Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[Vixen]

She's made it part of this thread.

A poster asked me a direct question and I politely gave him a straight answer.

 

[Vixen]

To be fair to Vixen for a moment (and sorry for the late post)...

Last place I worked, in the 10 storey building, there was always at least one person called the Safety Officer or something like that. They did a short H&S course (longer than the one we all did) and once a week they would don a high-viz jacket and do a 'survey' of the building - they had a clipboard with a check-list: No blocked doors or passages, stairs clear, no dodgy materials left lying around, no missing fire extinguishers. That sort of thing.

Maybe Vixen's safety assessment got her a hi-viz jacket and clipboard and she's bigging up the experience a bit?

I never got the hi-vis jacket. The senior partner, who was also the chief City of London freemason honcho - his highly polished desk was the size of half a room and completely clear except for an ornament - was usually the one who walked around the building once a week, looking thoroughly grumpy and pissed off, especially on seeing empty photocopying-paper boxes lying around.

I did have a clipboard.

 

[Wudang]

Link to all the disclosure logs

https://bfrs-governance.haloitsm.com/portal/kb?btn=61

 

[welshdean]

Link to all the disclosure logs

https://bfrs-governance.haloitsm.com/portal/kb?btn=61

Interesting. The 1st heading, when clicked on says:

Luton airport car park fire

Description
Please could you tell me if the fire at Luton airport multi-storey car park was started by an electric vehicle


Resolution
Following the fire at London Luton Airport terminal car park 2 on the 10 October 2023, a multi-agency investigation is currently being conducted. At this time, we can confirm the vehicle involved was a diesel-powered vehicle. To further clarify it was neither a fully electric vehicle (EV), a mild hybrid electric vehicle (MHEV) nor a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). More information on the incident and cause of the fire will be released once the investigation has been concluded.

In my eyes, that's the thread done and dusted.

ETA

Further clicking revealed this:

Luton Airport Fire Investigation

Description
Please can the fire investigation report be published for the London Luton Airport multi-storey car park fire on 10 October? Additionally, please can the following questions be answered?

- What did the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service fire investigation team find out about the cause of the fire and how it spread?

- Did the investigation find the fire was preventable?

- Would sprinklers have prevented the fire from growing to the size it did?

- What further steps will be taken by Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service to prevent similar fires taking place at other buildings and car parks?


Resolution
Following the fire at London Luton Airport terminal car park 2 on the 10 October 2023, a multi-agency investigation is currently being conducted. At this time, we can confirm the vehicle involved was a diesel-powered vehicle. To clarify it was neither a fully electric vehicle (EV), a mild hybrid vehicle (MHEV) nor a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). More information will be released once the investigation has been concluded.

Jenny must be a very busy person.

 

[JayUtah]

Here I would caution that the world in which we live does contain a few people who have been awarded a STEM degree despite their "utter inability to demonstrate any sort of scientific competence." In particular, I would point out that not all STEM degrees are S degrees.

I am not suggesting this particular person holds any kind of STEM degree.

She claimed to be a scientist. She claimed she had a degree in a science. When pressed, she admitted she wants accounting to be considered a science. The TEM part is new this time around.

 

[Steve]

Interesting. The 1st heading, when clicked on says:



In my eyes, that's the thread done and dusted.

And yet we have a poster here (who has just been given a "bum's rush" ) who will continue to insist that it is inconclusive, misleading, and intended to cover up a number of different issues.

 

[LondonJohn]

I never got the hi-vis jacket. The senior partner, who was also the chief City of London freemason honcho - his highly polished desk was the size of half a room and completely clear except for an ornament - was usually the one who walked around the building once a week, looking thoroughly grumpy and pissed off, especially on seeing empty photocopying-paper boxes lying around.

I did have a clipboard.

If that's true, if the senior partner "was usually the one who walked round the building once a week, looking thoroughly grumpy and pissed off, especially on seeing empty photocopying-paper boxes lying around", then how come it fell to you to discover and remedy a significant fire risk (not to mention something that would clearly have been more annoying to the senior partner than "empty photocopier-paper boxes lying around")? And how come all of the other problems you claimed you had reported were suddenly acted upon as well, if the senior partner usually did the weekly walk round, apparently with a keen eye for problems?

I am picking up the distinct odour of bat guano. Not for the first time. From an inveterate dissembler.

 

[LondonJohn]

And yet we have a poster here (who has just been given a "bum's rush" ) who will continue to insist that it is inconclusive, misleading, and intended to cover up a number of different issues.

Ah well Vixen simply continues to insist that all of these "we can confirm that..." communications from BF&RS are nothing but incorrect interpretations (by some nameless and clueless bod in public relations at BF&RS) of the statement given by the Chief Fire Officer ("at this state, we believe that...") the day after the fire. Pathetic.

 

[JayUtah]

A poster asked me a direct question and I politely gave him a straight answer.

Your recollection is poor.

What really happened is that apropos of nothing, you claimed you had "high moral principles." And you decided to use those to smugly bludgeon someone for daring to ask you to reconcile the contradictions in your claims. That was the only answer you gave at the time. (You still refuse to provide an unevasive answer.)

When people rightly scoffed at the idea of your "ethics," you asked for evidence. Dissastisifed with the brief let's-move-on answer, you insisted that they provide examples contradicting your high moral view of yourself, and taunted the scoffers if they didn't.

We are here again precisely and only because you asked for it every step of the way. Now that examples have been provided to illustrate your unethical behavior in this thread and elsewhere, you wish to play the innocent victim. Shame on you.

You unequivocally lied when you accused me of "sneering" at a fellow engineer's credentials. That's considered a serious breach of ethics in my profession, so it's very good that I did no such thing. You were given a chance to come clean about it, but you doubled down—and have now tripled and quadrupled down on it. There is no spin of the facts that makes your accusation not a lie. There is no rabbit hole of Vixen-ethics that justifies your unwillingness to retract it, admit your error, and ask for forgiveness. And now you're shamefully trying to negotiate a rhetorical advantage in exchange. If your ego must be bribed in order to finally do what you now seem to admit is the right thing, your ethical principles are just slightly above "career criminal."

There remains a glaring factual contradiction between your claim to ethical virtue and your incontrovertible behavior. Since you will obviously never own your shameful behavior, you're left with rescinding your virtue-signalling. The question you evaded by it still remains—and it's still not good optics for your alleged ethics: will you finally own that you are accusing the fire service of lying?

I will add now that while we can certainly dwell on the distraction of individual bad behavior from you, your entire approach at this forum is unethical. You are uneducated, untrained, and inexperienced in the bodies of knowledge you invoke to play out your sick armchair fantasy. You gleefully denigrate your betters and waste their time who already have to deal with death, misfortune, and tragedy while serving the public. From the comfort of your armchair you hurl invective born of nothing but your imagination and ignorance. You're not helping. You're not fixing. You're not the champion of the little guy. You're not holding powerful interests to account. You're simply selfish. Nothing ethical whatsoever about that.

 

[JayUtah]

Oh well, I had this reply from Beds Fire & Rescue Service, giving me the bum's rush.

You got a proper impartial answer from the compliance officer, in spite of a rudely worded request.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Oh well, I had this reply from Beds Fire & Rescue Service, giving me the bum's rush.

Oh no! They seem to think you ought to be content to wait for the report. How very unreasonable of them to think you might be prepared to wait for the report.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

A poster asked me a direct question and I politely gave him a straight answer.

Well that's another lie.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Maybe Vixen's safety assessment got her a hi-viz jacket and clipboard and she's bigging up the experience a bit?

Vixen bigging up her experience?

She claimed to be a scientist. She claimed she had a degree in a science. When pressed, she admitted she wants accounting to be considered a science.

 

[Vixen]

She claimed to be a scientist. She claimed she had a degree in a science. When pressed, she admitted she wants accounting to be considered a science. The TEM part is new this time around.

You've never heard of Frederick W Taylor?

 

[JayUtah]

You've never heard of Frederick W Taylor?

You are not a scientist. You're a conspiracy theorist who doubles down on false accusations.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You've never heard of Frederick W Taylor?

What does he have to do with anything?

You're not him, nor is your work like his unless you care to prove otherwise.

Also he was actually an engineer. You're an accountant.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Oh look, a legitimate refusal that you're pretending is nefarious.

Yup, that reply was pretty much what I expected it to be.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

You've never heard of Frederick W Taylor?

Taylor?

Oh, FFS! He may have used the word "scientific", but he clearly wasn't and his acolytes even less so.

Science and management do not belong in te same phrase, unless the phrase is something like "there is no science in any management 'theory' ".

Management is nearly as much a science-free zone as astrology or homeopathy.

 

[Vixen]

Taylor?

Oh, FFS! He may have used the word "scientific", but he clearly wasn't and his acolytes even less so.

Science and management do not belong in te same phrase, unless the phrase is something like "there is no science in any management 'theory' ".

Management is nearly as much a science-free zone as astrology or homeopathy.

Running an enterprise is both a science and an art. The AICPA calls accountancy 'a science'. This is factual.

To be honest, I am not sure why people think this has anything whatsoever to do with discussing a current affairs topic.

 

[Vixen]

Oh no! They seem to think you ought to be content to wait for the report. How very unreasonable of them to think you might be prepared to wait for the report.

I am content to await the report but from the wording it would appear that the model, make and year of the vehicle concerned will be withheld information for reasons of exemption, and which is also 'not in the public interest' to challenge. Yet what about the two videos? Does that mean they are unable to confirm or deny the videos show the vehicle concerned?