Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

Status
Not open for further replies.
smartcooky said:
Wrong. I say its a 2014 to 2019 Range Rover Sport because the front view and rear view of the car on fire in the photos/videos exactly matches what a Range Rover of those years looks like with regards to taillight, headlight, and sidelight clusters, and the positions of the number plates and the air intakes. AFAIC, the number plate is only supporting evidence.

Not only is there no other car which matches these, there isn't even another year of Range Rover that matches these.


Now, I have presented my evidence. If you think this car is different from the one I have concluded, then its YOUR BURDEN to prove I am wrong.. and at this point, I am going to "pull a Vixen" and demand you find another vehicle of a different make and year of car, that exactly matches the Range Rover in question. Anything short of that will be summarily dismissed!
Click to expand...

It could just as easily be a 2019 RR Sport MHEV - mild hybrid.

See photos here: the back matches perfectly. https://www.sgcarmart.com/new_cars/newcars_photos.php?CarCode=12516
 
smartcooky said:
You could be right about the football connection, but you are wrong about the E10 meaning any kind of fuel in this context.

The E10 Project is a football academy based in Reading... and Reading Football Club compete in EFL League One

https://www.e10footballproject.com/

ETA: Interestingly, a major sponsor of Reading Football Club is a company called "Select Car Leasing", which has the naming rights for their home ground, Madejski Stadium. Among the vehicles "Select Car Leasing" have on their books is... the Range Rover Sport.
Click to expand...


Who is the 'armchair sleuth' now? :D
 
Foster Zygote said:
Again, like so many other conspiracy theorists, you jump to the conclusion that you have all the available evidence. There may be other files with that video that have different compression applied making them sharper than the one we're viewing.

What are the odds that someone just guessing would hit on a number registered to a red, second generation Range Rover Sport? What are the odds that that same number, almost certainly a vanity plate, would have just recently been reregistered to another second generation Range Rover Sport?
Click to expand...

What are the odds? Oh dear, a poster managed to leave that one off his Bingo Card.
 
smartcooky said:
And here is a screenshot I found, contemporaneous with the period shortly after the fire*, of the MOT record. It show the plate belonging to a 2014 Range Rover Sport, Diesel and coloured Red

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pbpq0hjvjofh2aukath7j/E10EFL-2.jpeg?rlkey=cc4vjwp2qapiitzrsenrgvstz&raw=1[/qimg]

* Posted on the Ten Tenths motorsport forum, in December of 2023
https://tentenths.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4190363&postcount=1652
Click to expand...

Well done! You have now caught up with the rest of us. That comes from DVLA.
 
smartcooky said:
Looking at the video, I cannot read the plate at all.

FWIW, a 2014/15 car would have either 14 or 64 as the 3rd and 4th digits, 2015/16 would be 15 or 65, and 2016/17 would be 16 or 66

https://www.nationalnumbers.co.uk/dvla-guide/year-of-issue-149.htm
Click to expand...
I prefer our system YYYCCNNNNN
YYY = Year of registration, two digits plus one for each half of year
CC = one or two letters for the county
NNNNN = individual identifier

Andy_Ross said:
The number plate is a red herring
Click to expand...
I prefer hake, or a nice piece of fresh ray.
 
Vixen said:
It could just as easily be a 2019 RR Sport MHEV - mild hybrid.
Click to expand...

Nope

Vixen said:
See photos here: the back matches perfectly. https://www.sgcarmart.com/new_cars/newcars_photos.php?CarCode=12516
Click to expand...

When you lie, you need to make sure your lies are not trivially easy to fact check!

2014RRLuton-front.jpg


2019RR.jpg


2014RRLuton-rear.jpg


The rear taillight clusters

2014: A single red box shape that is the taillight, doubling as the indicator, turning orange for this purpose. In the centre of the box is a single clear/red lamp that is the brake light. Underneath is a single clear strip that is the white reversing lamp

2019: Two rows of four clear/red LED lights surrounded by a red LED strip, and a white LED strip on top. The Red LED strip is the taillight which glows red, and doubles as the indicator, turning orange for this purpose. The two rows of clear/red LEDS are the brake lights, and the white strip on top is the reversing light.

The Exhaust
2014: A round tubular exhaust pipe on each side
2019: A rectangular exhaust pipe on each side

Headlights
2014: A single round headlamp with a single round sidelight inset below and to the inside
2019: A single row of power LEDS as the headlight, with a single row of power LEDs as the sidelight inset below and to the inside.

Indicators
2014: Set in the middle of the left and right disk brake cooling intakes
2019: Set below the left and right disk brake cooling intakes

The 2019 model also has a cosmetic fascia bar across the bottom that is not on the 2014 model.

In short, the 2019 Range Rover Sport has a substantially different appearance, from both front and back!
 
Vixen said:
Who is the 'armchair sleuth' now? :D
Click to expand...

The difference between me and you Vixen, is that when I do some armchair sleuthing, I do it in the real world, which is why I come up with facts and evidence... but when you do it, you only look inside your conspiracy theory echo chambers, which is why you only ever come up with half-truths, spurious opinions and unbridled speculation.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
(I know nothing about Photoshop but) isn't it possible to merge a whole stack of images to reduce noise?

I have a vague memory of reading about astronomers using a similar technique to reduce distortion due to atmospheric perturbation. A sort of de-twinkle, as it were.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's a technique that needs software, processing power, some skill and whiskey.
 
Vixen said:
It is an LLP, thus a limited liability partnership and thus is not governed by number of shares but by partner contract. Co-partner Patrick Degorce was charged with defrauding HMRC of £80m. No surprise Sunak now distances himself but according to various sources he is still linked to Theleme. The Good Law Project has been consistently fobbed off over this issue https://x.com/JodieDa30421786/status/1790401793626685773 but why can't Sunak just give a straight answer? Why the need to be opaque? The salient issue is that we have no idea what Sunak's financial interests are. As he and his family has strong links to Tata, his interests should be openly declared on the Ministerial register otherwise, of course, people are going to assume he does have some kind of personal interest in Tata JLR.
Click to expand...


Can you explain how this indicates that Sunak was successfully suppressing stories of EV fires, except for the stories of EV fires that made it to the news?

Because I'm struggling to see the direct chain of links which there undoubtedly must be*


*Hell at this point, I'd be happy with the deductive links demonstrated by Adam West in Batman! The Movie!
 
Vixen said:
What are the odds? Oh dear, a poster managed to leave that one off his Bingo Card.
Click to expand...

Why don't you actually address the question? All you've done is pretend you just made some mic-drop retort that put me in my place, but didn't actually address anything I wrote.

Are you convinced that you are looking at a video with the highest resolution available? Is this going to lead to your next tangent where you pretend to have expertise in video compression?

Do you believe that someone just guessed a number that then happened to be registered to a 2014 Range Rover Sport at the time of the fire, and was recently reregistered to a 2016 Range Rover Sport?
 
Foster Zygote said:
Do you believe that someone just guessed a number that then happened to be registered to a 2014 Range Rover Sport at the time of the fire, and was recently reregistered to a 2016 Range Rover Sport?
Click to expand...

Well that would be consistent with all the rest of the complete horsecock she has been spouting for the last several hundred pages!
 
Vixen said:
...why can't Sunak just give a straight answer? Why the need to be opaque?
Click to expand...

Opaque in whose judgment? All your pearl-clutching on this point is based on the now quite evident fact that you don't know how trusts work, how blind trusts work, and how they reduce conflicts of interest. Maybe your addled imagination is not a good basis for judging the world around you.

The salient issue is that we have no idea what Sunak's financial interests are.
Click to expand...

And on the issue of the blind trust, neither does he. That's how it works. The salient issue is that you have manufactured a set of rules, all on your lonesome, that you imagine Sunak must follow in order to achieve a degree of accountability and transparency that delivers him from your conspiracy mongering.

You keep conflating company ownership with stewardship, and both of those with the notion of trusteeship. And lately you've added bankruptcy to the growing pile of irrelevancies with which you're frantically trying to escape yet another display of hubristic ignorance.

The more salient issue is that you have accused PM Sunak of financial impropriety as part of a larger conspiracy theory accusing him of strong-arming subordinates to mislead an official investigation. Your evidence for this rises no higher than handwaving and speculation based on a clearly crumbly foundation of pretended knowledge and expertise. As usual, it's just "Because I say so."

No, you are not any sort of expert on trusts or financial accountability, and this part of your conspiracy theory is laughably inept. And here you can't split hairs and say, "I never claimed to be an expert." You have two "Master's equivalents" in this, and in all that time it seems they never taught you the difference between a company and a trust.

As he and his family has strong links to Tata, his interests should be openly declared on the Ministerial register otherwise, of course, people are going to assume he does have some kind of personal interest in Tata JLR.
Click to expand...

Who besides you is assuming this? Why would someone else's idle, ignorant speculation oblige other people to act?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It is an LLP, thus a limited liability partnership and thus is not governed by number of shares but by partner contract.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant. Sunak was still only a junior partner, still didn't "own" the company, still left in 2013, and still doesn't know whether his trust currently has any interest. This is just your latest attempt to avoid admitting that you were wrong about something. Further, this is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether Sunak is conspiring to cover up the type of vehicle that started the Luton fire.

Vixen said:
Co-partner Patrick Degorce was charged with defrauding HMRC of £80m.
Click to expand...


After a brief investiGoogle, I'm going to crawl out on what I'm confident is a very sturdy limb and state that, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about. What actually happened is that he invested in a tax-avoidance scheme which was disallowed by HMRC, and he lost both of his appeals. He was never "charged" with fraud or any other crime; he was simply required to pay the the tax, which actually amounted to £7.5m (possibly more with interest). You may have gotten the £80m into your head because the total amount of tax avoidance claimed by all UK investors (not just Degorce) was £44m, which, at the time, translated into euros or US dollars, could have been around 80 million. If you have a reliable source that states otherwise, then by all means provide it.

Oh, and BTW, the initial investment happened before Theleme was ever founded, and the initial ruling by HMRC happened before Sunak ever stood for Parliament. And again, this is all irrelevant. You're just trying to smear Sunak, as usual.

Vixen said:
No surprise Sunak now distances himself but according to various sources he is still linked to Theleme. The Good Law Project has been consistently fobbed off over this issue https://x.com/JodieDa30421786/status/1790401793626685773 but why can't Sunak just give a straight answer? Why the need to be opaque? The salient issue is that we have no idea what Sunak's financial interests are.
Click to expand...


Again, this has all been explained to you ad nauseam. Sunak does not know what interests he has in the blind trust, and that is the whole idea of the arrangement.

Vixen said:
As he and his family has strong links to Tata, his interests should be openly declared on the Ministerial register otherwise, of course, people are going to assume he does have some kind of personal interest in Tata JLR.
Click to expand...


I should have called you on this before. Kindly explain and provide evidence for these purported strong links to Tata. Are you just referring to the fact that his mother-in-law worked there as an engineer decades ago??

ETA: And what Jay said.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom