Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[Vixen]

Why would Jaguar Land Rover be sued for cars destroyed in a parking garage fire?

Why would anyone be sued by the car owners as they were insured and would get paid out?

The car insurers will certainly be looking for someone/ or a corporation to take culpability. Public indemnity for a local body such as Luton Council only stretches to about £2m. The car park cost £20m to build. A new one is expected to be nearer £37m, according to the calls for tender. If a claim of negligence can be slapped on JLR then that would be normal protocol to do so. But the spread of the fire can be equally blamed on shoddy workmanship, which is not an unrealistic suggestion, given the building firm went into Administration leaving major works elsewhere unfinished. A company going into insolvency will often have its directors investigated as to how the insolvency came about. If it was trading without having the finances to proceed or it was actually a criminally dodgy moneymaking scam - as does happen - then despite it being limited liability, the directors can still be liable.

So, your car insurers should have paid you the book value of your vehicle. But what if you lost out on being able to commute or to go out as a sales rep as you awaited compo? What if you had valuables in your car. There are all kinds of situations you can sue for.

I can foresee there will be a major row when the report comes out with all kinds of finger pointing and questions and White Papers raised in parliament as a result.

 

[Vixen]

Rubbish. D-notices relate to national security, as you have been told multiple times before. Do you ever read the replies to your posts?

It's a public car park near the UK's fifth largest international airport, it is nearby a major motorway and railway station. Why would it not immediately count as a potential national security incident? For all you know, given how the minds of serious organised criminals work, the video-ed vehicle might just have been a decoy.

 

[Mojo]

It's a public car park near the UK's fifth largest international airport, it is nearby a major motorway and railway station. Why would it not immediately count as a potential national security incident?

The fire was widely reported. No sign of a D notice.

For all you know, given how the minds of serious organised criminals work, the video-ed vehicle might just have been a decoy.

And now you're invoking another conspiracy to conceal the cause of the fire, and presumably one to start it.

 

[Steve]

I can't find the source ATM.

I feel sure that it will soon become mandatory for all new public car parking garages beyond a certain size to have an effective sprinkler system installed.

The Fire Brigade Union is a key advocate and this time, perhaps it will be listened to.

Can't find yourself? Fascinating!

 

[junkshop]

I can't find the source ATM...

Are you sitting on it?

 

[Steve]

Well there's a surprise!

The source is Vixen. Ponder a moment on that.

 

[Craig4]

It's a public car park near the UK's fifth largest international airport, it is nearby a major motorway and railway station. Why would it not immediately count as a potential national security incident? For all you know, given how the minds of serious organised criminals work, the video-ed vehicle might just have been a decoy.

Your goalposts have now achieved infinite warp. They are moving faster than any goalpost ever has before.

 

[GlennB]

It's a public car park near the UK's fifth largest international airport, it is nearby a major motorway and railway station. Why would it not immediately count as a potential national security incident? For all you know, given how the minds of serious organised criminals work, the video-ed vehicle might just have been a decoy.

Yeah, I can see it. While flights are suspended Russian Ilyushins land by the hundreds to start the invasion.

 

[JayUtah]

I want to understand why the fire as seen in the video/s looks like a lithium-ion one.

You haven't shown that it does.

I also want to know what make model and year the vehicle was as a taxpayer entitled to be given this information and which is in the public interest.

You were given the overriding reason. Your desire to disbelieve it is irrelevant.

It is a well-known fact Rishi Sunak has all kinds of profit-making schemes.

Irrelevant.

 

[zooterkin]

Rubbish. D-notices relate to national security, as you have been told multiple times before. Do you ever read the replies to your posts?

There's been evidence that she doesn't even read her own posts.

 

[JayUtah]

It appears to have been left unfinished, as the water pipes have been installed but no sprinklers fitted. This looks like work in progress for what else are the water pipes for?

According to your uninformed opinion.

 

[JayUtah]

"As of this time".

The identity of the vehicle is known. The engine type and power source of the vehicle is known. The latter has been published by competent authority. That competent authority—upon explicit request by you—has confirmed: first, that the publication you wish to dismiss as frivolous is in fact the legally cognizable revelation of the vehicle power source; second, that that power source is not an electric battery.

You are wrong. But you will never admit it.

 

[JayUtah]

The only plausible reason I can think for the withholding of the information is the fear of Jaguar Land Rover fearing it might be sued...

Your inability is non-probative. We could fill entire car parks with the things you are unable to do.

I am of the opinion that had it been, say, a Toyota Yaris or Vauxhall Corsa that caused the fire, there would be no problem in publishing it.

Irrelevant. You were given the reason why those details were withheld. You stubborn insistence on thinking of something else does not change the facts.

 

[JayUtah]

As they said they have to be mindful not to prejudice the investigations of the other agencies involved. A video put out by a member of public is not seen by them as being official or officially confirmed.

Official investigations properly ignore the noisy amateurs.

As I suggested, there may be some kind of D-notice on the information. The Fire Brigade is a public body accountable to government ministers.

Asked and answered.

It's a public car park near the UK's fifth largest international airport, it is nearby a major motorway and railway station. Why would it not immediately count as a potential national security incident?

Because that's not how it works. You have no concept of how to address facts. You are simply spinning imagination as fast as you can.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It is standard to supply the vehicle type.

For example, within the last few days:

"...the four people in the Audi came across the smoking wreckage of the BMW."

What were the year and model of each car?

"Two cars were involved in the collision – a black Jaguar and a black Ford Fiesta."

What year and model Jaguar? What year Fiesta.

You're lying again - cherry picking a few examples with vehicle characteristics mentioned and pretending that you've offered a comprehensive survey of news reports about automobile accidents proving that identifying the vehicles involved is virtually universal. I'm sure you ignored other articles which were much more vague about the vehicles involved, because my own searches for vehicle identification in several news articles about automobile accidents showed me that there's no universal practice of identifying the vehicles involved. Some even mentioned the make of one vehicle involved, while other vehicles involved in the same accident were given generic identifications like "sedan" or "SUV".

The people writing these articles are journalists, and often not very good ones. They want to generate interest in potential readers, so they color them accordingly:

- Simple accident with only minor injuries at a traffic signal involving an elderly man in a Ford F150 turning in front of a mother in a Toyota Sienna with her three kids aboard? That might be reported as "pickup" and "minivan".

- High speed ****ery leading to fatal, fiery crash involving drunk young men who think cars are toys? Let's just say I can see a journalist including the fact they were driving a BMW and an Audi to add a bit of "color" to the reader's interpretation of the event.

What is so special about Jaguar Land Rover that we can't be told?

Who says we can't be told? It's an official accident investigation. It has to be conducted according to proper procedure. This takes time.

I shouldn't be surprised if the report doesn't reveal this, either.

And if it does, we won't be the least bit surprised when you invent some ridiculous conspiracy theory to explain why it's not a diesel Range Rover.

 

[JayUtah]

It is standard to supply the vehicle type.

You haven't shown that it is. And irrespective of that, you've been given the reason why it wasn't supplied in the case we're interested in. The existence of a policy or pattern to the contrary is simply irrelevant.

For example...

Asked and answered. Cherry picking information does not establish a pattern. A pattern is irrelevant, because you have been given the reason for the exception in the case presented.

What is so special about Jaguar Land Rover that we can't be told?

You have no evidence that the specific make of vehicle bears on the reason.

I shouldn't be surprised if the report doesn't reveal this, either.

Since this is now the second reason you're giving for pre-rejecting the official report, it's safe to conclude you will not accept it regardless of its findings. This would be in keeping with every other finding presented by your betters.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You haven't shown that it is. And irrespective of that, you've been given the reason why it wasn't supplied in the case we're interested in. The existence of a policy or pattern to the contrary is simply irrelevant.

Not to mention that the sources she's provided are are not civil agencies, but rather news media. She should be able to appreciate the difference.

 

[Mojo]

There's been evidence that she doesn't even read her own posts.

There's certainly evidence that she doesn't read the posts she's replying to.

 

[Mojo]

On 9th June Vixen said that she had "now followed [her initial enquiry] up with another FOI request as advised above. No reply by return this time." The FOI act says they should respond within 20 working days, so perhaps we can expect some sort of complaint by early to mid-July.

Could this latest burst of activity mean that Vixen has had a response?

 

[Craig4]

Could this latest burst of activity mean that Vixen has had a response?

Seems likely. The latest whacked out ideas don't relate to electric vehicles.