• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Not mutually exclusive. One person can belong to more than one professional body. Each body has its own professional charter.
Click to expand...


You have claimed, or at least strongly insinuated, that accountants are scientists. So which professional society should accountants join if they wish to become RScis or CScis? And you have completely failed to address the question of why you are not a RSci or CSci.
 
Vixen said:
So, if you wait for the snow to fall on the ground, how do you get your car to the garage without breaking the law?
Click to expand...

Tell me you've never lived through a single snowy season in your entire life without telling me.

You have three options: Preempt the entire season, and throw your tires on in September or October, instead of waiting until November. Or, when the first light snows begin, drive to the garage while conditions still permit it. Or, if caught by surprise by a heavy early snowfall, wait it out, then drive to the garage once conditions are again favorable, and before they become unfavorable for the rest of the season.

The text of the law linked upthread clearly allows for driver discretion during the legally-mandated snow tires period, unless conditions require snow tires. It follows that the law recognizes that conditions may vary from place to place and time to time during the period, and that the law expects drivers to make their own determination as to when snow tires are required for the driving conditions they anticipate.

Honestly, the law seems poorly worded to me. If the requirement is calendar-based, then driver discretion about driving conditions should not be permitted during the legally mandated period. On the other hand, if the requirement is condition-based, then it should be in effect year-round, not restricted to an artificial calendar "season".

My guess is that the law is intended to give drivers full discretion as to driving conditions and snow tire requirements, while still providing a legal basis for telling drivers they should know better, if harm arises from them driving without snow tires during the depths of winter.

I can easily imagine a Finn in midwinter, driving from his urban center home to his urban center garage, where the streets are plowed and de-iced and the conditions are fine for non-snow tires. And I can imagine him getting snow tires put on at the garage, in preparation for his planned drive out of the city, over the river and through the woods, to his winter cabin or relative's home or somewhere else where he anticipates snow tire conditions.
 
SpitfireIX said:
You have claimed, or at least strongly insinuated, that accountants are scientists. So which professional society should accountants join if they wish to become RScis or CScis? And you have completely failed to address the question of why you are not a RSci or CSci.
Click to expand...

This is not trivial or snobbish. A big part of having credibility (individually or collectively as a profession) as <insert profession here> is whether people who already have unassailable credibility as <insert profession here> accept you (individually or collectively as a profession) as one of them. This is why we have professional organizations and standards, whether or not those organizations have statutory authority and/or licensure obligations. At the very least they provide public consensus regarding claims of proficiency and competence.

This is why someone who has "a PhD in Life" can't be a psychologist, and why "canine aesthetic engineer" doesn't qualify you to design bridges. If practicing scientists don't recognize accounting as a science, accountants as scientists, or accountancy charters as a scientific credential, this matters. In the United States, the National Science Foundation is the independent government agency that funds and supports science. Economics is a science, according to the NSF. Statistics is a science. Mathematics is a science. Accounting is not. Are they any sort of final, bright-line authority on who is a scientist and who isn't? No. But they cast a pretty broad net, and it doesn't encompass accountancy.

That said, accounting for NSF grants and classified projects is definitely a thing. I can't just hire any CPA off the street to do it. My accountants need special training and certification beyond what a CPA provides. This is nontrivial and shouldn't be disregarded. But they still aren't scientists.
 
Mojo said:
Apparently not.
Click to expand...

GlennB said:
Ah yes, that post which 'led to consequences' iirc.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it's hard to imagine better evidence of bad faith. At this point in my life I'm used to inflated job titles and diluted credentials. If you want to call yourself a "mathematician" because you have a job where you use a spreadsheet or a calculator, few will stop you. If you want to call yourself a "food service engineer," you won't be dragged before some tribunal. But when someone posts an obvious attempt like this to present expertise that they don't have, it's strong evidence that they don't believe their own claims. It's obvious to me where that gibberish came from, and it's even worse faith to remember that this was spewed forth in an attempt to rebut someone who did know what they were talking about and could demonstrate as much. If people go to provably dishonest lengths to pretend to be something they're not, there's little further point in considering whether they actually believe themselves to be that something.
 
zooterkin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can confirm that firefighters are not forbidden to talk to the press. They are expected to use discretion, of course, but there is no question of any ban (the local paper rings up almost daily to find out if anything worthy of report has occurred). Nor are they required to "sign the Official Secrets Act", either literally or figuratively.
 
JayUtah said:
Indeed, it's hard to imagine better evidence of bad faith. At this point in my life I'm used to inflated job titles and diluted credentials...
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. As Visiting Professor of Stuff at the University of Life, I come across them all the time. :boggled:
 
Vixen said:
IIRC it was an online local newspaper and it was an opinion from an unnamed firefighter from Harpenden Brigade. As you know, employees are not allowed to speak to the press. Plus the mainstream press rely on official press reports.
Click to expand...

To return to this, in case you missed my post above, the highlighted is factually incorrect. Firefighters (noting, in passing, your odd use of the broader term 'employees', implying a universal prohibition, which also doesn't exist) are not forbidden to talk to the press. They are expected to be discreet, and not comment on anything contentious or sensitive (for example, but not limited to, the identity of a victim before relatives have been informed), but they are allowed to talk to members of the press at the location or who contact the fire station. The mainstream press, in this instance the local paper, regularly contacts the fire station and asks for information about any recent incidents, they don't wait for official press reports (and the fire service have better things to do than issue a report for every incident)

How do I know this? I spoke to a serving firefighter, who happens to be my son, and he explained the situation. I also know, independently, that he has spoken to the press, since I also know a local press photographer who regularly reports on incidents that require the emergency services to attend, and he's mentioned that he's spoken to my son.
 
zooterkin said:
To return to this, in case you missed my post above, the highlighted is factually incorrect. Firefighters (noting, in passing, your odd use of the broader term 'employees', implying a universal prohibition, which also doesn't exist) are not forbidden to talk to the press. They are expected to be discreet, and not comment on anything contentious or sensitive (for example, but not limited to, the identity of a victim before relatives have been informed), but they are allowed to talk to members of the press at the location or who contact the fire station. The mainstream press, in this instance the local paper, regularly contacts the fire station and asks for information about any recent incidents, they don't wait for official press reports (and the fire service have better things to do than issue a report for every incident)

How do I know this? I spoke to a serving firefighter, who happens to be my son, and he explained the situation. I also know, independently, that he has spoken to the press, since I also know a local press photographer who regularly reports on incidents that require the emergency services to attend, and he's mentioned that he's spoken to my son.
Click to expand...


Surely you're not implying that Vixen simply makes up her own "facts" if they support her CT position....????? :eek:
 
I don't know what possibility is worse, that she actually believes the nonsense she trots out or that she doesn't.

I mean i know what makes her look worse, but in general I'm not sure.
 
zooterkin said:
How do I know this? I spoke to a serving firefighter, who happens to be my son, and he explained the situation. I also know, independently, that he has spoken to the press, since I also know a local press photographer who regularly reports on incidents that require the emergency services to attend, and he's mentioned that he's spoken to my son.
Click to expand...


You need to do the right thing and report your son for violating the Official Secrets Act. For King and country and all that.
 
SpitfireIX said:
You need to do the right thing and report your son for violating the Official Secrets Act. For King and country and all that.
Click to expand...


And of course it's well-known* that the penalty for violating the Official Secrets Act is immediate rendition to the Tower of London followed by summary beheading on Tower Hill in front of a baying mob.

May the Lord have mercy on your son, Zooterkin.


*In Vixen-Mitty-World
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom