Finally! A campaign that focuses on the perpetrator instead of the victim. In November of 2010 Edmonton launched the first Don’t be that Guy Campaign. Now Calgary is following in their footsteps and is launching it here. This week you’ll start to notice some in your face posters, such as the one to the left, on CTrains, buses, in nightclub, and in the universities. The posters are mostly targeting men, and will appear in nightclub and university washrooms, as well as other high traffic sites around town.
The DBTGC is being launched by the ‘Sexual Assault Voices of Calgary’. An organization that seeks to change societal thinking: “We are looking at societal change here, it’s important to remember this is not just a police initiative, this involves so many different organizations” says detective Paul Wyatt of the Calgary Police Service’s Sex Crimes Unit. The partners he is refering to includes: Association of Alberta Sexual Assault Services, Alberta Health Service, Calgary Communities Against Sexual Abuse, Calgary Police Service, Calgary Sexual Health Centre, Canadian Red Cross, Connect Family and Sexual Abuse Network and HomeFront.
The in your face campaign is aimed at Men, 18-24, in order to not only take the onus off the victim but bring men into the conversation about sexual assault. The message that this campaign is trying to get across is clear: “if someone is incapacitated by alcohol or drugs they cannot give consent, and sex without consent is sexual assault.” Police Chief Rick Hanson hopes to push the message home as well “You can no longer hide behind the mistaken belief that it’s okay to use drugs or alcohol,as an excuse, or think because a woman did not give you a ‘no’ answer, that it means ‘yes’.”
On every poster the message ” Sex Without Consent = Sexual assault” appears at the bottom. The SAV website also pushes the message that if you have sex without consent, it’s sexual assault:
” sexual assault is any form of sexual activity forced on someone else without that person’s consent. Force can be physical, or through the use of threats, bullying, manipulation, alcohol/drugs or harassment. Any unwanted sexual activity–including kissing, touching, groping, flashing, oral sex, intercourse, photographing, etc.–under ANY circumstances is sexual assault.”
The website includes a section that talks about what consent is and what consent is not. For example, it reads: “Consent is simple. Just ask.” and in contrast to that reads: “Consent is not obtained if the person changes her/his mind. And a person can change his or her mind at ANY time.”
The campaign is meant to change the minds of men, reminding them that the fight against sexual assault involves them as well, and if they see it they too need to step up and say something. “This is a multi-scale approach, not only do we want to get the message out there that it’s never the victims fault, you weren’t in the wrong place, you weren’t drinking too much, you weren’t dressed the wrong way. But we want to target those men to tell them that this behaviour is not acceptable. We also want to target the men who are with them. Those who can stand up to their friends and remind them if you do this you are going to go to jail” says Wyatt. Reminding us that this is a community effort. If we see something we need to stand up against it, and once and for all shake this idea that somehow a women brought on her assault because she was wearing a short skirt and high heels.
We put the onus on the victim too much in our community today, sending the message to perpetrators that it is OK, as a result causing more damage to the victim. As a victim of assault I know that we begin to internalize these feelings. You start to feel that maybe it really is your fault, maybe if you hadn’t had that one extra drink, or worn that short skirt, or walked down that dark street alone, or in my case rollerbladed down that dark pathway, it wouldn’t have happened to us. But it does happen to us. “As a community, it is important for us to stand together and say this type of behaviour is not acceptable and the consequences are too great.” says Laurie Blahitka, of Alberta Health Services.
Not only is this a message about consent, consequences, and victim blaming, it’s also a way to bring men into the conversation. It’s about making men part of the solution too. This is so important because if we remain divided, we’ll never win. As a victim, and an advocate I am so glad to see that people are finally starting to realize it’s going to take the cooperation of all kinds of organizations and people to start changing the minds of society.
I will leave you with a great quote from the SAVCalgary website :
If we keep thinking about the sexual abuses and sexual assaults committed by men as a ‘women’s issue’, we’re not going to do much about truly preventing that violence. The women you care about–and your kids–should live and grow up in a society where male violence against women is not acceptable. Not legally, not morally, not socially.
So the Toronto Police are back at it again, they are giving women bad advice on how to not be sexually assaulted. I can’t help but wonder if they learned nothing from the demonstrations that took place in Toronto last April in regards to Victim Blaming.
