Rotherham Council mass resignation.....
Discussion
carinaman said:
Stuff.
Carinaman seem pretty clued up on this. Or at least are taking an interest and doing some research. Have I gone mad or do I remember correctly jack straw changing laws when he was Home Secretary so it was harder abused children to complain?
Oh and isn't his brother a sex pest too?
Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 24th February 00:08
carinaman said:
Stuff.
Carinaman seem pretty clued up on this. Or at least are taking an interest and doing some research. Have I gone mad or do I remember correctly jack straw changing laws when he was Home Secretary so it was harder abused children to complain?
Oh and isn't his brother a sex pest too?
Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 24th February 00:11
Pesty said:
Lyon seem pretty clued up on this. Or at least are taking an interest and doing some research.
I wasn't aware of that. Goad was taking children away with him on trips to Blackpool and the North West of England, so one can only wonder if he had child molesting mates in that part of the world and who they may have been.Pesty said:
Have I gone mad or do I remember correctly jack straw changing laws when he was Home Secretary so it was harder abused children to complain?
That seems to be the case:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/just...
He sounds like exactly the sort of person the establishment needs in the House of Lords.
Pesty said:
Oh and isn't his brother a sex pest too?
I wasn't aware of that.I am really not a fan of Jack Straw, but he at least said this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/95713...
Though it seems he came for some criticism for saying it. Perhaps he was sent on a Diversity refresher course?
I chanced upon this, it was a serving suggestion at the bottom of an article I was reading and thought it may be of interest:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/0...
I've not seen her on TV, but I did hear her going on about Farage being kept in the UKIP offices, which I thought I was a bit silly given the moves by the establishment in Rotherham to stifle the truth of what was going on there.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/0...
I've not seen her on TV, but I did hear her going on about Farage being kept in the UKIP offices, which I thought I was a bit silly given the moves by the establishment in Rotherham to stifle the truth of what was going on there.
carinaman said:
I chanced upon this, it was a serving suggestion at the bottom of an article I was reading and thought it may be of interest:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/0...
I've not seen her on TV, but I did hear her going on about Farage being kept in the UKIP offices, which I thought I was a bit silly given the moves by the establishment in Rotherham to stifle the truth of what was going on there.
She has the depth of character of a soap dish. No surprise the Guardian like her but from the episode of Inside the Commons I saw, self-serving would be the term I'd use. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/0...
I've not seen her on TV, but I did hear her going on about Farage being kept in the UKIP offices, which I thought I was a bit silly given the moves by the establishment in Rotherham to stifle the truth of what was going on there.
Also, see the clip from the Daily Politics where Neil gives her a broadside.
RobinOakapple said:
I wasn't there when the girls that did complain made their complaints, so I can't tell you if they were prepared to name names and give evidence. But I do know that the established pattern is that no, they were not prepared to do either of these things. If that was the case, as unfortunately would be usual, then what exactly could the police do? They couldn't so much as make any arrests.
I thought you may find paragraphs 11 to 13 of interest:http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/0...
In an attempt to clarify this for you, I shall resort to the horrors of post dissection.
"Very large number" is the assumption I selected in the absence of any data from the "authorities". It's a best guess to at least make an attempt to assess the problem. As the model is developed then this may change as data is collected.
There is data for scrap metal theft, didn't take long to find it in the public domain.
For any local area, how will you know if you have removed all primary offenders if you do not have knowledge of the scale of continued offending? In the unlikely event that you remove all primary offenders in any local area e.g Rotherham, more offenders will appear over time from within the existing local population, from within the population of new residents to the area and when offenders cross borders. All this needs to be included within the model.
La Liga said:
You can know the scale of offenders without knowing each one and resource accordingly.
We are now agreed re: scale vs detail.La Liga said:
Discussing CT? Why are you going to talk about some 'top secret' graded information? Sounds more like it's because it is resourced well with lots of unknowns.
We live in a time when the authorities can investigate, arrest, charge and successfully prosecute on the basis of an internet search history. The search history resulting from researching the effectiveness of counter-terrorism will be very similar to the search history created by seeking loopholes in the effectiveness of counter-terrorism, particularly around soft targets, and as I do not have absolute faith in the competence of the "authorities" to discriminate between the two then that's a risk I'm not prepared to take. It's my paranoia and I'm keeping it under my tinfoil hat.La Liga said:
Yes, but the point of the burglary was that it's more of a top-down approach whereby offenders aren't identified by the victims. Remember how I said it could be few doing many burglaries, or many doing few? Accurate recording doesn't really help find that picture out.
Identifying offenders and taking them on does, through.
Identifying the scale of the number of victims generates the resource to identify the offenders, continuing measurement of the scale of the number of victims measures the success of the solution(s). Closing the information loop.Identifying offenders and taking them on does, through.
La Liga said:
It's not perfect, but I'm not arguing that, I'm saying you're wrong to say the issue can't be resourced correctly.
Nothing's perfect, but there is a higher likelihood of resourcing accurately if the scale of the extent of the problem is known i.e the scale of the number of victims. This knowledge also permits adjusting the level of resource to match the effectiveness of the solution(s). Closing the information loop.La Liga said:
This isn’t true and works with lots of other crime types, like organised gangs of burglars and CT.
For burglary, the scale of the number of victims will be known, therefore the correct resource applied and the effectiveness of the solution(s) measured. Closing the information loop.La Liga said:
Who knows, but we only need an idea of the scale, not exact numbers. Accurate mapping and information sharing can give us quality data to work from and assess from an offender originated approach.
"Very large" according to who?
I'm pleased that you now support my view re: requirement to have knowledge of scale, but not required to have knowledge of the exact number of potential offenders. Someone needs to build a model to establish the scale of the problem."Very large" according to who?
"Very large number" is the assumption I selected in the absence of any data from the "authorities". It's a best guess to at least make an attempt to assess the problem. As the model is developed then this may change as data is collected.
La Liga said:
4) It is a natural occurrence in crime and there are systems in place to manage and assess it.
Where is the data generated by the assessment of the scale of the number of criminals crossing borders?La Liga said:
There's no "appearing", it spell it out. You make the assertion, you prove it. Who said the authorities haven't collected the data? That's different from you not searching for it.
Why not the same approach for the scrap metal data? Same logic.
My assertion is that the authorities have failed to collect data to measure the scale of CSE. If the data has been collected then it should be in the public domain, I can't find it. Jay states that no-one knows the scale.Why not the same approach for the scrap metal data? Same logic.
There is data for scrap metal theft, didn't take long to find it in the public domain.
La Liga said:
Yes, the business side of gangs will often do lots of different crimes (making it easier to map them). I'm talking about the direct 'users' and offenders. No one willing to rape = no one to sell children to.
These are the finite people willing to commit the direct offence. There are a finite number of sex offenders.
You are confused with the organisational aspect with the primary offending. If you put the primary offenders in prison, more don't magically appear.
Gangs won't move to a higher-risk area where there are no customers to commit the crime.
CSE includes the "business" side of gang activities e.g. trafficking for financial gain, CSE also includes sexual assault e.g. rape. The two are inextricably entwined, e.g control by physical abuse being commonplace on the "business" side.These are the finite people willing to commit the direct offence. There are a finite number of sex offenders.
You are confused with the organisational aspect with the primary offending. If you put the primary offenders in prison, more don't magically appear.
Gangs won't move to a higher-risk area where there are no customers to commit the crime.
For any local area, how will you know if you have removed all primary offenders if you do not have knowledge of the scale of continued offending? In the unlikely event that you remove all primary offenders in any local area e.g Rotherham, more offenders will appear over time from within the existing local population, from within the population of new residents to the area and when offenders cross borders. All this needs to be included within the model.
La Liga said:
I said I expect other areas will have similar issues because some of the global factors that I believe caused Rotherham etc apply in other areas. I didn't say there will be "more Rotherhams".
"More Rotherhams" was broad brush. You are probably stating that there will be other instances where the "authorities" fail to manage CSE, but not to the same extent as Rotherham.La Liga said:
In that case lots of unknowns, then.
Yes, there were/are unknowns, but there was enough data to build a model, which doesn't appear to be currently possible with CSE.V8 Fettler said:
We live in a time when the authorities can investigate, arrest, charge and successfully prosecute on the basis of an internet search history.
Radicalisation doesn't just involve the internet. There are lots of unknown people. They still manage to resource CT well. V8 Fettler said:
Identifying the scale of the number of victims generates the resource to identify the offenders, continuing measurement of the scale of the number of victims measures the success of the solution(s). Closing the information loop.
Identifying the number of offenders generates the resources to tackle them as you know what you need to target the people committing the crime. V8 Fettler said:
Nothing's perfect, but there is a higher likelihood of resourcing accurately if the scale of the extent of the problem is known i.e the scale of the number of victims. This knowledge also permits adjusting the level of resource to match the effectiveness of the solution(s). Closing the information loop.
If you know the scale of offenders you can resource effectively to tackle them. Like burglary. V8 Fettler said:
For burglary, the scale of the number of victims will be known, therefore the correct resource applied and the effectiveness of the solution(s) measured. Closing the information loop.
But you don't know who the offenders are from the victims. It could be many, or it could be few. A top-down approach works here. V8 Fettler said:
I'm pleased that you now support my view re: requirement to have knowledge of scale, but not required to have knowledge of the exact number of potential offenders. Someone needs to build a model to establish the scale of the problem.
Which you can with offenders. V8 Fettler said:
"Very large number" is the assumption I selected in the absence of any data from the "authorities". It's a best guess to at least make an attempt to assess the problem. As the model is developed then this may change as data is collected.
"Selected" i.e. made up for convenience. V8 Fettler said:
My assertion is that the authorities have failed to collect data to measure the scale of CSE. If the data has been collected then it should be in the public domain, I can't find it. Jay states that no-one knows the scale.
The important areas are in the public domain via the reports. No one cares about more specific data-sets when discussing the matter. V8 Fettler said:
For any local area, how will you know if you have removed all primary offenders if you do not have knowledge of the scale of continued offending?
You won't be able to remove all. You can remove those doing the most harm via identification of offenders through may of the ways already covered. This includes reported crimes, since you can actually do something with a complainant as oppose to a mere scale of the ones who aren't known. V8 Fettler said:
In the unlikely event that you remove all primary offenders in any local area e.g Rotherham, more offenders will appear over time from within the existing local population, from within the population of new residents to the area and when offenders cross borders. All this needs to be included within the model.
Yes, more criminals will appear as time goes on. But they get identified by the same means. V8 Fettler said:
"More Rotherhams" was broad brush. You are probably stating that there will be other instances where the "authorities" fail to manage CSE, but not to the same extent as Rotherham.
That's a fair summary. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0537662
I wonder if they'll mention Melanie Shaw? Notts. Council were paying out before a Judge put a stop to it.
Hopefully her ordeal isn't being driven due to Insurance company payouts and the potential payouts they'd have to make given her whistle blowing?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/22/si...
That article mentions the comparatively low price properties in Rochdale. A Radio 4 documentary on the grooming of kids there said that private sector companies housing youngsters in care chose Rochdale due to the price of properties. Local councils pay private sector companies to house or 'warehouse' kids in care. The documentary said the companies doing this role in housing kids in care for councils had investors that included the Canadian Teachers' Pension Fund.
It's not just the financial sector and the economy the money meddlers are busy shafting?
We have BiB and former BiB complaining about cuts to the police? What about the money to be made by housing kids in care and who's benefiting?
I wonder if they'll mention Melanie Shaw? Notts. Council were paying out before a Judge put a stop to it.
Hopefully her ordeal isn't being driven due to Insurance company payouts and the potential payouts they'd have to make given her whistle blowing?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/22/si...
That article mentions the comparatively low price properties in Rochdale. A Radio 4 documentary on the grooming of kids there said that private sector companies housing youngsters in care chose Rochdale due to the price of properties. Local councils pay private sector companies to house or 'warehouse' kids in care. The documentary said the companies doing this role in housing kids in care for councils had investors that included the Canadian Teachers' Pension Fund.
It's not just the financial sector and the economy the money meddlers are busy shafting?
We have BiB and former BiB complaining about cuts to the police? What about the money to be made by housing kids in care and who's benefiting?
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 24th February 19:52
La Liga said:
Radicalisation doesn't just involve the internet. There are lots of unknown people. They still manage to resource CT well.
No more on CT please, I've explained why from my position of paranoia.La Liga said:
Identifying the number of offenders generates the resources to tackle them as you know what you need to target the people committing the crime.
La Liga said:
If you know the scale of offenders you can resource effectively to tackle them. Like burglary.
La Liga said:
But you don't know who the offenders are from the victims. It could be many, or it could be few. A top-down approach works here.
La Liga said:
Which you can with offenders.
Are we at the stage where we need a Venn diagram? I've borrowed this one:
A = potential offenders, who become offenders when A coincides with C
B = police
C = potential victims, who become victims when C coincides with A
White: offences occurring, the police are aware of the specific offences, the scale of the number of offenders and the scale of the number of victims.
Purple: offences are occurring, the police are unaware of the specific offences and do not know the identity of the offenders or the victims. In your model, the scale of number of victims in this area cannot be known. In my model, the scale of the number of victims will be known and the correct level of resource applied to extend B into the purple area.
La Liga said:
"Selected" i.e. made up for convenience.
Selected from a range of options, in the absence of any data then select the worst case scenario to set a boundary, this can be varied as data is collectedLa Liga said:
The important areas are in the public domain via the reports. No one cares about more specific data-sets when discussing the matter.
If the scale of CSE in Rotherham is in the public domain then please provide a link. If the scale of CSE in the UK is in the public domain then please provide a link. La Liga said:
You won't be able to remove all. You can remove those doing the most harm via identification of offenders through many of the ways already covered. This includes reported crimes, since you can actually do something with a complainant as oppose to a mere scale of the ones who aren't known.
How will you know that you have identified the most harmful offenders? They may be operating in the purple area and thus unknown to the police in your model. La Liga said:
Yes, more criminals will appear as time goes on. But they get identified by the same means.
Unless they migrate from the red area into the purple area, where the scale of their activities will therefore be unknown to the police in your model.La Liga said:
That's a fair summary.
I'm always fair, reasonable and balanced.carinaman said:
RobinOakapple said:
I wasn't there when the girls that did complain made their complaints, so I can't tell you if they were prepared to name names and give evidence. But I do know that the established pattern is that no, they were not prepared to do either of these things. If that was the case, as unfortunately would be usual, then what exactly could the police do? They couldn't so much as make any arrests.
I thought you may find paragraphs 11 to 13 of interest:http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/0...
Do you have any actual facts you can post?
V8 Fettler said:
Are we at the stage where we need a Venn diagram? I've borrowed this one:
A = potential offenders, who become offenders when A coincides with C
B = police
C = potential victims, who become victims when C coincides with A
White: offences occurring, the police are aware of the specific offences, the scale of the number of offenders and the scale of the number of victims.
Purple: offences are occurring, the police are unaware of the specific offences and do not know the identity of the offenders or the victims. In your model, the scale of number of victims in this area cannot be known. In my model, the scale of the number of victims will be known and the correct level of resource applied to extend B into the purple area.
Yes, when A and C meet then removing these people stops the crime. Or assessing the scale of these people alone allows resourcing to be done correctly. The point in contention. A = potential offenders, who become offenders when A coincides with C
B = police
C = potential victims, who become victims when C coincides with A
White: offences occurring, the police are aware of the specific offences, the scale of the number of offenders and the scale of the number of victims.
Purple: offences are occurring, the police are unaware of the specific offences and do not know the identity of the offenders or the victims. In your model, the scale of number of victims in this area cannot be known. In my model, the scale of the number of victims will be known and the correct level of resource applied to extend B into the purple area.
V8 Fettler said:
Selected from a range of options, in the absence of any data then select the worst case scenario to set a boundary, this can be varied as data is collected
But not one of the options within the range that would support your argument less. V8 Fettler said:
If the scale of CSE in Rotherham is in the public domain then please provide a link. If the scale of CSE in the UK is in the public domain then please provide a link.
Jay provided a conservative number that also concluded no-one knows the 'true scale' - is it even possible to know the 'true scale'? V8 Fettler said:
How will you know that you have identified the most harmful offenders? They may be operating in the purple area and thus unknown to the police in your model.
Because the most intelligence comes in against the most harmful offenders along with reported crime. V8 Fettler said:
Unless they migrate from the red area into the purple area, where the scale of their activities will therefore be unknown to the police in your model.
You assume there's no way to minimise / fund out who the offenders in the purple area are. The point of the model is you identify 'motivated offenders'. It works for organised gangs within burglaries. All that accurate offence data does is give corroborative feedback to offender-orientated activities.
V8 Fettler said:
I'm always fair, reasonable and balanced.
Except when it comes to a potential data range, you pick "very large" from the unknown rather than a more neutral, speculative number, inline with something like the prior probabilities of the offence category. A = potential offenders, who become offenders when A coincides with C
B = police
C = potential victims, who become victims when C coincides with A
La Liga said:
Yes, when A and C meet then removing these people stops the crime. Or assessing the scale of these people alone allows resourcing to be done correctly. The point in contention.
That will occur in the white zone, but not in the purple zone in your model, because the police are unaware of the scale of the purple zone (in your model). The police are not even certain if the purple zone exists (in your model).La Liga said:
But not one of the options within the range that would support your argument less.
When plotting variables with zero data, you should always select the worst case. This can be amended as data is collated or as various simulations are run from the model (assuming dynamic modelling occurs). La Liga said:
provided a conservative number that also concluded no-one knows the 'true scale' - is it even possible to know the 'true scale'?
Good point, my view is that it is possible to know the true scale in Rotherham, but would need to define the scale (nearest 10? Nearest 100? Nearest 1000?) and would need to build the complete model from smaller geographical models. The key data that's missing at the moment is the number of victims who report, which won't change in the short term unless Risky Business (2015) is wheeled out.La Liga said:
Because the most intelligence comes in against the most harmful offenders along with reported crime.
The example of the murdering Dr Shipman undermines that view.La Liga said:
You assume there's no way to minimise / fund out who the offenders in the purple area are. The point of the model is you identify 'motivated offenders'.
It works for organised gangs within burglaries. All that accurate offence data does is give corroborative feedback to offender-orientated activities.
Offenders who are identified by police move into the white zone, it's a dynamic model. Again, burglaries have a high ratio of (victims who report)/victims, closing the information loop.It works for organised gangs within burglaries. All that accurate offence data does is give corroborative feedback to offender-orientated activities.
La Liga said:
Except when it comes to a potential data range, you pick "very large" from the unknown rather than a more neutral, speculative number, inline with something like the prior probabilities of the offence category.
You couldn't let that one through could you! Again, the "very large" figure is selected because it's worst case, this may change as data is collated and simulations are run. I have a question for you: is there a standard dynamic modelling tool that the authorities use to identify scale and the potential effectiveness of solutions in this type of scenario?
V8 Fettler said:
When plotting variables with zero data, you should always select the worst case. This can be amended as data is collated or as various simulations are run from the model (assuming dynamic modelling occurs).
Why stop there for the worst case scenario? Why not use the figure of 99% of the adult population? Where do you draw the line? The prior probabilities (base rates)) should be used until specific information is forthcoming which moves away from them, as it's most likely the sample
V8 Fettler said:
The example of the murdering Dr Shipman undermines that view.
An extreme example well out of the ordinary highlights how effective the norm is. V8 Fettler said:
Offenders who are identified by police move into the white zone, it's a dynamic model. Again, burglaries have a high ratio of (victims who report)/victims, closing the information loop.
The point is victims don't help identify offenders and it's a top down approach which allows effective resourcing. Accurate reporting of crime allows better feedback, but remember we're anchored to the point that you think effective resourcing needs a specific unknown. V8 Fettler said:
I have a question for you: is there a standard dynamic modelling tool that the authorities use to identify scale and the potential effectiveness of solutions in this type of scenario?
I don't know that much about it. La Liga said:
Why stop there for the worst case scenario? Why not use the figure of 99% of the adult population? Where do you draw the line?
You could certainly run a simulation at 99% of the adult population, an accurate model would produce results that were demonstrably unfeasible e.g immediate widespread breakdown of civilisation.La Liga said:
The prior probabilities (base rates)) should be used until specific information is forthcoming which moves away from them, as it's most likely the sample
Where a result at the boundaries of the calculations is catastrophic then that result should not be ignored. an example being the historical British approach to the design of nuclear power stations. The scenarios ignored by the Americans and the Soviets were considered and incorporated in the historical British design, hence Three Mile Island, Fukushima and Chernobyl didn't occur in the UK.
La Liga said:
An extreme example well out of the ordinary highlights how effective the norm is.
Again, if the calculated result at the boundaries is catastrophic then it should not be ignored. That was probably one of the issues with the Shipman case, no-one in a position of authority would have believed that a medical man would have been capable of such a thing. La Liga said:
The point is victims don't help identify offenders and it's a top down approach which allows effective resourcing. Accurate reporting of crime allows better feedback, but remember we're anchored to the point that you think effective resourcing needs a specific unknown.
If you don't know the scale of the number of victims, how do you justify the resource required to identify offenders? I'm sure that the police could have dealt with Shipman in the 1970s had they known of the scale of the number of victims and understood that such a thing was possible. La Liga said:
carinaman said:
But on the positive side, Melanie Shaw that may know a few names is under lock and key in HMP Peterborough, so they shouldn't find it too difficult to find her to ask her what she knows.
If she stops setting fire to things it may help her credibility. With due regard to 'correlation is not causation', I don't know how much the fuss Operation Daybreak whistle blower Melanie Shaw made has led to that chap being in court.
It could be argued that Melanie Shaw has done more than many dead and alive in the 'establishment' that did the square root of zero in stopping the late Jimmy Savile sexually exploiting the vulnerable and youthful.
BiB typing about credibility? Perhaps the new College of Policing can issue you with a credibility certificate?
Edited by carinaman on Friday 27th February 04:48
carinaman said:
http://www.nottinghampost.com/Operation-Daybreak-6...
With due regard to 'correlation is not causation', I don't know how much the fuss Operation Daybreak whistle blower Melanie Shaw made has led to that chap being in court.
It could be argued that Melanie Shaw has done more than many dead and alive in the 'establishment' that did the square root of zero in stopping the late Jimmy Savile sexually exploiting the vulnerable and youthful.
BiB typing about credibility? Perhaps the new College of Policing can issue you with a credibility certificate?
There's plenty of reasons why people might not like the police, perhaps they've been in trouble with the law, or maybe a policeman frightened then when they were a toddler, or maybe they've got a thing about uniforms, or authority figures, or maybe they are just anarchists.With due regard to 'correlation is not causation', I don't know how much the fuss Operation Daybreak whistle blower Melanie Shaw made has led to that chap being in court.
It could be argued that Melanie Shaw has done more than many dead and alive in the 'establishment' that did the square root of zero in stopping the late Jimmy Savile sexually exploiting the vulnerable and youthful.
BiB typing about credibility? Perhaps the new College of Policing can issue you with a credibility certificate?
Edited by carinaman on Friday 27th February 04:48
But what I don't understand is why your problem with them is so intense, so personal, so full of loathing that you put so much time and effort and energy into your posts about the police.
I think you got some kind of disorder, if I can say that without giving offence
RobinOakapple said:
There's plenty of reasons why people might not like the police, perhaps they've been in trouble with the law, or maybe a policeman frightened then when they were a toddler, or maybe they've got a thing about uniforms, or authority figures, or maybe they are just anarchists.
But what I don't understand is why your problem with them is so intense, so personal, so full of loathing that you put so much time and effort and energy into your posts about the police.
I think you got some kind of disorder, if I can say that without giving offence
I've not taken offence. But what I don't understand is why your problem with them is so intense, so personal, so full of loathing that you put so much time and effort and energy into your posts about the police.
I think you got some kind of disorder, if I can say that without giving offence
A longer reply may be forthcoming when I've more time.
Melanie Shaw may be in court today. Will the hearing be open to the public? Who'll be her legal representatives?
In October 2012 Thomas Orchard had an emergency restraint belt placed around his head in a police station cell. A week later his family gave permission for his life support to be switched off. In early December 2014 it was announced that 2 custody staff and a police officer would face charges for their conduct and the 'heart attack' tale. They were in court in Bristol yesterday. They'll be back in June and expected to give pleas. The trial will be in January 2016?
So they know when they're in court. They have had months of notice. When was it listed that Melanie Shaw would be in court today? Has she killed anybody? Has she fibbed about a dead person having a heart attack or has she sought to bring evidence about the sexual abuse of children in care homes to public attention?
The system could seem to be unfair.
Ah yeah, Theresa May said she cares about the victims of child sexual abuse. Nobody cares whether the appearance of Melanie Shaw in Court today in Nottingham is secret do they?
It's not my fault if the police can't live up to their slick PR image. Or hide the truth to protect that carefully cultivated image.
The police covered up paedophile William Goad for years. Detective Constable Shirley Thompson that tried to do something about it was sat on. Just one reason I don't particularly like the police. If the police can't take the truth perhaps they should have chosen another career path.
I'm one of those people that thinks sex with kids is wrong. I don't have much time for police officers that protect paedophiles or make excuses for them.
Edited by carinaman on Friday 27th February 11:16
V8 Fettler said:
You could certainly run a simulation at 99% of the adult population, an accurate model would produce results that were demonstrably unfeasible e.g immediate widespread breakdown of civilisation.
A more extreme version of "very large". Start from the prior probabilities, and move away when more specific information is forthcoming. Experiment after experiment shows mechanical reasoning out-performs human judgement.
V8 Fettler said:
Where a result at the boundaries of the calculations is catastrophic then that result should not be ignored. an example being the historical British approach to the design of nuclear power stations. The scenarios ignored by the Americans and the Soviets were considered and incorporated in the historical British design, hence Three Mile Island, Fukushima and Chernobyl didn't occur in the UK.
We're talking about the starting point. If X number of the population are sex offenders, then Y aren't. We don't work from the assumption 100 X exists in this scenario. We start from X and move away from there when specific information justifies us in doing so.
V8 Fettler said:
Again, if the calculated result at the boundaries is catastrophic then it should not be ignored. That was probably one of the issues with the Shipman case, no-one in a position of authority would have believed that a medical man would have been capable of such a thing.
Which is nothing to do with modelling. It's was the trust society and the systems in place, placed in doctors who were / are able to issue their own death certificates. V8 Fettler said:
If you don't know the scale of the number of victims, how do you justify the resource required to identify offenders?
Because you have quality mapping of your burglary offenders through intelligence and other aforementioned methods. A reduction in burglaries after tacking the offenders provides and indication you are being effective, but its delayed feedback (and subject to normal statistical variance) and doesn't help you resource based on offenders. Like I say, just because you know how many victims are with burglary, that doesn't mean you can resource it correctly. Few offenders or many? Interesting to mention cross-border as this features quite heavily with burglary (on the more organised front). Data sharing methods and other means mean these people can still be identified and are identified.
V8 Fettler said:
I'm sure that the police could have dealt with Shipman in the 1970s had they known of the scale of the number of victims and understood that such a thing was possible.
If the processes and procedures were different, then such activities would have been more detectable. Things changed quite a bit since his discovery. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff