Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[EHocking]

There is no point in applying mass exams if there is no pass rate. Most public exams are standardized so that there is a pass mark.

The problem is not that there is a Pass rate on the exam, but that you think that the success rate of the process is the same thing, e.g.,

That was the common understanding. Chances of passing very slim, obviously owing to limited number of places but still very competitive.

Again, the chances of successful placement has been/is small. This is not the same as the pass score of the exam.

Oh, and a standardised test has nothing to do with how the scores/pass is calculated (or standard deviations of same), it is the definition of tests that “ are designed in such a way that the questions and interpretations are consistent and are administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner.”.

Test score interpretation/determination may involve normative interpretation of scores, but scores being determined by standard distribution is not what “standardised test” means. A standardised test can also be scored using “criterion-referenced” score interpretation. These are sometimes referred to as “standard-based assessment”.

Perhaps the latter is where you have become confused between standardised test, standard based assessment and standard deviations?

 

[Steve]

I hesitate to ask, but of what relevance is the highlighted to your CT?

To get people discussing something, anything, that distracts everyone here from her poorly thought out conspiracy theories.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Again, the chances of successful placement has been/is small. This is not the same as the pass score of the exam.

She seems to think that passing the test means getting the job, and that having few actual positions available means that the test has to be proportionally more difficult to pass.

But, if it's like pretty much any other job application process, passing the placement test just means you have demonstrated the necessary skill set to do the job, and are then placed in a pool of applicants to be further evaluated, typically with interviews. Given that a job posting is going to specify the work to be done, I'd wager that most applicants are able to pass the preliminary test, even when there is only one position being filled.

 

[EHocking]

To get people discussing something, anything, that distracts everyone here from her poorly thought out conspiracy theories.

That and her class bigotry.

… I have no great love of the so-called working classes ...

Which she believes is normal.

…I was on a plane from Arlanda to Heathrow recently and immediately knew it was a British cabin crew on board (SAS Airline). When the crew member brought me my Christmas turkey and cheese toast, he was literally fawning and scraping the floor as he asked me if I wanted sugar in my tea. He was the campest cabin crew member I have ever met*.
...

hmmm, not just class bigotry it seems…

 

[EHocking]

She seems to think that passing the test means getting the job, and that having few actual positions available means that the test has to be proportionally more difficult to pass.

Even though I provided a link to the Fast Stream page on the Civil Service website that explains the entire process.

But, if it's like pretty much any other job application process, passing the placement test just means you have demonstrated the necessary skill set to do the job, and are then placed in a pool of applicants to be further evaluated, typically with interviews. Given that a job posting is going to specify the work to be done, I'd wager that most applicants are able to pass the preliminary test, even when there is only one position being filled.

You are of course referring to the Success Rate of the Fast Track process that Vixen continues to confuse with the exam pass rate.

 

[catsmate]

Seems like her entire opus at this forum, except perhaps for a side quest about apostrophes.

I missed that.

 

[catsmate]

That is a matter of fact. Learn to recognise factual information.

Sigh. No it's not, for those of us living in the Real World.

 

[Vixen]

Do you think that might have something to do with you suggesting, for example, that the body was found by an undercover police officer who was, for reasons unknown, posing as a psychic?

That was the logical conclusion I came to from the final report, which clearly stated that only authorized personnel were present at the final recovery scene. Hardly a 'conspiracy theory', if officially confirmed in an official report.

 

[Vixen]

Why are you making stuff up?

BBC. Fact.

 

[zooterkin]

BBC. Fact.

The car was a diesel. Now that's a fact, but you seem to have trouble with it for some reason.

 

[Vixen]

I guess you mean a blind trust, and not that he's fraudulently claiming a disability allowance.

It also looks as if you think (or wish to imply) that a blind trust is a method of concealing assets. I know nothing whatever about accountancy or matters financial, but I do not think that is what they are.

The register where members of parliament have to declare their interests. Going 'blind' is simply a claim that whilst you have an interest in say, Company X, whilst serving, you endeavour to step back from your role as company director, or whatever, and therefore, the reasoning runs, you do not now have any conflict of interest.

But I would question why the Prime Minister of the UK who owns a very lucrative company registered in the Cayman Islands which is ultra-secretive and no-one can look up company records at all, should want to put down your interests as 'blind' on the register unless it is to conceal something you don't want the public to be aware off. Nobody checks to actually see if you have 'stepped away' and are genuinely at arm's length distance from your business activities.

 

[zooterkin]

That was the logical conclusion I came to from the final report, which clearly stated that only authorized personnel were present at the final recovery scene. Hardly a 'conspiracy theory', if officially confirmed in an official report.

Another example of your 'logical thinking'?

 

[zooterkin]

That was the logical conclusion I came to from the final report, which clearly stated that only authorized personnel were present at the final recovery scene. Hardly a 'conspiracy theory', if officially confirmed in an official report.

Another example of your 'logical thinking'?

 

[Vixen]

So you're going to counter the observation that you're a conspiracy theorist by showing us your wall full of headshots and thumb-tacks connected by red yarn.


What embargo?

Your words are so often laughably wrong. Why would anyone mark your words?


Were we? You're so often wrong that I'm not going to take your word for it. It was known from the first photo of the burning car that the Luton vehicle was a Land Rover Discovery, the same as the Liverpool vehicle.

Citation please of where it was confirmed it was a Land Rover Discovery.

 

[Vixen]

Would that have something to do with you insisting that the man who claimed to have discovered Nichola Bulley was an undercover policeman?

(Rhetorical question)

Compus

Read the report. It clearly states everybody present was authorized personnel.

 

[Vixen]

What actually happened was that you were egregiously and obviously wrong, and you spun an ever more amusing series of lies to avoid admitting it. Once we figured out what you were trying to say, you remained the only one with the problem. I mention it because it’s one of the few examples of your posts that isn’t strictly a conspiracy theory. But I see you’ve managed to turn it into one.

Seriously, we all notice typos and unfamiliar expressions all the time. To turn it into a thread for people to express their inner heckler...really...?

As I said before that was how we did it. I get that not everybody did but that is hardly an excuse for ad hominem attack.

 

[catsmate]

I stand by that belief that there is a cover up over the involvement of EV vehicles.

And yet you have absolutely no evidence to support your opinion.

 

[Vixen]

You just espoused a new conspiracy theory involving the forum moderators, without providing any evidence. Further, correctly and relevantly calling attention to your misapprehensions, ignorance, incompetence, and lack of critical thinking skills does not constitute abuse, no matter how butthurt you are about it. And I second Jay's invitation to you to report any post you feel is abusive for moderation, rather than just make dramatic claims that everyone is abusing you.




Non sequitur. Your thread was moved here because you are insinuating that elements within the British government are conspiring to conceal the true source of the fire, not because no one is interested in the topic.




Again, you have advanced several ridiculous and in some cases contradictory conspiracy theories on the sinking of the Estonia, so the threads were properly moved here.




See below.




[Note: I meant to mention this when it was brought up earlier, but although I didn't participate much, I did read through the entire Amanda Knox thread in all of its then-current iterations at one point when things were slow elsewhere on the forum. Also, to avoid derailing this thread, I will not be making any further comments or responses here concerning Vixen's claims about Amanda Knox.]

The hilited is your usual laughable spin. Of course you never claimed there was a conspiracy to frame Knox; rather, you claimed that she and her ex-boyfriend are obviously guilty, but that their murder convictions were overturned because of, inter alia, corrupt Italian Supreme Court justices, her ex-boyfriend's purported Mafia connections, and improper pressure from the US State Department. Further, you ignored the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence of gross misconduct and incompetence on the part of the Italian authorities in this case, and you also ignored the experts in biology and forensic science in the thread who attempted to correct your many misapprehensions. So par for the course.




No. From Merriam-Webster:

. . . a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators . . .

also : a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public . . . [italics original; bolding mine]​

So no, it doesn't need reptilian overlords or worldwide Jewish cabals to be a conspiracy theory. "NASA Faked the moon landings" and "The CIA killed JFK" are two clear conspiracy theories that don't involve multinational-level conspirators.




Proudly wrong as usual.

You are obviously insinuating that "a secret of great importance is being kept from the public," namely, that the Luton Airport Carpark Fire was caused or accelerated by an EV. So please explain to us again how you're not a conspiracy theorist.

It is important to be clear on word meanings otherwise they just become meaningless. Looking at court processes and court transcripts and stating an opinion of them, whilst providing reasoning for the opinion, really does not qualify as a conspiracy theory. (You do know that Italy does factually have a mafia problem, mafias which do in fact interfere with its legal machinery? This is fact, or perhaps only an opinion, but it's not a 'conspiracy theory'). A true pure conspiracy theory is one that states, 'That defendant was convicted of murder for doing cartwheels'. This is the actual conspiracy theory believed and stated by a large number of people in this forum as an ISF mantra in every second thread.

It is my opinion there is a cover up re the Luton Airport car park fire, albeit a banal mundane one with standard embargos placed on the press as to what they are allowed and not allowed to report. That is my opinion. Relax. It is not threatening to have someone differing in opinion from oneself. The whole idea of a forum is discussing how you reached your opinion.

 

[Vixen]

Oh jeebus, so much drivel in one paragraph. Start with what a 'blind trust' (note the second word ) actually is. And who, like Johnson (you're wrong there, as usual), use them.

Fact: PM Rishi Sunak is the only UK prime minister who has listed his interests on the register as being on a blind register. Note the words [whilst in office as] serving Prime Minister.

So once again a rash assertion on your part.

 

[Vixen]

Let's be honest the problem with Sunak isn't his holdings in the blind trust (although I think there are some concerns about how blind it actually is), but rather his interests that he does have full view of because they belong to his wife & FiL.

He sold his shares in Infosys back to his wife, thinking it would be sufficient to allay concerns of 'conflict of interest'.

OK, nobody expects anyone serving as a Prime Minister or even as an M.P. to give up their business interests but perhaps the law or parliamentary protocols need to be amended so that only minor MP's can hide behind a genuine 'blind register' i.e., a genuine resolution to not be part of that companies business activities so that no suspicion of corruption can arise. For example, insider dealing. Cameron's connections to the now criminalized Greensill was one such close sailing to the wind.