内容摘要：“We take great offence when someone says that we're a coffee substitute,” says Andy Kleitsch, the chief executive of Seattle based start-up Atomo, from whose pure, beanless ground product my espresso has been made.

“We take great offence when someone says that we're a coffee substitute,” says Andy Kleitsch, the chief executive of Seattle based start-up Atomo, from whose pure, beanless ground product my espresso has been made.

“Fundamentally, the issue is that our courts often reflect society. If our society still holds women slightly accountable for being really drunk and going back to a bloke's house, then should a barrister – [who is] trying to fight as hard as they can for a man who says that they are innocent – take some of that on board?”What’s more, questioning a victim about something the defendant will say in their evidence at least gives them a chance to defend themselves against it, she argues.

“It would be so wrong if they [the victim] were not given the opportunity to say, ‘no, that’s absolutely not what happened.”Ultimately, she suggests it is for the judge to intervene if questioning has gone too far or is irrelevant.But what happens when a victim thinks a judge is also playing into rape myths?

Leila, who was abused by a former partner, was left “shocked” by her judge’s remarks. This was despite the fact she sentenced Leila’s abuser to three years in prison after he pleaded guilty to assault by penetration and multiple charges of sexual assault.The judge twice remarked during sentencing that Leila would sleep in “his bed” not wearing underwear.

“She said I was getting into his bed, not our bed, it’s not as if I have the right to sleep in whatever I feel comfortable in without fear of being attacked,” Leila says sarcastically. “Obviously if I get in with no knickers, on my head be it.”

The judge said to the defendant that Leila had “reluctantly consented to having sex with you… as part of the give and take" of a relationship, adding: “The problem came when you started assaulting her as she slept.”The Metropolitan Police said the policy, which came into effect on Monday, "did not end working from home" and that it was aware some staff may have legitimate reasons for not following the policy due to agreed reasonable adjustment or an approved existing flexible working plan.

"Our plans will provide consistency across the Met and ensure we can deliver for our communities. We urge our staff and the union not to take further action," a spokesperson said.They added that those who continued to work from home for more than two days a week might be in breach of their contract and could lose pay.

Within the last year, a number of large London-based employers have reviewed their working policies and restricted or banned working from home.WPP, a global communications agency, announced on Tuesday it was tightening its rules and would require staff to be in four days a week from April.