The tyranny of self-appointed guardians of everyone else
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
Oddly enough, I have a little story on giving lifts:
I'd nicked two little scroats one evening, around 6pm, in another force area. At first the local police weren't interested but it started to escalate, with lots of expensive property, and CID took it over.
After a busy night I was driving home, towards Blackwall Tunnel, when I saw the pair of them walking along East India Dock Road thumbing. I thought; Why not? and picked them up. I asked them about their own evening and they told me what had happened to them. I got some honest feedback. But the odd thing was, they didn't recognise me. Fair enough, I'd changed out of uniform.
If they had recognised you, could that not have been some serious trouble?I'd nicked two little scroats one evening, around 6pm, in another force area. At first the local police weren't interested but it started to escalate, with lots of expensive property, and CID took it over.
After a busy night I was driving home, towards Blackwall Tunnel, when I saw the pair of them walking along East India Dock Road thumbing. I thought; Why not? and picked them up. I asked them about their own evening and they told me what had happened to them. I got some honest feedback. But the odd thing was, they didn't recognise me. Fair enough, I'd changed out of uniform.
FWIW You have my sympathy OP, that must really suck. As you say the worst people are often the ones who genuinely do have good goals at heart: it's unfortunately human to be very stubborn ( good wiki articles). It's incredibly maddening that we actually celebrate that stubbornness in politics - changing your mind as a result of new evidence is "weakness".
As james_tigerwoods and El Guapo have said, maybe publishing it under your own name would make you feel better (and of course, benefit more open-minded people without a conflict of interest)? I'm a bit unsure over whether the report is in the wild under the client's name yet or not. If it is not much you can do really, live and learn, etc.
As james_tigerwoods and El Guapo have said, maybe publishing it under your own name would make you feel better (and of course, benefit more open-minded people without a conflict of interest)? I'm a bit unsure over whether the report is in the wild under the client's name yet or not. If it is not much you can do really, live and learn, etc.
rhinochopig said:
IIRC either Top Gear / 5th Gear pulled an article on drink driving when they found that levels in excess of the legal threshold actually made racing drivers faster round a test circuit - up to a point.
Alcohol changes decision making/risk attitude before it affects coordination IIRC... it would make sense that they perhaps go at 9/10ths instead of 8 if they've had a wee drink.Easy to see why they wouldn't want the "alcohol makes drivers better" headlines though
OpulentBob said:
Derek Smith said:
Point taken. It was on impulse. I was driving a 998cc car without a radio and I was worried that my concentration might slip.
Oddly enough, I have a little story on giving lifts:
I'd nicked two little scroats one evening, around 6pm, in another force area. At first the local police weren't interested but it started to escalate, with lots of expensive property, and CID took it over.
After a busy night I was driving home, towards Blackwall Tunnel, when I saw the pair of them walking along East India Dock Road thumbing. I thought; Why not? and picked them up. I asked them about their own evening and they told me what had happened to them. I got some honest feedback. But the odd thing was, they didn't recognise me. Fair enough, I'd changed out of uniform.
I like that. Out of interest, was the feedback informative? Did it tell you anything you didn't know about how you worked, or how you came across doing the job? (If that sounds loaded, that's not the intention)Oddly enough, I have a little story on giving lifts:
I'd nicked two little scroats one evening, around 6pm, in another force area. At first the local police weren't interested but it started to escalate, with lots of expensive property, and CID took it over.
After a busy night I was driving home, towards Blackwall Tunnel, when I saw the pair of them walking along East India Dock Road thumbing. I thought; Why not? and picked them up. I asked them about their own evening and they told me what had happened to them. I got some honest feedback. But the odd thing was, they didn't recognise me. Fair enough, I'd changed out of uniform.
They mentioned me and the much more experienced officer I was working with. He was always chatty with suspects and I followed his example. Given his results I'd have been stupid not to. Both the chaps said how 'nice' the uniformed officers were but once CID got involved they got a bit miffed and just shut up. We got a cough to the earlier offences - we caught them near the location - and the other stuff was a bit iffy.
I followed the same MO from then on. I'd chat to offenders. I've gone through every major campaign in the second world war in my time. One chap told me about a time he was surrounded by half a dozen Germans with them not knowing he was there. He tried to find a way out but it would have meant crossing an open space "If you're happy with the statement, sign there, thanks and there, and finally at the bottom, thanks. Now you couldn't escape so what did you do?" Well, there was a lorry, about to go out, so I crept up into the back and then . . .
I couldn't walk through Brighton without some of my prisoners saying hello, some saluting me. I took my elder boy's in-laws into Brighton and he asked me not to acknowledge them. So I dropped them near to the Pavilion, went off to park the car, and walked to it on my own.
I had a few informants who were ex prisoners. And once I had a complaint at an inopportune time - I was going for promotion - and a prisoner, whom I charged and prosecuted at court, was my defence. I didn't brief him but I knew he'd not put me away.
Not that I had said anything to the complainant of course. Honest.
strudel said:
If they had recognised you, could that not have been some serious trouble?
No. They weren't violent. Just stupid. Anyway, it was something to tell the lads that afternoon so worth a bit of a risk. As an aside, most prisoners were all right. You could chat to them. Once they got to know you they often found it difficult to tell a lie to your face. I've gone to the houses of juveniles to search their rooms and the parents have made me a cup of tea and told me their problems. I've been handed a pack of cannabis by a mother and asked what to do about it. I told her that she should think carefully about being a witness against her boy and she asked me to dispose of it. I told her that if she flushed it down the loo, there'd be no problem.
The following day I suddenly realised the major problem with my idea. I phoned her to tell her not to write a letter of thanks and she said she had been going to.
I'd forgotten about that. I'll have to put that in my new book.
My career: the Sweeney it wasn't. I've had more, many more in number and percentages, arguments and aggravation from lawyers and senior officers than I've ever had from prisoners, and I was a busy lad at times.
rhinochopig said:
IIRC either Top Gear / 5th Gear pulled an article on drink driving when they found that levels in excess of the legal threshold actually made racing drivers faster round a test circuit - up to a point.
It's a bit O/T as the thread is about tiredness and not blood alcohol but in terms of evidence and acceptability, anyone with a few minutes spare might like to read through this and in particular the section on evidence that falling alcohol levels in the blood are less dangerous than rising ones. http://www.abd.org.uk/abd-bac.htm
Morning after marginal breath test fails (evidential) are banned from driving, night-time marginal passes are allowed on their way, yet those being banned and criminalised are a significantly lower threat to road safety than those who get away with it, as their bac is falling not rising - but arbitrary numbers and expediency rule. Traffic laws and reality in terms of safety started parting company long ago. Not publishing how stimulants act on tiredness is another example of the sentiment behind this. With the more hysterical pressure groups wanting hands-free mobiles banned, passengers and manually operated dashboard car controls may well be next.
OpulentBob said:
Thanks Derek.
You mention "your prisoners" and them saluting you. Were you a prison officer? Were prisoners supposed to salute? (Forgive the ignorance, not something I've ever been anywhere near)
I want to hear the outcome of the guy surrounded by Germans now...
His 'prisoners' were people he'd arrested, questioned and/or charged (in approximate terms) as a Police officer (of fairly high rank later in his career from other posts), and because of his MO they respected him as a person and didn't see him as "the enemy" afterwards?You mention "your prisoners" and them saluting you. Were you a prison officer? Were prisoners supposed to salute? (Forgive the ignorance, not something I've ever been anywhere near)
I want to hear the outcome of the guy surrounded by Germans now...
fblm said:
Derek I can understand why your client wouldn't want to publish a potentially damaging article for whatever reason. Why don't you publish it here?
Can't really do that as a search for a phrase would give away who he is and I don't think he'd like that.That said, I might produce a little article that has no similar phrases . . .
On the matter of prisoners, I dealt with my fair share of stroppy ones, and really nasty ones. I was once followed home from work by a violent drug dealer. He waited until I left the car park. I started to go home then decided to go on a drive, making out I was trying to get away from him. In the end I pulled up outside his house. I got out and walked over to him, got a good look, then he drove off.
