No description available.

No description available.

yes / This third report from the Bradford NLW Project aims to give the reader a brief update of developments and debates within the NLWs field over the last few months. We hope that it will be of interest not only to NLW `specialists', but also to those with a general interest in this area. Interest in non-lethal weapons, which have been defined as being `explicitly designed and primarily employed to incapacitate personnel or material while minimising fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage to property and the environment', has increased dramatically over the last five years as a result of non-lethal technology progress and increasing calls from military forces (especially those engaged in peacekeeping) and civil police for more sophisticated non-lethal responses to violent incidents¿whilst there are evident advantages linked with non-lethal weapons, there are also key areas of concern associated with the development and deployment of such weapons. These include threats to existing weapons control treaties and conventions, their use in human rights violations (such as torture), harmful biomedical effects, and what some predict as a dangerous potential for use in social manipulation and social punishment within the context of a technology of political control.

Yes / This paper explores the early history of ¿non-lethal¿1 weapons development covering the period from the 1960¿s, when several diverse weapons were first grouped together in one category and described as ¿non-lethal¿ by law enforcement end-users and policymakers, until 1989, just before the hugely increased interest in the field that developed during the 1990¿s amongst both police and military organisations. It describes the origins and emergence of new weapons, examining this process with reference to technological advances, wider socio-political context, legal developments, and evolution of associated institutional structures. Developments in both the policing and military spheres are considered as well as the interconnections between them. Necessarily this paper focuses on events in the US2, in part because it led the way in this field but also because sources of information on US activities are more readily available.3.

yes / This is the third in a series of Occasional Papers published by the Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project. It addresses the contemporary development of anti-personnel ¿non-lethal¿1 weapons, covering the period from 2000 to 2006 inclusive2 and focusing on the research and development programmes of the US Department of Defense and Department of Justice. Following Occasional Paper No. 1, The Early History of "Non-Lethal" Weapons,3 and Occasional Paper No. 2, The Development of ¿Non-Lethal¿ Weapons During the 1990¿s,4 this paper completes our analysis of the overall development of ¿non-lethal¿ weapons from their inception up to the present day.

yes / The length of this Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project Report No.7 again reflects the interest related to non-lethal weapons from academics, research institutes, policy makers, the police and the military. A number of reports, particularly concerning the Taser electro-shock weapon, have been published from these sectors since our last BNLWRP Report No.6 in October 2004. Some, such as the Amnesty International (U.S. and Canada) have again raised, and stressed, the concerns about the safety of the weapon and the number of deaths associated with its use. Others, such as the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Human Effects Center of Excellence (HECOE), Human Effectiveness and Risk Characterization of the Electromuscular Incapacitation Device ¿ A Limited Analysis of the TASER. (March 2005) concluded that the Taser was relatively safe, but that further research was needed into potential bio-effects, and for continual development into a safer weapon. Reaction to these reports was mixed. Some US legislators called for limitations on the use of Tasers, more accountability, and the detailed recording of incidents in which they were used.1 Others called for a ban on their use until more testing was carried out regarding their potentially harmful effects. A number of US police forces stopped the use of Taser, slowed down the deployment and ordering of the weapons, reviewed their rules of engagement and reporting, and revisited their operational guidelines. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) published the Electro- Muscular Disruption Technology (EMDT). A Nine-Step Strategy For Effective Deployment. (April 2005) as a response to these growing concerns. Certain elements of the media, especially The Arizona Republic2 and others, took a hostile view of what they considered the scandal of the number of deaths and associated serious injuries caused by the Taser. Taser International challenged allegations that their weapon was directly responsible for these deaths and quoted reports, such as the Madison Police Department report (February 2005), the study by McDaniel, W & Stratbucker, R & Nerheim, M & Brewer, J. Cardiac Safety of Neuromuscular Incapacitating Defensive Devices (January 2005), and the U.K. DOMILL Statement (March 2005) to support their view. The controversy continues. Other than Tasers, there are still few reports of the newer non-lethal technologies actually being deployed in operations. The exception to this is the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), which is now in widespread use in Iraq. Little additional information has appeared regarding the `active denial¿ weapon we have described in previous reports.

yes / In the UK at present Taser electrical stun weapons can only be used by trained firearms officers in situations where the use of firearms is also authorised. But the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is asking for these `non-lethal¿ weapons to be made more widely available to other police officers. If this is agreed there will be significant implications for the use of force by police in the UK. In July 2005 the Home Office Minister, Hazel Blears, had stated that the Taser was a dangerous weapon and not appropriate for wider use. The rationale behind the deployment of `non-lethal¿ or `less-lethal¿ weapons, such as the Taser, is to provide police officers with an alternative to lethal force for dangerous and lifethreatening situations they face. Wider availability of such weapons should, it is argued, further limit the need to resort to lethal firearms and thereby reduce incidence of serious injury and death. Over the past few months senior police officers have issued public statements that the Taser weapon should be made available to all officers on the beat. They argue that because police are facing dangerous individuals on an everyday basis, the Taser is required to protect their officers and deal with violent offenders without having to call in a firearms unit in certain situations. A crucial point about this proposal is that it would represent a scaling up in the `visible¿ arming of police officers in the UK. It is claimed by opponents that such an extended use of Taser would actually result in an increase in the level of force used by police in the UK, a concern also echoed by the Independent Police Complaints Committee (IPCC) in the minute of their 27 April 2005 `Casework and Investigations Committee¿ meeting.

yes / Non-lethal weapons (NLWs) are explicitly designed and primarily employed to incapacitate personnel or material whilst minimising collateral damage to property and the environment. Existing NLWs include rubber and plastic bullets, entangling nets, chemical sprays such as OC and CS gas, and electrical stunning devices such as the `Taser¿ gun. New NLWs are on the way, which will include acoustic and microwave weapons, non-lethal landmines, malodorants, and sophisticated weapons developed through rapid advances in neuroscience and the genomics revolution. Most analysts would agree that there is a `legitimate¿ role for non-lethal weapons, both for civil and military applications. However there is considerable disagreement as to the operational effectiveness of NLWs, and the threat such weapons pose to arms conventions and international law. As usual, a balance has to be achieved where the benign advantages of developing and deploying non-lethal weapons are not outweighed by their more malign effects. In particular, emerging non-lethal technologies offer an increasing opportunity for the suppression of civil dissent and control of populations ¿ these are sometimes referred to as the `technologies of political control¿. There is a continuing need for sustained and informed commentary to such developments which highlights the impact and threats that these technologies pose to civil liberties and human rights. Because the last BNLWP Report was produced in August 2001, this edition is somewhat longer than usual so that key developments since then can be highlighted and summarised. Future BNLWRP reports will be published three times a year, and we welcome material to be considered for inclusion.

Dödligt skolvåld har sedan länge varit ett uppmärksammat problem i bland annat USA. Forskningen om dödligt skolvåld tenderar ofta att studera amerikanska exempel där syftet är att identifiera riskindivider genom att undersöka personlighetsdrag och bakgrundsfaktorer. Dödligt skolvåld i en skandinaviskt kontext saknas det dock kunskap om. Syftet med den här studien är att undersöka utmaningar och framgångsfaktorer med samverkan vid hanteringen före, under och efter händelser med dödligt våld i den svenska skolmiljön. Studien genomfördes med hjälp av kvalitativ metod där det empiriska materialet samlades in genom semistrukturerade intervjuer. Med utgångspunkt i ledning och samverkan som teoretiskt ramverk och med boundary spanning som centralt teoretiskt begrepp, analyserades insamlade data med tematisk analys. Studien resulterade i två huvudsakliga teman, utmaningar för samverkan och framgångsfaktorer för samverkan. Studien visade att avsaknad av systematik och bristande kommunikation utgör de främsta utmaningarna, samtidigt som god person- och förmågekännedom utgör de främsta framgångsfaktorerna vid samverkan. Studiens resultat bekräftar delvis tidigare forskning men lyfter också fram nya fynd. Till exempel att lagstadgade sekretessbestämmelser utgör hinder för effektiv samverkan mellan skolan, polisen och socialtjänsten. / Deadly school violence has long been acknowledged as a pressing issue, particularly within the United States. Existing research primarily concentrates on American instances, with a focus on identifying high-risk individuals through the examination of personality traits and background factors. However, there exists a notable gap in understanding deadly violence within a Scandinavian context. This study aims to explore the challenges and success factors associated with collaborative efforts in managing incidents of deadly violence within the Swedish school environment, spanning the periods before, during, and after such occurrences. Employing a qualitative approach, empirical data was gathered through semi-structured interviews. Drawing upon the theoretical framework of management and collaboration, and boundary spanning as a central theoretical concept, thematic analysis was employed to analyze the collected data. The study highlights two key themes: challenges for collaboration and success factors for collaboration. Findings reveal that the lack of systematic approaches and inadequate communication represent primary challenges, while good understanding of individuals and their capabilities are the primary success factors in collaboration. The study's findings partly confirm previous research but also highlight new discoveries. For instance, statutory confidentiality regulations pose obstacles to effective collaboration between schools, the police, and social services.

Endocytose joue un rôle dans l'activation du récepteur Notch. Des mutations dans le gène drosophilien lethal giant discs (lgd), provoque une prolifération cellulaire en perturbant l'endocytose de Notch. Les orthologues murins mlgd1 et 2 peuvent sauver ce phénotype, démontrant une fonction conservée. Cependant, des publications récentes suggèrent que les orthologs humains de lgd (hgd1/2) sont nucléaires. Dans cette étude, il est démontré que chez la Drosophile, le mutant dlgd(08) provoque l'accumulation de Notch dans des vésicules et une surprolifération de neuroblastes . Ceci suggère que Notch est activé a l'intérieur des endosomes dans les neuroblastes. L'immunohistochimie de cellules Hela indique que hlgd1 et 2 ne sont pas nucléaires, mais associés à des strctures endosomales. Enfin, la baisse d'expression par shRNA des gènes murins mlgd1 et mlgd2 provoque une différenciation accélérée des cellules souches hématopoïétiques dans la lignée lymphopoïèse T et bloque la transition DN3 / CD4+CD8+, suggérant une suractivation de Notch. / Endocytosis plays a role in the activation of the Notch receptor. Mutations in the Drosophila gene lethal giant discs (lgd), causes cellular overgrowth by perturbing Notch endocytosis. This Drosophila phenotype is rescued by the murine orthologs mlgd1 and 2, indicating conserved function. However, recent publications suggest that the human orthologs (hlgd1/2) are nuclear. This study demonstrates that the dlgd(08) mutant in Drosophila causes accumulation of Notch in vesicles and the overproliferation of neuroblasts. This suggests Notch is activated from within endosomes in neuroblasts. Immunohistochemistry of Hela cells indicates that hlgd1 is associated with early endosome while, hlgd2 with later endosome and lysosome, and not with the nucleus. Finally, down regulation of murine mlgd1 and mlgd2 by shRNA caused an accelerated differentiation of hematopoietic stem cell into the T lymphopoiesis lineage and blocked the DN3 to CD4+CD8+ transition, suggesting that Notch is overactivated in these cells.