|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
Northern Ireland26739 Posts
On May 09 2025 11:56 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2025 11:21 WombaT wrote:On May 09 2025 10:54 Razyda wrote:On May 08 2025 19:47 MJG wrote:On May 08 2025 19:42 Razyda wrote:On May 08 2025 18:04 MJG wrote:On May 08 2025 00:59 Razyda wrote:On May 08 2025 00:07 WombaT wrote:On May 07 2025 23:30 Razyda wrote:On May 07 2025 22:41 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
How much would you bet on Reform winning the election? I’d give you 10:1. Given that there is still 4 years to ban them I would expect something in the high 3 digits rather than 10.  On May 07 2025 23:06 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
It’s almost like you have to make concessions to agree trade deals.
If this tips the scales for a Reform victory our nation is dumber than I’d previously thought. And that was already quite a low bar.
They appear to desire the impossible and steadfastly refuse to learn, or admit they got things wrong.
They were warned that you’d be leaving a lot of potential money on the table by leaving the EU, and that the UK wouldn’t have a queue of suitors, desperate to appease the UK in terms of subsequent trade deals. Trade deals you ideally need to compensate from leaving the UK in the first place. Thing is, it doesnt matter. People were angry at tories, voted labour, now they get angrier and angrier at labour and will vote for something else. Happens to be reform as of now. In your last 2 paragraphs you basically making my point. It was a point that could be attached to your post yes, equally you didn’t really frame it explicitly when you were making it. Could read as pro-Reform, could read as ‘this is a bad policy’, could also read as ‘this policy isn’t too bad, but it’s gonna make people angry and they’re going to vote Reform’. What is your actual position here? Pretty much this: "this policy isn’t too bad, but it’s gonna make people angry and they’re going to vote Reform’" Except I would replace "this policy isnt to bad" with "this trade deal is bad, in particular if you consider that NIC were increased this year" "The UK-India agreement is estimated to bring in a £25.5bn boost to bilateral trade and a £4.8bn annual increase in UK GDP, simplifying exports of UK goods to India and cutting taxes on Indian clothing and footwear exports." Yeah, this sounds like a terrible trade deal...  Yeah 25.5 billion is nice figure in void. To put it into perspective: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/nhs-budget-nutshell"Public funding for health services in England comes from Department of Health and Social Care’s budget. The Department’s spending in 2023/24 was £188.5 billion" 4.8bn increase in GDP sounds nice too: https://www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom/"The gross domestic product of the United Kingdom was around 2.56 trillion British pounds, an increase when compared to the previous year, when UK GDP amounted to about 2.54 trillion pounds." "Getting more is a bad deal" - Razyda, 2025. Well, well, well I guess I found mythical creature happy with 10p salary rise. Fun fact - it happened to a fried of mine, he got £1.2 salary rise. I never seen anyone so pissed. Are Reform going to get you a 1.50 salary rise? Wombat: I am Polish in the UK, I am literally the reason Brexit happened. Farage and UKiP (currently reform), are directly responsible for all the inconveniences I have now when traveling to visit family, or trying to buy something from the EU. I cant even vote in national elections So if you think I support reform you are wrong, because what I am doing is simply saying:: reform is going to win next election. As for your question: no they wont, like wtf? if they did they would be dead on arrival . My guess is they will lower somehow British citizens income taxes and rise the ones of everyone they not fancy. My another guess is it will become incredibly popular.
You’re not brown enough (I assume) for that to be the case. There was a lot of hostility each time another nation from the East was added to the EU bloc for sure, but I think that broadly dissipated.
That aside, thanks for the clarification I think I get you more now. Your point is regardless of x policy being good or bad in your opinion, you think it’s still going to fuel Reform?
Yeah I can see that myself. While economic metrics are obviiisky important, how they intersect with people’s conditions and expectations isn’t always on a 1-1 basis.
GDP will go down by leaving the EU turned out to be 100% correct, but that argument didn’t carry the day.
|
On May 09 2025 20:35 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2025 11:56 Razyda wrote:On May 09 2025 11:21 WombaT wrote:On May 09 2025 10:54 Razyda wrote:On May 08 2025 19:47 MJG wrote:On May 08 2025 19:42 Razyda wrote:On May 08 2025 18:04 MJG wrote:On May 08 2025 00:59 Razyda wrote:On May 08 2025 00:07 WombaT wrote:On May 07 2025 23:30 Razyda wrote:[quote] Given that there is still 4 years to ban them I would expect something in the high 3 digits rather than 10. [quote] Thing is, it doesnt matter. People were angry at tories, voted labour, now they get angrier and angrier at labour and will vote for something else. Happens to be reform as of now. In your last 2 paragraphs you basically making my point. It was a point that could be attached to your post yes, equally you didn’t really frame it explicitly when you were making it. Could read as pro-Reform, could read as ‘this is a bad policy’, could also read as ‘this policy isn’t too bad, but it’s gonna make people angry and they’re going to vote Reform’. What is your actual position here? Pretty much this: "this policy isn’t too bad, but it’s gonna make people angry and they’re going to vote Reform’" Except I would replace "this policy isnt to bad" with "this trade deal is bad, in particular if you consider that NIC were increased this year" "The UK-India agreement is estimated to bring in a £25.5bn boost to bilateral trade and a £4.8bn annual increase in UK GDP, simplifying exports of UK goods to India and cutting taxes on Indian clothing and footwear exports." Yeah, this sounds like a terrible trade deal... Yeah 25.5 billion is nice figure in void. To put it into perspective: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/nhs-budget-nutshell"Public funding for health services in England comes from Department of Health and Social Care’s budget. The Department’s spending in 2023/24 was £188.5 billion" 4.8bn increase in GDP sounds nice too: https://www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom/"The gross domestic product of the United Kingdom was around 2.56 trillion British pounds, an increase when compared to the previous year, when UK GDP amounted to about 2.54 trillion pounds." "Getting more is a bad deal" - Razyda, 2025. Well, well, well I guess I found mythical creature happy with 10p salary rise. Fun fact - it happened to a fried of mine, he got £1.2 salary rise. I never seen anyone so pissed. Are Reform going to get you a 1.50 salary rise? Wombat: I am Polish in the UK, I am literally the reason Brexit happened. Farage and UKiP (currently reform), are directly responsible for all the inconveniences I have now when traveling to visit family, or trying to buy something from the EU. I cant even vote in national elections So if you think I support reform you are wrong, because what I am doing is simply saying:: reform is going to win next election. As for your question: no they wont, like wtf? if they did they would be dead on arrival . My guess is they will lower somehow British citizens income taxes and rise the ones of everyone they not fancy. My another guess is it will become incredibly popular. You’re not brown enough (I assume) for that to be the case. There was a lot of hostility each time another nation from the East was added to the EU bloc for sure, but I think that broadly dissipated. That aside, thanks for the clarification I think I get you more now. Your point is regardless of x policy being good or bad in your opinion, you think it’s still going to fuel Reform? Yeah I can see that myself. While economic metrics are obviiisky important, how they intersect with people’s conditions and expectations isn’t always on a 1-1 basis. GDP will go down by leaving the EU turned out to be 100% correct, but that argument didn’t carry the day.
"That aside, thanks for the clarification I think I get you more now. Your point is regardless of x policy being good or bad in your opinion, you think it’s still going to fuel Reform?" Maybe not all of them, but definitely majority. Funnily this carry nicely to another part of your post:
"GDP will go down by leaving the EU turned out to be 100% correct, but that argument didn’t carry the day." It did carry the day... for Farage. "Brexit was great they just f...ed it up" or something along those lines, dont remember exactly.
|
Northern Ireland26739 Posts
It was the usual predictable bollocks. Rather than the predicted downsides of Brexit, that happened be parsed as the cost of doing that business, it was somehow everyone else’s fault
It’s one of the fundamental problems with this kind of populism, there’s a real dishonesty there.
Sure there’s a lot of dishonesty all throughout politics, the problem here is it sticks less, for some reason the Farages of the world are seemingly covered in Teflon.
|
Northern Ireland26739 Posts
In lighter news.
Top UK Special Forces general oversaw blocking of Afghan 'war-crime' witnesses to Britain - BBC
I’ve yet to watch the documentary mentioned in the article, but pretty disgraceful stuff if these claims are even half correct.
To just leave some of these folks who assisted or outright served alongside British or American forces etc high and dry and at the mercy of the Taliban post-withdrawal is pretty outrageous anyway.
To do so to allegedly prevent them being called as witness into alleged war crimes even more so.
|
On May 13 2025 02:09 WombaT wrote:
It was the usual predictable bollocks. Rather than the predicted downsides of Brexit, that happened be parsed as the cost of doing that business, it was somehow everyone else’s fault
It’s one of the fundamental problems with this kind of populism, there’s a real dishonesty there.
Sure there’s a lot of dishonesty all throughout politics, the problem here is it sticks less, for some reason the Farages of the world are seemingly covered in Teflon.
It is not "some reason". Reason is they are in perfect position for that. Never in power and always loud. Sort of like sport supporters: "he should have done that", "I would have done this". Sitting aside and criticizing is nice situation to be in when sh...t hits the fun.
On May 13 2025 02:14 WombaT wrote:In lighter news. Top UK Special Forces general oversaw blocking of Afghan 'war-crime' witnesses to Britain - BBCI’ve yet to watch the documentary mentioned in the article, but pretty disgraceful stuff if these claims are even half correct. To just leave some of these folks who assisted or outright served alongside British or American forces etc high and dry and at the mercy of the Taliban post-withdrawal is pretty outrageous anyway. To do so to allegedly prevent them being called as witness into alleged war crimes even more so.
War is nasty business and the idea that one country is fighting in honourable way and within some conventions and others not is rather naive. I am of opinion that attitude towards war crimes is more of "lets not get caught" than "make sure we not commit any" ( I mean government/army - not general population). To be clear - I am not saying that I agree with it, is more of "i am surprised that this is a surprise".
As for this particular war, werent there some reports about evacuating dogs, or cats rather than Afghans? Or was it US?
I seem to recall something like that.
|
Northern Ireland26739 Posts
On May 13 2025 06:44 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2025 02:09 WombaT wrote:
It was the usual predictable bollocks. Rather than the predicted downsides of Brexit, that happened be parsed as the cost of doing that business, it was somehow everyone else’s fault
It’s one of the fundamental problems with this kind of populism, there’s a real dishonesty there.
Sure there’s a lot of dishonesty all throughout politics, the problem here is it sticks less, for some reason the Farages of the world are seemingly covered in Teflon. It is not "some reason". Reason is they are in perfect position for that. Never in power and always loud. Sort of like sport supporters: "he should have done that", "I would have done this". Sitting aside and criticizing is nice situation to be in when sh...t hits the fun.
They contributed hugely to delivering Brexit, in ways a more consequential political move than what governments get done in a term.
I take your point that it’s easier to shout from the outside, the thing is, Brexit at least did get done. And Britain didn’t suddenly start soaring, untethered from the EU that was stifling its potential. Quite the opposite in fact.
I’m not even talking about Farage specifically, but that entire constituency. Their collective inability to learn is headache inducing.
It’s like your mate gets a divorce and you tell him all about yours, and the process and they still think it’s a great idea and then down the line go ‘why didn’t anybody tell me I’d lose half my stuff?’
I’ll caveat this by saying, there are people who will take a position like ‘I know we’ll take an economic hit but I think it’s worthwhile for other reasons.’ Not a position I agree with, but it’s not nearly as infuriating.
On May 13 2025 06:44 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2025 02:14 WombaT wrote:In lighter news. Top UK Special Forces general oversaw blocking of Afghan 'war-crime' witnesses to Britain - BBCI’ve yet to watch the documentary mentioned in the article, but pretty disgraceful stuff if these claims are even half correct. To just leave some of these folks who assisted or outright served alongside British or American forces etc high and dry and at the mercy of the Taliban post-withdrawal is pretty outrageous anyway. To do so to allegedly prevent them being called as witness into alleged war crimes even more so. War is nasty business and the idea that one country is fighting in honourable way and within some conventions and others not is rather naive. I am of opinion that attitude towards war crimes is more of "lets not get caught" than "make sure we not commit any" ( I mean government/army - not general population). To be clear - I am not saying that I agree with it, is more of "i am surprised that this is a surprise". As for this particular war, werent there some reports about evacuating dogs, or cats rather than Afghans? Or was it US? I seem to recall something like that.
I don’t think it’s naive, for me it’s quite conditional on all sorts of things, the nature of the mission, historic enmity, the asymmetry of power etc.
If you’re going toe to toe in a war of survival, with an opponent who’s equivalently powerful, and especially if there’s some extra layer of animosity, I think some level of war crimes become almost inevitable, although regrettable. The Eastern Front in World War 2 for example.
The UK in Afghanistan don’t really tick those boxes, it’s an ostensible nation building exercise, it’s a purely professional volunteer force that has a huge military advantage, Afghans aren’t some hated historic enemy etc.
That said I wouldn’t expect zero such incidents, the thing that I find extremely distasteful if these accusations are accurate is not that such things happened, but they’re being brushed under the carpet.
