Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
jeremyp said:
What advantage accrues to Bedfordshire Fire Service by lying about the type of car that started the fire?
Click to expand...

Well, we're invited to imagine it's something to do with their being leant on, cajoled, bribed or otherwise induced to cover up the non-fact that this specific event began with an EV battery fire. No other EV fires need be lied about. Just this one. But it's somehow really important that this specific one be lied about.

The pressure to lie allegedly comes from the prime minister, because if people don't buy EVs then JLRs new battery factory in Somerset will lose money, and not only is the government politically invested in this being a success but the prime minister's wife's father is one of the founders on Infosys and is a very wealthy Indian and the factory is owned by Tata which is owned and run by more very wealthy Indians and something something.

So as so often it's something about them foreigners, comin' over 'ere, creatin' our jobs. Tch.


I hope that clears it up.
 
zooterkin said:
Well, here it is, thank you to junkshop:

...

Quod erat demonstrandum, mon ami, kemo sabe?
Click to expand...

Yep. I think this means we can close the thread, right?

Nil desperandum (ceteris paribus), Irish?


savvy? ... navvy ... Irish navvy ... Irish?
 
wollery said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have the same aversion as your PhD supervisor, especially in the use of unnecessary adverbs, the word 'very' now almost meaningless, as one example. However, sometimes you do have to use such devices to help aid understanding if your first attempt at explanation fails.
 
phiwum said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it was 'false', more a case of ignoring qualifiers (for example, in the pursuit of 'plain English') or people's tendency to not see them at all. So the phrase, 'We are investigating arson', becomes, 'Police say it is arson'. It's not false insofar it is a deliberately false statement, although in the case of activist websites, it can be deliberate as a tool for manipulating people's perception of an event. As long as one is aware of such persuasion techniques it is not a problem. It is a problem here because a handful of posters insist that the matter of the vehicle has been conclusively determined, to the extent they believe repeating it over and over makes it come true.
 
phiwum said:
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.
Click to expand...

In the UK, speakers like to give the impression it is ad lib but in fact, it remains carefully prepared. It is not too difficult to remember two or three key points.

The evidence it was a press release? You can do this exercise for yourself: select any major reputable newspaper or news broadcaster throughout the world reporting on the Luton Airport Fire 11th or 12th October 2023 and I guaranteed they will all contain the same quote. (I say reputable because there are bound to be some who leave out the quote and subedit it down to a pithy shorthand instead.
 
Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service said:
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.
Click to expand...


One poster insists that the matter of the vehicle has not been conclusively determined, to the extent they believe repeating it over and over makes it come true.

...
 
Last edited:
jeremyp said:
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?
Click to expand...

They themselves do not have any advantage, other than being careful not to pre-empt anything that should be investigated in the Fire Report.

Note Harpendon Fire Brigade had no problem chatting to reporters about EV's in a general sense.
 
Vixen said:
I wouldn't say it was 'false', more a case of ignoring qualifiers (for example, in the pursuit of 'plain English') or people's tendency to not see them at all. So the phrase, 'We are investigating arson', becomes, 'Police say it is arson'. It's not false insofar it is a deliberately false statement, although in the case of activist websites, it can be deliberate as a tool for manipulating people's perception of an event. As long as one is aware of such persuasion techniques it is not a problem. It is a problem here because a handful of posters insist that the matter of the vehicle has been conclusively determined, to the extent they believe repeating it over and over makes it come true.
Click to expand...
If the fire service has not confirmed that it's a diesel vehicle, then the assertion that it has been confirmed is false.

Now go back and read the whole post because you've focused on a trivially rather than the main point. Your argument is unsound.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Vixen said:
I have the same aversion as your PhD supervisor, especially in the use of unnecessary adverbs, the word 'very' now almost meaningless, as one example. However, sometimes you do have to use such devices to help aid understanding if your first attempt at explanation fails.
Click to expand...

"The fire service can confirm the initial vehicle involved in the fire was a very diesel car."
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
Well, we're invited to imagine it's something to do with their being leant on, cajoled, bribed or otherwise induced to cover up the non-fact that this specific event began with an EV battery fire. No other EV fires need be lied about. Just this one. But it's somehow really important that this specific one be lied about.

The pressure to lie allegedly comes from the prime minister, because if people don't buy EVs then JLRs new battery factory in Somerset will lose money, and not only is the government politically invested in this being a success but the prime minister's wife's father is one of the founders on Infosys and is a very wealthy Indian and the factory is owned by Tata which is owned and run by more very wealthy Indians and something something.

So as so often it's something about them foreigners, comin' over 'ere, creatin' our jobs. Tch.


I hope that clears it up.
Click to expand...

Apart from your disgraceful last two paragraphs about foreigners, many a jester hath been a prophet.

As for withholding information to protect JLR and Tata, don't you think nepotism is rather something to be decried in favour of transparency? Yes, in normal commercial enterprise it is quite commonplace - indeed expected - that there will be brand reputation crisis management. However, the Prime Minister 's function is not there to protect his wife's friends' commercial interests. He is a public servant and should be serving the interests of the British public, which includes the right to information that is in the public interest. Suppose your vehicle was of the same batch and production line as the one that started the Luton fire. Don't you think there might be some public duty to warn you to get it checked for the same potential problem?
 
Vixen said:
Note Harpendon Fire Brigade had no problem chatting to reporters about EV's in a general sense.
Click to expand...

And what did they say, in a general sense? Did they say that EVs (note the lack of the very extraneous apostrophe) are ticking time bombs that frequently erupt in white-hot fireballs that melt through concrete and consume large, sturdy architecture all by themselves?
 
junkshop said:
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.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
snipped
Click to expand...

Vixen, stop blathering and check junkshop's link
 
Vixen said:
Apart from your disgraceful last two paragraphs about foreigners, many a jester hath been a prophet.
Click to expand...

I tend to think an actual jester would understand humor well enough to realize when someone is engaging in satire.
 
Vixen said:
In the UK, speakers like to give the impression it is ad lib but in fact, it remains carefully prepared. It is not too difficult to remember two or three key points.

The evidence it was a press release? You can do this exercise for yourself: select any major reputable newspaper or news broadcaster throughout the world reporting on the Luton Airport Fire 11th or 12th October 2023 and I guaranteed they will all contain the same quote. (I say reputable because there are bound to be some who leave out the quote and subedit it down to a pithy shorthand instead.
Click to expand...


Bedfordshire fire and Rescue have their press releases on their website here. Can you find and link to the press release you are talking about?

ETA: They even have a photograph of your conspiracy theory here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom