Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV

[Vixen]

But the people who administer the teachers' unions are not teachers.

How the hell can this be so difficult for you to understand/accept?

So the party of 68 were not police officers? So why does Here_to_Learn's link describe them as police and not trade union officials.

 

[GlennB]

It seems to be a patent with a spelling mistake in the title. They manage to spell it correctly plenty of times in the body of the text though.

I missed that I thought Vixen was getting excited about the liquid parts of the device.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

What? I simply said that disappearing suspects was a recognised happening, hence the Rome Treaty.

"The fact there is a Treaty 1988 (Criminal Law) that forbids the disappearance of suspects, must mean that it had been happening."

Why are you continuing to mislabel the Treaty? The Treaty was the 1998 Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court, not the 1988 Treaty (Criminal Law).

 

[Vixen]

Of course I knew that. Which is why it's astounding that you cited a treaty in apparent substantiation of a claim made about a specific case. Now that we've spent pages discussing an irrelevant, mislabeled treaty, is it your claim that Sweden "disappeared" anyone in connection with MS Estonia, and if so do you have any evidence for that claim that hasn't been previously discussed?

If it is the case that those so-called 'missing Estonian Survivors' 'never had their names taken down wrongly it is just rumour and gossip', then how come the police themselves issued an International Arrest Warrant for Avo Piht.

Why for Piht and not for Andresson? How would they know he was alive unless someone somewhere DID take his details as having survived?

 

[JayUtah]

What? I simply said that disappearing suspects was a recognised happening, hence the Rome Treaty.

"The fact there is a Treaty 1988 (Criminal Law) that forbids the disappearance of suspects, must mean that it had been happening."

Were you there in Rome in 1998, so that you could determine why they decided to criminalize it? Is it possible to conceive of criminalizing something whose practice is abhorrent on its face? You have no idea what was a "recognized happening" to that group. You're doing your usual practice of confusing your supposition with fact. Non sequitur.

But again, the bigger problem is that you raised the subject of the treaty in conjunction with the hypothesis that Sweden had "disappeared" people. It didn't just come up out of the blue. You're grasping at straws, trying to make them form a link between two ideas in your head, when that link is not at all evident outside your imagination.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

So the party of 68 were not police officers? So why does Here_to_Learn's link describe them as police and not trade union officials.

Do...do you not understand that there's a difference between "someone who works for the police" and "police officers"? You could accurately label anyone who works for the police as police but only police officers would be police officers.

 

[JayUtah]

If it is the case...

What part of "not previously discussed" was unclear?

 

[Vixen]

Why are you continuing to mislabel the Treaty? The Treaty was the 1998 Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court, not the 1988 Treaty (Criminal Law).

Note the verbatim quote, hence the quotation marks.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

analysgruppen, SOU 1998:132 Örn commission report p 28 -30

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokumen...ga-utredningar/sou-1998-132-d1_GMB3132d1/html

Bildt based his theory on the testimony of those two Estonian athletes who said they climbed down the car ramp.

I read your link.

It does not say Bildt insisted on day 1 the bow visor was the cause as you claim.

It does not say Estonian PM Laar said so in an interview as you claim. In fact it describes his being told by 3 Estonian survivors of a wave which lifted the bow visor, which would preclude his being astounded to hear the same claim repeated by Bildt.

It does not say Bildt formed a theory based on two Estonian athletes who described climbing down the ramp, as you claim.

In what way did you think your reference supports your claims because it looks like a big fat zero from here.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen, be honest here, is this all a wind up?

 

[Vixen]

Do...do you not understand that there's a difference between "someone who works for the police" and "police officers"? You could accurately label anyone who works for the police as police but only police officers would be police officers.

I just want to clarify whether they worked for a trade union or whether they are police (civilian or otherwise) who happened to be shop stewards or whatever.

There are some occupations where it is mandatory to join the union or professional body that goes with that job.

 

[LondonJohn]

I know that. What is this gadget, then?

LOLOLOLOL Hopeless

So... what's happened here is that you've done a google search for the word "anaeroid", as you vigorously try to avoid admitting to a mistake.

And lo and behold, you did indeed find a result under that search term.

But you clearly didn't read the result (read for comprehension, that is) before posting the link, did you?

Because if you had done so, you've have immediately seen & realised that what's happened here is that google has mis-spelled the name in the title. The body of the text - had you taken the time and trouble to read it - shows the correct spelling.

This is all truly pitiful. Is it pathologically difficult (impossible, even?) for you to make a simple apology for a mistake? A mistake that was, in this particular instance, not even of any real consequence to the meat of the discussion. Astonishing.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So the party of 68 were not police officers? So why does Here_to_Learn's link describe them as police and not trade union officials.

Could it be that they worked for the police and were trade union members?

Really, this is not rocket surgery. Why do you appear so glacially slow on the uptake on this simple matter?

 

[GlennB]

LOLOLOLOL Hopeless

So... what's happened here is that you've done a google search for the word "anaeroid", as you vigorously try to avoid admitting to a mistake.

And lo and behold, you did indeed find a result under that search term.

But you clearly didn't read the result (read for comprehension, that is) before posting the link, did you?

Because if you had done so, you've have immediately seen & realised that what's happened here is that google has mis-spelled the name in the title. The body of the text - had you taken the time and trouble to read it - shows the correct spelling.

This is all truly pitiful. Is it pathologically difficult (impossible, even?) for you to make a simple apology for a mistake? A mistake that was, in this particular instance, not even of any real consequence to the meat of the discussion. Astonishing.

Routine?

 

[junkshop]

Here's a picture of those two car deck doors,...

As much as I hate to be a pedant, there is only one door in that picture, Vixen.

 

[LondonJohn]

I honestly want to clarify whether these men and women were employed by the police (whether as civilian tea boy or CEO) or by an independent trade union which caters for people in police officer jobs.

They could have been in the employment of the police* or of the union. And the evidence suggests that they were a mixture of both.

However, what we do know is that none of them was a serving police officer. Which is all that's relevant when it comes to assessing - and outright rejecting - your ludicrous claims around shady police presence aboard the Estonia that night.


* Incidentally though, you need to drop all this nonsense about "whether as.... CEO": notwithstanding the fact that police forces do not have CEOs (LMAO), every single operational management within a police force is filled by a serving officer. Not an administrator. An administrator might well serve as head of HR, or head of IT, or head of finance. But not in any roles which related to operational policing. Obviously.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are quite wrong. Quality newspapers like Helsingin Sanomat have intelligence as their sources. They are not governed by Rupert Murdoch-type ideals to put weight behind a particular political view.

I am not an avid reader of DM at all. I have delivered a quality broadsheet daily.

Stop using newspaper reports from those very early days as some sort of source of authoritative record, Vixen.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sorry, are you claiming they went to Tallinn to have a shop floor union meeting?

Oh God. Please stop. This is so embarrassing. They were having an internal conference aboard the ship to discuss the upcoming reorganisations.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I just want to clarify whether they worked for a trade union or whether they are police (civilian or otherwise) who happened to be shop stewards or whatever.

There are some occupations where it is mandatory to join the union or professional body that goes with that job.

Becoming a member of a trade union, whether mandatory (surely rare these days) or not, does not make you an employee of the union, you remain employed by your regular employer, which is rather the point.

If they were union employees they would not be police.

Any lingering confusion?

 

[Axxman300]

Where did you get nonsense from? The ventilation ducts ran along the middle of the vessel from forward to aft. See here Car Decks 3 and 4, and you will see that for the ventilation ducts to get flooded, the car deck doors need first to be breached.

Ventilation ducts in orange. Source: Kehren dissertation

Neat.

Where are the ventilation ducts on the upper decks? You know, that supposedly air-tight superstructure.