Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

Vixen said:
The links were to demonstrate what auspices the Fire & Rescue Services come under. Some seem not to recognise they are a public body.
Click to expand...


Why didn't you provide links that supported the claim you actually made, and had been challenged on?
 
Vixen said:
I was pointing out that the Fire Brigade being a public body IS accountable to the relevant minister. In a major incident such as the Luton fire, of course the relevant minister gets to see the report first. Especially where recommendations are made that require an Act of Parliament or debates as to amendments in Fire & Safety regulations or building regulations.
Click to expand...

That a minister or ministers would have access, no one doubts. That such a minister would approve or "sign off" as you say on such a matter is the question being put to you.
 
Mojo said:
Why didn't you provide links that supported the claim you actually made, and had been challenged on?
Click to expand...

Because in the past I already went to some effort to provide the exact organisation chart showing who Fire Chief of Beds F&R Services, Andrew Hopkinson, reports to. It is something easily searched on google.
 
Craig4 said:
I take it this is a new thing you're trying.
Click to expand...

Let's see. You believe the video shows diesel flames. Another person believes they look like lithium flames.

Are you seriously claiming that the opinion you disagree with is the same as 'a lie'?


Or would you prefer people in a debate to stick to polite language?
 
JayUtah said:
Asked and answered. The chart you cited was an equivalency for the purpose of employment qualification, not for academic certification.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. It is intended as being for international comparison levels for educational purposes. For example, someone applying to take a course in another country can have their country's standards compared to the country they want to continue studying in. Alternatively, for 'points' purposes, which countries such as Australia use in deciding who is allowed to emigrate there, by applying points to your levels of education and trade/professional standards.
 
Vixen said:
Please stop spreading lies about me. In one post you claimed I was a fat old man living in a basement on the verge of suicide over his sad old life, plus several misogynistic characterisations in which you claimed only men were allowed to critique females. You also claimed I was really a data-entry clerk.

For the record I have an science honours degree (honours: means I was in a laboratory. I was obliged to produce fifteen laboratory reports, designed and carried out by me and analysed as to statistical significance levels. This is exactly what scientists do. Plus a lengthy dissertation throughout the final year.

Please stop with your deliberately untrue statements.
Click to expand...

Please provide evidence of that definition of honours degree.

I have an honours degree too. It made no specification as to how the study was to be conducted.
 
Vixen said:
Having worked side by side with Trust Fund specialists at a top 50 firm of accountants in the City, and attending their seminars for CPD, it is laughable to claim I have zero idea of how a 'blind' trust management works...
Click to expand...

You have zero idea of how a blind trust works. You could not demonstrate even basic understanding, and you kept insisting on using all the wrong words in your flailing attempt to repair each day's new gaffes. All your unprovable claims to expertise boil down to this: when the time comes, you can never manage to walk the walk.

It is perfectly OK to raise the question of what is in it for him to protect the Tata Range Rover brand, if that was indeed the vehicle involved (and from photos, it would seem to be the case!).
Click to expand...

All your evidence boils down to, "Trust me, bro." And we keep having to show you the many reasons why we do not trust you. You just make stuff up.
 
Mojo said:
Why didn't you provide links that supported the claim you actually made, and had been challenged on?
Click to expand...

By the time you have read all the links you will have forgotten what the original point was. Works this way for Vixen so Vixen assumes it works this way for all.
 
Vixen said:
A difference of opinion is hardly 'lies'. Let's not use childish language.
Click to expand...

Your lie regarding Carol Vorderman was not a difference of opinion. You literally said I did something that I literally did not do. And you have never taken responsibility for it. Have your completed your review of that incident? Or are you just hoping you can sweep it under the carpet and carry on in your illusion of virtue?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I simply commented in vernacular chat that he was talking down to a psychology postgrad who did one's dissertation on memory. It was later clarified that the postgrad qualification itself was not in psychology. End of.
Click to expand...

No, it's not just "vernacular." You misused the concept of post-graduate, bluffed, and got caught—same as always. Then you spent a ridiculous amount of energy trying to show that you were still somehow right.

And all this was because you responded to a challenge by your trusty, "Trust me, bro" evidence. And we don't trust you because you can't demonstrate any useful understanding of eyewitness memory. You can't even engage in a conversation about it when the practitioners and principles are spoon-fed to you. If you don't like being fact-checked in this way, deploy an argument that doesn't rely on your claims to expertise.
 
Vixen said:
For the record I have an science honours degree (honours: means I was in a laboratory. I was obliged to produce fifteen laboratory reports, designed and carried out by me and analysed as to statistical significance levels. This is exactly what scientists do. Plus a lengthy dissertation throughout the final year.
Click to expand...

You are not a scientist. You have never worked as a scientist. You cannot demonstrate any competence in science. We have tested your ability to reason through simple problems in the physical sciences and you cannot demonstrate even basic comprehension of such elementary principles and lines, points, and vectors. None of your self-serving boo-hooing compensates for the fact that you continually claim expertise you do not have and cannot demonstrate. No, we will not celebrate your mediocrity and we will not take your fanciful claims to expertise as cover for your inability to demonstrate it.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The links were to demonstrate what auspices the Fire & Rescue Services come under. Some seem not to recognise they are a public body.
Click to expand...

No, that's not the dilemma, and no, you are not the teacher. You claimed the fire services were accountable to the ministry in a certain specific way that required the minister proper to "sign off" on a technical report issued by one of its offices. Now you're trying to distract from the fact that the source you cited contains no evidence of such a practice by pretending you were addressing a question that was never asked.

Further, you claim that this "sign off" procedure provides the minister proper an opportunity to censor the report and "hush up" anything he doesn't like. You have no evidence that this has occurred or will occur, and you have completely ignored that the minister who you say will be censoring this report to protect Sunak's purported interests will be a member of the opposition party.
 
Vixen said:
Because in the past I already went to some effort to provide the exact organisation chart...
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Your claim was that the ministry or the minister proper would censor the report to remove any politically or financially uncomfortable information. Simply showing that an organization exists and employs certain people is not evidence that the organization or people behave in the way you claim.
 
Vixen said:
Let's see. You believe the video shows diesel flames. Another person believes they look like lithium flames.

Are you seriously claiming that the opinion you disagree with is the same as 'a lie'?
Click to expand...

The lie is the ongoing insinuation that your opinion is authoritative. You claim you can extract this kind of data from a visual record. But when the factors you have ignored in order to arrive at that assurance are brought to your attention, you simply pretend they do not exist and move forward with your "Because I say so" argument. That is when what may begin as a difference of opinion becomes a lie.

Or would you prefer people in a debate to stick to polite language?
Click to expand...

Nothing in the post you identified as "childish language" could be characterized that way; you're just trying to pretend you're being inappropriately picked on. If you believe you are not being treated with appropriate civility, report the post for moderation. Do not continue to insinuate as much for rhetorical effect.

If you don't want to have your past lies and failures enumerated, do not continue to predicate your argument on the premise of personal expertise, authority, and trustworthiness that can only be fact-checked this way.

I expect you to address the Carol Voderman issue, since you promised to do so.
 
Mojo said:
:dl:
Click to expand...

Indeed, the coursework she describes is roughly equivalent to the standard undergraduate requirement for a lab science in any large American university. Every graduate, regardless of declared major, would be expected to complete such work. But the notion that "being in a laboratory" is equivalent to "honors" is hysterical.

Be any of that as it may, Vixen cannot demonstrate competence in any science she has attempted as part of her arguments here, or even any basic understanding of science principles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom