agency shall certify that qualified organization as the certified organization; and
(b) if 90 days after this Act comes into force, the agency has received more than one application under subsection 16(1), the agency shall, within 120 days after this Act comes into force, certify the qualified organization that in the opinion of the agency represents the greatest number of producers in Manitoba as the certified organization.
A certification made under this section shall be valid for a term to expire December 31, 1990, and the year 1990 is then deemed to be the second year of the term of certification of the certified organization for the purpose of section 20.
COLLECTION OF MEMBERSHIP FEES
Purchasers to keep books and records
Each purchaser shall keep and maintain complete and accurate books and records which set out for each person who sells an agricultural product to the purchaser
(a) the name and address of the person who sells agricultural product to the purchaser;
(b) the type of agricultural product sold by that person;
(c) the amount of the annual membership fee collected from time to time by the purchaser from that person under subsection 25(1);
(d) the date of the annual membership fee collection; and
(e) the date of remittance of the annual membership fee to the certified organization.
Retention of books and records
A purchaser shall retain the books and records described in subsection (1) for at least two years from the date they are made.
Purchasers to supply information
Within 30 days of receipt of a written request from a certified organization, every purchaser shall provide the certified organization with
(a) the name and address of each person who has sold agricultural product to the purchaser of a value of $500 or more during the preceding 12 months; and
(b) the type of agricultural product sold by that person.
Purchasers to collect fees
A purchaser who receives from a certified organization
(a) a list containing the names of persons; and
(b) a request that the purchaser withhold an amount equal to the annual membership fee of the certified organization from any amounts payable or to become payable by the purchaser to a person named on that list;
shall comply with the request during a period of one year beginning 45 days following the date of receipt of the list and request.
Remittance within 30 days
A purchaser shall remit to the certified organization any amounts withheld under subsection (1) within 30 days of the date of withholding, together with
(a) the name and address of the person from whom the amount was withheld; and
(b) the type of agricultural product purchased from the person from whom the amount was withheld.
Maximum membership fee
For the purpose of section 25, the maximum annual membership fee of a certified organization shall be $75. or such greater amount as may be approved from time to time by the agency.
The certified organization shall treat the monies remitted to it under section 25 or paid to it under subsection 37(2)
(a) as an application for membership or a renewal of membership in the certified organization; and
(b) as payment of the annual membership fee in the certified organization;
by the person from whom the monies were withheld or ought to have been withheld.
Notification to producers
At the same time that the certified organization forwards a list and request to a purchaser under subsection 25(1), the certified organization shall, in writing, advise each person whose name appears on the list and who is not a member of the certified organization at that time,
(a) that it has requested that the purchaser deduct and remit to the certified organization an amount equal to the annual membership fee of the certified organization from the monies otherwise payable to that person by that purchaser; and
(b) that the person has a right to object to the deduction of the annual membership fee.
Objection to deduction of fees
A person who objects to the deduction of an annual membership fee shall advise the certified organization in writing of his or her objection.
Where objection received
Upon receipt of an objection, the certified organization shall
(a) within seven days, remove the name of the person who objects from any list prepared by the certified organization for distribution to a purchaser;
(b) within seven days, advise a purchaser who has received a list under subsection 25(1) on which the name of the person who objects appeared, that no amount is to be withheld;
(c) not add the name of the person who objects to any other list distributed by that certified organization under subsection 25(1) for a period of two years from the receipt of the objection without the prior written consent of that person; and
(d) refund to a person who files an objection any fee that is withheld by a purchaser and remitted to the certified organization after the date the objection is received.
Purchaser to allow inspection
Each purchaser shall at all reasonable times permit an inspector appointed under this Act to inspect the books and records required to be kept and maintained under section 23, and shall otherwise facilitate an inspection.
FUNDING OF DESIGNATED PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS
Petition for designation of organization of producers
An organization of producers of an agricultural product may submit a petition to the agency requesting that the organization be designated as the representative organization for producers of that agricultural product if the organization,
(a) is a corporation without share capital or a cooperative incorporated under the laws of the province; and
(b) is prepared to accept into its membership all persons actively engaged in the production of the agricultural product in Manitoba upon payment of a membership fee or other charge required to establish and maintain membership.
Petition to contain information
The petition shall set out the following information:
(a) the agricultural product that is the subject of the petition;
(b) the objects of the organization, including its proposed program for commencing, stimulating or improving the production or marketing of the agricultural product;
(c) whether the program is to apply to all of Manitoba or only certain parts of Manitoba;
(d) if the program is to apply to parts of Manitoba, those parts of Manitoba to which the program will apply;
(e) any class, variety, grade or kind of the agricultural product that is to be exempted from the program;
(f) the persons, if any, that are to be exempted from the program;
(g) the method by which the organization is to be financed, including the amount or method of determining fees payable by producers of the agricultural product;
(h) whether other alternatives are available for the funding of the program within a marketing plan under The Natural Products Marketing Act.
Agency to study petition
The agency shall assess the petition and may require such further information concerning the organization and its proposed program and operation as the agency considers necessary.
Where the agency is satisfied that
(a) a sufficient number of producers might favor the designation of an organization as the representative organization for that agricultural product; and
(b) the proposed program of the organization is not appropriately funded within a marketing plan under The Natural Products Marketing Act;
it may cause a referendum to be held of the producers of that product to determine if the organization should be designated under this Part.
60% majority required
A referendum shall be considered to be in favour of designation of an organization as the representative organization if at least 60% of the producers voting on the question vote in favour of the designation.
Eligibility to vote in referendum
For the purpose of this section, the agency shall determine all matters respecting the conduct of a referendum including what producers are eligible to vote.
Recommendation of designation
If a vote in a referendum is in favour of the designation of an organization, the agency may recommend to the minister the designation of the organization as the representative organization of all producers of the agricultural product and the establishment of the proposed program of the organization for stimulating, increasing and improving the production or marketing of the agricultural product.
If a recommendation is made under section 33, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) designating an organization of producers of an agricultural product, if the organization is a corporation without share capital or a cooperative incorporated under the laws of the province, as the representative organization of all producers of the agricultural product;
(b) establishing, amending, and revoking any program for stimulating, increasing and improving the production or marketing of an agricultural product;
(c) requiring producers of the agricultural product to pay fees to the organization for the purpose of funding the program of the organization;
(d) designating the amount or method of determining fees and the manner in which they are to be paid;
(e) requiring purchasers who buy the agricultural product from a producer to deduct from moneys payable to the producer any fees payable by the producer and to forward those fees to the organization;
(f) authorizing the organization to use the fees for the purposes of defraying the expenses of the organization in the carrying out of its program;
(g) requiring purchasers to keep books and records respecting the purchase of agricultural products and to furnish copies of them when requested to do so by the agency;
(h) requiring the organization to furnish to the agency such information and financial statements as the agency determines; and (i) respecting methods to ensure that the fees paid to the organization are properly used for the program of the organization.
Authorization number
Every regulation made under subsection (1) shall provide
(a) that a producer who objects to the payment of fees to the organization may obtain from the organization an authorization number; and
(b) that no purchaser shall deduct from moneys payable to the producer a fee imposed by regulation upon being advised by the producer at the time of sale of the producer's authorization number.
Number valid until cancelled
An authorization number is valid until the person to whom it is assigned requests that it be cancelled.
Limitations and exceptions
A regulation made under subsection (1) may
(a) be limited as to time and place;
(b) exempt from the regulation any person or class of persons or any class, variety, grade or kind of the agricultural product;
(c) fix fees of different amounts for different classes, varieties, grades or kinds of the agricultural product.
Appointment of inspectors
The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint persons as inspectors for the purpose of enforcing this Act and the regulations.
Powers of inspectors
An inspector may at any reasonable time and upon presentation of identification,
(a) enter any place where books and records of a purchaser are required to be kept under the Act or the regulations; and
(b) inspect and make copies of the books and records of a purchaser and any other documents of that purchaser or of any other person that relate or may relate to the information that is or should be in the records of the purchaser.
Offences
A person who contravenes a provision of this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $1000.
Payment in addition to fine
In addition to the fine provided for in subsection (1), the justice shall order a purchaser who is guilty of an offence under section 25, or a regulation made under clause 33(2)(e), to pay to the organization to whom the fees were required to be paid an amount equal to the fees that the purchaser failed to withhold or remit, or both, as the case may be, together with interest on that amount at a rate determined by the court.
Prosecution of offences
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act of the Legislature, a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be commenced at any time within 6 months after the date of the alleged offence and, where an alleged offence under this Act relates to or arises out of a misrepresentation or fraud on the Part of the accused, a prosecution any time within 6 months after the date on which the misrepresentation or the fraud becomes known to the minister.
The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) exempting any person or class of persons from the application of any of the provisions of Part III on such terms and conditions as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate;
b) exempting any agricultural product or any class of "agricultural product" as defined in this Act;
(c) respecting compensation to be paid by the certified organization to purchasers for the reasonable costs incurred by purchasers in the collection of fees under Part III; and
(d) generally for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act.
Reference in C.C.S.M.
This Act may be referred to as chapter A18 of the Continuing Consolidation of the Statutes of Manitoba.
Coming into force of Act
This Act, except section 23, comes into force on the day it receives the royal assent.
Coming into force of section 23
Section 23 comes into force on January 1, 1989.


text:
June 1, 2019 by Graeme MacKay
Andrew Scheer really doesn't want to talk about abortion
"As I've said, many, many times before," Andrew Scheer said on Wednesday, "a Conservative government will not reopen this debate.
"I've been very clear on this … I've made it very clear. We will not reopen this debate."
A fair bit depends on how broadly Scheer defines the word "we."
At any rate, the example of Stephen Harper suggests the debate over abortion isn't one that a Conservative leader can easily avoid.
On Wednesday, Scheer was asked whether he would allow Conservative MPs to introduce legislation related to abortion and, if so, whether he would allow those MPs to vote freely on such proposals.
Such questions have been coming up a lot lately, prompted by a wave of new legislation to restrict access to abortion services in the United States and by comments Scheer himself made when he was seeking the leadership of the Conservative Party.
Justin Trudeau's Liberals have leaned into the debate, publicly pressuring Scheer over the fact that a dozen Conservative MPs recently attended an anti-abortion rally on Parliament Hill.
Howdy Doodie Andy Scheer
On Wednesday, Scheer accused the Liberals of "trying to import a divisive issue" from the United States to split Canadians and distract from the government's recent troubles. But he also stopped short of directly answering the questions he was asked.
Based on what he said during the Conservative leadership race, Scheer's answer to those specific questions would seem to be "yes." Those campaign comments suggested that, while a Scheer government would not itself introduce abortion legislation, Conservative backbenchers would be free to do so and Conservatives would be free to vote their "conscience" on those bills or motions.
That roughly corresponds with official Conservative policy on such matters and relies on a legitimate parliamentary distinction between the MPs who are part of the government (cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries) and those who are not (the backbenchers who are members of the governing party, but not part of the executive).
If that's still Scheer's position, he might just say so. But he also wouldn't be the first Conservative leader to have second thoughts about indulging the backbench. (CBC)
Posted in: Canada	Tagged: 2019-19, abortion, Alabama, Andrew Scheer, Canada, choice, Conservative, debate, Georgia, Missouri", party, pillory, right, women
August 15, 2008 by Graeme MacKay
Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday August 15, 2008
There's a Bear in the Woods!
The guns of August 2008 have in a matter of a few days significantly changed the world we live in. It is now clear to almost everyone that Russian objectives go well beyond the issue of the ethnically Russian citizens of South Ossetia. Moscow's swift military gambit clearly includes "regime change" for the entire nation of Georgia.
That is important not simply because Georgia's democratically elected president, Mikhail Saakashvili, is far more pro-western than his eventual Russian-picked successor will be, but also because it sends a clear message throughout the region that Russia can do what it pleases—and that the United States is too weak, too overstretched, too unpopular, and too weary from years of failed international exploits to act.
Marvellous Maps
That is a message that will be heard first in Azerbaijan, Armenia, and the Ukraine. Leaders such as Azeri Prime Minister Ilham Aliyev will go to considerable lengths to avoid the fate that apparently awaits Saakashvili. They will see the value of alliance with the United States in greatly diminished terms. All will urgently seek ways to accommodate Russian interests.
But the message will extend beyond those countries. Iran and Turkey will be forced to recognize that Russia is reemerging as a force in their region, and that their economic and security interests in the future will have to be more closely harmonized with those of Russia. Former Soviet Republics such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan will be far wearier of entanglements with the United States that might provoke Russian displeasure. (Source: American Progress)
Posted in: Canada, International	Tagged: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, imperialism, International, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, octopus, Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vladimir Putin


EA has released the first official teaser trailer for upcoming Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order game.
Here is the full official synopsis about this singleplayer game: "Fallen Order is an action-adventure game set after Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith™. Develop your Force abilities, hone your lightsaber techniques. And explore the ancient mysteries of a long-lost civilization. All while staying one step ahead of the Empire and its deadly Inquisitors." In this trailer, we see a lot of new planets like Bracca, characters, locations, creatures, droids are coming from we haven't seen in the SW universe. However, players will have access to control lightsaber and force powers.
Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order will debut on debut on Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC on 15 November 2019. Check out the first trailer below. And the game standard edition costs $59.99.


Designed by Laura, this brand new necklace design features several of the products that we've recently brought into the store. Many of you have asked for a project that features the new drop styles we've introduced, plus we incorporated some of the new 4mm english cuts. The many tiers of netting and draping make this an elegant piece with a Victorian flair.


text:
Cet article est un complément de l'article sur le light novel . Il contient la liste des 26 épisodes de l'adaptation en série télévisée d'animation produite par le studio Madhouse et réalisée par Manabu Ono, avec les chara-designs originaux de Kana Ishida et les compositions de Taku Iwasaki pour la bande originale.

Elle est diffusée au Japon sur Tokyo MX, GTV et GYT du  au , et des diffusions ultérieures sur MBS, CTC, tvk, TVS, TVA, TVQ, TVh, AT-X et BS11. En France et dans d'autres pays francophones, Wakanim a diffusé la série en simulcast.

Une adaptation de l', réparti sur les ,  et  volumes, a été annoncée comme seconde saison. Celle-ci est réalisée par Risako Yoshida au studio d'animation 8-Bit et est diffusée entre le  et le  au Japon.

The Irregular at Magic High School

The Irregular at Magic High School: Visitor Arc

Notes et références

Notes

Références

Liens externes

The Irregular at Magic High School
Irregular at Magic High School


text:
Specialist Pharmacist
West London NHS Trust • Full-time • GB, Hounslow • 1w ago
We are looking for three enthusiastic pharmacists to join a friendly, progressive clinical team serving our community at West London NHS Trust. The trust provides services across a large geographical area and includes a wide range of mental health and community health services. Our 800 in-patient beds provide services from open wards through to high security forensic services and intermediate care beds. We provide a secondary, tertiary and national service. We are a leading provider of Perinatal Mental Health Service to the boroughs of Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham and Hounslow.
Pharmacists due to qualify in Summer 2023 are welcome to apply
The post holders will work closely with the multidisciplinary team to optimise pharmaceutical care for the acute mental health service in Hammersmith and Fulham, Ealing and Hounslow as a rotational pharmacist.
They will offer advice to medical staff, nurses and patients on all aspects of the safe & effective use of medicines as well as facilitating medicines reconciliation and discharge planning. They will also support the delivery of education, training and service improvement using quality improvement methodology. There will be opportunity to be involved in clinical trials, audit and research projects.
The successful candidates should be a highly motivated individual team player with good communication skills and a keen interest in mental health. The applicant should be able to work well both in a team and autonomously.
West London NHS Trust is one of the most diverse providers of mental health, community and social care in the UK.
Our 3,982 staff care for people in hospital and in the community, helping them to recover and go on to lead full and productive lives. We aim to be the best organisation of our kind in the country.
We provide care and treatment for more than 800,000 people living in the London boroughs of Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham and Hounslow, delivering services in the community (at home, in GP surgeries and care homes), hospital, specialist clinics and forensic (secure) units.
We're rated good overall by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
Together, we're committed to promoting hope and wellbeing, working with patients, service users, carers, families and partners across the communities we serve.
We are keen to ensure that our workforce reflects the community it serves, particularly in terms of ethnicity, gender, disability, LGBTQ+ and experience of mental illness.
For further details / informal visits contact: Name: John Wakelam Job title: Pharmacy Services Manager Email address: john.wakelam@westlondon.nhs.uk
West London NHS Trust
To apply, please send your application to: https://uk.linkedin.com/jobs/view/specialist-pharmacist-at-west-london-nhs-trust-3446696885. Please indicate the name of the position in the subject line of the e-mail: Specialist Pharmacist.


text:
'Freedom Convoy' Donor Names from GiveSendGo Leaked by Hackers
Hackers have knocked the fundraising site GiveSendGo offline in an attack targeting a campaign that raised at least $8.6 million to support the "freedom convoy" demonstrations in Ottawa.
The Christian crowdfunding site that helped raise $8.7 million for the anti-vax "freedom convoy" in Canada was hacked on Sunday night, and the names and personal details of over 92,000 donors were leaked online.
On Monday, a screenshot of the GiveSendGo site featured an image from the Disney film "Frozen," along with a ticker purporting to show the names, donation amounts and email addresses of people who helped support the cause. The image showed the words "GiveSendGo IS NOW FROZEN," along with a link describing raw donation data.
"In fact, you are committed to funding anything that keeps the raging fire of misinformation going," the message read. "On behalf of sane people worldwide who wish to continue living in a democracy, I am now telling you that GiveSendGo itself is frozen."
As of writing, the hacker message is no longer there. All that reads is, "Application is under maintenance we will be back very soon."
BREAKING: GiveSendGo, the crowdfunding website used by the Freedom Convoy, is now redirecting to the domain GiveSendGone[.]wtf.
A video from the Disney film Frozen now appears alongside a manifesto condemning the website and the Freedom Convoy. pic.twitter.com/3TLAwfvZ3w
— Mikael Thalen (@MikaelThalen) February 14, 2022
While some of the donors did not provide their names — such as the person behind the current top donation of $215,000 — the vast majority did provide them, including American software billionaire Thomas Siebel, who donated $90,000 to the "freedom convoy."
Analysis of the leaked data by extremism researcher Amarnath Amarasingam shows that while the majority of donors come from the US (56%) and Canada (29%), there are also thousands of donations from overseas, including the UK, Australia, and Ireland.
The 'Freedom Convoy' protests are still underway in Ottawa, and according to unnamed sources speaking to Global Newson Monday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau plans to invoke the Emergencies Act, granting the federal government emergency powers to disband the protest that has disrupted businesses and residents in the city.
Ontario announced today starting March 1, it will end its vaccine passport program but retain indoor masking measures, as part of the province's plan to lift COVID-19 measures.


text:
Q: Shell script read missing last line I have an ... odd issue with a bash shell script that I was hoping to get some insight on.
My team is working on a script that iterates through lines in a file and checks for content in each one. We had a bug where, when run via the automated process that sequences different scripts together, the last line wasn't being seen.
The code used to iterate over the lines in the file (name stored in DATAFILE was
cat "$DATAFILE" | while read line

We could run the script from the command line and it would see every line in the file, including the last one, just fine. However, when run by the automated process (which runs the script that generates the DATAFILE just prior to the script in question), the last line is never seen.
We updated the code to use the following to iterate over the lines, and the problem cleared up:
for line in `cat "$DATAFILE"`

Note: DATAFILE has no newline ever written at the end of the file.
My question is two part... Why would the last line not be seen by the original code, and why this would change make a difference?
I only thought I could come up with as to why the last line would not be seen was:

*

*The previous process, which writes the file, was relying on the process to end to close the file descriptor.

*The problem script was starting up and opening the file prior fast enough that, while the previous process had "ended", it hadn't "shut down/cleaned up" enough for the system to close the file descriptor automatically for it.

That being said, it seems like, if you have 2 commands in a shell script, the first one should be completely shut down by the time the script runs the second one.
Any insight into the questions, especially the first one, would be very much appreciated.

A: Adding some additional info:

*

*There's no need to use cat with while loop. while ...;do something;done<file is enough.

*Don't read lines with for.
When using while loop to read lines:

*

*Set the IFS properly (you may lose indentation otherwise).

*You should almost always use the -r option with read.
with meeting the above requirements a proper while loop will look like this:
while IFS= read -r line; do
  ...
done <file

And to make it work with files without a newline at end (reposting my solution from here):
while IFS= read -r line || [ -n "$line" ]; do
  echo "$line"
done <file

Or using grep with while loop:
while IFS= read -r line; do
  echo "$line"
done < <(grep "" file)

A: As a workaround, before reading from the text file a newline can be appended to the file.
echo -e "\n" >> $file_path

This will ensure that all the lines that was previously in the file will be read.We need to pass -e argument to echo to enable interpretation of escape sequences.
https://superuser.com/questions/313938/shell-script-echo-new-line-to-file

A: The C standard says that text files must end with a newline or the data after the last newline may not be read properly.

ISO/IEC 9899:2011 §7.21.2 Streams
A text stream is an ordered sequence of characters composed into lines, each line
consisting of zero or more characters plus a terminating new-line character. Whether the
last line requires a terminating new-line character is implementation-defined. Characters
may have to be added, altered, or deleted on input and output to conform to differing
conventions for representing text in the host environment. Thus, there need not be a one-to-
one correspondence between the characters in a stream and those in the external
representation. Data read in from a text stream will necessarily compare equal to the data
that were earlier written out to that stream only if: the data consist only of printing
characters and the control characters horizontal tab and new-line; no new-line character is
immediately preceded by space characters; and the last character is a new-line character.
Whether space characters that are written out immediately before a new-line character
appear when read in is implementation-defined.

I would not have expected a missing newline at the end of file to cause trouble in bash (or any Unix shell), but that does seem to be the problem reproducibly ($  is the prompt in this output):
$ echo xxx\\c
xxx$ { echo abc; echo def; echo ghi; echo xxx\\c; } > y
$ cat y
abc
def
ghi
xxx$
$ while read line; do echo $line; done < y
abc
def
ghi
$ bash -c 'while read line; do echo $line; done < y'
abc
def
ghi
$ ksh -c 'while read line; do echo $line; done < y'
abc
def
ghi
$ zsh -c 'while read line; do echo $line; done < y'
abc
def
ghi
$ for line in $(<y); do echo $line; done      # Preferred notation in bash
abc
def
ghi
xxx
$ for line in $(cat y); do echo $line; done   # UUOC Award pending
abc
def
ghi
xxx
$

It is also not limited to bash — Korn shell (ksh) and zsh behave like that too.  I live, I learn; thanks for raising the issue.
As demonstrated in the code above, the cat command reads the whole file.  The for line in `cat $DATAFILE`  technique collects all the output and replaces arbitrary sequences of white space with a single blank (I conclude that each line in the file contains no blanks).
Tested on Mac OS X 10.7.5.

What does POSIX say?
The POSIX read command specification says:

The read utility shall read a single line from standard input.
By default, unless the -r option is specified, <backslash> shall act as an escape character. An unescaped <backslash> shall preserve the literal value of the following character, with the exception of a <newline>. If a <newline> follows the <backslash>, the read utility shall interpret this as line continuation. The <backslash> and <newline> shall be removed before splitting the input into fields. All other unescaped <backslash> characters shall be removed after splitting the input into fields.
If standard input is a terminal device and the invoking shell is interactive, read shall prompt for a continuation line when it reads an input line ending with a <backslash> <newline>, unless the -r option is specified.
The terminating <newline> (if any) shall be removed from the input and the results shall be split into fields as in the shell for the results of parameter expansion (see Field Splitting); [...]

Note that '(if any)' (emphasis added in quote)!  It seems to me that if there is no newline, it should still read the result.  On the other hand, it also says:

STDIN
The standard input shall be a text file.

and then you get back to the debate about whether a file that does not end with a newline is a text file or not.
However, the rationale on the same page documents:

Although the standard input is required to be a text file, and therefore will always end with a <newline> (unless it is an empty file), the processing of continuation lines when the -r option is not used can result in the input not ending with a <newline>. This occurs if the last line of the input file ends with a <backslash> <newline>. It is for this reason that "if any" is used in "The terminating <newline> (if any) shall be removed from the input" in the description. It is not a relaxation of the requirement for standard input to be a text file.

That rationale must mean that the text file is supposed to end with a newline.
The POSIX definition of a text file is:

3.395 Text File
A file that contains characters organized into zero or more lines. The lines do not contain NUL characters and none can exceed {LINE_MAX} bytes in length, including the <newline> character. Although POSIX.1-2008 does not distinguish between text files and binary files (see the ISO C standard), many utilities only produce predictable or meaningful output when operating on text files. The standard utilities that have such restrictions always specify "text files" in their STDIN or INPUT FILES sections.

This does not stipulate 'ends with a <newline>' directly, but does defer to the C standard and it does say "A file that contains characters organized into zero or more lines" and when we look at the POSIX definition of a "Line" it says:

3.206 Line
A sequence of zero or more non- <newline> characters plus a
terminating <newline> character.

so per the POSIX definition a file must end in a terminating newline because it's made up of lines and each line must end in a terminating newline.

A solution to the 'no terminal newline' problem
Note Gordon Davisson's answer.  A simple test shows that his observation is accurate:
$ while read line; do echo $line; done < y; echo $line
abc
def
ghi
xxx
$

Therefore, his technique of:
while read line || [ -n "$line" ]; do echo $line; done < y

or:
cat y | while read line || [ -n "$line" ]; do echo $line; done

will work for files without a newline at the end (at least on my machine).

I'm still surprised to find that the shells drop the last segment (it can't be called a line because it doesn't end with a newline) of the input, but there might be sufficient justification in POSIX to do so.  And clearly it is best to ensure that your text files really are text files ending with a newline.

A: According to the POSIX spec for the read command, it should return a nonzero status if "End-of-file was detected or an error occurred." Since EOF is detected as it reads the last "line", it sets $line and then returns an error status, and the error status prevents the loop from executing on that last "line".  The solution is easy: make the loop execute if the read command succeeds OR if anything was read into $line.
while read line || [ -n "$line" ]; do

A: I tested this in command line
# create dummy file. last line doesn't end with newline
printf "%i\n%i\nNo-newline-here" >testing

Test with your first form (piping to while-loop)
cat testing | while read line; do echo $line; done

This misses the last line, which makes sense since read only gets input that ends with a newline.

Test with your second form (command substitution)
for line in `cat testbed1` ; do echo $line; done

This gets the last line as well

read only gets input if it's terminated by newline, that's why you miss the last line.

On the other hand, in the second form
`cat testing`

expands to the form of
line1\nline2\n...lineM

which is separated by the shell into multiple fields using IFS, so you get
line1 line2 line3 ... lineM

That's why you still get the last line.
p/s: What I don't understand is how you get the first form working...

A: Use sed to match the last line of a file, which it will then append a newline if one does not exist and have it do an inline replacement of the file:
sed -i '' -e '$a\' file
The code is from this stackexchange link
Note: I have added empty single quotes to -i '' because, at least in OS X, -i was using -e as a file extension for the backup file. I would have gladly commented on the original post but lacked 50 points. Perhaps this will gain me a few in this thread, thanks.

A: I had a similar issue.
I was doing a cat of a file, piping it to a sort and then piping the result to a 'while read var1 var2 var3'.
ie:
cat $FILE|sort -k3|while read Count IP Name
do
The work under the "do" was an if statement that identified changing data in the $Name field and based on change or no change did sums of $Count or printed the summed line to the report.
I also ran into the issue where I couldnt get the last line to print to the report.
I went with the simple expedient of redirecting the cat/sort to a new file, echoing a newline to that new file and THEN ran my "while read Count IP Name" on the new file with successful results.
ie:
cat $FILE|sort -k3 > NEWFILE
echo "\n" >> NEWFILE
cat NEWFILE |while read Count IP Name
do
Sometimes the simple, inelegant is the best way to go.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


When planning your holidays in Portugal include your Tomar car hire online reservation in your early holiday plans. Making your reservation ahead you guarantee car hire availability and lower prices and when you arrive your preferred rental car, booked in advance, will be waiting for you and will be delivered by a selected car hire company with friendly professional staff providing a quick and hassle free service. At the airport you will collect your car quicly as everything needed for paperwork is already collected from your online reservation. If you prefer we will deliver your Tomar car hire to your holiday accommodation or hotel in Tomar. And of course our reps are in the ground 24 hours a day to give you any assistance should you need.
Your Tomar car rental car includes everything you need to have a hassle free driving holiday in Tomar: Fast professional delivery service, new well conditioned portuguese rental cars, unlimited kilometers, CDW and Third Party Insurance included, national taxes, no hidden fees, 24 hours assistance. So you can enjoy your best Tomar car hire experience in Portugal.
Portugal Cars is proud to offer Portugal Car Hire services since 2000 with some thousands of happy customers who used and enjoyed our quality car hire service delivered by local portugal car hire companies in Lisbon, Porto, Faro and also at the portuguese cities where our portugal car rental are requested. Booking your Tomar Car Hire with Portugal Cars our customers can be sure of a quality professional service yet at economy prices.


, picks the best series together with ideal quality exclusively for you, and now this photos is considered one of photographs selections in this ideal pictures gallery about Mba Resume format for Freshers. I really hope you will like it.
placed by gifths with 2018-10-11 04:22:58. To see almost all photographs with Mba Resume format for Freshers pictures gallery please abide by this web page link.
Do not forget to look up the next photo album, which also contains the Mba Resume Format For Freshers With Mba Fresher Resume Sample Doc Valid Mba Resume New Resume Template C image showed above. If you have any thoughts, questions or just want to say hello to other people, please do not hestitate to submit your opinion/ideas via the following comment form.


Our team is waiting to serve your needs with the very best counselor possible—no matter where you are in the world.
We offer a FREE INFO SESSION - an opportunity to learn more about our services and unique approach.
we offer, please contact us by completing this easy-to-use form.
It includes all the information we need to respond most productively to you. We will reply within 24 hours!
To purchase or learn more about our COLLEGE APPLICATION ESSAY PACKAGES, click here.
We will respond to your contact request very shortly.