Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[MarkCorrigan]

Wiki is your friend.

Also I note that you (sort of, vaguely) answered only one of my questions and rudely ignored my others. Again.

Why are you so rude Vixen?

 

[Vixen]

I invite you to review Andrew Hopkinson talking to the press here and ask yourself whether he is reading out a prepared press release and whether key journalists are asking him questions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-67073446

Blatantly neither of these things is happening.

He is talking off the cuff and simply explaining what happened to the journalists who were present. The tale you are spinning of key journalists asking questions and everyone else getting the printed press release handout is simply a creation of your imagination to protect yourself from any intrusive thoughts that you were indeed in error to conflate what Hopkinson said with a press release.

Mr. Hopkinson had a carefully prepared statement to the various broadcasters and journalists who turned up and this same statement was sent out as a press release.

This is why all of the newspapers and all of the broadcasters all carry the identical exact same quote.

 

[zooterkin]

Mr. Hopkinson had a carefully prepared statement to the various broadcasters and journalists who turned up and this same statement was sent out as a press release.

This is why all of the newspapers and all of the broadcasters all carry the identical exact same quote.

Regardless, subsequent to the press conference, that is, for the sake of clarity, after, i.e. later in time, superseding previous information, this unequivocal statement was published on a primary source:

it has been determined that the vehicle that first caught fire was a diesel car

 

[Vixen]

There's no qualification or equivocation in the statement from the fire department. It's quite correct to characterize it as "unequivocal." You're the one frantically trying to say things like they might have mean a hybrid when they said diesel.



The interpretation of photographs and video does indeed require specialized skill and knowledge that you don't appear to have. The misinterpretation of photographic evidence is a big part of many conspiracy theories.

As I said, it is unauthored and is obviously a short form of what Mr Hopkinson said in his press conference/press release 11 October 2023. There have been no further updates in respect of the details of the fire, other than some 30-something guy has been bailed on suspicion of criminal damage 'as a precaution' (whatever that is supposed to mean). As the Fire Brigade did not fully conquer the fire until about 15:00 and he was speaking as the building was still smouldering it is obviously best opinion than confirmation. Ask yourself why he did not provide the name and make of the vehicle.

As for Full Fact and the person who uploaded the Beds Fire & Rescue webpage, these are people who treat knowledge as though iit was a scarce commodity and they are going to withhold it from you, because they want to teach the anti-EV brigade - as they see it - a lesson by withholding information, indeed averring the opposite information, claiming it was a confirmed diesel and definitely not a mild hybrid diesel of any sort. Possibly they were sick to death of journalists ringing up for information so fobbed them off with a subedited untruth that was not an accurate reflection of what the primary source - Andrew Hopkinson's press statement - but their own words, either because they can't see the words 'at this stage' or 'subject to verification' or because they see themselves as the sentinels of a guarded secret.

It is understandable why nations and states might want to keep certain defence information 'classified' and one can see why people such as Assange and Snowden are forwned upon. OTOH the obsession of keeping knowledge away from the masses epitomises the homily that 'knowledge is power'. As evidenced in the Catholic Church all the way through to C16; all church services were in Latin, which only the educated clergy could understand. The great unwashed hoi-polloi were not to be imparted this precious knowledge. The brouhaha when Wycliffe and later Tyndale translated the New Testament into English - heaven forfend! - now the undeserving masses were in on the hitherto closely guarded knowledge. Even London cab drivers had to have 'the knowledge' to get a black cab licence. Woe betide anyone posing as a cab driver without the knowledge. Massive blackcab road blocks when minicabs and Uber were given the go-ahead.

So now the public aren't allowed to know what make and model the poxy Luton Airport Car Park fire vehicle was because, ah, we have to protect the brand...mustn't let the pig ignorant public have a dim view of hybrids or EV's; gotta protect the Jaguar Range Rover brand and not have people questioning the planned 1m sq m Tata (JLR owners) gigafactory set to produce lithium car batteries.

And people here think 'That's fine, I like that they can't provide basic information because we are only the great unwashed masses who should not ask pesky questions because you know, knowledge belongs to those with power. We don't want Ms Murty's friends at Tata to be out of pocket on our account. Jolly right, too.'

 

[MarkCorrigan]

It's only obvious to you. What colour is the sky in your world?

 

[Andy_Ross]

As I said, it is unauthored and is obviously a short form of what Mr Hopkinson said in his press conference/press release 11 October 2023. There have been no further updates in respect of the details of the fire, other than some 30-something guy has been bailed on suspicion of criminal damage 'as a precaution' (whatever that is supposed to mean). As the Fire Brigade did not fully conquer the fire until about 15:00 and he was speaking as the building was still smouldering it is obviously best opinion than confirmation. Ask yourself why he did not provide the name and make of the vehicle.

As for Full Fact and the person who uploaded the Beds Fire & Rescue webpage, these are people who treat knowledge as though iit was a scarce commodity and they are going to withhold it from you, because they want to teach the anti-EV brigade - as they see it - a lesson by withholding information, indeed averring the opposite information, claiming it was a confirmed diesel and definitely not a mild hybrid diesel of any sort. Possibly they were sick to death of journalists ringing up for information so fobbed them off with a subedited untruth that was not an accurate reflection of what the primary source - Andrew Hopkinson's press statement - but their own words, either because they can't see the words 'at this stage' or 'subject to verification' or because they see themselves as the sentinels of a guarded secret.

It is understandable why nations and states might want to keep certain defence information 'classified' and one can see why people such as Assange and Snowden are forwned upon. OTOH the obsession of keeping knowledge away from the masses epitomises the homily that 'knowledge is power'. As evidenced in the Catholic Church all the way through to C16; all church services were in Latin, which only the educated clergy could understand. The great unwashed hoi-polloi were not to be imparted this precious knowledge. The brouhaha when Wycliffe and later Tyndale translated the New Testament into English - heaven forfend! - now the undeserving masses were in on the hitherto closely guarded knowledge. Even London cab drivers had to have 'the knowledge' to get a black cab licence. Woe betide anyone posing as a cab driver without the knowledge. Massive blackcab road blocks when minicabs and Uber were given the go-ahead.

So now the public aren't allowed to know what make and model the poxy Luton Airport Car Park fire vehicle was because, ah, we have to protect the brand...mustn't let the pig ignorant public have a dim view of hybrids or EV's; gotta protect the Jaguar Range Rover brand and not have people questioning the planned 1m sq m Tata (JLR owners) gigafactory set to produce lithium car batteries.

And people here think 'That's fine, I like that they can't provide basic information because we are only the great unwashed masses who should not ask pesky questions because you know, knowledge belongs to those with power. We don't want Ms Murty's friends at Tata to be out of pocket on our account. Jolly right, too.'

What's the point of posting all that ******

What do you think you gain by it?

Is being a ******* troll and ******* liar the image you want to cultivate?

The statement is an official one from the fire and rescue service, it is on their official website. It says that the car was a diesel.

Do you think someone made it up? do you think an official announcement on the official website wasn't cleared and written by someone with the authority to do so?

If you think it's wrong have you contacted them to tell them?

 

[wollery]

As I said, it is unauthored and is obviously a short form of what Mr Hopkinson said in his press conference/press release 11 October 2023.

Many years ago I was taken to task by my PhD supervisor for stating that something was "clear".

"If," he said, "it is clear, then you don't need to say that it is. If it isn't clear, then you look like an idiot for saying it."

Vixen, it is not obvious that the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service website statement is a short form of Chief Fire Officer Hopkinson's statement.

That means that your statement that it is obvious makes you look, well, you figure it out.

Snipped conspiracy nonsense

 

[junkshop]

Having a closer look at the Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service website, I came across this press release (originally published on October 11th).

I would draw your attention to the last update, published at 3:30 pm on the 12th (the day before the OP in this ridiculous thread was posted) - particularly the part I have highlighted:

Update at 3:30pm:

Two fire engines, an aerial platform and the incident command unit remain at the scene of the fire currently.

Crews continue to work with airport fire service to monitor hot spots.

The fire service can confirm the initial vehicle involved in the fire was a diesel car.

An investigation to determine the cause of the fire is underway.

Main roads around the area are all open.

Sounds pretty unequivocal to me, and it's a press release, to boot.

 

[JayUtah]

As I said, it is unauthored...

Irrelevant. Its context is authoritative.

...and is obviously a short form...

"Obvious" only to you.

There have been no further updates in respect of the details of the fire...

None you recognize. That's the whole issue.

The rest of your post is irrelevant conspiratorial screed.

 

[phiwum]

I did not refer to any BBC article. You sure do get easily confused.



Ah, so let's see if I understand your argument.

1. All important developments will be announced via press release and reported by the press.
2. Were the assessment of the vehicle as a diesel ICE to move from "pending final investigation" to "confirmed", this would be an important development.
3. There has been no report of the confirmation in the press.
4. Hence, the assessment is still not confirmed.
5. Hence, the announcement that it has been confirmed on the website must be false.

Is this roughly your argument?

Re the conclusion: I don't know whether it is in error or on purpose but it is technically incorrect, for whatever reason.

Excellent. So now I'll take the above as a presentation of your argument. Note that I've changed the phrase "in error" to the more neutral term "false" here, so whether it was an error or intentionally false, no matter.

Now, the argument appears to be valid (if the premises are true, the conclusion is also true), so we should turn our attention to the unsupported premises, (1), (2) and (3). Far as I know, (3) is not controversial, so let's take it for granted unless we have reason to doubt it later.

(1) seems fairly plausible. Oh, it's possible that (1) is actually false, since it's possible that either the fire officials choose not to announce every important development or the press has moved on from this story and chooses not to publish an announced important development.

But the premise that I find most obviously dubious is (2). I think (2) is false. I don't think the change from "a diesel vehicle pending final investigation" to "confirmed to be a diesel vehicle" is all that significant. Indeed, it would be expected, perfectly run of the mill stuff. Most things which investigators say they believe to be true, subject to verification, turn out to be true, I'd wager. So I don't find it convincing that this move from "subject to verification" to "confirmed" is really important enough to require a press release, nor that it would be important enough that the press would necessarily publish articles about this totally not startling development.

In other words, if (1) is true -- that is, if developments that are important are announced to the press and the press will print stories about such developments, then I think that (2) is false.

Anyway, it's good to see where precisely your reasoning goes awry, isn't it? I eagerly await your entirely off-topic and perplexing reply. Or complete silence. Either one is par for the course, after all.

ETA: Thanks to junkshop, we see that the fire department did indeed include the confirmation in a press release on Oct. 12th -- incidentally, one day before the web page we've been referencing went up. However, far as I know, no media outlets bothered to report the "upgrade" from "subject to verification" to "confirmed". Hence, again, either (1) is false or (2) is false, as I suggested.

 

[phiwum]

Mr. Hopkinson had a carefully prepared statement to the various broadcasters and journalists who turned up and this same statement was sent out as a press release.

This is why all of the newspapers and all of the broadcasters all carry the identical exact same quote.

Is the highlighted true? What evidence do you have for this?

Note that, "Well, I reckon they would've done it, wouldn't they?" is pretty ******* weak evidence. I hope you have something better than that.

ETA: Note as well that the fact that broadcasters carry the same quote isn't evidence of a press release either. He said the quote in front of reporters. That's how come they got the same wording. Turns out they wrote down what he said. Clever lads, when you think about it.

 

[junkshop]

Is the highlighted true? What evidence do you have for this?

Note that, "Well, I reckon they would've done it, wouldn't they?" is pretty ******* weak evidence. I hope you have something better than that.

Their press releases are published on their website. Notably, the text of Mr. Hopkins' statement was not.

Vixen is wrong.

 

[phiwum]

Having a closer look at the Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service website, I came across this press release (originally published on October 11th).

I would draw your attention to the last update, published at 3:30 pm on the 12th (the day before the OP in this ridiculous thread was posted) - particularly the part I have highlighted:




Sounds pretty unequivocal to me, and it's a press release, to boot.

I don't see the chief's signature on it. Probably whats-her-name from Communications writing simplified English again.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Mr. Hopkinson had a carefully prepared statement to the various broadcasters and journalists who turned up and this same statement was sent out as a press release.



This is why all of the newspapers and all of the broadcasters all carry the identical exact same quote.

You're quite sure they don't all quote what he said by transcribing it from their recordings, then?

He does quite a good act of pretending to be talking off the cuff rather than reading a prepared statement, don't you think? I'm impressed by his technique. All the extra little umms and ahhs are a nice touch.

How many rehearsals do you think he needed before he could do the whole thing off-script?


Look, this is just ridiculous. He spoke, they recorded him, they transcribed what he said. You're inventing a press release to try to avoid being wrong about an absurdly small detail. It's hilarious but also rather tragic.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As for Full Fact and the person who uploaded the Beds Fire & Rescue webpage, these are people who treat knowledge as though iit was a scarce commodity and they are going to withhold it from you, because they want to teach the anti-EV brigade - as they see it - a lesson by withholding information, indeed averring the opposite information...'

<edited before it gets moderated>

Look at the crazy world you have to create to maintain the fiction that you are not wrong about this diesel car. It's absurd.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

...mustn't let the pig ignorant public have a dim view of hybrids or EV's

Actually, there is no reason to think they care whether Vixen has a dim view of hybrids or EVs.

 

[zooterkin]

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

What form of words would convince you that they mean what they are actually saying?

The usual press release to all news outlets.

Well, here it is, thank you to junkshop:

Having a closer look at the Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service website, I came across this press release (originally published on October 11th).

I would draw your attention to the last update, published at 3:30 pm on the 12th (the day before the OP in this ridiculous thread was posted) - particularly the part I have highlighted:

Update at 3:30pm:

Two fire engines, an aerial platform and the incident command unit remain at the scene of the fire currently.

Crews continue to work with airport fire service to monitor hot spots.

The fire service can confirm the initial vehicle involved in the fire was a diesel car.

An investigation to determine the cause of the fire is underway.

Main roads around the area are all open.

Sounds pretty unequivocal to me, and it's a press release, to boot.

Quod erat demonstrandum, mon ami, kemo sabe?

 

[jeremyp]

I have just come back to this thread and in my absence, twelve pages have appeared.

I have not read any of the twelve new pages.

In light of the above, please accept my apologies if this has already been discussed but:

What advantage accrues to Bedfordshire Fire Service by lying about the type of car that started the fire?

Bear in mind that EV fires are particularly dangerous to deal with and very hard to put out. Why would the people who would be putting their own lives in danger try to cover them up?

 

[Dabop]

I have just come back to this thread and in my absence, twelve pages have appeared.

I have not read any of the twelve new pages.

In light of the above, please accept my apologies if this has already been discussed but:

What advantage accrues to Bedfordshire Fire Service by lying about the type of car that started the fire?

Bear in mind that EV fires are particularly dangerous to deal with and very hard to put out. Why would the people who would be putting their own lives in danger try to cover them up?

Its a conspiracy by
A:big batteries to put EVS in a better light ...
B:by big oil to put EVs in a worse light...
C:by certain car companies because it makes them look bad...
D:by the fire brigades to 'hid the TRUTH'...
E: by politicians because they are either in the pay of big oil, big batteries, car manufacturers or all of the above...
F: big journalism, , because they need to cover up the truth by any and or all of the above...
G: Big bra manufacturers, because- well just because....

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The noted researcher William Martin Joel has released a press statement outlining just how long the conspiracy has been going on.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=eFTLKWw542g&pp=ygUYd2UgZGlkbid0IHN0YXJ0IHRoZSBmaXJl