I think it particularly irks me as a Brit over here. After impassioned campaigns about prosecutions for historic crimes in the Troubles, the Tories and their acquiescence etc.
It’s a mentality I don’t understand, I’m not a hardcore patriot but I do feel some pride in that way, but some seem to take it to extremes and the thought of prosecuting soldiers were crimes offends their sensibilities somehow.
|
United States43964 Posts
Not just brushed under the carpet but the watchdog collaborating with the criminals. Coaching them on what to say during interviews etc.. The watchdog should be adversarial to the watched, they should be trying to catch as many war criminals as possible. If your watchdog has the goal of not catching anyone then it’s not a watchdog, it’s a PR team.
|
Northern Ireland26739 Posts
On May 13 2025 07:31 KwarK wrote:
Not just brushed under the carpet but the watchdog collaborating with the criminals. Coaching them on what to say during interviews etc.. The watchdog should be adversarial to the watched, they should be trying to catch as many war criminals as possible. If your watchdog has the goal of not catching anyone then it’s not a watchdog, it’s a PR team.
Indeed, well said. It’s ridiculous
|
On May 13 2025 07:31 KwarK wrote:
Not just brushed under the carpet but the watchdog collaborating with the criminals. Coaching them on what to say during interviews etc.. The watchdog should be adversarial to the watched, they should be trying to catch as many war criminals as possible. If your watchdog has the goal of not catching anyone then it’s not a watchdog, it’s a PR team.
On May 13 2025 07:42 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2025 07:31 KwarK wrote:
Not just brushed under the carpet but the watchdog collaborating with the criminals. Coaching them on what to say during interviews etc.. The watchdog should be adversarial to the watched, they should be trying to catch as many war criminals as possible. If your watchdog has the goal of not catching anyone then it’s not a watchdog, it’s a PR team. Indeed, well said. It’s ridiculous
Correct on both counts. Out of curiosity: WTF were you expecting when watchdog is getting paid by the very same entity it should watch over?
|
Northern Ireland26739 Posts
On May 13 2025 10:52 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2025 07:31 KwarK wrote:
Not just brushed under the carpet but the watchdog collaborating with the criminals. Coaching them on what to say during interviews etc.. The watchdog should be adversarial to the watched, they should be trying to catch as many war criminals as possible. If your watchdog has the goal of not catching anyone then it’s not a watchdog, it’s a PR team. Show nested quote +On May 13 2025 07:42 WombaT wrote:On May 13 2025 07:31 KwarK wrote:
Not just brushed under the carpet but the watchdog collaborating with the criminals. Coaching them on what to say during interviews etc.. The watchdog should be adversarial to the watched, they should be trying to catch as many war criminals as possible. If your watchdog has the goal of not catching anyone then it’s not a watchdog, it’s a PR team. Indeed, well said. It’s ridiculous Correct on both counts. Out of curiosity: WTF were you expecting when watchdog is getting paid by the very same entity it should watch over?
That not being the case?
Some American personnel did time after the Abu Ghraib scandal came to light, and that’s small fry versus what’s being alleged here.
As a proud Brit I think I’m allowed to be concerned if even the Americans did a better job in holding their personnel to account than we are.
|
On May 13 2025 11:18 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2025 10:52 Razyda wrote:On May 13 2025 07:31 KwarK wrote:
Not just brushed under the carpet but the watchdog collaborating with the criminals. Coaching them on what to say during interviews etc.. The watchdog should be adversarial to the watched, they should be trying to catch as many war criminals as possible. If your watchdog has the goal of not catching anyone then it’s not a watchdog, it’s a PR team. On May 13 2025 07:42 WombaT wrote:On May 13 2025 07:31 KwarK wrote:
Not just brushed under the carpet but the watchdog collaborating with the criminals. Coaching them on what to say during interviews etc.. The watchdog should be adversarial to the watched, they should be trying to catch as many war criminals as possible. If your watchdog has the goal of not catching anyone then it’s not a watchdog, it’s a PR team. Indeed, well said. It’s ridiculous Correct on both counts. Out of curiosity: WTF were you expecting when watchdog is getting paid by the very same entity it should watch over? That not being the case? Some American personnel did time after the Abu Ghraib scandal came to light, and that’s small fry versus what’s being alleged here. As a proud Brit I think I’m allowed to be concerned if even the Americans did a better job in holding their personnel to account than we are.
See I think thats naive part coming out.
"Some American personnel did time after the Abu Ghraib scandal came to light" and you think it is in any way indicative? You do realise that for California fires pretty much no one was held accountable? Yes they fired the person leading fire fighters squad. Do you really think she was the only one responsible?
Do you really think that people who were actually guilty faced any consequences? Quite frankly I think you are to smart to believe that.
|
Northern Ireland26739 Posts
On May 13 2025 11:43 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2025 11:18 WombaT wrote:On May 13 2025 10:52 Razyda wrote:On May 13 2025 07:31 KwarK wrote:
Not just brushed under the carpet but the watchdog collaborating with the criminals. Coaching them on what to say during interviews etc.. The watchdog should be adversarial to the watched, they should be trying to catch as many war criminals as possible. If your watchdog has the goal of not catching anyone then it’s not a watchdog, it’s a PR team. On May 13 2025 07:42 WombaT wrote:On May 13 2025 07:31 KwarK wrote:
Not just brushed under the carpet but the watchdog collaborating with the criminals. Coaching them on what to say during interviews etc.. The watchdog should be adversarial to the watched, they should be trying to catch as many war criminals as possible. If your watchdog has the goal of not catching anyone then it’s not a watchdog, it’s a PR team. Indeed, well said. It’s ridiculous Correct on both counts. Out of curiosity: WTF were you expecting when watchdog is getting paid by the very same entity it should watch over? That not being the case? Some American personnel did time after the Abu Ghraib scandal came to light, and that’s small fry versus what’s being alleged here. As a proud Brit I think I’m allowed to be concerned if even the Americans did a better job in holding their personnel to account than we are. See I think thats naive part coming out. "Some American personnel did time after the Abu Ghraib scandal came to light" and you think it is in any way indicative? You do realise that for California fires pretty much no one was held accountable? Yes they fired the person leading fire fighters squad. Do you really think she was the only one responsible? Do you really think that people who were actually guilty faced any consequences? Quite frankly I think you are to smart to believe that.
I think there’s some middle ground between some naive belief that justice is always done, and that it can’t be done in part.
Or, in a more cynical sense, unless one is implicated yourself, throw some patsies to the wolves and it can enhance your reputation.
If I’m a commanding officer, or a more senior commander and those under me are going rogue, maybe I’m morally outraged, maybe I’m ambivalent but I want to make a point of distancing myself out of self-interest. Or if it’s a more pervasive problem all the way up to the upper echelons of the military, the government can apply some squeeze. As the new government aren’t burdened with being the ones at the helm at the time, they can score some political points alongside trying to get the wheels of justice to turn.
Alternatively there comes a point where attempts to obfuscate and not hold to account become more reputationally damaging than the acts themselves. Extreme example but I’d dare say way more people are aware of the Armenian Genocide through Turkey denying it happened to this day than know any of the details.
I mentioned the Troubles and the stalling of various inquiries, and a seeming moratorium for further investigations into state collusion for a reason. A lot of those involved in that apparatus are either long dead, or long departed from various corridors of power. So those in situ today aren’t tainted by their own complicity.
My position is broadly I don’t expect people to stick their head above the parapet if it’s against their interest to do so. But if that’s not the case, why not?
|
Asmongold just discovered Tommy Robinson.
An absolute ocean of bullshit is about hit the internet because of it.
That guy really needs to go take a year off or something.
|
Missed it at the time, but UK really is going full dystopian:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/08/uk-creating-prediction-tool-to-identify-people-most-likely-to-kill
"The UK government is developing a “murder prediction” programme which it hopes can use personal data of those known to the authorities to identify the people most likely to become killers.
Researchers are alleged to be using algorithms to analyse the information of thousands of people, including victims of crime, as they try to identify those at greatest risk of committing serious violent offences.
The scheme was originally called the “homicide prediction project”, but its name has been changed to “sharing data to improve risk assessment”. The Ministry of Justice hopes the project will help boost public safety but campaigners have called it “chilling and dystopian”."
I think I made a post on this forum some time ago about how governments tend to give most mundane names to most creepy stuff.
|
On May 16 2025 21:49 Razyda wrote:Missed it at the time, but UK really is going full dystopian: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/08/uk-creating-prediction-tool-to-identify-people-most-likely-to-kill"The UK government is developing a “murder prediction” programme which it hopes can use personal data of those known to the authorities to identify the people most likely to become killers. Researchers are alleged to be using algorithms to analyse the information of thousands of people, including victims of crime, as they try to identify those at greatest risk of committing serious violent offences. The scheme was originally called the “homicide prediction project”, but its name has been changed to “sharing data to improve risk assessment”. The Ministry of Justice hopes the project will help boost public safety but campaigners have called it “chilling and dystopian”." I think I made a post on this forum some time ago about how governments tend to give most mundane names to most creepy stuff.
Yeah this is absolutely crazy.
The thing with the UK is we don't have any politicians who give a single shit about civil liberties.
So each government takes more civil liberties away and no-one ever rescinds any of the legislation. The more money we take away from the police, the more excuses Parliament have to give the remaining cops more powers.
Its been going on for decades.
If Americans only knew some of the lesser known laws in our country they would go totally mental about it.
Here's an example:
The RIPA act was an act to catch police powers up to technology. They were finding problems with people refusing to unlock their phones so the cops couldn't look at anyone's phone.
They simply made that a criminal offence, for which you can get 5 YEARS in jail.
|
United States43964 Posts
Murder prediction isn’t that complicated surely. Take a pattern with a few domestic violence callouts, battery, stalking, some time in prison, release, and a violation of a restraining order. He’s killing her. Everyone with the full fact pattern can see that. You have to wait for him to do something illegal but you know it’s going to happen.
A program that puts together the various records the different departments have and tells you which ones match the pattern of previous murders is a good idea. You wouldn’t sentence people for precrime off of it but you would treat police calls from the victim a little more urgently.
Tech can analyze large amounts of data and find patterns that aren’t as obvious as the example I used. Those patterns have predictive value. Predictive data can be used for crime prevention. And all of that can be done without encroaching upon civil liberties.
|
On May 16 2025 22:46 KwarK wrote:
Murder prediction isn’t that complicated surely. Take a pattern with a few domestic violence callouts, battery, stalking, some time in prison, release, and a violation of a restraining order. He’s killing her. Everyone with the full fact pattern can see that. You have to wait for him to do something illegal but you know it’s going to happen.
A program that puts together the various records the different departments have and tells you which ones match the pattern of previous murders is a good idea. You wouldn’t sentence people for precrime off of it but you would treat police calls from the victim a little more urgently.
Tech can analyze large amounts of data and find patterns that aren’t as obvious as the example I used. Those patterns have predictive value. Predictive data can be used for crime prevention. And all of that can be done without encroaching upon civil liberties.
Of course the other angle to look at this from is that our police can barely put a computer system in place that tells officers in the field whether they are going somewhere dangerous or not (at least in Manchester), so a system like this is... ambitious.
|
Northern Ireland26739 Posts
On May 16 2025 21:36 Jockmcplop wrote:
Asmongold just discovered Tommy Robinson.
An absolute ocean of bullshit is about hit the internet because of it.
That guy really needs to go take a year off or something.
I don’t understand why folks listen to the guy on certain subjects.
He does have a certain narrow expertise, I may still disagree but there are subjects he is pretty knowledgeable on.
UK politics though? Come on.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume he’s going with the surface level, Tommy Robinson is a political martyr line and not like, what actually happened. If not, well apologies to Mr Asmongold.
|
Northern Ireland26739 Posts
On May 16 2025 22:46 KwarK wrote:
Murder prediction isn’t that complicated surely. Take a pattern with a few domestic violence callouts, battery, stalking, some time in prison, release, and a violation of a restraining order. He’s killing her. Everyone with the full fact pattern can see that. You have to wait for him to do something illegal but you know it’s going to happen.
A program that puts together the various records the different departments have and tells you which ones match the pattern of previous murders is a good idea. You wouldn’t sentence people for precrime off of it but you would treat police calls from the victim a little more urgently.
Tech can analyze large amounts of data and find patterns that aren’t as obvious as the example I used. Those patterns have predictive value. Predictive data can be used for crime prevention. And all of that can be done without encroaching upon civil liberties.
This seems a completely reasonable use case to me.
|
On May 17 2025 01:01 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2025 21:36 Jockmcplop wrote:
Asmongold just discovered Tommy Robinson.
An absolute ocean of bullshit is about hit the internet because of it.
That guy really needs to go take a year off or something. I don’t understand why folks listen to the guy on certain subjects. He does have a certain narrow expertise, I may still disagree but there are subjects he is pretty knowledgeable on. UK politics though? Come on. I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume he’s going with the surface level, Tommy Robinson is a political martyr line and not like, what actually happened. If not, well apologies to Mr Asmongold.
That's precisely what happened.
Of course, being in the UK we've had a couple of decades of seeing the true side of the horrible twat.
Watching a 15 minute propaganda video isn't even going to begin to touch the actual issues around him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
