Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[theprestige]

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

Literally no one asked you for this nonsense:

Having had to study all aspects of business and industry inside out, outside in, in every possible way

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I loathe Sunak. I hate the tory party. I couldn't like them less if I tried.

Sunak is not covering up anything about this event. To claim he is without evidence is pure lunacy.

 

[Vixen]

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.



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.



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

I was certainly a postgraduate when I was accepted on a postgraduate course with my professional body exempt from the foundation levels (and the degree has to be a relevant one, involving maths, science or economics). I graduated in psychology so I was a psychology postgraduate, as opposed to an undergraduate. As this was in the form of a chat forum I did not need to elaborate any further. The context was another poster lecturing me on how memory works so I simply pointed out that my dissertation was on memory.

This was factual. This was initiated by a poster claiming I was completely ignorant about how eyewitness testimony worked and how their memory tricked them. Nothing at all to do with me presenting myself as an expert first.

 

[JayUtah]

I graduated in psychology so I was a psychology postgraduate, as opposed to an undergraduate.

Asked and answered. That's not what that means.

The context was another poster lecturing me on how memory works so I simply pointed out that my dissertation was on memory.

The basis of your rebuttal to him was a claim to expertise that turned out to be misleading, as all such claims from you ultimately are.

This was initiated by a poster claiming I was completely ignorant about how eyewitness testimony worked and how their memory tricked them. Nothing at all to do with me presenting myself as an expert first.

You presented yourself as an expert with the intent of rebutting his observation that you seemed to lack relevant knowledge. But in fact you were largely ignorant, despite your argument at that time and place relying on a presumption of such knowledge. When I pressed you, you couldn't name any of the major practitioners in eyewitness testimony research. When I named them and presented their findings, your only response was some hastily-Googled statements that were irrelevant to their work. Finally, despite your disagreement with their findings, you were unable to name any of the critics of their work, upon which you could have based a scientifically defensible critique.

Your "Vixensplaining" arguments are based on claims to expertise, stated or implied, which you cannot demonstrate and the voir dire of which you habitually evade. Today is no different. Despite your claim to have studied "all aspects of business and industry inside out, outside in, in every possible way," you were unaware that formal notification under the Official Secrets Act was no longer required, and you are unable to describe in any manner beyond frantic handwaving how the Act applies to your conspiracy theory.

 

[Mojo]

I was certainly a postgraduate when I was accepted on a postgraduate course with my professional body...

Was this postgraduate course in psychology?

 

[theprestige]

Was this postgraduate course in psychology?

Nonsensematics, probably.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen, I have a degree in International Relations, which is a politics degree.

If I took a post graduate level course in accounting, which is what you claimed, would I be a politics postgraduate?

 

[Vixen]

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'.

It is true that there is a pro-fossil fuel lobby who have an economic interest in retaining Big Oil.

But I don't think that is the while story. There is also big money to be made in the EV car industry If you look at market trends that is where the money will be in the near future (reason innovators, investors and entrepreneurs). The Polestar is being launched locally to me with a price tag of €70K. So you can also see that the 'ordinary car owner' fears being forced off the roads because they are unlikely to afford such a model outside of a company car, especially as an EV needs to be replaced after ten years, or have a new £10K battery installed. It is also ultra-heavy. Here in Finland, it is the law to change to winter tyres from 1 November to 30 March. Now, normally changing tyres is pretty straightforward, but the EV's are so heavy special lifting equipment is needed, can't just use a car jack. Likewise if you fall under and EV it wil; be hard for anyone to lift it up and free you.

I don't have any dog in the race, I can see the viewpoint of both sides.

OTOH covering up the cause of car fires is not the way forward. The usual reason given for a D-notice is to quell public alarm or for security reasons. In this case, it is being misused IMV because it appears to be more a case of protecting the image of the EV industry at all costs, when people have a natural right to know what caused a massive fire.

 

[zooterkin]

OTOH covering up the cause of car fires is not the way forward. The usual reason given for a D-notice is to quell public alarm or for security reasons. In this case, it is being misused IMV because it appears to be more a case of protecting the image of the EV industry at all costs, when people have a natural right to know what caused a massive fire.

The D-notice (and I think they're no longer called that) exists purely in your imagination.

 

[JayUtah]

It is true that there is a pro-fossil fuel lobby who have an economic interest in retaining Big Oil.

Be that as it may, it in no way obligates firefighters to conceal the true source of a fire because the Official Secrets Act compels them to respect such a lobby or its interest.

You've demonstrated that you like to hold multiple contradictory conspiracy theories in mind, but you can't possibly represent this unholy disalliance as somehow more worthy of attention and credence than the evidence-based narrative you reject.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, I have a degree in International Relations, which is a politics degree.

If I took a post graduate level course in accounting, which is what you claimed, would I be a politics postgraduate?

If you got accepted onto a professional accountancy course - remember, this is vocational, not academic - exempted from the certificate levels you need to show the relevance of your degree. It is quite possible for a politics degree to be relevant; it all depends on the content and if the assessors think it is acceptable. It is not for me to say you are not a politics postgraduate. Most of the people on my accountancy course were postgraduates of some sort or other. Others start from scratch at Certificate level if they have no degree or their degree is not relevant. For example, not enough applied maths or economics or is theoretical instead of practical/scientific.

Have I ever accused you of lying about your qualifications, of being delusional or of self-aggrandizement? Please self reflect.

 

[JayUtah]

Have I ever accused you of lying about your qualifications, of being delusional or of self-aggrandizement? Please self reflect.

No, this is not a both-sides issue. Everyone else here is arguing in faith that is reasonably good and reasonably apparent.

You are the only one in this thread performing such stunts as writing fake media releases and making up other things that don't exist.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

If you got accepted onto a professional accountancy course - remember, this is vocational, not academic - exempted from the certificate levels you need to show the relevance of your degree. It is quite possible for a politics degree to be relevant; it all depends on the content and if the assessors think it is acceptable. It is not for me to say you are not a politics postgraduate. Most of the people on my accountancy course were postgraduates of some sort or other. Others start from scratch at Certificate level if they have no degree or their degree is not relevant. For example, not enough applied maths or economics or is theoretical instead of practical/scientific.

Have I ever accused you of lying about your qualifications, of being delusional or of self-aggrandizement? Please self reflect.

Most of this post doesn't answer my question. Indeed you directly avoid answering it saying it isn't for you to say...but I want you to say. If I took the same course you did would I be a politics graduate, yes or no?

As for the second part of this post no you haven't, but I haven't lied about my qualifications. You have.

 

[novaphile]

"Once upon a time"
"Somebody say to me," this is a dog talkin' now
"What is your Conceptual Continuity?"
"Well, I told him right then," Fido said
It should be easy to see
The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe

You've triggered fond memories of Frank Zappa.

Now you've got me thinking:

"The mystery man, came over, an' he said I'm outta sight.
For a nominal service charge, I could reach Nirvana tonight."

 

[Vixen]

Literally no one asked you for this nonsense:

They did in another thread, which certain posters constantly refer to. Likewise, the furore about my using degrees to designate time.

 

[Vixen]

No, I will not indulge your imagination.



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.

Given that airports have been a target for terrorists, for example, the car ramming into Glasgow Airport then it is within the realms of possibility for the Luton fire (reasons the police) to have been a criminal act or a terror attack. At that developing stage they do not know and have to err on the side of caution. Given that any hostile group would be carefully watching the progress of a planned attack, it would be quite possible that a firefighter or police officer sending details of the event on Twitter, being an insider at the scene, would be at risk of breaching the Act should this cause the perps to gain advantage from the breach.

 

[theprestige]

They did in another thread, which certain posters constantly refer to. Likewise, the furore about my using degrees to designate time.

Whatever they asked for in another thread, it wasn't this nonsense, and they didn't ask for it here.

 

[Vixen]

I loathe Sunak. I hate the tory party. I couldn't like them less if I tried.

Sunak is not covering up anything about this event. To claim he is without evidence is pure lunacy.

You are very naive. Did you know, the newspapers were going to print a story about Boris Johnson's wife, Carrie, wanting to send back Dilyn to the dog rescue home and she succeeded in having the story pulled from every news outlet?

This happens all the time.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Indeed, it's a classic case of loon magnetism. Of course there is the lack of non-loon sources confirming it began in an EV/hybrid.

But to the conspiracy nuts that's just more evidence that their little echo chamber is right.

 

[JayUtah]

Given...

No, do not simply continue to imagine.

Explain how the Official Secrets Act protects information for such purpose as the political policy advocacy you say is at heart of this conspiracy.

Cite to the section of Official Secrets Act that you would use to argue disclosure of the vehicle type is "damaging" as defined in the Act. Cite to legal authority showing how the Act may be employed merely for the purpose of deterring crime.