What a huge waste of public money
Discussion
popeyewhite said:
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.
It's circumstantial. There aren't too many theories that contradict the principle / theory of 'loss aversion', for example (so it's not that contentious). It's not black and white, there are degrees of weight and evidence with all theories. Either way, I don't think the overall principle of people making things up to fill information gaps is a disputed operation of the mind. popeyewhite said:
I'm a bit lost here: Critical thinking is a skill learnt, information processing is based on memory retrieval: Where is the nurturing?
The "Nurture" component presents as the environment which provides the stimuli to be inputted and processed by the system. What creates memories? Stimuli. What provides the stimuli? The environment. What are some of the things that control the environment? What we choose to read and learn and what others teach us, for example. popeyewhite said:
My point is they still have a right to make that opinion heard.
No it wasn't. You wrote: popeyewhite said:
And why shouldn't they? Their opinion is just as valid as the next person's.
No one's disputing the right to express opinions. I just don't agree they're equally valid. popeyewhite said:
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... ?
I am not here for high-level legal discussions. I don't expect that from others, just as I don't expect others to have those expectations around areas outside my competence / expertise. The root of this discussion isn't even from anything to do with law, it's from me pointing out that concluded the BBC aren't covering the story because the actress has worked for them is pure fiction. I just don't think it's unreasonable to expect reasonably intelligent people to realise when they're trying to pass opinion off as fact, regardless of the subject matter.
Rovinghawk said:
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.
No, my points are that:1) There will always be learning when completing a large-scale venture for any collective of humans operating as an organisation.
2) Many people unrealistically expect this not to be the case.
Rovinghawk said:
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.
Since when does the presumption of believing a complainant upon the first encounter affect the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? They're obviously separate thoughts and considerations you're blurring into one to make an unfounded point. If you read the article he wrote (where does it mention guidelines?), he directly quotes the HMIC who are responsible for shaping policing: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/10/met...
HMIC said:
In 2014, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary said: “The presumption that a victim should always be believed should be institutionalised.” A complaint of sexual abuse must now be recorded immediately as a crime.
La Liga said:
Since when does the presumption of believing a complainant upon the first encounter affect the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? They're obviously separate thoughts and considerations you're blurring into one to make an unfounded point.
If you read the article he wrote (where does it mention guidelines?), he directly quotes the HMIC who are responsible for shaping policing: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/10/met...
I don't understand that.If you read the article he wrote (where does it mention guidelines?), he directly quotes the HMIC who are responsible for shaping policing: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/10/met...
HMIC said:
In 2014, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary said: “The presumption that a victim should always be believed should be institutionalised.” A complaint of sexual abuse must now be recorded immediately as a crime.
If you believe the victim is truthful you must believe the incident occurred and you must believe the perpetrator is guilty. So any investigation will be for the sole purpose of gathering evidence to prove guilt, and any evidence that prove innocence discarded.
And to be frank, that appears to be exactly what has happened in the case this thread is about.
PurpleMoonlight said:
La Liga said:
Since when does the presumption of believing a complainant upon the first encounter affect the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? They're obviously separate thoughts and considerations you're blurring into one to make an unfounded point.
If you read the article he wrote (where does it mention guidelines?), he directly quotes the HMIC who are responsible for shaping policing: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/10/met...
I don't understand that.If you read the article he wrote (where does it mention guidelines?), he directly quotes the HMIC who are responsible for shaping policing: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/10/met...
HMIC said:
In 2014, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary said: “The presumption that a victim should always be believed should be institutionalised.” A complaint of sexual abuse must now be recorded immediately as a crime.
If you believe the victim is truthful you must believe the incident occurred and you must believe the perpetrator is guilty. So any investigation will be for the sole purpose of gathering evidence to prove guilt, and any evidence that prove innocence discarded.
And to be frank, that appears to be exactly what has happened in the case this thread is about.
PurpleMoonlight said:
I don't understand that.
If you believe the victim is truthful you must believe the incident occurred and you must believe the perpetrator is guilty. So any investigation will be for the sole purpose of gathering evidence to prove guilt, and any evidence that prove innocence discarded.
And to be frank, that appears to be exactly what has happened in the case this thread is about.
All the 'musts' aren't true or self-fulfilling at all. The link to what evidence will be gathered is even more untrue. If you believe the victim is truthful you must believe the incident occurred and you must believe the perpetrator is guilty. So any investigation will be for the sole purpose of gathering evidence to prove guilt, and any evidence that prove innocence discarded.
And to be frank, that appears to be exactly what has happened in the case this thread is about.
It's about someone presenting themselves in the first instance and being treated as if they are a victim of crime in order to gather the best evidence. It has no bearing on how the investigation evolves and where the evidence takes the matter.
Nearly all victims are treated this way. If you have a shed burglary and call up for a crime number, then you're believed and a crime number is issued as it's on the balance of probabilities i.e. more likely than not to have occurred based on the information presented.
La Liga said:
It's about someone presenting themselves in the first instance and being treated as if they are a victim of crime in order to gather the best evidence. It has no bearing on how the investigation evolves and where the evidence takes the matter.
Nearly all victims are treated this way.
Well that is not my personal experience. But perhaps that is because I am the wrong gender to be believed.Nearly all victims are treated this way.
La Liga said:
Some strange posts illustrating his lack of fundamental knowledge of human psychology, theories appertaining to psychology, and basic definitions of psychological concepts.
I'm having a wild guess here that you have no academic qualifications in any branch of psychology, either that or it was an 'o' level, decades ago, a bit of reading trendy business psychology or just the internet. I can't even address the weight of your previous answers to my comments to you without explaining a good deal of the underlying concepts in social/cognitive psychology, which I've no intention of wasting my time doing. It's not without humour I note that you are in the same situation with basic psychology as you accuse others of when discussing the matter in the OP.La Liga said:
it's the 'pub expert' conviction in which people state as fact for opinions in areas they have no idea about.
As this now seems to apply to you, in effect you have hoisted your own petard. Crimes are recorded if -on the balance of probability the circumstances of the offence reported are a crime in law and there is no credible evidence to the contrary immediately available to disprove the allegation reported. Under some circumstances they can be reported by third parties.
popeyewhite said:
I'm having a wild guess here that you have no academic qualifications in any branch of psychology, either that or it was an 'o' level, decades ago, a bit of reading trendy business psychology or just the internet. I can't even address the weight of your previous answers to my comments to you without explaining a good deal of the underlying concepts in social/cognitive psychology, which I've no intention of wasting my time doing. It's not without humour I note that you are in the same situation with basic psychology as you accuse others of when discussing the matter in the OP.
I lifted the text from some material produced by a University. They information is corroborated by other sources I can find. Of course that doesn't mean I am right or an expert, since I'm not obviously primarily researching the subject matter, I can only go on what experts (who aren't always right) say and what I am taught. My later academic life has been around decision-making in conditions of uncertainty / making risk-based decisions in uncertain environments. That's where the (quite heavy) psychological overlap has been. Bigends said:
Crimes are recorded if -on the balance of probability that the circumstances of the offence reported are a crime in law and there is no credible evidence to the contrary immediately available to disprove the allegation reported.
Quite, so when a sexual offence victim presents themselves, these days (you know exactly how it's been in the past and the recording approaches to sexual offences when detection / reductions were the cornerstone of police performance) it is recorded and 'believed' in the first instance. This is in line with most other victim-based crimes. This is the thrust of what the HMIC have been trying to get away from with their reviews to approaches and recording. La Liga said:
popeyewhite said:
I'm having a wild guess here that you have no academic qualifications in any branch of psychology, either that or it was an 'o' level, decades ago, a bit of reading trendy business psychology or just the internet. I can't even address the weight of your previous answers to my comments to you without explaining a good deal of the underlying concepts in social/cognitive psychology, which I've no intention of wasting my time doing. It's not without humour I note that you are in the same situation with basic psychology as you accuse others of when discussing the matter in the OP.
I lifted the text from some material produced by a University. They information is corroborated by other sources I can find. Of course that doesn't mean I am right or an expert, since I'm not obviously primarily researching the subject matter, I can only go on what experts (who aren't always right) say and what I am taught. My later academic life has been around decision-making in conditions of uncertainty / making risk-based decisions in uncertain environments. That's where the (quite heavy) psychological overlap has been. Bigends said:
Crimes are recorded if -on the balance of probability that the circumstances of the offence reported are a crime in law and there is no credible evidence to the contrary immediately available to disprove the allegation reported.
Quite, so when a sexual offence victim presents themselves, these days (you know exactly how it's been in the past and the recording approaches to sexual offences when detection / reductions were the cornerstone of police performance) it is recorded and 'believed' in the first instance. This is in line with most other victim-based crimes. This is the thrust of what the HMIC have been trying to get away from with their reviews to approaches and recording. Bigends said:
Rapes are recorded immediately whether third or first party reports - new classifications have been created to cover all eventualities to ensure prompt and accurate recording
Out of interest does a 'crime' get removed from the statistics if they are later found to be a complete fabrication of the 'victim'?PurpleMoonlight said:
Bigends said:
Rapes are recorded immediately whether third or first party reports - new classifications have been created to cover all eventualities to ensure prompt and accurate recording
Out of interest does a 'crime' get removed from the statistics if they are later found to be a complete fabrication of the 'victim'?PurpleMoonlight said:
Bigends said:
Rapes are recorded immediately whether third or first party reports - new classifications have been created to cover all eventualities to ensure prompt and accurate recording
Out of interest does a 'crime' get removed from the statistics if they are later found to be a complete fabrication of the 'victim'?In the case of Rape it must be established beyond any doubt in addition to the above that no offence occured - very rarely removed and only authorised by Dep Chief Constable level.
La Liga said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Bigends said:
Rapes are recorded immediately whether third or first party reports - new classifications have been created to cover all eventualities to ensure prompt and accurate recording
Out of interest does a 'crime' get removed from the statistics if they are later found to be a complete fabrication of the 'victim'?Assuming they were previously unknown to police and remain innocent with no other proven accusations.
If so then good, if not then on what basis are they retained? National DNA database by stealth comes to mind, but hopefully it's not that
Bigends said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Bigends said:
Rapes are recorded immediately whether third or first party reports - new classifications have been created to cover all eventualities to ensure prompt and accurate recording
Out of interest does a 'crime' get removed from the statistics if they are later found to be a complete fabrication of the 'victim'?In the case of Rape it must be established beyond any doubt in addition to the above that no offence occured - very rarely removed and only authorised by Dep Chief Constable level.
Bigends said:
If theres additional VERIFIABLE information that no offence occcured the report can be cancelled though physically remains on the system.This must be new information not known at the time of report.
In the case of Rape it must be established beyond any doubt in addition to the above that no offence occured - very rarely removed and only authorised by Dep Chief Constable level.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics ......In the case of Rape it must be established beyond any doubt in addition to the above that no offence occured - very rarely removed and only authorised by Dep Chief Constable level.
turbobloke said:
Bigends said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Bigends said:
Rapes are recorded immediately whether third or first party reports - new classifications have been created to cover all eventualities to ensure prompt and accurate recording
Out of interest does a 'crime' get removed from the statistics if they are later found to be a complete fabrication of the 'victim'?In the case of Rape it must be established beyond any doubt in addition to the above that no offence occured - very rarely removed and only authorised by Dep Chief Constable level.
Bigends said:
turbobloke said:
Bigends said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Bigends said:
Rapes are recorded immediately whether third or first party reports - new classifications have been created to cover all eventualities to ensure prompt and accurate recording
Out of interest does a 'crime' get removed from the statistics if they are later found to be a complete fabrication of the 'victim'?In the case of Rape it must be established beyond any doubt in addition to the above that no offence occured - very rarely removed and only authorised by Dep Chief Constable level.
This is after all the dawning of the Age of
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff