Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
If you refuse to see ...
Click to expand...

Coffee <> keyboard.

No sale, Vixen. We already read what they confirmed weeks and weeks ago.

The story you want to spin is that the fire service are deliberately deceiving the public with a trick answer. I don't know why you imagine that is more likely than their simply lying, but it doesn't matter since we all know they said flat out it was not a hybrid, so they would indeed have been lying if your crazy conspiracy was true.

No, the point here is that your story is stupid. The fire brigade are not lying. Not are they deceiving us with deliberately deceptive answers. That's clearly a ludicrous thing to assert with zero evidence. Rejected again.

Do you want to try again? Do you think it will persuade anyone you're doing anything more than having a laugh?
 
Vixen said:
The reason the classic Monty Python sketch of the dead parrot is so perennial and enduring is because it strikes a philosophical truth that resonates. Especially vis-a-vis the fore-lock tugging Brits who prefer to believe what their ruling class masters tell them whatever their own personal cost and conditions and regardless of what their own eyes tell them. This grovelling attitude is apposite here, as reflected in Part 2 of the recently cited Jasper Jolly article in the GUARDIAN. In response to a query regarding his following statement on X as to how he knows it was 'an ICE-parked car that caused the Luton Airport Fire:



https://x.com/jjpjolly/status/1726542885057953809?s=20

The alliterate one replies:




Read this again carefully:

"To further clarify it was neither a fully electric vehicle (EV) nor a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. (PHEV)"

In other words, Beds Fire and Rescue does NOT rule out a mild hybrid diesel. Yet Full Fact and Jasper Jolly read the statement as otherwise. How peculiar. Such a British trait.

My advice is to face facts full on and not try to look for a 'Way Out'. A fact is neither good nor bad. Forget political spin and evasion. Just look at it face on.
Click to expand...

Why is he the only person that has been given that information by the fire service?

Where is his support for the claim he was personally told this?
 
Vixen said:
If you refuse to see the message Beds Fire and Rescue personally sent GUARDIAN journalist - (i.e., a serious journalist) - Jasper Jolly, in which they wind back on the mild hybrid issue, I cannot make you see it.
Click to expand...

The official fire service website has a press release that says the fire was started by a diesel car.

Who should we believe, the official information from the fire service involved or a journalist claiming an unknown source told him personally that it wasn't a diesel car?
 
Andy_Ross said:
The official fire service website has a press release that says the fire was started by a diesel car.

Who should we believe, the official information from the fire service involved or a journalist claiming an unknown source told him personally that it wasn't a diesel car?
Click to expand...

Jolly isn't claiming it's a hybrid, he's quite clear that it was ICE.
 
Vixen said:
Compare and contrast. Liverpool ECHO Car Park Fire 31 Dec 2017.

Next day in the newspapers, 1 Jan 2018:

DAILY EXPRESS

Fast forward to the Luton and now Bristol Airport Car Park fires and we have a sudden cloak of secrecy as to the model and make of car zero involved. So now the British public are expected to tolerate a couple of Prime Ministers claiming they have 'lost all' of their WhatsApp messages for a key six-mouth period of the Covid pandemic and to be fobbed off with 'accidental ignition' nonsense in the case of more recent car park fires as though the public has no right to basic information, I dare say to protect the profits of car companies the Prime Minister or/and his wife have shares in.

But the typical forelock-tugging Brit thinks this is all fine. We must allow politicians to speciously withhold hitherto open information of facts in the public interest because 'We are only minnows'. <fx scrape bow, tugs forelock>
Click to expand...

Back to comments that have little to nothing to do with the quoted text.

By the way, since you claim to be familiar with statistics, what are the chances of it being a MHEV Range Rover when there appears to be a vanishingly small number of them sold in 2014? Statistically speaking, wouldn't it be much more likely to have been an ICE?

Also, not sure how things work in the UK, but in the US the vehicles that were registered late in the year could very well have been model year 2015 vehicles. New model years are typically rolled out at the end of the previous year.
 
Disbelief said:
Back to comments that have little to nothing to do with the quoted text.

By the way, since you claim to be familiar with statistics, what are the chances of it being a MHEV Range Rover when there appears to be a vanishingly small number of them sold in 2014? Statistically speaking, wouldn't it be much more likely to have been an ICE?

Also, not sure how things work in the UK, but in the US the vehicles that were registered late in the year could very well have been model year 2015 vehicles. New model years are typically rolled out at the end of the previous year.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the idea it was a 2014 or even a 2015 model? The only person claiming this is an anonymous person on X with 212 followers, and which catsmate thinks is a reliable source.
 
Vixen said:
Where do you get the idea it was a 2014 or even a 2015 model? The only person claiming this is an anonymous person on X with 212 followers, and which catsmate thinks is a reliable source.
Click to expand...

So a reliability that compares favorably with any sources that you present. And way, way more reliable than any of your bizarre speculations.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Aside from the fact that no one has proposed any such idea, what design changes should be made, in your expert opinion as a reader of the Daily Mail comments section.
Click to expand...

Speaking of which here are their comments on the Bristol Airport Fire:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/reader-comments/p/comment/link/1249438037

You'll note, this time, it is heavily moderated.

When the Fire Report from both Luton and Bristol come out, I can guarantee the only information regarding vehicle zero will be that it was an 'accidental ignition'. The new euphemism for 'The public are not allowed to know'.
 
Vixen said:
You'll note, this time, it is heavily moderated.

When the Fire Report from both Luton and Bristol come out, I can guarantee the only information regarding vehicle zero will be that it was an 'accidental ignition'. The new euphemism for 'The public are not allowed to know'.
Click to expand...

Oh, but it's not a conspiracy theory and you're not a conspiracy theorist.
 
Disbelief said:
... Also, not sure how things work in the UK, but in the US the vehicles that were registered late in the year could very well have been model year 2015 vehicles. New model years are typically rolled out at the end of the previous year.
Click to expand...

We generally have no concept of model years in the UK. Since the '60s we've had car number plates which indicate the car's age and we date our cars that way. For spare parts compatibility we traditionally designated model revisions as "Mk.1", "Mk.2" etc. Nowadays you just type the number plate into a parts website.
 
Vixen said:
Speaking of which here are their comments on the Bristol Airport Fire:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/reader-comments/p/comment/link/1249438037

You'll note, this time, it is heavily moderated.

When the Fire Report from both Luton and Bristol come out, I can guarantee the only information regarding vehicle zero will be that it was an 'accidental ignition'. The new euphemism for 'The public are not allowed to know'.
Click to expand...

Accidental as opposed to deliberate, meaning not arson. Nothing more, nothing less.

Stop being silly.
 
Vixen said:
Speaking of which here are their comments on the Bristol Airport Fire:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/reader-comments/p/comment/link/1249438037

You'll note, this time, it is heavily moderated.

When the Fire Report from both Luton and Bristol come out, I can guarantee the only information regarding vehicle zero will be that it was an 'accidental ignition'. The new euphemism for 'The public are not allowed to know'.
Click to expand...

Your response has nothing to do with what I asked of you. What design changes do you think need to be implemented, and how will this have a negative effect on which types of cars?

But while we're at it, do cars ever actually catch fire accidentally? Has there been a sudden increase in the rate of "accidental" car fires since the alleged need to cover for EV fires? It seems that if accidental vehicle fires are really as ludicrously unlikely an excuse as you now assert, that there should be almost no record of them for most of the history of the automobile.
 
junkshop said:
Accidental as opposed to deliberate, meaning not arson. Nothing more, nothing less.

Stop being silly.
Click to expand...

"Arson" is your straw man. However, now that you mention it, how would the Fire & Rescue service know it is 'accidental' whilst the fire is still blazing? You are being brushed off like a five-year-old being told, 'Mummy and Daddy aren't hurt, they are in Heaven, looking down on you, twinkling like stars in the sky', unless you like being patronised with a dull platitude as if you cannot handle the straight facts. So this leaves us with the meaningless, 'The fire was caused by, er, ignition'.

What kind of person is satisfied with that as an answer?

Forelock-tugging subservient Brits who beg to be condescended to, that's who. Why they'd even vote back Boris, if only they could.
 
Vixen said:
However, now that you mention it, how would the Fire & Rescue service know it is 'accidental' whilst the fire is still blazing?
Click to expand...

Have you considered the possibility that they're smarter than you about such things? Alternatively, where did the make that claim under the circumstances?

You are being brushed off like...
Click to expand...

No, your pulled-from-the-nethers expectations don't govern this question. The rest of your post is just your standard mindless conspir-o-twaddle.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom