ianr

But if you don't know events are unrelated, you're not justified in calling them random, says a statistical hard-liner. I don't rule out there being more than one group of muggers, but my money would certainly be on there being some commonality, given the geographical, temporal, and maybe methodological similarities. I also think it would be useful to act as if there may be some more events of the same type. Taking note of perceived patterns is at the heart of good science and problem solving anyway. Some people's perceptions and inferences may be better than others, but don't throw the baby out with the dirty bath water. If you reactively adopt a random-until-definitively-proved-otherwise approach, you may take longer to reach useful outcomes than you might otherwise have done.

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I think is this.....we are looking at a > random cluster. It is absolutely inevitable that, > from time to time, a number of incidents will > occur within a short period of eachother simply > through random distribution. It does NOT mean > there is a pattern developing. You believe that each of the recently reported muggings is a random event wholly unrelated to any of the others? :) I'm not, BTW, interested in getting involved in any trend argument. On that, at least, I agree that any inferences from a few weeks' data would be premature and probably unjustified.

Try out 'latex wound prosthesis' on your favourite search engine.

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ahh yes anna good point, or they have may have > kicked in the wrong door in which case there would > be no criminal in there (suspected or not). That's not really true as an inference, is it? There could be a criminal (suspected or not) behind any wrong door.

I suppose there's a small chance that the person was associated with the shop, had title to the stuff, and preferred keeping it somewhere safe and dry overnight. Or not. In either case, asking them might have helped.

Pinhead's UK distributor's page is at http://www.2pure.co.uk/Pinhead-Components/Bike-Security. I'm glad to see that they, unlike Pinhead, don't describe the keys as 'unique'. How long till electronically locked components, I wonder. Sounds slightly ridiculous now, I know, but ...

Vince Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just did a search of the electoral roll. There are > 206 registered Gillian Watsons in the country. 9 > live in London. None lives in SE22. The nearest > one is Streatham. Of course none of these are > necessarily THE Gillian Watson. You've probably searched a commercial, edited, version; or if a full one, then it dates from pre-2002.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have you tried looking in the phone book for > example to see if any Watsons live in SE22?? http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/residential/search.publisha?Surname=watson&Location=se22&s_cid=BT.com-DQ-Residential&x=29&y=6&Page=1

meccadave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 10 points if you see one of the vans. > > 100 points if you see one in use, with customers. > > 1000 points if you see one getting painted. > 10,000 if you get knocked down by one.

Just checked with Southwark on (020) 7525 2000 menu 5. They are aware of it. I asked whether they'd heard via Community Fix, but was just told that they were notified by member(s) of the public.

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ianr Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Wot, no sub judice rule? > > I think I know what that means, I'll ask Admin to > edit the comment including yours. Edited to just what I'd have suggested. :) My comment, btw, was triggered by the initial quotation rather than by your quoting it. Although I assume police sometimes apply different standards in private communications with journalists, I was a bit disappointed and surprised that the e-mail wasn't more circumspect. There are libel considerations as well, of course.

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > this is what they had to say: > > " ... This attack was a targeted and isolated incident and two people have since > "been charged and await court." Wot, no sub judice rule?

Lizziedjango Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The CDC (Centres for disease control and > Prevention) reported in January that influenza A > (as opposed to influenza B, which isn’t as severe > as the A strain) wasn’t responding to Tamiflu, but > the most recent news is that Flu A is about 100% > resistant to the drug. I've seen their reports of the resistance of A (H1N1) to oseltamivir (Tamiflu) (eg http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2008-2009/weekly04.htm) . But their guidance as of 4 May, in which they call the current virus "novel influenza A (H1N1)", states: "The novel influenza (H1N1) virus is susceptible to both oseltamivir and zanamivir. It is resistant to amantadine and rimantadine." http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/identifyingpatients.htm and is still (5 May) upholding their 29 April Interim Guidance recommending "either oseltamivir or zanamivir." http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/recommendations.htm . So where's your "most recent news" from? > > The Japanese health ministry has now forbidden > Tamiflu's Japanese brand being given to people > aged between 10 and 19 due to serious side > effects, these are serious neurological and > psychological effects that are not being shown to > the patients, there is also a very high incidence > rate of people committing suicide who have been > administered this drug. I've had a look through the Tamiflu section of the DrugLib.com site. http://www.druglib.com/druginfo/tamiflu/ What's absolutely remarkable about the adverse reports section is that the reports (and all but ? two or three of the (attempted) suicide ones) are almost entirely from Japan in 2007. I don't doubt them, but I'd be very wary of making an over-general inference from them. That said, on balance I think I'd certainly opt for zanamivir (Relenza) if I had to make a choice; but that's based solely on the resistance figures re non-novel H1N1, and not on any data on the current infection.

Scylla100 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was a CCTV camera on but who knows if the > thieves were caught on camera or what. I asked if > the coffee shop could check their cameras to see > if the bag snatching had been caught on film but > nothing ever came of it, never heard back so I > guess that's a "no." I doubt they'd see it as their job to go through the recording for you. But is there no way it can be examined, either by yourself in their presence (don't you have a DPA right to a copy of images of (possibly just) yourself held by them?) or by the police? Are the police aware that there's possibly a recording? If they are, and know the time of the incident, it seems to me it could be a highly profitable use of their time to obtain it and check. I think I'd be very disgruntled if they didn't.

Only me! Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Swarm of Bees Terrify Shoppers" The SLP's use of the plural verb is interesting. I wonder if they want each bee to face up to its own individual responsibility.

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Kelly's Directory for 1914-1915 confirms that > the Dulwich Cinema was at 121 Lordship Lane. But feeding that address into Google then takes you to http://www.darkscreens.co.uk/azlist.asp, where they have the Palace Electric Theatre at that address, and nothing on the Cino other than the above photograph. Have you checked many Kellys? I might have a look at some more if I go to the London Metropolitan Archive.

There was a St George appeared before Camberwell Magistrates Court this morning. He'd apparently turned up at the Dragon Castle[1] brandishing a sword and demanding to know where the damsel was. He was given an ASBO. [1] EDF passim

BigPhil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > who the hell looks at the floor when shopping , > there aint nothing down there!!! Sheep droppings.

It surely can't apply to Freepersons of ED exercising their right to drive their sheep through the store?

piglet Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My card was cloned in somerfield in west norwood > twice. I emailed Somerfield and was surprised when > they emailed back to say they are aware of card > cloning taking place in the west norwood store and > are currently liaising with the police. That's amazing. Given their letter, per mark_bowen, at http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,148092,page=13, I'm now wondering if there's any branch where this alleged service isn't available. Or maybe it's just a select team that moves from branch to branch? How, btw, do you know it was cloned twice?

There's also an on-line route into their procedures at http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/product1?catId=400144&mediaId=3100065.

Claire E Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hindsight is a wonderful thing.. next time I'll > invite them in to my hallway, say "hold this a > sec" give them something like a mug, and then > quickly take their pic on my phone while they're > distracted! That'll be after you've asked them to kindly write their name and address for you on a signed receipt for the loan. ;)

I'll be interested to hear what happens. I'm a bit doubtful it'll get as far as a charge though. Ideally, it would be nice to have audio, written, and even video evidence, with a confirmatory fingerprint or two on a big clean pen or piece of paper.

jaybee82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A computer geek mate of mine has his IP address > tattooed on his arm. What a sad act. I hope someone told him it was 127.0.0.1.

lilolil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks.....but its only got one blue tyre now, the > back one. They stole the front wheel last > week........ If it's the same people, they could have put it back on again.