Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[MarkCorrigan]

From the Oxford dictionary:

Which does not answer the question asked. Answer the question you were asked and stop dodging.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Wow!

Has this rabbit hole come up in the West Midlands yet?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I sincerely hope that nobody you know with a serious disability is aware of your lighthearted attitude to affliction.

I have severe mental illness.

What Steve said is not offensive, and your desperate attempts to shame your critics are what is pathetic here Vixen.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... 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.

Can I remind everyone that the entire reason for the regrettable, silly digression into the OSA and who can speak to the press is that you claim to have read an opinion attributed to an anonymous Harpenden firefighter in a small local newspaper which you cannot now remember. If that had really happened while the story was still current and highly newsworthy then I venture others would have read it and other papers would have picked it up. That these things did not happen indicates to me their plucky reporter did not interview the firefighter at the "developing stage" of the incident.

This piece of wot-I-reckon came later. You only mentioned it much later. It smells exactly like a worthless opinion you saw on twitter and reinvented as a newspaper story to give it false authority. You are, as I have noted in several threads, a profoundly unreliable reporter of facts.

 

[zooterkin]

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.

I know for a fact that firefighters at a scene do talk to members of the press, and, as far as I'm aware (and I'll check on this on Monday, if I remember) they are not forbidden to do so. Sharing confidential information, or making official statements, is a different matter, of course, but also has nothing to do with the Official Secrets Act.

 

[wollery]

I know for a fact that firefighters at a scene do talk to members of the press, and, as far as I'm aware (and I'll check on this on Monday, if I remember) they are not forbidden to do so. Sharing confidential information, or making official statements, is a different matter, of course, but also has nothing to do with the Official Secrets Act.

Important to remember that the only link Vixen gave was to a web page for the Police, which stated that officers should be truthful when talking to the press.

That pretty clearly implies that they are allowed to talk to the press, and should not give misleading statements, which is what Vixen is suggesting the Chief Fire Officer did.

 

[Vixen]

Straw man. You claimed enough competence in physics to be able to endorse arguments that rely heavily on specialized physics and engineering knowledge. You offered the claim of "five years" of study in support of this. You subsequently demonstrated almost complete ignorance of basic principles of physics.



Irrelevant. Your study following your bachelor's degree was not in psychology. It was accounting.



Your claims are hard to accept because they are inconsistent and do not conform to otherwise discoverable facts.



No, that discussion happened literally today.

When questioned about your academic career, you proffered vocational certificates as equivalent to Master's degrees. Your claim was not about vocational qualifications or vocational aptitude, but academic achievement. That happened two pages ago.

You literally claimed your vocational certificates should be considered superior to Master's level academic degrees because they involved a longer program of study, more apt methods of instruction, and practical training. This too happened within a few hours' recent memory.

<snip invective>

The Estonia and the Luton Airport Fire are current news topics. People do not need special engineering qualifications to have an opinion or to discuss the issues.

 

[Vixen]

Those who have earned a degree by completing a graduate program do not go around saying they "have the official educational equivalent of two masters degrees."




The web pages you have cited do not mention your professional qualifications at all, nor do they assert that lacking a master's degree is in any way superior to holding a master's degree.

Your belief that your "professional qualifications are considered superior to a masters" is therefore a belief that resides within your own mind, and is unlikely to reside within other minds.

This is what happens when you weigh into a conversation half way through.

If you had taken time to follow its course, you would be aware it was a direct response to a direct question.

PERSON A: I already know how ABC works as you are talking to an X postgrad who did a dissertation on ABC.

PERSON B: So, what was the postgrad degree?

A: It was a professional chartered qualification.

B: But that doesn’t count as postgraduate as it wasn’t in X.

A: It does because the degree in X was directly relevant to the course as I was awarded exemption from the whole of the certificate level because of it.

B: But a postgrad should lead to a higher level qualification or it’s not a postgrad it is just a grad.

A: But it did, it led to a legally recognised professional status. According to freely available information - including that of the professional chartered accountancy bodies themselves, the official UK government page and together with the internationally recognised framework of international educational standards - two of my three designations (which include three diplomas) do count internationally and officially as being the equivalent of masters.

Enter stage right Person C

W D CLINGER (for it is he) : Braggart! Why are you boasting?!!! Why are you going around saying you have two masters?

 

[Vixen]

I have severe mental illness.

What Steve said is not offensive, and your desperate attempts to shame your critics are what is pathetic here Vixen.

Sorry to hear that. However, it doesn't mean you are qualified to speak for someone else.

 

[Vixen]

Can I remind everyone that the entire reason for the regrettable, silly digression into the OSA and who can speak to the press is that you claim to have read an opinion attributed to an anonymous Harpenden firefighter in a small local newspaper which you cannot now remember. If that had really happened while the story was still current and highly newsworthy then I venture others would have read it and other papers would have picked it up. That these things did not happen indicates to me their plucky reporter did not interview the firefighter at the "developing stage" of the incident.

This piece of wot-I-reckon came later. You only mentioned it much later. It smells exactly like a worthless opinion you saw on twitter and reinvented as a newspaper story to give it false authority. You are, as I have noted in several threads, a profoundly unreliable reporter of facts.

I'll see if I can find it.

 

[Vixen]

Important to remember that the only link Vixen gave was to a web page for the Police, which stated that officers should be truthful when talking to the press.

That pretty clearly implies that they are allowed to talk to the press, and should not give misleading statements, which is what Vixen is suggesting the Chief Fire Officer did.

The policy for the college of policing is likely very similar to other equivalent bodies such as the Fire Brigade. It clearly sets out who is authorized to speak to the press. When it says the information should be factual, it is pointing out that opinions should not be given nor should thoughts and feelings be attributed to others although a descriptive narrative of what they did and what they said is fine. Sure, they can talk to the press if authorized. Note the steps needed to gain authorization.

Of course people talk. They go home and chat to their family and mates. The issue we are talking about here is giving interviews to the press, not whether or not they do chat amongst themselves. The press know a lot about what is going on but they are very often barred from putting it in the public domain because all of the mainstream news outlets and broadcasters have in-house lawyers who advise on the legality of what goes out.

ETA What the fire chief said was not misleading at all. He carefully used the words. 'It is believed' and 'at this stage'. Why do you think he qualified his statement?

It doesn't mean 'confirmed' as everybody thinks it does.

 

[whoanellie]

From the Science Council:



Done all that.

I've climbed a mountain. I am not a mountain climber.
I've repaired cars. I am not a car mechanic.
I've cooked a meal or two. I am not a chef.
etc. etc. etc.

The fact that you have done some science-y stuff doesn't make you a scientist. To the contrary, the nonsense you've posted on ISF in multiple threads over multiple years proves your ignorance of science.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

ETA What the fire chief said was not misleading at all. He carefully used the words. 'It is believed' and 'at this stage'. Why do you think he qualified his statement?

It doesn't mean 'confirmed' as everybody thinks it does.

What Vixen wrote here is not misleading at all. She carefully used the words from the initial press conference rather than the press release that said it was a diesel car but she contends misled everyone else into believing it was not a lithium battery fire.

Oh. No. Wait. What Vixen wrote is absolutely and deliberately misleading, and what she contends the fire service did would be absolutely and deliberately misleading too.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The Estonia and the Luton Airport Fire are current news topics. People do not need special engineering qualifications to have an opinion or to discuss the issues.

But they do to discuss the technical aspects of those issues.

If you are going to attempt to discuss the sinking of the Estonia with any ability you should understand the physics behind the sinking for example.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This is what happens when you weigh into a conversation half way through.

I think we can interpret the above as Vixen admitting she is not aware that lurkers can follow an extended public conversation without saying anything.

B: But a postgrad should lead to a higher level qualification or it’s not a postgrad it is just a grad.

A: But it did, it led to a legally recognised professional status. According to freely available information - including that of the professional chartered accountancy bodies themselves, the official UK government page and together with the internationally recognised framework of international educational standards - two of my three designations (which include three diplomas) do count internationally and officially as being the equivalent of masters.

I think we can interpret the above as Vixen admitting she does not actually have a master's degree.

Enter stage right Person C

W D CLINGER (for it is he) : Braggart! Why are you boasting?!!! Why are you going around saying you have two masters?

I think we can interpret the above fictional account of what I have said as Vixen complaining about the fact that boasting of having the equivalent of two master's degrees is not actually the same as having earned a couple of master's degrees.

At this time, we can confirm the vehicle involved was a diesel-powered vehicle. To further clarify it was neither a fully electric vehicle (EV) nor a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV).​

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'll see if I can find it.

Thanks.

If you do find it, maybe it will explain the anomaly of a claimed Harpenden fire fighter somehow being able to opine on the nature of the car fire that began the blaze, when the fire had rapidly escalated and spread widely long before the Harpenden brigade would have arrived.

Harpenden, though not far away, is in Hertfordshire, not the same county as Luton. There are at least three Bedfordshire fire stations closer to the airport. I infer Harpenden would only have been called out when the major incident was declared. Don't you agree?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The policy for the college of policing is likely very similar to other equivalent bodies such as the Fire Brigade. It clearly sets out who is authorized to speak to the press. When it says the information should be factual, it is pointing out that opinions should not be given nor should thoughts and feelings be attributed to others although a descriptive narrative of what they did and what they said is fine. Sure, they can talk to the press if authorized. Note the steps needed to gain authorization.

Of course people talk. They go home and chat to their family and mates. The issue we are talking about here is giving interviews to the press, not whether or not they do chat amongst themselves. The press know a lot about what is going on but they are very often barred from putting it in the public domain because all of the mainstream news outlets and broadcasters have in-house lawyers who advise on the legality of what goes out.

ETA What the fire chief said was not misleading at all. He carefully used the words. 'It is believed' and 'at this stage'. Why do you think he qualified his statement?

It doesn't mean 'confirmed' as everybody thinks it does.

It is the later statement on the fire service website that confirms it.

 

[Vixen]

Luton Airport Car Park Fire: How the cause of the fire has changed

To recap and sum up:

1. Andrew Hopkinson, Chief of Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service is quoted by ITV news as saying on 11 Oct 2023:

“Andrew Hopkinson, chief fire officer for Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, said the fire at Luton Airport was thought to have started with a diesel vehicle.

“We don’t believe it was an electric vehicle,” he said.

“It’s believed to be diesel-powered, at this stage all subject to verification. And then that fire has quickly and rapidly spread.”

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2023-10-11/fire-service-chief-cause-of-luton-airport-car-park-fire

2. Full Fact said shortly after:

What Full Fact said Andrew Hopkinson said:

"Andrew Hopkinson, chief fire officer at Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service, previously told the media: “We have no intelligence at this stage to suggest that this was anything other than an accidental fire that started in one of the vehicles that had not long arrived at the airport. It was not an EV. This was a diesel powered vehicle.”

Note how it has reworded it to rule out an EV of any sort.

https://fullfact.org/online/electric-hybrid-did-not-start-luton-airport-car-park-fire/

Screenshot of what it proclaims in its header:

Screenshot 2024-03-16 173213 by Username Vixen, on Flickr


3. How it was reported on this thread 19 October by junkshop

"Originally Posted by Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service

...The investigation into the cause of the fire continues, but it has been determined that the vehicle that first caught fire was a diesel car. Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service’s fire investigation team will be working closely with Bedfordshire Police to get a better understanding of what happened on Tuesday evening, and why...
(Bolding mine)

Published on October 13th.
19th October 2023, 03:29 PM
junkshop

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14188772#post14188772

4. Update as posted by OHMS 13 March 2023, six months later.

What Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service say today:

“At this time, we can confirm the vehicle involved was a diesel-powered vehicle. To further clarify it was neither a fully electric vehicle (EV) nor a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). More information on the incident and cause of the fire will be released once the investigation has been concluded.”

https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/about-us/london-luton-airport-review

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14277995#post14277995

Screenshot today:

Screenshot 2024-03-16 180344 by Username Vixen, on Flickr

CONCLUSION

Spot the change: Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service has gone from ruling out an EV of any sort to including the possibility it might be a mild hybrid diesel-fuelled vehicle, after all.

In other words, the public has also been misled by an organization called 'Full Fact' that it was 'determined' that it was a 'diesel car' full stop and not an EV.

The person who wrote up the initial Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service webpage also changed Hopkinson's wording to, 'it has been determined that the vehicle that first caught fire was a diesel car'.

But now we find that the only EV's that have been ruled out are "it was neither a fully electric vehicle (EV) nor a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)" but not mild hybrids, MHEV's, ahead of the imminent release of the report in April 2024.

In other words, for six months the public has been led to believe, by rewriting the original press release, as copy, saying, it was determined Vehicle Zero was 'diesel fuelled' only, (see Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service webpage), with Full Fact notifying the press and all enquirers that "It was not an EV. This was a diesel powered vehicle", claiming dishonestly to be quoting Hopkinson verbatim (as the quote is in quotation marks).

Why would Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service webpage now add the proviso, "it was neither a fully electric vehicle (EV) nor a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)", except to forewarn the public it was a hybrid after all?

This is serious misinformation by Full Fact and Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service webpage because dozens of people on this thread have been using Full Fact and Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service webpage as their Bible and go-to source as verified information.

Now we find it was not the 'full fact' after all.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No Vixen. Nothing changed. The only thing that happened is the same information got presented using a variety of wordings, some of which were unintentionally slightly ambiguous. You want to imagine the slight ambiguity was actually deliberate and intended to deceive. The rest of us think that's ridiculous for reasons already sufficiently belaboured.

 

[wollery]

Thanks.

If you do find it, maybe it will explain the anomaly of a claimed Harpenden fire fighter somehow being able to opine on the nature of the car fire that began the blaze, when the fire had rapidly escalated and spread widely long before the Harpenden brigade would have arrived.

Harpenden, though not far away, is in Hertfordshire, not the same county as Luton. There are at least three Bedfordshire fire stations closer to the airport. I infer Harpenden would only have been called out when the major incident was declared. Don't you agree?

Also, if Vixen is correct, shouldn't this firefighter be investigated and charged under the official secrets act?