In the news

[Moll Flanders]

One Million Students Are Using Sugar Daddies To Pay For Tuition

Students are joining an online site to meet up with rich clients that will help fund their lifestyle. Apparently the site experienced a 54% increase in student membership in 2013 which was when tuition fees went up.

According to the statistics, violent crime and property crime rates have gone up in my area within the past several years.
The city violent crime rate for my city was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 80.32% and the city property crime rate was higher than the national property crime rate average by 61.59%.

Wonderful.

That is terrible.

 

[Mischief]

I think it's a combination that media reports them more (inspiring others) and that media reports them more (making us think they are more common than they actually are).

I agree.

Certain types of crime certainly inspire copycats, just as suicides often set off other suicides. We really are herd/pack animals, and not just in our consumer choices.

 

[KLS52]

According to the statistics, violent crime and property crime rates have gone up in my area within the past several years.
The city violent crime rate for my city was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 80.32% and the city property crime rate was higher than the national property crime rate average by 61.59%.

Wonderful.

 

[Wolfie]

I think it's a combination that media reports them more (inspiring others) and that media reports them more (making us think they are more common than they actually are).

I agree. I think the non-stop coverage may inspire gun crimes committed by nuts, but it seems like there's way more crime because we have 24-7 news coverage now and we hear about crimes from all over, not just in our local areas. Same with child abductions. Everyone fears a boogy man hiding in the bushes and people are afraid to let their kids do anything, when the fact is kids are far more likely to be harmed by an adult they know well.

The media reports what grabs the headlines and sells. Thus why you hear about every, single encounter with a dog that is a pit bull or even might be a pit bull, yet have to dig for the stories when other breeds bite. (By the way, kids are something like 1000 times more likely to be hurt by a parent or other adult known to them than by any type of dog.)

IMO, and this probably won't go over well here, psychiatrists need to have more power at stopping the nut with gun types than they do now. Any psychiatrist worth his diploma can pick someone like that out, but isn't allowed to do anything unless they feel someone is a threat at that particular moment. I get that most mentally ill aren't likely to be violent, but we need to stop the ones that are likely before they kill.

The Virginia Tech shooter would line up targets at the gun range on the floor, then practice shooting. Why didn't anyone who saw that think to turn that **** in? I guess the same reason why no one thought guys wanting to learn to fly a plane but who "didn't need to know how to land" were worth reporting.

I highly recommend reading The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker. It's the difference between being informed and fearing everyone.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I know that a lot of crime is unreported so I would think the crime statistics are way off, speaking just for the parts of London that I've lived in. Just anecdotally I have known lots of men who have been the victims of muggings or attempted muggings and they don't bother reporting it to the police as they don't think it would be considered serious enough. In my experience young women in lower socio economic groups are likely to have been victims of sexual assault and/or domestic violence but very few of the women I worked with wanted to go to the police to report it. Added to the fact that black and ethnic minority people in London say they feel victimised or threatened by the police so if they are a victim of crime they would be less likely to report it too.


BBC News - Child car smoking ban proposal before Lords

They want to bring in a ban to stop adults smoking in cars if they have a child on board. It would be difficult to enforce, surely.

 

[Second Summer]

They want to bring in a ban to stop adults smoking in cars if they have a child on board. It would be difficult to enforce, surely.

I don't see how it would be all that difficult ... In any case, it's a really good thing to ban.

 

[Blobbenstein]

people still drive and use their mobiles. The law against that would be easier to enforce, but it isn't, and that is more immediately lethal, especially for cyclists and pedestrians.
If a police person sees someone smoking they won't necessarily know if there is a child in the car.

 

[Second Summer]

people still drive and use their mobiles. The law against that would be easier to enforce, but it isn't, and that is more immediately lethal, especially for cyclists and pedestrians.
If a police person sees someone smoking they won't necessarily know if there is a child in the car.

I doubt the goal is to physically pull over everyone who impairs their children's health by smoking in cars.

Similarly, it's the law to have a valid driving licence when you drive a car, and it's even more difficult to spot that invalid licence from outside the car, than to spot the smoker with children. It's also the law to have proper seat belts for everyone traveling in a car, and that can be difficult to ascertain from outside as well.

 

[Blobbenstein]

If a police person pulls someone over, then the person can put out the cigarette. If the policeman says he can smell cigarette smoke, would that be the only evidence to prosecute, without visual witness of smoking?

