Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[Mojo]

Also, why would owning a personal fleet of vehicles made by a certain company make someone go to the bizarre trouble of covering up a fire where a vehicle made by that company was involved?

There is no connection between fleets of personal vehicles and the Luton car park because it's ludicrous and Vixen won't and can't provide any connection, any attempt to respond to these questions will simply result in an irrelevant tangent of storytelling and make believe about something that wasn't asked.

Vixen's 'argument' is nothing more than innuendo.

 

[JayUtah]

For crying out loud! A reasonable person will naturally want to understand WHY it is so IMPORTANT to insist from Day One it was a DIESEL...

Begging the question.

It is clearly an attempt at inculcation...

"...because I say so." (Begging the question)

And the UK taxpayer has no idea where this person has his £500m portfolio invested as he claims it is all on the 'blind trust' register and thus avoids declaring stuff that ought to be transparent.

You don't know what any of that means.

It is not lying, it is PR. Spin. Every day, your government gives you spin. Recognise it.

"I'm so much smarter than you."

It's the same old self-aggrandizing nonsense with which you filled the first three chapters. You have no actual evidence or a tangible argument. It's all just, "I alone know the truth because I'm so special."

 

[phiwum]

No, because then that part will have been written by Jeremy and, while not true, therefore not a lie.
Hey look! Sunak and his wife!!!

Do try to keep up!

The statement might not be true, but it would not be false either, because Jeremy has the power to write propositions that are neither true nor false.

Were you or I to say it wasn't a hybrid when it clearly was a hybrid, we'd have made a false statement, but with Jeremy, no one can tell whether it's false or not.

 

[phiwum]

It is not lying, it is PR. Spin. Every day, your government gives you spin. Recognise it. Treat it with a healthy pinch of salt. When it tries to browbeat you into believing something that all your senses tells you is untrue, stop and ask yourself WHY does it want me to believe this so badly?

Are you saying they want us to believe something that isn't true (that it wasn't a hybrid) so badly?

Isn't there a word for trying to convince us of something that isn't true. Ah, yes, it could be deception. But there's another word for when the TELL us this false thing in order to convince us of its truth. It's not PR or spin. It's a lie.

Now, PR or spin may include lies, but it doesn't stop them being lies.

 

[catsmate]

For crying out loud! A reasonable person will naturally want to understand WHY it is so IMPORTANT to insist from Day One it was a DIESEL and then pretend regular 'updates' that it is still a diesel?

Because it was a diesel vehicle, as we've known all along.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Because it was a diesel vehicle, as we've known all along.

But they didn't "insist from Day One" that it was a diesel. It was provisionally stated, shortly after the incident, that it was thought to be a diesel at that point. It took months before they stated, "yes, it was a diesel". This has been pointed out to Vixen many times, so she knows full well that she is lying when she claims that the fire service was insisting from the start that it was a diesel.

Vixen likes to present herself as some sort of independent journalist, heroically and tenaciously digging through the available evidence to expose a sinister plot with nothing more than her own intellectual prowess. She's gonna Scooby-doo these malevolent evildoers, and they'll curse her name as they're unmasked and hauled off to the police station. "We would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for that master's equivalent accountant!" But deliberately misleading lies like the above prove that it's just an empty performance. It isn't about finding the truth - it's about pretending to find a truth that others aren't smart enough to find.

 

[Myriad]

Vixen likes to present herself as some sort of independent journalist, heroically and tenaciously digging through the available evidence to expose a sinister plot with nothing more than her own intellectual prowess. She's gonna Scooby-doo these malevolent evildoers, and they'll curse her name as they're unmasked and hauled off to the police station. "We would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for that master's equivalent accountant!" But deliberately misleading lies like the above prove that it's just an empty performance. It isn't about finding the truth - it's about pretending to find a truth that others aren't smart enough to find.

As far as I can tell, you're all missing most of Vixen's point. She clearly wants to show she's onto politicians who are engaging in false information and cover-ups to protect their hidden business interests, but she equally clearly doesn't want to indict them for criminal acts, let alone get them foiled or arrested. She doesn't think the laws peons follow should apply to them in the first place. She wants to admire them for their devious ingenuity in advancing their own interests at the expense of the public, as befits their superior social status. So much so that she invents nefarious schemes on no evidence, so there's more to admire. To the minimal extent that she cares what the rest of us think or say, she wants us to admire and appreciate them too. And most likely, most of all, she yearns for them (because the could be watching, dontcha know) to recognize and appreciate her elite understanding of the true ways of the world and her own loyalty to all of our betters, which maybe they'll reciprocate someday and appoint her as an honorary Khediva or something. That the rest of us won't play along just shows that unlike her, we don't belong in those loftier classes.

 

[Vixen]

As has been pointed out already, you yourself explained exactly why the fire service said what kind of fuel the car used, in your original post of part one of this interminable, futile thread: Conspiracy-minded anti-EV types falsely claimed it was an EV.

So you have always known why they said it. You told us why they needed to say it. Now you want us to think it's suspicious that they said it. No. It isn't suspicious.

Fear of what Anti-EV's might say cannot be the reason as no effort is made to gag the anti-vaxxers, the 'was it dying with Covid or dying of Covid' brigade, nor any response to 'Where's Kate'. This isn't countering fake news as this was the edict from the outset before the anti-EV mob got their oar in. Why would it matter if it was a lithium-ion fire unless it is some kind of damage limitation exercise?


Why not just confirm the model make and year of the vehicle if they are confident of the car that started it?

There was an unrelated accident today and the RAF - the authority involved - response was:

It said a "comprehensive investigation" would be completed and it would not speculate on the cause.

Is that not the correct standard response on day one of a critical incident?

 

[Vixen]

Because a whole bunch of anti EV conspiracy nutters on the internet (not pointing any fingers here....) ran with the 'theory' it was an EV (note that the INITIAL release stated clearly that at that point in time it was 'believed' to be a diesel, subject to later confirmation...
Later we indeed get that confirmation from the Fire Service, that the initial was indeed a diesel- NOT a hybrid (homemade or not) or EV...

Of course those self same nutters that have been swamping multiple websites and social media are never happy and many are still parroting their often contradictory (and some downright convoluted) 'theories' to the fire...

I know of at least five who are determined that it 'must' be an EV fire- despite all the evidence to the contrary...

That penny should be investigated immediately- its been spinning in midair that long- it obviously has the key to antigravity!!!

Out of at least 1,200 cars coming and going all the time from a busy international airport, I cannot see how anyone is in any position to confidently aver which car caused the mass destruction. There is the ANPR as each vehicle arrives and departs but even then you cannot be sure which one was the culprit without the office staff next morning going through the data and what's left of the CCTV recordings. Certainly, the Fire Brigade's number one responsibility is to contain the fire, and this was not contained unto circa 3:45am.

Anyway, I am glad you have confirmed that your main motivation is an aversion to Anti-EV'ers, which is hardly neutral and impartial, when looking at an incident objectively.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, now that the thread's been reopened, how about responding?

Anyone who writes 'What Jay said', is clearly unable to formulate their own words in this matter.

But someone at an early point made the decision to (a) decline to confirm vehicle brand, model and year, and (b) insist at point Hour Zero it was a diesel.

 

[Foster Zygote]

But someone at an early point made the decision to (a) decline to confirm vehicle brand, model and year...

Unless you have evidence that someone directly asked those specific details, that's a lie.

...and (b) insist at point Hour Zero it was a diesel.

And that's just a lie. No one made any such claim until months later, and you know it. At this point you're just gaslighting yourself so you can pretend you've made a sound argument. You certainly aren't managing to gaslight anyone else. We all just watch you knowingly tell lies rather than admit error.

 

[JayUtah]

Anyone who writes 'What Jay said', is clearly unable to formulate their own words in this matter.

Or maybe there is just widespread agreement on why you’re dishonestly wrong.

We’re just a couple of pages into a new chapter and already you have to resort to personalizing the argument and trying to poison the well. I assume that’s because your argument remains factually bankrupt and continues to rise no higher than “Because I say so.”

 

[JayUtah]

Anyway, I am glad you have confirmed that your main motivation is an aversion to Anti-EV'ers, which is hardly neutral and impartial, when looking at an incident objectively.

The motivation is against liars and armchair detectives with zero competence, and in favor of the actual evidence. That’s correctly partial.

 

[Mojo]

Anyone who writes 'What Jay said', is clearly unable to formulate their own words in this matter.

Here's the rest of the post in question, of which you chose to reply only to the words "what Jay said":

I didn't ask whether you were familiar with the case. I'd be astounded if you weren't. I asked whether you'd actually read the article to which you linked, because you don't appear to understand the context in which the two quotations you lifted from it were given.




Yet you keep insisting that you don't believe Sunak is guilty of a crime, while continuing to insinuate that he's directed those under him to cover up the "fact" that the Luton fire was started by an EV, in order to protect some speculative financial interest of his or his family's in Tata JLR. This would still be Conspiracy to commit Misconduct in Public Office, whether or not you choose to admit it. You are therefore proposing (although you sometimes hedge with weasel words) a theory that there is a conspiracy to keep the true source of the fire a secret. Therefore, you are a conspiracy theorist.




And, as has been explained to you repeatedly, this is irrelevant. The fact that you think Sunak probably won't get caught is irrelevant. The fact that you think that even if he does get caught, he [ETA: probably] won't be punished is irrelevant. The fact that you think that even if he is punished, it will only amount to "a slap on the wrist" is irrelevant. You are still accusing him of participating in a criminal conspiracy.

What makes you think that SpitfireIX "is clearly unable to formulate their own words"?

You claim to value transparency, so it's nice to see you applying the principle to your evasions.

 

[Mojo]

Anyway, I am glad you have confirmed that your main motivation is an aversion to Anti-EV'ers, which is hardly neutral and impartial, when looking at an incident objectively.

I am glad you have confirmed that your main motivation is that you are an anti-EV'er, which is hardly neutral and impartial, when looking at an incident objectively.

 

[Craig4]

Anyone who writes 'What Jay said', is clearly unable to formulate their own words in this matter.

But someone at an early point made the decision to (a) decline to confirm vehicle brand, model and year, and (b) insist at point Hour Zero it was a diesel.

You should give it a try. Winging it on your own clearly isn't working for you.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Anyone who writes 'What Jay said', is clearly unable to formulate their own words in this matter.

Nope.

In threads like these we outsource the details of the argument to Jay, as he is much more patient than some of the rest of us, who are far more inclined to say, "Sod this for a game of toy soldiers! Why are we going over the same old ground for the umpty fifth time?"

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Fear of what Anti-EV's might say cannot be the reason

Fear of what anyone might say was not the reason. Correcting false rumours was all the reason needed.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Out of at least 1,200 cars coming and going all the time from a busy international airport, I cannot see how anyone is in any position to confidently aver which car caused the mass destruction. There is the ANPR as each vehicle arrives and departs but even then you cannot be sure which one was the culprit without the office staff next morning going through the data and what's left of the CCTV recordings. Certainly, the Fire Brigade's number one responsibility is to contain the fire, and this was not contained unto circa 3:45am.

Anyway, I am glad you have confirmed that your main motivation is an aversion to Anti-EV'ers, which is hardly neutral and impartial, when looking at an incident objectively.

We did this already. Don't you remember?

"What's left of the CCTV recordings"? Are you asserting the CCTV from the car park would be monitored, recorded and stored somewhere within the car park itself? I'm not sure that even after all these months you have actually thought this through.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Anyone who writes 'What Jay said', is clearly unable to formulate their own words in this matter.

To add to what Jay and others have written ("what they said"), this is just a particularly asinine and insulting excuse to avoid providing a substantive response.

But someone at an early point made the decision to (a) decline to confirm vehicle brand, model and year, and (b) insist at point Hour Zero it was a diesel.

This has nothing to do with what I wrote, so let me pose a direct question. Can you explain, without engaging in special pleading or evasion, how you are not accusing Sunak of engaging in Conspiracy to commit Misconduct in Office, when it is apparent that you clearly are? Recall that, as we have discussed, "no one cares," "he won't be punished," etc., do not alter the fact that the actions you have accused him of taking are undoubtedly criminal. Recall also that an implicit agreement to commit a crime still constitutes a conspiracy.