Wimminz – celebrating skank ho's everywhere

Any man who has been dragged into Family Court by his skank ho ex will be introduced to the subject of Risk Assessment before he is allowed anywhere near his own children, and indeed Risk Assessment will be used to justify keeping him away from his own children.

This is what Risk Assessment ACTUALLY is, so that you can spot the difference when you get to Court.

I’ll have to start out with TRUE risk, and TRUE Risk Assessment though…

There is this bridge like structure, you want to build a house on it, you have the house designed, you just want to know if it will all be safe.

First of all there is the physical real world, where the only way to know for sure is to do it (the difference between practice and theory being greater in practice than in theory) and see what happens, which is why I can take you out and show you 500 year old buildings still in daily use that look like they are going to fall down in the next ten minutes, and why I can show you the ruins of where buildings did collapse that “shouldn’t” have.

Up until 1900 that was pretty much how the world worked, you’d go out and build that house on the bridge, and if it was still standing today you were right.

Today we would do a risk assessment, what is the weight of the house you want to build, what is the strength of the bridge, but the fact is that this is a model, not reality, it is at best an educated guess, but it cannot account for a hidden flaw in the bridge structure or subsequent re-purposing of the house as a store to store very heavy items, or a million other factors.

It is a model of reality, not reality itself.

A competent engineer will not merely admit this fact, he will hammer it into you at the outset, he will hammer into you the FACT that by definition no matter how good the model and modelling is, it ALWAYS, BY DEFINITION, fails to accurately mimic the reality.

A competent engineer will also hammer into you the FACT that the amount that the model differs from reality is also, BY DEFINITION, an unknown factor, which is of course quite logical, everything that is not unknown is simply factored into the model, the trouble is, is you make a model based solely on know for a fact factors, you end up with a useless model, so people stick in a whole pile of fudge factors and rules of thumb, that are, BY DEFINITION, not physical laws which have anything at all to do with the reality, and which only relate to how models differ from reality, in an attempt to make the models more useful.

The fact is, for fairly simple things that work on fairly simple and well known and understood physical laws, such as building a house on a bridge, we have gotten fairly good at this, in fact we have gotten so good that we no longer build bridges with enough excess stability and strength to carry a house at some later date…. we no longer build static structures with massive deadweight, we build dynamic structures with very little effective mass at all.

We no longer build bridges that will last 500 or 1,000 years, we build bridges that will last 50 or maybe 100 years.

Our modelling has become so good that we have cut excess strength and therefore cost and material away, and now we survey the bridge every year, to ensure it is still safe for human use.

Our modelling has, in effect, allowed us to build crappy cheap stuff that is inherently more dangerous in the long run, for periods starting say 50 years after initial construction onwards.

So, back to the family courts…

In reality, I pose “X” danger to my kids, that is reality and it cannot be changed, I am either a predatory paedophile aiming to sexually abuse my own children or I am not, and statistically speaking children are safer for sexual or violent abuse from their own biological fathers than from anyone else on the planet, including their mothers, but even that does not affect single cases such as me and my kids, or you and your house and your bridge.

The statistics and modelling affect the odds of someone wanting to make a bet on the unknown factor of whether I will bugger my own kids, or whether your house on a bridge will collapse, but they do not affect the reality of me buggering my own kids or your house on a bridge collapsing one iota.

Compared to weather prediction, building a house on a bridge is child’s play, and compared to calculating the risk of me buggering my own children, weather prediction is child’s play.

Calculating the odds on your house on a bridge collapsing is trivially simple, given around 1,000 data points I can calculate the odds on any crappy old personal computer in a couple of seconds.

Calculating the odds on there being a storm next week is much, much much harder, it takes hundreds of millions of data points and supercomputer computing power running in realtime at world speed, and it is still hopelessly imaccurate even one or two months in the future.

Calculating the odds of me buggering my own kids would take quadrillions of data points and quantum computing power, and would be hopelessly inaccurate 12 hours in the future.

Nevertheless, in the Family Courts you will have so called self appointed “experts” who have perhaps 100 data points, many of which will be completely false and misleading as supplied by your psycho skank ho ex, and instead of giving the only possible answer, which is “vastly insufficient data” they simply proceed.

This is itself a telling characteristsic, the so called structural engineer who was prepared to venture an opinion of whether your house on a bridge will collapse based upon ten data points, half of which are not data about the subject, but slanderous and unsupported accusations about you, the builder is nothing more than a charlatan who should be imprisoned for fraud and banned from every going anywhere near the subject ever again on pain of death.

Yet in the family court this is exactly what the so called “expert” risk assessor does, they go right ahead on zero data and then proceed to pass judgement on a subject that is so complex that it makes detailed long range weather forecasting look like adding 2 + 2.

But wait, it gets worse, far, far, far worse….

Build a house on a bridge is a simple binary yes/no question, many questions, such as child custody and access are not binary, they are closer to questions like this;

If we build this new road, X people per year will be killed on it, but it will allow the transportation of ambulances and fire engines and police cars which will save Y lives per year… is Y sufficiently greater than X to justify building the road?

In THIS question the engineer has to FACTOR IN HIS OWN DECISIONS into the final outcome, it is not simply a case of playing safe and saying NO to the guy who wants to build a house on a bridge, thus guaranteeing nobody is killed, saying NO to this road means saying yes to Y killed every year, and we don’t know what Y is, until we do the study….

But wait, it gets worse, far, far, far worse.

Let’s just say we have done all the math to the best of our ability and integrity.

Let’s say 10 people a year will be killed on the road, and 100 people a year will be saved by the road.

While we are at it let’s say there is a 1% chance the house on the bridge will collapse any one year, and if you think that is high, think again, no modern bridge is built to last 100 years, so actually you calculate it more like APR interest rates, 1.1% compounded per year.

The big problem is that all these numbers are about playing the odds, the odds are X that SOMEONE will be killed on a road, that a house will collapse, that a child will be buggered by their own father.

But, BY DEFINITION, you cannot apply these odds to a single individual, you cannot work out what the odds are that one Johnny Smith will be killed on the road, saved by the road, killed by the collapsing house on the bridge, saved and sheltered by it, buggered by his daddy, or saved from his psycho skank ho mummy by being with his daddy.

If you COULD, you could simply go into a betting shop and place the same bet at 10:1 odds ten times in a row and take them to court and win when they did not pay out…

This is why when people take companies to court for negligence, a massive part of the case is spent in arguing that the claimant is not some random statistical person, but an individual known to the company in question, eg John Smith who has twice complained about the brakes on the company vehicle before being injured in an accident with a company vehicle with defective brakes.

NOBODY ever won such a court case by saying “the projections during the consultation period said that 3 people a year would die on this new road, and my husband was one of them, so pay me one million dollars compensation”

And yet, this is EXACTLY WHAT THESE SELF PROCLAIMED RISK ASSESSORS ROUTINELY DO IN FAMILY COURT.

The known and very real statistical risk posed by removing a child from the biological father, who we know for a fact is statistically the safest person on the planet they can possibly be with, is simply dismissed because that is statistics and you are an individual, yet ten minutes later this same argument will be turned on it’s head and used against you because you are an individual and these statistics say you will bugger your own children the first chance you get.

Nota Bene;

DNA evidence is EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

There is NO SUCH THING as a DNA match or DNA fingerprint, nobody has ever been found with duplicate fingerprints for another living or dead human being, but WITHOUT EXCEPTION, ALL DNA ANALYSIS in the legal system is nothing more than statistical analysis and modelling based upon assumed odds and assumed probabilities.

NOT PHYSICAL SCIENCE.

Not actual physical artifacts of any kind are actually examined for a match, instead the shadows cast by certain minute fragments of DNA are compared with the shadows cast by other equally minute fragments, and the rest is PURE STATISTICS based largely on assumptions that have themselves never been proven or verified to even the slightest degree.

I keep going back to quote Carl Sagan on what happens when you have a society based upon science and technology which is run by stupid cunts who lack clue #1 about science and technology.

Your family court risk assessor is not merely utterly incompetent at the whole subject of risk assessment and probability, even before she brought her own misandric prejudices to the table, she is too fucking stupid to even begin to understand just how incompetent and fucking clueless she is.

The police and prosecutors who start citing your “DNA match” as proof you were the murderer are also too fucking stupid to even begin to understand why they are too fucking stupid to be allowed anywhere near the job they have.

To be clear on this point of DNA.

You can use current DNA technology to CATEGORICALLY exclude any connection between two samples, so you can say this sample and this sample are without any doubt quite different and separate.

eg; there were plenty of fingerprints around the crime scene and one the murder weapon, but none of them match Mr Smith’s, substitute DNA for fingerprints.

eg; there were plenty of semen samples in the alleged victims’ vagina, but none of them match Mr Smith’s

are inaccurate and dishonest, albeit truthful as far as they go…  they should say, and none of them match Mr Smith’s, nor could they belong to Mr Smith’s children, or parents, or cousins, nor could they belong to anyone from Mr Smiths lineage or historical genetic location / region where his ancestors lived.

That would be truthful and accurate, because statistics, analysis and modelling are really good at 0.000% answers, 0.000% is not really close to 0.001%, you can divide any number by any number except zero, and 0.000% is zero.

Statistically speaking there is a 0.000% chance that a male dog can inseminate and impregnate a female human… it doesn’t matter how often you try, it can never happen…

Statistically speaking every analysis that simply omits huge chunks of relevant data, such as the fact that kids are safer with their biological fathers than anyone else on the entire planet INCLUDING THE FUCKING JUDGE, has a 0.000% chance of coming to either a safe or accurate conclusion.

Statistically speaking every analysis that simply omits the effects of the modelling itself on the subject is doomed to failure and has a 0.000% chance of coming to a safe or accurate conclusion.

Despite no priors, not even arrests or suspicions, not even peripherally involved with anyone who was either, for anything at all, my family court case decided, on the basis of precisely zero physical evidence, nothing whatsoever except the accusations of the psycho skank ho ex, corroborated by said self appointed “experts”, that I am extremely violent, that I am a rapist of adult women, that I am a raging heroin addict and alcoholic (of course, I am in denial of all of this…) and that I am also, contrary to ALL psychological material and data on the subject of sexual deviancy, an extreme sexual risk to my own kids, from toddler age upwards, irrespective of their sex.

So there you have it.

Statistically speaking dude, I have to tell you that you have exactly a 0.000% probability of getting an accurate risk assessment of your potential (and your ex’s potential) risk to your own kids in a family court.

You have been warned… so get used to it, shrug, and walk away, much better than failing to grasp the reality and going postal.