| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
 |
|
In both operations (Operation Edzell and Operation Century) The police without forensic evidence, tried to get a confession by the use of undercover officers. (there is nothing wrong with this tactic when properly done)
On both occasions these operations drew no results, however, rather than concluding the individuals were likley not guilty, on both occasions the individuals still ended up being prosecuted.
This points to confirmation bias.
In the Channel 4 Doc, the lead officer stressed that he had identified the probably motive for the killings, a argument over drugs, and the nickname Micky the Pilot almost from the start, he immediately sought Steeles file.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | That makes two of you! Great wodges of Wiki without comment from you has made my head reel quite off.
Apologies its getting difficult to sift this. |
Impossible, if I'm any judge. But if you pre-sift it, as it were, we can all pile in and help.
| The operation produced no arrests or evidence leading to a criminal prosecution. A prosecution that was eventually brought in connection with the Rettendon murders, was wholly based on police operations subsequent to the abandonment and closure of Operation Century. |
This makes them sound wholly distinct, so I don't understand who is making the Essex/ Ulster connection, or why.
| Operation Century, should have been telling the Police that Steele was likely innocent. He was being put under extreme pressure to confess...... |
If you can explain this it would be a start. Why is he 'likely innocent' (and about what) and why is he being put under extreme pressure, by whom and about what?
| The tactics deployed by Essex and Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch while Operation Century was under way, increasingly led to police voicing serious threats against the suspects in question |
OK, but that's just a general whinge, not a link.
| Steele must have thought he was under threat from the IRA or from a IRA splinter group. |
Why would he think that?
Which operation? It is difficult to keep in one's head these Operations because their names bear no relation to what they are about. Perhaps you might refer to the various cases by names that are.
| was carefully timed to coincide with the 1996 Docklands bombing of Canary Wharf on the evening of 9 February, which marked the ending of the previous mainland Republican bombing campaign ceasefire. |
This is the bit that had me particularly baffled. Who is carefully timing what to something that came as a bolt from the blue, officially.
| This must be incorrect..... the police surely did not know that the IRA were going to launch a mainland campaign. |
Exactly so. Except I can't tell what must be correct.
| In both operations (Operation Edzell and Operation Century) The police without forensic evidence, tried to get a confession by the use of undercover officers. (there is nothing wrong with this tactic when properly done) |
Perhaps we could leave the Wimbledon Common murder out of it for fear of undue complexity. If it's important, undercover policing has been getting grief for many, many years. We could leave it at that.
| On both occasions these operations drew no results, however, rather than concluding the individuals were likley not guilty, on both occasions the individuals still ended up being prosecuted. This points to confirmation bias. |
Another general criticism of police methods. Can't we take it as read?
| In the Channel 4 Doc, the lead officer stressed that he had identified the probably motive for the killings, a argument over drugs, and the nickname Micky the Pilot almost from the start, he immediately sought Steeles file. |
This would be explained (or, as it were, be unexplained) by the use of a timeline. It doesn't otherwise seem either unusual or suspicious since any police intelligence computer would produce the name 'Steele' if the words Micky, pilot, and drugs were fed in.
PS The Netflix doc airs on Monday.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Consider your--and increasingly everyone's--consumption of (1) network television (2) cable TV (3) streaming services and (4) YouTube. For myself--and according to statistics, for everyone--the first three are constantly dwindling relative to the fourth, which is on the up and up. I sort of discovered why yesterday.
I sat threw an eight-minute YouTube featuring an amateurish and slightly dorkish young couple attempting to recreate a journey from Basingstoke to Norwich on the grounds that a defunct railway company, Greater Anglia, offered this service in the early two thousands and they wanted to compare times, then and now. It turned out to be three and three-quarter hours then, five hours and ten minutes now.
I did not greatly enjoy it though I was perfectly content to watch it. The most you could say about the fruits of their labour was that they would never appear, nor will ever appear, on (1), (2) or (3). Yet here I was, preferring (4) to any of them. More than a thousand other people had done likewise, I noticed, in the seven days it had been up.
So there you have it. Despite the billions of pounds spent on commercial, professional, carefully calculated appeals to our well-known proclivities, thousands of us preferred this beguiling dross. At least for eight minutes, we did.
Times a million. Because of course that's the key. Once you allow the whole world to broadcast whatever they like, without gatekeeping of any kind, they will quickly learn to cater for every niche taste there is out there. (1), (2) and (3) don't have enough money to compete with that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I noticed someone in a police procedural I am listening to as an audiobook on YouTube say, over his car radio, 'Oscar Kilo' to mean OK. I had not known of the connection before.
I can't wait to use this round the table at an appropriate moment during my upcoming family holiday. The trick is to to do it deadpan with full sincerity, giving the impression it would be a social solecism to use the abbreviated form. Let me know if your family falls for it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
One of Wileys favs is "Whats Going On With Shipping" its just Dr. Salvatore R. Mercogliano talking about shipping and naval history.
Sal holds a merchant marine deck officer license (unlimited tonnage 2nd mate), and a master’s in maritime history and nautical archaeology, and a Ph.D. in military and naval history from the University of Alabama.
Sal is Wileys go to guy on the Strait of Hormuz, Tariffs, what happened in 1942.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5Mux-OCrCE
"Holy crap, the attack on the freedom of the seas is in full force"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Are you noticing that while the participants have clearly gone to a great deal of time and trouble making the programme, they persist with easily-corrected shortcomings that drive you quietly mad? I'm talking about things like
* not using an autocue unrolling on the camera itself, making them look shifty
* wrong pace of delivery, either too rapid or too languorous
* constant lurches between mateyness and seriousness
* treating technical glitches as if they were somehow a sign of authenticity
* attempts at humor, something nerds should never do
* hard to read maps -- or lack of maps
* tables not properly laid out -- or lack of tables
I could go on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I watched the YouTube, Wiley. While it did stray into the above from time to time, it was pretty good. I have subscribed. I noted the dude seemed unaware of Harper's Law of Tolling Economics but since that applies to everyone else, your good self not excepted, I'm giving him a pass on that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
The presentation really doesnt bother Wiley, sometimes you have to give to get.
Folks that are interested (and sucessful) in logistics will be nerdy, puzzle solvers. That is a given.
You have to recognise that they dont have presentation skills, its simply not their skill set. They bring something else to the team.
Wiley views this both as enjoyable challenge, as well as fucking annoying.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Netflix wrote: | Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation
The Starship Troopers are back to battle the giant insects. This time, however, the Troopers must battle a human threat as well. More Info... |
I quite enjoyed the first one. I was on the edge of my seat not knowing who would prevail. But the Law of Sequels means I won't be bothering with this one. Especially as the Law of More Sequels dictates which side will win. Unless, they're planning a prequel because...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
A weakness of the new YouTube media landscape was exposed today. I hunted around the sports channels looking to see if anyone was showing the Arsenal vs Borussia friendly. Not a huge event but better, I would have thought, than a fourth repeat of the second day of the third day of England v New Zealand.
You surely don't charge TV companies for friendlies. They should be paying you. But nothing. Not a sausage. Anywhere. Not even a later repeat or highlights. I was resigned to listening to the Goonerverse telling me all about it. Until there it was.
| Arsenal versus Borussia Dortmund. Live and in full. |
On YouTube. It was only by a miracle I spotted it. I'm watching it now. Paused. And that's the weakness. It's one thing for a hundred flowers to bloom, it's another thing telling people they're blooming. You can't show YouTubes programmes in the listings for the very reason of its success: there are too many to list.
That's something someone will have to attend to before the new day can fully dawn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| The presentation really doesnt bother Wiley, sometimes you have to give to get. |
We are all subject to presentation. We don't have any control over whether it bothers us or not.
| Folks that are interested (and sucessful) in logistics will be nerdy, puzzle solvers. That is a given. |
Of course. But why do so many of them ignore the puzzle of how best to communicate their puzzle-solving to others?
| You have to recognise that they dont have presentation skills, its simply not their skill set. They bring something else to the team. |
It is unlikely they will have a 'programme-maker' in their team. They may well have technical bods of all kinds -- there are even more technical nerds out there than puzzle-solving nerds -- but the probability of a ready-made programme professional is very low.
| Wiley views this both as enjoyable challenge, as well as fucking annoying. |
What I am complaining about is that even though the viewer is going to cut them every slack in the world, they are duty bound to learn the basics of not annoying the viewer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Your man fell from grace big time today, Wiley. Nevertheless, fascinating material. I was specially struck by
(1) The presence of considerable amounts of piracy around the Horn of Africa when a gigantic US task force happens to be stooging around just over the horizon
(2) The Americans now have a 'dark fleet' of oil tankers to rival the Russian one.
(3) They appear to have adopted something along the lines of my suggestion, made several months ago, that the US operates tankers with naval types while going through the Strait and hands the ships back to their civilian crews once clear of danger.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Of course. But why do so many of them ignore the puzzle of how best to communicate their puzzle-solving to others? |
They are not "person" people.
I accept you have good communication, researching and analytic skills, because presumably you have worked at it.
In my experience this is quite rare, most good problem solvers, are not good communicators, they are often individualists, often more interested in things than people.
Just saying........the real buzz, for them, is solving the problem, not explaining, how they solved it, or the thinking behind it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | Of course. But why do so many of them ignore the puzzle of how best to communicate their puzzle-solving to others?
They are not "person" people. |
They're still people. You know, equipped with basic skills.
| I accept you have good communication, researching and analytic skills, because presumably you have worked at it. |
Don't bring me into it. I have far less success than they do.
| In my experience this is quite rare |
In my experience, people work out what they have to do, to do what they want to do, because they are sentient beings. When it comes to communicating, they are equipped with the basic skills inherent in any social animal.
| most good problem solvers, are not good communicators |
You're just guessing. People who are good at one thing are, generally speaking, good at other things.
| they are often individualists, often more interested in things than people. |
Well, yes, this is the nail that needs hitting. They appear to put 99% of their efforts into the 'things' and 1% into the 'people' but they give every sign that they desire more people to watch the things.
| Just saying........the real buzz, for them, is solving the problem, not explaining, how they solved it, or the thinking behind it. |
This is quite right, and we know it from our own experience. So you are saying, to sum up, that the buzz interferes with the buzz-feed. That's very AE.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
