A mixed DNA profile controversy revisited

Semaan et al. (J Forensic Res, 2020, 11, 453) discuss a mock case “where eight different individuals [P₁ through P₈] could not be excluded in a mixed DNA analysis. Even though … expert DNA mixture analysis software was used.” Two of these are the true donors. The LRs reported are incorrect due to the incorrect entry of propositions into LRmix Studio. This forced the software to account for most of the alleles as drop-in, resulting in LRs 60–70 orders of magnitude larger than expected. P₁, P₂, P₄, P₅, and P₈ can be manually excluded using peak heights. This has relevance when using LRmix which does not use peak heights. We extend the work using the same two reference genotypes who were the true contributors as Semaan et al. (J Forensic Res, 2020, 11, 453). We simulate three two-donor mixtures with peak heights using these two genotypes and analyze using STRmix?. For the simulated 1:1 mixture, one of the non-donors’ LRs supported him being a contributor when no conditioning was used. When considered in combination with any other potential donors (i.e., with conditioning), this non-donor was correctly eliminated. For the 3:1 mixture, all results correctly supported that the non-donors were not contributors. The low-template 4:1 mixture LRs with no conditioning showed support for all eight profiles as donors. However, the results from pair-wise conditioning showed that only the two ground truth donors had LRs supporting that they were contributors to the mixture. We recommend the use of peak heights and conditioning profiles, as this allows better sensitivity and specificity even when the persons share many alleles.     

Bubbles! The indispensability of the Comparative Advertising Directive to trade mark law

The use by H3G of bubbles in a television advertisement comparingmobile telephone prices complied with the Comparative AdvertisingDirective and thus did not infringe O2's trade mark registrationsfor bubbles. Supplementary data in the form of a clip of theadvertisement discussed in this article is available at www.jiplp.oxfordjournals.org.     

Dispute Settlement under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Article 119 and the Possible Role of the International Court of Justice

This paper examines the dispute settlement procedure establishedby Article 119 of the Rome Statute of the International CriminalCourt, with particular attention paid to whether that provisioncreates any relationship between the International CriminalCourt and the International Court of Justice. The paper firstdiscusses the jurisdictional reach of Article 119, detailingthe types of disputes addressed in its two subsections and themanner in which such disputes are to be handled. Secondly, itfocuses on the possibility of referral of disputes covered inArticle 119(2) to the International Court of Justice. Althoughthe provision expressly contemplates such a referral, it remainsunclear whether the provision adequately supports the jurisdictionof the International Court of Justice in accordance with theStatute of that Court. The paper goes on to suggest ways inwhich the International Criminal Court Assembly of States Partiescan take steps to improve the likelihood that such referralwould be deemed proper in order to enhance the possible andfinal settlement of disputes.     

But,i wouldn't wany my wife to work there! A history of discrimination against women in the hotel industry

Historians have tended to view legislation that discriminated against women hotel workers as a result of the efforts of the temperance movement which became popular in the latter part of the nineteenth century. This paper argues that the proponents of the moral suasion explanation oversimplify the complex issue of women's status in the hotel industry. Two distinct types of legislation are identified and the paper argues that they both had very different agendas.

Legislation controlling barmaids was imposed from above on a reluctant hotel industry. It was primarily concerned with the measurement and control of the numbers of barmaids. In contrast, the question of women's right to hold a license dealt with qualitative considerations. Consequently it was more concerned with marital status, age and professional experience of female license applicants. Unlike the barmaid debate, the impetus to restrict women licensees came from within the industry itself. This paper argues that barmaid control was primarily a social issue while the control of women licensees was primarily a labour issue.

The prohibition on women becoming employers in the hotel industry has important implications for the relationship between gender and social class. In spite of the oppressive structural and legal barriers, women have shown remarkable resilience and have been able to preserve their place in an industry which is well suited to their skills.