MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Bob Woolmer (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think the presumption of innocence until proof abounds to the contrary is perhaps being forgotten here.

For Applied Epistemologists this is quite wrong. The presumption of innocence is merely a rule of legal administration. The fact that it has been elevated to a moral imperative is probably the reason why dear ol' Pulp feels anxious to tell us about it in such breathless tones. It's a good guide to correct AE behaviour to feel a leetle-bit-embarrassed whenever you find yourself mouthing a platitude.

Personally I presumed them innocent before, I presume them guilty now. I dare say I'll make various other presumption-switches as things go along. Of course if I were chosen to be on their jury I'd have to presume them innocent, a very valuable corrective to the strong psychological feeling, "If they're in the box, they're prolly guilty."
Send private message
Monty's Double



View user's profile
Reply with quote

The presumption of innocence is for juries only. If investigators took that view they would never find any evidence.

Having said that, I should also point out that as the parent of children the same age as the McCanns, the level of giddy excitement that accompanies the mere thought of a meal with other adults and no children would tempt even my normally dedicated wife to leave our two with a slavering cartoon wolf wearing a frilly nightdress. Look, normal people do the odd daft thing once in a while, and usually it doesn't kill their kids.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Monty's Double is right, it's known as "healthy neglect" in the trade. We've all been 'guilty' of a version of it except when brought up short by some exceptionally shocking incident such as the James Bulger murder whereupon we watch our children like hawks, for a couple of months or so.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It is this which leads me denounce the present doctine - nay, axiom-- that "the child's interest shall be paramount". Parents' desires to do right by their child is so built into the(ir) system that to start artificially enhancing the child's interest further, leads to a hopeless position. For instance, it is so wildly in the child's interest that his or her parents stay together that it is worth vast amounts of neglect of the child in order to keep the adults' relationship happy. The point being that the adults' built-in child-centredness will ensure that 'vast' actually amounts to every other Friday night hiring a baby-sitter. Though in fact going dahn the pub every night and leaving Junior looked after by next-to-Junior is almost certainly in Junior's long-term interest too.

Whenever I put this forward at my famous Islington dinner parties (peopled entirely by couples-with-children) I am told I don't know what I am talking about, being childless, and that such a doctine would speedily lead to the widespread and disastrous neglect of children. But I always meet this with the standard AE response when the human condition is involved, "Except in your own case of course."
Send private message
Monty's Double



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Isn't that a case of getting your excuses in beforehand? Should their currently stable relationship break down, they can always justify the split with a "well, it wasn't good for the kids to see us fighting all the time". This conveniently ignores the almost certain fact that kids can far more easily understand mummy and daddy shouting at each other than they can them separating. After all, mine regularly clout each other with heavy objects, and minutes later they are back to being bosom buddies.

Kids use lots of circular logic to rationalise their little worlds: daddy is daddy because he lives here, and he lives here because he's daddy. Trying to explain that daddy is still daddy even though his side of the bed is now occupied by "uncle" Dave is going to seriously knock their psychological balance off kilter, no matter how nicely you do it. Just hope that if me and the missus go the way of most relationships I will be honest enough to admit that it was my interests and not those of the kids I was serving.

Back to the McCanns, I suspect that deep down most parents hope it was them wot did it for two reasons:

1. They left their kids alone and therefore "deserve it" in some way.
2. If they did it then that's one less predatory kiddy-fiddler on the loose, and ergo my kids are safer.


Not pretty is it?
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I, as a parent, hope that they didn't do it, because that means accepting that a parent can not just harm, but kill, its own child..... and that thought is horrifying - even if some bloke in the bible was willing to do it for his God!!
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Oh, and Mick! Don't call me 'dear' until you've at least bought me dinner!!
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Pulp History wrote:
I, as a parent, hope that they didn't do it, because that means accepting that a parent can not just harm, but kill, its own child..... and that thought is horrifying

It wasn't that uncommon - all those (hi)stories of babes abandoned on doorsteps, in the forest and so forth - for reasons of poverty or superfluity of children. Horrifying but understandable. However, here it's a middle-class, professional couple, who could afford childcare and are Catholic, so maybe there's an element of class and religious schadenfreude in the tabloids.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

And let us not forget the Carthaginians (indeed the Phoenicians generally) who were obliged to throw one of their children (first born?) into a blazing furnace just to show fidelity to the state/ religion/ Moloch or whatever it was.

PS Nobody here is allowed to say "I, as a parent..." That is the point of this site. You may only say, "I, as an Applied Epistemologist..." I have pointed out more than once that just being a parent disqualifies you from most intellectual pursuits of any worth.
.
Send private message
Monty's Double



View user's profile
Reply with quote

OK, how about, "As an Applied Epistemologist with regular access to experimental observations on child behavour..."?

Being a parent does, I grant, set one's moral compass rather askew (ask me how many people I would happily sacrifice so that my children could be saved), and the drain on one's mental resources does nothing to aid the clear thinking demanded of this discipline. However, parenthood does help one develop a certain resilience, so perhaps it's not completely incompatible. Point, nonetheless, taken.
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

"As an Applied Epistemologist with regular access to experimental observations on child behaviour..." I would never consider doing thus. I am also inexplicably nervous at being called 'Dear' by a man with a large handlebar moustache - fear overrides rationalism in moments of panic!
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Some interesting parallels between the deaths of Bob Woolmer and Kim Jong-nam. Suppose Kim, like Woolmer, had actually died of natural causes. Given his life-style this is, after all, rather more likely than for our Bob, Cricketing Man of Kent. Would there have been any chance of not jumping to the conclusion that it was foul play? It was far less likely in Woolmer's case yet that is precisely what everybody did.

Notice also the curiosities of the Kim case. Cause of death was reported to be in one of three different ways -- injection, cloth over face and something else I can't remember. Maybe just 'poisoning'. Two women though seemed to be a constant feature. Which is also odd. It is difficult to imagine a worse place than the arrivals hall of a major international airport (and scene of two recent mystery air crashes) for two women to carry out the crime and then vanish unidentified. Which they would have to do if North Korea wasn't to get fingered.

Of course murder and North Korea are still red hot favourites but if so it would seem North Korea didn't mind getting fingered. That would send out a much stronger message!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Addendum: we now have two more: a spray and a poison pen. These Malaysian eye-witnesses sure are eagle-eyed.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The recent airing of programmes re the tenth anniversary of the Shannon Mathews case plus a new theory getting aired on a Breakfast TV show re the McCann case has led me to some new thoughts. Wrinkles on familiar thoughts anyway.

It will be recalled that there was an AE interest because the media self-censored itself on the fact that McCann was heart-stoppingly beautiful and Mathews was decidedly plain. The corollary being that since child-abduction is a) incredibly risky b) has very temporary rewards and c) carries enormous penalties if detected, it follows that only heart-stoppingly beautiful children will be abducted and then only by local opportunistic nutters. That anyway seems to be the pattern.

But supposing a) b) and c) can be all-but-eliminated. This is where -- alas -- the conspiracy theory enters the picture. Not the Podestas perhaps but possibly Clement Freud. Possibly any wealthy paedophile. Or paedophiles. After all consider life for wealthy paedophiles -- of which statistically there must be a great many. What is the point of being wealthy and having no sex life? Surely you would devote a considerable amount of your wealth to eliminating a) b) and c). Actually that pre-supposes wealthy criminal paedophiles but there must be a fair few of those knocking about the world. Blimey, I hope my moral compass would be able to cope in such circumstances.

We know from the behaviour of (non-wealthy) serial killers that individuals can achieve prodigies of organisation, planning and equipage in pursuit of violent acts that are also subject to a) b) and c) and manage to eliminate a) b) and c) with fair success, so it is reasonable to suppose that a wealthy paedophile can do the same. Looking for heart-stoppingly beautiful children in situations where observation is not suspicious (beaches) and exploiting relatively insecure situations (adults dining away) eliminates a); abducting children and keeping them for as long as they remain within the age-range eliminates (b) but (c) is more difficult. If you are merely clever and careful (qua serial killers) then anyone can do it. Which seems not to be the case or at any rate is limited to local nutters if the infrequent 'monster kept them for years in basement' stories are taken at face value.

Wealth means theoretically you can recruit others. Which is where the conspiracy theory comes in since no matter how wealthy you are you cannot escape the necessity of recruiting criminal co-conspirators. In AE terms, this implies there has to be an a priori pool of criminal conspirators for the wealthy individual to recruit. Presumably the recruitees will be a priori criminal paedophiles since normal criminals are (by repute) repelled by sexual deviancy. Even if the scruples of straight criminals (!) were overcome by money the wealthy paedophile would face a lifetime of anxiety about plea bargains, blackmail and so forth.

This is also true, if less so, with recruited paedophiles which suggests that great wealth can grant access to an a priori a priori pool which can further minimise this risk. Leading us back to politicians like the Podestas or Clement Freud, masonic policemen, Northern Irish secret services etc etc. As I am always pointing out, AE quite likes Theories of Conspiracies but not Conspiracy Theories. However, AE always relies on 'experts' to provide the raw material so don't forget to pay occasional attention to the latter.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Have you been following this Pizza Gate thing in the US? What a rabbit hole. Hard to know what to make of it.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Jump to:  
Page 4 of 5

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group