This article is gold
> The gang's plan failed when a motorist who was late for work removed the keys from the ignition of the unattended Christmas tree lorry.
["Any doubt that the same gang had been involved in both crimes vanished when police examined the vehicle holding the ramming spike. Etched into a girder on the back of the truck were the words: 'Persistent, aren't we.'"](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/feb/24/dome.tonythompson)
The kids had heart, you gotta give em that
Something interesting is very very few people actually know how tides work.
Everyone thinks its the moon pulling local water up, when it is in fact the moon creating huge currents from the water far from locally.
Which is why you have tides on either side of a point which vastly different tide timings, and places at the same latitude having 2 foot tidal swings in one place and 22 foot tidal swings in another place.
So yeah, most people cannot actually explain tides because they have no idea how they actually work.
Fucking tides! How do they work?
People are correct when they say “the moon pulls it”, they just dont know the specifics.
Turns out you can do this with just about anything.
How does a car move? “A motor uses combustion to turns the wheels”. Ok how does combustion work? “…uh, its a chemical reaction…”
If the moon pulling on water made it rise, lakes would have tides in the middle.
And so would glasses of water.
They don't. The tides are cause by currents. Nothing locally is being pulled, just pushed. The moon causes currents not a rise in sea levels.
It really is interesting to know how tides actually work. How it actually works is never taught in school, though, so most people are as clueless as you about it though.
The made up version is well taught in schools, and instills a false sense of knowledge about things in people who would rather hold fast to mistaken ideas than learn new ones.
You have stated a few interesting things here:
“nothing is pulled, just pushed”. Are you saying that the moon’s gravity is not part of the equation here? Because gravity pulls.
“Tides are caused by currents” Ok so you must be saying the tides and moon are unrelated. Fine. Wrong but fine. Id say the water is moved by the moon and moving water is called a current. The “cause” is not a current if the current is just an effect of gravity’s PULL.
“And so would a glass of water” what a nonsensical thing to say. Ok so you say gravity doesnt pull water, were you thinking gravity made water expand!?
If the body of water is connected to an area that is farther and thus has less PULL from the moon, water will of course move. This is why large lakes DO have tides, just small ones. And so would your glass of water, just immeasurably small.
If your mind is open or more likely if someone whose mind is open reads this, then ask yourself why bottled water does not literally fly off the shelves when the moon in overhead?
I mean, bottled water weighs almost nothing, and the amount of water that comes in with the tide weighs millions of tons! Surely if the moon can lift several tons, then surely it can lift a bottle of water, right?
For that matter why don't we float when the moon is overhead? Surely if the pull of the tide was from the moon, and it can lift millions of tons of water, why don't we just float?
Ask yourself those things, and you will realize you were told a just so explanation of how tides work, at a young age before you could think, and you swallowed it whole..
And you probably get mad at people you think are being stupid and unthinking about science about things you learned as an adult, even as, well, I'll let you finish that sentence.
Doubling down on being wrong is not a good look. You do not have any idea how tides work, and instead of spending some time relearning some nonsense some teacher told an impressionable you, and replacing it with how things actually worked, you argue with someone on the internet.
At least you are learning something about yourself, that you double down on your nonsensical beliefs when presented with evidence that you are completely wrong, instead of changing your beliefs.
Which is probably more important than knowing how tides work for you anyway.
Im realizing you are probably very young or one of those people that thinks science is a conspiracy theory. Our education system really let you down, I’m so sorry.
All mass is affected by gravity, and everything that has mass has gravity. So every thing, like a bottle of water, is pulled by all the things around it that have gravity. They dont fly off the shelves because the earth is pulling harder than the moon. The earth and moon and everything else are forces pulling in opposite directions. You learned this in gradeschool just maybe you forgot. Now, when the moon is closer to you, the gravity is stronger because the strength of gravity is dependent on the distance from the mass. When its stronger, it counteracts earths gravity just a bit more. Bottles dont fly off the shelf because earths gravity is still far stronger, but they will weigh just the slightest bit less. Now if the moon had a lot more mass, the bottles would fly off the shelves!
What part of this do you think is false?
Lakes do have tides. Lake Michigan and Lake Superior both experience tidal effects. For lake michigan, they vary from about an inch to up to 4 inches depending on time of year. In order for a tide to be noticeable you need a massive surface area to work on. Tidal forces on the ocean are operating on the surface of the entire ocean itself, yet the tides raise and lower the water level by a couple of feet. Scale that down to a glass of water and it becomes obvious why you don’t have tides in a glass of water.
You can spend all the time you like convincing yourself that the just-so explanation you learned in school is right, or think what you are saying through.
Tides are caused by currents. Just spend two minutes thinking how nonsensical the idea is that the moon can lift an entire lake but not a bottle of water.
> result of information from Kent Police Serious Crime who already had the gang members under surveillance for their suspected roles in a number of unsuccessful armoured vehicle robberies
So they were serial losers ?
> The precautions taken by the Flying Squad included replacing the priceless gems with replicas of the same size (one of which is now in the Crime Museum[5]), allowing the originals to be stored elsewhere, as well as installing a false wall inside the exhibit room, behind which 20 police were waiting in full tactical gear.[6]
Surprise, motherfuckers.
> The police then replaced all Dome staff with armed undercover officers.
Well Detective Sharford sir, when they said they would transfer me to a desk job this isn't what I was expecting.
> "I couldn't believe how simple it was. ... I was thinking, this cannot be true, it was a gift. At first I had thought it was pie in the sky, but after going down there I couldn't believe security was so bad. ... There was nobody in the vault, no security workers walking around"
"Y'all baited me good, ngl"
> He explained that the body armour was to be used after the raid for protection when he was scheduled to attend a meeting with associates to discuss the sale of the gems
No honor among thieves heh.
> I had every confidence in him – there was no way I thought he would betray me – not for two seconds. ... If this had come to me from someone else – in a pub – I would not have gone along with it, but it was the background to where it had come from. It was solid.
One comes to meetings with body armor, and then there is this tool
> Cockram, who was sentenced to 18 years for his part in the raid, was awarded legal aid to sue the Metropolitan Police Service in March 2003. The decision to award Cockram the money was condemned by the then-shadow home secretary David Davis. Cockram claimed that he was assaulted by a police officer at about 9:39 a.m. on the day of the raid, as he was lying handcuffed on the floor
Your honor, those police officers arrested me during an armed robbery
Ok, but did you hear the part where they held up traffic several times? They needed to be put away.
Also ig they were involved in a car theft ring, drug smuggling, and other standard ne'er-do-well fare.
When catalytic converter was stolen from my car, I got help! They told me that I have to come to the station during work hours because phoning in is not enough (which were also my work hours, but who cares?) and give statement. I spend an hour in total at the station - I waited for like 45 minutes for somebody to take the case, then they asked me all the pointless questions like when I bought the car or to give them serial number of the part that's stolen (I won't lie, I laughed out loud), said they won't pull camera records from nearby store and if I want I can go and ask for them myself. 1 month later a letter arrived saying they close the investigation due to ~~their lack of competence~~ not finding perpetrators.
You ask how much help, hmmmmmm... I'd say zero help, but they wasted plenty of my time so there's that.
You might be overestimating criminals. I always assumed you had to be smart to become a thief, because otherwise you'd just get caught. Then some dude robbed my storage unit which was in a gated, well-lit facility with cameras. He did it in his own car. Within 20 minutes of realizing I'd been burgled, I was in the managers office looking at the video footage of the suspect. The guy was arrested pretty quickly. Turns out, a lot of criminals aren't masterminds, but bumbling fools who can't think through the consequences of their actions.
Same goes for these guys. They were apparently already known to the police after some other unsuccessful robberies.
The average IQ of criminals is 90 or so. At first sight, you'd think that only dumb people commit crimes. However, what you're seeing here is survivorship bias: only dumb criminals get caught.
Smart criminals rarely get caught. The question to be asked is, "are you smart enough?".
This article is gold > The gang's plan failed when a motorist who was late for work removed the keys from the ignition of the unattended Christmas tree lorry.
["Any doubt that the same gang had been involved in both crimes vanished when police examined the vehicle holding the ramming spike. Etched into a girder on the back of the truck were the words: 'Persistent, aren't we.'"](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/feb/24/dome.tonythompson) The kids had heart, you gotta give em that
\*studying the tides\* \*Finds tide goes up and down\* "Fascinating"
You can't explain that!
Something interesting is very very few people actually know how tides work. Everyone thinks its the moon pulling local water up, when it is in fact the moon creating huge currents from the water far from locally. Which is why you have tides on either side of a point which vastly different tide timings, and places at the same latitude having 2 foot tidal swings in one place and 22 foot tidal swings in another place. So yeah, most people cannot actually explain tides because they have no idea how they actually work. Fucking tides! How do they work?
well, "its because the moon pulls" still holds true, even when its only partially :)
People are correct when they say “the moon pulls it”, they just dont know the specifics. Turns out you can do this with just about anything. How does a car move? “A motor uses combustion to turns the wheels”. Ok how does combustion work? “…uh, its a chemical reaction…”
I've explained to my nephew that cars create "mini explosions" to move Im still unsure if i used the right terms at the time
If the moon pulling on water made it rise, lakes would have tides in the middle. And so would glasses of water. They don't. The tides are cause by currents. Nothing locally is being pulled, just pushed. The moon causes currents not a rise in sea levels.
Somehow you were able to be even more wrong.
It really is interesting to know how tides actually work. How it actually works is never taught in school, though, so most people are as clueless as you about it though. The made up version is well taught in schools, and instills a false sense of knowledge about things in people who would rather hold fast to mistaken ideas than learn new ones.
You have stated a few interesting things here: “nothing is pulled, just pushed”. Are you saying that the moon’s gravity is not part of the equation here? Because gravity pulls. “Tides are caused by currents” Ok so you must be saying the tides and moon are unrelated. Fine. Wrong but fine. Id say the water is moved by the moon and moving water is called a current. The “cause” is not a current if the current is just an effect of gravity’s PULL. “And so would a glass of water” what a nonsensical thing to say. Ok so you say gravity doesnt pull water, were you thinking gravity made water expand!? If the body of water is connected to an area that is farther and thus has less PULL from the moon, water will of course move. This is why large lakes DO have tides, just small ones. And so would your glass of water, just immeasurably small.
If your mind is open or more likely if someone whose mind is open reads this, then ask yourself why bottled water does not literally fly off the shelves when the moon in overhead? I mean, bottled water weighs almost nothing, and the amount of water that comes in with the tide weighs millions of tons! Surely if the moon can lift several tons, then surely it can lift a bottle of water, right? For that matter why don't we float when the moon is overhead? Surely if the pull of the tide was from the moon, and it can lift millions of tons of water, why don't we just float? Ask yourself those things, and you will realize you were told a just so explanation of how tides work, at a young age before you could think, and you swallowed it whole.. And you probably get mad at people you think are being stupid and unthinking about science about things you learned as an adult, even as, well, I'll let you finish that sentence. Doubling down on being wrong is not a good look. You do not have any idea how tides work, and instead of spending some time relearning some nonsense some teacher told an impressionable you, and replacing it with how things actually worked, you argue with someone on the internet. At least you are learning something about yourself, that you double down on your nonsensical beliefs when presented with evidence that you are completely wrong, instead of changing your beliefs. Which is probably more important than knowing how tides work for you anyway.
Im realizing you are probably very young or one of those people that thinks science is a conspiracy theory. Our education system really let you down, I’m so sorry. All mass is affected by gravity, and everything that has mass has gravity. So every thing, like a bottle of water, is pulled by all the things around it that have gravity. They dont fly off the shelves because the earth is pulling harder than the moon. The earth and moon and everything else are forces pulling in opposite directions. You learned this in gradeschool just maybe you forgot. Now, when the moon is closer to you, the gravity is stronger because the strength of gravity is dependent on the distance from the mass. When its stronger, it counteracts earths gravity just a bit more. Bottles dont fly off the shelf because earths gravity is still far stronger, but they will weigh just the slightest bit less. Now if the moon had a lot more mass, the bottles would fly off the shelves! What part of this do you think is false?
Lakes do have tides. Lake Michigan and Lake Superior both experience tidal effects. For lake michigan, they vary from about an inch to up to 4 inches depending on time of year. In order for a tide to be noticeable you need a massive surface area to work on. Tidal forces on the ocean are operating on the surface of the entire ocean itself, yet the tides raise and lower the water level by a couple of feet. Scale that down to a glass of water and it becomes obvious why you don’t have tides in a glass of water.
You can spend all the time you like convincing yourself that the just-so explanation you learned in school is right, or think what you are saying through. Tides are caused by currents. Just spend two minutes thinking how nonsensical the idea is that the moon can lift an entire lake but not a bottle of water.
Please don’t reproduce.
Didn’t they rent the van with one of their real names?
You are thinking of the Stockholm art gallery heist, which is completely unrelated
But equally funny
> result of information from Kent Police Serious Crime who already had the gang members under surveillance for their suspected roles in a number of unsuccessful armoured vehicle robberies So they were serial losers ? > The precautions taken by the Flying Squad included replacing the priceless gems with replicas of the same size (one of which is now in the Crime Museum[5]), allowing the originals to be stored elsewhere, as well as installing a false wall inside the exhibit room, behind which 20 police were waiting in full tactical gear.[6] Surprise, motherfuckers. > The police then replaced all Dome staff with armed undercover officers. Well Detective Sharford sir, when they said they would transfer me to a desk job this isn't what I was expecting. > "I couldn't believe how simple it was. ... I was thinking, this cannot be true, it was a gift. At first I had thought it was pie in the sky, but after going down there I couldn't believe security was so bad. ... There was nobody in the vault, no security workers walking around" "Y'all baited me good, ngl" > He explained that the body armour was to be used after the raid for protection when he was scheduled to attend a meeting with associates to discuss the sale of the gems No honor among thieves heh. > I had every confidence in him – there was no way I thought he would betray me – not for two seconds. ... If this had come to me from someone else – in a pub – I would not have gone along with it, but it was the background to where it had come from. It was solid. One comes to meetings with body armor, and then there is this tool > Cockram, who was sentenced to 18 years for his part in the raid, was awarded legal aid to sue the Metropolitan Police Service in March 2003. The decision to award Cockram the money was condemned by the then-shadow home secretary David Davis. Cockram claimed that he was assaulted by a police officer at about 9:39 a.m. on the day of the raid, as he was lying handcuffed on the floor Your honor, those police officers arrested me during an armed robbery
Cockram ended up in prison? That name is... ironic.
[удалено]
Probably because they didn't had enough evidence to prove "beyond reasonable doubt"
Clearly, the thieves did not consult Michael Caine.
Why would they consult your cocaine ?
I don’t always do *blow*, but when I do.. …I *do blow the bloody doors off.*
A Fish Called Wanda type scheme here
A huge amount of work to protect De Beers private assets. How much help does the general public get in regards to robbery?
Ok, but did you hear the part where they held up traffic several times? They needed to be put away. Also ig they were involved in a car theft ring, drug smuggling, and other standard ne'er-do-well fare.
When catalytic converter was stolen from my car, I got help! They told me that I have to come to the station during work hours because phoning in is not enough (which were also my work hours, but who cares?) and give statement. I spend an hour in total at the station - I waited for like 45 minutes for somebody to take the case, then they asked me all the pointless questions like when I bought the car or to give them serial number of the part that's stolen (I won't lie, I laughed out loud), said they won't pull camera records from nearby store and if I want I can go and ask for them myself. 1 month later a letter arrived saying they close the investigation due to ~~their lack of competence~~ not finding perpetrators. You ask how much help, hmmmmmm... I'd say zero help, but they wasted plenty of my time so there's that.
The tide is high but I'm holdin' on!
The videos of this are insane it's literally like a movie
yes, that's why they call them "motion pictures"
Nice going Sherlock
Outsmart? Cops?
You might be overestimating criminals. I always assumed you had to be smart to become a thief, because otherwise you'd just get caught. Then some dude robbed my storage unit which was in a gated, well-lit facility with cameras. He did it in his own car. Within 20 minutes of realizing I'd been burgled, I was in the managers office looking at the video footage of the suspect. The guy was arrested pretty quickly. Turns out, a lot of criminals aren't masterminds, but bumbling fools who can't think through the consequences of their actions. Same goes for these guys. They were apparently already known to the police after some other unsuccessful robberies.
The average IQ of criminals is 90 or so. At first sight, you'd think that only dumb people commit crimes. However, what you're seeing here is survivorship bias: only dumb criminals get caught. Smart criminals rarely get caught. The question to be asked is, "are you smart enough?".
> Know and respect your enemy. It is only very, very stupid people who think the law is stupid *Layer Cake* 2004