Luton Airport Car Park Fire

[Jack by the hedge]

This is what Beds Fire Chief Andrew Hopkinson said in his one and only press statement

So ******* what?

You keep hammering away at the tiny chink of doubt left by that early statement being "subject to confirmation" but several days later the rest of us have managed to move on, thanks to fact-checkers actually contacting the fire brigade and asking for confirmation.

If you think it's such a big deal, maybe you should ring the fire brigade yourself.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Mr Hopkinson has NOT confirmed to Full Fact or anyone else the cause of the fire. When the report is available, it will be a press release available to ALL media outlets.

Full Fact did not ring up Mr Hopkinson and get a scoop.

Now you're twisting and wriggling and claiming (with no basis you've shown us) that it wasn't specifically Hopkinson that Full Fact spoke to, as if this was some kind of ******* game of Simon Says where it's not real unless Hopkinson says it. Can you step back and see how mad this sounds?

 

[Foster Zygote]

This is what Beds Fire Chief Andrew Hopkinson said in his one and only press statement as of today:

"“We don’t believe it was an electric vehicle,” Andrew Hopkinson, chief fire officer for Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, said. “It’s believed to be diesel-powered, at this stage all subject to verification.” https://www.autoblog.com/2023/10/12...1500-vehicle-fire-at-london-airport-car-park/


Read it with care.

WTAF?

And a few days later he said, “We have no intelligence at this stage to suggest that this was anything other than an accidental fire that started in one of the vehicles that had not long arrived at the airport. It was not an EV. This was a diesel powered vehicle".

You can't be so obtuse as to genuine not understand that his later statement, made with the benefit of further investigation, supersedes his previous statement, and indicates that his earlier position that it probably wasn't an EV was confirmed. You can't make the later statement go away by ignoring it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Now you're twisting and wriggling and claiming (with no basis you've shown us) that it wasn't specifically Hopkinson that Full Fact spoke to, as if this was some kind of ******* game of Simon Says where it's not real unless Hopkinson says it. Can you step back and see how mad this sounds?

Their article put his statement in quotation marks and attributed it to him by name. In journalism that means that those were the person's actual words.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Ah, but what if the Fire Chief is In On It?

If the car had been the diesel hybrid model and its hybrid battery had caused the fire then saying it was a diesel and not an EV would only be incredibly dishonest. It wouldn't quite technically be lying, if you ignore the reason people were asking and just tell yourself a hybrid is not exactly the same thing as an EV.

So there remained a sliver of doubt if you just assume the county fire chief might be intentionally deceiving the public, as he's in the pocket of Big Battery.

And he'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky fact-checkers. Except he wasn't deceiving everyone. It really was just a diesel car.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Their article put his statement in quotation marks and attributed it to him by name. In journalism that means that those were the person's actual words.

Yes, but do not confuse his "subject to confirmation" statement with Full Fact later asking the fire brigade to provide that confirmation.

His press statement said it was a diesel, subject to confirmation.
Vixen reckons it was a hybrid, and she will persist in thinking that until she gets confirmation.
Full Fact contacted the fire brigade and got confirmation.
Vixen doesn't believe them.

 

[Steve]

Ah, but what if the Fire Chief is In On It?

If the car had been the diesel hybrid model and its hybrid battery had caused the fire then saying it was a diesel and not an EV would only be incredibly dishonest. It wouldn't quite technically be lying, if you ignore the reason people were asking and just tell yourself a hybrid is not exactly the same thing as an EV.

So there remained a sliver of doubt if you just assume the county fire chief might be intentionally deceiving the public, as he's in the pocket of Big Battery.

And he'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky fact-checkers. Except he wasn't deceiving everyone. It really was just a diesel car.

Ahem:

Nope. Vixen is clearly stating that the local fire brigade spokesperson lied, and that the fire brigade is obviously involved in the conspiracy cover-up.

Vixen has never seen a news event that is reported accurately. There are conspiracies everywhere. And Vixen is just the person to ferret them out, no facts required.

 

[Steve]

So ******* what?

You keep hammering away at the tiny chink of doubt left by that early statement being "subject to confirmation" but several days later the rest of us have managed to move on, thanks to fact-checkers actually contacting the fire brigade and asking for confirmation.

If you think it's such a big deal, maybe you should ring the fire brigade yourself.

This is in chapter 1 of the conspiracy theorists manual. If you can find one small inconsistency then the whole story has to be a conspiracy. There are no other options.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Ahem:

This entire ******** may revolve entirely on the slender difference between outright lying and deliberately deceiving people by saying things which are arguably not outright lies but definitely give people a false impression (like saying a hybrid is "not an EV").

That party balloon pops when someone picks up the phone and asks the fire brigade "was it a hybrid?" and they say "No".

 

[Mojo]

Their article put his statement in quotation marks and attributed it to him by name. In journalism that means that those were the person's actual words.

If you're six steps ahead it is just what you wanted the person to have said.

 

[Mojo]

This is in chapter 1 of the conspiracy theorists manual. If you can find one small inconsistency then the whole story has to be a conspiracy.

Or alternatively, if there are no inconsistencies then it has to be a conspiracy.

 

[Steve]

Or alternatively, if there are no inconsistencies then it has to be a conspiracy.

Well, that too.

 

[catsmate]

And despite all the bollocks, the initial cause of the fire was a diesel Range Rover.

 

[Steve]

And despite all the bollocks, the initial cause of the fire was a diesel Range Rover.

Oh, so you believe the conspiracy mongering fire brigade spokesperson too! Sheeple (is that singular?)!!

 

[phiwum]

.





As I said, I for one will await the official confirmation and will not be browbeaten into accepting the opinion of someone who cannot possibly know what the cause of the fire was at this stage.

And if it turns out that the official report says the initial vehicle was a diesel (non hybrid), will you accept that conclusion?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Oh, so you believe the conspiracy mongering fire brigade spokesperson too! Sheeple (is that singular?)!!

Sheeperson?

 

[Foster Zygote]

You claim to be knowledgeable, why can't others also claim the same?

First, I'm not claiming any expertise in the area of automotive fires. But I don't need to be an expert to see when someone else's "expert" opinion is contradicted by facts. People can claim to be knowledgeable. But if they make statements that are contradicted by evidence then they're just idiots trying to seem smart, which sadly, is the second most common entity present on the internet after cats.

I'll ask you again: what makes you think that working at a garage or a car dealership makes someone an expert on how various vehicles succumb to fire? How many car fires of each type does someone have to witness before he or she gains a reasonable measure of expertise?

What if someone said, "in my experience as an airport baggage handler, I think there's something fishy about the official report on the cause of that airplane crash"?

 

[Foster Zygote]

If you're six steps ahead it is just what you wanted the person to have said.

Clearly he's going to issue four more statements, the last of which will blow the lid off the Big Li-ion Battery Conspiracy®.

 

[ferd burfle]

This is in chapter 1 of the conspiracy theorists manual. If you can find one small inconsistency then the whole story has to be a conspiracy. There are no other options.

Yes, and for the CTist being wrong isn’t a bug, it’s a necessary feature.

 

[Foster Zygote]

This is what Beds Fire Chief Andrew Hopkinson said in his one and only press statement as of today:

"“We don’t believe it was an electric vehicle,” Andrew Hopkinson, chief fire officer for Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, said. “It’s believed to be diesel-powered, at this stage all subject to verification.” https://www.autoblog.com/2023/10/12...1500-vehicle-fire-at-london-airport-car-park/


Read it with care.

I've been busy, but I wanted to come back to this.

I have clearly read it with far more care than you have. The quote which you have plainly stated was his "one and only press statement as of today" came from an article dated Oct. 12. The other statement, linked to by zooterkin, in which he definitively states that the vehicle which started the fire was not an EV, was dated Oct. 16.

1. What proof do you have that the earlier dated statement was Andrew Hopkinson's one and only press statement as of Oct. 18?

2. What proof do you have that the statement dated Oct. 16 was distorted in reporting or was a false attribution?

Is this really what you mean by "six steps ahead"?