《麦地战神新次荣光: 刘双婷在rdquo 事件后再破坏声誉》

近日，网友们一直对麦地战神的她和刘双婷（刘某婷）产生了不断兴奋的兴趣。这两个人物的相间着火动事席，遇到rdquo 事件后再次引发波动。在这里，我们分析一下这个复杂的情形，并试图揭示事实和真相。

首先，我们需要理解刘双婷与rdquo 事件之间的关系。据报道，rdquo 是一个在社交平台上流传的杂俗话说，用以诱招受意者进行不正当交互和挑战。刘双婷因为与rdquo 相关突发事件而引起了广泛讨论，尽管她明确表示没有参与此类行为。然而，这个事件也让人们更加关注刘双婷的历史行为，特别是在社交媒体上的言行丢失。

麦地战神作为一位成功的影视actress和热情的粉丝，与她的个人生活经常出现于公共视野中。然而，她在这次rdquo 事件中的响应引起了广泛关注。麦地战神表达了对rdquo 事件严重失望，并主张社交平台必须更加积极解决这类问题。然而，尽管她没有直接参与rdquo ，一些网民不时将其与她相关联起来，影� Written evidence: a letter

Written evidence (916) from Paul Smyth, Professor of Public Economics at the University of Bristol, submitted via the Petitions Committee written statement tabling petition 245

Paul Smyth

Professor of Public Economics

School of Economics and Political Science

University of Bristol

Park Row

Bristol BS8 1RD

07363 361 978 or paul.smyth@bristol.ac.uk

April 24, 2016

House of Commons

The Petitions Committee

Clerk to the Committee

Petitions House

London, SW1A 0AA

Dear Members of Parliament:

I am writing in response to petition number 245 entitled ‘Increase police presence and reduce alcohol availability to tackle serious crime’. I would like to thank you for providing this opportunity to respond as an academic researcher working on public policy issues, including law enforcement. Please find below my comments and responses to the points raised in your letter.

To address any doubts about who I am or whether I am a subject expert, please see my full CV attached. My areas of research expertise include (but are not limited to): evaluating law enforcement interventions; policing performance measurement and evaluation; crime analysis; cost benefit analyses of public policy; welfare economics; behavioural economics; risk management and decision making under uncertainty; institutional innovation; police reform.

In summary: I agree with the petitioner’s central points, but am more sceptical about some specific interventions such as increased fines on licensed premises, banning certain alcohol outlets in designated areas or increasing taxes to raise prices at supermarkets and off-licences. There may be merits to these proposals (eg for raising the costs of alcohol), but they need further analysis before any firm conclusions can be drawn. I would also argue that there are some important broader policy considerations which should not be overlooked, including: a) providing high quality alternative leisure activities and opportunities; b) addressing social inequalities which lead to disadvantaged groups being more affected by alcohol related harm; c) adopting evidence based policing interventions (as opposed to blanket or punitive approaches); d) promoting a positive culture for responsible drinking.

To my knowledge, there is little empirical research on the impact of banning licensed premises from operating within designated areas and no analysis in this regard has been published. In principle, such proposals would likely reduce crime by reducing alcohol availability (at least if they are effective). However, I would be very cautious about advocating these interventions without a stronger evidence base than simply anecdotal information or the limited literature review provided in your letter.

I am not familiar with any local schemes to restrict off-licence sales of alcohol within certain areas, but it is possible that such initiatives have been tried and tested elsewhere (eg through pilot studies). I would recommend piloting this approach as part of an evidence based policing programme rather than advocating for blanket bans on particular types of retailers.

It will be helpful if you could provide me with more information about the specific policy proposals under consideration by your Committee, so that I can respond with any relevant academic literature and analysis. Please also let me know when your next meeting is scheduled to discuss petitions such as this one (and other related matters).

Yours sincerely,

Paul Smyth

Professor of Public Economics

School of Economics and Political Science

University of Bristol