why are these people calling me everyday, leaving messages, and telling me I am in a Drawing for a Prize and a $20,000 Dollars????? Magazine Scam. AMD MORE to the Point How did they get my number???
These people have called me 20 or more times trying to get me to "subscribe" to their Magazine just to be entered into a lottery winning!?!?! These Idiots have Hung up on me also Several Times, isnt this Illegal overall???
This is also a Warning if you come across this number Tell them to Beat it!!
Answer:
Give it to your local phone company to act on.
move to missouri so you can get on the no call list. it's great living here in missouri and not getting any telemarketer calls.
if you don't want to move here, contact your congress person, etc. to see if they can enact that in your state as well.
If you didn't enter a lottery, it's a scam if they're trying to tell you you've won. In Indiana, we have a no-call list, run through the Attorney General's office. If you call them and get on the list, salespeople, fundraisers, and the like are not supposed to call. They made exceptions for groups like the Policemen's Fund, and for salespeople if you've bought from that store in the past 3 months, but other than those, if the people call you, they risk being fined. If someone calls me, even if they're on the list of exceptions, I just tell them I'm on the no-call list, thank them very much, and hang up.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
86 timesmore likely to get killed by a gun in GB than in NYC? how is this possible?
I got this number from a yahoo news article. It said in NYC there were 590 gun deaths /8 mill people. In the Uk there were 45/53 million people.
To me, this number sounds fishy. I just cannot believe that this number is purely a function of gun control laws. Does anyone have any insights as to how these numbers are calculated, and why the nyc number is so much higher. I mean, statistically speaking, the difference in the two numbers are astronomical.
Answer:
Believe it.
Gun control works in the rest of the world.
We don't have 'love affairs' with things that can kill.
Yes, it is real. The US has an astronomical number of gun deaths compared to other countries. It is a national disgrace and ongoing tragedy.
We have a culture of killing.
It's not just the presence of guns though. Canada has a lot of gun ownership without the murders. And Switzerland is the most heavily armed country in the world and has a very low murder rate.
but one has to wonder how wise it is to put so many guns in the hands of people who are so prone to kill each other.
but what is the murder ratio? because knives kill more people than guns in the US (check that on Google, it will amaze you,) Gun control is a media point that has no solution between two hyped political factions (liberal and conservative), just like abortion and gay marriage, there is, more will there ever be a final answer, the same with gun control, yes guns are used to kill, but criminals will always get them (there criminals). Knives take many more lives, but thats not a hot button argument. as to the out of wack ratio? NYC is a hard city, The UK is a whole different world.
Compare us to nearly any other industrialized nation, we have more gun related deaths per year by a wide margin. Its not even close.
You're talking about one major city compared to an entire country. Population density would be the biggest differance. I'd think anyways. Like shoving 20 mice into a small cage and 20 in someones backyard, then asking why the the ones in the cage fight soo much more than in the yard..
Just a thought anyways..
Why did it take police three hours to stop one shooter? Is not true, that our police train endless amounts of hours for these kind of situations? What do Americans pay taxes for? If the police are not going to "Protect and serve" then why are the governments and laws shaped in such a way that people cannot protect themseleves? Should our children really fear going to school? If government takes the 2nd amendment, then this gets alot worse NOT better.
Eyewitness Matt Kazee said that it was a full two to three hours after the shootings began that loudspeakers installed around the campus were used to warn students to stay indoors and that a shooter was on the loose.
Quite how the killer was afforded so much time before any action was taken to stop him is baffling, especially considering the fact that the campus, according to Kazee, was crawling with police before the event happened due to numerous bomb threats that had been phoned in last week.
The shootings came three days after a bomb threat Friday forced the cancellation of classes in three buildings, WDBJ in Roanoke reported. Also, the 100,000-square-foot Torgersen Hall was evacuated April 2 after police received a written bomb threat, The Roanoke Times reported.
CNN quoted a student who was outraged at the delay in identifying and stopping the killer.
"What happened today this was ridiculous. And I don't know what happened or what was going through this guy's mind," student Jason Piatt told CNN. "But I'm pretty outraged and I'll say on the record I'm pretty outraged that someone died in a shooting in a dorm at 7 o'clock in the morning and the first e-mail about it 鈥?no mention of locking down campus, no mention of canceling classes 鈥?they just mention that they're investigating a shooting two hours later at 9:22."
He added: "That's pretty ridiculous and meanwhile, while they're sending out that e-mail, 22 more people got killed."
Media reports their opinion, not always true facts. Besides you can bet on the fact that the Democrats is going to jump all over this and blow things way out of sight, since they want to disarm America, to make it easier for them to force us to eat out of their dumpsters. I have already noticed several slurs about Bush being the blame, just goes to show intelligence of the other party. As for as statistics, anything can be put on paper, does not make them true in one way or the other. Regardless of statistics, I would still rather be able to protect my home, family and all property from a criminal, and we need to have the means to do so.
Well the problem is you have to add up all gun deaths in the US not just NYC..this is fishy statistics....NY did not even have the most gun deaths as the largest city....At least St. Louis and Baltimore among others had more...and neither are half the size of NY.
Because in the UK only criminals can get hold of guns.
Normal people are unable to defend themselves, or pull a weapon to deter the killer. Those who do, like Tony Martin, are unfairly imprisoned.
There's more organised crime here thanks to useless laws and unregulated immigration.
To me, this number sounds fishy. I just cannot believe that this number is purely a function of gun control laws. Does anyone have any insights as to how these numbers are calculated, and why the nyc number is so much higher. I mean, statistically speaking, the difference in the two numbers are astronomical.
Answer:
Believe it.
Gun control works in the rest of the world.
We don't have 'love affairs' with things that can kill.
Yes, it is real. The US has an astronomical number of gun deaths compared to other countries. It is a national disgrace and ongoing tragedy.
We have a culture of killing.
It's not just the presence of guns though. Canada has a lot of gun ownership without the murders. And Switzerland is the most heavily armed country in the world and has a very low murder rate.
but one has to wonder how wise it is to put so many guns in the hands of people who are so prone to kill each other.
but what is the murder ratio? because knives kill more people than guns in the US (check that on Google, it will amaze you,) Gun control is a media point that has no solution between two hyped political factions (liberal and conservative), just like abortion and gay marriage, there is, more will there ever be a final answer, the same with gun control, yes guns are used to kill, but criminals will always get them (there criminals). Knives take many more lives, but thats not a hot button argument. as to the out of wack ratio? NYC is a hard city, The UK is a whole different world.
Compare us to nearly any other industrialized nation, we have more gun related deaths per year by a wide margin. Its not even close.
You're talking about one major city compared to an entire country. Population density would be the biggest differance. I'd think anyways. Like shoving 20 mice into a small cage and 20 in someones backyard, then asking why the the ones in the cage fight soo much more than in the yard..
Just a thought anyways..
Why did it take police three hours to stop one shooter? Is not true, that our police train endless amounts of hours for these kind of situations? What do Americans pay taxes for? If the police are not going to "Protect and serve" then why are the governments and laws shaped in such a way that people cannot protect themseleves? Should our children really fear going to school? If government takes the 2nd amendment, then this gets alot worse NOT better.
Eyewitness Matt Kazee said that it was a full two to three hours after the shootings began that loudspeakers installed around the campus were used to warn students to stay indoors and that a shooter was on the loose.
Quite how the killer was afforded so much time before any action was taken to stop him is baffling, especially considering the fact that the campus, according to Kazee, was crawling with police before the event happened due to numerous bomb threats that had been phoned in last week.
The shootings came three days after a bomb threat Friday forced the cancellation of classes in three buildings, WDBJ in Roanoke reported. Also, the 100,000-square-foot Torgersen Hall was evacuated April 2 after police received a written bomb threat, The Roanoke Times reported.
CNN quoted a student who was outraged at the delay in identifying and stopping the killer.
"What happened today this was ridiculous. And I don't know what happened or what was going through this guy's mind," student Jason Piatt told CNN. "But I'm pretty outraged and I'll say on the record I'm pretty outraged that someone died in a shooting in a dorm at 7 o'clock in the morning and the first e-mail about it 鈥?no mention of locking down campus, no mention of canceling classes 鈥?they just mention that they're investigating a shooting two hours later at 9:22."
He added: "That's pretty ridiculous and meanwhile, while they're sending out that e-mail, 22 more people got killed."
Media reports their opinion, not always true facts. Besides you can bet on the fact that the Democrats is going to jump all over this and blow things way out of sight, since they want to disarm America, to make it easier for them to force us to eat out of their dumpsters. I have already noticed several slurs about Bush being the blame, just goes to show intelligence of the other party. As for as statistics, anything can be put on paper, does not make them true in one way or the other. Regardless of statistics, I would still rather be able to protect my home, family and all property from a criminal, and we need to have the means to do so.
Well the problem is you have to add up all gun deaths in the US not just NYC..this is fishy statistics....NY did not even have the most gun deaths as the largest city....At least St. Louis and Baltimore among others had more...and neither are half the size of NY.
Because in the UK only criminals can get hold of guns.
Normal people are unable to defend themselves, or pull a weapon to deter the killer. Those who do, like Tony Martin, are unfairly imprisoned.
There's more organised crime here thanks to useless laws and unregulated immigration.
Are the UK easonable force?self defence laws adequate to protect the community?
Do you think these laws should be extended on account of the growing anti-social and criminal gang culture spilling out onto the streets in Britain? For example there are huge gangs of youths who hang around in my street and they are often abusive and threatening. I know elderly people who are afraid to leave the house. I've seen them pick on lone people trying to walk their dog or get to the local shops.
Recently we've began standing up to them and have had a group of them with weapons enter our garden threatening to assault us. By the time the police get here they are gone and difficult to identify as they dress the same and wear caps. We are advised that even although these youths enter our property, hugely out-number us and wield weapons (including blades), we would be prosecuted should we also attain weapons and proceed to defend our property and ourselves while we await the police to attend. How should we deal with issues such as this?
Answer:
no matter what we do the ultimate question remains is anyone ever truly safe
Honestly, you folks in Britian need to grow a pair. If they want to arrest you for defending your home and family, then you need to drag them out and hang them immediately. Repeat til the PC BS crowd is gone.
That's because the UK has really stupid self-defense laws. Basically you have to cower in fear, unarmed and not resist, even if your attacker is murdering you.
But God forbid it, should you lift a hand to defend your life, you go to prison for manslaughter.
What a stupid theory.
England had, for 400 years, a tradition of never retreating and always upholding the individual's right to defend themselves and stand their ground.
Then they got a bunch of whimpy liberals in control of the legislature and the court system and they carve out a stupid doctrine.
No wonders its easy to be a criminal in England, there's nothing wrong with it. Its illegal to be a victim there, unless you let them kill you.
It's horrible what you are going though, thing's have gotten way out of line in Britain, between the drug culture the gang's of drug addicts and underage drinker's roaming the streets causing havoc, vandalizing people's properties, people are scared to leave their homes at night time, and on top of all that there's the million's of illegals roaming all over the place, the crime rate has rocketed, and the cherry on the icing is the Muslim extremist's shouting in the street's death to the British troop's and ranting that they will bring SHARIA LAW, and they will sooner thank we think, if the government doesn't get their finger's out and do something to STOP THEM.
I am sincerely sorry for you that you cannot defend yourself and citizens of your community live in fear of these thugs. I live in Texas and my husband has his CHL (concealed handgun licence) and I am about to get mine. Fortunately for us we live in a state that is reasonable about self-defense and the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families and property.
My opinion is that strict gun control, or, in your case, gun bans, is totally unrealistic. Is the British government completely out to lunch on this? You have roving packs of rabid gang members that hold communities and towns in a grip of fear because they know nothing will be done to stop them. It baffles my mind that your governments answer to this problem is to ban firearms. Do they think criminals care about the law? It baffles my mind that your police don't even carry firearms. How is this effectve in protecting people?
My answer to you would be to do what you can to change the policy in your country. I cannot understand how a society that claims to be a FREE society oppress its people in such a way by threatening prosecution if a law-abiding citizen owns a firearm, let alone use it to protect themselves from crazies. If Britain is anything like America, I'll bet the majority would oppose such bans. The problem is that not enough people care enough to vote. The majority are lazy. If you want to affect change in your country, get like minded people mad about it. Speak up and become an activist for change and rally your community together and write letters to your leaders and politicians and tell them of the problems that plague your towns. Because obviously it's not working the way things are going. Again, I'm sorry for the fact that you live in fear. Maybe if enough of the people of your town get together on this, someone in power might listen.
Ahhh, I just read your edit. I am so ANGRY for you! I cannot believe you and your nieghbors must live this way and get in trouble if YOUR DOG BITES AN INTRUDER. How is this even possible that you would be prosecuted for this??? Would these criminals actually have the balls to file a complaint against you?
Reasonable force is not possible if the attacker has and illegal gun and the victim is not allowed to have comparable weapons.
I'm not from the UK but i think its safe to assume should these punks were to assault you and you were to, say allow your dogs to defend you, no jury in their right mind would allow you or your dogs to come to harm, note that i said "right mind"
If I lived in the UK, I would begin to lobby and work extremely hard to get the laws changed to allow reasonable self-defence! In the meantime, can you start making videos to show the extent of this problem to the police, and the public to increase awareness, help protect you, etc?
Recently we've began standing up to them and have had a group of them with weapons enter our garden threatening to assault us. By the time the police get here they are gone and difficult to identify as they dress the same and wear caps. We are advised that even although these youths enter our property, hugely out-number us and wield weapons (including blades), we would be prosecuted should we also attain weapons and proceed to defend our property and ourselves while we await the police to attend. How should we deal with issues such as this?
Answer:
no matter what we do the ultimate question remains is anyone ever truly safe
Honestly, you folks in Britian need to grow a pair. If they want to arrest you for defending your home and family, then you need to drag them out and hang them immediately. Repeat til the PC BS crowd is gone.
That's because the UK has really stupid self-defense laws. Basically you have to cower in fear, unarmed and not resist, even if your attacker is murdering you.
But God forbid it, should you lift a hand to defend your life, you go to prison for manslaughter.
What a stupid theory.
England had, for 400 years, a tradition of never retreating and always upholding the individual's right to defend themselves and stand their ground.
Then they got a bunch of whimpy liberals in control of the legislature and the court system and they carve out a stupid doctrine.
No wonders its easy to be a criminal in England, there's nothing wrong with it. Its illegal to be a victim there, unless you let them kill you.
It's horrible what you are going though, thing's have gotten way out of line in Britain, between the drug culture the gang's of drug addicts and underage drinker's roaming the streets causing havoc, vandalizing people's properties, people are scared to leave their homes at night time, and on top of all that there's the million's of illegals roaming all over the place, the crime rate has rocketed, and the cherry on the icing is the Muslim extremist's shouting in the street's death to the British troop's and ranting that they will bring SHARIA LAW, and they will sooner thank we think, if the government doesn't get their finger's out and do something to STOP THEM.
I am sincerely sorry for you that you cannot defend yourself and citizens of your community live in fear of these thugs. I live in Texas and my husband has his CHL (concealed handgun licence) and I am about to get mine. Fortunately for us we live in a state that is reasonable about self-defense and the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families and property.
My opinion is that strict gun control, or, in your case, gun bans, is totally unrealistic. Is the British government completely out to lunch on this? You have roving packs of rabid gang members that hold communities and towns in a grip of fear because they know nothing will be done to stop them. It baffles my mind that your governments answer to this problem is to ban firearms. Do they think criminals care about the law? It baffles my mind that your police don't even carry firearms. How is this effectve in protecting people?
My answer to you would be to do what you can to change the policy in your country. I cannot understand how a society that claims to be a FREE society oppress its people in such a way by threatening prosecution if a law-abiding citizen owns a firearm, let alone use it to protect themselves from crazies. If Britain is anything like America, I'll bet the majority would oppose such bans. The problem is that not enough people care enough to vote. The majority are lazy. If you want to affect change in your country, get like minded people mad about it. Speak up and become an activist for change and rally your community together and write letters to your leaders and politicians and tell them of the problems that plague your towns. Because obviously it's not working the way things are going. Again, I'm sorry for the fact that you live in fear. Maybe if enough of the people of your town get together on this, someone in power might listen.
Ahhh, I just read your edit. I am so ANGRY for you! I cannot believe you and your nieghbors must live this way and get in trouble if YOUR DOG BITES AN INTRUDER. How is this even possible that you would be prosecuted for this??? Would these criminals actually have the balls to file a complaint against you?
Reasonable force is not possible if the attacker has and illegal gun and the victim is not allowed to have comparable weapons.
I'm not from the UK but i think its safe to assume should these punks were to assault you and you were to, say allow your dogs to defend you, no jury in their right mind would allow you or your dogs to come to harm, note that i said "right mind"
If I lived in the UK, I would begin to lobby and work extremely hard to get the laws changed to allow reasonable self-defence! In the meantime, can you start making videos to show the extent of this problem to the police, and the public to increase awareness, help protect you, etc?
65 Billion Dollars of imported food and only one 1% inspected by the Food and Drug Adm. Your thoughts????
Be Afraid, Be very, very Afraid...Does this make any sense???
Answer:
It is fraud on the part of USDA and FDA. More fraud! While they aren't inspecting foreign meat they are demanding that anyone who houses even one livestock animal register their premises, tag their animal(s) and eventually be required to report all animal movements. This onerous mandate is called the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). They say it is about disease control, but if that were the truth, they'd be inspecting every food item that comes into this country.
It is not possible to inspect 100 % of it.
The law should be changed that they can do much more than visually inspect the food, like for example they could force producers to inspect and test their own food and report the results.
The FDA could then focus their limited resources on performing audits of those tests to ensure that they are being conducted and reported accurately.
Or a law could be passed making it easier for a private citizen to sue a food producer for selling tainted food. Rather than the laws now that only allow the lawsuit if the producer "knew" it was tainted. Now they can just say they didnt' know becuase the producers are not legally required to test the food or make the results of their internal tests public.
Yes it does. Why do you think Americans are relatively suddenly so tremendously obese? We had plenty of fat and cholesterol before, lots of sugar salt and white bread. Lots of people were lazy and inactive, but you rarely saw someone weighing more than 250 pounds. Now it is a common sight. You almost never saw teens weighing over 200, but now there are 9 year olds that big. So probably food plays a very large role in this. Also, chemistry plays a very big role in processed food.
Probably the best you can do now is to buy your food as local, as organic and as unprocessed as possible. I am sure the problems with food are not confined to pet foods.
The FDA and the USDA do not work together at all, which is a big problem. The lack of inspections of foreign food must be a huge problem.
Answer:
It is fraud on the part of USDA and FDA. More fraud! While they aren't inspecting foreign meat they are demanding that anyone who houses even one livestock animal register their premises, tag their animal(s) and eventually be required to report all animal movements. This onerous mandate is called the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). They say it is about disease control, but if that were the truth, they'd be inspecting every food item that comes into this country.
It is not possible to inspect 100 % of it.
The law should be changed that they can do much more than visually inspect the food, like for example they could force producers to inspect and test their own food and report the results.
The FDA could then focus their limited resources on performing audits of those tests to ensure that they are being conducted and reported accurately.
Or a law could be passed making it easier for a private citizen to sue a food producer for selling tainted food. Rather than the laws now that only allow the lawsuit if the producer "knew" it was tainted. Now they can just say they didnt' know becuase the producers are not legally required to test the food or make the results of their internal tests public.
Yes it does. Why do you think Americans are relatively suddenly so tremendously obese? We had plenty of fat and cholesterol before, lots of sugar salt and white bread. Lots of people were lazy and inactive, but you rarely saw someone weighing more than 250 pounds. Now it is a common sight. You almost never saw teens weighing over 200, but now there are 9 year olds that big. So probably food plays a very large role in this. Also, chemistry plays a very big role in processed food.
Probably the best you can do now is to buy your food as local, as organic and as unprocessed as possible. I am sure the problems with food are not confined to pet foods.
The FDA and the USDA do not work together at all, which is a big problem. The lack of inspections of foreign food must be a huge problem.
6 month speeding ban. Licence returned what is penalty if commit speeding offence now?
Answer:
at the discretion of the court
Death by dangerous driving?? 10 years in prison.
Speed? depends if its going to court. If its just a standard ticket you should be OK. Court....expect more and they do look at history
Apartment/lease/deposit question?
I signed a year lease and its 5 months into it. And part of the lease was if you break the lease early you have to pay a months rent extra. I also paid a $300 deposit. It鈥檚 very noisy where I live. I complained to the landlord once and he didn鈥檛 do anything about it and I have called the police out there eight times within the 5 months. Still nothing. I have been looking for another place b/c I literally can鈥檛 get any rest. I found a place and plan on moving next week. I called the landlord to tell him this morning I was moving next week. He said well we will make arrangements to pay the extra rent for breaking the lease and also he would need to come check the place for damages and if there is any I will have to pay for that too. I don鈥檛 think I should have to pay for breaking the lease b/c I complained and nothing was done about it, its part of his responsibility to take care of his tenants...correct?
Answer:
First of all, since there was a lease you are technically responsible for the next months rent. However, when it comes to the security deposit, he/she cannot withhold your security. What they can do is inspect the property and any damages that were made, they must provide proof of repair, such as receipts and stuff, and attach it to the remaining deposit. They have 30 days to return your deposit or tell you where it is. In most states, the landlord must put your security deposit in an account, where it accrues interest. They are supposed to attach any paid receipts to the deposit, which will be returned.
Judges usually don't side with landlords on this one, especially since your willing to pay that extra month just so you can leave. In the event that the landlord doesn't return your deposit, then you can file a complaint in the small claims court in the county where the apartment is in, and most likely the judge will award you 2x your security, if they find the landlord was withholding your security.
Really, you have to pay that month because technically you are responsible for all the months that apartment goes unrented up until your lease is up, given that the landlord tries to rent it out in all ways possible. So if I were you I would pay that other month or possibly get sued for the remainder of the lease.
remove the nails. put white toothpaste in the holes to hide them. unless excessive... should be considered normal wear and tear.
Lease laws vary from state to state..In some you are responsible for the remainder of your lease until the apartment is re-rented. The landlord does NOT have to give your old place preference when showing apartments to new potential renters.
Say goodbye to your deposit as well in most states.--because of the broken lease. Go on a search engine and do a search for landlord/tenant laws for your state.
The place has to be left in its original condition, the way it was upon moving in, minus normal wear and tear, in order to obtain a deposit. This means it also has to be cleaned.
If the only damage is the holes, then just buy some spackle and plug them up. It actually shouldn't matter if you don't do this because that would be considered normal wear and tear, but just in case your landlord is a jerk then you won't have to deal with it. Make certain the place is cleaned, too. Take pictures of the final result if you can, so you have them in case of a dispute. The only reason you might not get your full deposit back, then, would be if you didn't give enough notice beforehand (some returns of deposits are contingent upon at least a twenty day notice by tenant before moving).
Your landlords responsibilities don't extend to keeping the neighbours quite. If you were promised a quite lodging before moving in, however, then you might have a case for breaking your lease without expectation of reprisal, but only if.
Answer:
First of all, since there was a lease you are technically responsible for the next months rent. However, when it comes to the security deposit, he/she cannot withhold your security. What they can do is inspect the property and any damages that were made, they must provide proof of repair, such as receipts and stuff, and attach it to the remaining deposit. They have 30 days to return your deposit or tell you where it is. In most states, the landlord must put your security deposit in an account, where it accrues interest. They are supposed to attach any paid receipts to the deposit, which will be returned.
Judges usually don't side with landlords on this one, especially since your willing to pay that extra month just so you can leave. In the event that the landlord doesn't return your deposit, then you can file a complaint in the small claims court in the county where the apartment is in, and most likely the judge will award you 2x your security, if they find the landlord was withholding your security.
Really, you have to pay that month because technically you are responsible for all the months that apartment goes unrented up until your lease is up, given that the landlord tries to rent it out in all ways possible. So if I were you I would pay that other month or possibly get sued for the remainder of the lease.
remove the nails. put white toothpaste in the holes to hide them. unless excessive... should be considered normal wear and tear.
Lease laws vary from state to state..In some you are responsible for the remainder of your lease until the apartment is re-rented. The landlord does NOT have to give your old place preference when showing apartments to new potential renters.
Say goodbye to your deposit as well in most states.--because of the broken lease. Go on a search engine and do a search for landlord/tenant laws for your state.
The place has to be left in its original condition, the way it was upon moving in, minus normal wear and tear, in order to obtain a deposit. This means it also has to be cleaned.
If the only damage is the holes, then just buy some spackle and plug them up. It actually shouldn't matter if you don't do this because that would be considered normal wear and tear, but just in case your landlord is a jerk then you won't have to deal with it. Make certain the place is cleaned, too. Take pictures of the final result if you can, so you have them in case of a dispute. The only reason you might not get your full deposit back, then, would be if you didn't give enough notice beforehand (some returns of deposits are contingent upon at least a twenty day notice by tenant before moving).
Your landlords responsibilities don't extend to keeping the neighbours quite. If you were promised a quite lodging before moving in, however, then you might have a case for breaking your lease without expectation of reprisal, but only if.
Do some communities view jail time as a “Right of passage”?
Answer:
Unfortunately, this is all too true.
yea, black communities probably. just kidding. actually, probably just gangs.
No. But, some individuals get caught up in the prison system and have a difficult time getting back to normal after release. Jobs are a main issue. My question to you is," What communities did you have in mind?"
I wouldn't say that certain communities view jail as a 'Right of Passage", but i will say that as long as this country's power is unequally controlled, then some people in some communities will be more likely to be in jail.
When some felons get of prison, they will not be able to find legal jobs or people willing to give them a chance. So they go back to doing what they were doing before they went to jail. Now they are stuck in this cycle of being in and out of jail.
I have also heard of stories of people purposely going to jail so that they can get 3 meals and health insurance.
isn't this country great?!
I can tell you that in some urban/ poor communities, people who come out of jail are more respected. I know it sounds crazy, but it is the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)