Over 20,000 braziers recalled in Japan due to injury fears

A Japanese lingerie maker is recalling over 20,000 brassieres after complaints that underwears suddenly poked out, sometimes while women were wearing them.

The Japanese division of lingerie maker Triumph International, which has made a name for itself with concept lingerie such as a solar-powered bra and an “Abenomics” bra, said they took the move due to fears of injury.

“We are sorry for the trouble, but we ask customers to stop using the bras immediately,’’ the company said in a statement.
The company added that it deeply apologised and would take steps to prevent a recurrence.

“The recall applies to roughly 22,000 bras ranging in cost from 5,600 to 6,200 yen (£30.4 to £33.7) and sold only in Japan,’’ a company spokeswoman said.

There have been no reports of injuries from the defect, which caused the tips of the under wears to protrude from holes in the fabric, sometimes after washing and sometimes while people were wearing them.

“It would be terrible if it happened again and somebody’s skin was scratched,’’ she added.



Now available on

  Premium Times Android mobile applicationPremium Times iOS mobile applicationPremium Times blackberry mobile applicationPremium Times windows mobile application

TEXT AD: Revealed!!! The Only Way Left of Getting an Extra Large Manhood and also Last Up to 38Mins+. Get the Insider Secret Here

All rights reserved. This material and any other material on this platform may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, written or distributed in full or in part, without written permission from PREMIUM TIMES.

  • Chigozie Peter

    Pls you people snould stop wasting time. Impeach this illiterate tout Gov and send him to prison where the likes of him and Saraki ought to be since, after all his assets has been confiscated.

    If them born am well, let him go to court to challenge the action of the EFCC. Fayose by tomorrow morning will already be begging. Odaju Ole!!!! Alo kolohunkigbe. Oloriburuku Omo Ale. Da buraba shege! Dan Iska! Kawai!!!

    • Ogunsola Adebowale

      Haha….o ti to bros. …we know you’re seriously angry.
      Really,you are right and on point,until we dig down to and operate on our cultural values and virtues in handling these miscreants called politicians just as they are handled in China without any recourse to western rule of law and rubbish human right jagons, we aren’t going anywhere.

  • Ms. Thenjiwe Obong

    I disagree with Inibehe Effiong in his submission that Fayose should have something to be worried about because of recent revelations concerning the funds involved with his election campaign. He has done a good job in elucidating the possible problems but according to the Constitution of Nigeria from 1963, 79, 89 and the current one it is a settled law that a sitting governor or his deputy cannot face prosecution either criminally or civilly. The immunity clause in our constitution is a derivative of the English Common Law doctrine which said that the king can do no wrong. This was a feudal rule that no lord of the manor could be sued in his own court. It then meant that the king being the great overlord of all and the peak of the English legal system, could not be sued in his own court or in the court of any of his vassals. Which in effect meant that no act or omission of the sovereign was open to impeachment or condemnation on the ground that it was wrongful.
    Of course this doctrine has since been abolished in the English legal system courtesy of the Crown Proceeding Act of 1947 which came into effect on January 1,1948.
    Effiong did a good job in pointing out current cases involving Buhari’s qualification to be president and a perjury case involving the governor of Cross River State, Ben Ayade. The case of Buhari is ongoing while Ayade’s case has been rested to the governor’s advantage. In my opinion these two cases are not a good precedent to predict a future problem for Fayose. Granted Fayose’s case revolved from act before office. However, the Constitution is very specific concerning our chief executive and their deputies. The following is a plain reading of Section 308: (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, but subject to subsection (2) of this section –
    (a) no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against a person to whom this section applies during his period of office;
    (b) a person to whom this section applies shall not be arrested or imprisoned during that period either in pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise; and
    (c) no process of any court requiring or compelling the appearance of a person to whom this section applies, shall be applied for or issued:
    Provided that in ascertaining whether any period of limitation has expired for the purposes of any proceedings against a person to whom this section applies, no account shall be taken of his period of office.
    (2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to civil proceedings against a person to whom this section applies in his official capacity or to civil or criminal proceedings in which such a person is only a nominal party.
    (3) This section applies to a person holding the office of President or Vice-President, Governor or Deputy Governor; and the reference in this section to “period of office” is a reference to the period during which the person holding such office is required to perform the functions of the office.
    I believe the case of Ayade and probably that of Buhari is in direct contravention of the 1999 Constitution, which I am sure at the appropriate juncture will be corrected.
    Effiong is however correct in insinuating that officers of the Bank or companies involved in this transaction will have much to defend concerning the transaction.
    Fayose as a sitting governor is a teflon that cannot be touched once wearing the apron of a chief executive. Of course the Ekiti State legislative house may holds the hammer concerning any remedy of moral or legal violations, not the courts.

    • D’analyst

      If the king, governor, or president can do no wrong, why is there a provision for impeachment? To take us back to 1963 and years of colonial chains is not only to be too retrospective but also primitive. Even Britain today is not governed by the Queen but the Prime Ministe who in no way enjoy absolutism. Please be guided!

      • Ms. Thenjiwe Obong

        you should have taken the time to read the whole write up, only then can you understand. nobody is taking you back to 1963, but the reference was that the immunity clause was also included in our constitution of that year. also if you read the whole piece, you would have understood that since 1948 the doctrine of immunity was removed from English law. you should “Please be guided!”

    • Jameel Muhammad

      In the present case, “the king” has no court to elicit for the invocation of your colonial derivative as our present constitutional provision is for the seperation of powers where the court is independent of the “king’s” executive.

      So, if Fayose is the “king”, then he has no court.

      • Ms. Thenjiwe Obong

        wow bro, you are taking everything out of context. the illustration of “the king” was a historical perspective of how the immunity clause came about. a little history. why are you jumping on that. did you even read the whole write up? for if you did, you would have been taught. and what has separation of powers got to do with this?

  • Isaac Azor

    When the gods want to destroy a man they first make him MAD.