wellmit depends on what.. if it was something seriously illegal like spitting in someones food, for the most part you should be able to decide wether drinking asoda not paid for is worth that someone losing their job over
a primary source
i think they are a primary source.... yes it is a primary source
A person who speaks out against something is often referred to as a critic, dissenter, or opponent.
myself,
It means that one person (who allegedly witnessed something) is giving a differing account of what happened than another witness to the same event.
Ex Post Facto.
It means to advise (a person) against something; to advise against (an action); or to turn from something by persuasion, e.g. I was unable to dissuade him from going. It is basically the persuasion to not do something.
Yes if it is against company rules.
They claimed to have witnessed the crime in question.
When someone has done something against the law unjustly
When someone has done something against the law unjustly
No. A company is not a person. In fact the whole concept of a company is to protect persons who have invested in a business behind a legal barrier for financial and legal protection. So it should be "he company which is doing something"