Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
NEW FIGURES HAVE been released that show where Irish consumers are most likely to do their main weekly shop.
It has been shown that Tesco comes out on top – with a third (33%) of all consumers choosing to shop there.
This is some good news for the retailer which has in the past year seen its sales decrease in the Irish market and faced the continued growth of discount retailers Aldi and Lidl.
These numbers come from research carried out by Checkout Magazine and Ignite Research.
It was found that 23% of shoppers do their main shop at Aldi, 16% at Lidl, 15% at Dunnes Stores, and 11% at SuperValu.
Demographics
Tesco was found to be the most popular choice among female shoppers – with 34% shopping there compared to 31% of males.
The most pronounced gender gap for shop choice came from shoppers at Dunnes Stores – 19% of who were male and 11% of who were female.
Of those surveyed that said they shopped at either Lidl or Aldi, value for money was frequently cited as a reason for shopping where they did. 86% of Aldi shoppers and 81% of Lidl shoppers said that they believed their supermarket was the cheapest.
In the past 12 months, Aldi and Lidl have seen the biggest rise in the number of consumes switching to their stores.
Why do people shop where they do?
Speaking about the results, editor of Checkout magazine Stephen Wynne-Jones, said:
This year’s Where We Shop report indicates that when it comes to our shopping habits, Irish consumers really are creatures of habit.
He went on to say that while value for money was a factor for a lot of households, many people place a high value on location, friendly staff and quality produce.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Shamed for life
It’s a shame because she also discrediteds any work that has cited her work
What a stupid thing to do!
This reminds me of that fraud Andrew Wakefield and the untold damage he did to the extremely safe MMR vaccine.
The despicable part is that this study was cancer research. Imagine further studies based on this tissue of lies.
Something similar happened in the Accutane litigation.
http://druganddevicelaw.blogspot.ie/2010/02/plaintiffs-experts-and-peer-review-dont.html
“That fraud Andrew Wakefield and the untold damage he did to the extremely safe MMR vaccine.”
Can I disagree with you more right now? The fraud was in the CDC..
“On August 27, 2014, Dr. Thompson released a shocking statement via his attorneys, Morgan Verkamp, whistleblower specialists, admitting that he and colleagues at the CDC “omitted statistically significant information” from a 2004 Pediatrics study regarding the timing of the MMR vaccine and autism which showed that African-American boys were much more likely to be diagnosed with autism if they received the MMR “on time” (before 36 months) than matched controls.” http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/the-thompson-transcripts-shocking-revelations-by-the-cdc-whistleblower/
Repeating dangerous and probably libelous tripe there, John. Wakefield is a proven liar who caused immeasurable harm and distress. Your choice of source would be hilarious if it wasn’t such a serious subject.
Proven liar my ass. What motivation would a doctor have to fabricate results linking the MMR to autism? Then a guy at the CDC ADMITS they used fraudulent data and everybody ignores it.
The fact that he was being funded by aggressive lawyers trying out a class action suit?
Didn’t some climate change people falsify data recently to “prove” polar bears would soon be swimming up the shannon or something similar!
No, Bill, they didn’t.
There’s a significant conflict of interest where plaintiffs commission investigators to conduct research with the intention of using the results to support their litigation.
Sure its a well known fact 74% of students do this to some degree and at least 69% of these are women.
Brave man!
I get you man. I get you. Everyone giving u the red thumb for not getting the joke. Obviously 63% of those giving the red thumb don’t understand sarcasm; while the remains 102% are undecided. Lolol
That’ll learn her.
That’s embarrassing for the folks back home..
They should have named her. Why wouldn’t they name her like any other fitness to practice investigation? It’s in the public interest.
Why did the journal take down her name ?
It’s aisha qasim butt
A lot of research turns out to be shîte anyway………
You are correct Green Monkey but it’s very important that research that is found not to support a hypothesis is published. If it’s simply forgotten about (of falsified as is alleged here) we get the distortion of publication bias with only positive results getting any attention. Placing personal vanity above research integrity is very serious and should undermine the credibility of any perpetrator.
She will probably get offered a job in the government with those skills.
Perfect résumé for a politician
She made an ass of herself
Ass by name, ass by nature
Since the award of a PhD is publicly announced by the university, surely the revoking of a degree or academic award of any kind should also be public. The person should be named!
shouldn’t be too hard to find the paper, and the names of those involved after a quick Google, I’d imagine.
Aisha qasim butt is her name
Oh dear. I wonder how many times a phd thesis has had been based on rogue or manipulated data over the years, yet the recipient of that phd went on to professorship… The question is what triggered the review that lead to getting caught.. Incompetence or something else?
That’s another person Shane not the woman who cheated. It says “Dr Miggin, as well as two other researchers who worked on the papers..” were not guilty of any wrongdoing
This link has all the relevant info – http://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/20/irish-university-strips-student-of-phd-following-investigation/
You’d wonder about the integrity of any research coming from Maynooth and the credibility of those who were supposed to be supervising the research.
What’s all this “they” stuff (“PhD revoked after they make up data”, “they had falsified data in their thesis”)? Is it because the student in question is female?
Yes, and now she is very angry and baking a cake with Candida albicans.
No, that’s how you talk about someone in the third person.
Don’t be ridiculous, you refer to them as “he” and “his”
VW love her work
There will be many of those kind, who falsify science – at the climate world government conference in Paris next week. Their funding depends on it.
Yeah, it’s not like the energy industry are not trying to hand billions of dollars to any scientists who’s research might be beneficial to them or anything. Sure tis all made up….
Rasputin, if you don’t think there are serious issues with the so called climate science then you havn’t been paying attention.. And if you’re comeback is that 95% of scientists support it then I’ll get my retort in first – if you surveyed political scientists about 9/11 you’ll find that 95% blame Osama Bin Laden.
Because if they didn’t their career would be over.
“At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.”
“The Freedom of the Press”, unused preface to Animal Farm (1945), published in Times Literary Supplement (15 September 1972)
Jesus John, as someone who works in a field very close to climate science, I can tell you that it’s 100%-for-real not made up.
John, any chance that you might point out these issues? I was under the impression that all such issues were baloney. Of course, environmental engineering, environmental science and geology qualifications mean that I haven’t a clue, so please help me out here.
John, could you explain why thousands of scientists who have never met each other have been fabricating such a big story for years, and why no reputable scientist has published data (which stands up to scrutiny) refuting the thousands of peer reviewed papers which find eveidence of climate change?
Why did the label change from ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’ about ten years ago?
Global warming is provable. Or disprovable. And my understanding is that there has been little or no warming in the past 15 years.
But ‘Climate Change’ is absolutely meaningless. i.e. It cannot be proven or disproven because there is nothing to prove or disprove. Which makes it much more useful for people like the Club of Rome who decided as far back at the 1970′s that one of the next bogeymen was going to be the environment.
Quote by Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”
It might interest you to know that 2015 is very likely to be the warmest year on record. No-one said that the warming would be smooth or consistent, just that it would continue on an upwards trend, which it manifestly had. If you are looking for a conspiracy, who might profit, and how? However, the fossil fuel sector is subsidised by a half trillion every year (yes, 500 billion). Follow the money…
@MVeronica – one of the main issues Veronica is what is being omitted. Also – the unquestioning faith being put in computer modelling which has proven to be incorrect 100% of the time. It is akin to astrology.
Finally Veronica – real science is not rooted in consensus. It is rooted in empirical evidence. There has been no warming for nearly 20 years and it was 5° warmer in the Middle Ages – yet we keep hearing this impending doom about not letting the climate become 2° warmer. It has become ridiculous.
Well said John..for more proof, check out the FDA’s response to research that ‘proved’ that there were no harmful effects on the bee population from chemical fertilisers..just so happened that the research was carried out by the fertiliser production companies..go figure
By that argument… it is warming this year, globally. The Middle ages were locally warm… not globally, and certainly not 5° C. Etc. Lots of factoids but no coherent rebuttal to the simple fact that more CO2 leads to hotter earth. This has been known since the late 18th century, so you need to assume an illuminati/ lizard overlord level of conspiracy…
NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud
24 Nov 2015
Professor Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 – which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:
From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.” http://www.principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud.html
What a disgrace!
And third level students are supposed to be “the future” haha. I don’t like that kind of future. This story just proves that education has no relevance to an individual’s calibre.
Didn’t get the leaving cert points then, Fred?
There was a fellah in Cambodia a while back didn’t think education was a great thing either.
All credit to wild generalisations…
So silly!!
She has ruined her own life
She must have worked for the Labor party….
Journal says she made up the data…but University says no evidence of any wrongdoing. Perhaps she just failed to research a data source fully and didn’t actually just make the data up?
Ah! I read it wrong…It was her supervisor cleared of wrongdoing.
Aisha qasim butt
have your say