91Èȱ¬

Year report

Labour Govt have brought the uk to its knees 3/10

Labour plans for future

1/10.

The Archbishop stooshie would have been a good story. Might have got some indepth questioning of "what are we doing and where are we going"

To hell in a hybrid?

Celtic Lion

POLITICAL INSIDERS AND MONEY NERDS.

Should you not be talking to OUTsiders - philosophers, polymaths and such - who might have seen 'more of the game'?

The experts did not see this coming, don't know what is happening and have little idea what to do.

The usual suspects are not going to hack it.

I believe Muslims refer to as characteristic of . The USSR just called it decadence (even the Chinese government tries to censor it).

There's not much difference between Jahiliyya and decadence really - see Henry Makow on . Some of his stuff is more than a little far fetched, but surely there can be little doubt that our culture has radically changed? Has any of it been for the better given our low TFR?

Modern, made-over 'Trots' can be found here....really!

barrie (#3) My thoughts exactly. I sincerely mean no disrespect to the gangofthree, but they strike me as merely a bunch of inane gossip-mongers who really have nothing interesting/substantive to say at all.

YOU WIN NEWSNIGHT - I HAD TO SWITCH OFF. (Timed at 10.55 pm)

Flashing red and blue lights all over an enquiry into British policing (the same policing currently in the news for 'achieving' two wrongful convictions) were a Turner Prize too far.
You are an utter disgrace to broadcasting.

5. jj ...have nothing interesting/substantive to say at all...

which is why they are representative of the westminster political class?

barrie (#6) Newsnight has lowered its standard to that of 'The People' and 'News of The World' (presumably to capture more 'market share'?). Some of the subjects it now covers are just sensationalist - emotive issues. They are unrepresentative of what matters. Is that because there is not enough time? Coverage seems to be largely restricted to daily events.

bookhimdano (#7) Cynically, maybe. But does this make it good journalism/broadcasting? I don't get the impression that the production team is striving to let them hoist themselves by their own petards. Do you?

John Sweeney has done a marvellous thing in getting the wrongly-convicted woman freed. He deserves a medal.

Why will the police not apologise? Are there grounds for a case against the police?

I think the lady deserves compensation after all she has been through.

Tarique Ghaffur - seems like a nice man. He seems nicer and more thoughtful than Ian Blair.

Panel of Economists - this panel is getting a bit boring. I think it's time to get some new faces on board.

The great thing about this blog is that we actually get to finish a sentence without being shouted down.

It's a shame that Newsnight does not allow the same latitude to those it chooses to interview. Is it controversial to suggest that viewers might actually like to hear the views of the interviewees?

Tradition at least allows the condemned to utter a few last words before facing the fussilade; perhaps there is a lesson here for this modern manifestation of the public execution. Or is the programme really more concerned with promoting the celebrity of the executioner?

Here's a heads up: In the mid/late 80s, Offender Profiling began in the UK 91Èȱ¬ Office, Maximum Security Prison Service. It was austere, but it was hard-nosed actuarial work which in the late 90s led to a buzz-term: 'evidence based practice'.

In the meantime, Private Sector opportunists sold 'clinical' profiling snake oil to the public for personal and commercial gain. Those in Public Service couldn't say anything.

The problem isn't technology, it's the crippling/decadent politics of 'liberal-democracy'.

#8 JJ

"barrie (#6) Newsnight has lowered its standard to that of 'The People' and 'News of The World' (presumably to capture more 'market share'?). Some of the subjects it now covers are just sensationalist - emotive issues. They are unrepresentative of what matters. Is that because there is not enough time?"

We do not always agree! On this point we agree 100%.

The 91Èȱ¬ often falls to the level of the worst tabloids.

You ask

"Is that because there is not enough time?"

Cannot be an excuse. News 24 is sometimes appalling. No one can argue 24 is not enough, unless they say the job is impossible.

(to be fair, much of it is very good; I expect our national broadcaster to be very good, with few exceptions. There are too many exceptions. Some of the reporters/presenters are just plain "inadequate")

From what has been written, it seems I chose a good night to go to the pub!

Barrie:
The evidently wrongful murder conviction and imprisonment of Suzanne Holdsworth! the Sweeny report exposing a slap-dash police investigation and subsequent retrial with a not guilty verdict! ...i thought it was very newsworthy. Newsnight isn't always going to be about political machinations exposed or the changing demographic of an English town - all good stuff mind you - but on occasions, your going to get stories like the Holdsworth case. And why switch off Barrie? was the story too sentimental, too tabloid? view it from another angle...some police forces are manned by shameless idiots and the crass shortcomings by the Cleveland police fully exposed by the Sweeny reports was just as valid for airing on Newsnight as any report exposing the duplicitous and incompetent Blair/ Brown Govt.

THE CREDIT ASSIGNMENT PROBLEM

thecookieducker (#14) What was interesting in this case was that some professionals who had something very important to contribute to the case were not, apparently, credited until the media highlighted their concerns to those who matter. One could say that this is good journalism, but there have been and there always will be miscarriages of justice, just as there are always going to be 'baby P' cases. How many stories like this have they not run with because they didn't pan out?

The excessive dwelling on people's emotions and other melodramatic theatrics which have become so characteristic of Newsnight of late is not good journalism. It's cheap entertainment.

SPEEDING TICKET? (#14)

Hi Cookieducker. Is one of us going to fast?
I thought that my words: "Flashing red and blue lights all over an enquiry . . . . . were a Turner Prize too far." amounted to my key point; with the comment on police, supporting it.

So - 'for the avoidance of doubt' - perhaps I should explain that I have been slowly coming to the boil over Newsnight's embellishment of visual stuff (often spurious in its own right - even unembellished) such that the artistically blurred red and blue interjections, crudely applied to such a distressing subject, became a Ross/Brand moment for me.

Perhaps I am too sensitive? What went through your mind when the coloured lights were flashing; PARTICULARLY when someone, clearly, found them 'so good', they repeated the exercise?

PS On a technical note - what was the connotation of the red? By my memory: flashing red is not deployed by police, let alone blue/red. Such a shame we never hear from the actual mind that conceives such innovations. I would LOVE to understand . . .

SOMETHING NOT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

Let's not lose sight of the work that has been done regarding physical attractiveness of the accused, and tendency of 'standard person' (police, juror or judge) to think good or ill accordingly.

Has anyone profiled 'standard policeman' or standard 'profiler' for that matter? In my 71 years, I have formed the view that law is about tidiness - not justice. Justice is very hard work, and not pleasing to the senses in many cases.

I freely admit to being standard person (shall we call it prejudiced?). If I am scared witless by a pretty female driver, my behaviour is TOTALLY at odds with the same event but a scruffy bloke at the wheel.
(And if he is large - different again.)

Hurrah for British Justice. Mind how you go.

NATURAL LANGUAGE: JUST A MODUS A MODUS VIVENDI

13thMan (#13) "From what has been written, it seems I chose a good night to go to the pub!"

Indeed. It became a bit like in places. Maybe they are taking dysgenesis on board?

As a further contribution to the point made in #12 and why thinking/propositional attitudes and their trappings is second rate/over-rated, see [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

Links: I'm not sure why the links were not included (as they are from the author's faculty at teh University of Minnesota), but if anyone is interested, simply Google "Grove statistical versus clinical prediction".

I googled and I got this:

human experts are at least no better than simple statistical models.

clinicians do seem to do as well as statistical methods

where does that get us?

doctormisswest (#20) Where it should get us is an appreciation that when professionals train, and practice, they're not relying on anything personal, intuitive, or 'psychological', but tacitly upon what they've learned from other people's collective empirical research. It's an austere lesson in humility - that personal opinion doesn't matter, as a computers can be programmed to do what even the best trained humans can do, and certainly better than most of the untrained.

Capice?

But we know that isn't true. When professionals practice the first thing in their mind is their elevated status, salary and pension rights - and the best way to protect them. That's personal, intuitive and psychological isn't it?

doctormisswest (#22) "When professionals practice the first thing in their mind is their elevated status, salary and pension rights - and the best way to protect them."

Bah...humbug.

That sounds rather unprofessional to me.

LOL you may not like the truth but there it nevertheless is. Professionalism is a social construction to, not only provide expertise but also, maintain an economically stratified society. Of course what I say is 'unprofessional', that is the whole point of the professional code - those who speak against the professional code are exiled as 'unprofessional'; fait accompli, socio-economic status quo maintained.

doctormisswest (#24) Once again, you do not appear to know how the terms are being used. This matter refers to the nature of 'professional judgement'. It is contrasted with inuitive or non-professional judgement. It is sometimes referred to as actuarial vs clinical decision-making. The key question is 'what is professional judgement'? That is what one should focus upon when reading the referenced papers. In recent times this has expanded into what's called 'evidence-driven' or 'evidence-based' practice. This should more draw attention to a) empirical measurement/biometrics and b) algorithmic decision rules based on those measures.

Hopefully, over coming years this will progressively put snake-oil pedlars out of business whilst improving applied behaviour-management just as it has elsewhere in science/medicine.