everyone you ask in data science says give me the data, not the intuition.

no one in law enforcement and security denies they use intuition – that is, hunches – every single moment of their working day.

• traditional crime victims, as well as those suffering the influence of mafia-like behaviours in local & global neighbourhoods and communities (both geographical & professional), have gut feelings about the criminality that surrounds them.

  • but try and tell someone about it, and you’re lucky if you ever get lent a sympathetic ear.

• an abused spouse, maybe abused over a relationship lasting decades, has no proper recourse to criminal justice when their partner – usually a male – is a respected pillar of the community.

  • even where the police may believe the injured party, there is literally nothing to be done.

• then again, there exists another type of criminal activity: what could be termed legal crimes. the technical term is “zemiology”: activities which cause societal harm, but are not illegal.

  • probably because those who commit them have the lawyers to ensure the relevant laws never reach the statute books.

• finally, there is “dark figure” – the historical incidence of between 20-40% of all crime which is either never reported or never even noticed.

  • the latter we have renamed “neo-crime” (crimes which cannot be understood or identified on the basis of existing or previous experiences and events).

• meanwhile, the gaslighting which democratic citizens suffer because of digital tech we have called “neo-terrorism on the individual”.

all the aforementioned needs to be stopped.

this is why one of the workstreams and major projects that occupy us most profoundly at o mi wan relate to all the above.