Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[novaphile]

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.

Once again, Vixen conflates the byline on a newspaper article (which names the author) and a press release, that does not have a published author.

In four years of publishing press releases, guess how many stated my name?

Zero.

Yet another topic that Vixen knows nothing about.

 

[Vixen]

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?

The difference is: time. That instance had been ongoing several years, with quite a few investigative journalists asking probing questions. The defence? (As would be in the Luton Airport car park case): “It was the right thing to do.” (i.e., Give out not-quite-true press releases). The other classic, in explaining the covering up behaviour is: that his communications “look ludicrous” with the benefit of hindsight.

So there will always be rationalization. That guy was on a million a year. Of course he will do whatever he can do to protect his bosses as they are delighted with his performance. It is not lying, it is corporate loyalty. It's only with the benefit of hindsight (= translated: got caught out by a silk at a Public Inquiry).


Luton Airport is obviously not that scale but the same principles apply: the PR guys do whatever you think the bosses are paying you for (loyalty towards the Junior Minister for Policing, for example), rationalize it as 'reassuring the public' and the get-out clause is nobody takes responsibility because the PR was never signed by any one person. It was just someone précising what the man said. 'Sorry about that: hindsight's a fine thing, eh?'

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The difference is: time. That instance had been ongoing several years, with quite a few investigative journalists asking probing questions. The defence? (As would be in the Luton Airport car park case): “It was the right thing to do.” (i.e., Give out not-quite-true press releases). The other classic, in explaining the covering up behaviour is: that his communications “look ludicrous” with the benefit of hindsight.

So there will always be rationalization. That guy was on a million a year. Of course he will do whatever he can do to protect his bosses as they are delighted with his performance. It is not lying, it is corporate loyalty. It's only with the benefit of hindsight (= translated: got caught out by a silk at a Public Inquiry).


Luton Airport is obviously not that scale but the same principles apply: the PR guys do whatever you think the bosses are paying you for (loyalty towards the Junior Minister for Policing, for example), rationalize it as 'reassuring the public' and the get-out clause is nobody takes responsibility because the PR was never signed by any one person. It was just someone précising what the man said. 'Sorry about that: hindsight's a fine thing, eh?'

Are you physically incapable of actually answering questions put to you?

 

[Vixen]

Weasel words.

The statement is an allegation of fact. It is therefore either factually true or factually false. Here it is being made under color of competent authority and in a manner suggesting it should be reliably regarded as factually true.

Despite your unwillingness to face the operative conclusions of your claims, you are alleging that it is false. You claim you can determine whether it is true or false by your own armchair investigation. Rather than wait for competent authority to issue its final report—as you insinuate must occur before any reliable conclusions can be drawn—you have thrown your ignorance full force against photographic evidence and declared that you can determine the statement must be false.

Alternatively you claim can determine that the statement is false by a yarn-and-pushpins argument connecting Hopkinson's "bosses" to the Prime Minister, claiming that Sunak is manipulating this investigation in order to protect private business interests. Even if motivations could be considered a corpus delicti, your argument is based on patent ignorance of how those alleged interests operate.

You clearly believe the statement is false. You're just to cowardly to state that as a claim.

I never said it was false. I never said it was true either. I just do not see how it can be confirmed on Day One when the investigation has only just opened.

It's not like a horse race, where people try to hedge their bets and start working out the odds.

It's boring but some of is like to see the verified scientific facts, not an affirmation of faith.

 

[Vixen]

Quit with the ********. It is a definitive factual statement.

Do you think it is true or untrue?

I will wait for the report.

 

[Craig4]

I will wait for the report.

If you were going to do that, there wouldn't be a thread.

 

[JayUtah]

As would be in the Luton Airport car park case...

"...because I say so."

...Of course he will do whatever he can do to protect his bosses as they are delighted with his performance.

"...because I say so."

It is not lying, it is corporate loyalty.

If corporate loyalty is one's reason for lying, that doesn't make it not lying.

Luton Airport is obviously not that scale but the same principles apply...

"...because I say so."

the PR guys do whatever you think the bosses are paying you for (loyalty towards the Junior Minister for Policing, for example)...

A very dangerous thing to do when you're breaking the law to do it. What if you weren't supposed to break the law that one time? What if you second-guessed "the bosses" wrong?

Have you ever actually worked in a large organization? You have a very fantasy-based assessment of what goes on in them.

...rationalize it as 'reassuring the public' and the get-out clause is nobody takes responsibility because the PR was never signed by any one person.

Just because the publication of the statement doesn't come with a signature doesn't mean it can't be determined who is responsible for it, if it happens to be the wrong thing.

It was just someone précising what the man said. 'Sorry about that: hindsight's a fine thing, eh?'

And once again you simply spin tall tales of your uncanny ability to know how organizations habitually lie and get away with it. Except you cannot answer a single, simple question.

 

[JayUtah]

I will wait for the report.

Nope.

You aren't waiting for the report. You're already second-guessing, gainsaying, and naysaying everything you think will go into it. Competent authority isn't waiting for the final report to state unequivocally what the fuel type of the initial vehicle was. So in all your conspiracy-mongering, you can kindly provide us your answer now.

 

[JayUtah]

I never said it was false. I never said it was true either.

Repeating the weasel words only makes them more weasely. The statement is an allegation of fact. You have presented an argument clearly aimed at showing it to be false. Own it.

I just do not see how it can be confirmed on Day One when the investigation has only just opened.

That's not the question you are being asked to answer.

It's not like a horse race, where people try to hedge their bets and start working out the odds.

Correct, it's very much like the public investigation of an accident. In such a scenario, the competent authority may release findings as they go, at such time as they have evidence to support them. I know more about this than you do, and you're clearly the one betting the horses. You're disputing those findings vigorously, but you refuse to do so honestly.

It's boring but some of is like to see the verified scientific facts, not an affirmation of faith.

You have not even the slightest passing acquaintance with verified scientific facts, much less any respect for them and those of us who provide them. It is not an "affirmation of faith" to note that the authority investigating a fire in a car park has determined what kind of vehicle started it. On the contrary, you ask us several times a day to place faith in your personal authority, even when we have ample reason to distrust it.

 

[welshdean]

Vixen, if the final report says, unequivocally, that it was a diesel ICE and not an EV, plug-in or mild-hybrid vehicle that was the cause of the fire, will you accept it?


ETA: If not, please explain why.

 

[phiwum]

I will wait for the report.

Really? It wasn't so long ago you weren't so coy.

We're not interested in what you imagine Sunak could or would do. We're asking for evidence of what he has done.

You're alleging that Sunak has misused the power of his office to manipulate an official investigation with the intent of covering up the true identity of its cause, in order to give himself a financial advantage. Dozens of pages later you have provided no evidence and a badly written plot.

That is my opinion, and the Romanian lady's video confirms what we can all see if only people would look.

Pretty clear right there. You reckon that video is good evidence the vehicle was a hybrid. It's quite good evidence until someone points out that if you think this is good evidence, then you also have good evidence that the BF&RS press release contains a false statement.

And rather than actually following your convictions, wherever they may lead, you balk and claim to be waiting on the final report. This caution is sure to last, golly, hours perhaps. Or minutes, if you're not already asleep tonight.

 

[smartcooky]

Vixen, if the final report says, unequivocally, that it was a diesel ICE and not an EV, plug-in or mild-hybrid vehicle that was the cause of the fire, will you accept it?

Hell will freeze over before that ever happens!

Even if the final report states unequivocally that the car park fire was started by a vehicle fire in diesel powered vehicle, and names the vehicle make, model, colour and year, Vixen will never admit she was wrong. I foresee three possibilities

1. She will accuse whoever releases the report of lying and publishing a false report, or

2. She will claim some insignificant and/or unimportant detail is missing from the report, or

3. She will disappear from this thread (flounce?) never to post in it again.

How do I know this? Because she has form!

 

[Mojo]

You have not even the slightest passing acquaintance with verified scientific facts, much less any respect for them and those of us who provide them.

When Vixen says, "scientific fact" she's using the term in the sense that "there's no real evidence for it".

 

[junkshop]

I never said it was false. I never said it was true either. I just do not see how it can be confirmed on Day One when the investigation has only just opened...

From the press release published by BF&RS on March 21^st 2024 (over five months after the fire):

...Following the fire, a multi-agency investigation took place between Bedfordshire Police and Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, which finished this week...

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

 

[SpitfireIX]

The difference is: time. That instance had been ongoing several years, with quite a few investigative journalists asking probing questions.

No. It doesn't matter whether one false press release was issued or 100; they would both still be conspiracies. As the CPS webpage I linked stated, and you ignored as usual, as soon as two people agree to commit a crime, they are guilty of conspiracy. Why are you so unwilling to admit this?

The defence? (As would be in the Luton Airport car park case): “It was the right thing to do.” (i.e., Give out not-quite-true press releases).

Did you even read the article? Or did you just frantically Google for quotes that you thought would support your case, such as it is? "It was the right thing to do" was Davies's excuse for having immediately hired a media lawyer after a subpostmaster committed suicide over a £39,000 shortfall. Davies claimed the hiring was to ensure that the subject was handled with the proper sensitivity, rather than to combat bad press. The statement had nothing to do with his false ("not-quite-true" ) press releases.

The other classic, in explaining the covering up behaviour is: that his communications “look ludicrous” with the benefit of hindsight.

Again, did you even read the article? This was an admission, not an "explanation."

So there will always be rationalization. That guy was on a million a year. Of course he will do whatever he can do to protect his bosses as they are delighted with his performance. It is not lying, it is corporate loyalty. It's only with the benefit of hindsight (= translated: got caught out by a silk at a Public Inquiry).

What Jay said.

Luton Airport is obviously not that scale but the same principles apply: the PR guys do whatever you think the bosses are paying you for (loyalty towards the Junior Minister for Policing, for example), rationalize it as 'reassuring the public' and the get-out clause is nobody takes responsibility because the PR was never signed by any one person. It was just someone précising what the man said. 'Sorry about that: hindsight's a fine thing, eh?'

So, apparently your latest gambit to pretend that there's a coverup without a conspiracy is to claim that there's just some sort of tacit understanding to do what "the bosses" want. It doesn't work that way. To be guilty of conspiracy, agreement to commit a crime need not be explicit; it may also be implicit.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, if the final report says, unequivocally, that it was a diesel ICE and not an EV, plug-in or mild-hybrid vehicle that was the cause of the fire, will you accept it?


ETA: If not, please explain why.

It remains to be seen whether:

1. the report indicates the make, model, year and power trail type of the initiating vehicle
2. or refers to it in generic terms.

If the former, I will readily accept the report. If the latter, then we'll know it was a hybrid all along.

 

[Vixen]

No. It doesn't matter whether one false press release was issued or 100; they would both still be conspiracies. As the CPS webpage I linked stated, and you ignored as usual, as soon as two people agree to commit a crime, they are guilty of conspiracy. Why are you so unwilling to admit this?




Did you even read the article? Or did you just frantically Google for quotes that you thought would support your case, such as it is? "It was the right thing to do" was Davies's excuse for having immediately hired a media lawyer after a subpostmaster committed suicide over a £39,000 shortfall. Davies claimed the hiring was to ensure that the subject was handled with the proper sensitivity, rather than to combat bad press. The statement had nothing to do with his false ("not-quite-true" ) press releases.




Again, did you even read the article? This was an admission, not an "explanation."




What Jay said.




So, apparently your latest gambit to pretend that there's a coverup without a conspiracy is to claim that there's just some sort of tacit understanding to do what "the bosses" want. It doesn't work that way. To be guilty of conspiracy, agreement to commit a crime need not be explicit; it may also be implicit.

Yes, I am familiar with the case. I have been following it for at least five years and have watched some of the current live stream inquiry. I am indeed aware of what CPS criminal conspiracy says is a crime. However, the police do not usually get involved in corporate or government issues unless specifically asked to by the upper management or the Commons Standards Committee or Statutory Public Inquiry, when the issue concerns corporate governance issues or Ministerial breaches of codes of conduct. Of course, a member of the public can go to the police and make private complaints about individual employees or MP's, but normally, corporate/government stuff is usually dealt with in-house. For example, I have whistle-blown on at least three serious cases of fraud and embezzlement; not one of them went to the police or CPS. The persons involved were quietly sacked. That is how it works in the UK.

Likewise, a 'Communications Director' or 'Press Officer' role is largely to do with protecting the reputation of the organisation he or she works for, not you the member of public. In effect, they are paid to put a spin on things that paints the org in a good light and to avoid negative publicity. Hence, 'crisis management' teams for when there is a product recall because there is a real terror of brand reputation damage which can seriously impact on public perception of the org, so the Comms person is wheeled out to utter the right words.

 

[Mojo]

If the latter, then we'll know it was a hybrid all along.

Non sequitur.

 

[LondonJohn]

Personally, I'm going to need a photo of the VIN of the (burnt-out) vehicle. And even then, I'll probably conclude that they used a car from a scrapyard for its VIN. You sheeple just can't accept that the car was actually an EV, can you?

(and it's powertrain, not power trail)

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, I am familiar with the case. I have been following it for at least five years and have watched some of the current live stream inquiry. I am indeed aware of what CPS criminal conspiracy says is a crime. However, the police do not usually get involved in corporate or government issues unless specifically asked to by the upper management or the Commons Standards Committee or Statutory Public Inquiry, when the issue concerns corporate governance issues or Ministerial breaches of codes of conduct. Of course, a member of the public can go to the police and make private complaints about individual employees or MP's, but normally, corporate/government stuff is usually dealt with in-house. For example, I have whistle-blown on at least three serious cases of fraud and embezzlement; not one of them went to the police or CPS. The persons involved were quietly sacked. That is how it works in the UK.

Likewise, a 'Communications Director' or 'Press Officer' role is largely to do with protecting the reputation of the organisation he or she works for, not you the member of public. In effect, they are paid to put a spin on things that paints the org in a good light and to avoid negative publicity. Hence, 'crisis management' teams for when there is a product recall because there is a real terror of brand reputation damage which can seriously impact on public perception of the org, so the Comms person is wheeled out to utter the right words.

Complete bollocks. All of it.