Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[LondonJohn]

We don't have to; I've finally found a few other examples of "sign the Official Secrets Act" being used in the U.K. in the manner suggested. So I'm prepared to believe that Vixen "signed the Official Secrets Act" in the manner she suggests: a separate acknowledgment of the duty to obey it, not the Act of Parliament itself. So I will plead prior ignorance on that with apologies.

Vixen has kindly admitted her ignorance in believing that one has to do this as a necessary condition of civil service employment in the U.K. So the argument that the firefighters in question did this, and are bound by it in a way that prevents them from disclosing true facts about the fire in which they were involved, is effectively refuted. The categorical requirement is not satisfied, and the syllogism is therefor not of validating form.

I don't believe that an insolvency clerk/accountant would ever require notification that their work fell under the ambit of the Official Secrets Act. I believe Vixen to be lying (far from the first time, after all....).

(And as others have also said, those who have been notified almost always don't use the erroneous phrase "signing the Official Secrets Act". That construction only tends to be used by those who've never been notified.)


ETA: and to wheel back once again to the actual matter at hand, the important thing (wrt this thread) is the utter refutation of Vixen's boneheaded and entirely unfounded notions that a) signing a notification of being bound under the Act is somehow routine for employees in institutions such as the fie service (when in fact it is virtually unheard of for employees in such institutions to be notified), and b) the Luton Airport car park fire was ever a matter which fell under the remit of the Act.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Well, there's your problem.

Maybe we're going to see the Multiverse hypothesis proven?

 

[LondonJohn]

We're still waiting for you to provide evidence that the fire at Gatwick North Terminal on Wednesday last began in an EV or hybrid.
You have failed to do so and dodged the question.

OMG I just did a quick search regarding this fire.... and the number of CT nutters posting on SM about "the great EV fire cover-up" is fairly amazing. At least now I see where Vixen gets her source material and POV.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The problem is that you made this up in an attempt to impress others and elevate your nondescript job to "exciting" levels. You're lying. Just drop it please.

It's perfectly possible, as a student I worked on test system protocols for military hardware, the most boring thing I have done in my life btw and I too used to be an accountant, but I had to sign a document confirming that I understood I was bound by the Official Secrets Act. None the less I never signed the act itself because no-one does. TBH I think this is a pointless distraction, most people accept 'signing the Official Secrets Act' as vernacular for taking a job that makes you subject to it, the significant part was that the meaning of the statement was wrong rather than the wording, which was wrong as well.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Putting all common sense aside for just long enough to ask you about this: is it your view that they lied by omission and that they expect to escape criticism when this deception is revealed because they used a cunning form of words to bamboozle a journalist? Is that what you think they intend? Really? Really, really? Can you imagine a world where that could work?

Maybe that's how things work in "Vixen's World"

 

[Mojo]

I'm not saying that this is the case, but it feels kind of like the reaction of someone who wanted to be part of the 'in' group, but was refused entry. The kind of thing that might have happened to a self-confessed "haughty schoolgirl".

I suspect that the "haughty schoolgirl" thing might be the result of Vixen misunderstanding the term "public school", as it is used in a British context, and therefore thinking that someone who had been educated by Middlesex County Council would be able to "walk into jobs without even being barely interviewed."

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Sorry if anything sticks in your craw but facts cannot be changed to make the world a sweeter place. If you are uncomfortable perhaps the problem lies with you and not me.

The most charitable reading of your posts in your many threads is that you're delusional. I'm not saying you are delusional of course, but the other options are worse.

You routinely say things that are just not true and attempt to shame everyone else into stopping pointing this out by throwing tantrums and accusing us of being mean to you. We aren't being mean to you, you just keep talking rubbish.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry if anything sticks in your craw but facts cannot be changed to make the world a sweeter place.

Facts are not your friends. Conversely they cannot be ignored to make the world the dark, sinister place you imagine—your imaginary salvation from which casts you in the vanguard. You have yet to show you are any of the things you claim to be, yet you demand to be taken seriously and your imaginary heroism treated with respect.

If you are uncomfortable perhaps the problem lies with you and not me.

No, the world is not obliged to indulge blowhards and charlatans. We respond with appropriate laughter, not discomfort.

 

[zooterkin]

Did you not note the word 'invariably'..? So your English comprehension is not as good as you constantly like to make out.

I have noticed that people tend to be blind as to what a conditional tense means. Terms such as 'It is believed', 'sometimes', 'invariably', 'if', would could should are all conditional. They do NOT also mean 'confirmed', which you keep claiming.

You should consider suing Middlesex County Council for failing in their duty to educate you.


"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

 

[JayUtah]

I had to sign a document confirming that I understood I was bound by the Official Secrets Act.

The Act (which I read over lunch) provides a number of opportunities for a mens rea defense against charged violations. Formal notice of coverage simply forecloses those defenses. It does not create liability where none previously existed, nor alter the liability that would normally apply.

None the less I never signed the act itself because no-one does. TBH I think this is a pointless distraction, most people accept 'signing the Official Secrets Act' as vernacular for taking a job that makes you subject to it, the significant part was that the meaning of the statement was wrong rather than the wording, which was wrong as well.

Be the vernacular as it may, and as distracting as it may be, the categorical argument simply fails. Or rather, it is ultimately moot. The Act applies as it does, notification or not. A fire fighter is no more or less bound by it by having signed a documented acknowledging notification. "Every public employee has to sign it" (whatever is meant in this case by "sign it") is neither true nor relevant.

The question is whether a fire service is somehow bound by the Official Secrets Act to conceal the true cause of a fire in a car park, and whether that concealment, as purportedly required by the Act, provides for a false cover story given under color of authority. My reading of the Act finds absolutely no toehold for any of that. Vixen's claim to know otherwise, due to her alleged civil service requiring notice under the Act, does not salvage the argument. Of particular interest is the section of the Act delineating what sort of information is considered "damaging" and therefore protected against disclosure. It doesn't amount simply to, "stuff the government might not want known."

 

[Steve]

Sorry if anything sticks in your craw but facts cannot be changed to make the world a sweeter place. If you are uncomfortable perhaps the problem lies with you and not me.

What delusion gives you the idea that JayUtah, or indeed anyone else here, is made uncomfortable by your posts? Your posts, which rarely contain any facts, as the rest of the world understands the meaning, are an embarrassment only to yourself. It is something of a shame that you are so unaware how outlandish and unrealistic your claims actually are.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

OMG I just did a quick search regarding this fire.... and the number of CT nutters posting on SM about "the great EV fire cover-up" is fairly amazing. At least now I see where Vixen gets her source material and POV.

But where did they get it from?

CT nutters don't need to get it from anywhere - it can easily be derived from first principles.

Principle #1: Anything that impinges on your freedoms is bad, no matter how it may affect you or others. Especially others. Your freedoms trump theirs.

Fact: The government wants you to cut down on fossil fuel use because they say it's damaging the environment.

Conclusion: they are lying. The real reason they want you to change is that they are on a power trip and enjoy making people to do what they say. The alternative - that perhaps they aren't lying and you should do what they say - isn't worth considering.

Principle #2: Anything the government forces on you must be bad.

Fact: The government is forcing you to buy an EV.

Conclusion: EVs are bad in every way. We just need to 'find' those ways to prove it.

For example, EVs (AKA 'milk floats') have lithium batteries that are always catching fire and can't be put out. That's why they are so dangerous (note: that used to apply to cell phones too - until we wanted them). EVs catch fire far much more often than normal cars. We know that because they are in the news all the time!

Principle #3: Lying to protect your freedoms is perfectly justified.

Fact: The Luton carpark fire was caused by a vehicle catching fire.

Conclusion: the vehicle that started it must be an EV because it needs to be. The government will say it isn't because they need it not to be. Anything you can cook up to 'prove' it was an EV is OK, and anything that refutes it is a 'coverup'.

 

[Vixen]

Facts are not your friends. Conversely they cannot be ignored to make the world the dark, sinister place you imagine—your imaginary salvation from which casts you in the vanguard. You have yet to show you are any of the things you claim to be, yet you demand to be taken seriously and your imaginary heroism treated with respect.



No, the world is not obliged to indulge blowhards and charlatans. We respond with appropriate laughter, not discomfort.

No, sorry, you don't get way with this. You ASKED for my qualifications and I told you. So now you are using my acquiescence in responding to take the p!ss out of the information I gave you. The reason I am cross is because just now you falsely accused me of lying about my qualifications and background and then falsely claimed that I said I had studied physics for twelve years, when I have NEVER claimed to be a physicist and your own citation clearly stated five years, which is the fact of the matter. The only times I have mentioned any personal detail was because you asked for it. It seems your own aim was to somehow sneer at any answer on the pretext that you are an exposer of conspiracy theorists so you can be as insulting as you like. Please stop it.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You did claim to be a scientist though, and you're absolutely not.

 

[Vixen]

The Act (which I read over lunch) provides a number of opportunities for a mens rea defense against charged violations. Formal notice of coverage simply forecloses those defenses. It does not create liability where none previously existed, nor alter the liability that would normally apply.



Be the vernacular as it may, and as distracting as it may be, the categorical argument simply fails. Or rather, it is ultimately moot. The Act applies as it does, notification or not. A fire fighter is no more or less bound by it by having signed a documented acknowledging notification. "Every public employee has to sign it" (whatever is meant in this case by "sign it") is neither true nor relevant.

