What a huge waste of public money

What a huge waste of public money

Author
Discussion

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Wednesday 10th February 2016
quotequote all
La Liga said:
You hear that phrase from all organisations. Plenty of things get improved through that approach to things.
And yet there are lessons still to be learned, every time.


anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 10th February 2016
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
You hear that phrase from all organisations. Plenty of things get improved through that approach to things.
And yet there are lessons still to be learned, every time.
Did I miss the part where humans stopped making mistakes and errors and became perfect?

What approach would you rather people take (other than evolve to be perfect)? That's not a rhetorical question (as you treat it every time you pick-up on the phrase and I asked it).



saaby93

32,038 posts

177 months

Wednesday 10th February 2016
quotequote all
La Liga said:
id I miss the part where humans stopped making mistakes and errors and became perfect?

What approach would you rather people take (other than evolve to be perfect)? That's not a rhetorical question (as you treat it every time you pick-up on the phrase and I asked it).
It is a human behaviour

Many (most?) people like to learn from their own mistakes
A minority look what the other have done and realise they dont have to do the same trick
That doesnt stop others disbelieving them and do what the first bunch have done again and again


A10

633 posts

98 months

Wednesday 10th February 2016
quotequote all
woowahwoo said:
///ajd said:
I'm surprised this is not a bigger story in the media as it appears so ludicrous.

Certainly as newsworthy as Plebgate in some respects, and that was on the telly for days!

Has it only appeared in the original paper, or has there been any updates/follow ups?
I thought that, too. It is conspicuously absent from the grauniad
They BBC haven't said a word (AFAIK) because they employ her!

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 10th February 2016
quotequote all
A10 said:
woowahwoo said:
///ajd said:
I'm surprised this is not a bigger story in the media as it appears so ludicrous.

Certainly as newsworthy as Plebgate in some respects, and that was on the telly for days!

Has it only appeared in the original paper, or has there been any updates/follow ups?
I thought that, too. It is conspicuously absent from the grauniad
They BBC haven't said a word (AFAIK) because they employ her!
Is 'AKAIK' used to excuse not spending a couple of seconds searching?

Here's one article covering when they interviewed him one of their radio stations... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35531436



A10

633 posts

98 months

Wednesday 10th February 2016
quotequote all
I haven't seen the story on the BBC news app on my iPad. I didn't do a special special search for it, no.

Well done you, though.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 10th February 2016
quotequote all
I'd say it's more 'well done' to post something you've totally made-up i.e. 'She works for them so it's not covered', rather than do a 5 second search.


A10

633 posts

98 months

Wednesday 10th February 2016
quotequote all
What an in depth analysis it is too. About a 100 words! rofl

But getting back to the extremely serious point you raised, I apologise for my abject laziness in not doing a proper search and simply using the app I use everyday for news from the BBC.

Thank god we have you to police our streets and the internet too.

I've learnt my lesson officer.

With your guidance, and God's will, I can hopefully turn my life around.

Mojooo

12,668 posts

179 months

Thursday 11th February 2016
quotequote all
It was on the front page yesterday TBF.

Bring on the clowns

1,339 posts

183 months

Thursday 11th February 2016
quotequote all
A10 said:
What an in depth analysis it is too. About a 100 words! rofl

But getting back to the extremely serious point you raised, I apologise for my abject laziness in not doing a proper search and simply using the app I use everyday for news from the BBC.

Thank god we have you to police our streets and the internet too.

I've learnt my lesson officer.

With your guidance, and God's will, I can hopefully turn my life around.
At least he's not one of those officious, pedantic officers... whistle

A10

633 posts

98 months

Thursday 11th February 2016
quotequote all
Mojooo said:
It was on the front page yesterday TBF.
Fair enough. I only looked earlier today. I was obviously too late to see it and I've acknowledged I was mistaken. beer

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 11th February 2016
quotequote all
A10 said:
But getting back to the extremely serious point you raised, I apologise for my abject laziness in not doing a proper search and simply using the app I use everyday for news from the BBC.
I don't think there's much of an issue you not knowing or not searching, it's more the fact you didn't realise you were just making something up because of your bias / agenda etc, along with probably not realising that you had no basis in which to do so.

Kahneman figured out that the confidence we have in a story / explanation (when working with incomplete information) comes not from the quality of information, but how coherent we find the story / explanation. We don't like effects without a cause, so naturally look to fill this void.

People who have greater critical thinking skills and information processing abilities realise when they are making things up and drawing conclusions in which they have no basis to do so. Those who don't often have lots to say on subjects the know little about. Discussions around the law and the internet are often an irresistible combination to such people.


A10

633 posts

98 months

Thursday 11th February 2016
quotequote all
La Liga said:
don't think there's much of an issue you not knowing or not searching
Really? Well why mention it, in every post you've made on the matter then?

popeyewhite

19,622 posts

119 months

Thursday 11th February 2016
quotequote all
La Liga said:
don't think there's much of an issue you not knowing or not searching, it's more the fact you didn't realise you were just making something up because of your bias / agenda etc, along with probably not realising that you had no basis in which to do so.

Kahneman figured out that the confidence we have in a story / explanation (when working with incomplete information) comes not from the quality of information, but how coherent we find the story / explanation. We don't like effects without a cause, so naturally look to fill this void.
Basic plausibility - Kahneman suggested a theory/theories he thought might explain people 'filling in the gaps and making judgements'. But in the end, like all psychology, it is just theory.

La Liga said:
People who have greater critical thinking skills and information processing abilities realise when they are making things up and drawing conclusions in which they have no basis to do so.
I'm not sure there is any link between critical thinking skills (which are largely learnt) information processing abilities (what - information goes in, is processed, and action/thought taken) and making things up!! Information processing theories are mainly built on memory models... .

La Liga said:
Those who don't often have lots to say on subjects the know little about.
And why shouldn't they? Their opinion is just as valid as the next person's. It's called a forum, a place where people come to share opinion, have a natter, have a laugh (unless there's some 'expert' present) and generally chew the fat.

La Liga said:
Discussions around the law and the internet are often an irresistible combination to such people.
So what? Are they any different from any other conversation people find interesting? I think not. Try not to sound as if you're looking down your nose at them.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 11th February 2016
quotequote all
popeyewhite said:
Basic plausibility - Kahneman suggested a theory/theories he thought might explain people 'filling in the gaps and making judgements'. But in the end, like all psychology, it is just theory.
For which experiments add weight and evidence to theories to which we can make judgements as to how likely they are to exist. It's not 'finger in the air' stuff.

popeyewhite said:
I'm not sure there is any link between critical thinking skills (which are largely learnt) information processing abilities (what - information goes in, is processed, and action/thought taken) and making things up!! Information processing theories are mainly built on memory models...
They both have 'nurturing' elements and are shaped by what we choose to learn.

popeyewhite said:
And why shouldn't they? Their opinion is just as valid as the next person's. It's called a forum, a place where people come to share opinion, have a natter, have a laugh (unless there's some 'expert' present) and generally chew the fat.
Of course they're not as valid by default. It's circumstantial. If we're talking about something very subjective, like a person's favourite car, then yes, they're equally as valid. However, when we're talking about factual issues then clearly not.

If you had a detained mechanical issue with your TVR (you theoretically owned), you'd certainly not want to consider my opinion on the matter as equally valid as the experts who frequent the TVR sub-forum.

On the other hand, if you were being criminally interviewed, you'd certainly not want to consider the opinion of the 'experts' who pop-up and write 'go no comment', vs my opinion which would be to take legal advice.

popeyewhite said:
So what? Are they any different from any other conversation people find interesting? I think not. Try not to sound as if you're looking down your nose at them.
It's not about having a conversation or suggesting someone shouldn't have one, it's the 'pub expert' conviction in which people state as fact for opinions in areas they have no idea about. Great, a discussion where people pass their opinions off as fact. I'll give an opinion on lots of things, but I am not so blind as to realise my knowledge / experience limitations.

popeyewhite

19,622 posts

119 months

Thursday 11th February 2016
quotequote all
La Liga said:
For which experiments add weight and evidence to theories to which we can make judgements as to how likely they are to exist. It's not 'finger in the air' stuff.
Hmm. There are just as many 'experiments' (I presume you mean research) that decry general theories as back them up. No one makes judgements on how likely a theory is to 'exist', just how many others researchers/papers suggest certain behaviour could be explained by such-and-such a theory. Further, theories gain and then decline in popularity amongst researchers. E.g.the inverted U hypothesis, then processing efficiency theory, then attentional control theory.
La Liga said:
They both have 'nurturing' elements and are shaped by what we choose to learn.

I'm a bit lost here: Critical thinking is a skill learnt, information processing is based on memory retrieval: Where is the nurturing?
La Liga said:
Of course they're not as valid by default. It's circumstantial. If we're talking about something very subjective, like a person's favourite car, then yes, they're equally as valid. However, when we're talking about factual issues then clearly not.

My point is they still have a right to make that opinion heard. As said, this is a car forum, not a legal hearing. I'm sure it must gall you to read all the wild conjecture and opinions vented on this thread but if you want pure legal/factual chit chat there must be fora for that sort of thing... ?
La Liga said:
It's not about having a conversation or suggesting someone shouldn't have one, it's the 'pub expert' conviction in which people state as fact for opinions in areas they have no idea about. Great, a discussion where people pass their opinions off as fact. I'll give an opinion on lots of things, but I am not so blind as to realise my knowledge / experience limitations.
Once again - it's a car forum, what d'you expect?

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Thursday 11th February 2016
quotequote all
La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
You hear that phrase from all organisations. Plenty of things get improved through that approach to things.
And yet there are lessons still to be learned, every time.
Did I miss the part where humans stopped making mistakes and errors and became perfect?

What approach would you rather people take (other than evolve to be perfect)? That's not a rhetorical question (as you treat it every time you pick-up on the phrase and I asked it).
No, you missed out the part where this platitude is trotted out every time there's a cock-up as if it will solve the problem that's already happened. A similar cock-up is made even after these lessons have allegedly been made.

I'd rather they take the approach whereby things are considered in advance. I'd also like an approach whereby those found to have been negligent/corrupt/incompetent are accountable for their actions & not simply offered the chance to resign with huge payment & re-employment in a similar position more or less immediately. please don't even attempt to suggest that this doesn't happen.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 11th February 2016
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
No, you missed out the part where this platitude is trotted out every time there's a cock-up as if it will solve the problem that's already happened. A similar cock-up is made even after these lessons have allegedly been made.
I'm talking about the part where it's genuine. If it's insincere then it falls within the category of something that needs to be learnt and developed i.e. not to use is insincerely.

It's no surprise it's used as a shield. How many people have realistic expectations and don't get bogged down in hindsight bias?

Rovinghawk said:
I'd rather they take the approach whereby things are considered in advance. I'd also like an approach whereby those found to have been negligent/corrupt/incompetent are accountable for their actions & not simply offered the chance to resign with huge payment & re-employment in a similar position more or less immediately. please don't even attempt to suggest that this doesn't happen.
Things are considered in advance, but with anything of scale / complexity there'll be things to learn from the experience.

NASA are often used by consultants as a golden example of planning and process. Even with that organisation's capability and capacity, you'll bet they look to learn and develop from everything they do, especially with complex projects / ones of scale.

Of course the above occurs that you describe in terms of negligent, corrupt and incompetent. That doesn't void the key points I am making.

///ajd

8,964 posts

205 months

Thursday 11th February 2016
quotequote all
this story is several days old now, but it is still bothering me.

the cps have just shrugged and said "we had sufficient evidence", seemingly oblivious to the huge disquiet this leaves in the confidence of the whole organisation.

it feels almost like, say an aircraft crashed killing 200 people, and the owners just shrugged and said, oh well never mind, these things happen, no need to investigate.

the casual "don't give a fk" attitude should make this story run until an MP demands an inquiry and explanation.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Thursday 11th February 2016
quotequote all
La Liga said:
I'm talking about the part where it's genuine.
Paraphrasing your earlier words, I must have missed that part.
La Liga said:
If it's insincere then it falls within the category of something that needs to be learnt and developed i.e. not to use is insincerely.
How do we get them to stop doing that? I put it to you that it happens frequently. ETA- I also note the increasing use of 'opportunities were missed'. Such an optimistic way of saying that someone didn't do their job properly.
La Liga said:
It's no surprise it's used as a shield.
I agree it's no surprise when they do it- do you agree that it's possibly counterproductive?
La Liga said:
Of course the above occurs that you describe in terms of negligent, corrupt and incompetent.
Why is it tolerated?
La Liga said:
That doesn't void the key points I am making.
Your key point appears to be that sometimes things go wrong but that's life. I don't consider that what happened is acceptable in any way, shape or form. I don't think it should be swept under the carpet. I think those responsible should be answerable for their actions.

I note that Hogan-Howe has today issued guidelines that police shouldn't automatically believe the complainant. It's sad when an instruction regarding presumption of innocence until proven guilty hits the headlines.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Thursday 11th February 21:02