Discussion:
Freddie
Add Reply
krw
2018-10-01 08:28:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have just listened to last week. The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far more
severe than originally intended.

So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.

Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?

And changing the subject I am starting to wonder when the great reveal
of Shula and DDD will be made? Presumably they have been seeing a lot
of each other off moike?
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Vicky Ayech
2018-10-01 08:35:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
I have just listened to last week. The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far more
severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
I think she thought if the police found out Freddie was dealing more
than once it would be worse in future and also thought confessing
might help them and mitigate his sentence. It could still lead to
tracking down the chain of dealers. I didn't think we heard anything
to show the statement made changed the sentence.
Post by krw
And changing the subject I am starting to wonder when the great reveal
of Shula and DDD will be made? Presumably they have been seeing a lot
of each other off moike?
DDD?
krw
2018-10-01 08:44:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vicky Ayech
Post by krw
I have just listened to last week. The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far more
severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
I think she thought if the police found out Freddie was dealing more
than once it would be worse in future and also thought confessing
might help them and mitigate his sentence. It could still lead to
tracking down the chain of dealers. I didn't think we heard anything
to show the statement made changed the sentence.
The judge made particular comment that she found a posh kid doing it for
kicks to be highly reprehensible (or words to that effect). If they had
stuck to the one off story she could not have said that. So his
"confession" has made it worse.
Post by Vicky Ayech
Post by krw
And changing the subject I am starting to wonder when the great reveal
of Shula and DDD will be made? Presumably they have been seeing a lot
of each other off moike?
DDD?
Deadly Doc Dick.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Peter Withey
2018-10-01 09:21:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Vicky Ayech
Post by krw
I have just listened to last week. The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far more
severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
I think she thought if the police found out Freddie was dealing more
than once it would be worse in future and also thought confessing
might help them and mitigate his sentence. It could still lead to
tracking down the chain of dealers. I didn't think we heard anything
to show the statement made changed the sentence.
The judge made particular comment that she found a posh kid doing it for
kicks to be highly reprehensible (or words to that effect). If they had
stuck to the one off story she could not have said that. So his
"confession" has made it worse.
I tend to follow Vicky's line of thought, I'm not legal expert but I
have the idea from somewhere, maybe TV, maybe not, that it is better
to have all offences taken into account when sentence is passed than
admitting only one and being sentenced for that one only.

If he hadn't followed Lizzie's advise, when Ellis is caught, with or
without Freddie's help, and the truth about his history of dealing
comes out surely he would be in far worse trouble and get a far longer
sentence when hauled back into court..
Post by krw
Post by Vicky Ayech
Post by krw
And changing the subject I am starting to wonder when the great reveal
of Shula and DDD will be made? Presumably they have been seeing a lot
of each other off moike?
DDD?
Deadly Doc Dick.
--
Pete
krw
2018-10-01 09:30:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Withey
If he hadn't followed Lizzie's advise, when Ellis is caught, with or
without Freddie's help, and the truth about his history of dealing
comes out surely he would be in far worse trouble and get a far longer
sentence when hauled back into court..
The police would have lacked evidence to charge Freddie with a new
offence so would take no action until the next time he was in front of
the beak.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Peter Withey
2018-10-01 10:28:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Peter Withey
If he hadn't followed Lizzie's advise, when Ellis is caught, with or
without Freddie's help, and the truth about his history of dealing
comes out surely he would be in far worse trouble and get a far longer
sentence when hauled back into court..
The police would have lacked evidence to charge Freddie with a new
offence so would take no action until the next time he was in front of
the beak.
When I said "his history" I did mean Freddie's history.

As for "lack of evidence" I'm sure if Ellis even suspects his arrest,
and I'm making the assumption he will be in the near future, we've
already heard that he has been called back into the Police station
since Freddie made his new statement, is down to Freddie he will be
only to eager to provide any evidence he has of Freddie's involvement.

Agreed, if Ellis hasn't any hard evidence and it all depends on one
person's word against another, then no,I wouldn't expect the
police/cps to bring extra charges.
--
Pete
krw
2018-10-01 11:54:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Withey
Agreed, if Ellis hasn't any hard evidence
I really don't think a drug dealer keeps records. They would all be so
easy to convict if they did.

Al Capone went down for paying the wrong taxes - so there were no
records of his illegal activities were there?
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Peter Withey
2018-10-02 08:14:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Peter Withey
Agreed, if Ellis hasn't any hard evidence
I really don't think a drug dealer keeps records. They would all be so
easy to convict if they did.
I did say "if" but I've really no idea whether drug dealers keep
records or not, I've never knowingly spoken to one. I just assumed
that somewhere up the chain somebody keeps a record of who has had
what, who owes what, I can't believe it is all done by word of mouth
and kept inside somebody's head and not on a computer.somewhere.
Post by krw
Al Capone went down for paying the wrong taxes - so there were no
records of his illegal activities were there?
Obviously there was - how did they get him for tax evasion if there
were no records? Or don't you class that as illegal activity.?
--
Pete
Fenny
2018-10-02 17:34:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Withey
Post by krw
Post by Peter Withey
Agreed, if Ellis hasn't any hard evidence
I really don't think a drug dealer keeps records. They would all be so
easy to convict if they did.
I did say "if" but I've really no idea whether drug dealers keep
records or not, I've never knowingly spoken to one. I just assumed
that somewhere up the chain somebody keeps a record of who has had
what, who owes what, I can't believe it is all done by word of mouth
and kept inside somebody's head and not on a computer.somewhere.
Everything I know about drug gangs I learned from Lord Peter Wimsey!
Post by Peter Withey
Post by krw
Al Capone went down for paying the wrong taxes - so there were no
records of his illegal activities were there?
Obviously there was - how did they get him for tax evasion if there
were no records? Or don't you class that as illegal activity.?
He had legitimate businesses, but didn't pay the correct taxes on
those, AIUI.
--
Fenny
the Omrud
2018-10-03 13:34:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fenny
Everything I know about drug gangs I learned from Lord Peter Wimsey!
We were listening to a Paul Temple on the way down to SW France. He and
his mate the Commissioner of Police (who hangs about at the Temples'
flat far too much (I think he fancies Steve)) thwarted a single drug
gang, consisting of two gang members who imported drugs hidden inside
small dolls brought back by middle-class travellers to Paris. And in
this way, they brought about the end of the drug problem in London.
Simples.
--
David
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-10-03 13:44:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by Fenny
Everything I know about drug gangs I learned from Lord Peter Wimsey!
We were listening to a Paul Temple on the way down to SW France. He
and his mate the Commissioner of Police (who hangs about at the
Temples' flat far too much (I think he fancies Steve)) thwarted a
single drug gang, consisting of two gang members who imported drugs
hidden inside small dolls brought back by middle-class travellers to
Paris. And in this way, they brought about the end of the drug problem
in London. Simples.
(Oh, were they meerkat dolls?) I fear the drug industry is much nastier
than it was in the stories of Paul Temple, Lord Peter Wimsey, et al. -
in fact one guesses it was even then (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it jams - force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
the Omrud
2018-10-03 13:50:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Fenny
Everything I know about drug gangs I learned from Lord Peter Wimsey!
We were listening to a Paul Temple on the way down to SW France.  He
and his mate the Commissioner of Police (who hangs about at the
Temples' flat far too much (I think he fancies Steve)) thwarted a
single drug gang, consisting of two gang members who imported drugs
hidden inside small dolls brought back by middle-class travellers to
Paris.  And in this way, they brought about the end of the drug
problem in London. Simples.
(Oh, were they meerkat dolls?) I fear the drug industry is much nastier
than it was in the stories of Paul Temple, Lord Peter Wimsey, et al. -
Grin. No, they were Dutch dolls.
--
David
krw
2018-10-03 14:47:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Fenny
Everything I know about drug gangs I learned from Lord Peter Wimsey!
We were listening to a Paul Temple on the way down to SW France.  He
and his mate the Commissioner of Police (who hangs about at the
Temples' flat far too much (I think he fancies Steve)) thwarted a
single drug gang, consisting of two gang members who imported drugs
hidden inside small dolls brought back by middle-class travellers to
Paris.  And in this way, they brought about the end of the drug
problem in London. Simples.
(Oh, were they meerkat dolls?) I fear the drug industry is much
nastier than it was in the stories of Paul Temple, Lord Peter Wimsey,
Grin.  No, they were Dutch dolls.
Using Dutch caps?
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
the Omrud
2018-10-03 15:09:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Fenny
Everything I know about drug gangs I learned from Lord Peter Wimsey!
We were listening to a Paul Temple on the way down to SW France.  He
and his mate the Commissioner of Police (who hangs about at the
Temples' flat far too much (I think he fancies Steve)) thwarted a
single drug gang, consisting of two gang members who imported drugs
hidden inside small dolls brought back by middle-class travellers to
Paris.  And in this way, they brought about the end of the drug
problem in London. Simples.
(Oh, were they meerkat dolls?) I fear the drug industry is much
nastier than it was in the stories of Paul Temple, Lord Peter Wimsey,
Grin.  No, they were Dutch dolls.
Using Dutch caps?
You mean Steve and the Commissioner?
--
David
Btms
2018-10-11 07:25:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by Fenny
Everything I know about drug gangs I learned from Lord Peter Wimsey!
We were listening to a Paul Temple on the way down to SW France. He and
his mate the Commissioner of Police (who hangs about at the Temples'
flat far too much (I think he fancies Steve)) thwarted a single drug
gang, consisting of two gang members who imported drugs hidden inside
small dolls brought back by middle-class travellers to Paris. And in
this way, they brought about the end of the drug problem in London.
Simples.
Wow them were the days. 🤓
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Marmaduke Jinks
2018-10-01 09:35:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Withey
Post by krw
Post by Vicky Ayech
Post by krw
I have just listened to last week. The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far more
severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
I think she thought if the police found out Freddie was dealing more
than once it would be worse in future and also thought confessing
might help them and mitigate his sentence. It could still lead to
tracking down the chain of dealers. I didn't think we heard anything
to show the statement made changed the sentence.
The judge made particular comment that she found a posh kid doing it for
kicks to be highly reprehensible (or words to that effect). If they had
stuck to the one off story she could not have said that. So his
"confession" has made it worse.
I tend to follow Vicky's line of thought, I'm not legal expert but I
have the idea from somewhere, maybe TV, maybe not, that it is better
to have all offences taken into account when sentence is passed than
admitting only one and being sentenced for that one only.
If he hadn't followed Lizzie's advise, when Ellis is caught, with or
without Freddie's help, and the truth about his history of dealing
comes out surely he would be in far worse trouble and get a far longer
sentence when hauled back into court..
Post by krw
Post by Vicky Ayech
Post by krw
And changing the subject I am starting to wonder when the great reveal
of Shula and DDD will be made? Presumably they have been seeing a lot
of each other off moike?
DDD?
Deadly Doc Dick.
--
Pete
I formed the impression that she found that, as someone coming from a
wealthy family, he wasn't motivated by the money he could make. She believed
this was worse. If her sentencing guidelines say she can take this into
account, then it stands. But if she has misdirected herself then there may
be grounds for appeal.

MJ
Jim Easterbrook
2018-10-01 09:47:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Marmaduke Jinks
I formed the impression that she found that, as someone coming from a
wealthy family, he wasn't motivated by the money he could make. She
believed this was worse. If her sentencing guidelines say she can take
this into account, then it stands. But if she has misdirected herself
then there may be grounds for appeal.
My "legal advice" suggests no grounds for appeal.
http://barristerblogger.com/2018/10/01/freddie-pargetter-got-off-lightly-he-has-no-reasonable-prospects-of-appealing-his-12-month-sentence/
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
krw
2018-10-01 12:10:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Marmaduke Jinks
I formed the impression that she found that, as someone coming from a
wealthy family, he wasn't motivated by the money he could make. She
believed this was worse. If her sentencing guidelines say she can take
this into account, then it stands. But if she has misdirected herself
then there may be grounds for appeal.
My "legal advice" suggests no grounds for appeal.
http://barristerblogger.com/2018/10/01/freddie-pargetter-got-off-lightly-he-has-no-reasonable-prospects-of-appealing-his-12-month-sentence/
I believe the writer is wrong to categorise this as Category 3 - it
should be Category 4. Also the motivation was not financial gain - it
was avoiding a beating at the hands of Ellis and his friends. So the
judge's remarks are misleading.

I still think Freddie would have been better not to admit to significant
dealing as per his original plan as it would not have received such a
heavy sentence.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Nick Odell
2018-10-01 17:31:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Marmaduke Jinks
I formed the impression that she found that, as someone coming from a
wealthy family, he wasn't motivated by the money he could make. She
believed this was worse.  If her sentencing guidelines say she can take
this into account, then it stands.  But if she has misdirected herself
then there may be grounds for appeal.
My "legal advice" suggests no grounds for appeal.
http://barristerblogger.com/2018/10/01/freddie-pargetter-got-off-lightly-he-has-no-reasonable-prospects-of-appealing-his-12-month-sentence/
I believe the writer is wrong to categorise this as Category 3 - it
should be Category 4.  Also the motivation was not financial gain - it
was avoiding a beating at the hands of Ellis and his friends.  So the
judge's remarks are misleading.
I still think Freddie would have been better not to admit to significant
dealing as per his original plan as it would not have received such a
heavy sentence.
I tend to feel that a punishment ought to fit the crime[1] rather than
only that portion of the crime the defence barrister hasn't wriggled the
accused out of so I've no complaints about the harshness of the sentence.

Armchair Judge Hang 'em & Flogem Odell

[1]There's a new earworm for you, Sid. No charge!
Btms
2018-10-06 22:08:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
Post by krw
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Marmaduke Jinks
I formed the impression that she found that, as someone coming from a
wealthy family, he wasn't motivated by the money he could make. She
believed this was worse.  If her sentencing guidelines say she can take
this into account, then it stands.  But if she has misdirected herself
then there may be grounds for appeal.
My "legal advice" suggests no grounds for appeal.
http://barristerblogger.com/2018/10/01/freddie-pargetter-got-off-lightly-he-has-no-reasonable-prospects-of-appealing-his-12-month-sentence/
I believe the writer is wrong to categorise this as Category 3 - it
should be Category 4.  Also the motivation was not financial gain - it
was avoiding a beating at the hands of Ellis and his friends.  So the
judge's remarks are misleading.
I still think Freddie would have been better not to admit to significant
dealing as per his original plan as it would not have received such a
heavy sentence.
I tend to feel that a punishment ought to fit the crime[1] rather than
only that portion of the crime the defence barrister hasn't wriggled the
accused out of so I've no complaints about the harshness of the sentence.
Armchair Judge Hang 'em & Flogem Odell
[1]There's a new earworm for you, Sid. No charge!
Sentencing guidelines nmay include costs I guess. Dunno
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Btms
2018-10-11 07:25:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Marmaduke Jinks
I formed the impression that she found that, as someone coming from a
wealthy family, he wasn't motivated by the money he could make. She
believed this was worse. If her sentencing guidelines say she can take
this into account, then it stands. But if she has misdirected herself
then there may be grounds for appeal.
My "legal advice" suggests no grounds for appeal.
http://barristerblogger.com/2018/10/01/freddie-pargetter-got-off-lightly-he-has-no-reasonable-prospects-of-appealing-his-12-month-sentence/
I believe the writer is wrong to categorise this as Category 3 - it
should be Category 4. Also the motivation was not financial gain - it
was avoiding a beating at the hands of Ellis and his friends. So the
judge's remarks are misleading.
I still think Freddie would have been better not to admit to significant
dealing as per his original plan as it would not have received such a
heavy sentence.
Surely this was researched
But but does not mean they are righ. Their research is often flaky ime. And
never wrong allegedly. But We often challenge from position of superior
professional knowledge from listeners
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
DavidK
2018-10-11 08:38:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Btms
Surely this was researched
But but does not mean they are righ. Their research is often flaky ime. And
never wrong allegedly. But We often challenge from position of superior
professional knowledge from listeners
I'm sure you're right; there will be an expert in most fields amongst
the Archers' listeners but there will also be 99 more victims of the
Dunning Kruger effect so the expert will be hard to pick out. Anyrat
want to know about the stable homotopy groups of spheres?
Mike
2018-10-11 08:45:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DavidK
Post by Btms
Surely this was researched
But but does not mean they are righ. Their research is often flaky ime. And
never wrong allegedly. But We often challenge from position of superior
professional knowledge from listeners
I'm sure you're right; there will be an expert in most fields amongst
the Archers' listeners but there will also be 99 more victims of the
Dunning Kruger effect so the expert will be hard to pick out. Anyrat
want to know about the stable homotopy groups of spheres?
Do you mind? I’m eating my breakfast! Such filthy talk on a family
newsgroup as well!
--
Toodle Pip
Jim Easterbrook
2018-10-11 08:49:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DavidK
Surely this was researched But but does not mean they are righ. Their
research is often flaky ime. And never wrong allegedly. But We often
challenge from position of superior professional knowledge from
listeners
I'm sure you're right; there will be an expert in most fields amongst
the Archers' listeners but there will also be 99 more victims of the
Dunning Kruger effect so the expert will be hard to pick out. Anyrat
want to know about the stable homotopy groups of spheres?
Being expert in something helps one avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect in
other fields because you've discovered how little you really know about
your expert subject. The people who most often demonstrate the D-K effect
are those who've never become expert in anything.

Had you noticed that Daniel Kawczynski's initials are DK?
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
Nick Odell
2018-10-11 09:01:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by DavidK
Surely this was researched But but does not mean they are righ. Their
research is often flaky ime. And never wrong allegedly. But We often
challenge from position of superior professional knowledge from
listeners
I'm sure you're right; there will be an expert in most fields amongst
the Archers' listeners but there will also be 99 more victims of the
Dunning Kruger effect so the expert will be hard to pick out. Anyrat
want to know about the stable homotopy groups of spheres?
Being expert in something helps one avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect in
other fields because you've discovered how little you really know about
your expert subject. The people who most often demonstrate the D-K effect
are those who've never become expert in anything.
Had you noticed that Daniel Kawczynski's initials are DK?
In the interest of political balance I may mention that Jeremy Corbyn's
initials are JC but he's not the messiah, just a very naughty boy.

Nick
Mike
2018-10-11 13:28:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by DavidK
Surely this was researched But but does not mean they are righ. Their
research is often flaky ime. And never wrong allegedly. But We often
challenge from position of superior professional knowledge from
listeners
I'm sure you're right; there will be an expert in most fields amongst
the Archers' listeners but there will also be 99 more victims of the
Dunning Kruger effect so the expert will be hard to pick out. Anyrat
want to know about the stable homotopy groups of spheres?
Being expert in something helps one avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect in
other fields because you've discovered how little you really know about
your expert subject. The people who most often demonstrate the D-K effect
are those who've never become expert in anything.
Had you noticed that Daniel Kawczynski's initials are DK?
In the interest of political balance I may mention that Jeremy Corbyn's
initials are JC but he's not the messiah, just a very naughty boy.
Nick
Be careful what you ask of Boris J.....
--
Toodle Pip
steveski
2018-10-11 13:01:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 08:49:34 +0000, Jim Easterbrook wrote:

[]
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Had you noticed that Daniel Kawczynski's initials are DK?
Directoire Knickers?
--
Steveski
Penny
2018-10-11 13:54:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 11 Oct 2018 08:49:34 GMT, Jim Easterbrook <***@jim-easterbrook.me.uk>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by DavidK
Surely this was researched But but does not mean they are righ. Their
research is often flaky ime. And never wrong allegedly. But We often
challenge from position of superior professional knowledge from
listeners
I'm sure you're right; there will be an expert in most fields amongst
the Archers' listeners but there will also be 99 more victims of the
Dunning Kruger effect so the expert will be hard to pick out. Anyrat
want to know about the stable homotopy groups of spheres?
Being expert in something helps one avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect in
other fields because you've discovered how little you really know about
your expert subject. The people who most often demonstrate the D-K effect
are those who've never become expert in anything.
Had you noticed that Daniel Kawczynski's initials are DK?
Had you noticed the initials of the person you replied to?
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Jim Easterbrook
2018-10-11 14:08:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by DavidK
Surely this was researched But but does not mean they are righ. Their
research is often flaky ime. And never wrong allegedly. But We often
challenge from position of superior professional knowledge from
listeners
I'm sure you're right; there will be an expert in most fields amongst
the Archers' listeners but there will also be 99 more victims of the
Dunning Kruger effect so the expert will be hard to pick out. Anyrat
want to know about the stable homotopy groups of spheres?
Being expert in something helps one avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect in
other fields because you've discovered how little you really know about
your expert subject. The people who most often demonstrate the D-K
effect are those who've never become expert in anything.
Had you noticed that Daniel Kawczynski's initials are DK?
Had you noticed the initials of the person you replied to?
No.
<Looks embarrassed>
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
DavidK
2018-10-11 15:33:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by DavidK
Surely this was researched But but does not mean they are righ. Their
research is often flaky ime. And never wrong allegedly. But We often
challenge from position of superior professional knowledge from
listeners
I'm sure you're right; there will be an expert in most fields amongst
the Archers' listeners but there will also be 99 more victims of the
Dunning Kruger effect so the expert will be hard to pick out. Anyrat
want to know about the stable homotopy groups of spheres?
Being expert in something helps one avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect in
other fields because you've discovered how little you really know about
your expert subject. The people who most often demonstrate the D-K
effect are those who've never become expert in anything.
Had you noticed that Daniel Kawczynski's initials are DK?
Had you noticed the initials of the person you replied to?
No.
<Looks embarrassed>
<grin>
DavidK
2018-10-11 15:32:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Being expert in something helps one avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect in
other fields because you've discovered how little you really know about
your expert subject.
It's a reasonable hypothesis; do you have evidence for it?

I only know of one person who is at the idiot-thinks-he-is-expert end of
the scale via the internet but I worked with someone at the other end.
We had to put down our fields of knowledge at work and our proficiency
at each. This guy wanted to put average and we had to work very hard to
get him to put expert, even though he clearly satisfied the guideline
that this means people come to him for advice on the subject.
Jim Easterbrook
2018-10-11 15:39:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DavidK
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Being expert in something helps one avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect in
other fields because you've discovered how little you really know about
your expert subject.
It's a reasonable hypothesis; do you have evidence for it?
No, just anecdotal. Personal experience is that the more I learn about
anything the more there is still to learn.
Post by DavidK
I only know of one person who is at the idiot-thinks-he-is-expert end of
the scale via the internet but I worked with someone at the other end.
We had to put down our fields of knowledge at work and our proficiency
at each. This guy wanted to put average and we had to work very hard to
get him to put expert, even though he clearly satisfied the guideline
that this means people come to him for advice on the subject.
Well, we've all had enough of experts. I've learnt to trust the person
who tentatively answers a question without much apparent confidence over
the person who is quick to answer and with total confidence. It seems
many people have yet to make this discovery.
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
LFS
2018-10-11 16:54:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DavidK
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Being expert in something helps one avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect in
other fields because you've discovered how little you really know about
your expert subject.
It's a reasonable hypothesis; do you have evidence for it?
I only know of one person who is at the idiot-thinks-he-is-expert end of
the scale via the internet but I worked with someone at the other end.
We had to put down our fields of knowledge at work and our proficiency
at each. This guy wanted to put average and we had to work very hard to
get him to put expert, even though he clearly satisfied the guideline
that this means people come to him for advice on the subject.
IME, in both academic and professional circles, the more expert a person
is, the more diffident he/she is about claiming expertise. This applies
to both men and women and I don't think it has anything to do with
imposter syndrome.

I think Jim is exactly right: the more expert you become, the more you
become aware of how much you don't (and possibly can't) know. The
unknown unknowns are out there, waiting.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
the Omrud
2018-10-12 17:39:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LFS
Post by DavidK
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Being expert in something helps one avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect in
other fields because you've discovered how little you really know about
your expert subject.
It's a reasonable hypothesis; do you have evidence for it?
I only know of one person who is at the idiot-thinks-he-is-expert end
of the scale via the internet but I worked with someone at the other
end. We had to put down our fields of knowledge at work and our
proficiency at each. This guy wanted to put average and we had to work
very hard to get him to put expert, even though he clearly satisfied
the guideline that this means people come to him for advice on the
subject.
IME, in both academic and professional circles, the more expert a person
is, the more diffident he/she is about claiming expertise. This applies
to both men and women and I don't think it has anything to do with
imposter syndrome.
I think Jim is exactly right: the more expert you become, the more you
become aware of how much you don't (and possibly can't) know. The
unknown unknowns are out there, waiting.
Every year, members of the School Governors Finance Committee (of which
I am the Chair) must grade themselves in about 20 areas of knowledge and
experience, to establish whether the committee is missing any required
skills. We're perfectly competent to oversee the school finances - we
got an Outstanding grade from OFSTED (the governors; although the school
did as well).

Because of this process we feel obliged to grade ourselves as Expert in
various areas. If we did not, we might be expected to go out and
recruit new governors to add to the committee, so that the "deficiency"
can be cured.

We don't like doing this. We're all English, after all.
--
David
Serena Blanchflower
2018-10-01 11:35:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Withey
Post by krw
Post by Vicky Ayech
Post by krw
I have just listened to last week. The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far more
severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
I think she thought if the police found out Freddie was dealing more
than once it would be worse in future and also thought confessing
might help them and mitigate his sentence. It could still lead to
tracking down the chain of dealers. I didn't think we heard anything
to show the statement made changed the sentence.
The judge made particular comment that she found a posh kid doing it for
kicks to be highly reprehensible (or words to that effect). If they had
stuck to the one off story she could not have said that. So his
"confession" has made it worse.
I tend to follow Vicky's line of thought, I'm not legal expert but I
have the idea from somewhere, maybe TV, maybe not, that it is better
to have all offences taken into account when sentence is passed than
admitting only one and being sentenced for that one only.
If he hadn't followed Lizzie's advise, when Ellis is caught, with or
without Freddie's help, and the truth about his history of dealing
comes out surely he would be in far worse trouble and get a far longer
sentence when hauled back into court..
That's my understanding, as well. It's also worth remembering that, in
persuading Freddie to fess up to the whole story, Lizzie wasn't acting
on a whim but on the strong advice from Freddie's solicitor.
--
Best wishes, Serena
If you are going through hell, keep going. (Winston Churchill)
BrritSki
2018-10-01 09:54:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
DDD?
Deadly Doc Dick.
As opposed to Deadly Dick Doc of Clapham, VD69 1AM
Flop
2018-10-01 09:56:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have just listened to last week.  The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far more
severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
More relevantly, how did Usha get it wrong?

The police/CPS do not like prosecuting cases that they may lose. It does
not help their statistics.

And for a secondary charge when they have a confession for the primary
charge, there is the danger that the primary charge becomes compromised.
[Especially in jury cases].

Is 'asking for other offences to be taken into consideration' still a
valid defence procedure?
--
Flop

I find it ironic that the colours red, white, and blue stand for freedom
until they are flashing behind you
Tony Bryer
2018-10-02 08:54:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Flop
Is 'asking for other offences to be taken into consideration' still
a valid defence procedure?
I wondered that, then decided that he didn't want to do this as it
would have made his dobbing in of Ellis public, whilst giving the
confession to the judge had the same effect (though Ellis presumably
put two and two together)
--
Tony B, OzRat, Melbourne
Sally Thompson
2018-10-01 10:33:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
I have just listened to last week. The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far more
severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
According to those with appropriate knowledge on Facebook, this was a
lenient sentence at the lower end of the scale.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Chris McMillan
2018-10-01 17:36:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
I have just listened to last week. The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far more
severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
And changing the subject I am starting to wonder when the great reveal
of Shula and DDD will be made? Presumably they have been seeing a lot
of each other off moike?
Good point about DDD. What was the last we heard of him?

Sincerely Chris
the Omrud
2018-10-03 13:52:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have just listened to last week.  The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far more
severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
We're a bit off grid so I might have missed it, but has nobody even
noticed that Freddie will inherit a massive estate, house and business,
presumably when he's 21 or 25?
--
David
krw
2018-10-03 14:48:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
I have just listened to last week.  The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far
more severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
We're a bit off grid so I might have missed it, but has nobody even
noticed that Freddie will inherit a massive estate, house and business,
presumably when he's 21 or 25?
25 I believe. Lily mentioned it to Russ recently but not when it was
going to happen.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Chris McMillan
2018-10-04 08:49:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by the Omrud
I have just listened to last week.  The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far
more severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
We're a bit off grid so I might have missed it, but has nobody even
noticed that Freddie will inherit a massive estate, house and business,
presumably when he's 21 or 25?
25 I believe. Lily mentioned it to Russ recently but not when it was
going to happen.
comments by the judge though not spelt out.

Sincerely Chris
steveski
2018-10-03 15:17:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
I have just listened to last week.  The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far
more severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
We're a bit off grid so I might have missed it, but has nobody even
noticed that Freddie will inherit a massive estate, house and business,
presumably when he's 21 or 25?
Half of, shirley?
--
Steveski
krw
2018-10-03 15:26:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by steveski
Post by the Omrud
I have just listened to last week.  The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far
more severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
We're a bit off grid so I might have missed it, but has nobody even
noticed that Freddie will inherit a massive estate, house and business,
presumably when he's 21 or 25?
Half of, shirley?
Entailed. 100%.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Serena Blanchflower
2018-10-03 15:29:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by steveski
Post by the Omrud
I have just listened to last week.  The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far
more severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
We're a bit off grid so I might have missed it, but has nobody even
noticed that Freddie will inherit a massive estate, house and business,
presumably when he's 21 or 25?
Half of, shirley?
No, whole of.