In those days it was not a crime so it was just recorded.
But in general, if you treat you customers with some degree of respect then the general rule is that they'll do the same. You don't have to like them.
Doesn't go for burglars so much.
Later on, when running ID parades, I had a succession of utter dregs, the real pits of scum, parade after parade, day after day, week after week, for two years. Not quite the same. I treated them respectfully but towards the end it became very hard not to just ask them why they were such selfish b
ds. The odd thing is that many sexual offenders saw themselves as a step above the general hoi poloi of criminals.
One bloke subjected a girl to a whole series of sexual assaults in an orgy of debauchery, much too nasty to repeat here. There was only one real solution for him, and that was to wipe him out. I had to sit next to him and say, in a polite, quiet manner, 'You were identified that time. Do you wish to stay where you are or would you like to change position? [for the subsequent parade]'
Everything inside you is telling you that you could probably get off slamming his face into the partition, opening up his cheek to the bone. After all, who wouldn't lose it after hearing what he had done? I spoke with a brief some time later and she reckoned she'd have given it a go.
Martin4x4 said:
Guybrush said:
Same with climate change. The zealots (usually on the left of politics oddly) don't want the truth - they'll suppress and / or twist
it to what they want.
"On the left" get a gripit to what they want.
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/green-is-the-new-red/
Martin4x4 said:
The deniers are typically selfish twits, conservatives and neo-cons.
A donkey with an eye-ore two on the data is more informed than credulous believers. There is no visible human signal in global climate data, as such manmade warming doesn't even exist.IPCC SAR WG1 draft Ch 8 Section 8.6 said:
Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'when will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'.
Add it to the long list of things they don't know. No manmadeup warming has occurred since SAR.Meanwhile as others have pointed out...212 months without global warming represents more than half the 423-month satellite data record yet carbon dioxide levels have risen inexorably over that period...also any particular weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any warming.
The climate hoax is transparent these days. Who could possibly still fall for it.
OP What was the mistake you made? Surely if it invalidates, or calls the final conclusions of the paper into question then the reviewers have a point - assuming that the mistake they have pointed out is valid (and it seems from your post it may well be). Whilst the review process can be exceedingly frustrating and drawn out the best response is to correct the mistake and check the conclusions thus removing the argument, You should then be able to publish even if the paper makes uncomfortable reading for some (assuming there isn't a confidentiality clause in the contract for the work you've done). FWIW If I'm driving a long way I tend to stop for an espresso after a couple of hours or so and find it does help...
Having been on both sides of the review/peer-review process it can be a b***er. It does, however, make a big difference to the quality of the work that gets published and, in my experience, isn't the back-scratching corrupt process that some may suggest. Don't take it personally, take the comments at face value and provide a direct response that answers the questions (and stick to the answer to the question). If you feel that a criticism is invalid then say so and give clear evidence to justify your response. If your reviewers give conflicting feedback (which can happen in a multi-peer reviewed paper) then ask the editor of the paper to mediate and give you a steer as to what you need to do.
Having been on both sides of the review/peer-review process it can be a b***er. It does, however, make a big difference to the quality of the work that gets published and, in my experience, isn't the back-scratching corrupt process that some may suggest. Don't take it personally, take the comments at face value and provide a direct response that answers the questions (and stick to the answer to the question). If you feel that a criticism is invalid then say so and give clear evidence to justify your response. If your reviewers give conflicting feedback (which can happen in a multi-peer reviewed paper) then ask the editor of the paper to mediate and give you a steer as to what you need to do.
Martin4x4 said:
Guybrush said:
Same with climate change. The zealots (usually on the left of politics oddly) don't want the truth - they'll suppress and / or twist
it to what they want.
"On the left" get a grip it to what they want.
The deniers are typically selfish twits, conservatives and neo-cons.
turbobloke said:
The climate hoax is transparent these days. Who could possibly still fall for it.
Hoax, the Met Office says other wise.http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide
Martin4x4 said:
turbobloke said:
The climate hoax is transparent these days. Who could possibly still fall for it.
Hoax, the Met Office says other wise.http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide
The latest data, Allan et al (2014) provides yet more refutation of global warming junkscience. It was published in Geophysical Research Letters and finds that the radiative imbalance from greenhouse gases at the top of the atmosphere has increased over the past 27 years while the rate of global warming has decreased or 'paused' over nearly 18 years. This finding contradicts global warming theory, though it's not as if we need any more demonstrations that it's complete hooey. As the IPCC pointed out some time ago, and with no global warming since, there is no visible causal human signal in global climate data.
As to the Met Office here's some context on Mystic Met from an ST article back in March reviewing the unwavering accuracy of their sooperdoopercompooter
which has to take second place to looking out of a window.Article said:
We are, of course, only too familiar with the way the computer models
relied on by our global warming-besotted Met Office have so
consistently in recent years got their seasonal weather forecasts 180
degrees wrong: how its "barbecue summer" of 2009 was a washout; how
its October 2010 forecast that December would be warmer than average
preceded the coldest December ever; how its March 2012 prediction that
we were in for a dry April was immediately followed by the wettest
April on record; and so forth.
What makes this much more than a joke, however, is that the other
branches of government are obliged to believe these predictions and to
shape their response accordingly. I recently described how the Met
Office's forecast last November - that we were in for a drier than
average winter - prompted the Environment Agency to allow flooding of
a key part of the Somerset Levels, in the interests of keeping enough
water for birds. When this was followed by the wettest January on
record, the already flooded area owned by Natural England blocked the
draining of so much land further east that disaster was inevitable.
Fortunately, it is reported that Somerset's floodwater, last month
covering 65 square miles, has now dropped by six feet. And it may be
little consolation that forecasting gaffes long predate those of our
Met Office. A splendid reader has sent me a CD full of weather-related
items from 19th-century editions of 'Gardener's Magazine'. One, in
1879, recalled how, that spring, "a meteorologist of long experience"
had predicted in 'The Times' that the summer would be so abnormally
dry that "the drought of 1879" would be a wonder to behold. As shown
by the Met Office's England and Wales data back to 1766, the months
between June and August that year promptly saw the heaviest summer
rainfall in all the past 250 years. But at least we didn't then have a
government obliged to base its policies on what the "experts"
foretold.
There's plenty more in the Climate Politics thread, an ideal place for posts on the climate scam.relied on by our global warming-besotted Met Office have so
consistently in recent years got their seasonal weather forecasts 180
degrees wrong: how its "barbecue summer" of 2009 was a washout; how
its October 2010 forecast that December would be warmer than average
preceded the coldest December ever; how its March 2012 prediction that
we were in for a dry April was immediately followed by the wettest
April on record; and so forth.
What makes this much more than a joke, however, is that the other
branches of government are obliged to believe these predictions and to
shape their response accordingly. I recently described how the Met
Office's forecast last November - that we were in for a drier than
average winter - prompted the Environment Agency to allow flooding of
a key part of the Somerset Levels, in the interests of keeping enough
water for birds. When this was followed by the wettest January on
record, the already flooded area owned by Natural England blocked the
draining of so much land further east that disaster was inevitable.
Fortunately, it is reported that Somerset's floodwater, last month
covering 65 square miles, has now dropped by six feet. And it may be
little consolation that forecasting gaffes long predate those of our
Met Office. A splendid reader has sent me a CD full of weather-related
items from 19th-century editions of 'Gardener's Magazine'. One, in
1879, recalled how, that spring, "a meteorologist of long experience"
had predicted in 'The Times' that the summer would be so abnormally
dry that "the drought of 1879" would be a wonder to behold. As shown
by the Met Office's England and Wales data back to 1766, the months
between June and August that year promptly saw the heaviest summer
rainfall in all the past 250 years. But at least we didn't then have a
government obliged to base its policies on what the "experts"
foretold.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff