Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Agatha]

Be that as it may but we haven't been given any information about the driver at all. All we have been told is that 'It is not an electric vehicle'...!

Why should we expect to be given details of the driver? It's not suggested that he or she committed a crime.

And we have been told it was a diesel vehicle.

 

[Vixen]

Ahem.

Ahem. You have again quoted me out of context and twisted my words. Why?

 

[Vixen]

Oh dear, you really have no awareness that Mr. Hopkinson is simply an employee.

 

[Vixen]

Why should we expect to be given details of the driver? It's not suggested that he or she committed a crime.

I am not expecting any information about the driver, I was questioning why people assume the driver is of good character and has been cleared by the police as such within two hours of the fire being extinguished.

 

[zooterkin]

Oh dear, you really have no awareness that Mr. Hopkinson is simply an employee.

And that means he has to lie to the public?

 

[zooterkin]

I am not expecting any information about the driver, I was questioning why people assume the driver is of good character and has been cleared by the police as such within two hours of the fire being extinguished.

More straw.

Does this stop the car where the fire started from being a diesel? And why did you snip that part from Agatha's post when you quoted it?

 

[zooterkin]

Ahem. You have again quoted me out of context and twisted my words. Why?

 

[Vixen]

You're doing the equivalent of noting a forest fire and thinking there must have been something specially malevolent about whatever started it.

Magical thinking.

(Edit) Reading again, it's much stupider than that. You read a sentence which said a car fire started (which happens thousands of times per year). But you interpreted the part in brackets as if it applied to the next sentence.

Is this going to be some unique writing style guide they taught in your school?

Dearie me. 'SmartCooky' wrote 19,000 vehicles burn every year, immediately followed by and then the fire spreads and the car park is burnt down. But Luton is the first such car park to experience a structural collapse so 'SmartCooky's' claim is an embellishment of what transpires when a car catches fire. Car parks do not burn down.

Therefore, it follows ipso facto, that there was something extraordinary about the Luton one and is not the common or garden car fire that 'SmartCooky' tried to brush us all off with.

 

[Mojo]

And that means he has to lie to the public?

Perhaps that's how it is in accountancy.

 

[Vixen]

I'm content for the driver to have this protection from crazy people.
If he ever gets charged with an offence we'll be entitled to know.

I am not the 'crazy person' claiming that Mr Hopkinson got his information from the driver that all was bona fide so that is all right, then. Address your comment to the poster who suggested this must have been the case, or Hopkinson would never have said it was a diesel fire without consulting the owner of the vehicle first (as of 8:45am the following morning of the fire).

 

[Vixen]

Okay, so now we have evidence that a facility manager at one UK hospital is sufficiently taken in by ill informed speculation and conspiracy theories to set a temporary parking restriction. Big whoops!

Have a look at the photograph. It says 'No Electric Vehicles'. This is the BBC, not given to saying anything that might upset the government, given the BBC Director General is Tim Davie, a Tory appointment.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c90zjne2v0jo

 

[Mojo]

Dearie me. 'SmartCooky' wrote 19,000 vehicles burn every year, immediately followed by and then the fire spreads and the car park is burnt down.

Here's what was posted:

A man drives a diesel vehicle to park in a multi storey car park. The car has a fault that causes a fire (something that happens over 19,000 times annually in the UK). The man tries to put out the fire but fails to do so. The fire spreads so other vehicles and ultimately burns the whole car park down.

Do you really not understand the difference? If this is the standard of reading comprehension a Middlesex County Council education gives you, it's a good thing they were abolished in 1965.

 

[Mojo]

Why should we expect to be given details of the driver? It's not suggested that he or she committed a crime.

And we have been told it was a diesel vehicle.

But maybe it was an electric driver. Why aren't they telling us?

 

[Vixen]

And that means he has to lie to the public?

He reads out a ready prepared statement that the lawyers have passed through the junior minister that is responsible for the fire brigade, likewise the bods at the police.

Do you really believe he wrote all of that on the back of an envelope and ad libbed his way through?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Ahem. You have again quoted me out of context and twisted my words. Why?

The irony! It burns!

 

[Vixen]

More straw.

Does this stop the car where the fire started from being a diesel? And why did you snip that part from Agatha's post when you quoted it?

I have not snipped anything. If I snip a post I indicate it has been snipped. Why have you lied and said I snipped Agatha's post? You seem determined to twist my words and quote me out of context. Why?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Dearie me. 'SmartCooky' wrote 19,000 vehicles burn every year, immediately followed by and then the fire spreads and the car park is burnt down. But Luton is the first such car park to experience a structural collapse so 'SmartCooky's' claim is an embellishment of what transpires when a car catches fire. Car parks do not burn down.

Therefore, it follows ipso facto, that there was something extraordinary about the Luton one and is not the common or garden car fire that 'SmartCooky' tried to brush us all off with.

You can't possibly believe what you're writing here. No one is that bad at reading comprehension.

 

[Agatha]

Be that as it may but we haven't been given any information about the driver at all. All we have been told is that 'It is not an electric vehicle'...!

I am not expecting any information about the driver, I was questioning why people assume the driver is of good character and has been cleared by the police as such within two hours of the fire being extinguished.

One of these things is not like the other.

You have not shown any evidence that anyone has made any assumptions about the driver's character, nor have you explained why you think their character has any bearing on the cause or spread of the fire.

And snipping out the part of my post that points out that it is untrue that "all" we have been told is that it wasn't an electric vehicle is at least careless, if not outright dishonest.

Dearie me. 'SmartCooky' wrote 19,000 vehicles burn every year, immediately followed by and then the fire spreads and the car park is burnt down. But Luton is the first such car park to experience a structural collapse so 'SmartCooky's' claim is an embellishment of what transpires when a car catches fire. Car parks do not burn down.

Therefore, it follows ipso facto, that there was something extraordinary about the Luton one and is not the common or garden car fire that 'SmartCooky' tried to brush us all off with.

Smartcooky did not make the embellishment that you accuse him of. Your reading comprehension has let you down, and it might benefit you to read his post again. Nor does your "ipso facto" conclusion follow from smartcooky's post.

 

[Andy_Ross]

He reads out a ready prepared statement that the lawyers have passed through the junior minister that is responsible for the fire brigade, likewise the bods at the police.

Do you really believe he wrote all of that on the back of an envelope and ad libbed his way through?

You made that up.

Which junior minister ordered the fire service to lie about the cause of the fire ?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen MAY have quoted Agatha before the second line was added to the post, so she may not have snipped it.

She's still wrong about...literally everything else, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on that one.