I can't remember whether Lily will get anything from her father's will
at that stage, or whether she will have to wait for her mother to die
before she inherits anything.
--
Best wishes, Serena
If you are going through hell, keep going. (Winston Churchill)
the Omrud
2018-10-03 16:40:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by steveski
Post by the Omrud
I have just listened to last week.  The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far
more severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
We're a bit off grid so I might have missed it, but has nobody even
noticed that Freddie will inherit a massive estate, house and business,
presumably when he's 21 or 25?
Half of, shirley?
Nope. Th old-fashioned Nigel passed the lot down the male line. I
think Lilly got a painting so she would be able to snare a useless poet
when she turned 18.
--
David
Mike
2018-10-03 17:26:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by steveski
Post by the Omrud
I have just listened to last week.  The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far
more severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
We're a bit off grid so I might have missed it, but has nobody even
noticed that Freddie will inherit a massive estate, house and business,
presumably when he's 21 or 25?
Half of, shirley?
Nope. Th old-fashioned Nigel passed the lot down the male line. I
think Lilly got a painting so she would be able to snare a useless poet
when she turned 18.
I think he imagines he is a nartist of great potential and would not dream
of sponging off Lily, on no, not at all.
--
Toodle Pip
krw
2018-10-03 21:24:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Th old-fashioned Nigel passed the lot down the male line.  I think Lilly
got a painting so she would be able to snare a useless poet when she
turned 18.
I doubt that Nigel had a say in the matter. I think the entail goes
back an awfully long way.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
the Omrud
2018-10-04 13:08:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Th old-fashioned Nigel passed the lot down the male line.  I think
Lilly got a painting so she would be able to snare a useless poet when
she turned 18.
I doubt that Nigel had a say in the matter.  I think the entail goes
back an awfully long way.
I didn't think it was an Entail (are they even legal any more?) I
thought it was a standard trust under which Lizzy runs the estate for
the benefit of the trust and then hands the lot over to the useless
Freddie at 25 (or whatever).
--
David
krw
2018-10-04 13:23:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Th old-fashioned Nigel passed the lot down the male line.  I think
Lilly got a painting so she would be able to snare a useless poet
when she turned 18.
I doubt that Nigel had a say in the matter.  I think the entail goes
back an awfully long way.
I didn't think it was an Entail (are they even legal any more?)  I
thought it was a standard trust under which Lizzy runs the estate for
the benefit of the trust and then hands the lot over to the useless
Freddie at 25 (or whatever).
As I recall Nigel inherited the entire estate when his father died (I am
not sure we ever heard Gerald Pargetter). I felt that it was entailed
at that time as Camilla did not inherit a share.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Serena Blanchflower
2018-10-04 14:06:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
Th old-fashioned Nigel passed the lot down the male line.  I think
Lilly got a painting so she would be able to snare a useless poet
when she turned 18.
I doubt that Nigel had a say in the matter.  I think the entail goes
back an awfully long way.
I didn't think it was an Entail (are they even legal any more?)  I
thought it was a standard trust under which Lizzy runs the estate for
the benefit of the trust and then hands the lot over to the useless
Freddie at 25 (or whatever).
As I recall Nigel inherited the entire estate when his father died (I am
not sure we ever heard Gerald Pargetter).  I felt that it was entailed
at that time as Camilla did not inherit a share.
My memory is that there had been an entail in the past and I have a
feeling that that was how Nigel inherited it. Entails don't exist, in
law now[1], but Nigel chose to leave the entire estate, in trust, to
Freddie anyway.


[1] Googling suggests that it came to an end in 1997
<https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/entail>
--
Best wishes, Serena
If you are going through hell, keep going. (Winston Churchill)
Sally Thompson
2018-10-03 21:57:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by steveski
Post by the Omrud
I have just listened to last week.  The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far
more severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
We're a bit off grid so I might have missed it, but has nobody even
noticed that Freddie will inherit a massive estate, house and business,
presumably when he's 21 or 25?
Half of, shirley?
Nope. Th old-fashioned Nigel passed the lot down the male line. I
think Lilly got a painting so she would be able to snare a useless poet
when she turned 18.
That was a separate gift; Freddy got (I think) a ring at the same time, for
his future bride.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Btms
2018-10-13 11:39:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by the Omrud
Post by steveski
Post by the Omrud
I have just listened to last week.  The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far
more severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
We're a bit off grid so I might have missed it, but has nobody even
noticed that Freddie will inherit a massive estate, house and business,
presumably when he's 21 or 25?
Half of, shirley?
Nope. Th old-fashioned Nigel passed the lot down the male line. I
think Lilly got a painting so she would be able to snare a useless poet
when she turned 18.
That was a separate gift; Freddy got (I think) a ring at the same time, for
his future bride.
Ok the worth of that cannot be guaranteed
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Btms
2018-10-13 11:39:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by steveski
Post by the Omrud
I have just listened to last week.  The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far
more severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
We're a bit off grid so I might have missed it, but has nobody even
noticed that Freddie will inherit a massive estate, house and business,
presumably when he's 21 or 25?
Half of, shirley?
We have flagged this up a few times.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Btms
2018-10-13 11:39:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
I have just listened to last week.  The judge was clearly motivated by
Freddie's late confession into upping his sentence to something far more
severe than originally intended.
So Lizzie has managed to alienate her daughter by calling a spade a
spade and has got Freddie locked up for far longer than would have
happened if he had stuck to the original one-off story as a result of
Lizzie wanting him to be cleaner than clean.
Why and how has the sensible mistress of LL managed to get it all so wrong?
We're a bit off grid so I might have missed it, but has nobody even
noticed that Freddie will inherit a massive estate, house and business,
presumably when he's 21 or 25?
He is likely to inherit massive debt s as we’ll. running ll as it is leave
s me sure it is under capital sed. And now has no license either. ,
according to media the eating out fashion is slowing down too.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Loading...