 

[Moll Flanders]

If a police person pulls someone over, then the person can put out the cigarette. If the policeman says he can smell cigarette smoke, would that be the only evidence to prosecute, without visual witness of smoking?

Yes, you would think it would have to be blatant for the person to receive a fine and you would think the type of parents who smoke with children in the car would either smoke in a subtle way or tell their kids to duck down if they saw a police car. A person could lie and say the child was over 16 as well, I doubt ordinary police have the time to check this type of crime, unless you were in a very low crime area I suppose.

Not that I think parents should smoke around their children, but some parents are selfish idiots.

 

[Second Summer]

If a police person pulls someone over, then the person can put out the cigarette. If the policeman says he can smell cigarette smoke, would that be the only evidence to prosecute, without visual witness of smoking?

Doesn't seem much different from talking on your mobile while driving, which is also illegal, and the police doesn't seem to have a problem enforcing that.

A person could lie and say the child was over 16 as well, I doubt ordinary police have the time to check this type of crime, unless you were in a very low crime area I suppose.

If there was doubt about the child's age, they could just run the involved persons' identities through a computer / birth register.

Not that I think parents should smoke around their children, but some parents are selfish idiots.

There has to be a law against it, otherwise the children have no protection whatsoever.

 

[Poppy]

There has to be a law against it, otherwise the children have no protection whatsoever.

Children are not allowed to buy cigarettes and no one is allowed to smoke in or around schools. But a law against smoking in your car with children inside? Ha! I wouldn't imagine that coming to pass anytime soon. (Of course, I'm in VA, home of Philip Morris)

 

[Pirate]

I agree that law would be very hard to reinforce, especially with the amount of times I see people on their mobile phones driving (usually I am slamming my breaks on and calling them a wanker bcause they havent spotted me).

I can see both sides of the arguement. On the one hand, it seems a little too controlling to say that people aren't allowed to smoke in their own cars. However, on the other hand, I am also the asthmatic child of a then-chain smoker. I often wonder if I would have such a bad chest now if my Dad had given up smoking or just not smoked around me. I know that a fine wouldn't have stopped my Dad from smoking in the car though (if having a small child with a chest infection didn't). I think a large part of smoking is the "it won't happen to me" attitude - if someone smokes knowing it will likely kill them what will a fine do!?

Just found this shared on Facebook: http://www.upworthy.com/i-can-see-w...d-the-best-anti-smoking-ad-ever?g=2&c=reccon1

 

[Mischief]

Laws, even laws that aren't all that easy to enforce, do make a difference.

For example, it was after it became legally required to wear seatbelts that people's use of seatbelts became widespread, even though people weren't specifically being pulled over for failing to wear seatbelts.

Sometimes a law underscores the seriousness of something, and not a whole lot more is required.

Edited to correct typo.

 

[thefadedone]

http://news.msn.com/offbeat/hundreds-of-living-dead-pythons-found-in-home?ocid=newssocial

 

[Amy SF]

Laws, even laws that aren't all that easy to enforce, do make a difference.

For example, it was after it became legally required to wear seatbelts that people's use of seatbelts became widespread, even though people weren't specifically being pulled over for failing to wear seatbelts.

Sometimes a law underscores the seriousness of something, and not a whole lot more is required.

Edited to correct typo.

Yep. It's psychological law. It gets people thinking about the problem, and the more they think about it, the more they're likely to comply with the law, especially if it's something that affects their children.

Long before indoor smoking was banned in California, there were always smokers who made a conscious choice of avoiding smoking when there were kids nearby, because they knew that it wasn't healthy for the kids to inhale the smoke. They didn't seem to care about the adults, though.

 

[Moll Flanders]

There has to be a law against it, otherwise the children have no protection whatsoever.

I wasn't saying I disagreed with the ban, just that I can't see that it would/will be enforced very well.

It has got through the Lords now, but has to go through more to be passed completely. They think it would be a £60 fine.

I wonder if my husband's cancer was caused by his mother smoking around him as he didn't have any of the other risk factors, the doctor said it was unusual he had that type of cancer at quite a young age.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Just saw on BBC news, that they are going to try to bring Michael Schumacher out of his induced coma....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25963926

 

[shyvas]

This is good news for all the children that are allergic to peanuts :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25917272

 

[das_nut]

I'd worry less about the number of kids exposed to second hand smoke and more about the number of kids exposed to vehicle exhaust...

Ironically, riding in a vehicle with a smoker is probably dangerous for the kid - but so is riding in a vehicle with a non-smoker. Automobiles are deadly, folks.