The question is whether a fire service is somehow bound by the Official Secrets Act to conceal the true cause of a fire in a car park, and whether that concealment, as purportedly required by the Act, provides for a false cover story given under color of authority. My reading of the Act finds absolutely no toehold for any of that. Vixen's claim to know otherwise, due to her alleged civil service requiring notice under the Act, does not salvage the argument. Of particular interest is the section of the Act delineating what sort of information is considered "damaging" and therefore protected against disclosure. It doesn't amount simply to, "stuff the government might not want known."

Imagine a fire as intense as the one at Luton Airport car park, with several regional fire brigades in attendance, up to twenty-thousand people with their flights delayed, hundreds of police. Now, you also have the situation of security alerts. Luton Airport is also on a major motorway and a mainline station direct from London. Do you see all the propensities for potential terrorist attack, in which such an individual or individuals can arrive rapdily and also be on a plane out of the country rapidly.

Can you not see that anyone passing on what could be sensitive information, let alone publishing it, at that stage, could indeed be a breach of the Act, whether personnel or the public or the press. The personnel in particular have a duty of due diligence in what they reveal about the incident whilst it will obviously be under investigation.

 

[zooterkin]

Imagine a fire as intense as the one at Luton Airport car park, with several regional fire brigades in attendance, up to twenty-thousand people with their flights delayed, hundreds of police. Now, you also have the situation of security alerts. Luton Airport is also on a major motorway and a mainline station direct from London. Do you see all the propensities for potential terrorist attack, in which such an individual or individuals can arrive rapdily and also be on a plane out of the country rapidly.

Can you not see that anyone passing on what could be sensitive information, let alone publishing it, at that stage, could indeed be a breach of the Act, whether personnel or the public or the press. The personnel in particular have a duty of due diligence in what they reveal about the incident whilst it will obviously be under investigation.

You would give Stretch Armstrong a run for his money.

 

[JayUtah]

You ASKED for my qualifications and I told you.

The links I present above refer to the second time we asked you for your qualifications in physics. The first time was in the previous chapter of the thread when you assured us you had the requisite qualification to understand the physics arguments being presented. It took a concerted effort to get you to admit that your "five years" of physics study was merely high-school level. You concealed that detail as long as you could.

The only times I have mentioned any personal detail was because you asked for it.

No.

You constantly insinuate that you have the appropriate background in whatever topic is at hand to make appropriately authoritative statements or endorsements. This prompts us to ask specific questions regarding your specific background, which you always attempt to evade because the specifics never match the insinuation.

This happened when you declared yourself to be competent enough in physics to endorse claims made along those lines.

This happened when you claimed to be a "psychology post-grad" in response to questions about your claims sounding in psychology.

This happened when you claimed to be a "scientist," which we found applied to you only in the loosest possible sense of the word.

And it's happening now, as you claim to have authoritative and superlative knowledge of the obligations required for civil service in the United Kingdom.

Please stop it.

Stop pretending you have expertise you do not have, and you will have no further reason to be cross when you are caught.

 

[Vixen]

The most charitable reading of your posts in your many threads is that you're delusional. I'm not saying you are delusional of course, but the other options are worse.

You routinely say things that are just not true and attempt to shame everyone else into stopping pointing this out by throwing tantrums and accusing us of being mean to you. We aren't being mean to you, you just keep talking rubbish.

Sure, only in your view. You asked me for personal detail (for example, whether I had ever sailed as much as you) and when I responded, you had the cheek to claim it was 'self-aggrandizement' because you didn't like the answer.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Sure, only in your view. You asked me for personal detail (for example, whether I had ever sailed as much as you) and when I responded, you had the cheek to claim it was 'self-aggrandizement' because you didn't like the answer.

Nope. That's not even remotely what happened.

Again, the most charitable explanation for your summary of events being so wildly at odds with what actually happened is that you're delusional. I absolutely do not believe that you are delusional though.

 

[JayUtah]

Imagine...

No, I will not indulge your imagination.

Can you not see that anyone passing on what could be sensitive information, let alone publishing it, at that stage, could indeed be a breach of the Act...

Irrelevant.

First, I have read the Act. Cite to the portion of the Act that presents the criteria for "damaging" disclosure that applies to your imaginary scenario.

Second, national security is moot. Your conspiracy theory is based on the premise that the true nature of the subject vehicle is being withheld not for security purposes, but for political expediency. It is hardly possible to conceal the fire at Luton airport. There is no implication for national security in denying the cause, no potential "terrorist attack" to unravel.

Your claim is that the sitting Prime Minister has a business interest in electric vehicles and that the type of vehicle that caused the fire is being lied about to protect his interest. This does not fall even close to the Official Secrets Act.