Event ticket scamming is big business. The problems for event goers begin with artificial scarcity created by some ticketing businesses or venues - often masking as charitable holding back of tickets for undecided last minute buyers. Then there is legal buying up of tickets and re-selling them at a markup, and finally plain old fraud - selling non-existent tickets or counterfeits.
2016 didn't bring anything new on scam ticket websites, and there are plenty of advice sites like this one to guide you.
Counterfeiters continue the technological advances that create ever more realistic fakes to the point that only the door scan will reveal if a ticket is real. A security guard at one of the venues we have had the pleasure to work at in the States showed us the haul of one show during the run-up to NYE 2015.
Buying pressure for sought after tickets has become extremely intense with the prevalence of smartphone apps, with British festival Glastonbury 2016 selling out in about half an hour.
But our 2015 "favorite" way to get top dollars out of event goers is the practice of venues or large ticket sellers of releasing very expensive last minute tickets. For "General Admission" event, i.e. events without assigned seating except for "VIP" audience members, ticketmaster pulled a nice one at the 28 December San Francisco show of Dead & Company. After regular tickets at 75 USD plus 15.25 service charge and VIP tickets (assigned seating) had sold out, a batch of "V-Plate" marked tickets with a face value of 165 USD appeared.
"V-Plate" tickets did not entitle buyers to any "VIP privileges".
Or, as one concert goer asked in very upset tone and possibly not 100% legally accurate wording: "Is ticketmaster scamming its own tickets?"
If we feel like it, we'll tell you the story about a scammer being out-frauded by two young ladies who managed to slip him a fake 100 dollar bill.
Friday, January 8, 2016
Saturday, November 28, 2015
German conservative CDU plans "pledge of allegiance" - for immigrants only
Germany's ruling Christian democrats (CDU), the party of Chancellor Merkel, are planning a resolution calling for an "integration agreement" for immigrants at their December caucus, report all major German papers today.
The idea to make immigrants sign an "integration agreement" has been floated several times this past year but each time it disappeared as quickly as it popped up. The blogster thought it was an all too tempting measure to go away, just as the calls to exempt refugees from the country's minimum wage law are certain to come up again.
This time, the call for a "pledge of allegiance" type agreement immigrants will have to sign is set to be formally introduced by the larger of the two parties that make up Germany's federal government.
The agreement is conceptually modeled on an "integration agreement" that every long-term unemployed resident has to sign in order to get basic means-tested benefits under the HARTZ-IV social services regime.
If a long-term unemployed person refuses to sign, the jobs agency can enforce the "agreement" as an administrative measure. Failure to fulfill the terms and conditions entails sanctions and penalties in the form of cuts to benefits that technically represent the basic minimum to survive in the world's fourth largest economy.
The integration agreement for immigrants as reported today has more lofty goals than, for instance, the exact number of job applications.
According to Die Zeit, immigrants will have to pledge to uphold:
1) Equality between men and women
2) German laws overrule Sharia laws
3) No discrimination of homosexuals and religions
4) Israel's right to exist
Failure to comply will entail benefits cuts and possibly a "change of immigration status".
An earlier report in Focus was more comprehensive, so we add a few items from their list.
5) Accept democracy with a separation of powers as the only form of government
6) Renounce any kind of forced marriage
7) Accept mandatory schooling for girls
8) Obtain work
9) Learn German
The resolution will very likely either leave out the word "Sharia" altogether or cite it merely as an "example". In the Focus article, Israel's right to exist is quoted as "derived from" the German law banning denial of the Holocaust, and you should expect very similar wording in December in order to avoid political or legal challenges to the statement.
The pledge is so obviously directed against Muslim immigrants that the authors of whatever the final version will be, will try to make doubly sure to defuse that very allegation.
But even if they don't manage to remove all appearances, Germany does not have good anti-discrimination laws, or - where a law exists - enforcement can be tricky.
In reality, all pledge points are already covered by the German constitution and specific laws, so it can be argued that introduction of the pledge is populist politics at its worst and a handy tool to punish perceived non-compliance through administrative measures instead of formal court procedures.
Of course, immigrants will be able to appeal decisions in court, but the government still sanctions HARTZ-IV recipients despite court rulings. Expect a similar situation in application of the immigrant integration agreement.
The idea to make immigrants sign an "integration agreement" has been floated several times this past year but each time it disappeared as quickly as it popped up. The blogster thought it was an all too tempting measure to go away, just as the calls to exempt refugees from the country's minimum wage law are certain to come up again.
This time, the call for a "pledge of allegiance" type agreement immigrants will have to sign is set to be formally introduced by the larger of the two parties that make up Germany's federal government.
The agreement is conceptually modeled on an "integration agreement" that every long-term unemployed resident has to sign in order to get basic means-tested benefits under the HARTZ-IV social services regime.
If a long-term unemployed person refuses to sign, the jobs agency can enforce the "agreement" as an administrative measure. Failure to fulfill the terms and conditions entails sanctions and penalties in the form of cuts to benefits that technically represent the basic minimum to survive in the world's fourth largest economy.
The integration agreement for immigrants as reported today has more lofty goals than, for instance, the exact number of job applications.
According to Die Zeit, immigrants will have to pledge to uphold:
1) Equality between men and women
2) German laws overrule Sharia laws
3) No discrimination of homosexuals and religions
4) Israel's right to exist
Failure to comply will entail benefits cuts and possibly a "change of immigration status".
An earlier report in Focus was more comprehensive, so we add a few items from their list.
5) Accept democracy with a separation of powers as the only form of government
6) Renounce any kind of forced marriage
7) Accept mandatory schooling for girls
8) Obtain work
9) Learn German
The resolution will very likely either leave out the word "Sharia" altogether or cite it merely as an "example". In the Focus article, Israel's right to exist is quoted as "derived from" the German law banning denial of the Holocaust, and you should expect very similar wording in December in order to avoid political or legal challenges to the statement.
The pledge is so obviously directed against Muslim immigrants that the authors of whatever the final version will be, will try to make doubly sure to defuse that very allegation.
But even if they don't manage to remove all appearances, Germany does not have good anti-discrimination laws, or - where a law exists - enforcement can be tricky.
In reality, all pledge points are already covered by the German constitution and specific laws, so it can be argued that introduction of the pledge is populist politics at its worst and a handy tool to punish perceived non-compliance through administrative measures instead of formal court procedures.
Of course, immigrants will be able to appeal decisions in court, but the government still sanctions HARTZ-IV recipients despite court rulings. Expect a similar situation in application of the immigrant integration agreement.
Friday, November 27, 2015
The odd reporting on the Turkish downing of the Russian bomber
Among the "odd reporting" of 2015 in the main five to six German media outfits the blogster reads each day, the downing of the Russian war plane in Syria is one of the highlights.
To be very clear: This criticism does not apply to the initial several hours after the event was first reported. The blogster considers the RT German claim that a reports around noon of a "shootdown in the border area" are misinformation to be overblown.
However, the initial headline of tabloid BILD.de saying "Putin attacks Turkey" was so far out of the ballpark that even the famously grumpy K-Landnews TheEditor fell silent.
After a while, it* said: "I know this sounds harsh but the only comparison that comes to my feeble mind is the Nazis reporting their invasion of Poland with the announcement 'Since 5:45 this morning, we are firing back' when not a shot had been fired by the Poles and everything had been staged by the Germans."
A short time later, BILD changed the headline to "Putin threatens Turkey", still untrue but at least not such a bellicose brain dead lie.
Alarm bells should have been going off in every newsroom when the Turkish justification map shown below was published. This link to the Unian website lead to a page timestamped 14:07 on 24 November.
The map was disseminated widely as proof that the Russian Su-24 violated Turkish airspace, and the blogster accepted this claim without any ifs and buts. The first smart Twitter users had asked immediately after the first reports how many seconds of incursion we were talking about, and a brief glance at a larger map with a scale obviated any doubt: it could only have been seconds.
This article in the New York Times in the afternoon of the 24th tries to make sense of the claims and shows this detailed map.
If we extrapolate the "known" time of 17 seconds and the "known" distance between entry and exit of the Russian plane and assume a near constant speed, we have a potential issue with the warnings given by the Turkish military. As reported by the German FAZ and elsewhere, 10 warnings were given within 5 minutes would seem odd. Measuring out the Russian flight paths seems to indicate that the first plane heading north comes in at no earlier than about three minutes (more like 2.5 actually) before the shootdown.
Did Turkey start the warnings about 2 minutes before the Russian planes veered north? That would be odd because the call to change heading wouldn't make sense. Or did Turkish forces continues to broadcast warnings until a couple of minutes after the incident?
Maybe a more comprehensive radar map would explain this, but the map above doesn't.
Then there is the complete silence regarding the "grey" plane path. The article in the Times and in German media focuses on the "red", the Russian planes and makes no mention of the grey and the green tracks, which would be the Turkish F-16s. The grey track is in Syrian airspace (since the blue line is the border) for about twice the distance covered by the Russians inside Turkish airspace, then heads down straight to the border where it abruptly stops, which indicates that the plane went into Syrian airspace for a second time.
RT has a new article, last edited at 16:57 on Nov 27, with details and a timeline by Russian personnel.
The basic sequence of events is very similar to our interpretation above, which was based solely on the Turkish radar image.
It is unclear why the German media, or the NYT for that matter, did not have a pilot or an expert interpret the Turkish radar image.
[Update 11/28/2015] Just checked the Bellingcat website to see if they had anything to say about the Turkish radar image. They don't, which is in line with our expectations.
[Update 11/29] Just found this Motherboard article, which deals with both the Turkish and the Russian graphics. The Russian one was obviously a dud, and what they say about the Turkish one is in line with our radar map-only interpretation. They got a very plausible actual plane speed of 980 km/h using information in addition to the map. The real relief to the blogster is the calculation of the plane speed based on the 17 seconds as 420 km/h because the blogster had that at 430 km/h and was sure there was no way this was true.
* TheEditor is a gender neutral personality.
To be very clear: This criticism does not apply to the initial several hours after the event was first reported. The blogster considers the RT German claim that a reports around noon of a "shootdown in the border area" are misinformation to be overblown.
However, the initial headline of tabloid BILD.de saying "Putin attacks Turkey" was so far out of the ballpark that even the famously grumpy K-Landnews TheEditor fell silent.
After a while, it* said: "I know this sounds harsh but the only comparison that comes to my feeble mind is the Nazis reporting their invasion of Poland with the announcement 'Since 5:45 this morning, we are firing back' when not a shot had been fired by the Poles and everything had been staged by the Germans."
A short time later, BILD changed the headline to "Putin threatens Turkey", still untrue but at least not such a bellicose brain dead lie.
Alarm bells should have been going off in every newsroom when the Turkish justification map shown below was published. This link to the Unian website lead to a page timestamped 14:07 on 24 November.
The map was disseminated widely as proof that the Russian Su-24 violated Turkish airspace, and the blogster accepted this claim without any ifs and buts. The first smart Twitter users had asked immediately after the first reports how many seconds of incursion we were talking about, and a brief glance at a larger map with a scale obviated any doubt: it could only have been seconds.
This article in the New York Times in the afternoon of the 24th tries to make sense of the claims and shows this detailed map.
If we extrapolate the "known" time of 17 seconds and the "known" distance between entry and exit of the Russian plane and assume a near constant speed, we have a potential issue with the warnings given by the Turkish military. As reported by the German FAZ and elsewhere, 10 warnings were given within 5 minutes would seem odd. Measuring out the Russian flight paths seems to indicate that the first plane heading north comes in at no earlier than about three minutes (more like 2.5 actually) before the shootdown.
Did Turkey start the warnings about 2 minutes before the Russian planes veered north? That would be odd because the call to change heading wouldn't make sense. Or did Turkish forces continues to broadcast warnings until a couple of minutes after the incident?
Maybe a more comprehensive radar map would explain this, but the map above doesn't.
Then there is the complete silence regarding the "grey" plane path. The article in the Times and in German media focuses on the "red", the Russian planes and makes no mention of the grey and the green tracks, which would be the Turkish F-16s. The grey track is in Syrian airspace (since the blue line is the border) for about twice the distance covered by the Russians inside Turkish airspace, then heads down straight to the border where it abruptly stops, which indicates that the plane went into Syrian airspace for a second time.
RT has a new article, last edited at 16:57 on Nov 27, with details and a timeline by Russian personnel.
The basic sequence of events is very similar to our interpretation above, which was based solely on the Turkish radar image.
It is unclear why the German media, or the NYT for that matter, did not have a pilot or an expert interpret the Turkish radar image.
[Update 11/28/2015] Just checked the Bellingcat website to see if they had anything to say about the Turkish radar image. They don't, which is in line with our expectations.
[Update 11/29] Just found this Motherboard article, which deals with both the Turkish and the Russian graphics. The Russian one was obviously a dud, and what they say about the Turkish one is in line with our radar map-only interpretation. They got a very plausible actual plane speed of 980 km/h using information in addition to the map. The real relief to the blogster is the calculation of the plane speed based on the 17 seconds as 420 km/h because the blogster had that at 430 km/h and was sure there was no way this was true.
* TheEditor is a gender neutral personality.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Racists love it when upset and helpless people use "last resort leverage"
Apologies to the experts: There is probably a succinct specialist term in psychology or some wonderful philosophical concept that describes what the blogster calls "last resort leverage".
Feel free to comment.
What the blogster means with the term is behavior that uses membership in a "protected" group as needed to get a desired result in an interaction. We can debate forever whether such behavior is unethical, sometimes justified, smart, or dumb, etc., within a specific set of circumstances, but this is not the point of the post.
The problem is that such behavior tends to be seized upon by racists and xenophobes with a gleeful "I told you so" or with some rant about evils of political correctness, or worse. But those instances the blogster personally knows had one thing in common: resorting to arguing with membership in a protected group always occurred when someone had maneuvered himself into a corner or was treated badly.
Such as when a young black man accused a white woman who had lent him money and been very patient with repayment delay after repayment delay: "You hate blacks!"
"No, I hate assholes."
At which point another black male who had overheard the exchange intervened: "Man, you know she's right, pay back that money, I know you have it."
Or the story of the second generation Turkish young man with a German girlfriend. The two had been together for some six months, the young man had helped his girlfriend's father to assemble furniture, had moved some heavy items in the yard because the father couldn't lift heavy stuff anymore, had stayed for dinner multiple times. One day, the young woman's dad found him smoking a joint and told him he could not do it at the house. The young man tried to argue that what he was doing was harmless but became upset when told that there was no arguing, and smoking pot would not be tolerated. At this point, he launched into "You just hate Turks."
The final example for the post is the story of a friend from northern Germany who asked if she could stay over night because she needed to apply with the ministry of education of the state to get her Eastern European medical degree recognized and to be allowed to do an additional one year intern training to be able to practice in Germany. That evening, she told the blogster how unfriendly people at the agency had been, rifling through every single class, trying to find fault, and eventually questioning the motive of this German citizen for applying in this state instead of her home state up north. At this point, the friend was exasperated and said: "The reason for coming to this city is that there is a vibrant Jewish community here."
"It worked?"
"Yes, that lady became very friendly."
So, the blogster has not witnessed a single instance in which a member of a "protected" group argued on the basis of this identity at the outset of a dispute or altercation. This is not to say that every single one of the billions of humans out there will always wait until all other arguments are exhausted.
When you hear that someone is accused of using "the race card" or any other "card", try to understand the event better -- and ask yourself what you would have done.
Feel free to comment.
What the blogster means with the term is behavior that uses membership in a "protected" group as needed to get a desired result in an interaction. We can debate forever whether such behavior is unethical, sometimes justified, smart, or dumb, etc., within a specific set of circumstances, but this is not the point of the post.
The problem is that such behavior tends to be seized upon by racists and xenophobes with a gleeful "I told you so" or with some rant about evils of political correctness, or worse. But those instances the blogster personally knows had one thing in common: resorting to arguing with membership in a protected group always occurred when someone had maneuvered himself into a corner or was treated badly.
Such as when a young black man accused a white woman who had lent him money and been very patient with repayment delay after repayment delay: "You hate blacks!"
"No, I hate assholes."
At which point another black male who had overheard the exchange intervened: "Man, you know she's right, pay back that money, I know you have it."
Or the story of the second generation Turkish young man with a German girlfriend. The two had been together for some six months, the young man had helped his girlfriend's father to assemble furniture, had moved some heavy items in the yard because the father couldn't lift heavy stuff anymore, had stayed for dinner multiple times. One day, the young woman's dad found him smoking a joint and told him he could not do it at the house. The young man tried to argue that what he was doing was harmless but became upset when told that there was no arguing, and smoking pot would not be tolerated. At this point, he launched into "You just hate Turks."
The final example for the post is the story of a friend from northern Germany who asked if she could stay over night because she needed to apply with the ministry of education of the state to get her Eastern European medical degree recognized and to be allowed to do an additional one year intern training to be able to practice in Germany. That evening, she told the blogster how unfriendly people at the agency had been, rifling through every single class, trying to find fault, and eventually questioning the motive of this German citizen for applying in this state instead of her home state up north. At this point, the friend was exasperated and said: "The reason for coming to this city is that there is a vibrant Jewish community here."
"It worked?"
"Yes, that lady became very friendly."
So, the blogster has not witnessed a single instance in which a member of a "protected" group argued on the basis of this identity at the outset of a dispute or altercation. This is not to say that every single one of the billions of humans out there will always wait until all other arguments are exhausted.
When you hear that someone is accused of using "the race card" or any other "card", try to understand the event better -- and ask yourself what you would have done.
Monday, November 23, 2015
Hindus, Muslims and agnostics who enjoy Christmas
There is one time during the year when the famously grumpy K-Landnews TheEditor becomes nostalgic and nice: Christmas.
I hate the commercialism, and religion is not my thing, confided TheEditor one Christmas Eve, but I do like the slowdown of life and positively relish seeing the world's greatest a***holes have to smile for Christmas. And I put up a tree with decorations for the cats to play with.
It's no surprise then that the K-Landnews has published some fun Christmas themed posts over the years.
There was Dr. Who and the war on Christmas on the Christmas special of the British TV series in 2013. The premise, a war on a planet called Christmas, was so cringe worthy that we had to top it with an equally cringe worthy post.
Another one was O not a Tannenbaum on a newspaper article which detailed how a German had decorated a tall plant that nobody sober would classify as a member of the genus Abies (fir trees for you and me).
Not to be outdone in considering the needy, our post Christmas and the marginalized was a touching piece on the two groups that need the spirit of Christmas the most: CEOs and homeless people.
We even had an early insight into what working at Santa Corp is like in the post Santa and the Hotline. You are not the only undervalued elf, okay?
But what we love most about Christmas is that friends and acquaintances from other cultures and religions enjoy it, too.
Hindu friends back in the U.S. would always get a tree, claiming "it's for the kids, you know". But their smiles were not "it's for the kids, you know" smiles. A year or so later, they confirmed the observation.
Even some practicing Muslims like the ritual, as one second generation lady of Turkish descent in Germany told us recently. I enjoy Christmas, she said. Well, I grew up in this small German town and found it wonderful how all the houses had Christmas decorations and lights up. It's sad, though, to see that people do this less and less every year. Maybe they are afraid of the high electricity bill?
In stark contrast to the U.S., where lazy Christians or members of "non-Christmas" religions have plenty of cuisines to choose from, our nearest Indian and Chinese restaurants are shuttered on the holidays.
So, get out those lights and decorations and remember: even if you are bored or stressed by Christmas, there are plenty of Hindus, Muslims and others who enjoy it.
I hate the commercialism, and religion is not my thing, confided TheEditor one Christmas Eve, but I do like the slowdown of life and positively relish seeing the world's greatest a***holes have to smile for Christmas. And I put up a tree with decorations for the cats to play with.
It's no surprise then that the K-Landnews has published some fun Christmas themed posts over the years.
There was Dr. Who and the war on Christmas on the Christmas special of the British TV series in 2013. The premise, a war on a planet called Christmas, was so cringe worthy that we had to top it with an equally cringe worthy post.
Another one was O not a Tannenbaum on a newspaper article which detailed how a German had decorated a tall plant that nobody sober would classify as a member of the genus Abies (fir trees for you and me).
Not to be outdone in considering the needy, our post Christmas and the marginalized was a touching piece on the two groups that need the spirit of Christmas the most: CEOs and homeless people.
We even had an early insight into what working at Santa Corp is like in the post Santa and the Hotline. You are not the only undervalued elf, okay?
But what we love most about Christmas is that friends and acquaintances from other cultures and religions enjoy it, too.
Hindu friends back in the U.S. would always get a tree, claiming "it's for the kids, you know". But their smiles were not "it's for the kids, you know" smiles. A year or so later, they confirmed the observation.
Even some practicing Muslims like the ritual, as one second generation lady of Turkish descent in Germany told us recently. I enjoy Christmas, she said. Well, I grew up in this small German town and found it wonderful how all the houses had Christmas decorations and lights up. It's sad, though, to see that people do this less and less every year. Maybe they are afraid of the high electricity bill?
In stark contrast to the U.S., where lazy Christians or members of "non-Christmas" religions have plenty of cuisines to choose from, our nearest Indian and Chinese restaurants are shuttered on the holidays.
So, get out those lights and decorations and remember: even if you are bored or stressed by Christmas, there are plenty of Hindus, Muslims and others who enjoy it.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
The U.S. Visa Waiver Program is really an eVisa program for foreigners
The U.S. Visa Waiver Program is in the news again because of the recent Paris terror attacks and the refugee crisis in general.
Republicans in Congress are particularly fond of questioning the program that allows U.S. citizens to visit other countries without going through a visa application process and, in return, allows citizens of some 40 other countries to visit the United States without having to apply for a visitor visa at a U.S. consulate or embassy.
So, how does a U.S. citizen travel to one of the core European countries (the Schengen area)?
The U.S. citizen gets a passport, buys a plane ticket, flies, goes through border control and customs at the destination, and that's it. There is zero paperwork for the countries the blogster knows. And no fees.
There is no fingerprinting and no taking of pictures.
This is not without pitfalls for newbie travelers. On one occasion, coming into Germany from the U.S., the blogster saw a confused group of twenty-ish Americans wandering around the arrivals area before immigration. They were looking at the glossy tourist brochures of Germany, and chatted nervously. The blogster stopped. Two of the group came over and asked where they could find the forms.
You mean immigration and customs forms?
Yes.
They don't have any here. You just walk up to the immigration officers and get a stamp.
The two went back to the group and informed them. One or two of the others looked at the blogster in complete disbelief, as if wondering whether they were being sent into a trap, or whether the blogster was just a numbnut who had somehow managed to buy a plane ticket and make it to Germany.
How does a Schengen area citizen travel to the U.S. on the waiver program?
Originally, a trip to the U.S. was very similar, except for the forms, of course. This changed with the introduction of the electronic system ESTA. ESTA became mandatory in 2009, and since 2010 airlines must require the ESTA waiver at check-in. Registration on the ESTA website costs $ 14.
At airport check-in, the traveler has to show the ESTA number assigned on approval. At the U.S. port of entry, fingerprints and a photo are taken and stored.
What information is asked when a European citizen fills out the ESTA form? Pretty much the same information asked on a standard DS-160 Nonimmigrant Visa Application, except for the question about direct relatives in the U.S.
A crucial additional requirement is that you pay the fee with a credit or debit card. This information is - in the words of one card company - priceless.
For countries not participating in ESTA, the regular DS-160 is also accepted in handwritten form, although this is becoming rare these days. Still, handwritten forms are error prone.
Once your data are in ESTA, they are checked by the same systems that check the DS-160. Information from the credit card is also checked. If the traveler does not have a card, someone else can make the payment.
So, as of late November 2015, the European "visa waiver" for U.S. citizens still is a waiver. This may change but we'll see.
The U.S. "waiver" for Europeans has been an eVisa since the mandatory verification of ESTA by airlines in 2010.
Just in case Congress raves about being interviewed in person by a U.S. consular official, that's pretty much bunk. The duration of such an interview is between 60 and 90 seconds.
Oh, and before we forget, here is a brief story told to the blogster by a very reliable nonimmigrant.
The nonimmigrant was admitted at immigration and attended a party that night to celebrate the return from a natural disaster zone. At the party, he ran into the immigration officer who had admitted him a few hours earlier. The officer greeted him and handed him a joint.
The importance of labels and change over time
The Visa Waiver Program is another great example of the tremendous importance of "labels" (or, in everyday usage, "names") and change over time without changing the label. We all know examples from everyday life that we would classify as misleading labeling, but tend to see this as a static issue. In other words, something it named or labeled, and that's it - the label/name is "correct" or not.
With the changes over the years making the underlying process of the program almost identical to a traditional visa application for non-US citizens, we continue to use the original name, after all, that's important for legal reasons, important to ensure communication works, and it still reflects reality for US citizens.
But when you start to discuss potential changes while ignoring the current actual process, as Congress did, you don't look so good. To be fair, it is difficult and - in this case - potentially unpleasant to acknowledge that a process changed from basically equal treatment for both parties to something more onerous to one party only.
Notes:
1. There is a program to facilitate entering the U.S. without the often long wait times at immigration, the Global Entry Program. It is available at major U.S. airports and requires additional screening.
2. The blogster knows of several Europeans who reduced the number of trips to the U.S. after routine fingerprinting and photos, saying they were unwilling to undergo a treatment previously reserved to law offenders more often than absolutely necessary.
3. Yes, some U.S. travelers are unlucky and get pulled out by UK officials for questioning. That's just how the Brits roll.
[Update] Added "Notes" and biometrics section, typos. Clarification added "For countries not participating in ESTA, the"
[Update 11/22/2015] Added paragraph "The importance of labels and changes over time".
Republicans in Congress are particularly fond of questioning the program that allows U.S. citizens to visit other countries without going through a visa application process and, in return, allows citizens of some 40 other countries to visit the United States without having to apply for a visitor visa at a U.S. consulate or embassy.
So, how does a U.S. citizen travel to one of the core European countries (the Schengen area)?
The U.S. citizen gets a passport, buys a plane ticket, flies, goes through border control and customs at the destination, and that's it. There is zero paperwork for the countries the blogster knows. And no fees.
There is no fingerprinting and no taking of pictures.
This is not without pitfalls for newbie travelers. On one occasion, coming into Germany from the U.S., the blogster saw a confused group of twenty-ish Americans wandering around the arrivals area before immigration. They were looking at the glossy tourist brochures of Germany, and chatted nervously. The blogster stopped. Two of the group came over and asked where they could find the forms.
You mean immigration and customs forms?
Yes.
They don't have any here. You just walk up to the immigration officers and get a stamp.
The two went back to the group and informed them. One or two of the others looked at the blogster in complete disbelief, as if wondering whether they were being sent into a trap, or whether the blogster was just a numbnut who had somehow managed to buy a plane ticket and make it to Germany.
How does a Schengen area citizen travel to the U.S. on the waiver program?
Originally, a trip to the U.S. was very similar, except for the forms, of course. This changed with the introduction of the electronic system ESTA. ESTA became mandatory in 2009, and since 2010 airlines must require the ESTA waiver at check-in. Registration on the ESTA website costs $ 14.
At airport check-in, the traveler has to show the ESTA number assigned on approval. At the U.S. port of entry, fingerprints and a photo are taken and stored.
What information is asked when a European citizen fills out the ESTA form? Pretty much the same information asked on a standard DS-160 Nonimmigrant Visa Application, except for the question about direct relatives in the U.S.
A crucial additional requirement is that you pay the fee with a credit or debit card. This information is - in the words of one card company - priceless.
For countries not participating in ESTA, the regular DS-160 is also accepted in handwritten form, although this is becoming rare these days. Still, handwritten forms are error prone.
Once your data are in ESTA, they are checked by the same systems that check the DS-160. Information from the credit card is also checked. If the traveler does not have a card, someone else can make the payment.
So, as of late November 2015, the European "visa waiver" for U.S. citizens still is a waiver. This may change but we'll see.
The U.S. "waiver" for Europeans has been an eVisa since the mandatory verification of ESTA by airlines in 2010.
Just in case Congress raves about being interviewed in person by a U.S. consular official, that's pretty much bunk. The duration of such an interview is between 60 and 90 seconds.
Oh, and before we forget, here is a brief story told to the blogster by a very reliable nonimmigrant.
The nonimmigrant was admitted at immigration and attended a party that night to celebrate the return from a natural disaster zone. At the party, he ran into the immigration officer who had admitted him a few hours earlier. The officer greeted him and handed him a joint.
The importance of labels and change over time
The Visa Waiver Program is another great example of the tremendous importance of "labels" (or, in everyday usage, "names") and change over time without changing the label. We all know examples from everyday life that we would classify as misleading labeling, but tend to see this as a static issue. In other words, something it named or labeled, and that's it - the label/name is "correct" or not.
With the changes over the years making the underlying process of the program almost identical to a traditional visa application for non-US citizens, we continue to use the original name, after all, that's important for legal reasons, important to ensure communication works, and it still reflects reality for US citizens.
But when you start to discuss potential changes while ignoring the current actual process, as Congress did, you don't look so good. To be fair, it is difficult and - in this case - potentially unpleasant to acknowledge that a process changed from basically equal treatment for both parties to something more onerous to one party only.
Notes:
1. There is a program to facilitate entering the U.S. without the often long wait times at immigration, the Global Entry Program. It is available at major U.S. airports and requires additional screening.
2. The blogster knows of several Europeans who reduced the number of trips to the U.S. after routine fingerprinting and photos, saying they were unwilling to undergo a treatment previously reserved to law offenders more often than absolutely necessary.
3. Yes, some U.S. travelers are unlucky and get pulled out by UK officials for questioning. That's just how the Brits roll.
[Update] Added "Notes" and biometrics section, typos. Clarification added "For countries not participating in ESTA, the"
[Update 11/22/2015] Added paragraph "The importance of labels and changes over time".
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
German daily life: when paying cash means losing tax deductibility
There are people who like cash, and then there are governments that don't.
Not running afoul of laws and regulations when you pay in cash can be quite a challenge in Europe. A German consumer protection charity has this handy website in German and English. While it is advertised as a resource for travelers, you really should consult it if you are moving to Europe.
The map shows only a few countries that have "no limit" on cash payments and many in ominous red for "cash payment limited".
The blogster suggests you click on a couple of the "red" countries to see what is regulated. Keep in mind that the justification for putting limits on cash payment is to curb tax evasion and corruption. Checking out, for example, France and Italy shows us what legislators in the two countries decided to tackle, and some details may surprise you.
The web site does not provide a full picture either, as notes at gas stations and shops tell us. Most won't accept any banknote above 100 Euros, so no 200s or 500s, and that's pretty reasonable. Should you be as naive as the blogster and accept a 500 note from the friendly bank teller because it is so convenient you because you've never seen one before, rest assured that the effort of spending any of it is guaranteed to make you decline any subsequent suggestion by the friendly teller.
In Germany, there is a pretty bad trap that is equally guaranteed to make the German tax authorities millions each year from gullible newbies to the country. No statistics exist, but millions it must be because the blogster alone lost somewhere around a grand, and with close to a million newcomers to the country - not counting the latest refugees - more folks will trip over the regulations.
So, what is it, you say?
It's that often copied but never rivaled German way of legally allowing you to do something and then punishing you for it later.
The first of these tricks surfaced with regard to a lost driver's license. As it turns out, in our state, the fee for replacing a lost license is double that of replacing a stolen license.
In a rare display of up front information by a German government agency, they do inform citizens about this on their web site.
The tax authorities have a different take on good information when it comes to how to deduct the cost of contractors who fix something in your house or do maintenance, for example, sweeping the chimney or clearing out the yard.
The good news is that you can deduct some of the labor cost from your taxes when you prepare the tax return.
The bad news is that you get to deduct nothing, nada, when you pay cash.
The receipt by the contractor is not accepted by the tax man unless it comes with a bank statement that proves direct debit. Small contractors around here often do not accept credit cards, so, no, that won't work.
The obvious problem, of course, is that the tax preparer you enlist after your first six months to a year in the country may inform you about with an appropriately sympathetic "sorry for your loss", but you cannot fix the problem. Of course, you may also find that the tax preparer recommended warmly by a co-worker is a completely condescending gentleman who has a knack for making you feel your measly salary is not worth his effort. That's a different story, though.
If you plan to move to Germany, don't expect a "welcome to Germany" package to warn you of the driver's license loss penalty or any tax regulations.
If want to see the quirks in a positive light, convince yourself that learning German to the point to understand newspapers may pay off.
Oh, and feel free to send the folks who run the limitations on cash payments website a nice request for correction.
Not running afoul of laws and regulations when you pay in cash can be quite a challenge in Europe. A German consumer protection charity has this handy website in German and English. While it is advertised as a resource for travelers, you really should consult it if you are moving to Europe.
The map shows only a few countries that have "no limit" on cash payments and many in ominous red for "cash payment limited".
The blogster suggests you click on a couple of the "red" countries to see what is regulated. Keep in mind that the justification for putting limits on cash payment is to curb tax evasion and corruption. Checking out, for example, France and Italy shows us what legislators in the two countries decided to tackle, and some details may surprise you.
The web site does not provide a full picture either, as notes at gas stations and shops tell us. Most won't accept any banknote above 100 Euros, so no 200s or 500s, and that's pretty reasonable. Should you be as naive as the blogster and accept a 500 note from the friendly bank teller because it is so convenient you because you've never seen one before, rest assured that the effort of spending any of it is guaranteed to make you decline any subsequent suggestion by the friendly teller.
In Germany, there is a pretty bad trap that is equally guaranteed to make the German tax authorities millions each year from gullible newbies to the country. No statistics exist, but millions it must be because the blogster alone lost somewhere around a grand, and with close to a million newcomers to the country - not counting the latest refugees - more folks will trip over the regulations.
So, what is it, you say?
It's that often copied but never rivaled German way of legally allowing you to do something and then punishing you for it later.
The first of these tricks surfaced with regard to a lost driver's license. As it turns out, in our state, the fee for replacing a lost license is double that of replacing a stolen license.
In a rare display of up front information by a German government agency, they do inform citizens about this on their web site.
The tax authorities have a different take on good information when it comes to how to deduct the cost of contractors who fix something in your house or do maintenance, for example, sweeping the chimney or clearing out the yard.
The good news is that you can deduct some of the labor cost from your taxes when you prepare the tax return.
The bad news is that you get to deduct nothing, nada, when you pay cash.
The receipt by the contractor is not accepted by the tax man unless it comes with a bank statement that proves direct debit. Small contractors around here often do not accept credit cards, so, no, that won't work.
The obvious problem, of course, is that the tax preparer you enlist after your first six months to a year in the country may inform you about with an appropriately sympathetic "sorry for your loss", but you cannot fix the problem. Of course, you may also find that the tax preparer recommended warmly by a co-worker is a completely condescending gentleman who has a knack for making you feel your measly salary is not worth his effort. That's a different story, though.
If you plan to move to Germany, don't expect a "welcome to Germany" package to warn you of the driver's license loss penalty or any tax regulations.
If want to see the quirks in a positive light, convince yourself that learning German to the point to understand newspapers may pay off.
Oh, and feel free to send the folks who run the limitations on cash payments website a nice request for correction.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
The ice cream truck does parcel delivery
In the recent post The Greedtocracy: Deutsche Post goes from civil service to day labor, we gave a brief description of how the German postal service went from government agency to a freewheeling transportation and logistics behemoth that uses day labor to the tune of roughly 10 000 full time equivalent jobs.
But there's more: subcontractors, some of them a mere freezer truck away from our own US parcel service experience.
For a small company in SomeWhereUSA that ships physical goods to all 50 states, shipping costs add up. So, one day, the boss announced we were trying out a second supplier in addition to the household name company we had been using exclusively.
A few days later, Janice from Accounting (that's a John Oliver, Last Week Tonight, reference, sorry) tells us a pickup is scheduled for around 2 pm today. Around the announced time, a frozen food delivery truck pulls into the street and backs up to our loading door.
While we were wondering if the owner had experienced a bout of generosity, the driver has gotten out and is standing in front of us.
I'm here to pick up parcels for Hey-you-Ship-it-and-we-might-deliver-your-crap.
One of us goes to see Janice, the one from Accounting, and the driver explains that he is doing shipping jobs for Hey-you-Ship-it-and-we-might-deliver-your-crap in addition to his frozen food delivery contract work.
Don't worry, I turned the freezer unit off, he reassures us a Jorge comes back from Janice and confirms that this is indeed our new shipping service operator.
The following week, a rust bucket former utility company van - you could still make out the outlines of the removed logo - is our driver.
The subsequent week, someone else.
We begin to make jokes about what kind of vehicle would show up next.
Everybody's favorite is, there's no surprise there, a hearse.
Sadly, no hearse ever shows up.
This experience came to mind when we started paying attention to the delivery vehicles around the countryside.
The bright yellow vans of Deutsche Post/DHL stand out, but it was the others we found fascinating. The old vans with faded colors, with drivers without uniforms, are everywhere these days.
They do have one or two small yellow stickers on the side and on the back saying they operate for Deutsche Post.
The stickers are not, as you might hope, an acknowledgement of the hard work of subcontractors.
Far from it.
They are the only way Deutsche Post can get companies to hand over parcels to folks who may speak hardly any German and arrive in a decrepit van.
The Germans can be hard to convince of advancements.
But there's more: subcontractors, some of them a mere freezer truck away from our own US parcel service experience.
For a small company in SomeWhereUSA that ships physical goods to all 50 states, shipping costs add up. So, one day, the boss announced we were trying out a second supplier in addition to the household name company we had been using exclusively.
A few days later, Janice from Accounting (that's a John Oliver, Last Week Tonight, reference, sorry) tells us a pickup is scheduled for around 2 pm today. Around the announced time, a frozen food delivery truck pulls into the street and backs up to our loading door.
While we were wondering if the owner had experienced a bout of generosity, the driver has gotten out and is standing in front of us.
I'm here to pick up parcels for Hey-you-Ship-it-and-we-might-deliver-your-crap.
One of us goes to see Janice, the one from Accounting, and the driver explains that he is doing shipping jobs for Hey-you-Ship-it-and-we-might-deliver-your-crap in addition to his frozen food delivery contract work.
Don't worry, I turned the freezer unit off, he reassures us a Jorge comes back from Janice and confirms that this is indeed our new shipping service operator.
The following week, a rust bucket former utility company van - you could still make out the outlines of the removed logo - is our driver.
The subsequent week, someone else.
We begin to make jokes about what kind of vehicle would show up next.
Everybody's favorite is, there's no surprise there, a hearse.
Sadly, no hearse ever shows up.
This experience came to mind when we started paying attention to the delivery vehicles around the countryside.
The bright yellow vans of Deutsche Post/DHL stand out, but it was the others we found fascinating. The old vans with faded colors, with drivers without uniforms, are everywhere these days.
They do have one or two small yellow stickers on the side and on the back saying they operate for Deutsche Post.
The stickers are not, as you might hope, an acknowledgement of the hard work of subcontractors.
Far from it.
They are the only way Deutsche Post can get companies to hand over parcels to folks who may speak hardly any German and arrive in a decrepit van.
The Germans can be hard to convince of advancements.
Monday, November 16, 2015
It's about history and social problems - France's Algerian War
As Paris struggles with the atrocities of 13 November, as authorities investigate, as pundits punt, it appears everybody is focused on their narrative about Syria and ISIS.
The short term focus is understandable, but Islamist terrorism in France, including the French speaking southern part of Belgium owes much of its ferocity not to ISIS but to the Algerian War of Independence in the late 1950s and early 1960s. To get a better picture, we'd need to talk about Morocco and Tunisia, too, even Libya to some extent, but we leave it at Algeria because it was the biggest conflict, casting the longest shadow into 21st Century France.
After the January 2015 attack on satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, there were a couple of extended references to issues of North African history. In the aftermath of last Friday, pretty much all we get are nationalities or places of birth, maybe with an "of Moroccan descent" thrown in.
There is, however, one immediate sign of historical ignorance when we call the Friday events, as for instance in The Daily Beast, "the worst atrocity to befall France since World War II".
Worst terror attack, certainly, but not the worst atrocity.
For the record, that awful designation goes to the killing of over 200 Algerians by police in Paris on a single day in October 1961.
If you only have time for a single account of the Algerian War and its consequences, the article Fifty years after Algeria's independence, France is still in denial is a recommended read. It talks about the brutality of that war, the mass emigration to mainland France, the housing estates, the grandchildren, and the lack of honesty by the French state.
Those housing estates with a population of 99% black or North African descent make headlines every now and then, and the blogster does not know many white Europeans or Americans who would go there at night.
But, as the blogster found, they are actually safer than some neighborhoods in U.S. cities, if you are simply nice to the kids hanging out. We will never know whether the young white French woman who lived in one of the large estates south of the city made a difference to the life of a young Beur by treating him or her like an equal, but we do know that you can live there safely as a white person, walk your dog, and schlepp your groceries without harm.
Social problems don't go away by bombing, and individuals do make a difference.
As this brief anecdote from Paris a couple of years after the Algerian War of Independence shows. It is an anecdote that may otherwise be forgotten.
The occasion was a reception at the Algerian embassy in Paris, a black tie event as we would call it. Introductions were being made, Parisian officials mixing with Algerian officials, Bonsoir Monsieur, Bonsoir Monsieur. A French civil servant introduced himself to one of a series of Algerians, expecting a version of the small talk made several times that evening.
The Algerian diplomat introduced himself and added: I am very pleased to finally be able to talk to you. I had you in my rifle sights many times, but you were good to our people.
After the initial shock on the part of the French civil servant, the two had an enjoyable chat.
[Update] Fixed typos. Decided to give a couple more details. The French civil servant had held the rank of captain during the war, and his last name began with L.
The short term focus is understandable, but Islamist terrorism in France, including the French speaking southern part of Belgium owes much of its ferocity not to ISIS but to the Algerian War of Independence in the late 1950s and early 1960s. To get a better picture, we'd need to talk about Morocco and Tunisia, too, even Libya to some extent, but we leave it at Algeria because it was the biggest conflict, casting the longest shadow into 21st Century France.
After the January 2015 attack on satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, there were a couple of extended references to issues of North African history. In the aftermath of last Friday, pretty much all we get are nationalities or places of birth, maybe with an "of Moroccan descent" thrown in.
There is, however, one immediate sign of historical ignorance when we call the Friday events, as for instance in The Daily Beast, "the worst atrocity to befall France since World War II".
Worst terror attack, certainly, but not the worst atrocity.
For the record, that awful designation goes to the killing of over 200 Algerians by police in Paris on a single day in October 1961.
If you only have time for a single account of the Algerian War and its consequences, the article Fifty years after Algeria's independence, France is still in denial is a recommended read. It talks about the brutality of that war, the mass emigration to mainland France, the housing estates, the grandchildren, and the lack of honesty by the French state.
Those housing estates with a population of 99% black or North African descent make headlines every now and then, and the blogster does not know many white Europeans or Americans who would go there at night.
But, as the blogster found, they are actually safer than some neighborhoods in U.S. cities, if you are simply nice to the kids hanging out. We will never know whether the young white French woman who lived in one of the large estates south of the city made a difference to the life of a young Beur by treating him or her like an equal, but we do know that you can live there safely as a white person, walk your dog, and schlepp your groceries without harm.
Social problems don't go away by bombing, and individuals do make a difference.
As this brief anecdote from Paris a couple of years after the Algerian War of Independence shows. It is an anecdote that may otherwise be forgotten.
The occasion was a reception at the Algerian embassy in Paris, a black tie event as we would call it. Introductions were being made, Parisian officials mixing with Algerian officials, Bonsoir Monsieur, Bonsoir Monsieur. A French civil servant introduced himself to one of a series of Algerians, expecting a version of the small talk made several times that evening.
The Algerian diplomat introduced himself and added: I am very pleased to finally be able to talk to you. I had you in my rifle sights many times, but you were good to our people.
After the initial shock on the part of the French civil servant, the two had an enjoyable chat.
[Update] Fixed typos. Decided to give a couple more details. The French civil servant had held the rank of captain during the war, and his last name began with L.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
To report or not to report - the line between 'decision' and 'censorship'
Life is all about choices all the time. And we have rules for making them. Laws, guidelines and unwritten rules.
Much of what we do involves making and breaking them. In journalism, this can take the not so subtle giveaway of valuable gifts highlighted in our 2014 post Quality journalism fringe benefits: Ueber-Shwag. How much of this violated the German Press Association guidelines section 15 on freebies is not always clear, although the blogster considers a TV set a bit much.
In addition to state or national rules, newspapers and other media outlets have their own editorial code, for example, the editorial code of the British The Guardian. That's a fairly extensive one, which also includes a paragraph on reporting on suicide including the number of a suicide hotline to be published with an article.
German outlets are less forthcoming with their guidelines, probably because they have the industry wide press code and prefer to keep anything beyond that to themselves. Among the few exceptions we found is the publisher of the notorious tabloid Bild Zeitung with a handful of political guidelines (such as transatlantic, or opposed to totalitarianism of any stripe).
In the German mainstream media, reporting about suicides appears to be governed by an "unwritten rule", according to this Der Spiegel article on the rhetoric publicity bait by the "anti-islamization" movement PEGIDA, the right wing AfD and others on the right.
That unwritten rule, according to the Spiegel article, goes like this: "...in general, the media won't report on suicides. Because it only inspires copycats." Known as the Wherther Effect after the suicidal romantic in Goethe's The Sorrows of the Young Wherther.
Confronted with some evidence of the effect, the K-Landnews TheEditor mumbled: "I see, but they have the cause wrong. I don't think these youngsters killed themselves because they felt the deep heartbreak of young Wherther. They may have offed themselves because they could not bear the fact that a German writer could pen something so awful."
Why would a journalist invoke the reporting on suicides in an article about the rhetoric of various right wing outfits?
Because, he says, giving outrageous claims and verbal provocations a media platform by reporting them only emboldens the speakers and writers and begets more of the same.
To the blogster, this seems a bit odd because Der Spiegel in particular picks up every obscure Nazi reference, like the one in which we learned that the number 88 in German can mean something more than 80 plus 8, or 90 minus 2, or 4 * 20 + 8, or whatever mathematical rule you can use to obtain it.
Nobody forces Der Spiegel to pick up right wing barks with the reliability of one of Pavlov's dogs, or does the blogster not understand something important here?
It's a decision, so man up.
As to not reporting on suicide, that one actually smacks a bit of self censorship. Because, hey, everybody reported on Robin Williams with almost frightening abandon.
But a once-a-year one-pager on the 10 000 or so Germans who kill themselves every year is enough?
That's many times the number of homicide cases in Germany, which was under 3 000 in 2014. And out of that number, almost 50% were merely attempts. The number of 1st degree murder cases in the whole country was 298 in 2014.
Less than 300, that's very likely fewer than you get to see in a single evening on the 80 TV channels an average German household can receive.
Incidentally, the number of attempted suicides is about 100 000 on top the 10K.
Not reporting on this "as a rule" is not smart.
One more thing:
If you feel depressed or suicidal, find your local hotline number and talk to someone.
Much of what we do involves making and breaking them. In journalism, this can take the not so subtle giveaway of valuable gifts highlighted in our 2014 post Quality journalism fringe benefits: Ueber-Shwag. How much of this violated the German Press Association guidelines section 15 on freebies is not always clear, although the blogster considers a TV set a bit much.
In addition to state or national rules, newspapers and other media outlets have their own editorial code, for example, the editorial code of the British The Guardian. That's a fairly extensive one, which also includes a paragraph on reporting on suicide including the number of a suicide hotline to be published with an article.
German outlets are less forthcoming with their guidelines, probably because they have the industry wide press code and prefer to keep anything beyond that to themselves. Among the few exceptions we found is the publisher of the notorious tabloid Bild Zeitung with a handful of political guidelines (such as transatlantic, or opposed to totalitarianism of any stripe).
In the German mainstream media, reporting about suicides appears to be governed by an "unwritten rule", according to this Der Spiegel article on the rhetoric publicity bait by the "anti-islamization" movement PEGIDA, the right wing AfD and others on the right.
That unwritten rule, according to the Spiegel article, goes like this: "...in general, the media won't report on suicides. Because it only inspires copycats." Known as the Wherther Effect after the suicidal romantic in Goethe's The Sorrows of the Young Wherther.
Confronted with some evidence of the effect, the K-Landnews TheEditor mumbled: "I see, but they have the cause wrong. I don't think these youngsters killed themselves because they felt the deep heartbreak of young Wherther. They may have offed themselves because they could not bear the fact that a German writer could pen something so awful."
Why would a journalist invoke the reporting on suicides in an article about the rhetoric of various right wing outfits?
Because, he says, giving outrageous claims and verbal provocations a media platform by reporting them only emboldens the speakers and writers and begets more of the same.
To the blogster, this seems a bit odd because Der Spiegel in particular picks up every obscure Nazi reference, like the one in which we learned that the number 88 in German can mean something more than 80 plus 8, or 90 minus 2, or 4 * 20 + 8, or whatever mathematical rule you can use to obtain it.
Nobody forces Der Spiegel to pick up right wing barks with the reliability of one of Pavlov's dogs, or does the blogster not understand something important here?
It's a decision, so man up.
As to not reporting on suicide, that one actually smacks a bit of self censorship. Because, hey, everybody reported on Robin Williams with almost frightening abandon.
But a once-a-year one-pager on the 10 000 or so Germans who kill themselves every year is enough?
That's many times the number of homicide cases in Germany, which was under 3 000 in 2014. And out of that number, almost 50% were merely attempts. The number of 1st degree murder cases in the whole country was 298 in 2014.
Less than 300, that's very likely fewer than you get to see in a single evening on the 80 TV channels an average German household can receive.
Incidentally, the number of attempted suicides is about 100 000 on top the 10K.
Not reporting on this "as a rule" is not smart.
One more thing:
If you feel depressed or suicidal, find your local hotline number and talk to someone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)