An online holiday scam cost one couple $2800. Don't let it happen to you
Do a reverse image search to spot fake accommodation listings.
Read reviews and book through known, trusted platforms.
Post updates after your trip to avoid attracting scammers.
By Sarah Falson
Updated July 31 2025 - 12:47pm, first published 12:43pm
A woman sits outside a doorway with her hands on her face. Picture: Shutterstock
Brett and his wife Sally were planning the European holiday of a lifetime when they made an accommodation booking online that "didn't smell right". Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
All articles from our website
The digital version of Today's Paper
All other in your area
They had booked a hotel in Italy through a well-known booking website and were messaging the property through the booking platform to ask questions about the location and parking.
"They came back and gave us some information, and we went backwards and forwards with them over the course of, you know, 12 hours or 20 hours or something," Brett, who didn't want to share the family's surname, said.
Then a little while later a final message came through from the property, something along the lines of: "We hope that we have answered all your questions. By the way, we need you to pay a deposit. Here's a link."
The couple, who reside in Brisbane, clicked on the link and paid the deposit, which came to $2803.46.
Within 90 minutes, the sum had been deducted from their credit card. It was only then, when they had time to breathe in their busy day, they realised something was a bit off.
It was a "man in the middle" cyber attack. Brett suspects the hackers had intercepted the Italian accommodation provider's network and had been watching the interactions between Brett and the hotel, and then had jumped in, impersonating the hotel.
The hotel confirmed they hadn't sent the final message, and the booking platform confirmed users would never be asked to pay a deposit using a third-party payment system.
The couple's bank was unable to recover the money, leaving them out of pocket. Young Australians at greater risk
Airline Emirates alerted members this week it had suspended its social media advertising after identifying fraudulent advertisements circulating on social media platforms.
It comes as new research from security provider McAfee found nearly one in five Aussie holidaymakers have fallen victim to a scam while booking a holiday - one in five losing money.
Picture: Shutterstock
McAfee's Australia Safe Summer Travel research showed younger holidaymakers, aged 18-34 are most at risk, with 30 per cent having been affected by a travel scam.
Many have lost money by providing bank details on a fake site and others have clicked on a link from an unknown source that was a scam. Other people have encountered manipulated photos of holiday destinations.
McAfee head of APAC, Tyler McGee, said it's more important than ever to stay alert.
"If an offer looks too good to be true, it probably is," he said, advising people to take "a moment to double-check before you book".
Following are McAfee's tips to avoid getting scammed. Your guide to outsmarting scammers
Scam (phishing) emails and text messages, and fake travel deals, can lead to scammers having access to sensitive personal or financial information. Avoid clicking unknown links or sharing personal details.
Do a reverse image search to spot fake accommodation listings. Read reviews and book through known, trusted platforms.
Picture: Shutterstock
Are your destination, scammers may pose as hotel staff or tour guides. Double-check identities before sharing info or valuables.
Public Wi-Fi can expose your data. Use a VPN to browse safely while travelling.
Sharing your location in real-time can attract scammers at home or on holiday. Post updates after your trip instead.
Words by Sarah Falson Sarah is ACM's travel producer. She believes regional travel is just as fun (if not better) than staying in the big cities and loves any travel experience to do with nature, animals and food!.My all-time favourite destination is ... Cornwall. From the giant seagulls to the blustery beaches, Cornish pasties and fishing villages, it stirs something romantic and seafaring in me. Next on my bucket list is … Mongolia. I want to go somewhere really unique that feels totally foreign and challenges my way of life.
My top travel tip is … Don't plan too much. Walk the streets and let it happen. And make sure you check out what's within a few blocks of your hotel - sometimes the best local food is found that way.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 News
4 hours ago
- 9 News
Two men charged after 'tragic' kidnapping and murder of man in Brisbane
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here Two men have been charged with the "tragic" kidnapping and murder of a 52-year-old man in Brisbane . The pair, 26 and 29, were arrested in Upper Mount Gravatt and Chermside. The victim went to Logan Hospital with head injuries about 12.30am on January 6, and died the next day. Two men have been charged with kidnapping and murdering a 52-year-old man in Brisbane. (Supplied) Police released images showing the alleged confrontation in Inala. It shows a man pointing a gun at another man getting out of a car with his hands up near Rudyard Street. The arrested pair have been charged with murder, kidnapping, torture and grievous bodily harm and are expected to appear in Brisbane Magistrates Court tomorrow. Three men have previously been charged over the alleged attack and police say they're not looking for anyone else. Detective Inspector Chris Knight said the investigation has been "long-running and complex". "We will allege this group was known to each other, and their actions resulted in the tragic death of a man who sustained catastrophic injuries," he said. They are appealing for help from anyone who knows more. Brisbane police crime murder Australia national queensland CONTACT US Auto news: Why Australians are still driving around without insurance.
West Australian
10 hours ago
- West Australian
More Aussies are using AI to plan holidays, from scoring deals to assembling itineraries
I'm planning a trip to Iceland, aka one of the most expensive countries in the world. Can I afford to go? What would a realistic budget look like for a two-week holiday? How can I cut corners to save some cash? I decide to do the 2025 equivalent of phoning a friend — I ask my buddy ChatGPT. My initial prompt is too vague and it gives pricing in USD, which isn't particularly helpful. I refine my criteria, asking for a rough total in AUD for a fortnight in September, departing from Perth ('please', I add, because manners are still important when talking to a robot). In the blink of an eye, Chat spits out a breakdown of average costs on everything from flights to accommodation, car rental, food and activities. There are three tiers for backpacker, mid-range and luxury travel and an option to split components if I have a travelling companion. It even offers suggestions for making my hard-earned coin stretch further, like buying groceries rather than eating out and opting to self-drive rather than joining a guided tour of the famous Golden Circle. All in all, Chat reckons I'll need to save $8500-$9000 to make Iceland happen. What would have taken me hours of research and a lot of math just to ascertain whether I can even consider the trip in the first place was reduced to mere minutes. While I want to give myself a pat on the back for being so resourceful — there's a certain smugness that comes with finding a sneaky shortcut — I am hardly the first to use ChatGPT for travel tips. In recent research conducted by Compare the Market, nearly a third of those surveyed admitted to using artificial intelligence to plan their holidays. These Aussie respondents said they outsourced a range of tasks to AI, with the most common being destination recommendations, hunting for deals, seeking activities and finding accommodation. Others reported they used AI to quickly create itineraries, scour flights or transport and understand currency conversion. The data also gave insight into how different generations are embracing the technology — or not. Perhaps unsurprisingly, gen Z and millennials are spearheading the adoption of AI when it comes to concocting their dream vacation, with 52 per cent and 44 per cent respectively utilising the tool to plan a holiday. Meanwhile, 93 per cent of baby boomers and 76 per cent of gen X respondents said they were resistant to bringing AI into their trip arrangements. Compare the Market's Chris Ford says the stats reflect how we engage with the ever-changing tech landscape. 'Our latest data highlights a shift in the way travellers are approaching their planning, with convenience, personalisation and speed driving the adoption of innovative AI tools,' he says. 'It's likely that travellers are using these tools in addition to chatting with travel agents, conducting desktop research or seeking ideas and inspiration from social media. 'AI is evolving at a rapid rate and as it becomes more accessible and intuitive, it's not surprising that travellers are relying on new technology to help shape their dream holidays.' But the insurer warns against taking AI's word as gospel. With nothing to validate the credibility of such recommendations, Ford says travellers need to practice due diligence. 'AI can be a great starting point when planning a holiday, but always ensure you're crossing your 't's and dotting your 'i's,' he says. 'Many of these tools and services are still in their infancy stage and may not be 100 per cent accurate, so do your own research to ensure you're equipped with the right tools and information for your trip. 'The last thing we want to see is anyone getting themselves into a potentially dangerous or unsafe situation based on the recommendations from AI.' Ford makes a crucial point here about our relationship with platforms like ChatGPT. Rather than approaching them as one-stop-shop to curate every element of our holiday, we should instead consider them as a starting point to kick off deeper research. After all, isn't that part of the fun with travel — the anticipation in the lead-up, the process of discovering a destination before we have arrived and assembling a bucket list tailored to our specific taste? By asking a computer to generate an itinerary based on what's popular, we are depriving ourselves of creativity, spontaneity and adventure. We must also remember that what the AI bot spits out is dependent on the quality of our prompts. The more we refine our request, the more likely we will receive helpful answers, but even then things can go wonky. Take this from my colleague Belle: 'I asked ChatGPT to give me a child-friendly restaurant in Ubud. It sent me to a weird health food restaurant with a koi pond where you couldn't wear shoes. My feral children cleared the room within minutes. Disaster.' Then there's the cognitive dissonance that comes with considering the environmental impact of AI versus the fear of being left behind if we don't get on board with this technology. Like it or not, it is shaping and re-shaping the future at breakneck speed. We all have to decide where our (virtual) line in the sand is: what is productive and 'mindful' use based on our needs and values. For me, I'm OK with employing ChatGPT to whip up a quick budget so I can take the holiday to Iceland I've always dreamed of. But when it asks if I want activity recommendations or a detailed itinerary next, I politely decline. I'd rather leave some room for mystery and exploration. 'Thanks', I farewell my cyber mate in my sign-off (because, manners). Our collective of writers just so happens to represent the four age demographics mentioned in the research above. So what's the hot take? Stephen Scourfield — b aby boomer Trusting someone – or, in this case, something – to book a holiday (particularly a family holiday!) requires a lot of trust. If some detail is missed in the booking process (a wrong date, a badly timed connection), it will be you standing there, somewhere, trying to fix it (possibly with the family 'on your case'). Would I trust AI yet? No – not yet. Of course, I think we all know that AI is good at doing grunt work and it is up to us to check details. So AI is already useful for the broad-brush, first sweep of mapping out a holiday. But AI won't then back itself by booking it all. (That will be the game changer.) So, at this stage, AI, for me, is still a basic tool of research – not a replacement for an experienced and knowledgeable travel agent. Leyanne Baillie — gen X Although my generation is confident when it comes to using tech (even if we're not digital natives), I think AI programs would be more effort than they're worth. I know it could be a time-saver in terms of journey-planning brainstorming and getting a rough guide of options, but I'd still want to tailor my itinerary to cater to my personal taste. I don't think I'm ready to hand over the reins completely to artificial intelligence just yet. Jessie Stoelwinder — millennial I love a good travel hack, and that's how I have been approaching my use of AI. Anything that makes life a little easier and frees me up to investigate the fun stuff — where to eat, hike, shop, people-watch etc. — and I am on board. I've used ChatGPT to quickly aggregate travel data for personal trips to assist with admin, logistics and practicalities, which I will then cross-check and verify to make sure the information works for me. Recommendations, however? Word of mouth and insider intel from a human being will always win, in my opinion. Megan French — g en Z I would be open to the idea of utilising AI when planning my travels but I'd take everything it recommends with a grain of salt while still doing my own thorough research. I think it's great for foundational information-based planning early in trip preparations, such as 'what holidays are on in India during July and how is best to navigate them?' But when it comes to booking flights and accommodation, I'd go nowhere near AI … yet .
The Advertiser
10 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Is Australia becoming a more violent country?
Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management. Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management. Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management. Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
