The BBC recently broadcast a documentary from an Ebola treatment centre and that featured a 6 year old boy who was caring for a small orphaned baby who was unrelated to him. It was too risky to send in a healthy adult as the children were in the quarantined area and the adults already in there were too sick to help. Medical staff were checking on them several times a day, giving them food and medicines etc. but the bulk of the childcare was being done by the 6 year old. Eventually the 6 year old recovered and the baby's care was taken on by a new adult patient.

It may seem shocking, but children caring for children isn't all that unusual during epidemics in poorer countries, there's lots of child-headed families as a result of the aids epidemic for example.

Guns are so difficult for criminals to get hold of in the UK that ...

70% of recorded gun crime here involves BB guns and air rifles, which are legal here, but age restricted. These weapons aren't even counted in federal crime statistics on gun crime in the US.

Gun crime is far less likely to result in a fatality here because criminals have to resort to making their own bullets and weapons. Often something like a modified starting pistol.

If you do gun control properly, by controlling the gun manufacturers and market as well as at the point of ownership, it works very well.

For a short while I lived near a paper mill and even a mile away from the factory the air still smelt vaguely like a much used and never cleaned public bathroom - like stale urine and despair.

Given that the first ban in the UK was back in 1997, why did it take so long for the whole EU to follow suite and what hope is there of a worldwide ban being implemented in the coming years? Are any nations particularly resistant?

Time line from rspca website:

In 1997 the UK banned the use of animals to test cosmetics products.

In 1998, a similar ban was introduced to cover ingredients.

In 2003 an amendment was made to the EU Cosmetics Directive putting in place plans to ban the use of animals to test cosmetics or their ingredients within the European Union.

In 2004 the ban on using animals to test finished cosmetics products in the EU came into force.

In 2009 the ban on using animals to test ingredients for cosmetics in the EU came into force. In addition, a ‘sales ban’ on new products whose ingredients had been tested on animals elsewhere in the world came into effect. But this was not a total ban. It could be delayed until 2013 for three specific types of safety test (repeat-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics) - which it was thought would take longer to replace.

On March 11th 2013 the full marketing ban took effect across the EU (regardless of the availability of alternative methods).

freebritney

I do not believe she should ever have been put in to a conservatorship... she should have been given appropriate help and support...

Having said that - these are Qs about Britney specifically but also interested in how the system works in general.

How would Britney have been assessed in terms of her capabilities and mental state when the conservatorship was applied for?

What safeguards are required to prevent conflict of interests from people handling her money?

What form of continuing assessment would she have? Would a social worker or medical professional review her mental state and capabilities at any point?

Do the terms of the conservatorship change over time to reflect individual needs or is it fixed once instated?

Is a social worker or other professional involved in oversight and to advocate for her?

From what I understand she was put in to a conservative type that is normally used for older people ? Is this true? If so why did that happen?