Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[LondonJohn]

The context was my explaining why the chap was anonymous. What I actually said was that they are not allowed to speak to the press.

Do let me have your objections.

You didn't answer my questions. Try again.

 

[Vixen]

You didn't answer my questions. Try again.

You are lying about your dad. See how you like it?

 

[Steve]

The context was my explaining why the chap was anonymous. What I actually said was that they are not allowed to speak to the press.

Do let me have your objections.

Why do you constantly have to explain what you "actually" said or meant in your knee-jerk posts? Why not take the time to remove ambiguity, use the correct terms, and ensure accuracy and clarity before posting?

Oh yeah, and provide references for all your claims of what third parties said or did. Without such references any claims are just so much hot air and have no place in this discussion.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are lying about your dad. See how you like it?

As I said, you didn't answer my questions. And what you've written above has nothing whatsoever to do with the questions we were discussing.

(FWIW, I couldn't care less whether or not you believe what I wrote about my father. Trust me: I am a million miles away from craving your approbation. My mentioning of that subject - as an interesting factual rebuttal - was solely intended for those in the thread who are obviously posting from a position of mutual trust and good faith.)

 

[Steve]

Come out of the playground.

You are lying about your dad. See how you like it?

 

[Steve]

As I said, you didn't answer my questions. And what you've written above has nothing whatsoever to do with the questions we were discussing.

(FWIW, I couldn't care less whether or not you believe what I wrote about my father. Trust me: I am a million miles away from craving your approbation. My mentioning of that subject - as an interesting factual rebuttal - was solely intended for those in the thread who are obviously posting from a position of mutual trust and good faith.)

Willy Shakespeare anticipated so many of Vixen's posts several hundred years ago:

"..... full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

 

[Vixen]

This is something else you've made up.

See this guy here. From 1:43.



https://youtu.be/kEuE1e4IQhg?si=vW5SvN3E3Y0fN6UX

 

[LondonJohn]

Willy Shakespeare anticipated so many of Vixen's posts several hundred years ago:

"..... full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

He did indeed anticipate so many of your posts as such. Spooky.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Memorandum

To all stakeholders

Re: The Fire at Luton Airport Car Park (“the Fire”)

It has come to our notice that we appear to have misled the public and the press about the cause of the Fire. We take these all such matters incredibly seriously. We are really sorry to have deceived the aforementioned and we must do better. We hate ourselves. We throw ourselves abjectly at your feet begging your forgiveness and forbearance.

With immediate effect, we are changing the name of our organization to, ‘Not Quite True’ until we have thoroughly researched the meaning of the words, “full” and ‘fact”.

By order of the management.

What is your source for this statement?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Er, you do know that people have been constantly pointing to the statement by a 'fact-finding' organization that looks into the veracity of claims going about, who said categorically that absolutley no electric vehicle of any sort was involved. Yet the government is now saying the vehicle was diesel-fuelled and not a fully electric or plug-in model.

Do you see the glaring misinformation?

You seem to be the only person saying this.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Memorandum

To all stakeholders

Re: The Fire at Luton Airport Car Park (“the Fire”)

It has come to our notice that we appear to have misled the public and the press about the cause of the Fire. We take these all such matters incredibly seriously. We are really sorry to have deceived the aforementioned and we must do better. We hate ourselves. We throw ourselves abjectly at your feet begging your forgiveness and forbearance.

With immediate effect, we are changing the name of our organization to, ‘Not Quite True’ until we have thoroughly researched the meaning of the words, “full” and ‘fact”.

By order of the management.

I see this conspiracy theory has now reached the pleading stage: "But just pretend for a minute I was right".

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Really? So when someone says a train is invariably late, they mean literally always?

Yes. That is what they mean. They mean exactly the same thing as if they said "always".

If they do not intend their remark to be taken entirely literally that must be inferred from context, e.g. "this is literally the least convincing argument you have ever made".

 

[GlennB]

It is used in the same sense as 'hardly' or 'quite'. In effect, its use is ironic or imprecise, and not absolute, or one wouldn't need to qualify a statement with it.

This is just plain wrong and is rather worrying.

 

[JayUtah]

Figure of speech. It is used colloquially to sum up the signing of a document that you understand that you are covered by the terms of the Act linked to your work.

No. The evidence of your prior behavior indicates you are not a competent authority on the use of language, colloquial or otherwise. No one similarly situated agrees with this usage or confirms the need to perform the action it insinuates, colloquially described or not.

Further, it is a well-worn pattern with you that when you are confronted with evidence of your ignorance, you retreat to the bailey of claiming something is an informal, colloquial, or regional convention. You're simply try to make true the illusion that no one can tell when you're faking it.

I know in the USA and on the continent there is no Contempt of Court or requirement of the cloak of secrecy, although most police forces like to investigate their stuff in private.

No. You are not a competent authority on investigative practice anywhere. You were asked to provide evidence for your claim that the fire department not only operated under a cloak of secrecy, but were tasked with providing a cover story of false details to mislead the public in service of powerful interests. The best you could come up with was a vague assertion regarding the police and and unfounded insinuation that the fire service must follow similar restrictions because they were working together on investigating the cause of the Luton fire.

That's okay. I understand that clever people are often come across as unbearable. I understand your annoyance.

No you don't. You're not clever or knowledgeable or any other brand of virtuous. You're merely pretentious, arrogant, condescending, ignorant, and shrill. This is why you are unbearable.

Since I have signed the Official Secrets Act in a civil service job and in a job overseen by the Insolvency Service, I assumed it was the case for everyone in such jobs.

No. Regardless of your desire to rehabilitate your claim by habitually reusing an erroneous phrase, you have provided no evidence that you or anyone else has signed anything governing the commitment to obey secrecy obligations.

Nor, following this increasingly obvious distraction, have you shown how the Official Secrets Act would be invoked in any way, attested or otherwise, to conceal the cause of the Luton fire and, in fact, to lie about it to the public.

The statement given by Mr. Hodgkinson was very clearly a prepared and carefully worded one. Each word chosen for a reason: he knew this is the statement that would be published in the national press and is the authorized one.

All of this is your imagination. The official statement, given in writing and published from an authoritative source, is superseding.

I can confirm that I have indeed signed it. So cease the ad hominems.

You have confirmed nothing. You have merely repeated a claim that is improbable on its face and contradicted by the testimony of others similarly situated and by documentary evidence. Since you have a well-documented habit of refusing to accept correction on even minor errors, it is more likely that your repetition of the claim has more to do with entrenching yourself to save face than in correcting the record.

Further, requiring you to reconcile your claims with otherwise discoverable facts is not ad hominem. In making this claim, you have made it the foundation of an argument. You claim to know how secrecy works, and thereby that the evidence provided by competent authority regarding the cause of the Luton fire is untrue and subject to concealment pursuant to the Official Secrets Act. If your argument is based on personal claims to expertise, the challenge to that purported expertise is not ad hominem.

I wish I had never mentioned as I thought it was common knowledge. Having had to study all aspects of business and industry inside out, outside in, in every possible way, I stupidly failed to realise that this stuff is outside of the radar of most people and they have no need to know it.

No. You habitually lie about your background and qualifications, so there is no reason to accept your claim that you have a thorough knowledge of business and industry. In fact, your statements in other threads leave little doubt that you really don't understand how business and industry work.

You are not uniquely situated upon some lofty perch from which you can instruct others. This thread is filled with people who can demonstrate an understanding of obligations of secrecy and privacy in the U.K., and of its business practices and civil service requirements. They simply do not endorse your claims. They are not doing so out of ignorance.

You're trying to invert this exercise. You want your claims of superiority to stand unchallenged so that the explanation for your latest gaffe becomes that you are the only one who can possibly know what's right. There is a simpler, more parsimonious explanation: Once again you have been caught faking it. Your inability to grasp the operation of the Official Secrets Act is evidence that you are not the highly experienced industry and civil service expert you purport to be. You are not the only one who's right despite all other evidence; you are the only one who's wrong according to all other evidence.

 

[Vixen]

Yes. Yes they do. "Invariably" is a precise synonym for "always". Please quit with this embarrassing charade.

So if a train that is invariably late literally means a train that is absolutely ALWAYS late, then by what baseline do you know what time the train usually arrives?


Logic not your strong point.

 

[catsmate]

Yes, and as a factual example of how rapidly a lithium-ion fire spreads, it is confirmed that the recent fire at Gatwick North Terminal and which took out eleven vehicles was an EV. Any car within a few metres of such an 'accidental ignition' is also likely to ignite owing to the sheer outward force of the lithium-ion flames.

Citation required.

 

[Vixen]

You seem to be the only person saying this.

Wow! RICH coming from the person who replicated my every post with the claim, 'they have confirmed it was a diesel car'.

Sudden amnesia now that the full fact is that it was 'a diesel-fuelled car, but not a full EV or a plug in EV', yet failing to confirm it was not a mild hybrid vehicle either. That changes everything. It means it was a hybrid and it was a lithium battery fire.

No wonder you appeared to pick up the ball and stomp off.

Admitting gracious defeat is not your forte, I see.

Let's now pretend you never claimed what you claimed because of your need to wait until you are told by your betters what to believe because 'I know my place'.

<fx tugs forelock>

Cue: massive strop coming up.

 

[catsmate]

Only eleven? Not as impressive as 1,500. Puny fire.

Liquid fuelled fires spread quickly.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So if a train that is invariably late literally means a train that is absolutely ALWAYS late, then by what baseline do you know what time the train usually arrives?


Logic not your strong point.

Clever people read the timetable. What do you do?

 

[Vixen]

No. The evidence of your prior behavior indicates you are not a competent authority on the use of language, colloquial or otherwise. No one similarly situated agrees with this usage or confirms the need to perform the action it insinuates, colloquially described or not.

Further, it is a well-worn pattern with you that when you are confronted with evidence of your ignorance, you retreat to the bailey of claiming something is an informal, colloquial, or regional convention. You're simply try to make true the illusion that no one can tell when you're faking it.



No. You are not a competent authority on investigative practice anywhere. You were asked to provide evidence for your claim that the fire department not only operated under a cloak of secrecy, but were tasked with providing a cover story of false details to mislead the public in service of powerful interests. The best you could come up with was a vague assertion regarding the police and and unfounded insinuation that the fire service must follow similar restrictions because they were working together on investigating the cause of the Luton fire.



No you don't. You're not clever or knowledgeable or any other brand of virtuous. You're merely pretentious, arrogant, condescending, ignorant, and shrill. This is why you are unbearable.



No. Regardless of your desire to rehabilitate your claim by habitually reusing an erroneous phrase, you have provided no evidence that you or anyone else has signed anything governing the commitment to obey secrecy obligations.

Nor, following this increasingly obvious distraction, have you shown how the Official Secrets Act would be invoked in any way, attested or otherwise, to conceal the cause of the Luton fire and, in fact, to lie about it to the public.



All of this is your imagination. The official statement, given in writing and published from an authoritative source, is superseding.



You have confirmed nothing. You have merely repeated a claim that is improbable on its face and contradicted by the testimony of others similarly situated and by documentary evidence. Since you have a well-documented habit of refusing to accept correction on even minor errors, it is more likely that your repetition of the claim has more to do with entrenching yourself to save face than in correcting the record.

Further, requiring you to reconcile your claims with otherwise discoverable facts is not ad hominem. In making this claim, you have made it the foundation of an argument. You claim to know how secrecy works, and thereby that the evidence provided by competent authority regarding the cause of the Luton fire is untrue and subject to concealment pursuant to the Official Secrets Act. If your argument is based on personal claims to expertise, the challenge to that purported expertise is not ad hominem.



No. You habitually lie about your background and qualifications, so there is no reason to accept your claim that you have a thorough knowledge of business and industry. In fact, your statements in other threads leave little doubt that you really don't understand how business and industry work.

You are not uniquely situated upon some lofty perch from which you can instruct others. This thread is filled with people who can demonstrate an understanding of obligations of secrecy and privacy in the U.K., and of its business practices and civil service requirements. They simply do not endorse your claims. They are not doing so out of ignorance.

You're trying to invert this exercise. You want your claims of superiority to stand unchallenged so that the explanation for your latest gaffe becomes that you are the only one who can possibly know what's right. There is a simpler, more parsimonious explanation: Once again you have been caught faking it. Your inability to grasp the operation of the Official Secrets Act is evidence that you are not the highly experienced industry and civil service expert you purport to be. You are not the only one who's right despite all other evidence; you are the only one who's wrong according to all other evidence.

Stop spreading lies about me.