Experts back screening for all five-year-olds to prevent crime

[Guest guest]

Is anyone else alarmed by this? What does everyone think?

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/71795.html

Experts back screening for all five-year-olds to prevent crime

LUCY ADAMS, Home Affairs Correspondent October 10 2006

All five-year-olds should be screened for early signs of offending behaviour to

prevent youngsters later becoming criminals under plans put forward by a

ish Executive-backed expert group. Under the proposals, pre-school services

and nursery schools will assess five-year-olds to identify troubled or

troublesome families and signs of substance misuse and violence in the home.

The aim is to identify vulnerable children early, offer improved support to the

family and hopefully turn young people away from crime.

But justice campaigners said the executive should think carefully before

implementing moves.

The news follows a move by police to target children under three and teenage

mothers-to-be as part of the national drive to cut violent crime. The

initiative, by Scotland's Violence Reduction Unit, is founded on unpublished

research, commissioned by the executive, which suggests the mental and emotional

traits which influence whether a person will become violent or not, are

developed by the age of three.

The new report on youth justice calls for a range of measures to reduce youth

offending, including more access to leisure facilities and improved mental

health provision.

The improvement group includes representatives from local authorities, police

and the ish Children's Reporter Administration (SCRA).

Their report also includes proposals to strengthen the monitoring and

supervision of young sex offenders following a report into the killing of

Dewar by 18-year-old Colyn , in Fife, in January 2005.

son, the Justice Minister, yesterday welcomed the Youth Justice

Improvement Group (YJIG) report and launched a blueprint to overhaul services on

the back of its recommendations.

Her response includes a call to: " Identify children at risk of future or further

offending or other poor outcomes and take action early to improve their

situation. " But it is not known whether the executive will force authorities to

implement every recommendation.

Ms son said: " We have significantly increased investment in youth

justice…and the Antisocial Behaviour Act has provided agencies with a range of

new tools and helped concentrate and focus local action.

" But…as the improvement group states, there is no single solution to reducing

offending, but a range of family, community and individual approaches. "

Hugh Mackintosh, chief executive of Barnardo's Scotland and a member of the

group, said early assessment and intervention is key.

" Unless we make a concerted effort with early intervention, then we are all

going to have to pay the price later on, " he said. " There is a great deal of

work we can do to help children prior to school. "

Councillor , social work spokesman for Cosla and YJIG member, said:

" The earlier we intervene the more effective we can be. If there are groups at

risk of offending later on, then we need to look at providing support for these

children. "

But Margaret , ish Tory Justice spokeswoman, said the report was

too full of jargon and lacking in action.

, chairman of the League in Scotland, said the executive should

think carefully before implementing moves to assess five year olds.

He said: " We have already, through the children's hearing system, identified

children at risk of becoming offenders.

" Simply identifying them and doing nothing about it is pointless. If we can

intervene, then it is difficult to argue against. "

[Guest guest]

Is anyone else alarmed by this? What does everyone think?

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/71795.html

Experts back screening for all five-year-olds to prevent crime

LUCY ADAMS, Home Affairs Correspondent October 10 2006

All five-year-olds should be screened for early signs of offending behaviour to

prevent youngsters later becoming criminals under plans put forward by a

ish Executive-backed expert group. Under the proposals, pre-school services

and nursery schools will assess five-year-olds to identify troubled or

troublesome families and signs of substance misuse and violence in the home.

The aim is to identify vulnerable children early, offer improved support to the

family and hopefully turn young people away from crime.

But justice campaigners said the executive should think carefully before

implementing moves.

The news follows a move by police to target children under three and teenage

mothers-to-be as part of the national drive to cut violent crime. The

initiative, by Scotland's Violence Reduction Unit, is founded on unpublished

research, commissioned by the executive, which suggests the mental and emotional

traits which influence whether a person will become violent or not, are

developed by the age of three.

The new report on youth justice calls for a range of measures to reduce youth

offending, including more access to leisure facilities and improved mental

health provision.

The improvement group includes representatives from local authorities, police

and the ish Children's Reporter Administration (SCRA).

Their report also includes proposals to strengthen the monitoring and

supervision of young sex offenders following a report into the killing of

Dewar by 18-year-old Colyn , in Fife, in January 2005.

son, the Justice Minister, yesterday welcomed the Youth Justice

Improvement Group (YJIG) report and launched a blueprint to overhaul services on

the back of its recommendations.

Her response includes a call to: " Identify children at risk of future or further

offending or other poor outcomes and take action early to improve their

situation. " But it is not known whether the executive will force authorities to

implement every recommendation.

Ms son said: " We have significantly increased investment in youth

justice…and the Antisocial Behaviour Act has provided agencies with a range of

new tools and helped concentrate and focus local action.

" But…as the improvement group states, there is no single solution to reducing

offending, but a range of family, community and individual approaches. "

Hugh Mackintosh, chief executive of Barnardo's Scotland and a member of the

group, said early assessment and intervention is key.

" Unless we make a concerted effort with early intervention, then we are all

going to have to pay the price later on, " he said. " There is a great deal of

work we can do to help children prior to school. "

Councillor , social work spokesman for Cosla and YJIG member, said:

" The earlier we intervene the more effective we can be. If there are groups at

risk of offending later on, then we need to look at providing support for these

children. "

But Margaret , ish Tory Justice spokeswoman, said the report was

too full of jargon and lacking in action.

, chairman of the League in Scotland, said the executive should

think carefully before implementing moves to assess five year olds.

He said: " We have already, through the children's hearing system, identified

children at risk of becoming offenders.

" Simply identifying them and doing nothing about it is pointless. If we can

intervene, then it is difficult to argue against. "

[Guest guest]

Is anyone else alarmed by this? What does everyone think?

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/71795.html

Experts back screening for all five-year-olds to prevent crime

LUCY ADAMS, Home Affairs Correspondent October 10 2006

All five-year-olds should be screened for early signs of offending behaviour to

prevent youngsters later becoming criminals under plans put forward by a

ish Executive-backed expert group. Under the proposals, pre-school services

and nursery schools will assess five-year-olds to identify troubled or

troublesome families and signs of substance misuse and violence in the home.

The aim is to identify vulnerable children early, offer improved support to the

family and hopefully turn young people away from crime.

But justice campaigners said the executive should think carefully before

implementing moves.

The news follows a move by police to target children under three and teenage

mothers-to-be as part of the national drive to cut violent crime. The

initiative, by Scotland's Violence Reduction Unit, is founded on unpublished

research, commissioned by the executive, which suggests the mental and emotional

traits which influence whether a person will become violent or not, are

developed by the age of three.

The new report on youth justice calls for a range of measures to reduce youth

offending, including more access to leisure facilities and improved mental

health provision.

The improvement group includes representatives from local authorities, police

and the ish Children's Reporter Administration (SCRA).

Their report also includes proposals to strengthen the monitoring and

supervision of young sex offenders following a report into the killing of

Dewar by 18-year-old Colyn , in Fife, in January 2005.

son, the Justice Minister, yesterday welcomed the Youth Justice

Improvement Group (YJIG) report and launched a blueprint to overhaul services on

the back of its recommendations.

Her response includes a call to: " Identify children at risk of future or further

offending or other poor outcomes and take action early to improve their

situation. " But it is not known whether the executive will force authorities to

implement every recommendation.

Ms son said: " We have significantly increased investment in youth

justice…and the Antisocial Behaviour Act has provided agencies with a range of

new tools and helped concentrate and focus local action.

" But…as the improvement group states, there is no single solution to reducing

offending, but a range of family, community and individual approaches. "

Hugh Mackintosh, chief executive of Barnardo's Scotland and a member of the

group, said early assessment and intervention is key.

" Unless we make a concerted effort with early intervention, then we are all

going to have to pay the price later on, " he said. " There is a great deal of

work we can do to help children prior to school. "

Councillor , social work spokesman for Cosla and YJIG member, said:

" The earlier we intervene the more effective we can be. If there are groups at

risk of offending later on, then we need to look at providing support for these

children. "

But Margaret , ish Tory Justice spokeswoman, said the report was

too full of jargon and lacking in action.

, chairman of the League in Scotland, said the executive should

think carefully before implementing moves to assess five year olds.

He said: " We have already, through the children's hearing system, identified

children at risk of becoming offenders.

" Simply identifying them and doing nothing about it is pointless. If we can

intervene, then it is difficult to argue against. "

[Guest guest]

Is anyone else alarmed by this? What does everyone think?

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/71795.html

Experts back screening for all five-year-olds to prevent crime

LUCY ADAMS, Home Affairs Correspondent October 10 2006

All five-year-olds should be screened for early signs of offending behaviour to

prevent youngsters later becoming criminals under plans put forward by a

ish Executive-backed expert group. Under the proposals, pre-school services

and nursery schools will assess five-year-olds to identify troubled or

troublesome families and signs of substance misuse and violence in the home.

The aim is to identify vulnerable children early, offer improved support to the

family and hopefully turn young people away from crime.

But justice campaigners said the executive should think carefully before

implementing moves.

The news follows a move by police to target children under three and teenage

mothers-to-be as part of the national drive to cut violent crime. The

initiative, by Scotland's Violence Reduction Unit, is founded on unpublished

research, commissioned by the executive, which suggests the mental and emotional

traits which influence whether a person will become violent or not, are

developed by the age of three.

The new report on youth justice calls for a range of measures to reduce youth

offending, including more access to leisure facilities and improved mental

health provision.

The improvement group includes representatives from local authorities, police

and the ish Children's Reporter Administration (SCRA).

Their report also includes proposals to strengthen the monitoring and

supervision of young sex offenders following a report into the killing of

Dewar by 18-year-old Colyn , in Fife, in January 2005.

son, the Justice Minister, yesterday welcomed the Youth Justice

Improvement Group (YJIG) report and launched a blueprint to overhaul services on

the back of its recommendations.

Her response includes a call to: " Identify children at risk of future or further

offending or other poor outcomes and take action early to improve their

situation. " But it is not known whether the executive will force authorities to

implement every recommendation.

Ms son said: " We have significantly increased investment in youth

justice…and the Antisocial Behaviour Act has provided agencies with a range of

new tools and helped concentrate and focus local action.

" But…as the improvement group states, there is no single solution to reducing

offending, but a range of family, community and individual approaches. "

Hugh Mackintosh, chief executive of Barnardo's Scotland and a member of the

group, said early assessment and intervention is key.

" Unless we make a concerted effort with early intervention, then we are all

going to have to pay the price later on, " he said. " There is a great deal of

work we can do to help children prior to school. "

Councillor , social work spokesman for Cosla and YJIG member, said:

" The earlier we intervene the more effective we can be. If there are groups at

risk of offending later on, then we need to look at providing support for these

children. "

But Margaret , ish Tory Justice spokeswoman, said the report was

too full of jargon and lacking in action.

, chairman of the League in Scotland, said the executive should

think carefully before implementing moves to assess five year olds.

He said: " We have already, through the children's hearing system, identified

children at risk of becoming offenders.

" Simply identifying them and doing nothing about it is pointless. If we can

intervene, then it is difficult to argue against. "

[Guest guest]

I'm ok with offering 'support' ie. social supports, more leisure time

etc. for troubled tots BUT no drugs. Also, what about the kids who

aren't 'extroverted'' but who are quiet and withdrawn. I hope these

kids will get some time and investment as well.

I'm ok with a proactive approach with young children but labeling

troubled tots as potential criminals is a whole lot of b.s. IMHO.

[Guest guest]

I'm ok with offering 'support' ie. social supports, more leisure time

etc. for troubled tots BUT no drugs. Also, what about the kids who

aren't 'extroverted'' but who are quiet and withdrawn. I hope these

kids will get some time and investment as well.

I'm ok with a proactive approach with young children but labeling

troubled tots as potential criminals is a whole lot of b.s. IMHO.

[Guest guest]

I'm ok with offering 'support' ie. social supports, more leisure time

etc. for troubled tots BUT no drugs. Also, what about the kids who

aren't 'extroverted'' but who are quiet and withdrawn. I hope these

kids will get some time and investment as well.

I'm ok with a proactive approach with young children but labeling

troubled tots as potential criminals is a whole lot of b.s. IMHO.

[Guest guest]

I'm ok with offering 'support' ie. social supports, more leisure time

etc. for troubled tots BUT no drugs. Also, what about the kids who

aren't 'extroverted'' but who are quiet and withdrawn. I hope these

kids will get some time and investment as well.

I'm ok with a proactive approach with young children but labeling

troubled tots as potential criminals is a whole lot of b.s. IMHO.

[Guest guest]

Hi Bow,

Forgive me for I am about to rant and I want you to

know upfront how much I appreciate your thoughts

in this group and was actually missing your comments

just yesterday.

I can see how it could appear like a good thing.

Many of these programs do look good as help

is what is being pushed. Seems to me like all these

latest programs to help people have a double

edge.

What constitutes bad behaviour?

What are the " interventions " ?

Do the parents have any say in this?

But how do you determine which children need services

and what if the parents disagree? It's screening again,

it's a list of questions, it's so full of potential trouble.

Are the children removed like has happened in the US?

Parents disagree with a 20-year-old psychobabble trained

social worker (who has never raised a child)and has the

state come down on them hard when common sense is ignored.

The children are taken andthe state insists

the parents jump through hoops of services for their own good

of, at least in Texas, very dubious value and then

the state decides they don't pass muster after suppressing

their ability to survive and that is called help?

the children, being upset from getting removed or drugged

as a solution to their upsets become worse and worse when

they simply wanted to be with their parents and were naturally

upset.

This is government invasion of privacy and it could be

extremely bad and history tells me it's going to be bad.

This is what the Nazi's did. This sends alarms up and down

my spine. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so.

Children were trained to look for seditous signs in parents

and then children were turning in parents who secretly disagreed

with the government and were trying to teach their children

right from wrong. This happened in Nazi Germany and in

communist Russia.

Here we have a screening of behaviors to target parents

that may be in need of correction by the state. It's the

same thing from a different angle.

I would imagine that educating about the dangers of drugs,

creating worthwhile jobs and cleaning up the environment

in general would be a much saner and less invasive way of

changing the lives of children and their families. The state

could supply all organic foods and clean up the polution

and get a better result for less money in my opinion and

never trample a single citizen's rights.

I will state that I know there are drugged-out unethical

parents in the world but they are a very small minority and

I cannot imagine there is enough to warrant anything like

what this is looking to be.

This is very invasive considering this statement in the

article.

" founded on unpublished research "

I want to SEE this research because I know most

of this psychobabble is trendy and will be tossed

out as ineffective in a few years after it doesn't work

and the stories of too many people's rights being

trampled finally gets out in the press.

The social services system will have been funded

handsomely, people will be potentially worse off and

with less rights and more willing to allow government

intrusion into their lives and then the next " scientific "

trend will be brought out to continue the destruction

of basic human rights. All in the name of help.

This may seem far fetched but I know my history and

I can see patterns developing here in this that has

a striking resemblance to the subugation of people.

Always the people suppressed did not believe it

would happen to them. the people involved in

promoting it may not see the danger in this.

I may be wrong in this but considering the potential

of me being right I would take this and any government

screening of citizens extremely seriously since any

free people are the ones that in the end should be

controlling the government not the other way around.

Best,

Jim

I'm ok with offering 'support' ie. social supports, more leisure time

etc. for troubled tots BUT no drugs. Also, what about the kids who

aren't 'extroverted'' but who are quiet and withdrawn. I hope these

kids will get some time and investment as well.

I'm ok with a proactive approach with young children but labeling

troubled tots as potential criminals is a whole lot of b.s. IMHO.

[Guest guest]

Hi Bow,

Forgive me for I am about to rant and I want you to

know upfront how much I appreciate your thoughts

in this group and was actually missing your comments

just yesterday.

I can see how it could appear like a good thing.

Many of these programs do look good as help

is what is being pushed. Seems to me like all these

latest programs to help people have a double

edge.

What constitutes bad behaviour?

What are the " interventions " ?

Do the parents have any say in this?

But how do you determine which children need services

and what if the parents disagree? It's screening again,

it's a list of questions, it's so full of potential trouble.

Are the children removed like has happened in the US?

Parents disagree with a 20-year-old psychobabble trained

social worker (who has never raised a child)and has the

state come down on them hard when common sense is ignored.

The children are taken andthe state insists

the parents jump through hoops of services for their own good

of, at least in Texas, very dubious value and then

the state decides they don't pass muster after suppressing

their ability to survive and that is called help?

the children, being upset from getting removed or drugged

as a solution to their upsets become worse and worse when

they simply wanted to be with their parents and were naturally

upset.

This is government invasion of privacy and it could be

extremely bad and history tells me it's going to be bad.

This is what the Nazi's did. This sends alarms up and down

my spine. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so.

Children were trained to look for seditous signs in parents

and then children were turning in parents who secretly disagreed

with the government and were trying to teach their children

right from wrong. This happened in Nazi Germany and in

communist Russia.

Here we have a screening of behaviors to target parents

that may be in need of correction by the state. It's the

same thing from a different angle.

I would imagine that educating about the dangers of drugs,

creating worthwhile jobs and cleaning up the environment

in general would be a much saner and less invasive way of

changing the lives of children and their families. The state

could supply all organic foods and clean up the polution

and get a better result for less money in my opinion and

never trample a single citizen's rights.

I will state that I know there are drugged-out unethical

parents in the world but they are a very small minority and

I cannot imagine there is enough to warrant anything like

what this is looking to be.

This is very invasive considering this statement in the

article.

" founded on unpublished research "

I want to SEE this research because I know most

of this psychobabble is trendy and will be tossed

out as ineffective in a few years after it doesn't work

and the stories of too many people's rights being

trampled finally gets out in the press.

The social services system will have been funded

handsomely, people will be potentially worse off and

with less rights and more willing to allow government

intrusion into their lives and then the next " scientific "

trend will be brought out to continue the destruction

of basic human rights. All in the name of help.

This may seem far fetched but I know my history and

I can see patterns developing here in this that has

a striking resemblance to the subugation of people.

Always the people suppressed did not believe it

would happen to them. the people involved in

promoting it may not see the danger in this.

I may be wrong in this but considering the potential

of me being right I would take this and any government

screening of citizens extremely seriously since any

free people are the ones that in the end should be

controlling the government not the other way around.

Best,

Jim

I'm ok with offering 'support' ie. social supports, more leisure time

etc. for troubled tots BUT no drugs. Also, what about the kids who

aren't 'extroverted'' but who are quiet and withdrawn. I hope these

kids will get some time and investment as well.

I'm ok with a proactive approach with young children but labeling

troubled tots as potential criminals is a whole lot of b.s. IMHO.

[Guest guest]

Hi Bow,

Forgive me for I am about to rant and I want you to

know upfront how much I appreciate your thoughts

in this group and was actually missing your comments

just yesterday.

I can see how it could appear like a good thing.

Many of these programs do look good as help

is what is being pushed. Seems to me like all these

latest programs to help people have a double

edge.

What constitutes bad behaviour?

What are the " interventions " ?

Do the parents have any say in this?

But how do you determine which children need services

and what if the parents disagree? It's screening again,

it's a list of questions, it's so full of potential trouble.

Are the children removed like has happened in the US?

Parents disagree with a 20-year-old psychobabble trained

social worker (who has never raised a child)and has the

state come down on them hard when common sense is ignored.

The children are taken andthe state insists

the parents jump through hoops of services for their own good

of, at least in Texas, very dubious value and then

the state decides they don't pass muster after suppressing

their ability to survive and that is called help?

the children, being upset from getting removed or drugged

as a solution to their upsets become worse and worse when

they simply wanted to be with their parents and were naturally

upset.

This is government invasion of privacy and it could be

extremely bad and history tells me it's going to be bad.

This is what the Nazi's did. This sends alarms up and down

my spine. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so.

Children were trained to look for seditous signs in parents

and then children were turning in parents who secretly disagreed

with the government and were trying to teach their children

right from wrong. This happened in Nazi Germany and in

communist Russia.

Here we have a screening of behaviors to target parents

that may be in need of correction by the state. It's the

same thing from a different angle.

I would imagine that educating about the dangers of drugs,

creating worthwhile jobs and cleaning up the environment

in general would be a much saner and less invasive way of

changing the lives of children and their families. The state

could supply all organic foods and clean up the polution

and get a better result for less money in my opinion and

never trample a single citizen's rights.

I will state that I know there are drugged-out unethical

parents in the world but they are a very small minority and

I cannot imagine there is enough to warrant anything like

what this is looking to be.

This is very invasive considering this statement in the

article.

" founded on unpublished research "

I want to SEE this research because I know most

of this psychobabble is trendy and will be tossed

out as ineffective in a few years after it doesn't work

and the stories of too many people's rights being

trampled finally gets out in the press.

The social services system will have been funded

handsomely, people will be potentially worse off and

with less rights and more willing to allow government

intrusion into their lives and then the next " scientific "

trend will be brought out to continue the destruction

of basic human rights. All in the name of help.

This may seem far fetched but I know my history and

I can see patterns developing here in this that has

a striking resemblance to the subugation of people.

Always the people suppressed did not believe it

would happen to them. the people involved in

promoting it may not see the danger in this.

I may be wrong in this but considering the potential

of me being right I would take this and any government

screening of citizens extremely seriously since any

free people are the ones that in the end should be

controlling the government not the other way around.

Best,

Jim

I'm ok with offering 'support' ie. social supports, more leisure time

etc. for troubled tots BUT no drugs. Also, what about the kids who

aren't 'extroverted'' but who are quiet and withdrawn. I hope these

kids will get some time and investment as well.

I'm ok with a proactive approach with young children but labeling

troubled tots as potential criminals is a whole lot of b.s. IMHO.

[Guest guest]

Hi Bow,

Forgive me for I am about to rant and I want you to

know upfront how much I appreciate your thoughts

in this group and was actually missing your comments

just yesterday.

I can see how it could appear like a good thing.

Many of these programs do look good as help

is what is being pushed. Seems to me like all these

latest programs to help people have a double

edge.

What constitutes bad behaviour?

What are the " interventions " ?

Do the parents have any say in this?

But how do you determine which children need services

and what if the parents disagree? It's screening again,

it's a list of questions, it's so full of potential trouble.

Are the children removed like has happened in the US?

Parents disagree with a 20-year-old psychobabble trained

social worker (who has never raised a child)and has the

state come down on them hard when common sense is ignored.

The children are taken andthe state insists

the parents jump through hoops of services for their own good

of, at least in Texas, very dubious value and then

the state decides they don't pass muster after suppressing

their ability to survive and that is called help?

the children, being upset from getting removed or drugged

as a solution to their upsets become worse and worse when

they simply wanted to be with their parents and were naturally

upset.

This is government invasion of privacy and it could be

extremely bad and history tells me it's going to be bad.

This is what the Nazi's did. This sends alarms up and down

my spine. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so.

Children were trained to look for seditous signs in parents

and then children were turning in parents who secretly disagreed

with the government and were trying to teach their children

right from wrong. This happened in Nazi Germany and in

communist Russia.

Here we have a screening of behaviors to target parents

that may be in need of correction by the state. It's the

same thing from a different angle.

I would imagine that educating about the dangers of drugs,

creating worthwhile jobs and cleaning up the environment

in general would be a much saner and less invasive way of

changing the lives of children and their families. The state

could supply all organic foods and clean up the polution

and get a better result for less money in my opinion and

never trample a single citizen's rights.

I will state that I know there are drugged-out unethical

parents in the world but they are a very small minority and

I cannot imagine there is enough to warrant anything like

what this is looking to be.

This is very invasive considering this statement in the

article.

" founded on unpublished research "

I want to SEE this research because I know most

of this psychobabble is trendy and will be tossed

out as ineffective in a few years after it doesn't work

and the stories of too many people's rights being

trampled finally gets out in the press.

The social services system will have been funded

handsomely, people will be potentially worse off and

with less rights and more willing to allow government

intrusion into their lives and then the next " scientific "

trend will be brought out to continue the destruction

of basic human rights. All in the name of help.

This may seem far fetched but I know my history and

I can see patterns developing here in this that has

a striking resemblance to the subugation of people.

Always the people suppressed did not believe it

would happen to them. the people involved in

promoting it may not see the danger in this.

I may be wrong in this but considering the potential

of me being right I would take this and any government

screening of citizens extremely seriously since any

free people are the ones that in the end should be

controlling the government not the other way around.

Best,

Jim

I'm ok with offering 'support' ie. social supports, more leisure time

etc. for troubled tots BUT no drugs. Also, what about the kids who

aren't 'extroverted'' but who are quiet and withdrawn. I hope these

kids will get some time and investment as well.

I'm ok with a proactive approach with young children but labeling

troubled tots as potential criminals is a whole lot of b.s. IMHO.