Luton Airport Car Park Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
phiwum said:
Thus, the second option puts us in the miserable position of having no authority we can trust, aside from the good Vixen.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you.

zooterkin said:
Where did you get that nonsense from? The actual figure is between 2 and 3%, so you're out by two orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Stop spreading unpleasant lies about me. I am well qualified in statistics. Sorry if that sticks in your craw.
Click to expand...
 
Mojo said:
Incidentally, you have failed to address this. Can you explain how the Middle East conflict suggests that the fire may not have been accidental?
Click to expand...

Would be terrorists have tried to attack airports in the past. With the 7 Oct Hamas attack causing popular support and uprisings, and eco-warrior activists, then at point zero, all considerations such as arson or other criminal have to be eliminated before you can confirm it was 'just an accident', however unlikely, especially given the rapid spread and intensity of the fire.

Russell Taylor flew into the airport from Edinburgh. He told PA Media: “There were a couple of fire engines with a car ablaze on the upper floor of the car park at just after 9pm. A few minutes later most of the upper floor was alight, car alarms were going off with loud explosions from cars going up in flames. The speed in which the fire took hold was incredible.”
Click to expand...
Guardian
 
Vixen said:
In this type of incident the police would liaise with the regional fire brigade, which has the ultimate responsibility of bringing out the official fire report. As blame apportioning is involved then of course the police are involved at an early stage.
Click to expand...


Why would the police want him to say it was a diesel rather than an EV or hybrid?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Like a dog to its vomit, you have returned to accusing the chief fire officer of deliberately deceiving the public to reduce their perception of fire risk in hybrids. Can you see how insane that sounds?

Why would a senior fire officer deceive to falsely play down a fire risk, rather than do the opposite and call for a wider investigation into whether this model had a fault or if the whole type presents a new risk?
Click to expand...

No, sorry, you and another poster are claiming he is lying.


Do you really expect a fire chief to jabber away like a newscaster about the fire. It is a responsible position, he has to word his statement carefully because he is the source that gets printed.
 
Vixen said:
Would be terrorists have tried to attack airports in the past. With the 7 Oct Hamas attack causing popular support and uprisings, and eco-warrior activists, then at point zero, all considerations such as arson or other criminal have to be eliminated before you can confirm it was 'just an accident', however unlikely, especially given the rapid spread and intensity of the fire.

Guardian
Click to expand...


What evidence do you have that it was terrorists or "eco-warrior activist"?
 
Mojo said:
Why would the police want him to say it was a diesel rather than an EV or hybrid?
Click to expand...

Range Rover do not have an EV.

That is why he was able to say it was not an EV without fear of contradiction. Ditto, 'diesel'. True again.



But he didn't actually say it was Range Rover nor did he eliminate a hybrid.
 
Vixen may be noticeably lacking in knowledge of many, many topics as prominently displayed in this forum but, credit where credit is due, Vixen is a master at wording her posts to imply things that she can then claim she did not actually say.
 
Vixen said:
No, sorry, you and another poster are claiming he is lying.
Click to expand...
No, on the contrary.

I am saying I flatly do not believe that he would call a diesel hybrid a diesel and then allow that misconception to go uncorrected when so many conspiracist blowhards were rushing to declare it was a hybrid battery fire. That outright deceit is what you claim may have happened and I'm saying I absolutely do not believe a senior fire officer would have done that.

Kemo sabe?
 
Steve said:
... credit where credit is due, Vixen is a master at wording her posts to imply things that she can then claim she did not actually say.
Click to expand...

Do you mean stuff like this remark when discussing the fate of the twin car park?

Vixen said:
Correlation with charging and EV fires.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say there is a correlation. It doesn't say there was an EV fire. It just sort of sits there, looking as if it's trying to say something but not quite saying it.
 
Vixen said:
Bearing in mind Mr. Hopkinson made his statement whilst the building was still burning - 11 Oct 2023 - as of that stage all he will have had would be the CCTV image and possibly the ANPR as each vehicle drives in. Although the CCTV might show a certain car on fire, it may not necessarily be the first car. Likewise, the driver may not have been spoken to yet, either. So, no, he would not have been lying. There has been no update since then.

So not a case of lying but more a case of a perceived lack of transparency, which is no surprise given the incident needs to be investigated and that takes time.

Re social media many of the people making claims it didn't look like a diesel fire claim to be firemen of long service or ex-firemen or their mate's dad works at Luton airport. Yes, a lot of this will be ******** but you only have to note the lack of transparency over the ma make and model of the car in question to understand that Hopkinson was gagged - for whatever reason, noble or legal - from stating it was a Range Rover. This indicates to me classic brand reputation limitation crisis management. Being of a cynical bent, it would not surprise me if Prime Minister Rishi Sunak got Home Secretary Suella Bravermann to put pressure on the police and fire brigade to avoid naming Jaguar Land Rover, given the recent £4bn deal handed to Tata who own JLR. The last thing the government needed was a public scare about Range Rover or hybrid cars (and statistics show fires are common in hybrids). So yeah, definitely a gag in place there.

On the one hand we had a view of the vehicle from the back supposedly taken by another driver nearby and this is the one published widely but not verified by any official source (headlines: 'Could this be the car?'). Several days later, an new X account or was it Instagram or similar, claiming to show a view from the front, which I don't think the national press have published. This claims to show a number plate E10 EFL and the person who provided it claims to have checked with DVLA to show it is a Range Rover Sport 2014. But this could be a photoshop and not authentic at all. The first photo as widely published, seems to actually show a short form number plat, with just two to four characters and is hard to decipher.

What has arisen from this is a joke doing the rounds that the driver must have been some kind of 'toff' to have spent a large sum of money on a personalised number plate, and of course, Range Rover, is the vehicle of choice for the Royal Family. Could the culprit be Prince Andrew, haha, as if he'd drive himself to an airport and Luton, at that. Or perhaps a flashy young footballer is the other joke. One urban myth already developed is that the driver was a self-important business man who left the car ablaze, ran into the nearby airport saying had an urgent flight to catch and could someone sort out the car. He was then arrested, the joke goes, on his return from this important meeting.


So a lack of transparency and information is how wild rumours start.

In addition, in he UK a hybrid would not be referred to as an EV, as the specs are quite different.

From the Land Rover web page:




MEV - Mild Hybrid:

https://www.landrover.com/electric/range.html

Well, its webpage isn't very informative but if it was a Range Rover Evoque and not a Sport then there is a high chance it was part of a recall due to a fault in recent years.

ISTM that by 'arresting a 30-year-old man as a precaution,' it takes the heat (so to speak) off Range Rover the brand and a cynic might wonder if that is the aim. Think about it. The guy is on bail (not in custody so there is no time limit to charge him) suspected of 'Criminal Damage'. Now criminal damage can be a very trivial offence. It might no refer to the driver at all, although that will be the implication of the released news. It could be the early reported individual said to have tried to break in to the car park to retrieve some personal belongings. Perhaps he kicked down a gate or something. If it was the driver - hence the headline news - how is it criminal damage as for it to be criminal damage there has to be mens rea. If the guy had to leap out off the car because of an inherent fault in that car model, how has he shown intent to cause criminal damage if it was 'accidental' as also claimed by Mr. Hopkinson in his early press statement? So to put this guy under arrest as 'a precaution' makes people wonder what the game is.

Lastly, it is far too soon to decide the cause or origin of the accident. If you listen to this eye witness here, he describes quite a vivid scene of a flame shooter flying across the top deck and all the cars lighting up together.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0gkqs6c
Click to expand...

It's been confirmed by the fire service that it was a diesel car
 
Vixen said:
No, sorry, you and another poster are claiming he is lying.


Do you really expect a fire chief to jabber away like a newscaster about the fire. It is a responsible position, he has to word his statement carefully because he is the source that gets printed.
Click to expand...

It has been confirmed by the fire service that it was a diesel car
 
Vixen said:
Range Rover do not have an EV.

That is why he was able to say it was not an EV without fear of contradiction. Ditto, 'diesel'. True again.



But he didn't actually say it was Range Rover nor did he eliminate a hybrid.
Click to expand...

It's been confirmed by the fire service that it was a diesel car
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Do you mean stuff like this remark when discussing the fate of the twin car park?



It doesn't say there is a correlation. It doesn't say there was an EV fire. It just sort of sits there, looking as if it's trying to say something but not quite saying it.
Click to expand...

Statistics appear to show that fires in EV are correlated to whilst they are charging.

If Luton Car Park 2 was a fire hazard - burnt to the ground with 1,400 cars within four years of being constructed and post-Liverpool fire report - then Car Park 1 could be even more so.
 
Mojo said:
What evidence do you have to support a connection to the Middle East conflict?

ETA: and how is it relevant to your conspiracy theory about Lithium-ion batteries?
Click to expand...

I did not say it was. I was pointing out that on Day 1 you cannot confirm it was 'accidental', you can only say it 'appears to be accidental'.

Given the name of the presumed driver and the presumed guy 'under arrest' has not been released, you can see why the lack of transparency has given rise to speculation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom