On 2024-03-26 02:42, Paul wrote:
> On 3/25/2024 4:58 PM, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 25/03/2024 18:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 25/03/2024 17:33, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Dan Green wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The members of Landyzone.co.uk discussion
>>>>> forum were able to positively ID this as ahybrid  EV from the photos
>>>>> within about 48hrs and I trust them over and above anyone else any day
>>>>> of the week.
>>>>
>>>> While I'm sure they have some members who can tell what model year a given landrover is from 1,000paces, and know which years diesel/petrol/phev versions were sold, I don't see how they have X-ray vision to see through the bodywork to know which particular model was involved?
>>>>
>>>> I seem to remember the registration plate was deciphered with reasonable certainty, and the DVLA site showed a fuel type of diesel ...
>>>
>>> The number plate was not deciphered. Nor have the vehicle details ever been published.
>>
>> Then you are burying your head firmly in the ground.
>>
>> Facts you don't like to hear are ignored by you. It is a fact there were articles at the time, that corroborated and published the registration number, type and credentials of the vehicle, and that it was a diesel powered vehicle.
>>
>> This is just one article you don't want to read.
>>   https://www.landrovermonthly.co.uk/articles/news/the-truth-is-revealed/
>>
>> Now, do I believe this and other articles, or some rambling twat that thinks smoking doesn't cause cancer because cigarette companies say it doesn't.
>>
>
> I've seen two discussion threads, where people are "positive" they
> can read the number plate. And the two text strings share
> nothing in common! How clever.
>
> I'm sure they have some sort of other evidence to go on.
> Which some privacy policy seems to prevent us from
> finding out.
>
> The VIN plates are not made of particularly fire-proof
> material, so sifting through the fire scene is not
> going to recover the VIN. If an engine block has
> a serial number stamped on it, that may help identify
> the pile of ashes.
>
> Paul

They had the driver of the car, who was quite possibly also the owner,
or would identify the owner. All of the information about the vehicle
would then be on the V5 and with DVLA, and from the VIN, with the
manufacturer. Why would anyone (other than amateurs!) be trying to
discover what type of vehicle it was from grainy photos or ashes?

nib

On 26/03/2024 18:16, nib wrote:

> They had the driver of the car, who was quite possibly also the owner,
> or would identify the owner. All of the information about the vehicle
> would then be on the V5 and with DVLA, and from the VIN, with the
> manufacturer. Why would anyone (other than amateurs!) be trying to
> discover what type of vehicle it was from grainy photos or ashes?
>

Because no one has released any information *to the public*
Leading to the conclusion that they do not actually want to, because
they are desperately lying about it to avoid denting EV sales any more
than they are already.

> nib

--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 10:25:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 25/03/2024 22:31, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On 25 Mar 2024 15:31:17 GMT, Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Bennett <aben@ben37j.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm guessing the driver of said vehicle and the DVLA are all well aware
>>>> of the vehicles credentials.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately the tinfoil hat brigade would rather believe wot some man in
>>> the pub said over any statement by the fire brigade.
>>
>> You don't need a number plate to identify a specific make and model of
>> a vehicle. Even a grainy picture of the exterior will do, if viewed
>> by persons of suffiicient familiiarity with the marque in question.
>But that particular model comes (or came) in hybrid and pure diesel
>versions
>
>They looked identical from outside. Credible deniability....

However, the video clearly shows the fire originating from under one
of the front seats - where the battery packs are located. And they
typically shoot flame out horizontally - intense torch-like flares -
which makes it far more likely adjacent vehicles will rapidly go up in
flames. No way diesel does that.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:03:43 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:

>Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:32:01 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>
>> >The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> We were also told by the authorities that there were no muslim gang
>> >> rape and girl grooming gangs, that Jimmy Savile was a great guy, that
>> >> there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
>> >>
>> >When/where did "the authorities" (whoever they are) say that "Jimmy
>> >Savile was a great guy"?
>>
>> "Great guy" or "National treasure" - it's the same fucking thing. The
>> BBC has a habit of describing all their half-baked "talents" as 'great
>> guys' and 'national treasures' before they get outed as anything but.
>> John Peel was another one. Google the cunt why don't you? And while
>> you're at it, Google Eric Gill, who's sculpture of a man fucking a boy
>> is still in place about Broadcasting House despite many a principled
>> man's attempts to have it removed and destroyed.
>
>Since when has the BBC been "the authorities"? I'd assumed you meant
>some part of the government by that.

The BBC is an authority in its own right - and a wholly unaccountable
one at that.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 10:30:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 26/03/2024 07:25, Andy Burns wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Fires in diesel cars do not start under the passenger floor where the
>>> lithium battery is located in the hybrid.
>>
>> Maybe they were carrying something flammable in the passenger floor well?
>>
>>> Saying a hybrid is in fact 'not a BEV, but a diesel' is convenient
>>> economy with the truth
>>
>> But the fire service stated it's not a MHEV, not a PHEV, not a BEV.
>
>I know what their report is stating. I dont know what the officers who
>examined the wreckage are saying or indeed why its actual ownership and
>registration has not been published so that anyone can look it up, since
>presumably its owner talked to the police years ago and didn't just
>abandon it burning and never look back and never contact his insurance
>company.
>
>If you keep everything secret except one 'official' report that cannot
>be cross checked, expect people to be suspicious.

Whitewhashes and cover-ups are hardly anything new. Clearly there's
some monkey business going on here to obfuscate the truth, which was,
IMHO, down to lithium.

On 26/03/2024 08:21, Steve wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:25:01 +0000
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Fires in diesel cars do not start under the passenger floor where
>>> the lithium battery is located in the hybrid.
>>
>> Maybe they were carrying something flammable in the passenger floor
>> well?
>>
>>> Saying a hybrid is in fact 'not a BEV, but a diesel' is convenient
>>> economy with the truth
>>
>> But the fire service stated it's not a MHEV, not a PHEV, not a BEV.
>
> The fire service are clearly commies. Look at the colour of the
> vehicles they drive around in! If that's not hiding in plain sight,
> then I don't know what is.
>

https://www.fire-engine-photos.com/picture/number40166.asp

--
Colin Bignell

On 26/03/2024 18:56, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:03:43 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>
>> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:32:01 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We were also told by the authorities that there were no muslim gang
>>>>> rape and girl grooming gangs, that Jimmy Savile was a great guy, that
>>>>> there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>> When/where did "the authorities" (whoever they are) say that "Jimmy
>>>> Savile was a great guy"?
>>>
>>> "Great guy" or "National treasure" - it's the same fucking thing. The
>>> BBC has a habit of describing all their half-baked "talents" as 'great
>>> guys' and 'national treasures' before they get outed as anything but.
>>> John Peel was another one. Google the cunt why don't you? And while
>>> you're at it, Google Eric Gill, who's sculpture of a man fucking a boy
>>> is still in place about Broadcasting House despite many a principled
>>> man's attempts to have it removed and destroyed.
>>
>> Since when has the BBC been "the authorities"? I'd assumed you meant
>> some part of the government by that.
>
> The BBC is an authority in its own right - and a wholly unaccountable
> one at that.

So not like GB News, they're not accountable to anyone, like OFCOM?

Did GB News say it was an EV that created the fire? Or is that just what
the oil companies want us to believe?

On 26/03/2024 18:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 26/03/2024 18:16, nib wrote:
>
>> They had the driver of the car, who was quite possibly also the owner,
>> or would identify the owner. All of the information about the vehicle
>> would then be on the V5 and with DVLA, and from the VIN, with the
>> manufacturer. Why would anyone (other than amateurs!) be trying to
>> discover what type of vehicle it was from grainy photos or ashes?
>>
>
> Because no one has released any information *to the public*

Probably because the public already know the Land-rover was a diesel.

> Leading to the conclusion that they do not actually want to

You mean you don't want to know it was a diesel Land-rover?

On 26/03/2024 19:10, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 26/03/2024 08:21, Steve wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:25:01 +0000
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fires in diesel cars do not start under the passenger floor where
>>>> the lithium battery is located in the hybrid.
>>>
>>> Maybe they were carrying something flammable in the passenger floor
>>> well?
>>>
>>>> Saying a hybrid is in fact 'not a BEV, but a diesel' is convenient
>>>> economy with the truth
>>>
>>> But the fire service stated it's not a MHEV, not a PHEV, not a BEV.
>>
>> The fire service are clearly commies. Look at the colour of the
>> vehicles they drive around in! If that's not hiding in plain sight,
>> then I don't know what is.
>>
>
> https://www.fire-engine-photos.com/picture/number40166.asp

Bloody Lib Dems get everywhere :-)

On 3/26/2024 2:16 PM, nib wrote:

>
> They had the driver of the car, who was quite possibly also the owner, or would identify the owner. All of the information about the vehicle would then be on the V5 and with DVLA, and from the VIN, with the manufacturer. Why would anyone (other than amateurs!) be trying to discover what type of vehicle it was from grainy photos or ashes?
>
> nib

I could not find any evidence that they positively
identified the driver. The driver has been neatly
hidden from view, almost as if they were in a
witness protection program.

I want to see the damn timeline, since it seemed
like that fire burned for *one hour* before
anyone tried to fight it! Until the fire trucks
showed up. Did the driver ring the alarm ?
Or did the driver head off for a drink ?

That part of the report is very important, because...
that building did NOT have to burn down, FFS!

I don't know if you've noticed, but reportage today
is a shambles. One of my news stations here, seems
to be hiring interns. Do they know what
"who-what-when-where-why" is, in reporting ?

Reporting is a lost art. Bring back the Underwood typewriters.

Paul

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:13:03 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid>
wrote:

>On 26/03/2024 18:56, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:03:43 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:32:01 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We were also told by the authorities that there were no muslim gang
>>>>>> rape and girl grooming gangs, that Jimmy Savile was a great guy, that
>>>>>> there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
>>>>>>
>>>>> When/where did "the authorities" (whoever they are) say that "Jimmy
>>>>> Savile was a great guy"?
>>>>
>>>> "Great guy" or "National treasure" - it's the same fucking thing. The
>>>> BBC has a habit of describing all their half-baked "talents" as 'great
>>>> guys' and 'national treasures' before they get outed as anything but.
>>>> John Peel was another one. Google the cunt why don't you? And while
>>>> you're at it, Google Eric Gill, who's sculpture of a man fucking a boy
>>>> is still in place about Broadcasting House despite many a principled
>>>> man's attempts to have it removed and destroyed.
>>>
>>> Since when has the BBC been "the authorities"? I'd assumed you meant
>>> some part of the government by that.
>>
>> The BBC is an authority in its own right - and a wholly unaccountable
>> one at that.
>
>So not like GB News, they're not accountable to anyone, like OFCOM?

GBN are constantly criticized by OFCOM, unlike the wonderful BBC. The
BBC can say what the hell they please, it's clear.

>
>Did GB News say it was an EV that created the fire? Or is that just what
>the oil companies want us to believe?

Nothing to do with GBN or the oil companies. I'm suspicious because
the very first reports - within hours - from the BBC et al went out of
their way to state unequivocally that an EV was not involved. And that
was before they even knew the make and model of the vehicle! It's got
'cover-up' written all over it IMV.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:42:23 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

>On 3/26/2024 2:16 PM, nib wrote:
>
>>
>> They had the driver of the car, who was quite possibly also the owner, or would identify the owner. All of the information about the vehicle would then be on the V5 and with DVLA, and from the VIN, with the manufacturer. Why would anyone (other than amateurs!) be trying to discover what type of vehicle it was from grainy photos or ashes?
>>
>> nib
>
>I could not find any evidence that they positively
>identified the driver. The driver has been neatly
>hidden from view, almost as if they were in a
>witness protection program.
>
>I want to see the damn timeline, since it seemed
>like that fire burned for *one hour* before
>anyone tried to fight it! Until the fire trucks
>showed up. Did the driver ring the alarm ?
>Or did the driver head off for a drink ?
>
>That part of the report is very important, because...
>that building did NOT have to burn down, FFS!
>
>I don't know if you've noticed, but reportage today
>is a shambles. One of my news stations here, seems
>to be hiring interns. Do they know what
>"who-what-when-where-why" is, in reporting ?
>
>Reporting is a lost art. Bring back the Underwood typewriters.
>
> Paul

I'm sorry to say we'd need to bring back a lot more than Underwood
typewriters to eradicate the cancer of lying that's infested the field
of journalism of late.

On 27/03/2024 00:54, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:13:03 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 26/03/2024 18:56, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:03:43 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:32:01 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We were also told by the authorities that there were no muslim gang
>>>>>>> rape and girl grooming gangs, that Jimmy Savile was a great guy, that
>>>>>>> there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> When/where did "the authorities" (whoever they are) say that "Jimmy
>>>>>> Savile was a great guy"?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Great guy" or "National treasure" - it's the same fucking thing. The
>>>>> BBC has a habit of describing all their half-baked "talents" as 'great
>>>>> guys' and 'national treasures' before they get outed as anything but.
>>>>> John Peel was another one. Google the cunt why don't you? And while
>>>>> you're at it, Google Eric Gill, who's sculpture of a man fucking a boy
>>>>> is still in place about Broadcasting House despite many a principled
>>>>> man's attempts to have it removed and destroyed.
>>>>
>>>> Since when has the BBC been "the authorities"? I'd assumed you meant
>>>> some part of the government by that.
>>>
>>> The BBC is an authority in its own right - and a wholly unaccountable
>>> one at that.
>>
>> So not like GB News, they're not accountable to anyone, like OFCOM?
>
> GBN are constantly criticized by OFCOM, unlike the wonderful BBC. The
> BBC can say what the hell they please, it's clear.

Some say quite the opposite:
https://inews.co.uk/news/media/gb-news-gets-away-more-bbc-ofcom-boss-2938731

>> Did GB News say it was an EV that created the fire? Or is that just what
>> the oil companies want us to believe?
>
> Nothing to do with GBN or the oil companies.

So they didn't.

> I'm suspicious because
> the very first reports - within hours - from the BBC et al went out of
> their way to state unequivocally that an EV was not involved. And that
> was before they even knew the make and model of the vehicle! It's got
> 'cover-up' written all over it IMV.

That is called news. Sometimes news gets it wrong; initially. In this
case they didn't.

I suspect the reason the BBC set the record straight from the start was
in anticipation of conspiracy theorists.

YMMV

On 3/26/2024 8:54 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:13:03 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 26/03/2024 18:56, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:03:43 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:32:01 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We were also told by the authorities that there were no muslim gang
>>>>>>> rape and girl grooming gangs, that Jimmy Savile was a great guy, that
>>>>>>> there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> When/where did "the authorities" (whoever they are) say that "Jimmy
>>>>>> Savile was a great guy"?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Great guy" or "National treasure" - it's the same fucking thing. The
>>>>> BBC has a habit of describing all their half-baked "talents" as 'great
>>>>> guys' and 'national treasures' before they get outed as anything but.
>>>>> John Peel was another one. Google the cunt why don't you? And while
>>>>> you're at it, Google Eric Gill, who's sculpture of a man fucking a boy
>>>>> is still in place about Broadcasting House despite many a principled
>>>>> man's attempts to have it removed and destroyed.
>>>>
>>>> Since when has the BBC been "the authorities"? I'd assumed you meant
>>>> some part of the government by that.
>>>
>>> The BBC is an authority in its own right - and a wholly unaccountable
>>> one at that.
>>
>> So not like GB News, they're not accountable to anyone, like OFCOM?
>
> GBN are constantly criticized by OFCOM, unlike the wonderful BBC. The
> BBC can say what the hell they please, it's clear.
>
>>
>> Did GB News say it was an EV that created the fire? Or is that just what
>> the oil companies want us to believe?
>
> Nothing to do with GBN or the oil companies. I'm suspicious because
> the very first reports - within hours - from the BBC et al went out of
> their way to state unequivocally that an EV was not involved. And that
> was before they even knew the make and model of the vehicle! It's got
> 'cover-up' written all over it IMV.
>

https://citiblog.co.uk/2024/03/25/fire-department-provide-report-on-luton-airport-car-park-fire/

"While a full incident report is expected to be published in summer 2024, <===
a multi-agency investigation took place between local police and
fire services, which finished this week."

Paul

On 24/03/2024 07:30, Andy Burns wrote:
> First official statement I've noticed about it ...
>
> <https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-started-accidentally>

I've read through just about all the replies and have some questions
which perhaps someone with a chemistry background can answer.

Does anyone know what colour the original fire was? If it was a
lithium-based fire it /might/ have had a reddish tinge to it.

Now for the scientific questions. If a fire is lithium-battery based,
would it be possible to use a spectrometer to detect the specific line
emitted by lithium at 671nm while the fire is taking place, or would
there be too much interference from other emissions? And that leads to
another question. If the fire is recorded, is it possible to detect the
line at 671nm from the recording?

--

Jeff

On 27 Mar 2024 at 08:32:55 GMT, "Jeff Layman" <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 24/03/2024 07:30, Andy Burns wrote:
>> First official statement I've noticed about it ...
>>
>> <https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-started-accidentally>
>
> I've read through just about all the replies and have some questions
> which perhaps someone with a chemistry background can answer.
>
> Does anyone know what colour the original fire was? If it was a
> lithium-based fire it /might/ have had a reddish tinge to it.
>
> Now for the scientific questions. If a fire is lithium-battery based,
> would it be possible to use a spectrometer to detect the specific line
> emitted by lithium at 671nm while the fire is taking place, or would
> there be too much interference from other emissions? And that leads to
> another question. If the fire is recorded, is it possible to detect the
> line at 671nm from the recording?

You could have done it at the time of the fire, but it's unlikely that any
recording would contain enough spectral info to do it.

--
For me leaving the EU has always been a fundamental if abstract question of democratic accountability: disliking a transnational government it's impossible to kick out.

Iain Martin - The Times 24/11/2022

On 2024-03-27 09:11, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2024 at 08:32:55 GMT, "Jeff Layman" <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 24/03/2024 07:30, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> First official statement I've noticed about it ...
>>>
>>> <https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-started-accidentally>
>>
>> I've read through just about all the replies and have some questions
>> which perhaps someone with a chemistry background can answer.
>>
>> Does anyone know what colour the original fire was? If it was a
>> lithium-based fire it /might/ have had a reddish tinge to it.
>>
>> Now for the scientific questions. If a fire is lithium-battery based,
>> would it be possible to use a spectrometer to detect the specific line
>> emitted by lithium at 671nm while the fire is taking place, or would
>> there be too much interference from other emissions? And that leads to
>> another question. If the fire is recorded, is it possible to detect the
>> line at 671nm from the recording?
>
> You could have done it at the time of the fire, but it's unlikely that any
> recording would contain enough spectral info to do it.
>

Especially as the recording will have the colour encoded as three
discrete fixed colour channels not as the original wavelength!

nib

On 2024-03-26 22:42, Paul wrote:
> On 3/26/2024 2:16 PM, nib wrote:
>
>>
>> They had the driver of the car, who was quite possibly also the owner, or would identify the owner. All of the information about the vehicle would then be on the V5 and with DVLA, and from the VIN, with the manufacturer. Why would anyone (other than amateurs!) be trying to discover what type of vehicle it was from grainy photos or ashes?
>>
>> nib
>
> I could not find any evidence that they positively
> identified the driver. The driver has been neatly
> hidden from view, almost as if they were in a
> witness protection program.
> ....

ITV said a few days ago:

"A man that was arrested in connection with the a fire at a £20m airport
car park which wrote off up to 1,500 cars will face no further action."

I assume if they arrested him that they do know who he was!

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2024-03-18/man-arrested-after-luton-airport-car-park-fire-to-face-no-further-action

(True it doesn't actually say the man arrested on suspicion of criminal
damage was the driver, but we can probably assume he was connected with
the vehicle.)

nib

Jeff Layman wrote:

> Does anyone know what colour the original fire was? If it was a
> lithium-based fire it /might/ have had a reddish tinge to it.

Judge for yourself

<https://twitter.com/andysoullinux/status/1712232395049422942>

With a bit of dicking about you can download the video file, and freeze
frame it, squint at the numberplate too...

> Now for the scientific questions. If a fire is lithium-battery based,
> would it be possible to use a spectrometer to detect the specific line
> emitted by lithium at 671nm while the fire is taking place, or would
> there be too much interference from other emissions?

All the footage I've seen is mobile phone potato quality, hardly
calibrated and un-fiddled with.

> And that leads to
> another question. If the fire is recorded, is it possible to detect the
> line at 671nm from the recording?

Maybe we'll be treated to some CCTV footage later?

In article <dar60jt9f45o6maiv5koaume51i6lv8omq@4ax.com>, Cursitor Doom
<cd@notformail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:13:03 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:

> >On 26/03/2024 18:56, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:03:43 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:32:01 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We were also told by the authorities that there were no muslim
> >>>>>> gang rape and girl grooming gangs, that Jimmy Savile was a great
> >>>>>> guy, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> When/where did "the authorities" (whoever they are) say that "Jimmy
> >>>>> Savile was a great guy"?
> >>>>
> >>>> "Great guy" or "National treasure" - it's the same fucking thing.
> >>>> The BBC has a habit of describing all their half-baked "talents" as
> >>>> 'great guys' and 'national treasures' before they get outed as
> >>>> anything but. John Peel was another one. Google the cunt why don't
> >>>> you? And while you're at it, Google Eric Gill, who's sculpture of a
> >>>> man fucking a boy is still in place about Broadcasting House despite
> >>>> many a principled man's attempts to have it removed and destroyed.
> >>>
> >>> Since when has the BBC been "the authorities"? I'd assumed you meant
> >>> some part of the government by that.
> >>
> >> The BBC is an authority in its own right - and a wholly unaccountable
> >> one at that.
> >
> >So not like GB News, they're not accountable to anyone, like OFCOM?

> GBN are constantly criticized by OFCOM, unlike the wonderful BBC. The BBC
> can say what the hell they please, it's clear.

The BBC are subjecct to OFCOM rules.
> >
> >Did GB News say it was an EV that created the fire? Or is that just what
> > the oil companies want us to believe?

> Nothing to do with GBN or the oil companies. I'm suspicious because the
> very first reports - within hours - from the BBC et al went out of their
> way to state unequivocally that an EV was not involved. And that was
> before they even knew the make and model of the vehicle! It's got
> 'cover-up' written all over it IMV.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 26/03/2024 10:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> They looked identical from outside.  Credible deniability....
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpCjHKrAfAg

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <dar60jt9f45o6maiv5koaume51i6lv8omq@4ax.com>, Cursitor Doom
> <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:13:03 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> On 26/03/2024 18:56, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:03:43 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:32:01 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We were also told by the authorities that there were no muslim
>>>>>>>> gang rape and girl grooming gangs, that Jimmy Savile was a great
>>>>>>>> guy, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When/where did "the authorities" (whoever they are) say that "Jimmy
>>>>>>> Savile was a great guy"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Great guy" or "National treasure" - it's the same fucking thing.
>>>>>> The BBC has a habit of describing all their half-baked "talents" as
>>>>>> 'great guys' and 'national treasures' before they get outed as
>>>>>> anything but. John Peel was another one. Google the cunt why don't
>>>>>> you? And while you're at it, Google Eric Gill, who's sculpture of a
>>>>>> man fucking a boy is still in place about Broadcasting House despite
>>>>>> many a principled man's attempts to have it removed and destroyed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since when has the BBC been "the authorities"? I'd assumed you meant
>>>>> some part of the government by that.
>>>>
>>>> The BBC is an authority in its own right - and a wholly unaccountable
>>>> one at that.
>>>
>>> So not like GB News, they're not accountable to anyone, like OFCOM?
>
>> GBN are constantly criticized by OFCOM, unlike the wonderful BBC. The BBC
>> can say what the hell they please, it's clear.

> The BBC are subjecct to OFCOM rules.

BBC's six-year cover-up of secret 'green propaganda' training for top
executives

By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday
23:52, 11 Jan 2014 , updated 23:52, 11 Jan 2014

Pensioner forces BBC to lift veil on 2006 eco-seminar to top executives

Papers reveal influence of top green campaigners including Greenpeace

Then-head of news Helen Boaden said it impacted a 'broad range of output'

Yet BBC has spent more than £20,000 in legal fees trying to keep it secret

Cover-up: Former head of news Helen Boaden said the 2006 seminar affected a
'broad range of output', but that its attendees should be kept from the
public

Cover-up: Former head of news Helen Boaden said the 2006 seminar affected a
'broad range of output', but that its attendees should be kept from the
public
The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep
secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of
global warming, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own
environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the
then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and
other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.

At the event, in 2006, green activists and scientists – one of whom
believes climate change is a bigger danger than global nuclear war –
lectured 28 of the Corporation’s most senior executives.

Then director of television Jana Bennett opened the seminar by telling the
executives to ask themselves: ‘How do you plan and run a city that is going
to be submerged?’ And she asked them to consider if climate change
laboratories might offer material for a thriller.

A lobby group with close links to green campaigners, the International
Broadcasting Trust (IBT), helped to arrange government funding for both the
climate seminar and other BBC seminars run by Mr Harrabin – one of which
was attended by then Labour Cabinet Minister Hilary Benn.

Applying for money from Mr Benn’s Department for International Development
(DFID), the IBT promised Ministers the seminars would influence programme
content for years to come.

The BBC began its long legal battle to keep details of the conference
secret after an amateur climate blogger spotted a passing reference to it
in an official report.

Tony Newbery, 69, from North Wales, asked for further disclosure under the
Freedom of Information Act. The BBC’s resistance to revealing anything
about its funding and the names of those present led to a protracted
struggle in the Information Tribunal. The BBC has admitted it has spent
more than £20,000 on barristers’ fees. However, the full cost of their
legal battle is understood to be much higher.

In a written statement opposing disclosure in 2012, former BBC news chief
and current director of BBC radio Helen Boaden, who attended the event,
admitted: ‘In my view, the seminar had an impact on a broad range of BBC
output.’

Plea: Part of Helen Boaden's statement opposing disclosure in 2012. She
also said the seminar had sought to 'identify where the main areas of
debate lie'. She is now the director of BBC radio

Plea: Part of Helen Boaden's statement opposing disclosure in 2012. She
also said the seminar had sought to 'identify where the main areas of
debate lie'. She is now the director of BBC radio
She said this included news reports by Mr Harrabin, and a three-part BBC  2
series presented by geologist Iain Stewart, who told viewers global warming
was ‘truly scary’. According to Ms Boaden, ‘Editors and executives who
attended were inspired to be more ambitious and creative in their editorial
coverage of this slow-moving and complex issue.’ She claimed the seminar
sought to ‘identify where the main areas of debate lie’. However, there
were no expert climate sceptics present.

In an internal report, the IBT boasted that the seminars organised with Mr
Harrabin had had ‘a significant impact on the BBC’s output’.

Blogger: Tony Newbery, who went to an information tribunal, said the
seminar was 'propaganda'
Mr Newbery, who finally won his battle last month, said: ‘It is very
disappointing that the BBC tried so hard to cover this up. It seems clear
that this seminar was a means of exposing executives to green propaganda.’
The freshly disclosed documents show that a number of BBC attendees still
occupy senior roles at the Corporation.

All four scientists present were strong advocates of the dangers posed by
global warming. They were led by Lord May, former president of the Royal
Society, who, though not a climate expert, has argued that warming is a
greater threat than nuclear war. Other non-BBC staff who attended included
Blake Lee-Harwood, head of campaigns at Greenpeace, John Ashton from the
powerful green lobby group E3G, Andrew Simms of the New Economics
Foundation, who argued there were only 100 months left to save the planet
through radical emissions cuts, and Ashok Sinha of Stop Climate Chaos.

The BBC contingent included future director-general George Entwistle, Peter
Horrocks, head of TV news, Stephen Mitchell, head of radio news, Francesca
Unsworth, head of newsgathering, and Peter Rippon, editor of Radio 4’s PM.

Mr Harrabin was the seminar’s principal organiser. He ran it through the
Cambridge Media Environment Programme, an outfit he set up with Open
University lecturer Joe Smith. Mr Harrabin and Mr Smith did not derive
personal financial benefit from the seminar.

But by teaming up with the IBT, an avowed lobby group trying to influence
coverage, and accepting government funds when Labour was advocating radical
policies to combat global warming, Mr Harrabin exposed himself to the
charge he could be compromising the Corporation’s impartiality.

During the legal battle, the BBC tried to airbrush both the IBT and its
approach to the Government for funding from the record. Submissions and
witness statements made no mention of it.

Former BBC director general George Entwistle
Mr Harrabin formed a partnership with the IBT in 2004. According to the
newly-disclosed funding application to DFID, drawn up by IBT director Mark
Galloway, it helped organise two BBC seminars on Third World themes with Mr
Harrabin that year. These, Mr Galloway wrote, ‘had clearly influenced
editorial staff and resulted in several new commissions’.

DFID’s budget is supposed to be devoted to overseas aid projects. But Mr
Galloway asked for £115,305 for the two years from March 2005, adding: ‘We
have a firm commitment from the BBC to take part in seminars in 2005 and
2006 and to give all the support they can to this project.’

On 27/03/2024 10:00, charles wrote:

>> GBN are constantly criticized by OFCOM, unlike the wonderful BBC. The BBC
>> can say what the hell they please, it's clear.
>
> The BBC are subjecct to OFCOM rules.

But they are seldom applied.

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

alan_m wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> They looked identical from outside.  Credible deniability....
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxxxxxxxxhpCjHKrAfAg
If you believe that isn't fake/staged, Ive got a nice bridge you might
want to buy?

On 27/03/2024 09:31, nib wrote:
> On 2024-03-27 09:11, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2024 at 08:32:55 GMT, "Jeff Layman" <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/03/2024 07:30, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> First official statement I've noticed about it ...
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-started-accidentally>
>>>
>>> I've read through just about all the replies and have some questions
>>> which perhaps someone with a chemistry background can answer.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know what colour the original fire was? If it was a
>>> lithium-based fire it /might/ have had a reddish tinge to it.
>>>
>>> Now for the scientific questions. If a fire is lithium-battery based,
>>> would it be possible to use a spectrometer to detect the specific line
>>> emitted by lithium at 671nm while the fire is taking place, or would
>>> there be too much interference from other emissions? And that leads to
>>> another question. If the fire is recorded, is it possible to detect the
>>> line at 671nm from the recording?
>>
>> You could have done it at the time of the fire, but it's unlikely that any
>> recording would contain enough spectral info to do it.
>>
>
> Especially as the recording will have the colour encoded as three
> discrete fixed colour channels not as the original wavelength!

That might well be true of white and yellow light, but would a red
sensor be of sufficiently narrow spectral range, and any red led used to
generate a visual output from that sensor also be of sufficiently narrow
spectral range that anyone using a spectrometer on the red led's light
be able to say that the "red" was possibly, or even probably, due to
lithium?

I very much doubt it, but just wondered if anyone had actually tried it
(well, we've all got spectrometers lying around at home, haven't we?).

--
Jeff