Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foster Zygote said:
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.
Click to expand...

Time was, cf 2018 Liverpool, when the Fire Brigade just told you straight, 'Car park fire was caused by Range Rover with a suspected fuel leak due to an electrical fault'. Now it seems to believe people will start 'doing a Dublin' (i.e., go out looting and rioting) if they suspect it might be a lithium battery fire, so they have to be told something completely neutral such as 'fire caused by accidental ignition'. Even though an investigation has yet to start.
 
Vixen said:
Time was, cf 2018 Liverpool, when the Fire Brigade just told you straight, 'Car park fire was caused by Range Rover with a suspected fuel leak due to an electrical fault'. Now it seems to believe people will start 'doing a Dublin' (i.e., go out looting and rioting) if they suspect it might be a lithium battery fire, so they have to be told something completely neutral such as 'fire caused by accidental ignition'. Even though an investigation has yet to start.
Click to expand...

More non sequiturs. Is there a gas leak in your home?
 
junkshop said:
Accidental as opposed to deliberate, meaning not arson. Nothing more, nothing less.

Stop being silly.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
"Arson" is your straw man...
Click to expand...

If a car fire is not accidental, then it is deliberate. Deliberately starting a car fire is an act of arson. When the Fire Service say that it started accidentally they are saying that it wasn't an act of arson. Where are you seeing a strawman here?

Vixen said:
...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.
Click to expand...

Careful, now. You're sailing awful close to being reported for a rule 12 breach there. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time, and this time only.
 
Vixen said:
I already advised you, providing government sites, which explain how to get modifications to your vehicle approved and registered.

I also provided youtubes.

You have the same access to resources as me.
Click to expand...

None of which was what I asked for, remember? Every single source you provided had nothing to do with converting a diesel into a hybrid.
 
Darat said:
That would be the one.

The one that says "...The fire service can confirm the initial vehicle involved in the fire was a diesel car..."
Click to expand...

If only someone had posted that weeks ago, it would have cleared things up.
 
Darat said:
That would be the one.

The one that says "...The fire service can confirm the initial vehicle involved in the fire was a diesel car..."
Click to expand...


Ahhhhh.... but in VixenWorldTM, the very words "was a diesel car" do not rule out "was a mild hybrid diesel car". The fire service is deliberately obfuscating, sheeple!!!!!
 
Darat said:
That would be the one.

The one that says "...The fire service can confirm the initial vehicle involved in the fire was a diesel car..."
Click to expand...

You guys would make terrible lawyers as you appear not to understand chronology. To recap on the time line:

Fire started 10 Oct 2023 circa 20:50.

11 Dec 2023 next morning whilst fire still smouldering, Mr Andrew Hopkinson told the press - and this was issued to the global press agencies, that Beds Fire & Rescue, who are responsible for investigating in cooperation with the police and bringing out a Fire Report into the incident - that it believed at that stage that the fire was accidental and believed to have been a diesel-powered car and not an EV, subject to confirmation.

No further press releases have been issued.

20 November, Jasper Jolly, financial editor of the GUARDIAN ran part 2 of his 'mythbusters re EV's'. He tweeted this article on X. Someone responded re EV's. Mr Jolly replied:


Jasper Jolly
@jjpjolly
·
Nov 20
The Luton airport fire was started by a parked* ICE car. There is always a fire risk.
Click to expand...
https://x.com/jjpjolly/status/1726542885057953809?s=20

Someone then asked:

Hated Man
@hated_man6
·
Nov 20
Any proof for this?

---
Jasper Jolly
@jjpjolly
·
Nov 20
Statement from Beds fire service: "At this time, we can confirm the vehicle involved was a diesel-powered vehicle. To further clarify it was neither a fully electric vehicle (EV) nor a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)**."
Click to expand...
https://x.com/jjpjolly/status/1726619712413745586?s=20

To which the response was:

ApriliaAndy
@gt2andy
Whilst nobody but you mentioned Luton, you've just put some words there. I can't find that statement independently which usually means it's made up. Happy to be proved wrong. But anyway, as I said, this isn't about Luton.
5:56 PM · Nov 20, 2023
·
---

Jasper Jolly
@jjpjolly
·
Nov 20
I was sent the statement directly by the fire service. I thought you were engaging in good faith. Clearly not.
Click to expand...
https://x.com/jjpjolly/status/1726641258737893815?s=20

20 Nov 2023: In other words, the updated personal response to an authenticated journalist does not exclude a mild hybrid.

* As we know, the car zero was NOT 'parked'.

**No mention of it NOT being a diesel mild hybrid.

Move on from morning Day One, please.
 
Vixen said:
Time was, cf 2018 Liverpool, when the Fire Brigade just told you straight, 'Car park fire was caused by Range Rover with a suspected fuel leak due to an electrical fault'. Now it seems to believe people will start 'doing a Dublin' (i.e., go out looting and rioting) if they suspect it might be a lithium battery fire, so they have to be told something completely neutral such as 'fire caused by accidental ignition'. Even though an investigation has yet to start.
Click to expand...

And yet, when the Fire Service does tell us straight, you refuse to believe them.
 
Vixen said:
You guys would make terrible lawyers as you appear not to understand chronology. To recap on the time line:

Fire started 10 Oct 2023 circa 20:50.

11 Dec 2023 next morning whilst fire still smouldering, Mr Andrew Hopkinson told the press - and this was issued to the global press agencies, that Beds Fire & Rescue, who are responsible for investigating in cooperation with the police and bringing out a Fire Report into the incident - that it believed at that stage that the fire was accidental and believed to have been a diesel-powered car and not an EV, subject to confirmation.

No further press releases have been issued.

20 November, Jasper Jolly, financial editor of the GUARDIAN ran part 2 of his 'mythbusters re EV's'. He tweeted this article on X. Someone responded re EV's. Mr Jolly replied:


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

Someone then asked:

https://x.com/jjpjolly/status/1726619712413745586?s=20

To which the response was:

https://x.com/jjpjolly/status/1726641258737893815?s=20

20 Nov 2023: In other words, the updated personal response to an authenticated journalist does not exclude a mild hybrid.

* As we know, the car zero was NOT 'parked'.

**No mention of it NOT being a diesel mild hybrid.
Move on from morning Day One, please.
Click to expand...

No mention of a person named Vixen observed running from the scene either. Makes a person wonder......
 
LondonJohn said:
Ahhhhh.... but in VixenWorldTM, the very words "was a diesel car" do not rule out "was a mild hybrid diesel car". The fire service is deliberately obfuscating, sheeple!!!!!
Click to expand...

And don't overlook the possibility that even if the fire service say it was a diesel car and absolutely not any kind of electric or hybrid car, they may even then have used a carefully worded trick answer again, as it "was" a diesel (when built) but later someone converted it into a diesel hybrid. So they're not strictly lying, merely twisting their words and deceiving, and the beauty is nobody will guess because absolutely nobody ever does convert a diesel to a hybrid.

Really all we can do is consider the comparative likelihood of the fire service just straightforwardly reporting it was a regular diesel car, versus the fire service being eager to fool the public into underestimating the fire risk from electric cars so using very carefully selected language to mislead us because, while they are willing to deliberately deceive everyone and place us at greater risk from fire, they absolutely draw the line at saying anything that's strictly technically untrue.
 
Vixen said:
You guys would make terrible lawyers as you appear not to understand chronology. To recap on the time line:

Fire started 10 Oct 2023 circa 20:50.

11 Dec 2023 next morning whilst fire still smouldering, Mr Andrew Hopkinson told the press - and this was issued to the global press agencies, that Beds Fire & Rescue, who are responsible for investigating in cooperation with the police and bringing out a Fire Report into the incident - that it believed at that stage that the fire was accidental and believed to have been a diesel-powered car and not an EV, subject to confirmation.

No further press releases have been issued.

20 November, Jasper Jolly, financial editor of the GUARDIAN ran part 2 of his 'mythbusters re EV's'. He tweeted this article on X. Someone responded re EV's. Mr Jolly replied:


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

Someone then asked:

https://x.com/jjpjolly/status/1726619712413745586?s=20

To which the response was:

https://x.com/jjpjolly/status/1726641258737893815?s=20

20 Nov 2023: In other words, the updated personal response to an authenticated journalist does not exclude a mild hybrid.

* As we know, the car zero was NOT 'parked'.

**No mention of it NOT being a diesel mild hybrid.

Move on from morning Day One, please.
Click to expand...

On the official website for the fire service is a press release that says it was a diesel car.

Why do you ignore that in favour of secondary sources from newspapers and journalists?
 
Vixen said:
11 Dec 2023 next morning whilst fire still smouldering, Mr Andrew Hopkinson told the press - and this was issued to the global press agencies
[...]
No further press releases have been issued.
Click to expand...
You seem to have invented a 'press release' of a transcript of Hopkinson's press conference. Kindly produce this 'press release' or admit it's a figment of your imagination.

Once again you seek to impose your nonsensical condition that the only way the fire service may provide information is by 'press release' and no other method counts. No. This is not a game of Simon Says. Silly and wrong.

Rejected. Again.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
You seem to have invented a 'press release' of a transcript of Hopkinson's press conference. Kindly produce this 'press release' or admit it's a figment of your imagination.

Once again you seek to impose your nonsensical condition that the only way the fire service may provide information is by 'press release' and no other method counts. No. This is not a game of Simon Says. Silly and wrong.

Rejected. Again.
Click to expand...

Oh it's a press release that is wanted, a press release like this one?


 
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...

Yet we're supposed to take your interpretation of the statements by the fire service at face value? Your conspiracy drivel is all made up in your mind.
 
Vixen said:
You guys would make terrible lawyers...
Click to expand...

Well, since I routinely associate with lawyers and law professors, I'll put more stock in their assessment of my understanding of law than in yours. And since I routinely conduct investigations that often result in legally cognizable evidence—such as for liability in accidents...

You know what, it's not worth belaboring the point. You're not even remotely the teacher here.

20 Nov 2023: In other words, the updated personal response to an authenticated journalist does not exclude a mild hybrid.
Click to expand...

Oh, goodie. Well, Ms Lawyer, please tell us which legal canon of construction applies to your argument and makes this claim look every bit as idiotic as it sounds. Please Vixensplain it some more for us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom