Showing posts with label Elicitation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elicitation. Show all posts

Monday, 21 January 2019

WPC : Yaz and The Rize of The British Policewoman


"Grown-ups really shouldn't need to call The Internet Police to sort it out for them."

Les Miserables isn't about The Policeman.




Jamie :
So, you’re sort of like a  — 
World Secret Police..?

Brig. Lethbridge-Stewart :
Well, no, we don’t actually arrest people — we just investigate.



[Call centre / Tardis] 

POLLY: 
UK Security Helpline. 
This is Polly. How can I help?

Our Lady : 
I'm sorry, what? 

POLLY: 
UK Security Helpline. 
How can I help?

Our Lady : 
Get me Kate Stewart at UNIT. 
This is a code zero emergency.

POLLY :
I don't know what that is, I'm afraid. 
Which organisation did you say?

Our Lady : 
UNIT. Unified Intelligence Taskforce. 
This is incredibly urgent. 
The fate of the entire planet is at stake.

POLLY: 
Checking for you. 
Oh, I'm so sorry. 

UNIT operations have been suspended pending review. 

Our Lady : 
What? No, it can't have been. 

UNIT is a fundamentally vital protection for planet Earth against alien invasion.

POLLY: 
Yes, but when did that last happen?

Our Lady : 
Now! Right now!
What happened to it?

POLLY: 
Just checking. 

All UNIT operations were put on hold following financial disputes and subsequent funding withdrawal by the UK's major international partners.


Our Lady : 
You're kidding. 

POLLY: 
Other Armed Forces are available if you can answer a couple of questions to help me best direct your call.

(The Doctor ends the call.)

Our Lady : 
We're on our own. 



The Austro-Hungarian Empire was the ideal model of a Police State.

It copied (and perfected) the French model refined during the Revolutionary, Napoleonic and post-Napoleonic eras.

It was said of the Hapsburg Empire of Prince Metternich, it was maintained by —

A Standing Army of Soldiers

A Sitting Army of Bureaucrats

A Kneeling Army of Priests 

and 

A Creeping Army of Informants




This is why I am so interested by the timeliness of the new BBC adaptation of Les Miserables 



And, by Bane knitting —




The Colourful Jester : 
It is a far, far better thing that I do than I have ever done. 
It is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known...
 
(Mel comes running in

MEL: 
Never mind the Sydney Carton heroics!
You're not signing on as a martyr yet. 

The Colourful Jester :
Go away, Mel. Go away. 

MEL: 
That trial was an illusion...!

(The tumbril vanishes and the Doctor falls onto the cobblestones.)
 

The Colourful Jester :
Ow! You've ruined everything!






Run, You Brilliant Girl —

and

BE A DOCTOR



A young Police Constable approaches two squabbling women. Her attitude to policing seems to channel Sgt Cawood from Happy Valley.

SONIA: 
She smashed it with a hammer!

JANEY: 
Cos you keyed me nearside door!

SONIA: 
Because you parked in my spot!

JANEY: 
It's not your spot. 
There are no spots.

YAZ: 
Ladies, please! 
Thank you. 

Can I suggest a simple solution? 

 “ Never Ask for Permission, It’s a Complete Waste of Time. ” 
— Tony Benn 

You pay for her cracked window,
 you pay for her scratched door, 
and we all agree that parking round here is a nightmare —

But that grown-ups really shouldn't need to call The Police to sort it out for them. 

Now, if we're all agreed on that, 
there's no need for me to take any further Police Action and we can all get on with our lives. 

What do you reckon?

[Police car / Police station]

YASMIN: 
I'm just saying,  
I am capable of more 
 than parking disputes.

RAMESH: 
And I keep telling you, 
Don't run before you can walk. 

You're a probationer, Yaz. 
Learn The Basics.

From Who? (See What I Did There..?)  
— She was sent out to attend the parking incident solo, so she already  knows “The Basics of Routine Community-Policing”, well enoughto do it unsupervised, without additional officers or back-up, whilst sleep-walking underwater, and with the lights off for the entire street, as well as the next 3 streets on either side. 

She Doesn’t Need Supervision
And They Know That.
Because She’s unpartnered — and out there on her own.

YAZ : 
I want to do more

Can you not get them to give me something that'll test me? 

Something a bit different.

RAMESH: 
There is something that just came in....
If you want ‘different’....


“For a over a Thousand Generations, The Jedi Knights were the Guardians of Peace and Justice in The Old Republic —”

“We Can Only Protect You;
We Can’t Fight a War for a You.”

“We’re Not Soldiers.”


“Before The Dark Times —

Before The Empire.


But There are Alternatives to Fighting.

You Must Face Darth Vader, Again.




BILL MOYERS: 
We downloaded something from your Web site the other day and there you were talking about how you wanted the Jedi to be more than just fighters. 

You wanted them to be “spiritual,” but you didn’t say what you meant by that?


GEORGE LUCAS: 
Well, I — I guess they’re like ultimate father figures or negotiators

And — and at this point in time they are — 

They’re sent out to negotiate a — a deal.


They help to put forth answers where people are in the middle of a dispute.




GEORGE LUCAS: 
They’re aren’t an aggressive force at all. 
They try to — Conflict Resolution, I guess, is what you might — 


Intergalactic Therapists.


“This is an Unexpected Move for Her — it’s too aggressive.


Ah,
1985 :













Tuesday, 14 October 2014

Abraham Lincoln : Conspiracy Theorist


"It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left "perfectly free" "subject only to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people, to be just no freedom at all.

Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people to exclude slavery, voted down? Plainly enough now, the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision.

Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Senator's individual opinion withheld, till after the presidential election? Plainly enough now, the speaking out then would have damaged the "perfectly free" argument upon which the election was to be carried.

Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President'sadvance exhortation in favor of the decision?

These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall.

And why the hasty after indorsements of the decision by the President and others?

We can not absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen -- Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance -- and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few -- not omitting even scaffolding -- or, if a single piece be lacking, we can see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in -- in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first lick was struck.

It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska Bill, the people of a State, as well as Territory, were to be left "perfectly free" "subject only to the Constitution."

Why mention a State? They were legislating for territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are andought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely territorial law? Why are the people of a territory and the people of a state therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same?

While the opinion of the Court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a state, or the people of a State, to exclude it.

Possibly, this is a mere omission; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a state to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Macy sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a territory, into the Nebraska bill -- I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down, in the one case, as it had been in the other.

The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion his exact language is, "except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction."

In what cases the power of the states is so restrained by the U.S. Constitution, is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the territories was left open in the Nebraska act. Put that and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a state to exclude slavery from its limits.

And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision an be maintained when made.

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States.

Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown.

We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awaketo the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.

To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation.

This is what we have to do."