Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Foster Zygote]

Please keep within the confines of what I said. A poster asked WHY would such news be embargoed and I SUGGESTED as an EXAMPLE, PM Sunak's links to Tata JLR, which is a reasonable one.

How is it not within those confines to point out that the "deep fake" video from the scene shows a Range Rover, which is a product of Tata Motors?

In PRIVATE EYE nr. 1623 p. 8, it confirms that the Post Office (shareholder, us the Taxpayer c/o the government) had its Communications Director (Mark Davies) put out a constant PR that the computer system (Horizon) was robust and that no fault had been found, when all along Deloitte and forensic accountants Second Sight in their audits and investigations TOLD the Post Office the system was not safe at all. I mention this example, because many people will be familiar with it (not as a talking point for that topic, which can be found elsewhere). This illustrates HOW government executives (some on multimillion pound salaries and bonuses) cynically and habitually use PUBLIC RELATIONS as a tool to withhold facts and mislead the public.

"Your Honor, if it please the court, I concede that I haven't offered any actual evidence linking the defendant to the racketeering charges against him. But I submit the names of other defendants, who, like the defendant, are of Italian descent, and were convicted of similar crimes. The prosecution rests."

The trick is in distinguishing PR from genuine news. It is obvious to me that you have been taken in by PR because you do not trust what your own eyes tell you from the two videos.

We have already established that you are not qualified to evaluate those images. Your claim that the doors are sloping different directions, for example, is mathematically
unjustifiable. You made that claim in ignorance of even the most fundamental understanding of how wrong you were. And you still have yet to admit that you are wrong, and continue on as though you've made a reasonable argument that the images are faked.

And again, can you please point out the "highly directional, jet-like flames" in that video? Can you link the color of the burning lithium in your earlier video to the color of the fire in the Luton videos, and explain how you corrected for any of many hardware artifacts that commonly affect the fidelity of color display in videos? For that matter can you even assure that lithium burns with the same color as the lithium ion salts found in batteries?

 

[junkshop]

...C'mon, Vixen. It's a simple question. Is this statement true?

...The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle...

Yes or no?

Answer the question, please.

To clarify:

I am not asking for your opinion of the status of the maker of the statement.

I am not asking you why they made the statement.

I am asking you if the statement is true.

Yes or no.

The other stuff can be discussed afterwards.

Vixen, please answer the question.

 

[Foster Zygote]

So please explain to us again, Vixen, how you're not claiming that whoever is responsible for the press release is part of a conspiracy, and how you're not proposing a conspiracy theory.

My guess, based on numerous interactions with conspiracy theorists and religious apologists, is that some people want to attack other people's arguments, but don't want to defend their own. Usually because defending their own arguments has historically gone rather poorly.

ETA: See the lack of response to the question in the post immediately preceding this one.

 

[Vixen]

<snip>

So please explain to us again, Vixen, how you're not claiming that whoever is responsible for the press release is part of a conspiracy, and how you're not proposing a conspiracy theory.

As I said, the details of that case is not relevant here. But corporate culture is a real thing. If you are paying your CEO and Communications bod six-figure salaries and annual bonuses of up to five million, then you are rewarding that behaviour of 'public relations', i.e., pretending that it's all in the public interest, of not wanting to alarm anybody, rock the boat or upset the government that has appointed you. Corporate culture starts at the top and trickles downwards. If the government minister, the civil servants, the CEO of a public body are all being reinforced in the 'three monkey's' ethos of 'see nothing, hear nothing and say nothing', or be sacked, then of course they will keep on repeating the corporate behaviour that rewards them. At the end of the day, they go home put their feet up and look forward to the next bonus. The public relations is just a case of 'oh, everybody does it'.

 

[Vixen]

No. That's wrong. The issue is not why they say it. The issue is your mule-headed pretence that they do not say it.

The trick is only one of discerning whether this statement is what BF&RS claim as fact. Answer: Yes it is. The primary source is their own website. It does indeed make the claim.

Once you have recognised that the statement is indeed what their own website currently claims as fact, you can waste all the keystrokes you like on trying to convince the world they didn't mean to say that or they were just kidding or some office junior did it without approval, but continuing to pretend it's not really there is just making you look stupid.

I was simply pointing out that we have not actually been told anything. All we know is what the newspapers reported at the time. Beds F&RS simply gave a narrative description of how the fire progressed and a best-guess opinion of how it started. That was on day one. Now we are awaiting the report as to the investigation findings.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, please answer the question.

It is neither true nor false but thinking makes it so.

 

[zooterkin]

As I said, the details of that case is not relevant here. But corporate culture is a real thing. If you are paying your CEO and Communications bod six-figure salaries and annual bonuses of up to five million,

I'd love to see your evidence that this applies to the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service.

 

[phiwum]

Context is all. That sentence is unauthored.

That's not how truth works.

We are speaking about a sentence in the English language, where the meanings of the terms are absolutely clear to us. The sentence does not include any first or second person pronouns, so there is no confusion about the referents of each term.

The sentence "The initial vehicle was a hybrid"[1] is either true or false, no matter who says it[2], because it really was a hybrid or not. Hence, it's negation is similarly just as undeniably either true or false.

You claim to have evidence that the sentence, "The initial vehicle was a hybrid," is true. It takes either a very stupid or a very disingenuous person to claim that this same evidence is not sufficient to conclude that the sentence, "The initial vehicle was not a hybrid," is false.

I'll be kind and assume disingenuity. The alternative is that you're mystified about the meaning of plain English or the workings of extraordinarily simple logic.

[1] I can spell out the meaning of the term "initial vehicle" if you wish, but it is obviously a term you understand.

[2] So long as they are speaking of the same "initial vehicle" and the same meaning of "hybrid", so let's not play any stupid games there.

 

[zooterkin]

I was simply pointing out that we have not actually been told anything. All we know is what the newspapers reported at the time. Beds F&RS simply gave a narrative description of how the fire progressed and a best-guess opinion of how it started. That was on day one. Now we are awaiting the report as to the investigation findings.

Again with the lying.

We have been told, clearly, explicitly, unequivocally, that the car was a diesel.

 

[Vixen]

I'd love to see your evidence that this applies to the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service.

Andrew Hopkinson might be the regional Fire Chief of Beds F&RS but he has his own bosses that he is answerable to. He is highly qualified and trained in what he does, including what to say and what not to say at press conferences.

 

[phiwum]

Straw man. The context is the official publication organ of competent authority. There is no need for its individual author—if any—to be identified.

Moreover, the author doesn't matter when speaking about the truth or falsity of an unambiguous sentence which contains no first- or second-person pronouns. This sentence is either true or it ain't, no matter who "authors" it.

And, of course, any evidence that the initial vehicle is a hybrid is evidence that the sentence in question is false -- again, regardless of who says it.

 

[Thermal]

It is neither true nor false but thinking makes it so.

And the thread descends further into Bodhisattva bull ****.

 

[zooterkin]

Andrew Hopkinson might be the regional Fire Chief of Beds F&RS but he has his own bosses that he is answerable to. He is highly qualified and trained in what he does, including what to say and what not to say at press conferences.

And to answer the actual question?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

And the thread descends further into Bodhisattva bull ****.

What is the sound of a head banging on a desk that isn't there?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I was simply pointing out that we have not actually been told anything.

But that's trivially false.

All we know is what the newspapers reported at the time.

And that's definitely also false.

Beds F&RS simply gave a narrative description of how the fire progressed and a best-guess opinion of how it started. That was on day one. Now we are awaiting the report as to the investigation findings.

Three out of three. That's false too.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is neither true nor false but thinking makes it so.

Might be an idea to try thinking, then.

 

[SpitfireIX]

As I said, the details of that case is not relevant here. But corporate culture is a real thing. If you are paying your CEO and Communications bod six-figure salaries and annual bonuses of up to five million, then you are rewarding that behaviour of 'public relations', i.e., pretending that it's all in the public interest, of not wanting to alarm anybody, rock the boat or upset the government that has appointed you. Corporate culture starts at the top and trickles downwards. If the government minister, the civil servants, the CEO of a public body are all being reinforced in the 'three monkey's' ethos of 'see nothing, hear nothing and say nothing', or be sacked, then of course they will keep on repeating the corporate behaviour that rewards them. At the end of the day, they go home put their feet up and look forward to the next bonus. The public relations is just a case of 'oh, everybody does it'.

Please answer the question I asked, rather than the one you wish I'd asked. How is it that Davies admitted that in issuing false press releases he was part of a conspiracy, but whoever is responsible for the purportedly false press release about vehicle 0 isn't part of a conspiracy?

 

[Thermal]

What is the sound of a head banging on a desk that isn't there?

I can picture the sound of one hand slapping right about now.

 

[JayUtah]

As I said...

None of this drivel addresses the claim that you are clearly proposing a conspiracy by which competent authority is being told to lie about the facts.

 

[JayUtah]

I was simply pointing out that we have not actually been told anything.

Except that you're wrong, and we have. Whereupon you invent all sorts of irrelevant minutia you claim has not been reported so that you can maintain your head the illusion that we're swimming in murky waters.

All we know is what the newspapers reported at the time.

No, that isn't all we know. Competent authority has identified the initiating vehicle as being only diesel powered. Pretending you know how this statement arose, and therefore that according to you it can't have any authority, is simply pure fingers-in-ears desperation.

Beds F&RS simply gave a narrative description of how the fire progressed and a best-guess opinion of how it started. That was on day one. Now we are awaiting the report as to the investigation findings.

And in between those two cherry-picked dates has occurred something you simply stubbornly wish had not happened.