Apparently there is an issue with a pervert who is looking up young women’s skirts on Toronto Transit, specifically targeting students from a near by private school. The school principle passed on some advice to students, via email, from the investigating officer from the Toronto Police department. That advice? tell them not to wear their school uniforms, the skirts, on public transit. If they had,for example, jeans or sweatpants on, it wouldn’t be an issue.
Once again we have this idea that if the victim would just do more to prevent the crime it never would have happened in the first place. No one stops to think to themselves that perhaps it never would have happened if there had been no pervert to begin with. Or perhaps there would be no pervert if we actually started to target young men and inform them that this type of behaviour is not acceptable. But what am I thinking? Boys will be boys, right?
These are reinforcing the belief in young women that they are provoking sexual assault by wearing certain types of clothing.
I don’t live in Toronto, I live in Calgary and I take our transit 3 times a week. And I hate taking transit in the early mornings when the trains are pact tight. I particularly find it uncomfortable when I find myself on one of the older trains that aren’t designed for standing room. At least once a week someone either: makes a comment to me about my body, or touches me when it’s crowded in a clearly inappropriate manner. In one instance last year I caught a guy taking a picture of my legs whilst I was standing on the train. In addition to this I hear stories everyday from someone about how something inappropriate has happened to them while they were taking transit.
This is in no way the fault of Calgary Transit and in every way the fault of main stream culture. How do we get across the message that looking up people’s skirts, taking pictures of them, touching them, or doing anything to them without their consent, is not OK? To me it seems just logical, if person A doesn’t want to be touched person B should keep their hands to themselves.
The point is that sexual assault or harassment has nothing to do with what women are wearing and everything to do with the pervert. I am beyond tired with this false belief that if you wear a skirt, or go out drinking, or walk down a dark street alone, or do any other ‘risky’ behaviour, that this puts you more at risk for sexual assault. Women of all shapes, sizes, and situations are sexually assaulted everyday. One study sites that 21% of women who were abused by a partner were pregnant when they were abused. I invite you to please explain to me how a pregnant women was asking for it, or brought on that abuse herself? The same study says that 40% of women with disabilities have reported being raped or assaulted. Again I would please like someone to explain to me how they brought on their own assaults?
I am not saying that there are no preventative steps women can take to protect themselves, but I am not sure why we always focus on the victim instead of the perpetrator. I am not sure why better advice was not given to the young school aged women who are being harassed on the bus. For example, pulling out your cell phone and calling police, informing the bus driver what is going on, public shaming “hey dude in blue hat, could you please stop looking up my skirt? That would be fantastic, thanks”, as a bystander you could ask the victim if they alright, do they need help? Simply telling young women to not wear skirts is counterproductive.
If people want to talk about preventative measures women can take tell them: to not wear both earbuds when walking alone, limit chatting on your cell well walking, be aware of your environment. But to tell them that wearing jeans instead of a skirt will keep them safe is just plain dumb.
In response to this story, according to the above link, Constable Wendy Drummond said that the school principal did not relay the officers words correctly. She says that the advice to women was that they should: travel in pairs, use panic buttons on the subway, do not discuss their travel plans in public, and that both sexes should not wear their school uniforms in public. But she apparently did not deny that the officer had remarked that if the girls had been in jeans it never would have happened.
Even if this is how it did in fact go down it doesn’t matter. In either context the officers advice sucks, and so does the principles. Don’t talk about your travel plans in public? What is that? Is the world so scary that we can’t even talk to our friends about plans? It still also places the onus on the victim. The idea that i can and should be doing more to prevent myself from getting raped.
Nor the principle or the police officer should be perptuating victim blaming ideology to young women, it’s pretty disgusting.
Today I had a great opportunity! I was able to attend a lecture given by
Calgary’s chief of Police, Rick Hanson. Hanson has an impressive, to say the least, policing record. Including, 36 years of policing experience. Over half of that time was spent in senior positions, either in the Calgary police service, or in the RCMP. He has been Calgary’s chief of police since 2007 and has given his continued support to programs that help a variety of Calgarians. Hanson has been involved in youth intervention programs- such as the ones I am about to talk about, and has been involved in programs that are close to my own heart, those that help victims of domestic violence, and sexual assault.
The chief gave a guest lecture this afternoon to Mount Royal University students, hosted by the Sociology Student Society, on the role that Calgary’s police service plays in preventing youth crime, and rehabilitating youth that have headed down the wrong path or are heading down the wrong path. He spoke about how youth issues have been front and center for the four years that he has been the chief in Calgary. The police department decided that it was time to examine how to address youth crime issues, and more importantly how to prevent youth crime.
While Rick acknowledged that policing and first response will always be the first job and priority of the Calgary police he also was quick to point out that prevention and treatment is something that can’t be ignored. “We must have a first response team, but there is a whole world of prevention out there” Hanson emphasized. The question then becomes, how do you target these young people who come from all different classes, and circumstances? The answer came out of research, lots of it, that all came to the same conclusion. Get to kids early, elementary school early. “The fact is that when people are victimized they want that person to be caught and punished, but ultimately they would prefer they hadn’t become a victim at all.”
This September the Calgary police service, in conjunction with both school boards, and the education department at Mount Royal University, funded by the province, rolled out a new curriculum in select schools to teach kids (and parents) about where they can go if they get victimized. Teaching them to avoid strangers without terrifying them of the world around them. That sort of thing.
While educating kids through a curriculum is the most recent addition in their youth prevention tactics it is not the only program they have going. Hanson says that 2 years ago they began speaking with teachers and social workers. Through their conversations with teachers, social workers, and other youth workers the MASST, Multi Agency School Support Team, was born. The MASS team consists of a police officer and a social worker who, through the help of the school, identify youth that are exhibiting anti social behaviour, offending behaivour, or have signs of victimization.
“Look, we know that 5% of young offenders commit 80% of youth crime. Why wouldn’t we target these kids and invest in them and this type of prevention?” Hanson told students. As an example he sites an 11 year old boy who started skipping school in grade 4. By the time this young boy reached grade 6 he had missed one full year of school. When the MASS team showed up at the house the boy was home, with his 9 year old younger brother, and their mother was still asleep. Upon investigation it was discovered the mother had chronic depression and once she received help and got a better handle on things at home the young boy not only started to attend school, he ended that year on the honour roll (his younger brother paralleled his success).
Another initiative that caught my attention is the plans for a ‘Child Advocacy Center.’ The center is set to open across from the Alberta Children’s hospital, near the Ronald McDonald house. This facility will house everything needed to respond to child victimization in one building . The police, Crown, Alberta health services, and Alberta Youth services all in one building reducing the chance of repeat victimization that children could face by being dragged from one place to another. As it stands today when a child is victimized often their parents have to take them to see all these people which results in dragging their children back and forth across the city, and ultimately having them tell their story multiple times. The idea behind this facility is to put an end to that, and have one central location where a child and their parents can receive help.
Hanson is also a supporter of the safe jail initiative. “I am a firm believer that we don’t need more prisons, we need more health beds.” Currently it is estimated that 50% of people in jails are suffering from an undiagnosed mental illness, though some would estimate that it is even higher then this. The problem is you can’t diagnose someone who is addicted to drugs. The answer, he argues, is a safe jail. A jail that is run as if it were a secured detox center. Once someone goes through detox, and gets that diagnosis you have an increased chance of getting them the help they need and curbing their part in the revolving door that jails appear to be. He argues that no one wakes up one morning and says to themselves “hmmm, I think I am going to try crystal meth today”. Instead, Hanson argues that addictions are created to trap people and if you get someone off that addiction they stand a chance.
The presentation today was both informative and eye opening. I was surprised, and thrilled, to learn just how many preventative programs are run by the Calgary police service. I will admit that often I get frustrated when I hear certain types of stories in the media and often think to myself “cops, they think they can just arrest themselves out of anything don’t they?” But today’s presentation opened my eyes to an entire world of policing that I hadn’t given much thought to in the past but has obviously impacted my own communities in positive ways ensuring that some crimes will never happen. And ultimately answering my question. No, police officers don’t necessarily think they can just ‘arrest their way out of any problem’ and that ‘locking people up and throwing away the key’ isn’t a stance that all law enforcement officials have.
To learn more about these programs and others visit the CPS website and click on “youth services.”
Insite, which is located in Vancouver, is the only legal safe injection site in North America. Insite doesn’t provide any drugs but since 2003 it has been operating on a special exemption under the Controlled drugs and substances act to give addicts a safe place to inject their drugs. Insite has been the center of a number of studies, and controversy, since 2003 and has been proven to have benefits to society. The supreme court of Canada made their decision based on the benefits to the community and drug users in Vancouver. A reduction in public injecting, neighbourhood litter (of needles), provides a safe disposal for needles, and syringe sharing (which decreases the spread of disease), and an increase in the use of addiction treatment. There has been several studies also carried out looking at the cost benefit part of Insite. Some of the results included: $6 million in savings on HIV, and hepatitis drugs, and overdose rates dropped in Vancouver. Medical staff are present to provide addiction treatment, mental health assistance, and assistance in the event of an overdose.
Last week the supreme court of Canada made a ruling which could prove to be problematic for the conservatices ‘tough on crime’ agenda. In a
9-0 decision the supreme court of Canada ruled that closing Insite would be against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically the right to “security of the person”. Canada’s only safe injection site would remain open. Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin explained: “The effect of denying the services of Insite to the population it serves and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease to injection drug users is grossly disproportionate to any benefit that Canada might derive from presenting a uniform stance on the possession of narcotics.”
This decision makes me wonder if the crack pipe program in Alberta could have held out. The crack pipe program began running in Calgary in November of 2008. The Alberta Health Region was handing out ‘crack pipe kits’. Each kit contained a glass pipe, mouthpiece, cleaning rod, and screens. The argument was similar to Insite’s argument. It was a way to prevent the spread of disease and bring addicts into contact with health care providers that could assist them. In these ways it was very similar to Insite, but the Alberta health region cracked when they began to feel pressure from the police associations who argued that such programs do nothing except encourage drug use. Given the exemption that Insite received, it could be argued that the Alberta crack pipe program falls under the same category and should also be allowed to operate without fear of prosecution on the parts of the health region officials.
What is important to remember about Insite, or even the crack pipe program in Calgary, is that neither of these places was a place where drug addicts could just go do their thing and leave. Like the crack pipe program had, Insite always has health professionals there to speak with addicts about: counseling options, risks to them, as well as address mental health issues with them and the dangers of drug addiction.
The war on drugs has been nothing short of a failure in the United States, and arguably, in some cases, a waste of money. The United States spends $15 billion annually to try and control drugs. Recently an International panel, the Global Commission on Drug Policy, declared the war on drugs a catastrophic failure. The report had what some would say are some common sense recommendations.
First, don’t treat drug addicts as criminals. The report argues that it is not feasible or safe to treat all the drug addicts in the world as criminals. First because it just simply costs too much money, and secondly because with injection users their is just too high of a risk of the spread of disease. Other countries who have similar programs to our Insite have also reported lower rates of the spread of disease such as HIV, and hepititis saving lives and tax payer dollars (as the tax payer has to front the bill, or at least part of it, for medications to treat these diseases).
Second, don’t waste your time with small time drug dealers. I won’t go into this one. I personally think it speaks for itself.
Third, Decriminalize or legalize certain drugs to undercut organized crime. I can’t say this enough. Legalize weed already. A study done in the US points out that legalizing weed would inject $6 billion into the US economy every year. Studies out of other countries who have decriminalized some drugs have shown that with the legalization of possession, and the means to obtain some drugs in a safe legal manner criminal suppliers became less visible. I am not saying that all organized crime would go away, but at the same time organized crime will never go away. Another interesting side effect of the decriminalization of some drugs could be decreased use. why? Because addicts could seek help without fear of prosecution. This study, done by the Beckley Foundation, on the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal looked at over all drug use and found: the use of weed increased, the use of drug treatment increased (due largely to early intervention), there was a decrease in heroin use, and there was a large reduction in drug related deaths. Of course, if I still haven’t convinced you. I’ll just say: remember prohibition?
Canada needs to take a hard look at statistics, and studies given the new policies that the conservative government wishes to pass before the end of the year. The idea is to get tough on drugs. Canadians should be looking to their neighbours to the south and asking some tough questions. It is no secret that the drug policies is costing Americans billions every year, and that the prisons are so overcrowded that some states, such as California, have had to release non violent criminals to ease the pressure on the system. I am not saying lets legalize heroin I am just saying lets not be stupid about this. Portugal has had success because they implemented education programs, treatment centers, and addicts didn’t have to worry about prosecution. Getting addicts clean from drugs should be a priority. No one wants to do drugs. People don’t wake up one morning and say to themselves “hmmm I think I am going to get addicted to Meth today”. This program has proved effective, and it allows users to come into contact with health professionals. It could be the first step. Until we have better programs implemented this is one way to ensure that needles and other drug related paraphernalia is disposed of appropriately. But more importantly it has been proven to save lifes.
Friday afternoon corrections Canada confirmed that Clifford Olson
died in a Quebec hospital.
On September 21, 2011 it was reported that Olson was dying of an unnamed type of cancer and didn’t have long to live.
Olson had earned the label as Canada’s most notorious and ruthless serial killer in the 80s. He terrorized BC residents in 1980 killing at least 11 young people between the ages of 9 and 18 often raping and strangling them. In August of 1981 Olson plea bargained with the RCMP and in exchange for the government paying his family $100,000 ($10,000 per victim) he not only confessed to the murders he would lead RCMP to the bodies. This plea bargain would prove unpopular with the Canadian public. Once convicted Olson earned himself a dangerous offender label, making it unlikely he would ever be released from prison.
In 1997, Olson would apply for parole under Canada’s Faint Hope Clause which, in short, states that an offender who has served at least 15 years may apply for parole. Once an inmate has served 25 years they are also eligible for parole and Olson exercised his right to do so in July of 2006, once again he was denied parole. He would make one last attempt in November of 2010 (in Canada an inmate is allowed to apply for parole every two years after the initial 25 years).
Back in March of 2010 Olson would find himself once again back in the spotlight as it was revealed to Canadians that he was recieving a monthly cheque from the government in the amount of $1,169.47 for old age security. Bill C-31 would be put forth to disallow prisoners to be able to get old age security as a result. As a side note It was reported that in September of 2010 Olson sent one of his cheques to a reporter and asked them to pass it along to Stephen Harpers campaign for reelection.
I don’t rejoice in the death of anyone, that said this is a man that the world won’t miss.
Three-year-old Kienan Hebert is still missing tonight after he went missing from his home Wednesday morning. Police suspect Randall Hopley, 46 of kidnapping the boy. Hopley has an intense criminal record that includes breaking and entering, and sexual assault and was just released from jail last week.
Today the RCMP have asked people in BC to start searching their vacant properties for any sign of forced entry. “See if there’s anything suspicious, any sign of break-ins, anything stolen,” RCMP told reporters . They are also asking business to review survelliance tape for any sign of either Kienan or Hopley “We ask that you review them. If you see something, and you believe you have images of the suspect or the vehicle, please contact police.”
CTV reported today that volunteers were searching the woods by the families home for any sign of him today but have turned up nothing.
Kienan was last seen Tuesday Sept 6 when his parents tucked him in for the night in their home. Police are asking the public to watch for a brown 1987 Toyota Camry with B.C. licence plate 098 RAL. Hopley is white, 5-foot-10, 147 lbs., brown hair and hazel eyes. Please call 911 if you see the car, or either Kienan, or the suspect.
Update September 10, 2011: Amber Alert Extended to Alberta on a limited basis. Pictures will be displayed on Alberta highways this weekend and the public is still being asked to keep their eyes open for the pair.
Update: amber alert canceled! Herbert was dropped off around 3 am this morning say RCMP. More to come…
Call Sparwood RCMP with any information at 1-250-425-6233.
A French man was ordered to pay his wife 10,000 Euros ($13962.00 Canadian) for apparently violating article 215 of the Civil Code in France. This code states that married couples “ must agree to a shared communal life”. A judge in France has ruled that “sexual relations must form part of a marriage”. The wife in the case filed for divorce two years ago on the grounds that there was nothing happening between the sheets. The man claims that this is due to “tiredness and health problems”. These reasons aside a judge in southern France granted the divorce and said said the cause of the split was because of the man. The 51 year old appealed but the courts found in favour of his wife: “A sexual relationship between husband and wife is the expression of affection they have for each other, and in this case it was absent. By getting married, couples agree to sharing their life and this clearly implies they will have sex with each other.” After the rulings the wife filed a lawsuit looking for compensation for the last 21 years of marriage.
What I find even more disturbing then the courts decision is the poll found on the story on the New York Daily News 58% of people agree with that. The poll asks readers “Should husbands or wives be made to pay money to spouse after divorce because of denying them sex?” . Options included: Yes- Yes, sex is an important and necessary part of a happy marriage. or No-No, men or women shouldn’t be expect to perform sexually just because they are married.
Does anyone else think this is as messed up as I do? This is not only messed up it opens the gates for other types of suites. Is everyone entitled to sue their significant other if their marriages fail? Could you then argue that your significant other changed and therefore are not the same person you entered into said contract with? Gained a few pounds? Better start working it off or you may be in violation of article 251 of the French civil code. Developed a medical problem? That’s OK as long as you are continuing your duties in said marriage. You might be rolling your eyes at my comparisons but think about it. You gaining a few pounds and becoming unattractive to your partner is just as messed up as “my partner developed a medical condition and will no longer perform between the sheets for me”.
What a Joke of a lawsuit.
Yup, you read that right. The Calgary police force were out this morning doing something very interesting,and awesome, to help raise awareness of the new distracted driving law that took affect this morning. In conjunction with Cjay92 and AutoTemp Air & Sound Inspector LaGrange, and Reddawg from CJay 92 were out and looking for those violating the law. Instead of issuing them a $172.00 ticket they were issued an education and a blue tooth head set. “Everyone of the people we stopped knew why they were being stopped and were very shocked and grateful to be getting a bluetooth headset instead of a ticket” LaGrange told me in a telephone interview.
According to CJAY92′s Facebook Page they “pulled over a women who was eating and swerving, a guy talking on his cellphone, and a women who was texting and driving”. CJay 92′s Forbes and Friends Morning show say they had a blast doing this with the CPS today. And who wouldn’t!? “the CPS were incredibly nice to work with, thanks Kev, Rick, and Dean” Gerry Forbes, host of Forbes And Friends, posted on the show’s Facebook.
This was a great opportunity for the Calgary police service to educate the public while at the same time making it clear that this is the new law and it is in place for the safety of everyone on the road. “We thought it was Just a great way to drive the point home to talk to them about education and reward them with a tool to improve habits” says LaGrange ” We don’t intend to have a zero tolerance policy what we want to focus on is a change in this culture we have” LaGrange talked to me about how we’ve all created a culture of instant communication and we’ve lost any balance we had. Balance is needed and soon this will evolve just like the seat belt law did when it first came into effect. “People did not like the seat belt law when that took effect but soon it became second nature to them.”
There is no doubt about it we have created a culture of instantaneous communication where we expect ourselves and everyone else to be available all the time. Would it really be the end of the world if we had to wait until we were all the way to work to open that work related email? Updated our Facebook status about the stupid drivers on the road that have already managed to grind our gears that morning? Or text our BFF this crazy thing we just saw happen? Probably not.
I for one am glad that the Calgary police service have every intention of ticketing people who are a danger to themselves and others on the road because of their texting, personal grooming, and other activities they do behind the wheel.
I asked Inspector LaGrange if he thought the new law would change people’s behaviour and in fact make our roads safer as there have been studies suggesting this is not the case. “Time will tell if it impacts safety on the streets, the thing is we will never know the what if. ” Would a drunk driver who was pulled over and arrested have killed someone if they hadn’t been caught? “Even if it saves one person’s life, or stops the millions in property damage each year, it’s worth it.” Given that this law is one of the toughest in North America and doesn’t just ban cell phone use, it will be interesting to see some follow up studies and statistics in the future. Will the extra restrictions in fact make a difference?
For now he says that this weekend will be business as usual. That if you are caught blatantly breaking the law you will be issued a ticket,if you are caught drinking and driving you will be charged. He says that CPS aren’t going to be popping out from behind trees at you, and they won’t be issuing tickets because you are drinking a coffee. They want to catch people who are doing dangerous things behind the wheel: texting, plucking nose haris, reading etc. They don’t want to clog up the courts with people fighting tickets for sipping a coffee anymore then you want to take time off work to go fight the ticket for sipping a coffee.
I know that as far as I am concerned I will be leaving my cell phone on silent mode and in my bag so as to remove any temptation I may have at taking a look at my phone at red lights. I know many others are doing the same thing so I think it’s fair to say that the deterrence has had some effect, at least so far. LaGrange had some good advice for citizens “turn it off when you get in the car, turn it on when you get out of the car”.