Continuation Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

What advantage accrues to Bedfordshire Fire Service by lying about the type of car that started the fire?

Well, we're invited to imagine it's something to do with their being leant on, cajoled, bribed or otherwise induced to cover up the non-fact that this specific event began with an EV battery fire. No other EV fires need be lied about. Just this one. But it's somehow really important that this specific one be lied about.

The pressure to lie allegedly comes from the prime minister, because if people don't buy EVs then JLRs new battery factory in Somerset will lose money, and not only is the government politically invested in this being a success but the prime minister's wife's father is one of the founders on Infosys and is a very wealthy Indian and the factory is owned by Tata which is owned and run by more very wealthy Indians and something something.

So as so often it's something about them foreigners, comin' over 'ere, creatin' our jobs. Tch.


I hope that clears it up.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Well, here it is, thank you to junkshop:

...

Quod erat demonstrandum, mon ami, kemo sabe?

Yep. I think this means we can close the thread, right?

Nil desperandum (ceteris paribus), Irish?

savvy? ... navvy ... Irish navvy ... Irish?

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh look, actual cockney slang.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Oh look, actual cockney slang.

I made it up just now, but yeah, that's how it works.

[MarkCorrigan]

Huh. Well at least it functions the same way.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by wollery

Many years ago I was taken to task by my PhD supervisor for stating that something was "clear".

"If," he said, "it is clear, then you don't need to say that it is. If it isn't clear, then you look like an idiot for saying it."

Vixen, it is not obvious that the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service website statement is a short form of Chief Fire Officer Hopkinson's statement.

That means that your statement that it is obvious makes you look, well, you figure it out.

I have the same aversion as your PhD supervisor, especially in the use of unnecessary adverbs, the word 'very' now almost meaningless, as one example. However, sometimes you do have to use such devices to help aid understanding if your first attempt at explanation fails.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Excellent. So now I'll take the above as a presentation of your argument. Note that I've changed the phrase "in error" to the more neutral term "false" here, so whether it was an error or intentionally false, no matter.

Now, the argument appears to be valid (if the premises are true, the conclusion is also true), so we should turn our attention to the unsupported premises, (1), (2) and (3). Far as I know, (3) is not controversial, so let's take it for granted unless we have reason to doubt it later.

(1) seems fairly plausible. Oh, it's possible that (1) is actually false, since it's possible that either the fire officials choose not to announce every important development or the press has moved on from this story and chooses not to publish an announced important development.

But the premise that I find most obviously dubious is (2). I think (2) is false. I don't think the change from "a diesel vehicle pending final investigation" to "confirmed to be a diesel vehicle" is all that significant. Indeed, it would be expected, perfectly run of the mill stuff. Most things which investigators say they believe to be true, subject to verification, turn out to be true, I'd wager. So I don't find it convincing that this move from "subject to verification" to "confirmed" is really important enough to require a press release, nor that it would be important enough that the press would necessarily publish articles about this totally not startling development.

In other words, if (1) is true -- that is, if developments that are important are announced to the press and the press will print stories about such developments, then I think that (2) is false.

Anyway, it's good to see where precisely your reasoning goes awry, isn't it? I eagerly await your entirely off-topic and perplexing reply. Or complete silence. Either one is par for the course, after all.

ETA: Thanks to junkshop, we see that the fire department did indeed include the confirmation in a press release on Oct. 12th -- incidentally, one day before the web page we've been referencing went up. However, far as I know, no media outlets bothered to report the "upgrade" from "subject to verification" to "confirmed". Hence, again, either (1) is false or (2) is false, as I suggested.

I wouldn't say it was 'false', more a case of ignoring qualifiers (for example, in the pursuit of 'plain English') or people's tendency to not see them at all. So the phrase, 'We are investigating arson', becomes, 'Police say it is arson'. It's not false insofar it is a deliberately false statement, although in the case of activist websites, it can be deliberate as a tool for manipulating people's perception of an event. As long as one is aware of such persuasion techniques it is not a problem. It is a problem here because a handful of posters insist that the matter of the vehicle has been conclusively determined, to the extent they believe repeating it over and over makes it come true.

[GlennB]

^ ^

Scroll back ... press release ...

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Is the highlighted true? What evidence do you have for this?

Note that, "Well, I reckon they would've done it, wouldn't they?" is pretty ******* weak evidence. I hope you have something better than that.

ETA: Note as well that the fact that broadcasters carry the same quote isn't evidence of a press release either. He said the quote in front of reporters. That's how come they got the same wording. Turns out they wrote down what he said. Clever lads, when you think about it.

In the UK, speakers like to give the impression it is ad lib but in fact, it remains carefully prepared. It is not too difficult to remember two or three key points.

The evidence it was a press release? You can do this exercise for yourself: select any major reputable newspaper or news broadcaster throughout the world reporting on the Luton Airport Fire 11th or 12th October 2023 and I guaranteed they will all contain the same quote. (I say reputable because there are bound to be some who leave out the quote and subedit it down to a pithy shorthand instead.

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service

Update at 3:30pm:

Two fire engines, an aerial platform and the incident command unit remain at the scene of the fire currently.

Crews continue to work with airport fire service to monitor hot spots.

The fire service can confirm the initial vehicle involved in the fire was a diesel car.

An investigation to determine the cause of the fire is underway.

Main roads around the area are all open.

One poster insists that the matter of the vehicle has not been conclusively determined, to the extent they believe repeating it over and over makes it come true.

...

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

I have just come back to this thread and in my absence, twelve pages have appeared.

I have not read any of the twelve new pages.

In light of the above, please accept my apologies if this has already been discussed but:

What advantage accrues to Bedfordshire Fire Service by lying about the type of car that started the fire?

Bear in mind that EV fires are particularly dangerous to deal with and very hard to put out. Why would the people who would be putting their own lives in danger try to cover them up?

They themselves do not have any advantage, other than being careful not to pre-empt anything that should be investigated in the Fire Report.

Note Harpendon Fire Brigade had no problem chatting to reporters about EV's in a general sense.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I wouldn't say it was 'false', more a case of ignoring qualifiers (for example, in the pursuit of 'plain English') or people's tendency to not see them at all. So the phrase, 'We are investigating arson', becomes, 'Police say it is arson'. It's not false insofar it is a deliberately false statement, although in the case of activist websites, it can be deliberate as a tool for manipulating people's perception of an event. As long as one is aware of such persuasion techniques it is not a problem. It is a problem here because a handful of posters insist that the matter of the vehicle has been conclusively determined, to the extent they believe repeating it over and over makes it come true.

If the fire service has not confirmed that it's a diesel vehicle, then the assertion that it has been confirmed is false.

Now go back and read the whole post because you've focused on a trivially rather than the main point. Your argument is unsound.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I have the same aversion as your PhD supervisor, especially in the use of unnecessary adverbs, the word 'very' now almost meaningless, as one example. However, sometimes you do have to use such devices to help aid understanding if your first attempt at explanation fails.

"The fire service can confirm the initial vehicle involved in the fire was a very diesel car."

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by GlennB

^ ^

Scroll back ... press release ...

My keyboard doesn't have a release key, can I scroll back and press escape instead?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Well, we're invited to imagine it's something to do with their being leant on, cajoled, bribed or otherwise induced to cover up the non-fact that this specific event began with an EV battery fire. No other EV fires need be lied about. Just this one. But it's somehow really important that this specific one be lied about.

The pressure to lie allegedly comes from the prime minister, because if people don't buy EVs then JLRs new battery factory in Somerset will lose money, and not only is the government politically invested in this being a success but the prime minister's wife's father is one of the founders on Infosys and is a very wealthy Indian and the factory is owned by Tata which is owned and run by more very wealthy Indians and something something.

So as so often it's something about them foreigners, comin' over 'ere, creatin' our jobs. Tch.


I hope that clears it up.

Apart from your disgraceful last two paragraphs about foreigners, many a jester hath been a prophet.

As for withholding information to protect JLR and Tata, don't you think nepotism is rather something to be decried in favour of transparency? Yes, in normal commercial enterprise it is quite commonplace - indeed expected - that there will be brand reputation crisis management. However, the Prime Minister 's function is not there to protect his wife's friends' commercial interests. He is a public servant and should be serving the interests of the British public, which includes the right to information that is in the public interest. Suppose your vehicle was of the same batch and production line as the one that started the Luton fire. Don't you think there might be some public duty to warn you to get it checked for the same potential problem?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Note Harpendon Fire Brigade had no problem chatting to reporters about EV's in a general sense.

And what did they say, in a general sense? Did they say that EVs (note the lack of the very extraneous apostrophe) are ticking time bombs that frequently erupt in white-hot fireballs that melt through concrete and consume large, sturdy architecture all by themselves?

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Mojo

My keyboard doesn't have a release key, can I scroll back and press escape instead?

actual lol

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by junkshop

Having a closer look at the Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service website, I came across this press release (originally published on October 11th).

I would draw your attention to the last update, published at 3:30 pm on the 12th (the day before the OP in this ridiculous thread was posted) - particularly the part I have highlighted:

Sounds pretty unequivocal to me, and it's a press release, to boot.

Originally Posted by Vixen

snipped

Vixen, stop blathering and check junkshop's link

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Apart from your disgraceful last two paragraphs about foreigners, many a jester hath been a prophet.

I tend to think an actual jester would understand humor well enough to realize when someone is engaging in satire.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Vixen

In the UK, speakers like to give the impression it is ad lib but in fact, it remains carefully prepared. It is not too difficult to remember two or three key points.

The evidence it was a press release? You can do this exercise for yourself: select any major reputable newspaper or news broadcaster throughout the world reporting on the Luton Airport Fire 11th or 12th October 2023 and I guaranteed they will all contain the same quote. (I say reputable because there are bound to be some who leave out the quote and subedit it down to a pithy shorthand instead.

Bedfordshire fire and Rescue have their press releases on their website here. Can you find and link to the press release you are talking about?

ETA: They even have a photograph of your conspiracy theory here.

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Vixen

...The evidence it was a press release? ...

Go to bedsfire.gov.uk.

Press 'menu'.

Press 'newsroom'.

Choose 'press releases' from the 'news type' menu.

Choose 'Major incident declared at Luton Airport'.

Read press release published by BF&RS that says 'press release' at the top of it.

Note that it is a press release, marked 'Press Release', and categorised as a 'Press Release'.

Note also that Hopkins' statement to the press does not appear in the 'Press Releases' category.

Note further that Hopkins' statement to the press does not appear on bedsfire.gov.uk with 'Press Release' at the top of it.

Note still further that Hopkins' statement to the press does not appear on bedsfire.gov.uk at all.



Please provide some evidence that Hopkins' statement was, as you claim, published as a press release.





...

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by junkshop

Go to bedsfire.gov.uk

Press 'menu'

Press 'newsroom'

Choose 'press releases' from the 'news type' menu

Choose 'Major incident declared at Luton Airport'

Read press release published by BF&RS that says 'press release' at the top of it.

Note that it is a press release, marked 'Press Release', and categorised as a 'Press Release'.


...

Vixen needs to wait for the commenters on the Daily Mail website to tell her that it's press release.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I wouldn't say it was 'false', more a case of ignoring qualifiers [...] It is a problem here because a handful of posters insist that the matter of the vehicle has been conclusively determined...

Once again you are begging the question. We are not ignoring qualifiers. On the contrary you are inventing them.

The fire service were very well aware that public speculation was rife about this being an electric vehicle battery fire, which they were in a position to correct. The chief fire officer speaking off the cuff at the scene used qualified language but their later public statement was unequivocal. They had every opportunity to hedge if they were not sure and they knew people wanted to know the facts. Your fantasy that they either carelessly or nefariously misled the public is idiotic and utterly unconvincing.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Vixen

In the UK, speakers like to give the impression it is ad lib but in fact, it remains carefully prepared.

You plucked that claim out of thin air. We're perfectly familiar with members of the emergency services reading a prepared statement and making it perfectly obvious that is what they are doing. You're just trying to soften us up for your phoney baloney claim his remarks to the press were a press release and it's pitiful to see.

Quote:

The evidence it was a press release? You can do this exercise for yourself: select any major reputable newspaper or news broadcaster throughout the world reporting on the Luton Airport Fire 11th or 12th October 2023 and I guaranteed they will all contain the same quote. (I say reputable because there are bound to be some who leave out the quote and subedit it down to a pithy shorthand instead.

The evidence it was not a press release has already been shown: the fire service website contains their press releases and it ain't there. Busted.

Your "evidence" for a press release consists of noting the press all quote what he said, and applying circular logic to baselessly claim what he said was on a press release. Can you spot the flaw in your logic?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Vixen

As for withholding information to protect JLR and Tata, don't you think nepotism is rather something to be decried in favour of transparency?

Are you able to recognise that this and the big chunk I snipped are merely a long exercise in begging the question?

Rather than attempt to defend your ridiculous claim the fire service is deceiving the public, you ramble on about how such self-serving deception would be bad.

You can at least see you're doing that, right?

[Andy_Ross]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I wouldn't say it was 'false', more a case of ignoring qualifiers (for example, in the pursuit of 'plain English') or people's tendency to not see them at all. So the phrase, 'We are investigating arson', becomes, 'Police say it is arson'. It's not false insofar it is a deliberately false statement, although in the case of activist websites, it can be deliberate as a tool for manipulating people's perception of an event. As long as one is aware of such persuasion techniques it is not a problem. It is a problem here because a handful of posters insist that the matter of the vehicle has been conclusively determined, to the extent they believe repeating it over and over makes it come true.

It has been conclusively determined by the fire service that it was a diesel car. You can read their press release on their own official website.

[Andy_Ross]

Originally Posted by Vixen

In the UK, speakers like to give the impression it is ad lib but in fact, it remains carefully prepared. It is not too difficult to remember two or three key points.

The evidence it was a press release? You can do this exercise for yourself: select any major reputable newspaper or news broadcaster throughout the world reporting on the Luton Airport Fire 11th or 12th October 2023 and I guaranteed they will all contain the same quote. (I say reputable because there are bound to be some who leave out the quote and subedit it down to a pithy shorthand instead.

They all contain the same quote because they heard the same thing.

Should they have attributed different words to him?

It has since been announced that the fire was started by a diesel car.

[Andy_Ross]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Apart from your disgraceful last two paragraphs about foreigners, many a jester hath been a prophet.

As for withholding information to protect JLR and Tata, don't you think nepotism is rather something to be decried in favour of transparency? Yes, in normal commercial enterprise it is quite commonplace - indeed expected - that there will be brand reputation crisis management. However, the Prime Minister 's function is not there to protect his wife's friends' commercial interests. He is a public servant and should be serving the interests of the British public, which includes the right to information that is in the public interest. Suppose your vehicle was of the same batch and production line as the one that started the Luton fire. Don't you think there might be some public duty to warn you to get it checked for the same potential problem?

It has been confirmed that it was a diesel car.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Vixen

In the UK, speakers like to give the impression it is ad lib but in fact, it remains carefully prepared.

Look how quickly you went from, "Just believe the evidence of your own eyes," to "Nevermind what it looks like."

You got your press release. Deal with it.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Are you able to recognise that this and the big chunk I snipped are merely a long exercise in begging the question?

Rather than attempt to defend your ridiculous claim the fire service is deceiving the public, you ramble on about how such self-serving deception would be bad.

You can at least see you're doing that, right?

She has a pair of Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Mojo

She has a pair of Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.

I think someone's about to be accused of anti-Semitism.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Look how quickly you went from, "Just believe the evidence of your own eyes," to "Nevermind what it looks like."

You got your press release. Deal with it.

Almost as if the actual content of what's happening matters less than the ability to spin it out into attention.

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

"The fire service can confirm the initial vehicle involved in the fire was a very diesel car."

"And it is not just merely diesel; it's really most sincerely diesel."

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

In the UK, speakers like to give the impression it is ad lib but in fact, it remains carefully prepared. It is not too difficult to remember two or three key points.

The evidence it was a press release? You can do this exercise for yourself: select any major reputable newspaper or news broadcaster throughout the world reporting on the Luton Airport Fire 11th or 12th October 2023 and I guaranteed they will all contain the same quote. (I say reputable because there are bound to be some who leave out the quote and subedit it down to a pithy shorthand instead.

We can add "Has zero understanding/appreciation of the news cycle" to your list of.....impressive....fails.

The fact is that so far as mainstream media are/were concerned, this was always a one-day story. Nobody was killed or even hurt - all it was was a (admittedly fairly sizeable) fire in a car park. Mainstream media wanted quick - day 1 - dramatic photos/video, eyewitness testimony, and some sort of official statement. Nobody, nobody across the UK or internationally was in the slightest bit interested in updates "as they came in". The publication of the ultimate fire service report won't garner more than a column or two on the inside pages.

I can guarantee you that no editorial staff in any mainstream media were thinking, post those time-critical Day 1 reports, something like "Ooh, I wonder if the fire service is going to go from being very confident that it's a diesel vehicle.... to being certain that it's a diesel vehicle? Our audience is sure to be waiting on the update from "very confident" to "certain". Hold the presses!!"


The minuscule evolution in this story - from "very confident" to "certain" - was only ever of interest to specialised media outlets. For example, this trade publication: "Fire Safety Matters". Their online article, published on 13th October (post the time when the fire service had come out with confirmation that it was a diesel vehicle) stated things unequivocally (my highlighting/bolding)

Quote:

Some commentators had initially surmised that the fire had probably been started due to a failure in an electric car, perhaps as the result of a damaged lithium battery. Such a belief was premature. Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service has subsequently confirmed that the initial vehicle involved was, in fact, a diesel-powered car.

https://www.fsmatters.com/BAFSA-resp...-car-park-fire


**waits for Vixen to claim that a publication for and by the fire safety community is also misquoting the original news conference **

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian

"And it is not just merely diesel; it's really most sincerely diesel."

[GlennB]

I wonder if Vixen has noticed that her precious 'press release' has been spotted and linked to, right here? Or was it too embarrassing for her to acknowledge it?

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Vixen

In the UK, speakers like to give the impression it is ad lib but in fact, it remains carefully prepared. It is not too difficult to remember two or three key points.

The evidence it was a press release? You can do this exercise for yourself: select any major reputable newspaper or news broadcaster throughout the world reporting on the Luton Airport Fire 11th or 12th October 2023 and I guaranteed they will all contain the same quote. (I say reputable because there are bound to be some who leave out the quote and subedit it down to a pithy shorthand instead.

As I said, the fact that the quotes are the same is easily explained. The reporters all listened to what he said and wrote it down.

Read the whole damn post before replying, Vixen. Don't just hit reply as soon as you think of something to say.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Dabop]

Add reporting to the ever growing list of things Vixen doesn't understand....

I was recently at a 'press conference'/media statement when bushfires hit a nearby town very badly and most of the reporters there actually audio recorded the entire thing , either on their phones or a dedicated device (interestingly, they all appeared to use either similar or identical external mics, which looked to be bluetooth connected (no wires) and had large 'wind mufflers' and seemed fairly directional to boot (they always kept them aimed quite closely at the speaker at the time, swing them from side to side at the person speaking)- very few appeared to be 'taking notes' in writing, and the few that did, seemed to be only noting a brief description and a time stamp...)

And of course if they were quoting something someone said, it would appear to be the same in multiple different publications- that is after all, the entire point of 'quoting'- it wouldn't be an actual quote if it was reworded differently would it lol

Note too, that in this press conference (well more of a town meeting in reality, with a prepared media statement first and a Q&A afterwards with the townspeople) they didn't 'prepare for the meeting' and have a carefully worded script- indeed, several times a speaker would be corrected by another speaker as they had more up to date information (there were representatives of both the volunteer bush fire brigades (several involved, each under their own command and with different spokespeople), the 'town firies', the ambulance service, local council and several charities all speaking, not all of them had the latest info obviously) so even at this one press conference, there was different 'facts' in an unfolding situation...- organised chaos in other words (as is often the case when a major emergency happens...) no fault of the organisations involved- just a chaotic situation, with multiple (and sometimes differing) information streams coming in from different sources...

In any major emergency, there is not time for 'rehearsing your speech' and especially when there are those asking questions- it isn't a choreographed 'set question and answer' routine- the spokesperson has to answer 'off the cuff'- using some of the available information to hand and some from memory- they will usually use 'qualifiers' from what I have seen when they are unsure or simply say so if the info isn't available at all (like at the one I attended, there was plenty of 'we believe' and 'we assume' and 'at this point in time' qualifiers in their actual speech (along with lots of ums and ahs and quick searching of notes for something they couldn't readily remember accurately) and as I said, sometimes corrections from other speakers with more up to date information (the charities had little info on which houses/ roads were under threat or had been destroyed, the firies had little info on who to contact for those who had had to be evacuated and the resources available to them- as would be expected- each specialising in the area of their expertise...)

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Well, we're invited to imagine it's something to do with their being leant on, cajoled, bribed or otherwise induced to cover up the non-fact that this specific event began with an EV battery fire. No other EV fires need be lied about. Just this one. But it's somehow really important that this specific one be lied about.

The pressure to lie allegedly comes from the prime minister, because if people don't buy EVs then JLRs new battery factory in Somerset will lose money, and not only is the government politically invested in this being a success but the prime minister's wife's father is one of the founders on Infosys and is a very wealthy Indian and the factory is owned by Tata which is owned and run by more very wealthy Indians and something something.

Unfortunately the government is not playing along with Vixen's conspiracy theory: Rishi Sunak’s net zero delay ‘will slash demand for electric cars’

[gabeygoat]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Unfortunately the government is not playing along with Vixen's conspiracy theory: Rishi Sunak’s net zero delay ‘will slash demand for electric cars’

Oops, haha