Luton Airport Car Park Fire

[Vixen]

Citations needed.

Advice from whom*, and to whom*?

What authority claims that "People do not understand words such as 'disclaimer'", or that "that will be removed"?

What weight does this 'advice' carry?

_{*it is very possible that that should be 'who', rather than 'whom', I've never really got my head around the difference.}

See here:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-uk#plain-english

Yes the UK government.

Write conversationally – picture your audience and write as if you were talking to them one-to-one but with the authority of someone who can actively help.

So, in other words, you would not add things such as 'subject to verification' if you were addressing some guy in a pub.


Just look at DWP pages or the NHS - in the latter, they use terms such as 'poo'. Now, any medical doctor knows that there can be a lot more to 'poo' than meets the eye and likewise, your tax affairs are a minefield for the unwary no matter how simplified the language. I am all for this because nobody in their right mind wants to read turgid medical-speak or tax-law- speak and NO-ONE EVER reads the 'Terms & Conditions' printed in tiny writing - yet taking up twice as much space as the simple language at the front - of your new credit card contract.

 

[zooterkin]

As I recall, sprinklers were a recommendation after the Liverpool Arena car park fire. Water on a burning EV might make things worse though now that they are a significant percentage of cars in a car park.

Again, irrelevant since we know that the car in this instance was a diesel.

 

[zooterkin]

See here:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-uk#plain-english

Yes the UK government.



So, in other words, you would not add things such as 'subject to verification' if you were addressing some guy in a pub.


Just look at DWP pages or the NHS - in the latter, they use terms such as 'poo'. Now, any medical doctor knows that there can be a lot more to 'poo' than meets the eye and likewise, your tax affairs are a minefield for the unwary no matter how simplified the language. I am all for this because nobody in their right mind wants to read turgid medical-speak or tax-law- speak and NO-ONE EVER reads the 'Terms & Conditions' printed in tiny writing - yet taking up twice as much space as the simple language at the front - of your new credit card contract.

How plain is this?
https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/london-luton-airport-car-park-fire

The investigation into the cause of the fire continues, but it has been determined that the vehicle that first caught fire was a diesel car.

And this:

the police confirm the vehicle in question was a diesel car

?

 

[GlennB]

As I recall, sprinklers were a recommendation after the Liverpool Arena car park fire. Water on a burning EV might make things worse though now that they are a significant percentage of cars in a car park.

"It is estimated that between 2% and 3% of cars in the UK are electric or hybrid, but this percentage is increasing all the time as electric cars enjoy a growing share of new car registrations."

Is 2-3% 'significant' enough in your book to justify an absence of sprinklers?

 

[Vixen]

You said you want to know the model and make of the car:



Submit a FOI request and find out.

The incident will still be under Fire Brigade investigation so will likely be exempt from any FOI request. The Liverpool Arena car park fire took the Fire Brigade at least four months to compile the statutory report. Likewise any police investigation, who will take their point of information from the Fire Brigade. Given the massive difference between the Liverpool Fire and the Luton one, I suspect we will be waiting at least six months for the report to come out. Maybe we should all meet up to discuss the matter in Spring.

The major differences between Liverpool and Luton are:

• Five years on, there is a much bigger proportion of EVs, PEVs and MEvs.
• Liverpool Arena car park is used for entertainment crowds, Luton, airport passengers.
• Liverpool Arena is much much quieter than Luton.
• The Luton Fire comes within days of a major conflict - detectives have to rule out terrorism.
• Luton is known for Tommy Robinson far right anti-Muslim clashes in the past.
• After the Hamas assault 7 Oct in Israel, detectives have to consider political activism.
• Police have to consider current Just Stop Oil or Extinction Rebellion activism, 'We hate cars!'
• The fire brigade has to pinpoint precisely the cause and spread of the fire.
• Whilst at face value it may look 'accidental', they have to be sure.
• This is because they will have to look at security from all angles.
• The issue of EV's and PHEV's being a catalyst owing to their lithium batteries.
• In the case of crime, Luton is on the M1, has a major airport, has a car park, easy for any criminal, activist or terrorist to get away.
• The sheer number of stakeholders: the airport authorities who own the site, the architects, the builders, the insurers, private litigants, the government.

The idea that we already have this information is laughable and there is no way you can get it via an FOI request before the report comes out.

 

[Vixen]

How plain is this?
https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/london-luton-airport-car-park-fire


And this:
?

Yes, it's plain English but you should always be aware of what lies behind the simplified language. If only the art of medicine is really as simple as it appears on the NHS webpage! You could just become doctor at GCSE-level or a criminal barrister without even needing to know terms such as mens rea, because you know, all of those horrid latin terms will have ceased to exist.











_ NOT!

 

[zooterkin]

Yes, it's plain English but you should always be aware of what lies behind the simplified language.

Exactly what is ambiguous about the official statements?

 

[whoanellie]

Maybe we should all meet up to discuss the matter in Spring.

The major differences between Liverpool and Luton are:

[*]Five years on, there is a much bigger proportion of EVs, PEVs and MEvs.

[*]Liverpool Arena car park is used for entertainment crowds, Luton, airport passengers.

[*]Liverpool Arena is much much quieter than Luton.

[*]The Luton Fire comes within days of a major conflict - detectives have to rule out terrorism.

[*]Luton is known for Tommy Robinson far right anti-Muslim clashes in the past.

[*]After the Hamas assault 7 Oct in Israel, detectives have to consider political activism.

The last 3 are all the same

[*]Police have to consider current Just Stop Oil or Extinction Rebellion activism, 'We hate cars!'

The just stop oil activists used an electric car to start a fire?

[*]The fire brigade has to pinpoint precisely the cause and spread of the fire.
[*]Whilst at face value it may look 'accidental', they have to be sure.

[*]This is because they will have to look at security from all angles.

Yes, the authorities should do a thorough investigation of the Luton fire. How is that different from Liverpool?

[*]The issue of EV's and PHEV's being a catalyst owing to their lithium batteries.

[*]In the case of crime, Luton is on the M1, has a major airport, has a car park, easy for any criminal, activist or terrorist to get away.

[*]The sheer number of stakeholders: the airport authorities who own the site, the architects, the builders, the insurers, private litigants, the government.

How many stakeholders were there for the Luton parking garage? How many for Liverpool?

Is this list an example of your critical thinking skills?

When a final report comes outh stating that the fire started in a diesel car will you accept that result and move on?

 

[GlennB]

...

When a final report comes out stating that the fire started in a diesel car will you accept that result and move on?

No, it will be portrayed as evidence of a coverup. Vixen pre-announced this earlier - it's her 'get out clause'.

 

[junkshop]

I don't know about the USA but in England, everything is written in 'plain English' today - the advice is to write at the level of a 'bright twelve-year-old' - so that the average person can understand it. People do not understand words such as 'disclaimer' so that will be removed.

Citations needed.

Advice from whom*, and to whom*?

What authority claims that "People do not understand words such as 'disclaimer'", or that "that will be removed"?

What weight does this 'advice' carry?

_{*it is very possible that that should be 'who', rather than 'whom', I've never really got my head around the difference.}

See here:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-uk#plain-english

Yes the UK government.



So, in other words, you would not add things such as 'subject to verification' if you were addressing some guy in a pub.


Just look at DWP pages or the NHS - in the latter, they use terms such as 'poo'. Now, any medical doctor knows that there can be a lot more to 'poo' than meets the eye and likewise, your tax affairs are a minefield for the unwary no matter how simplified the language. I am all for this because nobody in their right mind wants to read turgid medical-speak or tax-law- speak and NO-ONE EVER reads the 'Terms & Conditions' printed in tiny writing - yet taking up twice as much space as the simple language at the front - of your new credit card contract.

That is the style guide for GOV.UK. It applies only to GOV.UK web content.

It does not apply to 'everthing' in England. It does not advise writing at the level of a 'bright twelve-year-old', and it doesn't say that "People do not understand words such as 'disclaimer'".

I asked for citations for your claims.

I have highlighted them for you. Can you provide citations for your claims?

 

[zooterkin]

You posted something that was not just wrong it was absurdly wrong, laughably wrong, on its face wrong, yet you feel obliged to squirm endlessly to defend the indefensible. Why?

Cut out and keep this handy phrase for future use.

 

[Vixen]

Exactly what is ambiguous about the official statements?

Still having trouble grasping logic...? Try this exercise. Have a look at the following two reports and without scrolling down further consider what the headline is saying. Both of these sources are UK national news outlets, one being the BBC, UK-state funded broadcaster.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12618033/started-London-Luton-car-park-fire-moment.html


https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-67082443


So? Have you had a chance to look and reflect on the main message?

Clue: remember what I said about ambiguous 'could-type' headlines...? No?


Answer: Not one reputable national newspaper has said that the car pictured is the car that started the fire. So no, it is not at all definitive. The Fire Brigade did not know for sure what started the blaze as of the point you and Full Fact began browbeating us that it was 'confirmed' to be a diesel based solely on a press release that actually does not confirm it at all but states: “We don’t believe it was an electric vehicle,” Andrew Hopkinson, chief fire officer for Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, said.

“It’s believed to be diesel-powered, at this stage all subject to verification. And then that fire has quickly and rapidly spread.”

...which you and Full Fact have decided is a new press statement but is in fact taken from exactly the same one as above and précised into plain English by Jenny in Communications because in her degree in Media Studies that is what she was taught to do: put it into simple English for the plebs.

In other words, the picture of the blazing car was one uploaded on social media and we have no way of knowing whether or not it is even authentic. Not one official source has named a Jaguar Land Rover vehicle either and nor has any official source stepped in to deny or confirm it.


In case it still is not clear: there is no confirmation whatsoever as to what caused the fire.

Oh, and by the way you claimed earlier that diesel cars needed a flame to start ignition as in a petrol car spark. A diesel engine starts because of compression causing the diesel to heat and this is what starts the engine.

 

[Vixen]

The last 3 are all the same

The just stop oil activists used an electric car to start a fire?

Yes, the authorities should do a thorough investigation of the Luton fire. How is that different from Liverpool?

How many stakeholders were there for the Luton parking garage? How many for Liverpool?

Is this list an example of your critical thinking skills?

When a final report comes outh stating that the fire started in a diesel car will you accept that result and move on?

The thing about Liverpool being very different from Luton is also the fact, re stakeholders, that the car park in question was about to be demolished. Luton's is just four year's old. Also, the fire at Liverpool took 90 minutes to take hold before anyone reported it. Luton was up in flames within ten minutes.

 

[Vixen]

Volume vs intensity welding is a point intense electrical event designed not to over heat the metal, car fires are Voluminous events with ample heat to distort steel. You lose the argument as soon as you compare the two.

Is it your opinion that a diesel fire could buckle a steel reinforced frame within a short period of time, as in a typical multi-level car park?

 

[JayUtah]

Is it your opinion that a diesel fire could buckle a steel reinforced frame within a short period of time, as in a typical multi-level car park?

Yes.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Full Fact have decided is a new press statement but is in fact taken from exactly the same one as above

You made that up.

 

[GlennB]

Is it your opinion that a diesel fire could buckle a steel reinforced frame within a short period of time, as in a typical multi-level car park?

The word highlighted is loaded, just as you intended it to be.

The fire spread dramatically, as you know perfectly well. It was an inferno. You've seen the photos and videos, so don't pretend you haven't.

If you're about to claim that the cctv footage of a car falling while a number of floors slabs collapse involved the original car then please don't bother. The fire started on level 3 and that cctv was the ground level. A screencap of that event was posted yesterday.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Oh, and by the way you claimed earlier that diesel cars needed a flame to start ignition as in a petrol car spark.

I don't believe I saw any such claim.

 

[Vixen]

You made that up.

Show me the second press statement and the actual attribution to a person.

 

[Mojo]

Exactly what is ambiguous about the official statements?

Nothing.

That's the problem. They're written in plain English, which Vixen doesn't like as it makes them too difficult for her to obfuscate.

She's now reduced to arguing that writing in easily intelligible English is a bad thing.