Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is that we are more powerful than we can imagine.

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Organised crime and the case of drugs

It is no surprise organise crime plays a huge international role in the lives of everyone across the world. I mean everything in the world, from the shoes you wear to the weed you smoke, is based on a range of factors, such as availability, stock labour etc. What this also implies is there is availability of these items and there are the means to acquire them. So in other words, if there’s a shortage of something in the world, people will find a way to get it either way. Watching the news about whether we should legalise drugs or not has inspired me to analyse the workings of organise crime, its intricate details and hopefully that will lead me on to things such as arms and drug trafficking. Hopefully also it will leave you with a wider context and an opinion which is well informed.

So the global market is a world of acquiring things and suiting the needs and wants of people. It means people’s needs change but also the way they acquire them also changes and this is displayed in a number of factors:

It’s important to emphasise that organise crime and black markets, in general, emerge out of a constant theme of prohibition. This is expressed as a common theme through history, whether it’s alcohol or drugs prohibition. This is because people generally want things that give them some sort of satisfaction or suits their needs of leisure, escapism from the hardships of life, hedonism etc. Therefore, they’ll seek them around legislation or the confines of the law. This is a key theme with organise crime: things do not stay within the confines of regulation; they adapt and change. For example, in places where prohibition is huge, the black market thrives. A good example can be Eastern Europe during the cold war because it was the spectrum where drugs were smuggled, and traded, from South-East Asia through to the Middle East, and into Bulgaria etc. The fact little is still acknowledged about this subject is due more to the relativism of our time than the fact it didn’t exist. Due to the isolation, socially and politically, of the Warsaw pact countries, there wasn’t much attention by Western Medias and therefore, coinciding with the ideological conflict the cold war bought, there was a lack of means to prevent drug smuggling from happening. That’s just one of the many cases which represent the relativism and adapting nature of the international spectrum.

It also illustrates the way in which organise crime goes beyond the regulation of national and international law. Generally, after an extent, many of these organised crime syndicates, including businesses, are able to by-pass laws because of the influence and wealth things like the black market brings. It also means this isn’t a clear cut matter. Many of these crime syndicates are able to gain influence, financially and socially, and therefore begin to interlink itself with legal institutions. A very good example can be the fact the drugs trade was used to finance the world banks out of the recession (as has been said by Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN office on drugs and crime). What it suggests is that this isn’t something which is new, in fact it’s long been part of a series of intricate, intertwining, complicated factors which have developed over a long period of time. Of course, with a business worth £352 billion, it’s no surprise that the possibilities created by the ambiguous boundaries are appealing. Generally, it becomes a matter of who holds the most influence and who becomes the influencing factor. It is no coincidence that, for example, art theft is not stigmatised because people do not feel the need to pay attention to something that does not influence themselves in their daily lives. On the other hand, what does that imply for needs in general? Since the purpose of art is to display something that goes beyond the person’s needs.

The intertwining between organised crime and everyday life has its effects. I will be using the example of informal sectors through history to justify this assumption. Through history, there has been a common theme of authorities using informal means to achieve their objectives, when it has often gone outside their jurisdiction of authority (though back then the moral, political and social boundaries were not understood as they are today, and shouldn’t be- it’s called contextual analysis). During the English civil war, pirates were paid for and utilised by the Parliamentarians against the Royalist. In fact, that’s where pirates originate, they were former soldiers who were no longer paid and therefore became bandits or mercenaries.

Another example (my main one I will be using) is the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was (read a book people!…only joking) the last great Middle Eastern empire with its capital being Constantinople or modern day Istanbul. It claimed itself to be the successor of the Roman Empire in an Islamic form. What is important is that the Empire was huge (look up the size) and therefore logistically, as it expanded further, it was more difficult to sustain itself socially and economically. As a result, through the 17th and 18th centuries, the Empire began to hire bandits, and autonomous warlords, to defend parts of the Empire where their authority was weak. This was by giving them full autonomy, paying them and letting them do whatever they wanted. Now, I can’t begin to explain what I mean by ‘full autonomy’. These bandits would kill, pillage villages, rape etc, and more importantly get levies (taxes) from the population. How does this contribute to organised crime you ask? Firstly it says the boundaries were a lot more blurred and ambigious back then; secondly, it shows the Ottomans would use informal means of keeping control when they’re authority was lessened, unavailable or absent. A very good example is the Balkans, which I will be going onto now:

During the 19th century, nationalism spread to the Balkan region of Europe (south eastern Europe) and once intermixed communities began to separate themselves based on ethnicity and linguistics. A this occurred, nations such as Greece, Serbia etc, began to declare independence. This is where the organised crime bit comes in. These people (such as the greek ‘friendly society’ which consisted of merchants and intellectual) would pay the bandits previously mentioned, to fight for them. A very good example is the Greek freedom fighter kolokotronis. He was Albanian and couldn’t speak Greek; however he fought for Greece (just as he and his father fought for the Ottomans) and became a general in the Greek army afterwards. That’s another theme, through history, these bandits or people, who we categorise as in organised crime now, eventually become integrated into the state they fought for and were given high positions. Kolokotronis was given the position of general because he demanded it and because the Greek government couldn’t pay him. Greece isn’t the only example. The United States used the same tactics against the British, with most of the founding fathers and fighters being previous landowners and generals under the British, for example George Washington fought against the French in the ‘seven years war’. The point is, whenever things have gone out of availability of past legality, the informal sector has been used as an alternative:

Which brings me on very conveniently to the current drugs situations. There’s a huge drug issue in Britain and there’s people I know who do drugs on a daily basis. The drug issue, as has been mentioned, is a matter of wants and needs. If people want it, they’ll find means and ways of getting around legality to get it. Drugs have been tolerated in Britain for the last twenty years and there’s been no display that it’s done the speculative harm people think. Of course, it depends on the drug, but then again, everything that alters the chemical balance in the body is a drug. Anyway, as it depends, the extremes of the drug will display the wants and needs of the people who want it, depending on how re-creation or quick the addiction becomes. That’s why, for example weed is more tolerated than heroine. This is where the question of legality comes in. The whole ‘should drugs be legalised’ is a complicated one and it depends on factors. If there’s a large population which is addicted to heroine, for example, and we go to war and get blockaded, there will be a large number of addicts who get cold turkey, meaning the black market would soar. The other aspect is, with such a high possibility of addiction, the drug would do more harm than good. On the other hand, ecstasy or weed, when taken in moderation, do little harm (in the hands of experienced users). So it’s complex.

Maybe legalising it isn’t as bad as we think. Legalising it means we can regulate it, which means we can regulate what substances go into it, which means drugs could possibly become less harmful if legalised. The potential is that we can create substitutes without the harmful effects of the substances and honestly, would you trust drugs which have been regulated and tested, or ones from a backstreet somewhere by a person you just met (I would go with the former). Legalising drugs would also mean, as the market gets regulated, there would be a hug profit to make (possibly one of the largest profits that you can get). We’ll have to see; meanwhile I hope this has been inquisitive for you and told you things you didn’t know.


University: Where it was and is now, a review

As many who read this will learn, I get most of my stimulus to review (as well as rant) from facebook; the reason being because it’s an outlook where people think they can write almost anything without the fear of re-procussion from others. Don’t get me wrong, I use to do things like that on facebook and I was probably the epitome of that person: constantly ranting and bitching about various things, VERY long facebook status updates and very long discussions that went nowhere. The problem with these is: firstly they testify to how much time you have on your hands; secondly it tells you what the person could be doing while they’re doing this and finally it advertises yourself outwards with, what should be private information. Essentially, it shows your dedication to facebook and the domineering role it plays in your life. You’re probably asking ‘why does this matter?’; because not only does it illustrate the lifestyle people have chosen but it gives a greater context to the way people deal with situations and how that effects us in today’s society. This point is merely a stepping stone in showing this. I mean with the role of the mass media, instant information and people who are able to articulate their views in a short period of time, it’s no wonder people gain the idea that: not only can they feel they’re contributing to something much greater than themselves, but not need to think that elsewhere isn’t as valid e.g. anything outside the confines of the internet. Now, this perception doesn’t merely lie within the responsibility of the internet, or the mass media, but illustrate time and time again the way cultures, and especially the youth cultures, operate. I’m going to use the example of universities to show how this is made possible and the effect it has on the person, but I’m also going to show how it takes both parties, the students and the increasingly marketed universities, to actually make a difference (and I emphasise BOTH parties).

Now with universities, today’s period of time seems to be displayed as a turning point in the way universities operate and it’s no surprise. The massive un-necessary increases in fees for university; the difficult requirements for getting into university, and the ambiguous information of where the course can take you afterwards e.g. getting a job, have all contributed into turning universities into something they weren’t meant to be in the first place: a place for higher education. Today, it seems that it seems one of the only options to get employment which doesn’t consist of doing an NVQ or actually seeking employment after college or secondary school. No, it seems it’s become a place where in order to get higher positions, you need a degree and I think this is one of the worse beliefs that has ever been betrothed onto university expectations. People seem to gain this idea that in order to gets a high position working in a corporation, business or anywhere else; you need a degree in humanitarian studies or you need to look like you’re doing something with your life, so you can show you’re worth the hassle when you do apply. But (and this is a big but) people take this perception for granted, as if it’s true and, again, this testifies to the way people think society operates, which I’m having difficulty understanding this; mainly because it’s not and because it seems people attempt to take everything at face value.

I think to make this point more detailed, it’s appropriate to underline some context about universities or society. From the 17th century, until the 1980’s, universities were embodied as the epitome of higher education: as something, in order to achieve greater academic experience, you applied to and that would increase your chances of greater positions within learning and the academia; positions such as: philosophy, quantum mechanics, very advanced sciences and mathematics, theology, history, sociology, acting and the performing arts etc. Don’t get me wrong, until the 1960’s, university was mainly reserved for people from comfortable and wealthy backgrounds since they were the people who tended to seek a higher education to better their understanding, or to pursue a much favourable career, nevertheless these people only excelled in academics. People like Charles Darwin and Clive Anderson (people from two different spectrums in terms of career) aimed to do so because they knew it would be something that as worth it in the long term.

However, the latter point, about class, can be disagreed with because universities were something which was seen as a state institution and thus was paid for, and free, by the government. Any accommodation you did have was purely seen as something which needed to be paid for necessarily, as not to provide a financial distraction to the student, whose purpose was to learn advanced subjects. Now, of course, this differs from university to university, however the theme was generally very similar. It has only been since the 1980’s, and the introduction of Thatcherism, that Universities began to change. Thatcherism attempted to privatise what were state institutions in order to market them for a greater amount of income. Now, you can clearly see that being done today, with the fact, currently, a conservative government is in power and now we’ve seen a further marketing and privatisation of universities: coinciding with substantially higher fees (up to ten thousand pounds a year) and increasing competition, between universities, to gain more income. This has further led to a lack of co-operation between universities (in which some have been upheld thanks to things like the Russell group) and stricter tests and expectations for students wishing to get into universities. This has been a major problem because not only are fewer students getting into a university, which means less money, but also universities were never meant to have the purpose of employment in the first place. Back when universities were aimed at for higher education, people use to simply enter their family’s profession or just apply for work (and yes before you say anything, it was much easier). This coincides with the fact we were the remnants of our industrial age and thus we still had a manual labour force who were still being employed for business’ that still operated on British soil.

Now, with all this change over a short period of time, coinciding with a greater commercialisation in society, you might say ‘no wonder we’re so disadvantaged, things are very poor at the moment, especially for the youth of today’. Well, it’s partially right. A key point, which people fail to realise, is the fees are loaned but don’t need to be paid back until students find a job. Thus, it is implausible to state that the student is burdened with debt: especially with the fact the debt is paid off by an extremely small amount per year that is unequivocal compared to other debts e.g. debt with a.p.r, rates , that have to pay on a daily basis. Okay, the fact we have debt for university students in the first place is un-necessary and the fact the student loan company is a private one doesn’t make any sense, but it hardly states that the person is financially doomed. By the time the person is paying student debt off, they would have a job and, most importantly, be paying other debt off, because the debt only works when you’re working. Don’t get me wrong, I’m having to pay my student debt off as soon as I work and, like European countries, I wish my university was free  but I know for a fact I won’t have to pay it back for a long period of time, giving my leeway.

Nevertheless, what does this all tell about universities? It tells me that, due to privatisation, the number of students applying for university have increased rapidly, which has never happened before. What does this mean? That increasingly, universities are being seen as the one of the only windows to opportunity in society for middle class, and upper working class students. Now, given that the middle class are stereotyped as the ‘intellectual, educated class’ in society, it’s only reasonable most would seek a higher education. However, it seems to me, based on experience that many go and aren’t sure what they want to do, especially with the fact university courses have become somewhat ambiguous and give no indication of where the courses will take you in the future. Also courses tend to be very tangible. Studies like ‘cultural and social studies’, ‘humanitarian studies’ and ‘media studies’ seem very trivial and often aren’t properly recognised academic courses because they don’t have a deep academic embedding such as with mathematics, anthropology, history, sociology, theology, philosophy, economics, performing arts, the sciences etc. This implies that many of these courses are simply diversified versions of the main academic courses.

However, as I have mentioned before, it takes two sides of the party to operate and this mainly falls within the responsibility of students. This is where my introduction comes into play because it shows not only the lack of effort of the majority of students, and how university isn’t suited for most of them (that there only there because it’s seen as a window of opportunity) but also how most deal with university on a daily basis. Don’t get me wrong, university teachers have been stereotyped to be non-caring and I think there is truth in this. However, this doesn’t take validity away from the way students deal with things on a daily basis. Doing my course in history, when I went to seminars, ready to debate about the issues put forth, I came to find no one really wanted to debate anything and many people chose to stay quiet: either out of sensitivity or simply not being bothered and I think this testifies to a wider context; especially with the student mind frame or lifestyle. Obviously, a minority of people want to go to university and learn as well as seek a better understanding of the subject they’re passionate about and most of them aren’t sure what they want to do in the future (like most of us) however they are constantly undermined by people who simply aren’t bothered to learn. As I have found, many students simply can’t be bothered to read the material given or do advanced reading about the subject, which they can display in seminars. Also, it seems many students have this vague belief that there is a shortcut to success, that once they finish university they will be given a job. I think it rings out within all academic subjects.

Students constantly whine and complain about how there life is rubbish; they’re the most undermined people in society and they’ll have no opportunities once they come out of university, but, as I have seen, it’s as if people don’t want to try to be successful in what they do. It’s as if the youth have this belief that there is a shortcut to success and that, if things don’t go the way they want it to, they should give up on the first try. In order to succeed, you have to keep trying (which I know sounds cliché) but also to deal with things and move on. It just shows how pessimistic and how much of whiners we are. Now people reading this may argue “we’re simply following in the footsteps of those before, that we are showing how downgraded and barren society has become” and my answer to that is no you’re not. People before you, in the history that spans universities faced a lack of liberty; more poverty, a less regulated welfare state and, when they did go on strike, they striked about something which was worth striking about e.g. unemployment, the destruction of industry, massive wage cuts, infringements on human rights, (such as in the student protests about the vietnam war or the poll tax riots). All these examples have something in common because they threatened the well being of the people who were striking, because it actually affected their lives in terms of comfortability and the standard, as well as quality, of living. People today live comfortable lives, with parents who often work earn a reasonable amount of income and have many choices of leisures at their disposal. I’ve witnessed people in debt, but proceed to buy something that was completely un-necessary (e.g. a 50 inch wide screen t.v.), which is the basis of a consumerist society: one which thrives of leisure and uses money, which isn’t owned, for things that can’t be afforded. Most people who do live in the most desolate conditions in Britain, most likely don’t go to university; only a small minority of people do. Most either pick up a profession or start work due to their economic state, and before anyone says anything, yes I know the situation has a lot more factors and complications but that, statistically, tends to be the general theme of things. This can also be seen by the fact, since the 19th century the middle class was a lot smaller yet tended to be the class to go to university or enter merchant trading. The same applies to today, it’s only that now the middle class is the dominant class of society compared to 100 years ago.
All these points tell us so much about students, that many who come to university hardly study or put effort into their work; they choose tangible subjects which gives them little prospect for employment in the future, because they aren’t recognised as core subjects, and many of today’s youth often complain and whine about conditions which actually doesn’t affect them as much as they exaggerate. This also coincides with the fact that many people, coinciding with all the complaining, have a higher drop-out and lack of effort rate than ever before. What does this tell you? Yes it tells you that universities are being increasingly commercialised and, as a result, it is making it harder for students to get into university, but it also tells you that once the majority of students get into university they take courses that have no prestige (which is important in the job market) and they fail to put in the effort that they did when they wanted to get into university in the first place.

The same massively applies to employment: instead of making an effort to find work and picking up themselves when they’ve failed, many simply whine about how they’ve failed the first time, coinciding with the fact that many aren’t prepared to do the lowest paid jobs, that no one else wants to do, hence we’re in the situation we’re in now and hence why this country thrives on immigration. Of course those who work, study and put in the effort, defy all I’ve said, by a long shot. In fact, they prove me wrong completely. It’s the people who do otherwise which annoy me and also bring down the learning of the universities as well as the subjects.

My conclusion is this. Yes, hardships have happened because of the government and because of their policies: concerning universities (why cut services when the large private sector goes un-regulated?) but also it concerns the students themselves who tend to complain more about things disproportionate to their experiences and tend to have a lack of will to carry on when hardships do hit; as well as a lack of bother to learn: which can either be limited to disfranchisement with university or will power. There are times to play and then there’s times to work, I only hope people know the difference and that they’ll actually know what to complain about when true hardships really hit; instead of complaining about trivial ones, based on a lack of effort. Don’t take subjects which aren’t academically approved, stick the academic ones which embody all those proxy ones (such as the deep cored ones: History, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, performing arts, music, I.T, mathematics, the sciences, law, art) and most importantly, when things don’t go your way, pick yourself up and dust yourself off and try again. I’m sick and tired of seeing complaints about things that can easily be dealt with: I’m starting to believe its more people not wanting a solution than finding the ones which actually will help.

The Batman shootings in Denver: a review

Back when I use to debate on facebook, to the extent where I gave up hitting my head against a brick wall, I got into an argument concerning The ‘Batman’ shootings, by James Holmes, in Denver. The main basis of this argument is a person had posted a joke about it and, as a result this sparked various heated debates. Many of the people arguing against the status update argued that due to the 10 people dead, including a child and many wounded, we should feel no empathy for the person in question, mainly because of the act which was committed. Eventually the argument accustomed to between myself, and everyone else, and it was weird to see that, out of this argument, no one was willing to accept a wider context, or take it into account, when analysing the shootings. Of course, this hasn’t been the first shootings that have happened in America. There have been countless accounts of disenfranchised, or socially inept, students gunning down other students in high schools, or of students committing suicide for bullying, persecution of beliefs, sexual orientation etc or people who have generally had psychological conditions. However, what strikes me the most is the way the killings are dealt with and it seems immediately a person or organisation, whether the media, the parents or witnesses, will give an accusation towards the opposite party; without so much as a realisation at what is occurring in the process: out of ignorance or experience of the moment. Of course, it is hard to hold any thought process whatsoever when you have been a gun victim of the person, or you are the parent, or you are an outraged republican at the moral fabric of the example. However this does not mean we cannot put aside our individual perceptions and analyse the state of affairs which exists at the time, something I will be analysing in this blog.

Now what does the killings reflect in the Batman shootings? That there was a university student who, armed with the proper equipment and weapons, had entered a cinema, and, using gas canisters, disorientated an audience before opening fire on them (though some of this is questioned, based on the witnesses testimonies or conditions, though I will not into detail about this, neither will I be a conspirator). What this shows is not only did the person know what he was doing but obviously the person had a constant amount of time and preparation in order to ready himself, to commit the operation. It seems absurd to think how a university student can be skilled in firing a weapon with military efficiency; however the point is that if this was prepared, it would have covered a process which would have taken a very long period of time. James Holmes, in court, confirmed responsibility for the acts he did. But if it is true he did so, many of the skills, equipment and planning would have indeed needed much time. We are talking about weapon training and maintaining; the making of very high level military grade explosives, an expert skill in marksmanship, skills in laying traps in a domestic environments and finally the skill of concealing a weapon in a public area. Though these sound relatively easy, based on testimonies of people from the army that I know, they aren’t. These require constant profession training and refining of skill. So what does this tell you? It tells you that this case, and similar cases, has consisted of a long term context, something which is expressed by long term factors. In many of these cases, people don’t just decide to shoot a school or a cinema, it occurs within a certain period of time to which the person has gained a certain understanding of the world around him; relative to his state of affairs. This signifies a long psychological process in which the person has developed which can be social, domestic or internal: in other words the causes for such can be what have been mentioned.

A huge testimony to this can be seen by the role of the media and the so called ‘media or social crises’ which takes place, whereby an event recorded by the media is disproportionally exaggerated and results in both generalising and an agenda which is set forth by the public, and the police. Most of the time this is both un-necessary and does more harm than good. Why does it matter? because not only does it contribute to people developing certain perceptions of the acts taking place, but it begins to deal with short term solutions rather than long term problems which, if solved, would result in less short term problems, such as the shootings. It also matters because it illustrates the role of the media in greater detail. In the media, especially within the news, constant testimony has been given by psychiatrists, such as Dr Park Dietz, that reporting the crime, within the mass media, merely reduces the crime to something of a drama and results in the mass murder, or suicide victim being publicised; something which should be stride to be prevented. The reason is because it propagates more mass murders and suicides by advertising them: displaying sirens; showing the picture of the person or victim; constantly making it 24/7 news coverage; making the body count the lead story; making the person an ‘anti-hero’ and mass advertising the act rather than making it relative to the location, and community, where it has taken place; as well as portraying it as exciting. These various aspects are very important. Most killings and suicides conducted, in most cases, are an indicator of attention as they signal either a cry for attention or help which, in this context, is performed dramatically through external means e.g. so every can see it being done. This not only provides the stimulus and motivation for other people, in similar cases, to commit similar acts but also means that if these events are massly advertised, they provide a means of creating an outlook that will be witnessed by various people.

As can be seen, this is a much larger part of a greater social context. Now to just point the finger and blame someone or something is foolhardy: as I’ve said before it only results in un-productive results. Nevertheless there’s nothing wrong with analysing the situation and then forming an opinion about how the situation is dealt with, or who is entirely responsible. My opinion would be this: that the results of this is the product of both a long history of how society has organised and structured itself (industrial and post industrial, mainly within the Western hemisphere of the world e.g. The united states, Britain, France, Germany, Japan etc) and the way that has resulted in an entirely different conception in the way things are dealt with, or excluded. A very good example that comes to mind is the Batman shootings. The thing which comes to mind is the fact it was, possibly, an advertisement of the person and that the person had various psychological and long term problems: as most suicide victims or high school actors of shootings have demonstrated. Okay, let me simplify my point: these acts are the result in which society has been shaped and formed which results in certain patterns, or generalisations, of consequences.

A very good example can be the start of industrialisation. Economics dictates that within the industrial period, the cohesion of the countryside and the increase in urbanisation meant more people from rural environments migrated to cities. This signals a complete change in lifestyle, patterns, moral and social boundaries etc. It also signals the means in which the person expresses themselves or the locations where the person can express themselves. For example, increasing urbanisation results in a greater population, closer and more cramped living conditions, a lack of relation to the people around you etc, which can further lead to depression, anxiety a sense of laziness or worthlessness etc. As a result, society has needed to develop institutions to deal with these problems: stretching from taverns and pubs, to counselling and group therapy sessions. As is observed, these do not take a solid shape or form but merely illustrate that people start to act in a certain way, and society counters these with places and institutions to deal with these problems (if they are problems). However, though these various things have sprung up, they depend of many factors e.g. trust, finance, content etc. As a result, though some institutions may help, if they don’t get enough finance, or aren’t seen as to be taken for granted by the population, they decrease in their overall awareness. This provides a perfect commentary on the Denver shootings. Questions which can be asked are why weren’t measure taken to prevent events like these from happening? Why was it that the person came to the situation where they perceived the shootings to be appropriate? Why weren’t the problems addressed in an earlier stage to prevent acts like this from happening? With questions like these, all I can really emphasise is social welfare which implies either: there is a lack of care and consideration for the people, or for people in general, which leads to acts like these, or there is a lack of funding to support the people who do. In my opinion, I think it’s a bit of both, depending on how you analyse. However, with the economic and social state of America, coinciding with gender and ethnic constructions; narrow traditions and simple minded views of human welfare, and a lack of funding and empathy for social welfare; it’s no wonder events like these happen as a means of displaying a reality or condition.

My main point is that if you were to provide a solution to problems like this, you have to analyse the wider context of why events like these happen. It also means that a solution isn’t simple. My solution would be a better financing, and funding, of social welfare as well as a re-conceptualisation of events such as these, as well as the education of this from a younger age. This would result in the changing of perception, which would result in the changing of certain lifestyle and thus it would prevent more of these events occurring. However, that’s just my opinion.