This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
www.hollieguard.com
Some may already have seen this. Essentially, a young woman called Hollie Gazzard was murdered by a violent ex-boyfriend last year. Whilst he is, thankfully, in prison for a long time, there are a number of questions as to why not all of the agencies involved in dealing with Hollie when she was having problems with him were fully informed about his history. In particular, the 24 arrests he'd had for violent behaviour, including 21 against women, none of whom felt safe enough to press charges.
A disgrace.
However, Hollie's father has been active in helping to develop and promote a free smartphone app to try to protect other vulnerable people - and, by wider extension, groups of people who might get into trouble. If you take the time to look at the website, it should be obvious that part of the application could be useful to climbers: there's a function which triggers the phone if it's shaken, dropped or suddenly deccelerates and transmits info - including location - to designated bodies and individuals. It can also send audio and video. Scottish winter accidents?
I'll be looking into it for my wife and dependants (my phone is anything but smart, so I can't do apps). But stuff like this deserves a wider audience. There may be some teething issues, particularly with downloads, but it deserves support.
Edit: sorry, link doesn't work. But easy to look up.
Post edited at 21:36
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Had a look. Some of it is quite clever, but I would be a bit concerned about the security of the app and your data. Also you'd really have to trust your nominated contacts. The very fact it's on a phone of a domestic abuse victim could cause issues too.
If it encourages parents to let their kids wander a bit more its a good thing tho
Had a look. Some of it is quite clever, but I would be a bit concerned about the security of the app and your data. Also you'd really have to trust your nominated contacts. The very fact it's on a phone of a domestic abuse victim could cause issues too.
If it encourages parents to let their kids wander a bit more its a good thing tho
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Agreed, there are probably a few wrinkles to iron out, but the concept is ambitious and a big step in the right direction.
I'm intrigued by the way that the alert can be triggered by a fall or sudden cessation of movement, though. North face of the Ben, accident? Automatic message to contacts - who could verify - and GPS location sent.
Agreed, there are probably a few wrinkles to iron out, but the concept is ambitious and a big step in the right direction.
I'm intrigued by the way that the alert can be triggered by a fall or sudden cessation of movement, though. North face of the Ben, accident? Automatic message to contacts - who could verify - and GPS location sent.
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Belay lashhed to small ledge to leader: "Hurry up I'm cold and my phone will send for help if you don't bring me up soon!"?
>
> I'm intrigued by the way that the alert can be triggered by a fall or sudden cessation of movement, though. North face of the Ben, accident?
> I'm intrigued by the way that the alert can be triggered by a fall or sudden cessation of movement, though. North face of the Ben, accident?
Belay lashhed to small ledge to leader: "Hurry up I'm cold and my phone will send for help if you don't bring me up soon!"?
2
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Had a look. All very clever and I understand why it was developed. For me though it encourages the view that everyone is in mortal danger all the time and everyday life is a huge risk. This isn't true and errodes trust in society, which is not good.
Had a look. All very clever and I understand why it was developed. For me though it encourages the view that everyone is in mortal danger all the time and everyday life is a huge risk. This isn't true and errodes trust in society, which is not good.
6
1
In reply to MG:
No, it doesn't. It provides a discrete but reassuring safety net for people who genuinely believe themselves to be in danger; used properly, it might even provide for a victim to retain control in a stressful situation. What it isn't is a tool for mass panic or alarmist hyperbole.
And it's clearly been thought through, in that they've looked at other potential applications, like for athletes. If you want any convincing about the kind of quiet determination behind it, I'd suggest having a listen to the interview with Hollie's father on yesterday's Radio 4 Today programme. No wild anger, no demands - just a considered stance on what he thinks can be done to help others in a similar situation and, significantly, what he could and did do to help make it happen.
It's not the End of Days, it's something that could genuinely help save lives.
No, it doesn't. It provides a discrete but reassuring safety net for people who genuinely believe themselves to be in danger; used properly, it might even provide for a victim to retain control in a stressful situation. What it isn't is a tool for mass panic or alarmist hyperbole.
And it's clearly been thought through, in that they've looked at other potential applications, like for athletes. If you want any convincing about the kind of quiet determination behind it, I'd suggest having a listen to the interview with Hollie's father on yesterday's Radio 4 Today programme. No wild anger, no demands - just a considered stance on what he thinks can be done to help others in a similar situation and, significantly, what he could and did do to help make it happen.
It's not the End of Days, it's something that could genuinely help save lives.
2
In reply to Martin not maisie:
It's this sort of thing, next to a picture of a train, that bothers me:
"Journey
Journey ensures safe and confident travel by providing your emergency contacts with real-time updates of your movements as you move between two places."
Basically its saying travelling by train is dangerous and you need an alarm with you. It isn't and you don't, and encouraging the idea that you do is indeed alarmist and hyperbolic.
> No, it doesn't. It provides a discrete but reassuring safety net for people who genuinely believe themselves to be in danger;
It's this sort of thing, next to a picture of a train, that bothers me:
"Journey
Journey ensures safe and confident travel by providing your emergency contacts with real-time updates of your movements as you move between two places."
Basically its saying travelling by train is dangerous and you need an alarm with you. It isn't and you don't, and encouraging the idea that you do is indeed alarmist and hyperbolic.
10
In reply to Martin not maisie:
A phone app which logs every sudden deceleration would be great for teenagers: when they come and ask for a new phone because their old phone is knackered you could fire up the app and see just how badly they had mistreated the old one.
The use case they have in mind seems like a recipe for running down batteries and creating false alarms though.
A phone app which logs every sudden deceleration would be great for teenagers: when they come and ask for a new phone because their old phone is knackered you could fire up the app and see just how badly they had mistreated the old one.
The use case they have in mind seems like a recipe for running down batteries and creating false alarms though.
1
In reply to MG:
>Basically its saying travelling by train is dangerous and you need an alarm with you. It isn't and you don't, and encouraging the idea that you do is indeed alarmist and hyperbolic.
Perhaps you're male and you feel more confident travelling alone or at night, than a woman might?
Even if you don't use it for its fear reducing function, you'll at least know where the person is so you can put the tea on when they get close to home.
>Basically its saying travelling by train is dangerous and you need an alarm with you. It isn't and you don't, and encouraging the idea that you do is indeed alarmist and hyperbolic.
Perhaps you're male and you feel more confident travelling alone or at night, than a woman might?
Even if you don't use it for its fear reducing function, you'll at least know where the person is so you can put the tea on when they get close to home.
3
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Although it is a rebranding of a 4 year old app called PanicGuard.
> What it isn't is a tool for mass panic or alarmist hyperbole.
Although it is a rebranding of a 4 year old app called PanicGuard.
1
In reply to MG:
In 2013-14, over 109,000 individuals were referred by the police to the CPS for charging, specifically for violent crimes against women and girls. This only represents a proportion of all violent crime. But that's 109,000 individuals, many of whom had perpetrated more than one violent attack. Of those, a number were obviously weeded out - some, doubtless, were blameless but others because of insufficient evidence. Approximately 70,000 were convicted.
Out of the 40,000 who weren't convicted - many innocent, many not - how many might have been collared if further evidence had been available? The kind of evidence which could be provided by this app? Bear in mind that Hollie Gazzard's killer had been arrested twenty-four times for violent assault - 21 against women - but never had charges stuck to him. Would this app have helped to convict him earlier, given that the offences were increasing in severity? Hollie knew she was in danger, but what she lacked was something which demonstrated the level of danger. Everybody (except me) has camera phones, but the point about this app is that it's secretly triggered. Had she had footage to show, she might have been better protected. This is the central aim of the app - other functions are just inclusivity to widen its scope.
Remember that the above is only a subset of violent crime and that overall figures for violent crime, particularly stranger (so places like trains, public areas) and acquaintance (social settings, night's out) attacks, are way higher: victim numbers are into seven figures in the UK every year.
I'm going to make some assumptions now, about you. It's not a particularly edifying thing to do, but I'm genuinely interested in how many I get right, as these are all characteristics which reduce your chances of being a victim of violent crime. Here goes:
You're male
You're white
You're over 30
You're in a stable relationship
You have a white collar / professional job
You went to university
None of your friends or family have been victim to a serious violent assault in the last year
You don't have a conviction for crime involving violence
There are others, but they get a little personal. I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say that you don't have a daughter of at least 12 years old, but I'd ask you not to answer that one. Instead, out of the eight characteristics listed above, how many are true?
Now, lest you think I'm being alarmist about the risks of every day life, I'm not. I'm like you - my chances of being attacked are low. My family is relatively safe (my wife does a job which causes her to be attacked regularly, but in a controlled setting, with backup). Where I live, I can walk unhindered day and night. I've been involved in one mugging (coming to the aid of a victim) and it ended fine for everybody except the muggers. A friend of mine's close family member was murdered in a domestic incident, in our local environment. This app wouldn't have helped avoid the attack, but I suspect it would have done a better job of evidence gathering than did the police. I don't fear the breakdown of society - and I seem to remember that the last time we spoke, you were bemoaning the lack of engagement by people in matters of crime affecting us all. But this app is a great step on a certain path - and it might have incidental benefits for us as climbers.
> For me though it encourages the view that everyone is in mortal danger all the time and everyday life is a huge risk. This isn't true and errodes trust in society, which is not good.
In 2013-14, over 109,000 individuals were referred by the police to the CPS for charging, specifically for violent crimes against women and girls. This only represents a proportion of all violent crime. But that's 109,000 individuals, many of whom had perpetrated more than one violent attack. Of those, a number were obviously weeded out - some, doubtless, were blameless but others because of insufficient evidence. Approximately 70,000 were convicted.
Out of the 40,000 who weren't convicted - many innocent, many not - how many might have been collared if further evidence had been available? The kind of evidence which could be provided by this app? Bear in mind that Hollie Gazzard's killer had been arrested twenty-four times for violent assault - 21 against women - but never had charges stuck to him. Would this app have helped to convict him earlier, given that the offences were increasing in severity? Hollie knew she was in danger, but what she lacked was something which demonstrated the level of danger. Everybody (except me) has camera phones, but the point about this app is that it's secretly triggered. Had she had footage to show, she might have been better protected. This is the central aim of the app - other functions are just inclusivity to widen its scope.
Remember that the above is only a subset of violent crime and that overall figures for violent crime, particularly stranger (so places like trains, public areas) and acquaintance (social settings, night's out) attacks, are way higher: victim numbers are into seven figures in the UK every year.
I'm going to make some assumptions now, about you. It's not a particularly edifying thing to do, but I'm genuinely interested in how many I get right, as these are all characteristics which reduce your chances of being a victim of violent crime. Here goes:
You're male
You're white
You're over 30
You're in a stable relationship
You have a white collar / professional job
You went to university
None of your friends or family have been victim to a serious violent assault in the last year
You don't have a conviction for crime involving violence
There are others, but they get a little personal. I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say that you don't have a daughter of at least 12 years old, but I'd ask you not to answer that one. Instead, out of the eight characteristics listed above, how many are true?
Now, lest you think I'm being alarmist about the risks of every day life, I'm not. I'm like you - my chances of being attacked are low. My family is relatively safe (my wife does a job which causes her to be attacked regularly, but in a controlled setting, with backup). Where I live, I can walk unhindered day and night. I've been involved in one mugging (coming to the aid of a victim) and it ended fine for everybody except the muggers. A friend of mine's close family member was murdered in a domestic incident, in our local environment. This app wouldn't have helped avoid the attack, but I suspect it would have done a better job of evidence gathering than did the police. I don't fear the breakdown of society - and I seem to remember that the last time we spoke, you were bemoaning the lack of engagement by people in matters of crime affecting us all. But this app is a great step on a certain path - and it might have incidental benefits for us as climbers.
2
1
In reply to winhill:
Not seen this - I'll have a look.
> Although it is a rebranding of a 4 year old app called PanicGuard.
Not seen this - I'll have a look.
In reply to Martin not maisie:
You seem to be trying to argue both sides here. If (as your latest post suggests) you do think the UK is so dangerous we all (all women?) need alarms with us all the time, then fine. I disagree but there we are. However, earlier you seemed to think this wasn't the case.
As for your figures, let's say 100,000 is correct. If randomly distributed, that would imply a 1/300 hundred chance of a women being attacked in some way during the year. I would say this is a small chance and not something to be worried about. Add in that these attacks aren't random in most cases and the chance for most women is very small indeed. Hence my comments above about taking a train not being a dangerous exercise needing an alarm, as the app advertisement suggests.
This leads to the wider point that carrying alarms and so on makes people more distrustful of each other in a much wider sense, which has negative consequences. As a small example, shortly after I moved in, my 80 year neighbour asked me to change a light bulb. He barely knew me or me him but I has happy to do so and he let me into his house. The general feeling that the advertising you link to propagates is the idea that this sort of thing is dangerous and should be avoided. It isn't and shouldn't be.
I'll let you wonder about whether your assumptions about me have improved at all after your abysmal failure on the other thread.
You seem to be trying to argue both sides here. If (as your latest post suggests) you do think the UK is so dangerous we all (all women?) need alarms with us all the time, then fine. I disagree but there we are. However, earlier you seemed to think this wasn't the case.
As for your figures, let's say 100,000 is correct. If randomly distributed, that would imply a 1/300 hundred chance of a women being attacked in some way during the year. I would say this is a small chance and not something to be worried about. Add in that these attacks aren't random in most cases and the chance for most women is very small indeed. Hence my comments above about taking a train not being a dangerous exercise needing an alarm, as the app advertisement suggests.
This leads to the wider point that carrying alarms and so on makes people more distrustful of each other in a much wider sense, which has negative consequences. As a small example, shortly after I moved in, my 80 year neighbour asked me to change a light bulb. He barely knew me or me him but I has happy to do so and he let me into his house. The general feeling that the advertising you link to propagates is the idea that this sort of thing is dangerous and should be avoided. It isn't and shouldn't be.
I'll let you wonder about whether your assumptions about me have improved at all after your abysmal failure on the other thread.
Post edited at 15:13
1
In reply to MG:
Tell you what, you can keep your insults for other threads where they're more appropriate. We do also need to take a step back here, as you're muddling stats and pulling out some fairly big non sequiturs (for clarity, this where you ascribe a statement to me which I haven't actually made, or a stance which I haven't actually taken, in order to bolster your argument).
I absolutely haven't said this. I believe that everyone should know about this and that if they want to instal it, they should be able to. At the moment, its marketing seems a little under the radar, so wider attention would be good. I think it might have applications for climbing, particularly in mountaineering, but so far no takers on that point.
I made a very specific point, in fact, that for people like you and me, the UK is a safe place. I took pains to make that point and you've disregarded it. But our experience of society isn't the same as everybody elses.
Again, I made the point several times that the 109,000 individuals were just that - people being referred for this particular subset of crimes - and that the number of attacks were higher. But also that this represented a subset of attacks on both genders: in fact, in 2013-14, there were over 600,000 recorded incidents of violence against individuals. 1.4 million women reported domestic abuse (and, interestingly, about half that number of men did so), representing 1 in 12 women in total. There are many more stats like these, but they'll do to be going on with.
So where are these abused women? Probably not in your home, or your family, or amongst your friends. Which is the point: your life is sufficiently safe that you can arse about with dangerous hobbies like climbing if you need a rush; this is not the universal experience. So you can move within your chosen environment with relative impunity, and think society to be safe. Just like me, because that's my experience also. Would you think walking around a dodgy area of Glasgow, Manchester or London late at night on your own was sensible? Of course not. What if you had little or no choice? So if someone in that situation wanted to carry an app like this, are you quite so certain that your dismissive attitude is appropriate?
Over half of attacks against the individual are perpetrated by strangers or acquaintances (defined as people you'd know by sight or at a similar level), by the way. Of all of the attacks, though, in how many of the incidents do you think the victims *knew* that they weren't going to culminate in a serious outcome? I could easily understand somebody wanting a record of an escalating situation, even though stats might tell us that most such incidents end with no or relatively minor injuries. Abuse is, by definition, misuse of an unequal power base - which takes control away from the victim.
No. You're talking about a neighbour needing a favour. It's a world far, far removed from what this app is being aimed at and trying to draw similarities between the two is shameful.
I think you and the rest of us have *very* different recollections of that. But to address the first point, are you saying that you're going to tell me, or not? It's your prerogative, of course, but I'm fairly sure I'm 8 for 8. It's relevant to how you argue your stance, obviously. I rate 7 for 8, and am a parent.
If you're not going to do this properly, then don't bother at all. Putting words into my mouth clearly won't work and drawing conclusions from incomplete data shows that you have an agenda to which you fit your thought processes, rather than a desire to uncover the real stats.
Nobody should feel compelled to use apps like this - that's the whole point of a safe society, after all - but many *do* need help and security. So everybody should know about it. That's my consistent point. It ought to be obvious by now that I've more experience than you in dealing with things like safeguarding and if I were still working in that area, I'd certainly be having conversations about this app: it has the potential to be a game changer, and probably in a way that was invisible to the rest of society.
Tell you what, you can keep your insults for other threads where they're more appropriate. We do also need to take a step back here, as you're muddling stats and pulling out some fairly big non sequiturs (for clarity, this where you ascribe a statement to me which I haven't actually made, or a stance which I haven't actually taken, in order to bolster your argument).
> You seem to be trying to argue both sides here. If (as your latest post suggests) you do think the UK is so dangerous we all (all women?) need alarms with us all the time, then fine. I disagree but there we are. However, earlier you seemed to think this wasn't the case.
I absolutely haven't said this. I believe that everyone should know about this and that if they want to instal it, they should be able to. At the moment, its marketing seems a little under the radar, so wider attention would be good. I think it might have applications for climbing, particularly in mountaineering, but so far no takers on that point.
I made a very specific point, in fact, that for people like you and me, the UK is a safe place. I took pains to make that point and you've disregarded it. But our experience of society isn't the same as everybody elses.
> As for your figures, let's say 100,000 is correct. If randomly distributed, that would imply a 1/300 hundred chance of a women being attacked in some way during the year. I would say this is a small chance and not something to be worried about. Add in that these attacks aren't random in most cases and the chance for most women is very small indeed. Hence my comments above about taking a train not being a dangerous exercise needing an alarm, as the app advertisement suggests.
Again, I made the point several times that the 109,000 individuals were just that - people being referred for this particular subset of crimes - and that the number of attacks were higher. But also that this represented a subset of attacks on both genders: in fact, in 2013-14, there were over 600,000 recorded incidents of violence against individuals. 1.4 million women reported domestic abuse (and, interestingly, about half that number of men did so), representing 1 in 12 women in total. There are many more stats like these, but they'll do to be going on with.
So where are these abused women? Probably not in your home, or your family, or amongst your friends. Which is the point: your life is sufficiently safe that you can arse about with dangerous hobbies like climbing if you need a rush; this is not the universal experience. So you can move within your chosen environment with relative impunity, and think society to be safe. Just like me, because that's my experience also. Would you think walking around a dodgy area of Glasgow, Manchester or London late at night on your own was sensible? Of course not. What if you had little or no choice? So if someone in that situation wanted to carry an app like this, are you quite so certain that your dismissive attitude is appropriate?
Over half of attacks against the individual are perpetrated by strangers or acquaintances (defined as people you'd know by sight or at a similar level), by the way. Of all of the attacks, though, in how many of the incidents do you think the victims *knew* that they weren't going to culminate in a serious outcome? I could easily understand somebody wanting a record of an escalating situation, even though stats might tell us that most such incidents end with no or relatively minor injuries. Abuse is, by definition, misuse of an unequal power base - which takes control away from the victim.
> This leads to the wider point that carrying alarms and so on makes people more distrustful of each other in a much wider sense, which has negative consequences. As a small example, shortly after I moved in, my 80 year neighbour asked me to change a light bulb. He barely knew me or me him but I has happy to do so and he let me into his house. The general feeling that the advertising you link to propagates is the idea that this sort of thing is dangerous and should be avoided. It isn't and shouldn't be.
No. You're talking about a neighbour needing a favour. It's a world far, far removed from what this app is being aimed at and trying to draw similarities between the two is shameful.
> I'll let you wonder about whether your assumptions about me have improved at all after your abysmal failure on the other thread.
I think you and the rest of us have *very* different recollections of that. But to address the first point, are you saying that you're going to tell me, or not? It's your prerogative, of course, but I'm fairly sure I'm 8 for 8. It's relevant to how you argue your stance, obviously. I rate 7 for 8, and am a parent.
If you're not going to do this properly, then don't bother at all. Putting words into my mouth clearly won't work and drawing conclusions from incomplete data shows that you have an agenda to which you fit your thought processes, rather than a desire to uncover the real stats.
Nobody should feel compelled to use apps like this - that's the whole point of a safe society, after all - but many *do* need help and security. So everybody should know about it. That's my consistent point. It ought to be obvious by now that I've more experience than you in dealing with things like safeguarding and if I were still working in that area, I'd certainly be having conversations about this app: it has the potential to be a game changer, and probably in a way that was invisible to the rest of society.
5
3
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Fascinating, but completely ignoring the point I have been making: "For me though it encourages the view that everyone is in mortal danger all the time and everyday life is a huge risk. This isn't true and erodes trust in society, which is not good." I then gave an example from the advert that emphasised just this - it makes out routine train journeys need this sort of alarm. And I think you are wrong, the app's advertising is clearly aimed not just at those who are vulnerable but everyone, hence my point about trust generally, and the example of my neighbour. This is where that sort of thinking leads, and it isn't the sort of society I want
http://www.privatecommunities.com/gated-communities.htm
It would be easier if you didn't try and personalise everything, but if you do, then perhaps avoid the faux outrage at mild insults.
Fascinating, but completely ignoring the point I have been making: "For me though it encourages the view that everyone is in mortal danger all the time and everyday life is a huge risk. This isn't true and erodes trust in society, which is not good." I then gave an example from the advert that emphasised just this - it makes out routine train journeys need this sort of alarm. And I think you are wrong, the app's advertising is clearly aimed not just at those who are vulnerable but everyone, hence my point about trust generally, and the example of my neighbour. This is where that sort of thinking leads, and it isn't the sort of society I want
http://www.privatecommunities.com/gated-communities.htm
It would be easier if you didn't try and personalise everything, but if you do, then perhaps avoid the faux outrage at mild insults.
1
3
In reply to MG:
I haven't ignored any of your points - I've literally taken them step by step and gone through them in a measured way, at length. I've given them all consideration, one after the other - it's all there. I haven't insulted your intelligence and I haven't personalised any of it: in fact, I've asked you not to do so in return, because it's inappropriate.
I've set out, with quite a lot of courtesy, why your view of society might not be everybody's. Believe me, I'm on my best behaviour here because this topic is quite important. I've taken pains to acknowledge that *our* experiences grant us a relaxed view of the risks people may face. I haven't advocated any compulsory uptake of apps like this; nor have I suggested that they should be visible to society. Yet you seem piqued that I haven't spent enough time talking about train journeys. I'm not sure what I could say, but 'OK'. Or, 'as you wish'. Just exactly what point am I missing?
In return, you've failed to address anything I've actually said, but misrepresented my position, ignored any of the stats I've given you which don't fit your world view, mangled those which you thought would help you - not understanding that you weren't dealing from a full deck - and refused to answer any questions.
I repeat again, your world and my world are relatively safe. Other people's aren't. The one major incident, which happened to my friend's family member, was statistically unlikely to happen and vanishingly unlikely to happen again within my circle - it had no effect on my view of the world. But it happened.
Trust me, I'm being very polite here, because I understand this stuff better than do you and I would be genuinely pleased if you were to look at it with fresh perspective - not in order to grubby-up your world view, but to see it from another perspective. I'm hoping for some kind of considered response from you which acknowledges a better understanding of the issues.
I haven't ignored any of your points - I've literally taken them step by step and gone through them in a measured way, at length. I've given them all consideration, one after the other - it's all there. I haven't insulted your intelligence and I haven't personalised any of it: in fact, I've asked you not to do so in return, because it's inappropriate.
I've set out, with quite a lot of courtesy, why your view of society might not be everybody's. Believe me, I'm on my best behaviour here because this topic is quite important. I've taken pains to acknowledge that *our* experiences grant us a relaxed view of the risks people may face. I haven't advocated any compulsory uptake of apps like this; nor have I suggested that they should be visible to society. Yet you seem piqued that I haven't spent enough time talking about train journeys. I'm not sure what I could say, but 'OK'. Or, 'as you wish'. Just exactly what point am I missing?
In return, you've failed to address anything I've actually said, but misrepresented my position, ignored any of the stats I've given you which don't fit your world view, mangled those which you thought would help you - not understanding that you weren't dealing from a full deck - and refused to answer any questions.
I repeat again, your world and my world are relatively safe. Other people's aren't. The one major incident, which happened to my friend's family member, was statistically unlikely to happen and vanishingly unlikely to happen again within my circle - it had no effect on my view of the world. But it happened.
Trust me, I'm being very polite here, because I understand this stuff better than do you and I would be genuinely pleased if you were to look at it with fresh perspective - not in order to grubby-up your world view, but to see it from another perspective. I'm hoping for some kind of considered response from you which acknowledges a better understanding of the issues.
2
3
In reply to MG:
I think you may have missed the point. For some people, with violent partners or ex partners, going out alone is an issue.
One girl I supported had to move back in with her mum and the police fitted extra locks and panic alarms that called them instantly. It wasn't an over reaction. She was pretty much a prisoner.
It isn't necessarily aimed at everyone.
I think you may have missed the point. For some people, with violent partners or ex partners, going out alone is an issue.
One girl I supported had to move back in with her mum and the police fitted extra locks and panic alarms that called them instantly. It wasn't an over reaction. She was pretty much a prisoner.
It isn't necessarily aimed at everyone.
2
In reply to marsbar:
Nor is it trying to say the world is a dangerous place, it's just something for those who may want/need to have it.
> It isn't necessarily aimed at everyone.
Nor is it trying to say the world is a dangerous place, it's just something for those who may want/need to have it.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...