Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[catsmate]

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.

More pathetic, nonsensical, bollocks as usual.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

What the heck does this have to do with the Official Secrets Act? You're comically confusing political expediency with state secrets.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

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.

Nope. There's no evidence for the claims you're making about Sunak. Only baseless speculation and facile innuendo.

Your ideas of how the world work are Laughable.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

Indeed, that sort of evasion is why we are appropriately suspicious about any of Vixen's claims or insinuations of appropriate background. "I only answered because you asked me," is highly disingenuous. The reason we ask is because the implied foundation for the argument is unclear. Asking should clarify, but in Vixen's case it serves only to muddy. "I never claimed to be an expert," is also disingenuous. But we can see that even when she does claim to be an expert—either sua sponte or in response to a question—it remains muddy.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Terms such as 'scientist' or 'postgraduate' are not protected terms so if you wish to dispute their usage you can but on the other hand there is nothing to stop you from describing yourself as a politics postgraduate if you went on to get a masters or PhD or MPhil in something else, as you wouldn't get on such a course if you did not have the relevant educational standard.

 

[JayUtah]

...she succeeded in having the story pulled from every news outlet?

Did she invoke the Official Secrets Act to make that happen.

This happens all the time.

Yet somehow you still manage to know about it. When it happens, is it because the Official Secrets Act was invoked?

 

[novaphile]

Consulting my crystal ball I see:

In the clearing stands a poster
Revealed naked to their shame
And they carry the reminders
Of every post that laid them down
Or cut them till they cried out
In their anger and their shame
"I am leaving, I am leaving"
But the fantasist still remains

Lie-la-lie
Lie-la-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie
Lie-la-lie
Lie-la-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie, lie-lie-lie-lie-lie
Lie-la-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie
Lie-la-lie
Lie-la-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie, lie-lie-lie-lie-lie

(With apologies to Simon and Garfunkle.)

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Terms such as 'scientist' or 'postgraduate' are not protected terms so if you wish to dispute their usage you can but on the other hand there is nothing to stop you from describing yourself as a politics postgraduate if you went on to get a masters or PhD or MPhil in something else, as you wouldn't get on such a course if you did not have the relevant educational standard.

They may or may not be protected, but they do have pretty obvious inference as to what they mean and claiming to be one even if you are correct is exceedingly disingenuous.

Incidentally however Postgraduate is a protected title.

Stop dodging my question. Would I be a politics postgraduate, yes or no?

 

[JayUtah]

Terms such as 'scientist' or 'postgraduate' are not protected terms...

They still mean things. Every time you're asked to defend some claim or insinuation to expertise, in which you've used these terms, it quickly becomes clear that you intend them to mean something other than what everyone else understands by them. When you intentionally mislead people, arguing that you have a right to change what words mean does not exonerate you.

In the academic world, "postgraduate" means just so. No amount of wordplay on your part compensates for your clear intent to mislead.

In the scientific world, "scientist" means just so. No amount of euphemistic handwaving makes you one.

 

[Vixen]

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.

The fire started in the evening of 10 Oct 2023. The Beds fire chief held a press conference the next day, after the fire was almost completely extinguished around about lunchtime. Now, he was very careful to say almost nothing other than that 'it is believed to be a diesel-fueled vehicle that started the fire at this stage' or words to that effect.

He said nothing at all about the presumed driver sprinting off to the airport security - having attempted to put out the fire with a nearby extinguisher, and failing - jumping straight onto a plane! (As is commonly believed.)

Really, at that stage this guy could have done it on purpose for all they knew and was already out of the country.

I can see all kinds of security risks in firefighters at the scene spouting off to the press, and if they did and the guy did turn out to be dodgy, then not only did they breach their terms of employment, they may well have breached the Official Secrets Act in relaying sensitive information (early police investigation) to potential bad guys out there and not only that, from a hostile country.

 

[Vixen]

They still mean things. Every time you're asked to defend some claim or insinuation to expertise, in which you've used these terms, it quickly becomes clear that you intend them to mean something other than what everyone else understands by them. When you intentionally mislead people, arguing that you have a right to change what words mean does not exonerate you.

In the academic world, "postgraduate" means just so. No amount of wordplay on your part compensates for your clear intent to mislead.

In the scientific world, "scientist" means just so. No amount of euphemistic handwaving makes you one.

From the Science Council:

What defines you as a scientist?
Our definition of a scientist - The Science Council ~ : The ...
A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge. A scientist can be further defined by: how they go about this, for instance by use of statistics (statisticians) or data (data scientists).

Our definition of a scientist - The Science Council

Done all that.

 

[JayUtah]

The fire started...

None of this answers my questions.

I can see all kinds of security risks...

I am not interested in your uninformed opinion.

...they may well have breached the Official Secrets Act in relaying sensitive information (early police investigation) to potential bad guys out there and not only that, from a hostile country.

Cite to the section of the Official Secrets Act that would make disclosure of the vehicle type "sensitive information" that would be "damaging" under the Act.

Produce whatever evidence you can to support the claim that improving a hostile country's ability to commit hostilities against the United Kingdom played any part in the reasoning of the fire services. Your imagination regarding what you think they may have been thinking does not interest me.

Finally, reconcile your continued reference to the Official Secrets Act with your suggestion that concealing the source of the fire had a political motive. Political expediency or advocacy is not grounds for restricting disclosure of information under the Act.

 

[LondonJohn]

The fire started in the evening of 10 Oct 2023. The Beds fire chief held a press conference the next day, after the fire was almost completely extinguished around about lunchtime. Now, he was very careful to say almost nothing other than that 'it is believed to be a diesel-fueled vehicle that started the fire at this stage' or words to that effect.

He said nothing at all about the presumed driver sprinting off to the airport security - having attempted to put out the fire with a nearby extinguisher, and failing - jumping straight onto a plane! (As is commonly believed.)

Really, at that stage this guy could have done it on purpose for all they knew and was already out of the country.

I can see all kinds of security risks in firefighters at the scene spouting off to the press, and if they did and the guy did turn out to be dodgy, then not only did they breach their terms of employment, they may well have breached the Official Secrets Act in relaying sensitive information (early police investigation) to potential bad guys out there and not only that, from a hostile country.

A vehicle fire in an airport car park has nothing whatsoever to do with national security or the Official Secrets Act. And nor would any employee of the fire services who attended the scene have been carrying out work that would have fallen within the realms of the Act. You're living in CT cloud cuckoo land.

 

[Vixen]

They may or may not be protected, but they do have pretty obvious inference as to what they mean and claiming to be one even if you are correct is exceedingly disingenuous.

Incidentally however Postgraduate is a protected title.

Stop dodging my question. Would I be a politics postgraduate, yes or no?

From the Oxford dictionary:

relating to or denoting a course of study undertaken after completing a first degree.
"a postgraduate degree"
noun
a student engaged in a postgraduate course.

 

[LondonJohn]

From the Oxford dictionary:

Doing a vocational course (after having done an undergraduate degree) does not make someone a postgraduate. Somebody is a postgraduate if - and only if - they've successfully completed an academically accredited Masters or PhD course.

End of. Please drop it.

 

[JayUtah]

From the Science Council:

And they are the quintessential authority...why?

Done all that.

No.

You rested your claim to be a scientist on having obtained a bachelor's degree in a field containing "science" in the name. You were unable to state any actual training in evidence-gathering, hypothesization, and hypothesis-testing, aside from a high-school understanding of chemistry and physics which you have obviously not retained.

That claim arose in the context of a discussion regarding forensic science, specifically the investigation of accidents. You have no training or experience in any of that, and you may not call yourself a scientist as that discipline understands the term. I should note that this thread is simply a sequel to the previous fantasy world in which you insinuate some sort of knowledge in how to investigate accidents. You do not have those skills or those qualifications. Do not continue to claim, suggest, or imply that you do.

As with all your other claims to expertise, this one is based on equivocation and wordplay, not the actual adjudicated acquisition of requisite knowledge and experience.

 

[Vixen]

A vehicle fire in an airport car park has nothing whatsoever to do with national security or the Official Secrets Act. And nor would any employee of the fire services who attended the scene have been carrying out work that would have fallen within the realms of the Act. You're living in CT cloud cuckoo land.

It is when it is within near reach of a major motorway and within a very short distance to the airport security, lounge, gates and runways, as Luton is.

If you believe that it is not true that firefighters at the scene are not allowed to speak to the press, then please provide your reasoning.

 

[Vixen]

Doing a vocational course (after having done an undergraduate degree) does not make someone a postgraduate. Somebody is a postgraduate if - and only if - they've successfully completed an academically accredited Masters or PhD course.

End of. Please drop it.

I have the official educational equivalent of two masters degrees.

End of.

 

[JayUtah]

From the Oxford dictionary:

Irrelevant; you were not in a degree-granting program of study after your bachelor's degree. Further, as has been belabored, you did not study psychology after graduation. You studied accounting. The question is not whether some combination of words can be put together than bridges the gap between what you say and what the facts are. The question is whether you intend the words you say to have the meaning that your audience will assuredly take. When we have to drag the truth out of you through a screen of technicality and concealment, your intent is clear. And it does not speak well of you.

As we continue to belabor, your arguments almost always boil down to little more than, "Because I say so." When this is your choice of argument, "How do you know that?" will always be the followup. Whining that this offends you will continue to land on deaf ears.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is when it is within near reach of a major motorway and within a very short distance to the airport security, lounge, gates and runways, as Luton is.

No, it is not. You've completely made that up. Laughable.

If you believe that it is not true that firefighters at the scene are not allowed to speak to the press, then please provide your reasoning.

You're missing the point yet again. Whether or not rank-and-file firefighters at the scene are allowed to speak to the press has nothing whatsoever to do with the Official Secrets Act. Rather, it has to do entirely with fire service protocols.

I don't doubt for one moment that Beds Fire & Rescue Service did not permit rank-and-file firefighters to speak to the press - no matter what type of fire they were attending and where. It would be entirely commonplace, and eminently sensible, to restrict interaction with the media to the Chief Fire Officer and the media/comms department. But categorically not for the reason you risibly claim.