3 Acid Attacks Reported Every Week in London

Resham Khan © Gofundme

London witnesses up to three acid attacks every week, LBC has found, saying the Metropolitan Police recorded up to 83 incidents just this year.

The report from the London based radio station comes after aspiring model and business student Resham Khan was attacked last month while sitting in her car with her cousin Jameel Muhktar.

The incident, which happened on the day Khan turned 21, saw the two attacked with sulphuric acid while stuck in traffic.

The Metropolitan Police is investigating the attack as a hate crime, and has just released new pictures of suspected attacker John Tomlin, 24.

Three days after the attack, Khan, who is set to receive £30,000 (US$38,500) in donations after a fundraising campaign was launched for her following the horrifying attack, said on Twitter: "I'm devastated. I keep wondering if my life will ever be the same."

Another acid attack victim is now calling for the law to treat acid attacks as it does knife attacks.

Imran Khan had acid squirted on his face as he was delivering pizza in Dagenham, east London, last November.

He told LBC that the law fails to do enough to punish those responsible.

"I actually ID-ed the guy and he got arrested. But the police took no further action as there was 'insufficient evidence',” he told LBC.

"I've seen him today. When I went to go to the shops, he was hanging around in the same place. He grins at me. He's literally got away with it.

"If someone wants to stab you, they've got to come close to you,” he added. “But with acid, they could be standing 2 meters away and just squash the bottle. “It will do the same amount of damage."

Up to 300,000 people have signed a petition to make it unlawful to buy acid without a license.

Sarmad Ismail, who started the petition, outlined how easy it is to buy acid online and said: “You put sulphuric acid into Google and the results that come up are 'Concentrated acid neutraliser', '2.5l or Sulphuric acid 96%', which is £11.95 and will be delivered to your door.

"And what comes to your door can completely destroy a life. There should be checks in place, especially on these websites. There should be licencing.”

He agreed with Khan’s claim that acid attacks are just as bad as knife attacks, telling LBC reporter Rachael Venables: "It's just as bad as carrying a knife around because if you spray that substance on someone's face, it will cause lasting damage for years to come."

Scores of protesters gathered in east London on Thursday to protest over the recent string of acid attacks in the capital, as well as the growing Islamophobia.

Hate crimes in London have increased five-fold following the terrorist attack on London Bridge and Borough Market, according to figures released by the city’s mayor, Sadiq Khan.

Swede Fined $500 for Pointing Out Flaw in US Traffic Lights

Instead of thanking the engineer, Oregon circled the wagons and shot him with a $500 fine, an absurdity of the first order

Libertarians defend Swede fined $500 for pointing out flaw in US traffic lights

© InstituteForJustice / YouTube

An engineer fined for disclosing the results of his independent investigation into the formula that regulates traffic lights has received legal backing from a law group claiming a violation of his First Amendment free speech rights.

In early 2015 Mats Järlström discovered a flaw in the mathematical formula used to regulate the timing of US traffic lights but was handed a $500 fine after disclosing his findings to authorities.

The Swedish electronics engineer, who has lived in the US for over 20 years, realized the flaw in the traffic systems after his wife received a fine from an automated traffic camera in Oregon.

Upon digging into the intriguing world of traffic light timing mathematics, Järlström concluded that a formula designed in 1959 accounted for only two yellow light scenarios: driving straight through, or stopping.

Following his discovery, the Swede set about trying to improve the formula by managing the transition time from yellow to red, so that a driver can travel through an intersection with a yellow light to slow down, without the system thinking they have broken a red light.

In 2015, Järlström decided it would be a good idea to share his findings with the media, policymakers and those interested in traffic technology but this is where the engineer ran into some difficulty.

On the back of Järlström’s discovery, the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying opened an investigation in August 2016 and announced that the curious Swede had engaged in unlicensed engineering and handed him a $500 fine which he duly paid.

Every state in the US regulates the practice of engineering and as Järlström isn’t licensed in the state he received the fine. He now fears that his ongoing interest in traffic light timing may land him with more fines or even jail time.

What is the purpose of the practice of ensuring engineers are licensed? Isn't it so that structures are not created that are unsafe? Since nothing was created here, how can Järlström's work be of any threat to anyone. The only threat is that his work might cause some work and expense for municipalities in Oregan which would result in fairer policing at intersections. 

It's a bit ridiculous that an engineer licensed in one state cannot practice in another, anyway. Are there really significant differences in standards? Is there one state that allows half-wits to be licensed engineers? Is this simply a money-grabbing construct for state authorities?

The engineer, buoyed by positive feedback after presenting his radical traffic light theories at a 2016 Institute of Transportation Engineers meeting, is now working on a potentially fine-inducing paper, though this time he has back up.

On his behalf, the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest legal group, filed a federal lawsuit last week in Portland’s US District Court, challenging the Beaver State’s Professional Engineer Registration Act.

The lawsuit claims that the act is in violation of Järlström's First Amendment right to free speech.

“Criticizing the government’s engineering isn’t a crime; it’s a constitutional right,” Sam Gedge, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, said in a press release.

“Under the First Amendment, you don’t need to be a licensed lawyer to write an article critical of a Supreme Court decision, you don’t need to be a licensed landscape architect to create a gardening blog, and you don’t need to be a licensed engineer to talk about traffic lights.”

“Whether or not you use math, criticizing the government is a core constitutional right that cannot be hampered by onerous licensing requirements,” said Gedge.

In an interview with The Register, Järlström said he felt “violated that I can't state who I am by saying 'I'm an engineer' and I can't even talk about traffic signals."

“I have this information I want to get out, however, I am literally blocked. I can be punished, even jailed for sharing this information and I think it's outrageous. We need to have freedom of speech to promote innovation," he added.