The quasi Official Stupid Ideas that have actually been done thread
-
whole knives thing was after a spate of knife murders by teenage gangs in London.
See, here we don't have guns to shoot people at a distance...
Legally owned guns appear[1] to be a strong deterrent to violent crime.
Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million …
The number of people that carry concealed handguns is likely even higher, since permits are not required in seven states. …
At the same time, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 per 100,000, about a 25 percent drop. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent[2]
[1] I say "appear" because there is only a correlative link.
[2] The Washington Times article is based on a report by the Crime Prevention Research Center that is set to be released tomorrow.
-
See, here we don't have guns to shoot people at a distance...
Right, so you invented the Glasgow Smile instead.
WARNING: DO NOT GOOGLE THAT IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS!
-
WTF is wrong with your chickens?
He's forgotten his country plays Association Football instead of regular, no-prefix football.
-
@boomzilla said:
WTF is wrong with your chickens?
He's forgotten his country plays Association Football instead of regular, no-prefix football.
I'm just worried that they're abusing the birds or something to get the eggs to look like footballs.
-
Yes, we have been known to riot over football (that "American Football" thing is more properly "hand egg") and the whole knives thing was after a spate of knife murders by teenage gangs in London.
As I've heard, football is a game for the plebs, played on foot, as opposed to polo, a game for gentlemen played on horseback.
-
Legally owned guns appear to be a strong deterrent to violent crime.
In this particular case, the murders were largely of gang members by members of other gangs. With occasional spill-over outside that, unfortunately, but what do you expect? It's not like gangers are going to carefully do a background check on someone first…
-
WARNING: DO NOT GOOGLE THAT IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS!
There is a Pinterest page for "Glasgow Smile". Pinterest must be getting rough.
-
In this particular case, the murders were largely of gang members by members of other gangs.
How the hell do you back up that assertion? FBI statistics back in 2012 indicated that up to 74% of gun related homicides were gang related. But what about all other homicides that were included in the rates I quoted? I wasn't able to find anything about that. Well, FBI stats published in 2012 indicate that about 68% of homicides in 2011 were committed with firearms, so that means that maybe half of all murders are gang related firearm murders. Then again, that 74% included all gang related murders: inter-gang violence, murders to keep people quiet, collateral deaths, initiation killings, etc. Your assertion is looking more like some made up fantasy, and less like it is based in reality. Even if your claim was meaningful, so what?
In any case, notice how I specified "violent crime", not "murders"? In addition to murder, violent crime also includes things like rape, assault, and armed robbery.
It's not like gangers are going to carefully do a background check on someone first…
The point is that most criminals want to pick soft, easy targets. They want to maximize the reward-risk ratio. If you know that your target is now nearly three times more likely to be protected by firearms, that will negatively impact your reward-risk ratio. Some potential criminals are going to either not commit crimes, or move on to other places with less risk. Especially since many concealed carry permit holders are conditioned to empty their magazine into the threat. That can make targeting a concealed carrier a life-and-death scenario.
It isn't all about the gang members.
-
-
@dkf said:
In this particular case [the entire United States], the murders were largely of gang members by members of other gangs.
How the hell do you back up that assertion?
I could be wrong, but I thought @dkf was referring to the case of the London knife murders.
-
-
-
Changed it to BulletBin, right?
-
Git arguments the last few days, guns and football/handegg today. By my count, it's nearly time for another religion flamewar
-
And then climate change and car transmissions.
-
How the hell do you back up that assertion? FBI statistics back in 2012
About London knife murders? The FBI doesn't give a shit about that. The fact that the majority of the murders are of gang members has been pretty well documented, and the vast majority of it is (presumed) due to turf wars between gangs.
The point is that most criminals want to pick soft, easy targets.
In a turf war, the priority targets are members of other gangs. The general public are best avoided from the gangers' perspective because they aren't making turf claims in the first place, and killing them attracts enormously more heat from the cops. Almost every time that an ordinary person catches trouble in these situations, it's either because they're really unlucky with where they are (caught in crossfire) or because there's a case of mistaken identity.
I'm not going to claim that the gangers don't use guns. Some do.
It isn't all about the gang members.
Except in specific cases where it really is. I was talking about more specific things than you; your generalisations don't apply.
-
The store was probably in England, the place that--possibly justifiably--believes its people are the kind of sheeple who need over-engineered outlets to keep from sticking their tongues in them,
It's not tongues, it's small children's fingers, and considering that small children like to poke at everything they can reach and can't be watched literally every second, and sockets that are slightly safer are just as easy to operate, I don't see what your problem is.
and where people who suggest things like banning pointy kitchen knives aren't hounded from public life in shame.
??? If anyone did suggest it I think they would be ridiculed greatly. What are you talking about? Did anyone suggest this lately? I haven't heard about it,In the anecdote I related, the store's policy was ludicrous and as far as I can tell, illegal. If it was normal for this country I would not have thought it an anecdote worth relating.
-
as I can tell, illegal
I don't know of any law preventing shops from refusing to sell a particular product to a particular person. Possibly some discrimination laws, in which case you might have been able to take them to court over age discrimination.
Disclaimer: IANAL
-
I don't know of any law preventing shops from refusing to sell a particular product to a particular person.
There is none. Had they been refusing to sell it to a particular person, I would not have said it was illegal, because it would not have been. But that was not what they were doing or what I said.Possibly some discrimination laws, in which case you might have been able to take them to court over age discrimination.
The Equality Act 2010. Disclaimer: IAAMAL
-
They are acting with due diligence. Same setup as alcohol: legal limit is 18, stores have a 21+ or 25+ policy whereby if you provide ID for being 18 they will sell it to you, otherwise they can turn you away, and I doubt you'd find many law enforcement officers particularly enthusiastic about arguing this one.
-
Apparently here it is implemented such that shops can be fined if they don't ask someone below 25 for ID, while the limit is at 18.
-
Apparently here it is implemented such that shops can be fined if they don't ask someone below 25 for ID, while the limit is at 18.
Nope (presuming UK):
##It is against the law:
- to sell alcohol to someone under 18 anywhere, and can lead to a maximum fine of £20,000 (1) for bar staff/managers or premises may eventually be shut down.
- for an adult to buy or attempt to buy alcohol on behalf of someone under 18.
- for someone under 18 to buy alcohol, attempt to buy alcohol or to be sold alcohol.
[...]
Challenge 25
Challenge 25 is a scheme that encourages anyone who is over 18 but looks under 25 to carry acceptable ID when they want to buy alcohol. Challenge 25 builds on the Challenge 21 campaign introduced by the British Beer and Pub Association, who represent the beer and pub sector, in 2005.
The new signage in red and black adds a fresh and striking look and makes it clear that under 25s must now **expect** to be challenged to prove their age. It also spells out the heavy fines which could follow for those caught breaking the law.
It is not illegal, nor a finable offence, for a shop/pub to fail to ID a 18-25 yr-old for a purchase. Case in point, a 19 yr-old I regularly drink with in pubs that know him don't ask for his ID every time he buys a drink (ditto when he was 18). No-one's breaking any laws or by-laws for that (not) happening.
The 25 limit is a heavy suggestion to till staff to ID anyone they don't know who may look vaguely/somewhat over 18 but may actually be under 18 to (ostensibly) protect the till staff from being fined for selling to underage, and to (more likely) put off the underage from attempting to purchase.
Anyway, this slippery slope leads to shit like this:
Is it any surprise he was ID'd? Youthful-looking father-of-three, 50,
Father-of-three Charles Brown (pictured), 50, from Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, was asked to provide the ID by a female cashier at his local Morrison's store.
-
Challenge 25 builds on the Challenge 21 campaign
I swear this shit was following my age. When I turned 18, challenge 21 was everywhere. As soon as I got close to 21 it started switching to challenge 25. I was fully expecting it to be challenge 35 by now.
Doesn't help that I also have a bit of a baby face, but at least my goatee tends to keep me looking old enough now
-
I swear this shit was following my age. When I turned 18, challenge 21 was everywhere. As soon as I got close to 21 it started switching to challenge 25. I was fully expecting it to be challenge 35 by now.
Your bets now, please, on how long before the Challenge Age overlaps the State Pension age in the UK...
-
The Netherlands, in my case. I know that basically they can ask anyone for ID or refuse to sell age-restricted products. I've heard people claim that failing to ask a <25yo for ID is also a fine-able offence, but I'm not sure if I buy that. It's not the most reliable of sources.
-
State pension age is going to accelerate faster than the Challenge age. By the time I reach retirement age I'll probably be in my 80s, and it'll be Challenge 40
-
They are acting with due diligence. Same setup as alcohol: legal limit is 18, stores have a 21+ or 25+ policy whereby if you provide ID for being 18 they will sell it to you, otherwise they can turn you away, and I doubt you'd find many law enforcement officers particularly enthusiastic about arguing this one.
No. That's what I thought at first but they actually would not sell it to anyone under 21. I had ID proving I was over 18.
Also there is no legal age restriction on buying a screwdriver - the tool, not the cocktail - though it may be allowable for a business to refuse to sell something to children even without a legal restriction on that item.
-
Git arguments the last few days, guns and football/handegg today. By my count, it's nearly time for another religion flamewar
We've been working on that for some time. See below.
And then climate change and car transmissions.
-
Also there is no legal age restriction on buying a screwdriver - though it may be allowable for a business to refuse to sell something to children even without a legal restriction on that item.
Overzealous application of [this law][1] results in that type of wrongheadedness. More examples:
2009 - spoons
2013 - sewing kit
https://www.reddit.com/r/britishproblems/comments/19iio0/i_got_idd_for_buying_a_sewing_kit/
2015 - plastic cutlery
[1]: https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives "It is illegal to ...sell a knife of any kind to anyone under 18 years old"
-
See also the story I've previously told about being IDd for a sharpening steel
-
It would not surprise me at all if the law on buying knives has been applied by someone to screwdrivers. But that was not what happened. I was old enough to buy an knife and I had ID with me.
-
I think this sort of thing is mostly due to people working retail generally not being hired for their intelligence.
Back to alcohol, a couple of anecdata points: The legal age to buy alcohol here is 21 (varies by state); Wal-Mart has a store policy to check the ID of anyone who appears to be under 40. A dinner-theatre place we'd go occasionally when I was in college had a policy of IDing everyone who wanted alcohol; you could be 110, and they'd still check your ID.
-
A dinner-theatre place we'd go occasionally when I was in college had a policy of IDing everyone who wanted alcohol; you could be 110, and they'd still check your ID.
Having worked at a place that sold booze I can tell you exactly why that policy exists, and it was my personal policy too (unless I knew you and there was nobody in line behind you I didn't also know.)
Depending on the state, it's a fine of up to $10,000 to sell to a minor. And you will spend the night in jail, at a minimum. There is nearly literally nothing anyone underage could offer me to get me to sell to them.
But they know that raising a stink is the surest way to get people to break policy. "You didn't ID the gray-haired coot on oxygen wearing a cane? Can't ID me, then!" No, skippy, it doesn't work that way.
If I ID everyone, I can just say that: "I ID everyone. No exceptions. I would ID my own mother." I have flat-out told people that if they're not willing to pay the $10,000 fine I am not willing to sell to them. Because the cops run stings ALL THE TIME.
-
@abarker said:
How the hell do you back up that assertion? FBI statistics back in 2012
About London knife murders? The FBI doesn't give a shit about that. The fact that the majority of the murders are of gang members has been pretty well documented, and the vast majority of it is (presumed) due to turf wars between gangs.
Ah, see, you weren't clear what you were were talking about. The way you initially replied to me made it seem like you were trying to downplay the drop in violent crimes in the US. Seeing that you meant the knife stabbings, perhaps you should have mentioned that when you were talking about gangs.
Except in specific cases where it really is. I was talking about more specific things than you; your generalisations don't apply.
It really would have helped if you'd FUCKING MENTIONED YOUR SPECIFICS!
-
@FrostCat said:
The store was probably in England, the place that--possibly justifiably--believes its people are the kind of sheeple who need over-engineered outlets to keep from sticking their tongues in them,
It's not tongues, it's small children's fingers, and considering that small children like to poke at everything they can reach and can't be watched literally every second, and sockets that are slightly safer are just as easy to operate, I don't see what your problem is.
That's why these were invented:
Plugs into an unused outlet so kids can't screw with it, and it's a PITA to get out. I don't even mind if my kids try removing them because I haven't seen them make them budge at all and they quickly give up trying.
-
Back to alcohol, a couple of anecdata points: The legal age to buy alcohol here is 21 (varies by state); Wal-Mart has a store policy to check the ID of anyone who appears to be under 40. A dinner-theatre place we'd go occasionally when I was in college had a policy of IDing everyone who wanted alcohol; you could be 110, and they'd still check your ID.
Hooters used to have a similar policy. They probably still do. 15 years ago I was at a management meeting with my father who was roughly 56 years old at the time. The server asked to see his ID and he chuckled. She said it was policy to ID everyone, regardless of age. His response, "You're fucking with me, right?"
Our state used to have a policy where cashiers had to ID everyone. When it was first put in place I ended up in line behind a woman who was 75 years old trying to buy a bottle of Chardonnay. She was absolutely confused when they asked for her ID, which she did not have on her. Rightfully so IMHO.
Policies and laws need to provide for common sense. It is a shame that common sense is so uncommon. Especially so among law and policy makers.
-
-
I Am Also Mott A Lawyer?
-
I Am Also Mott A Lawyer?
If I meet a lawyer who drives a big diesel truck and rides a motorcycle, he will become my lawyer.
-
-
If I meet a lawyer who drives a big diesel truck and rides a motorcycle, he will become my lawyer.
Especially if he can do both at the same time.
-
I Ask Anything, Mainly of Alpine Lawyers?
-
I don't think I have any pictures handy of my motorcycle in the back of my truck, unfortunately.
-
Plugs into an unused outlet so kids can't screw with it
Yeah, but now you're actually arguing with people who use ring wiring, i.e., wasting your time.
-
Policies and laws need to provide for common sense.
I've pointed out the problem with that.
If you haven't worked retail and dealt with an asshole 17yo yelling at you that you have to sell him cigs without ID because you didn't ID his grandma, you don't understand why cashiers ID everyone. The nice ones will make exceptions to people they know. I had a 50 year old guy blow into my store at 3AM ranting because the store up the street IDed him for the third time. I explained to him why we do it, because no amount of customer abuse beats a $10K fine (half that for cigs) and a stay in jail, and I told him that I had to, by law, ID him once, but if he came in regularly, once I recognized him I would stop IDing him.
I'm pretty sure I've had cops try to sting me 2, maybe 3 times. But I knew one of our other stores had 3 or 4 people in a short time arrested for selling to minors, and the store lost its liquor license, and that wasn't gonna be me.
You sell beer, you hear all of the stories right quick, including such things seen on Not Always Right as "i'll just give the money to my mom and have her buy 'em, then". Uh, no, and now I can't sell to her either, kid.
And I have, in fact, called 911 to report people grabbing cases of beer and running.
-
I think this sort of thing is mostly due to people working retail generally not being hired for their intelligence.
I presume you're talking about the management, since it is usually them dictating the (in-shop) rules.
Staff on the tills don't generally have much leeway about the rules (if they're stricter than what the law requires of course.)
-
Plugs into an unused outlet so kids can't screw with it, and it's a PITA to get out.
Unfortunately companies still make those things in the UK, and the only thing they achieve is to make the previously inherently safe socket dangerous.
They snap easily, leaving the shutters forced open, none of them are the right physical size so they usually pop out slightly - exposing live parts.
A couple of designs even deliberately expose live copper that would be untouchable without it.
- and one of those even has a bulbous appearance perfect for a child to suck.
I've had several fights with Council safety inspectors over that. Fucking idiots - the name of the thing is irrelevant, what matters is what it actually does.
Thankfully the HSE (eventually) backed me up and told the Council they were stupid.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5039454/Electrical-socket-safety-covers-are-absurd-and-dangerous-say-engineers.html
@Article said:
They say that the covers, used by thousands of parents to stop their children poking their fingers into a socket,...
Must have very small children. Or children with very small fingers:
Irregardless....
@Article said:
Though [Institution of Engineering and Technology] admit there are no cases of any children being harmed by socket covers..
Shroud wavers must wave shrouds.
Alternatively "We must be seen to be doing something to get ourselves in the news. This is something..."
@Article said:
For a child to get an electric shock, therefore, it needs to not only stick their finger deep into the top hole, but also one of the other holes
Even assuming they could even get to the first knuckle on a finger in the top hole to reach the trigger to open the shutter, that trigger requires a (comparatively) lot of force to even shift the shutter. The reverse side of the sockets look like (e.g.) this:
A child's finger needs to
-
not only be inserted far enough (covered above,)
-
but with sufficient force to push that T-shaped shutter down against the spring. At a 90° angle; finger going horizontally, shutter going vertically.
-
-
Shroud wavers must wave shrouds.
Interesting. On this side of the pond we generally the more direct "waving the bloody shirt", where that third word isn't your typical British euphemism.
-
"waving the bloody shirt"
From the Pikiweedia article on the subject there's not quite the same connotations, specifically:
blood of martyrs or heroes to criticize opponents
isn't inferred in 'shroud-waving' - there are no specific 'opponents' as such, and the 'martyrs' are typically (as above) non-existent. But they could have been!!!
"Funding" for police is to decrease. Police doom-monger about it citing decreased services because of it, despite having substantial funds, and have managed to increase it year on year despite the cuts.
No bloody martyr, and the opponents are (ultimately) the general public who have to pay for them to increase their coffers. Though they probably have the government in their sights on this one.
Another: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/10020057/Time_to_stop_the_NHS_shroud_waving/
The money-sink that is the NHS are (well the link is from 2009 - but they're still at it) complaining that they don't have enough money and dire things might happen and they're close to crisis point if they aren't given more.
"Martyr"? The NHS.
Opponent? Government (i.e. the taxpayer) againThing is the more they're given, the more they waste, and the less efficient they get. As history has actually proven in the intervening 6 years.
Buying alcohol | Drinkaware
Home
Electrical socket safety covers are "absurd and dangerous" say engineers
