In the last one year, Cyber Crime sleuths recorded two cases where con artistes successfully used matrimonial sites to dupe people. The recently arrested B Tech graduate B Ravi Kishore duped 54 women by posing as an IIT graduate with a Master's degree from University of California.
His predecessor, V Deepti Reddy, who was arrested by CID sleuths in 2011, lured high earning professionals by posing as an MBBS graduate. "Though there are many such instances, only a handful of the victims approach the police as the media attention might further dampen their chances of getting a suitable partner," a CID official said.
CID sleuths who investigated both these cases found striking similarities in the modus operandi of the two criminals and the profiles of their victims. The victims in both these cases were high earning professionals, mostly software engineers, doctors, architects and management professionals.
Despite being well educated, none of the victims bothered to verify the genuineness of the profiles of the accused and police believe that the not so easily available 'suitable' partner is the reason behind it. The victims were blinded by the polished English and well respected professional life of the accused.
"Kishore, who worked in a BPO earlier, used to talk to the victims with an American accent. So, the victims never bothered to cross check his claims of being a Microsoft employee with degrees from IIT Mumbai and University of California," CID additional SP, U Ram Mohan, said.
To further push the victims into trusting him, Kishore always used to travel in a hired AC cab and meet the victims at five star hotels only. "In reality, Kishore used to share a flat with some others at Miyapur in the city outskirts and he just had two pairs of formal wear," the investigating officer said. None of the 54 women whom he befriended through his profile on the matrimonial site knew his actual residential address but he successfully exploited 22 of them.
Same was the case with Deepti Reddy who borrowed money from just over 20 people by befriending them through her doctor profile on a matrimonial site. Deepti was already married twice before she posted her profile on the website and she has two children, police said. Deepti took lakhs of rupees from several of her prospective grooms, whom she never met personally, by saying that the money is for performing surgeries on poor children.
As there are lakhs of educated youth registered on these matrimonial sites, CID sleuths have suggested some steps to identify such con artistes:
Always verify the profile details of the individual before becoming close to that person. Employment verification can be easily done by calling up the concerned company or by paying a personal visit.
Don't give money to people with whom you become friends through online profiles even if they emotionally blackmail you.
Do not indulge in online chatting, dating or get emotionally involved with people without verifying the truthfulness of their claims.
None of the victims bothered to verify the genuineness of the profiles of the accused and police believe that the not so easily available 'suitable' partner is the reason behind it.
Source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Possible outcomes in pivotal health care law case - The Guardian
RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press= WASHINGTON (AP) — Some are already anticipating the Supreme Court's ruling on President Barack Obama's health care law as the "decision of the century." But the justices are unlikely to have the last word on America's tangled efforts to address health care woes. The problems of high medical costs, widespread waste, and tens of millions of people without insurance will require Congress and the president to keep looking for answers, whether or not the Affordable Care Act passes the test of constitutionality.
With a decision by the court expected this month, here is a look at potential outcomes:
---
Q: What if the Supreme Court upholds the law and finds Congress was within its authority to require most people to have health insurance or pay a penalty?
A: That would settle the legal argument, but not the political battle.
The clear winners if the law is upheld and allowed to take full effect would be uninsured people in the United States, estimated at more than 50 million.
Starting in 2014, most could get coverage through a mix of private insurance and Medicaid, a safety-net program. Republican-led states that have resisted creating health insurance markets under the law would face a scramble to comply, but the U.S. would get closer to other economically advanced countries that guarantee medical care for their citizens.
Republicans would keep trying to block the law. They will try to elect presidential candidate Mitt Romney, backed by a GOP House and Senate, and repeal the law, although their chances of repeal would seem to be diminished by the court's endorsement.
Obama would feel the glow of vindication for his hard-fought health overhaul, but it might not last long even if he's re-elected.
The nation still faces huge problems with health care costs, requiring major changes to Medicare that neither party has explained squarely to voters. Some backers of Obama's law acknowledge it was only a first installment: get most people covered, then deal with the harder problem of costs.
---
Q: On the other hand, what if the court strikes down the entire law?
A: Many people would applaud, polls suggest.
Taking down the law would kill a costly new federal entitlement before it has a chance to take root and develop a clamoring constituency, but that still would leave the problems of high costs, waste, and millions uninsured.
Some Republicans in Congress already are talking about passing anew the more popular pieces of the health law.
But the major GOP alternatives to Obama's law would not cover nearly as many uninsured, and it's unclear how much of a dent they would make in costs. Some liberals say Medicare-for-all, or government-run health insurance, will emerge as the only viable answer if Obama's public-private approach fails.
People with health insurance could lose some ground as well. Employers and insurance companies would have no obligation to keep providing popular new benefits such as preventive care with no copayments and coverage for young adults until age 26 on a parent's plan. Medicare recipients with high prescription drug costs could lose discounts averaging about $600.
---
Q: What happens if the court strikes down the individual insurance requirement, but leaves the rest of the Affordable Care Act in place?
A: Individuals would have no obligation to carry insurance, but insurers would remain bound by the law to accept applicants regardless of medical condition and limit what they charge their oldest and sickest customers.
Studies suggest premiums in the individual health insurance market would jump by 10 percent to 30 percent.
Experts debate whether or not that would trigger the collapse of the market for individuals and small businesses, or just make coverage even harder to afford than it is now. In any event, there would be risks to the health care system. Fewer people would sign up for coverage.
The insurance mandate was primarily a means to an end, a way to create a big pool of customers and allow premiums to remain affordable. Other forms of arm-twisting could be found, including limited enrollment periods and penalties for late sign-up, but such fixes would likely require congressional cooperation.
Unless there's a political deal to fix it, the complicated legislation would get harder to carry out. Congressional Republicans say they will keep pushing for repeal.
Without the mandate, millions of uninsured low-income people still would get coverage through the law's Medicaid expansion. The problem would be the 10 million to 15 million middle-class people expected to gain private insurance under the law. They would be eligible for federal subsidies, but premiums would get more expensive.
Taxes, Medicare cuts and penalties on employers not offering coverage would stay in place.
---
Q: What if the court strikes down the mandate and also invalidates the parts of the law that require insurance companies to cover people regardless of medical problems and that limit what they can charge older people?
A: Many fewer people would get covered, but the health insurance industry would avoid a dire financial hit.
Insurers could continue screening out people with a history of medical problems; diabetes patients or cancer survivors, for example.
That would prevent a sudden jump in premiums. But it would leave consumers with no assurance that they can get health insurance when they need it, which is a major problem that the law was intended to fix.
Obama administration lawyers say the insurance requirement goes hand in hand with the coverage guarantee and cap on premiums, and have asked the court to get rid of both if it finds the mandate to be unconstitutional.
One scenario sends shivers through the health care industry: The Supreme Court strikes down the mandate only, and delegates other courts to determine what else stays or goes.
---
Q: What happens if the court throws out only the expansion of the Medicaid program?
A: That severely would limit the law's impact because roughly half of the more than 30 million people expected to gain insurance under the law would get it through the expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people.
But a potentially sizable number of those low-income people still might be eligible for government-subsidized private insurance under other provisions. Private coverage is more expensive to subsidize than Medicaid.
States suing to overturn the federal law argue that the Medicaid expansion comes with so many strings attached it amounts to an unconstitutional power grab by Washington. The administration says the federal government will pay virtually all the cost and that the expansion is no different from ones that states have accepted in the past.
---
Q: What happens if the court decides that the constitutional challenge is premature?
A: The wild card, and least conclusive outcome in the case, probably also is the most unlikely, based on what justices said during the arguments.
No justice seemed inclined to take this path, which involves the court's consideration of a technical issue.
The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., held that the challenge to the insurance requirement has to wait until people start paying the penalty for not purchasing insurance. The appeals court said it was bound by the federal Anti-Injunction Act, which says that federal courts may not hear challenges to taxes, or anything that looks like a tax, until after the taxes are paid.
So if the justices have trouble coming together on any of the other options they could simply punt.
The administration says it doesn't want this result. Yet such a decision would allow it to continue putting the law in place, postponing any challenge until more of the benefits are being received. On the other hand, it might give Republicans more ammunition to press for repeal in the meantime.
---
Online:
Supreme Court: http://tinyurl.com/3zukoc4
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Law Firm Web Marketing Consultant Says Google+ and Client Reviews Are ‘No Longer Optional’ For Lawyers - Houston Chronicle
Dale Tincher of Consultwebs.com, Inc., says recent changes by the search engine giant have ‘firmly linked’ Google+ accounts and reviews from clients.
Raleigh, N.C. (PRWEB) June 16, 2012
In a newly published blog article, law firm Web marketing consultant Dale Tincher says that Google+ and Google profiles have become “a must for collecting positive reviews that show up in Google’s local listings.”
Tincher is the CEO and President of Consultwebs.com, Inc., a company that specializes in law firm website design and search engine optimization (SEO) marketing for attorneys.
The company features a team that is dedicated to developing law firm social media campaigns involving Google+ as well as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, HubPages and other social networking sites.
His article, “Google+ is No Longer Optional for Law Firm Marketing; Reviews Are Increasingly Important,” was released this week on the Consultwebs.com, Inc., blog, LawWebMarketing.com, which provides helpful tips and other information on law firm Web marketing trends.
In the article, Tincher reflects on Google’s May 30 announcement that it would replace Google Places with Google+ Local. In his view, this change means that Google accounts and client reviews are now “firmly linked,” and those reviews may be as crucial as ever to a law firm’s Internet marketing campaign.
“Reviews are an integral part of Google+ Local, and you’ll want your firm listed there – with positive comments from satisfied clients – for search engine visibility,” Tincher writes.
However, Tincher strongly cautions law firms to stay away from gimmicks that are aimed at manipulating search engine rankings, such as fake reviews or other tactics used by “review mills” and “reputation management” firms.
“We frequently advise law firms on the proper way to obtain law firm testimonials and client reviews,” he says. His article provides a list of those techniques, including:
- Asking clients for reviews at the conclusion of a successful case.
- Advising clients to join Google+ (reviews can only be posted by Google account holders).
- Maintaining a database of past clients and reaching out to them for reviews.
- Using the firm’s website to encourage reviews, and providing an easy way for clients to provide those reviews.
“If two law firms appear to be equal, a Web visitor is likely to choose the firm with the best reviews,” Tincher writes.
About Consultwebs.com, Inc.
Since its founding in 1999, Consultwebs.com, Inc., has built a reputation for being a national leader in law firm Web marketing. Consultwebs.com provides law firm Web marketing consultation and strategy and a wide array of products and services, including website audits, website design, website hosting, website domains, law firm reputation management, search-engine optimization (SEO) marketing, pay-per-click (PPC) services, Internet systems setup, website editorial and content services (including substantive content, press releases, legal blogs, satellite sites and law firm videos), online chat products, social media marketing (including Facebook, Twitter and Google+), call tracking and legal directories.
Consultwebs.com has offices at 114 Main Street, Berea, KY, 40403, and at The Forum I, 8601 Six Forks Rd., Suite 400, Raleigh, NC, 27615. The company works with law firms across the country. For more information, call Marketing Director Tanner Jones at (800) 872-6590 or (859) 353-7720 or use the convenient Consultwebs.com online contact form.
For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweblaw-firm-web-marketing/google-plus-local-reviews/prweb9611595.htm
Source: www.chron.com
Southend woman's face gouged during mugging - BBC News
A 22-year-old woman had her face gouged during a mugging by a gang in a park in Southend.
It happened at 12:30 BST on Tuesday in Southchurch Hall Park.
A female attacker scratched the victim's face while four men kicked her in the legs and waist and stole £62, store cards and a gold chain.
Det Con Rory Scarlett said: "This was an absolutely terrifying attack on a woman who was left severely distressed and covered in blood."
Police said one line of inquiry is that an organised gang may be responsible for a number of muggings in the area.
The victim, who asked to be named only as Leanne, has agreed to the police releasing a photo of her injuries.
Forced to groundShe told the police she was grabbed from behind and had her hair pulled back by the female who led the attack.
The four men helped force her to the ground and the gang stole her bag which contained the items.
Leanne was comforted by passersby until the police and paramedics arrived.
Essex Police said the female attacker is thought to be in her 20s, of mixed race and has dark hair in a pony tail.
Three of the men were black, wearing black or red hooded tops and thought to be in their early 30s.
The fourth man is described as white, in his 20s, of skinny build and wearing a black jumper.
Det Con Scarlett said: "We want to hear from anyone who witnessed the incident or from anyone who saw the attackers lurking in the park before the incident or running away afterwards."
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
No-marks: TOWIE invades Hollywood but Mark Wright and his pals are a disaster - Daily Mirror
First there was Frank Sinatra’s hell-raising Rat Pack.
Then came Tinsel Town’s 1980s Brat Pack.
And now here they are... Essex’s legendary Prat Pack!
OK, I’ll admit I fully expected Mark Wright’s Hollywood Nights to be pretty bad.
But all credit to Mark and his mates... they swiftly exceed my wildest nightmares.
This horrible hour of sheer tedium isn’t just bad... it’s a spectacular disaster that thoroughly deserves to rank alongside OMG! With Peaches Geldof and Outcasts among the worst programmes ever to disgrace the screen.
Congratulations to the top team at ITV2 on a fantastic addition to your stable of greatness.
The breathtakingly boring action starts after muscular Mark warns us: “Some of what you are about to see has been set up by me purely for your entertainment.” What entertainment?
Anyway, the non-story so far seems to be that a nice-but-dim himbo and his uncharismatic crew from Britain’s spray-tanned zone have been given a fistful of dollars to go to Los Angeles for a five-week holiday in the sun.
After a transparently fabricated mix-up over the tickets, three of them have to fly economy class. Who cares?
And when they arrive in California – surprise surprise – another transparently fabricated mix-up over the car hire.
So the boys are forced to drive off in a clapped-out old Ford Mondeo. Hilarious.
Oh no... now there’s yet another transparently fabricated mix-up over the hotel...
It’s a dreadful dump in the dangerous part of town... where our heroes witness an entirely staged fake shoot-out complete with a counterfeit cop. Terrifying.
Even classically trained thespians would struggle to make this child-like pretend tosh seem real.
But in the hands of five blocks of wood who can’t act their way out of a paper bag it’s a total joke.
So let’s meet sauna-loving Mr Wright’s impressive “entourage”: Mark’s minder DJ Nick DaFunk, aka Mr Expert, Mark’s business manager Neil, aka Mr 80s, Mark’s fat friend Tommy, aka Mr Mummy’s Boy and Mark’s driver Georgie, aka Mr Wheels.
It’s unclear whether Mr Wheels and the gormless gang are aware that the string-pulling producers are choreographing the far-fetched scrapes they keep getting into.
But they can’t possibly be as stupid as they look. So we can assume they’re in on the ruse.
Back to the deceitful drama... and after conveniently hooking up with a car full of scantily-clad stunners, Mark phones his pals: “I’m wiv de gels.
They’re gonna drive me back nah. I need to pick yous up.” A fine cut-glass accent. Estuary English as a second language.
Good on these lucky lads for nabbing a free vacation at gullible ITV’s expense.
But who wants to watch a bunch of bozos hamming it up in silly situations that simply don’t ring true?
Compared to this ludicrous “structured reality” shambles The Only Way Is Essex and Made In Chelsea look like Shakespeare...
No comedy... but a whole load of errors.
Source: www.mirror.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment