Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[MarkCorrigan]

Looks like you're going to ignore me as I predicted.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I am simply saying there is a press embargo in giving people the facts.

Without evidence. So it can be dismissed as fantasy given your track record.

 

[Steve]

I am simply saying there is a press embargo in giving people the facts.

And you are simply wrong. This is simply your imagination based on zero evidence.

The claim is an electrical fault in the engine bay, so publish the make and model of the car so that people with similar models can take it in for a check up.

Has this claim been made by a recognized expert who has investigated the cause of this particular fire? Electrical faults causing fires can, and do, occur in any make and model of car. There is no evidence that a particular electrical issue is endemic to the type of car that started the Luton fire.

A recall due to a particular recognized fault would commonly be issued by the car manufacturer once the fault has been identified.

 

[smartcooky]

Come on, anyone would think we were talking about a car park built in the 1940's or even the 1960's or 1990's. No, Luton Airport car park was built post-Liverpool dockland fire of 2018, in 2019 when the existence of EV's and their special fire hazard risks and needs per sheer weight was well-established. The idea that 'Oh now we suddenly realise the need for sprinklers at an international airport, with the car park just a few minutes walk away from the airport itself,' as being even plausible is laughable.

The company tasked with constructing the car park went into administration and clearly failed to take on board the recommendations of the Merseyside Fire Brigade Report at any point, so why not say so?

What's with the walking around on eggshells?

Again, I fail to see how a lack of sprinklers can cause a fire.

Perhaps you could further all of our educational skills by giving us all a scientific explanation of the process by which this happens?

 

[Myriad]

Figure of speech for news items that the press will not publish because of 'orders from above'.

How do these orders work exactly? An order from above (such as, for instance, a law) can certainly prevent the press from publishing some particular thing. But how do they stop the press from publishing the newsworthy fact that such orders were given?

We know there are things the press don't publish for many different reasons, but they do publish the reasons why not. "Witnesses have identified three of the victims but we are withholding their identities pending notification of next of kin." Completely normal.

So why can't you show us: "By order of [name of relevant lawful authority] or by the provisions of [name and reference of the relevant ordinance], we are not permitted to publish the make and model of the vehicle that sources reveal as the origin of the Luton Airport Car Park fire." What's stopping the press from reporting that?

Is there a second order preventing the reporting of the first order?

"By order of [name of relevant lawful authority], we are not permitted to publish the reason why we have not published the make and model of the vehicle..."

Mustn't there then be a third order preventing that?

"By order of [name of relevant lawful authority], we are not permitted to publish the reason why we cannot publish the reason why we cannot publish the make and model of the vehicle..."

Have an infinite number of orders been issued?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Go to 9:32 onwards.



https://youtu.be/O5jrI2zdZ0s?si=MFRgEkgR1NnSW79Y

The guy in the video says he got it from a worker at Gatwick, who claims the picture shows the car that started the fire.
How were you able to verify the truth of this claim?

 

[Darat]

Again, I fail to see how a lack of sprinklers can cause a fire.

Perhaps you could further all of our educational skills by giving us all a scientific explanation of the process by which this happens?

You seem very ignorant about such simple devices. Sprinklers emit anti-fire particles, without a sprinkler system in place fire particles will build up and eventually cause spontaneous fires. It's a well-known fact, really nothing more than basic physics, and I came top in a physics test when I as at my high school, so I am a physicist and know all about this subject.

 

[Darat]

How do these orders work exactly? An order from above (such as, for instance, a law) can certainly prevent the press from publishing some particular thing. But how do they stop the press from publishing the newsworthy fact that such orders were given?

We know there are things the press don't publish for many different reasons, but they do publish the reasons why not. "Witnesses have identified three of the victims but we are withholding their identities pending notification of next of kin." Completely normal.

So why can't you show us: "By order of [name of relevant lawful authority] or by the provisions of [name and reference of the relevant ordinance], we are not permitted to publish the make and model of the vehicle that sources reveal as the origin of the Luton Airport Car Park fire." What's stopping the press from reporting that?

Is there a second order preventing the reporting of the first order?

"By order of [name of relevant lawful authority], we are not permitted to publish the reason why we have not published the make and model of the vehicle..."

Mustn't there then be a third order preventing that?

"By order of [name of relevant lawful authority], we are not permitted to publish the reason why we cannot publish the reason why we cannot publish the make and model of the vehicle..."

Have an infinite number of orders been issued?

I'm struck by the power of the British state, we can stop any website, any publisher, any newspaper throughout the entire world from revealing that our PM doesn't want them to ever publish anything that makes his D-I-L's businesses look bad! We can even prevent them from revealing that such an order has been given.

Talk about "soft power".

 

[Vixen]

Is this significant?

Yes it is, because when a company goes into administration it indicates an inability to pay creditors. In the case of a construction company, in this case Buckingham Group, all construction work is done under project management in which all costs, time and materials, are carefully budgeted and reviewed at every stage. The fact it could not pay its tax bill and/or other creditors, such as suppliers, does give rise to the suspicion of skimping on materials or labour. I do not know the specific circumstance of this particular case, but you can read about it here:

The company which constructed the London Luton Airport car park that collapsed during a major fire entered administration just five weeks ago, MailOnline can reveal.

Buckingham Contracting Group won a £20million contract in July 2018 to build the 1,900-car site at the airport in Bedfordshire, which opened one year later in 2019 as part of a multi-year modernisation programme costing tens of millions of pounds.

<snip>

The firm, which was the biggest construction company to go out of business since Wolverhampton-based Carillion in January 2018, beat four competitors to land the Luton contract.

At the time, Buckingham was performing well having reported an 20 per cent rise in profits for 2017 and a 3.9 per cent margin - its highest in a decade.

But last month, it went bust after 36 years of uninterrupted trading - with about 500 staff being made redundant following what administrators Grant Thornton described as 'significant cash flow pressures and subsequent losses'.

They added that the 'legacy issues faced by the company and ongoing losses were simply too great to enable the refinance to succeed in an acceptable timescale'.

Daily Mail

What generally happens is that a creditor owed money that is unforthcoming will petition the High Court - in this case I suspect HMRC - for a winding up order for non-payment. The Court appoints the Official Receiver who then passes the case onto one of the Administrators on its list of Insolvency Practitioners, usually at random. The Administrator takes over all aspects of the business in the hope of being able to find a buyer to take over the business and save jobs. In this case, the administrators managed to sell a small part of the engineering arm but otherwise, it would appear it then went into Compulsory Liquidation.

So the lack of sprinklers, following on from the Merseyside Fire Brigade report
could have been a cost-saving decision for Buckingham Group as they are quite expensive to install and the suspicion must arise of poor quality materials being used and safety measures skimped due to a lack of cash flow.

Thus, IMV, it is quite wrong for the Beds Fire & Rescue Service to say, 'Move along nothing to see here, it was just a simple electrical fault in a diesel car*', when people could have been killed or seriously injured and bearing in mind five personnel from the fire fighting unit were hospitalized because of noxious fumes.

*Yet they refuse to let us know what vehicle it was, together with the careful avoidance of mentioning EV's or Jaguar Land Rover, when they are obviously a factor, together with the sprinkler system not just being an oversight.

 

[Vixen]

How do these orders work exactly? An order from above (such as, for instance, a law) can certainly prevent the press from publishing some particular thing. But how do they stop the press from publishing the newsworthy fact that such orders were given?

We know there are things the press don't publish for many different reasons, but they do publish the reasons why not. "Witnesses have identified three of the victims but we are withholding their identities pending notification of next of kin." Completely normal.

So why can't you show us: "By order of [name of relevant lawful authority] or by the provisions of [name and reference of the relevant ordinance], we are not permitted to publish the make and model of the vehicle that sources reveal as the origin of the Luton Airport Car Park fire." What's stopping the press from reporting that?

Is there a second order preventing the reporting of the first order?

"By order of [name of relevant lawful authority], we are not permitted to publish the reason why we have not published the make and model of the vehicle..."

Mustn't there then be a third order preventing that?

"By order of [name of relevant lawful authority], we are not permitted to publish the reason why we cannot publish the reason why we cannot publish the make and model of the vehicle..."

Have an infinite number of orders been issued?

It is very common in the UK, especially in areas of what could be seen as 'national security' and it is feasible a government in power will argue it might undermine confidence in a government policy of, for example, building huge lithium battery factories and circa £500m in grant subsidies that has already been paid out (not refundable). See here in wiki as to how it works:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_embargo

 

[Vixen]

The guy in the video says he got it from a worker at Gatwick, who claims the picture shows the car that started the fire.
How were you able to verify the truth of this claim?

We cannot get the information from the usual national press, that's for sure.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Is it your claim that all ICE car fires not extinguished within 10 minutes are actually EV fires?
I assume not as that would be idiotic.

Sometimes the idiocy of an apparent claim is reason to assume the apparent claim was the intended claim.

 

[zooterkin]

It is very common in the UK, especially in areas of what could be seen as 'national security' and it is feasible a government in power will argue it might undermine confidence in a government policy of, for example, building huge lithium battery factories and circa £500m in grant subsidies that has already been paid out (not refundable). See here in wiki as to how it works:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_embargo

What does that have to do with a fire that started in a diesel car?

 

[Vixen]

You seem very ignorant about such simple devices. Sprinklers emit anti-fire particles, without a sprinkler system in place fire particles will build up and eventually cause spontaneous fires. It's a well-known fact, really nothing more than basic physics, and I came top in a physics test when I as at my high school, so I am a physicist and know all about this subject.

For all the sarcasm, some say, the lowest form of wit, here is the recommendation of the Merseyside Fire & Rescue Report re Kings Dock fire (Liverpool ECHO car park) 2018:

Under current guidance in ADB, there is no requirement for sprinklers within
an open-sided car park. Serious consideration should be given to the
provision of sprinklers.

https://www.bafsa.org.uk/wp-content...er/2018/12/Merseyside-FRS-Car-Park-Report.pdf

 

[zooterkin]

For all the sarcasm, some say, the lowest form of wit, here is the recommendation of the Merseyside Fire & Rescue Report re Kings Dock fire (Liverpool ECHO car park) 2018:

https://www.bafsa.org.uk/wp-content...er/2018/12/Merseyside-FRS-Car-Park-Report.pdf

Now talk us through how that would have prevented a diesel car from catching fire?

 

[Vixen]

What does that have to do with a fire that started in a diesel car?

News cover up.


So tell us the make and model of the car.

 

[Vixen]

Now talk us through how that would have prevented a diesel car from catching fire?

Stop being obtuse. Beds F&RS said that a sprinkler system would have massively reduced the impact of the fire, which - hello?- destroyed 1,500 vehicles, despite the driver of the original vehicle being present at the time.

 

[zooterkin]

News cover up.


So tell us the make and model of the car.

Do you think that will stop it being a diesel?

 

[zooterkin]

Stop being obtuse. Beds F&RS said that a sprinkler system would have massively reduced the impact of the fire, which - hello?- destroyed 1,500 vehicles, despite the driver of the original vehicle being present at the time.

And? Does that somehow magically turn that original vehicle from a diesel into an EV?

 

[junkshop]

Stop being obtuse. Beds F&RS said that a sprinkler system would have massively reduced the impact of the fire...

No, they (or more accurately CFO Andy Hopkinson) said:

...sprinklers may have made a positive impact on this incident.

Which has nothing to do with whether the fire started in an EV or not.