[Continuation] Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[EHocking]

No 'class bigotry'.

Of course it was class bigotry. You’ve already stated you have “no love for the working classes” and your claim that because Luton airport services so many budget airlines, that poses a security risk, certainly implies the cause is all those working class low-lifes

It should have been apparent and my apologies if it was not, that the reference to the 'working class' was shorthand for the UKIP-voting, anti-EV, anti-ULEZ, anti-boats Brexit flag-waving mob, usually associated with this type of issue (EV fires).

HOW are the working class “usually associated” with EV fires?!?
Even if you wish to mistakenly redescribe “working class” as “right wing nut jobs” HOW are they “usually associate” with EV fires.?

That should have been clear from the context. It should not be necessary to have to quote AJP Taylor, EP Thompson, Marx Engels, Hegel or Gramsci to fully agree that the working classes are the salt of the earth. The people who put food on your table, clothes on your back, build your houses and cars, serve you in shops, deliver your babies, install and fix your plumbing; in fact do almost all of the productive work.

Yeah, no classism here at all.
Still the question, why are the budget-airline-flying, working class usually associated with EV fires?

Continued from

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=368911

Posted By: jimbob

 

[Andy_Ross]

I'm working class and proud of it.

I have never once contemplated voting for UKIP, I am not anti EV, ULEZ or boats. I have never to the best of my memory ever waved a flag unless it was to send a semaphore message.

 

[Vixen]

Of course it was class bigotry. You’ve already stated you have “no love for the working classes” and your claim that because <snipped disallowed topic> certainly implies the cause is all those working class low-lifesHOW are the working class “usually associated” with EV fires?!?
Even if you wish to mistakenly redescribe “working class” as “right wing nut jobs” HOW are they “usually associate” with EV fires.?
Yeah, no classism here at all.
Still the question, why are the <snip ditto>, working class usually associated with EV fires?

Stop desperately trying to twist my words.

 

[JayUtah]

Stop desperately trying to twist my words.

Please tell us how properly to interpret your words then :—

It should have been apparent and my apologies if it was not, that the reference to the 'working class' was shorthand for the UKIP-voting, anti-EV, anti-ULEZ, anti-boats Brexit flag-waving mob, usually associated with this type of issue (EV fires).

How specifically is this group "associated with...EV fires" and what objective, verifiable evidence can you offer in support of that?

 

[Vixen]

Please tell us how properly to interpret your words then :—

​

How specifically is this group "associated with...EV fires" and what objective, verifiable evidence can you offer in support of that?

Read my original post explaining why I believe information is being withheld. Sunak himself said he had no working class friends. The whole ethos of the press releases seems to be 'it wasn't an EV and that's all you (the public) need to know'. It is well known that the anti-EV stereotype is of a reactionary SUN reading ignoramus who hates Khan and ULEZ. Sunak OTOH is not known for being transparent about his very lucrative financial affairs. So yes, there is almost certainly something in it for him and his wife to protect the JLR brand IMV. As a UK taxpayer this attitude annoys me.

 

[JayUtah]

Read my original post explaining why I believe information is being withheld.

I did. No objective, verifiable evidence.

The whole ethos of the press releases seems to be 'it wasn't an EV and that's all you (the public) need to know'.

Because you say so?

It is well known that the anti-EV stereotype is of a reactionary SUN reading ignoramus who hates Khan and ULEZ.

Because you say so?

Sunak OTOH is not known for being transparent about his very lucrative financial affairs.

Because you say so?

So yes, there is almost certainly something in it for him and his wife to protect the JLR brand IMV.

Because you say so?

I asked for objective, verifiable evidence and you gave me...

...a conspiracy theory.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Read my original post explaining why I believe information is being withheld. Sunak himself said he had no working class friends. The whole ethos of the press releases seems to be 'it wasn't an EV and that's all you (the public) need to know'. It is well known that the anti-EV stereotype is of a reactionary SUN reading ignoramus who hates Khan and ULEZ. Sunak OTOH is not known for being transparent about his very lucrative financial affairs. So yes, there is almost certainly something in it for him and his wife to protect the JLR brand IMV. As a UK taxpayer this attitude annoys me.

This is why this thread belongs in the CT forum. You have no factual evidence, just a lot of innuendo.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is why this thread belongs in the CT forum. You have no factual evidence, just a lot of innuendo.

Not to mention the absurd notion (if Vixen's CT is to work) of Sunak or his people somehow acting in cahoots with Beds Fire & Rescue Service to deliberately hush up the "true" cause of the fire and the precise make/model of "car zero".

We are, in other words, being invited to believe that Sunak (or his people) contacted Beds Fire & Rescue service immediately upon hearing early reports that 1) car zero was an EV, and/or 2) car zero was a Land Rover/Range Rover vehicle....... and telling BF&RS something like: "Look, Sunak has economic interests at stake here. He and his wife stand to lose money if the make/model of car zero becomes publicly known, and also if EVs were a prominent cause of the fire. Therefore we are instructing you to actively suppress any such details, and you will obey those instructions".

*Dons tin foil helmet and hides under the stairs*

 

[SpitfireIX]

Not to mention the absurd notion (if Vixen's CT is to work) of Sunak or his people somehow acting in cahoots with Beds Fire & Rescue Service to deliberately hush up the "true" cause of the fire and the precise make/model of "car zero".

We are, in other words, being invited to believe that Sunak (or his people) contacted Beds Fire & Rescue service immediately upon hearing early reports that 1) car zero was an EV, and/or 2) car zero was a Land Rover/Range Rover vehicle....... and telling BF&RS something like: "Look, Sunak has economic interests at stake here. He and his wife stand to lose money if the make/model of car zero becomes publicly known, and also if EVs were a prominent cause of the fire. Therefore we are instructing you to actively suppress any such details, and you will obey those instructions".

*Dons tin foil helmet and hides under the stairs*

You forgot the part about how they were all told that they'll be killed by the SAS if they don't cooperate.

 

[Vixen]

I did. No objective, verifiable evidence.



Because you say so?



Because you say so?



Because you say so?



Because you say so?

I asked for objective, verifiable evidence and you gave me...

...a conspiracy theory.

Stop changing the context. I was explaining why this wasn't just another case of keeping the usual suspects in their place by ignoring them. As an American equivalent perhaps the standard caricature of MAGA rednecks. The cavalier attitude of the current UK government is what I was addressing.

 

[Vixen]

Not to mention the absurd notion (if Vixen's CT is to work) of Sunak or his people somehow acting in cahoots with Beds Fire & Rescue Service to deliberately hush up the "true" cause of the fire and the precise make/model of "car zero".

We are, in other words, being invited to believe that Sunak (or his people) contacted Beds Fire & Rescue service immediately upon hearing early reports that 1) car zero was an EV, and/or 2) car zero was a Land Rover/Range Rover vehicle....... and telling BF&RS something like: "Look, Sunak has economic interests at stake here. He and his wife stand to lose money if the make/model of car zero becomes publicly known, and also if EVs were a prominent cause of the fire. Therefore we are instructing you to actively suppress any such details, and you will obey those instructions".

*Dons tin foil helmet and hides under the stairs*

What do you mean 'acting in cahoots' - the government embargoes all sorts of things. For example, the Russia Report, the Bullying Report, where BoJo really went on holiday in Scotland, the list is endless.

Definitely the rationale will be 'protecting UK business interests in Tata JLR battery and EV factories.

As evidence, show me the news report about the Gatwick Airport north terminal fire.

 

[Mojo]

It is well known that the anti-EV stereotype is of a reactionary SUN reading ignoramus who hates Khan and ULEZ.

And this is your definition of "working class"?

 

[Mojo]

What do you mean 'acting in cahoots' - the government embargoes all sorts of things. For example, the Russia Report, the Bullying Report, where BoJo really went on holiday in Scotland, the list is endless.

Definitely the rationale will be 'protecting UK business interests in Tata JLR battery and EV factories.

As evidence, show me the news report about the Gatwick Airport north terminal fire.

Not sure what you imagine it's evidence of, but here you go: https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/gatwick-airport-car-park-fire-28813286.amp

The fire at the long-stay car park has now been put out, a spokesperson from Gatwick said.

The spokesperson told Express.co.uk that no one was hurt and the car park is still working.

They explained: "Fire services from Gatwick and West Sussex dealt with a vehicle fire in the North Terminal long stay car park overnight. The fire was extinguished and there were no injuries. The car park is still open for passengers. This is not being treated as suspicious.

 

[Vixen]

This is why this thread belongs in the CT forum. You have no factual evidence, just a lot of innuendo.

You said, 9 April post #2691

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Citation please of where it was confirmed it was a Land Rover Discovery.
Sorry, I meant to type 'Evoque'. And like I said, we know this from the first photo, because that's what a Land Rover Evoque looks like. When the final report comes out this summer, it's virtually certain to to say the car was a Land Rover Evoque.

Now will you please answer my question? Why should anyone mark your words given how frequently you are wrong?


Catsmate avers that it has definitely been confirmed as a 2014 Range Rover Sport. You say it is an Evoque. But neither of you can provide a citation for your claim.

Which one of you is right?

 

[Vixen]

Not sure what you imagine it's evidence of, but here you go: https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/gatwick-airport-car-park-fire-28813286.amp

Where is the important detail of what car caused the fire and how many adjoining cars were destroyed?

 

[Mojo]

Where is the important detail of what car caused the fire and how many adjoining cars were destroyed?

Are you claiming that a fire that was controlled and extinguished started in a diesel car, and this is being hushed up, or that a fire that was controlled and extinguished started in an EV, and this is being hushed up?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen will you finally answer me as well?

 

[zooterkin]

Catsmate avers that it has definitely been confirmed as a 2014 Range Rover Sport. You say it is an Evoque. But neither of you can provide a citation for your claim.

Which one of you is right?

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever for you constant insinuation that the car where the fire started was not a diesel car?

 

[JayUtah]

Stop changing the context. I was explaining why...

I asked for evidence. You gave me a bunch of stuff you made up.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... The whole ethos of the press releases seems to be 'it wasn't an EV and that's all you (the public) need to know'.

It looked to me a lot more like "it wasn't an EV, which is what the public seem to demand to know".

So maybe their note of condescension is entirely in your head.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... The cavalier attitude of the current UK government is what I was addressing.

But without so much as a hint of evidence that the government has expressed any opinion to anyone about the Luton fire.

You're angry about things people are doing in your imagination.

 

[SteveAitch]

I think the current UK government have bigger things to worry about at the moment than a burning LandRover.

 

[JayUtah]

But without so much as a hint of evidence that the government has expressed any opinion to anyone about the Luton fire.

You're angry about things people are doing in your imagination.

I think the current UK government have bigger things to worry about at the moment than a burning LandRover.

This is an example of the explanatory inversion in conspiracy theories. In a typical explanatory exercise, some particular observation or occurrence requires an explanation. We think of disasters and crimes as the most egregious examples. The task is to retrace the causal chain and determine the most likely case.

A criminal trial is not exactly apt, because it tests only one hypothesis in the absence of all others: the objective at trial is to determine whether a certain person was the cause, not who of all people is the criminal.

We follow a typical exercise of assembling hypotheses, assigning a priori probabilities to them, and assembling evidence to test the likelihood of each hypothesis according to the evidence. In the end, we hope to have a confident determination of cause.

Conspiracy theories often invert the process, and by so doing fail due to subversion of support. Put simply, many conspiracy theories are explanations looking for a something to explain. Such is the case here. Whether real or imaginary, the story of UK government officials wanting to protect private interests is a salacious tidbit looking desperately for a place to be applied. But there just isn't enough controversy in the Luton fire to demand such an explanation. That's why Vixen is working so hard to stir one up. If something doesn't look right to her, it must be a sign that something needs that full-power explanation she's so cleverly concocted. And if you don't agree with her that something is as meatily controversial as she says it is, and for the reasons she says it is, well then you're just not as smart as she is and you have your head in the sand.

Conspiracy theories are about coming up with clever solutions, not about solving problems. It's about trying to show how clever the conspiracy theorist is, not trying to show what explanation is best supported by evidence.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I think the current UK government have bigger things to worry about at the moment than a burning LandRover.

Packing? The relative cost/service levels of home & office removal companies? CV review & editing? Stealing everything that isn't screwed to the floor?

 

[junkshop]

...Stealing everything that isn't screwed to the floor?

Send a SPAD to B&Q, put it on expenses. Problem solved.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Send a SPAD to B&Q, put it on expenses. Problem solved.

That shows a level of practical problem solving & basic understanding they haven't demonstrated in any other situation in the last 15 years.

 

[Mojo]

As evidence, show me the news report about the Gatwick Airport north terminal fire.

While we're on the subject of providing news stories as evidence, you never did show us the news story that you used as evidence for this claim, which you said came from "an online local newspaper":

Firefighters from nearby Harpenden (there were firefighters from several regions helping to control the blaze) were reported off the record to have said it looked like a lithium-ion fire.

When asked to identify the newspaper or the journalist who reported it, you said that you were unable to do so because there were "thirty pages of archives", but that merely turned out to be the results of a poorly-targeted Google news search. Please can you support or withdraw the claim?

 

[catsmate]

This is an example of the explanatory inversion in conspiracy theories. In a typical explanatory exercise, some particular observation or occurrence requires an explanation. We think of disasters and crimes as the most egregious examples. The task is to retrace the causal chain and determine the most likely case.

A criminal trial is not exactly apt, because it tests only one hypothesis in the absence of all others: the objective at trial is to determine whether a certain person was the cause, not who of all people is the criminal.

We follow a typical exercise of assembling hypotheses, assigning a priori probabilities to them, and assembling evidence to test the likelihood of each hypothesis according to the evidence. In the end, we hope to have a confident determination of cause.

Conspiracy theories often invert the process, and by so doing fail due to subversion of support. Put simply, many conspiracy theories are explanations looking for a something to explain. Such is the case here. Whether real or imaginary, the story of UK government officials wanting to protect private interests is a salacious tidbit looking desperately for a place to be applied. But there just isn't enough controversy in the Luton fire to demand such an explanation. That's why Vixen is working so hard to stir one up. If something doesn't look right to her, it must be a sign that something needs that full-power explanation she's so cleverly concocted. And if you don't agree with her that something is as meatily controversial as she says it is, and for the reasons she says it is, well then you're just not as smart as she is and you have your head in the sand.

Conspiracy theories are about coming up with clever solutions, not about solving problems. It's about trying to show how clever the conspiracy theorist is, not trying to show what explanation is best supported by evidence.

 

[Vixen]

This is an example of the explanatory inversion in conspiracy theories. In a typical explanatory exercise, some particular observation or occurrence requires an explanation. We think of disasters and crimes as the most egregious examples. The task is to retrace the causal chain and determine the most likely case.

A criminal trial is not exactly apt, because it tests only one hypothesis in the absence of all others: the objective at trial is to determine whether a certain person was the cause, not who of all people is the criminal.

We follow a typical exercise of assembling hypotheses, assigning a priori probabilities to them, and assembling evidence to test the likelihood of each hypothesis according to the evidence. In the end, we hope to have a confident determination of cause.

Conspiracy theories often invert the process, and by so doing fail due to subversion of support. Put simply, many conspiracy theories are explanations looking for a something to explain. Such is the case here. Whether real or imaginary, the story of UK government officials wanting to protect private interests is a salacious tidbit looking desperately for a place to be applied. But there just isn't enough controversy in the Luton fire to demand such an explanation. That's why Vixen is working so hard to stir one up. If something doesn't look right to her, it must be a sign that something needs that full-power explanation she's so cleverly concocted. And if you don't agree with her that something is as meatily controversial as she says it is, and for the reasons she says it is, well then you're just not as smart as she is and you have your head in the sand.

Conspiracy theories are about coming up with clever solutions, not about solving problems. It's about trying to show how clever the conspiracy theorist is, not trying to show what explanation is best supported by evidence.

It is hardly a 'conspiracy theory' when it is current affairs news, which you can simply look up and follow for yourself. Maybe your theory that the government cover up over EV car fire risks is a conspiracy theory is your conspiracy theory that there is a conspiracy theory.

 

[Vixen]

While we're on the subject of providing news stories as evidence, you never did show us the news story that you used as evidence for this claim, which you said came from "an online local newspaper":


When asked to identify the newspaper or the journalist who reported it, you said that you were unable to do so because there were "thirty pages of archives", but that merely turned out to be the results of a poorly-targeted Google news search. Please can you support or withdraw the claim?

Didn't Compos find it?

 

[zooterkin]

Didn't Compos find it?

Whos is 'Compos'?

Regardless, it's your claim; you need to provide the evidence or withdraw the claim.

 

[zooterkin]

<rant snipped>

Now, do you accept the car where the fire started was a diesel?

If not, who is lying, and why? What evidence do you have to support that?

 

[CompusMentus]

Whos is 'Compos'?

I think that might be me lol

I did respond (HERE) to Vixens claim that it was very difficult to find named (on-scene) firefighters comments about the fire.

She had previously attributed this to firefighters being reluctant to speak openly about the event because they have to 'sign' the Official Secrets Act :=]

Compus

 

[JayUtah]

It is hardly a 'conspiracy theory' when it is current affairs news...

But it is when you're trying to explain things by proposing a conspiracy. Give it a rest. No one believes you're just having a pleasant discussion about current events.

Maybe your theory that the government cover up over EV car fire risks is a conspiracy theory is your conspiracy theory that there is a conspiracy theory.

Cute, but no. Since you obviously don't have a rebuttal for the point I actually raised, I won't ask again. "Subversion of support" is the fallacy that arises when—among other things—you insist on providing or receiving an explanation for something that wasn't observed or didn't happen. That's what's going on here. No "current events" or other matters of interest.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Yes, it makes my blood boil when politicians in trusted positions take the opportunity to enrich themselves ...

Great. Fine. Maybe stick to being angry at the venal stuff they've actually done instead of the madey-uppey stuff that cranks invented purely to avoid facing the fact they were wrong to insist Luton was an EV fire.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is hardly a 'conspiracy theory' when it is current affairs news, which you can simply look up and follow for yourself.

Luton being a covered-up EV fire is certainly not current affairs news. It's a crank conspiracy theory.

 

[Mojo]

Didn't Compos find it?

No, your memory is playing tricks on you again. What "Compos" found was a report of an unnamed firefighter saying that loud bangs heard during the subsequent fire "would have been fuel tanks, tyres, and EV tanks." You were claiming that a firefighter from Harpenden said that the fire in the initial vehicle "looked like a lithium-ion fire".

Try again.

 

[zooterkin]

No, your memory is playing tricks on you again. What "Compos" found was a report of an unnamed firefighter saying that loud bangs heard during the subsequent fire "would have been fuel tanks, tyres, and EV tanks." You were claiming that a firefighter from Harpenden said that the fire in the initial vehicle "looked like a lithium-ion fire".

Try again.

Not to mention this was Vixen's claim:

It is obvious what I meant. And the proof is in the pudding. There were at least 100 firefighters actively present putting out the Luton Airport Fire and I could find only one firefighter giving an anonymous opinion to the press about it.

CompusMentus found a report which didn't mention Harpenden, but had quotes attributed to three different firefighters, two of them, at least, at the scene, who were unnamed, one by choice.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I think that might be me lol

Now we need a FoggyMentus and a CleggMentus

 

[catsmate]

Now we need a FoggyMentus and a CleggMentus

I think the thread needs an Electrical Entwistle more.