Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Jasper Jolly, Finance Editor for the
<drivel snippage>
Click to expand...
And yet, for all your repetitive lies and pathetic attempts at obfuscation, we know the initial vehicle was a diesel powered 2012 Land Rover.
:rolleyes:
 
JayUtah said:
Your post is composed entirely of made-up crap and speculative conspiracy twaddle. No response needed.
Click to expand...

All the best lawyers construct fictional narratives about what a defendant might have done to commit an alleged crime.
 
I honestly don't know if it's a need to be the main character of the thread or legitimate misunderstanding of simple English at this point.

Just stop and think about the phrase "accidental ignition" and it's not difficult to piece together what that means. How someone can read that and think it's something bordering on mind control is beyond me.
 
catsmate said:
And yet, for all your repetitive lies and pathetic attempts at obfuscation, we know the initial vehicle was a diesel powered 2012 Land Rover.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I had heard 2014. If it was 2012, then I do not believe that Land Rover offered a MHEV version.
 
I Am The Scum said:
I honestly don't know if it's a need to be the main character of the thread or legitimate misunderstanding of simple English at this point.

Just stop and think about the phrase "accidental ignition" and it's not difficult to piece together what that means. How someone can read that and think it's something bordering on mind control is beyond me.
Click to expand...

It is a lack of transparency which hitherto until now the taxpaying public expected. 'Accidental ignition' is just another way of saying, 'no comment'. This is because when a fire is initially reported, the Fire Station bod has to fill in a form which is of the 'tick box' variety, so it is only ever an initial assessment and in any case, even if the Fire Brigade suspects something other than strictly accidental (for example, people messing with electrics, poor MOT, faulty production, dangerous driving, arson) it would need to be careful not to alert a potential criminal as that would be a police matter, so ticking the box 'accidental' is what you would put as the default situation at Time Zero. As for 'ignition' it is just another word for 'set on fire'. 100% of fires will be of this type.

Please explain your first paragraph.
 
Vixen said:
Citation*, please.

*Preferably one that is not from an anonymous twitter/X account. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Have a look at the official website of the fire service involved.

They have a press release that states it was a diesel car that started the fire.
It's been there for weeks.
 
Vixen said:
It is a lack of transparency which hitherto until now the taxpaying public expected. 'Accidental ignition' is just another way of saying, 'no comment'. This is because when a fire is initially reported, the Fire Station bod has to fill in a form which is of the 'tick box' variety, so it is only ever an initial assessment and in any case, even if the Fire Brigade suspects something other than strictly accidental (for example, people messing with electrics, poor MOT, faulty production, dangerous driving, arson) it would need to be careful not to alert a potential criminal as that would be a police matter, so ticking the box 'accidental' is what you would put as the default situation at Time Zero. As for 'ignition' it is just another word for 'set on fire'. 100% of fires will be of this type.

Please explain your first paragraph.
Click to expand...

If it isn't an accident it was deliberate.

Are you saying you think the fire service are telling lies and it was a deliberate fire?
 
I Am The Scum said:
Just stop and think about the phrase "accidental ignition" and it's not difficult to piece together what that means.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
'Accidental ignition' is just another way of saying, 'no comment'.
Click to expand...

It's not difficult to piece together what it means but seemingly that doesn't mean everyone can do it.

<spoiler> It means the fire appeared not to have been started deliberately.
 
Vixen said:
Citation*, please.
Click to expand...

Press releases from competent authority have been cited repeatedly, including those which you specifically requested.

Vixen said:
It is a lack of transparency which hitherto until now the taxpaying public expected. 'Accidental ignition' is just another way of saying, 'no comment'.
Click to expand...

No, it is a phrase with a particular meaning.

This is because when a fire is initially reported, the Fire Station bod has to fill in a form...
Click to expand...

Are you now claiming to be a fire fighter or a fire investigator? We grow weary of your constant Vixensplaining (i.e., confidently making up crap).

As for 'ignition' it is just another word for 'set on fire'. 100% of fires will be of this type.
Click to expand...

Hence the use of an additional word to constrict the meaning.

Please explain your first paragraph.
Click to expand...

Easily :—

In your haste to be loved, hated, or simply not ignored, you've attempted to make words mean something other than what they mean. There has been considerable cause over the years to doubt the competence you claim in, say, investigating the causes of accidents. However, now there is cause to question your competence to read and understand plain English.
 
Vixen said:
'Accidental ignition' is just another way of saying, 'no comment'.
Click to expand...

No, it means that the cause of the fire was accidental. As in the adjective form of accident - something that happens unexpectedly and is not planned in advance.

This goes beyond your usual reading comprehension issues. You are clearly attempting to redefine words in a way that maintains your failed arguments.
 
JayUtah said:
Press releases from competent authority have been cited repeatedly, including those which you specifically requested.
Click to expand...

It's true that there is a press release confirming that the initial vehicle was a diesel car, but the post Vixen was replying to also said the initial vehicle was a 2012 Land Rover. Far as I know, that has not been confirmed.

If it were confirmed that it was a 2012 model, then Vixen's little theory that it was a diesel mild hybrid becomes that much more unlikely, though of course she still pretends that folks convert diesel passenger cars to hybrids all the time.
 
Foster Zygote said:
No, it means that the cause of the fire was accidental. As in the adjective form of accident - something that happens unexpectedly and is not planned in advance.
Click to expand...

In the real world of accident investigation—the door to which seems permanently closed in Vixen's mind—these designations are tremendously important.

Very rarely we see evidence consistent with a deliberate act. In most cases we stop and preserve the evidentiary record for regulatory or law enforcement activity.

"Accidental" is generally reserved for cases of pure probability, but we cannot draw a bright line. In practice this is what the late, great Charles Perrow would have called a "normal accident." By this we mean the behavior of complexly organized systems with varying degrees of coupling that result in undesired outcome despite our best efforts to govern the system. This includes unexpected interactions, the intrusion of natural phenomenon, but excludes negligence and malfeasance by unexpected actors (e.g., sabotage).

When we say a system is complexly organized, we mean that causal chains aren't unary or unidirectional. Any given observable quantity in the system may have several possible causes, several effects of interest, and may participate in feedback loops that make causal determinations ahead of time (i.e., during the engineering design process) quite difficult to nail down and model accurately. Structure fires with certain combustible loads are a reasonably good example of a complex system.

When we say a system is coupled tightly or loosely, we mean that cause and effect are separated in time or space to varying degrees. Rocketry is tightly coupled: when things go wrong, they generally proceed from cause to effect in small fractions of a second. Structure fires and survivability should not be tightly coupled. We prefer loosely coupled systems, and good system design features artificial decouplings.

"Negligent" describes operator's behavior that can be clearly seen as a breach of duty. It doesn't cross the line into deliberate acts. Instead it describes the failure to perform some action that was reasonable and expected, and would have probably interrupted the causal chain leading to an accident. The failure on the part of an individual vehicle owner to maintain his vehicle to the degree it doesn't catch fire could be considered negligence. Or also the failure of regulatory bodies to make and enforce maintenance requirements. But these specific examples are academic determinations. They form part of a cost-risk-benefit analysis.

"Complacency" comprises a gray area between negligence and accident: it's having one foot on the dock and one foot on the boat, in terms of causality analysis. For investigative purposes we tend to resolve those on the side of negligence if there is an overt, persistent, or egregious omission. But we're conscious of the normal behavior of humans to become complacent until failure actually occurs. And we're conscious of the pressure sometimes put on system operators by owners and regulators who assume either that the system is simple enough to operate safely under all circumstances, or that operators have superhuman capabilities to thwart all failure. So if a common level of complacency seems to be the proximate cause, we'll term it an accident. This doesn't release the operator from liability or responsibility in all cases and for all purposes, but it's usually not our job to apportion actionable blame.

So yes, when we speak of "accidental ignition," this has a specific meaning. We may posthumously be able to identify individual points of negligence or complacency. But that doesn't preclude us from being able to say that the opposite of ignition arising from accident is deliberate ignition. No evidence so far of that in this case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom