Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
Hogwash. You're not an objective person who bases her conclusions on fact-finding. You're one of the more dogged conspiracy theorists on this forum in years, and famously incapable of admitting even the most egregious errors.

Further, the other conspiracy theory you've been plugging on this forum for years requires you to take exactly the opposite position. You've thrown out multiple carefully considered professional studies in favor of early confused news reports, conflicting witness statements, and armchair nuttery. So kindly don't patronize us with your newfound and hypocritical professions of respect for lengthy investigation.



No. Not at all. You rely on self-proclaimed yet obvious cranks like Anders Björkman and infamous anti-Semites. Nowadays you hide the names of these sources because you know how unreliable they are, and defend them with more tortuous rhetoric. You clearly can't tell good information from bad, and you clearly don't care.



You can't admit error. On the matter of primes notation, you filled an entire thread pretending you were still somehow right, changing your story several times.



No. People challenge your claims because you're wrong and they know better than you.



No, you're the one complaining about being personally attacked when your claims are challenged.

Kindly stop pretending that you're the only one around here with principles and integrity.
Click to expand...

It was hardly anything to do with me that someone decided to turn my use of primes into a thread, ditto the issue of whether clothing drags someone down in water. You were the only person who had even heard of the use of primes for time, apart from myself, and people thought the idea that a heavy coat in water won't cause you to immediately sink to the bottom as outrageously preposterous. I was simply stating what I had always known. It was others who went into meltdown over something that was an obvious truth to me and stated quite innocently without knowing that other people would fly off the handle and start start orbiting around the earth.
 
Mojo said:
Yes, but we no longer need to rely on it, because we have a later statement from the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, saying without qualification that it was a diesel vehicle.

What sort of moron would fail to understand that?
Click to expand...

The same kind of 'moron' who thought that the LA no.10 underpass fire was Arson, based on the police saying they suspected arson.
 
Vixen said:
It cites original sources extensively, as one would expect. For example:

  • (see section 1.g.)
  • The UN Commission of Inquiry for Syria (COI)
  • UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict verified

Looks like a well-written and well-sourced document to me, were I looking for some such.
Click to expand...

Very much of the report is utterly unsourced. For example, consider the following paragraph.

The regime’s multiple security branches operated autonomously with wide-ranging and overlapping areas of jurisdiction. Regime-affiliated militias, such as the National Defense Forces, integrated and performed similar roles without defined jurisdiction. Civilian authorities maintained effective control over uniformed military, police, and state security forces, and used the security forces to carry out abuses. There were credible reports that members of the security forces committed numerous abuses, some of which the UN Commission of Inquiry for Syria considered to be war crimes. Civilian authorities possessed limited influence over foreign military or paramilitary organizations operating in the country, including proregime forces such as the Russian armed forces, Iran-affiliated Hizballah, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, members of which also committed numerous abuses.
Click to expand...

Not a single source, no listed author. Shall we presume that this is utterly unofficial, just a "subeditor" summarizing a real official and perhaps misleading us in the process? Or shall we assume that this is the official position of the State Department?

Similarly, consider those lawyers that you think have placed limits on what the fire chief says. Do they not place similar limits on the official website? Why not? Is there some regulation that simplified English is more important than legal concerns, so that the fire chief has to use caveats when describing the findings regarding vehicle zero, but the website does not?

Does the fire chief ignore the website when it misrepresents the official position?
 
Vixen said:
The same kind of 'moron' who thought that the LA no.10 underpass fire was Arson, based on the police saying they suspected arson.
Click to expand...


Do you not understand that an unqualified statement by Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue supersedes an earlier provisional statement by one of their representatives?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
They don't do they? IOW there had been no further up date.
Click to expand...

What would you expect them to say that's different from what the do say, which is to confirm it was diesel?

What form of words would convince you that they mean what they are actually saying?
 
phiwum said:
Very much of the report is utterly unsourced. For example, consider the following paragraph.



Not a single source, no listed author. Shall we presume that this is utterly unofficial, just a "subeditor" summarizing a real official and perhaps misleading us in the process? Or shall we assume that this is the official position of the State Department?

Similarly, consider those lawyers that you think have placed limits on what the fire chief says. Do they not place similar limits on the official website? Why not? Is there some regulation that simplified English is more important than legal concerns, so that the fire chief has to use caveats when describing the findings regarding vehicle zero, but the website does not?

Does the fire chief ignore the website when it misrepresents the official position?
Click to expand...

As I said before, it is not a news website. It is very obvious to me that whoever wrote that was summarising what Hopkinson said. I can't see that the BBC, ITV, Telegraph, Times or Independent have issued any further update than the one Hopkinson gave. When a news update is issued by the police or the Fire Brigade, it would be as a press release to all relevant news agencies, not just the one information webpage. Show me where the BBC has reported this supposed update. I challenge you.
 
Andy_Ross said:
It is not a 'potted time line summary'

It's an official statement by the Fire Service that says it was a diesel car that started the fire.

Lie about it as much as you want but we can all read it.
Click to expand...

Read it, yes. But there is one in this thread who cannot comprehend.
 
Vixen said:
It was hardly anything to do with me that someone decided to turn my use of primes...
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The picture you wish to paint of your investigative and analytical prowess is as inaccurate and self-serving as all your other contributions. Your infamous inability to admit error is just one example of that hypocrisy, so come down off your high horse.

In this case we have reliable early information that disputes your desired conspiracy belief. Therefore you want to kick the can down the road. In other cases the results of careful investigation disputes your desired conspiracy belief, so you throw it out and reach out to unreliable sources that tell you want you want to hear. Your filter is not based on knowledge, analysis, and fact-finding; it's based on what conspiracy hay you can make of it.
 
Vixen said:
Think about it. You are interested in say, a political issue, such as 'Stop the Boats'. One person is happy to simply glance over news headlines. Others might look further into specialist experts' opinions. Puzzled by a seeming lack of information, or conflicting information, you might think, right, I'll look up what the actual laws say about asylum seekers, domestically and as per the UNHCR. It all depends on whether you are looking for actual facts or whether you are happy to just glance at a newspaper headline. Whilst it is understandable most people are happy with a potted summary, that is not to say that someone who is fact-finding should be browbeaten into accepting a layman's version of the issue.

I get that there are three groups of stakeholders hereL

  • the need for the Fire Brigade & Police to reassure the public (allay public anxiety).
  • The political elements who are Pro-EV versus the Big Oil/anti ULEZ groups.
  • the public who want the objective facts of the matter.

The first is public duty; people need to be told that such a fire was likely accidental, there are no arsonists or terrorists about and there is no need to worry about parking next to an EV (because those are the questions the press is asking).

The second is an interesting category and I am sure the conversation between Big Oil and the Environmentalists is a fascinating one but that would be for another thread.

The third group is Joe Public. It wants to know the model and make of the car and what is the story the driver is telling. That information has not been released. It is signally untrue that it has.

Obvs it will take time for the Fire Brigade and Police to ascertain the exact circumstances.
Click to expand...

It has already been confirmed by the Fire Service in a statement on their official website that it was a diesel car that started the fire.
 
Vixen said:
A diesel can be a hybrid.
Click to expand...

In which case the statement by the fire service on their official website would say it was a hybrid. It doesn't say that, it says unequivocally that it was a diesel car.
 
Vixen said:
The only place it says it is a diesel is in the headline = written by a subeditor.

It is a précis of what Hopkinson actually said, which is the bit in quotation marks.

Only the bit in quotation marks is a primary, authenticated, named, official source.

All else is someone else's words/interpretation.
Click to expand...

It is not a headline written by a 'subeditor'.
It is not someone else's words or interpretation.

It is an official statement by the Fire Service, on their official website involved that it was a diesel car that started the fire.
 
Vixen said:
It cites original sources extensively, as one would expect. For example:

  • (see section 1.g.)
  • The UN Commission of Inquiry for Syria (COI)
  • UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict verified

Looks like a well-written and well-sourced document to me, were I looking for some such.
Click to expand...

Like the one on the fire service website that states unequivocally that it was a diesel car that started the fire.
 
Vixen said:
...citing Hopkinson's press release.
Click to expand...

Again you repeat the same deliberate lie.

It is not repeating anyone's press release.

It is a separate, official statement by the Fire Service on their official website that the car that started the fire was a diesel.
 
Vixen said:
As I said before, it is not a news website. It is very obvious to me that whoever wrote that was summarising what Hopkinson said. I can't see that the BBC, ITV, Telegraph, Times or Independent have issued any further update than the one Hopkinson gave. When a news update is issued by the police or the Fire Brigade, it would be as a press release to all relevant news agencies, not just the one information webpage. Show me where the BBC has reported this supposed update. I challenge you.
Click to expand...

Why do you need a secondary source like the BBC when you can read the primary source for yourself?

Why should anyone take what the BBC says over the actual fire service involved?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom