[Continuation] Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[Andy_Ross]

Continuation from here.

Posted By: Agatha

Will you all please make a much greater effort to concentrate on the topic and the arguments made, rather than either attacking arguers and going off-topic. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

It remains to be seen whether:

1. the report indicates the make, model, year and power trail type of the initiating vehicle
2. or refers to it in generic terms.

If the former, I will readily accept the report. If the latter, then we'll know it was a hybrid all along.

That means the fire service are deliberately telling lies by publishing an official statement that says it was not an EV or hybrid bet was in fact a diesel car.

Are the fire service telling a deliberate lie?

 

[JayUtah]

It remains to be seen whether:

1. the report indicates the make, model, year and power trail type of the initiating vehicle
2. or refers to it in generic terms.

If the former, I will readily accept the report.

And you levy this requirement from your vast experience in investigating and public reporting on accidents involving vehicle? Only if it satisfies this peculiarly specific requirement can such a report be considered correct and honest in your mind?

Sheesh, the sheer arrogance...

Despite the handwringing furor about this in social media, the focus of the investigation is not the minutia of how the car caught fire. It is well known that vehicles of all types catch fire, hence whether some particular make or model of car was inappropriately responsible for starting the fire is a separate matter. The proper scope of the investigation is the performance of all factors after the fire started. You look at building design and construction. You look at emergency response. You look at operational factors. You look at the performance of human operators. At that scope, the equipment involve is identified and described only insofar as it contributes to the understanding of what steps may not have properly been taken, and what steps should be taken in future.

Investigating a house fire rarely delves into the gory details of the make, model, and year of the cooker whose gas attachment failed. Conversely we do identify specifics about such things as airplanes and locomotives when they fail. While again this is only to the extent such details actually bear on the outcome, in those cases the failure of the equipment is not merely the precipitating event; it is the event.

Similarly, we know from your previous handling of accident reports that you really don't understand the scope and purpose of a final report in any such matter. Final reports are not comprehensive explanations of every aspect of the investigation from onset to publication. They are summaries of findings. The supporting details are still available, of course, but not often widely published. Only information relevant to the ultimate conclusions is presented in the final report.

If the latter, then we'll know it was a hybrid all along.

No. That's not how knowledge works. This little bugbear of yours is not the dispositive factor in the real world.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Yes, I am familiar with the case. I have been following it for at least five years and have watched some of the current live stream inquiry.

I didn't ask whether you were familiar with the case. I'd be astounded if you weren't. I asked whether you'd actually read the article to which you linked, because you don't appear to understand the context in which the two quotations you lifted from it were given.

I am indeed aware of what CPS criminal conspiracy says is a crime.

Yet you keep insisting that you don't believe Sunak is guilty of a crime, while continuing to insinuate that he's directed those under him to cover up the "fact" that the Luton fire was started by an EV, in order to protect some speculative financial interest of his or his family's in Tata JLR. This would still be Conspiracy to commit Misconduct in Public Office, whether or not you choose to admit it. You are therefore proposing (although you sometimes hedge with weasel words) a theory that there is a conspiracy to keep the true source of the fire a secret. Therefore, you are a conspiracy theorist.

However, the police do not usually get involved in corporate or government issues unless specifically asked to by the upper management or the Commons Standards Committee or Statutory Public Inquiry, when the issue concerns corporate governance issues or Ministerial breaches of codes of conduct. Of course, a member of the public can go to the police and make private complaints about individual employees or MP's, but normally, corporate/government stuff is usually dealt with in-house. For example, I have whistle-blown on at least three serious cases of fraud and embezzlement; not one of them went to the police or CPS. The persons involved were quietly sacked. That is how it works in the UK.

And, as has been explained to you repeatedly, this is irrelevant. The fact that you think Sunak probably won't get caught is irrelevant. The fact that you think that even if he does get caught, he [ETA: probably] won't be punished is irrelevant. The fact that you think that even if he is punished, it will only amount to "a slap on the wrist" is irrelevant. You are still accusing him of participating in a criminal conspiracy.

Likewise, a 'Communications Director' or 'Press Officer' role is largely to do with protecting the reputation of the organisation he or she works for, not you the member of public. In effect, they are paid to put a spin on things that paints the org in a good light and to avoid negative publicity. Hence, 'crisis management' teams for when there is a product recall because there is a real terror of brand reputation damage which can seriously impact on public perception of the org, so the Comms person is wheeled out to utter the right words.

What Jay said.

 

[JayUtah]

Then if those specific features are pointed out, something else becomes what is needed and so on.

"Sunak should tell everyone what's in his blind trust."

 

[JayUtah]

Yet you keep insisting that you don't believe Sunak is guilty of a crime...
* * *
The fact that you think Sunak probably won't get caught is irrelevant.

I'm still trying to suss out the logic that says you aren't accusing someone of a crime if that's exactly what you're doing, but you think he won't be caught or you think he has a really convincing cover story.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It remains to be seen whether:

1. the report indicates the make, model, year and power trail type of the initiating vehicle
2. or refers to it in generic terms.

If the former, I will readily accept the report. If the latter, then we'll know it was a hybrid all along.

Because all vehicles referred to in generic terms are hybrids? That would make my car a hybrid. Because, you know, I haven't told you the make and model and just referred to it as "my car". Doin' my share to save the planet!

 

[Vixen]

Because all vehicles referred to in generic terms are hybrids? That would make my car a hybrid. Because, you know, I haven't told you the make and model and just referred to it as "my car". Doin' my share to save the planet!

Logical fallacy no.1: "Homer is a man; therefore, all men are Homer".

 

[gabeygoat]

Logical fallacy no.1: "Homer is a man; therefore, all men are Homer".

you came close to getting the joke.

 

[novaphile]

Logical fallacy no.1: "Homer is a man; therefore, all men are Homer".

So close, and yet, whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh!

 

[GlennB]

So, Vixen gets skewered by Reformed Offlian ... her response is to type "some old guff that looks superficially impressive, but fools nobody" in order to save face.

Sad.

 

[Craig4]

https://cesafety.co.uk/news/data-reveals-extent-of-electric-vehicle-fires-around-the-uk/

Why make a fuss about this one incident. It's not as if there aren't plenty of EV fires regularly reported in the UK already. The article quotes the chief of a fire brigade. Maybe he didn't get the memo? It's enough of an issue that this company gives a course on handling these types of vehicle fires. Seems rather odd to jump to the conclusion that there's a cover up to conceal a well known and often reported problem.

 

[JesseCuster]

Logical fallacy no.1: "Homer is a man; therefore, all men are Homer".

"The official investigation doesn't identify vehicle zero by make, model, year, registration and drivetrain; therefore vehicle zero is a hybrid."

What logical fallacy is that Vixen? Also, are you *really* this obtuse and incapable of following the meaning and flow of conversation back up a couple of posts before flaunting your ability to completely misunderstand everything?

 

[JesseCuster]

https://cesafety.co.uk/news/data-reveals-extent-of-electric-vehicle-fires-around-the-uk/

Why make a fuss about this one incident. It's not as if there aren't plenty of EV fires regularly reported in the UK already. The article quotes the chief of a fire brigade. Maybe he didn't get the memo? It's enough of an issue that this company gives a course on handling these types of vehicle fires. Seems rather odd to jump to the conclusion that there's a cover up to conceal a well known and often reported problem.

But Rishi Sunak's wife and/or father in law has shares in some company that has nothing to do with electric vehicles.... therefore... ... ...something?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Logical fallacy no.1: "Homer is a man; therefore, all men are Homer".

Modus ponens is not a fallacy.

1) If a report refers to a car in generic terms, then that car is a hybrid.
2) I reported my car in generic terms.
3) Therefore, it is a hybrid.

You might say that 1) is a strawman, but if that is not what you intended to suggest, then what is the basis for saying that if the report in question refers to the car in generic terms, then we will know it is a hybrid?

 

[Mojo]

It remains to be seen whether:

1. the report indicates the make, model, year and power trail type of the initiating vehicle
2. or refers to it in generic terms.

If the former, I will readily accept the report. If the latter, then we'll know it was a hybrid all along.

To get this straight, are you saying that if the report says that the fire started in a non-hybrid vehicle but doesn't give the make, model and year, the report's authors will be lying?

 

[erwinl]

To get this straight, are you saying that if the report says that the fire started in a non-hybrid vehicle but doesn't give the make, model and year, the report's authors will be lying?

No, because then that part will have been written by Jeremy and, while not true, therefore not a lie.
Hey look! Sunak and his wife!!!

Do try to keep up!

 

[welshdean]

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It remains to be seen whether:
the report indicates the make, model, year and power trail type of the initiating vehicle
or refers to it in generic terms.
If the former, I will readily accept the report. If the latter, then we'll know it was a hybrid all along.

Thanks for answering.
WRT the highlighted, If a reasonable person were to interpret this, in conjunction with them reading the BF&RS press release statement that 'it was a diesel ICE and not an EV, plug-in or mild-hybrid vehicle that was the cause of the fire'. Do you believe that this reasonable person could interpret your words to assume that you believe, at this point in time, that the BF&RS are lying?

This may have escaped your notice Vixen, I've reposted to remind you.

 

[gypsyjackson]

Part IV?

 

[Vixen]

This may have escaped your notice Vixen, I've reposted to remind you.

For crying out loud! A reasonable person will naturally want to understand WHY it is so IMPORTANT to insist from Day One it was a DIESEL and then pretend regular 'updates' that it is still a diesel?

Why is it so important to emphasise this one detail which caused the destruction of up to 1,500 cars and new-ish carpark.

@benscribbles
Just seen the demolition of the Luton Airport car park following the fire and was actually speechless at the level of damage.

https://x.com/benscribbles/status/1791487000429674871

It is clearly an attempt at inculcation and therefore you should ask WHY is it important that the make, model and year of the first vehicle should not be confirmed but we have to have it bashed into our brains it was a DIESEL.

Why is that bit important? Explain.

Then we discover a certain person has a whole fleet of Jaguar Land Rover vehicles because he is such a great fan and the wife's father is a close friend of...Mr. Tata who owns JLR 100% and has just been handed multiple hundreds of millions of UK tax payer monies as a subsidy...signed off by you-know-who. And the UK taxpayer has no idea where this person has his £500m portfolio invested as he claims it is all on the 'blind trust' register and thus avoids declaring stuff that ought to be transparent.


AHA!!!!



Penny drops...?!

 

[welshdean]

For crying out loud! A reasonable person will naturally want to understand WHY it is so IMPORTANT to insist from Day One it was a DIESEL and then pretend regular 'updates' that it is still a diesel?

Why is it so important to emphasise this one detail which caused the destruction of up to 1,500 cars and new-ish carpark.



https://x.com/benscribbles/status/1791487000429674871

It is clearly an attempt at inculcation and therefore you should ask WHY is it important that the make, model and year of the first vehicle should not be confirmed but we have to have it bashed into our brains it was a DIESEL.

Why is that bit important? Explain.

Then we discover a certain person has a whole fleet of Jaguar Land Rover vehicles because he is such a great fan and the wife's father is a close friend of...Mr. Tata who owns JLR 100% and has just been handed multiple hundreds of millions of UK tax payer monies as a subsidy...signed off by you-know-who. And the UK taxpayer has no idea where this person has his £500m portfolio invested as he claims it is all on the 'blind trust' register and thus avoids declaring stuff that ought to be transparent.


AHA!!!!



Penny drops...?!

Dodge noted, it's not a hard question, try again. Please keep your answer to within the confines of the question.

 

[Vixen]

Dodge noted, it's not a hard question, try again. Please keep your answer to within the confines of the question.

It is not lying, it is PR. Spin. Every day, your government gives you spin. Recognise it. Treat it with a healthy pinch of salt. When it tries to browbeat you into believing something that all your senses tells you is untrue, stop and ask yourself WHY does it want me to believe this so badly?

 

[junkshop]

For crying out loud! A reasonable person will naturally want to understand WHY it is so IMPORTANT to insist from Day One it was a DIESEL and then pretend regular 'updates' that it is still a diesel?

Why is it so important to emphasise this one detail which caused the destruction of up to 1,500 cars and new-ish carpark...

Probably because of this sort of thing:

...Whilst the police confirm the vehicle in question was a diesel car, there has been much speculation and arguing on social media that the car ‘must have been an EV or Hybrid’ as ‘only a lithium battery would explode like that’.

Someone else has identified the car from its number plates as being a diesel 2014 Land Rover sports model. The issue is that people do not believe that diesel is particularly combustible. Plus the flames seem to spread out from underneath the passenger side ‘indicating an EV battery issue’.

Some seem to believe that police are playing down the EV angle because they do not want to ruin the EV-car market.

For example:

“I can remember car parks exploding and bursting into flames long before electric vehicles were invented…NOT #LutonAirport” https://x.com/Iromg/status/1712093115148882169?s=20...[

 

[wollery]

It is not lying, it is PR. Spin. Every day, your government gives you spin. Recognise it. Treat it with a healthy pinch of salt. When it tries to browbeat you into believing something that all your senses tells you is untrue, stop and ask yourself WHY does it want me to believe this so badly?

Spin is rephrasing things in an ambiguous manner.

Saying something that you know is not true is lying.

Saying “It is definitely a diesel vehicle” when they know it isn’t a diesel vehicle is lying.

This is pretty simple stuff.

 

[junkshop]

It is not lying, it is PR. Spin. Every day, your government gives you spin. Recognise it. Treat it with a healthy pinch of salt. When it tries to browbeat you into believing something that all your senses tells you is untrue, stop and ask yourself WHY does it want me to believe this so badly?

Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service is not the government.

ETA: also, what wollery said.

 

[Craig4]

https://cesafety.co.uk/news/data-reveals-extent-of-electric-vehicle-fires-around-the-uk/

Why make a fuss about this one incident. It's not as if there aren't plenty of EV fires regularly reported in the UK already. The article quotes the chief of a fire brigade. Maybe he didn't get the memo? It's enough of an issue that this company gives a course on handling these types of vehicle fires. Seems rather odd to jump to the conclusion that there's a cover up to conceal a well known and often reported problem.

Why would this one fire brigade cover up an EV fire when other chiefs clearly have on problem talking about them?

 

[Mojo]

Then we discover a certain person has a whole fleet of Jaguar Land Rover vehicles ...

This bit of your conspiracy theory doesn't really fit with the rest. Why would someone who is hushing up dangerous characteristics of JLR vehicles want to have a whole fleet of them?

 

[Foster Zygote]

For crying out loud! A reasonable person will naturally want to understand WHY it is so IMPORTANT to insist from Day One it was a DIESEL and then pretend regular 'updates' that it is still a diesel?

Why do you lie so much? You know full well that on "Day One" it was stated that it was probably a diesel. There was no insistence that it was definitely a diesel then. I was much later when they confirmed that it was a diesel.

 

[Mojo]

Why do you lie so much? You know full well that on "Day One" it was stated that it was probably a diesel. There was no insistence that it was definitely a diesel then. I was much later when they confirmed that it was a diesel.

Perhaps Vixen is claiming that the investigation didn't start until March 21st.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It is not lying, it is PR. Spin. Every day, your government gives you spin. Recognise it. Treat it with a healthy pinch of salt. When it tries to browbeat you into believing something that all your senses tells you is untrue, stop and ask yourself WHY does it want me to believe this so badly?

Cognitive dissonance. They are either lying or telling the truth. You seem to want to call them liars, but without actually committing to that position. This seems to be because you only want to attack other's arguments, but not defend your own.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is not lying, it is PR. Spin.

No. It would be lying.

PR is emphasising the positive and glossing over the negative. Spin is putting things in a positive light. Stating false things as if they were fact is nether of those things, it is lying. You know this. We know this.

 

[Foster Zygote]

This bit of your conspiracy theory doesn't really fit with the rest. Why would someone who is hushing up dangerous characteristics of JLR vehicles want to have a whole fleet of them?

And why would someone looking to protect his Tata investments conspire to blame the fire on another Tata Motors product?

 

[whoanellie]

It is not lying, it is PR. Spin. Every day, your government gives you spin. Recognise it. Treat it with a healthy pinch of salt. When it tries to browbeat you into believing something that all your senses tells you is untrue, stop and ask yourself WHY does it want me to believe this so badly?

This is just spin on your part - and you're lying.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

WHY it is so IMPORTANT ... Why is it so important ... WHY is it important ... Why is that bit important?

As has been pointed out already, you yourself explained exactly why the fire service said what kind of fuel the car used, in your original post of part one of this interminable, futile thread: Conspiracy-minded anti-EV types falsely claimed it was an EV.

So you have always known why they said it. You told us why they needed to say it. Now you want us to think it's suspicious that they said it. No. It isn't suspicious.

 

[Dabop]

For crying out loud! A reasonable person will naturally want to understand WHY it is so IMPORTANT to insist from Day One it was a DIESEL and then pretend regular 'updates' that it is still a diesel?

Why is it so important to emphasise this one detail which caused the destruction of up to 1,500 cars and new-ish carpark.



https://x.com/benscribbles/status/1791487000429674871

It is clearly an attempt at inculcation and therefore you should ask WHY is it important that the make, model and year of the first vehicle should not be confirmed but we have to have it bashed into our brains it was a DIESEL.

Why is that bit important? Explain.

Then we discover a certain person has a whole fleet of Jaguar Land Rover vehicles because he is such a great fan and the wife's father is a close friend of...Mr. Tata who owns JLR 100% and has just been handed multiple hundreds of millions of UK tax payer monies as a subsidy...signed off by you-know-who. And the UK taxpayer has no idea where this person has his £500m portfolio invested as he claims it is all on the 'blind trust' register and thus avoids declaring stuff that ought to be transparent.


AHA!!!!



Penny drops...?!

Because a whole bunch of anti EV conspiracy nutters on the internet (not pointing any fingers here....) ran with the 'theory' it was an EV (note that the INITIAL release stated clearly that at that point in time it was 'believed' to be a diesel, subject to later confirmation...
Later we indeed get that confirmation from the Fire Service, that the initial was indeed a diesel- NOT a hybrid (homemade or not) or EV...

Of course those self same nutters that have been swamping multiple websites and social media are never happy and many are still parroting their often contradictory (and some downright convoluted) 'theories' to the fire...

I know of at least five who are determined that it 'must' be an EV fire- despite all the evidence to the contrary...

That penny should be investigated immediately- its been spinning in midair that long- it obviously has the key to antigravity!!!

 

[Mojo]

And why would someone looking to protect his Tata investments conspire to blame the fire on another Tata Motors product?

I didn't say it was the only bit that doesn't make sense.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

This bit of your conspiracy theory doesn't really fit with the rest. Why would someone who is hushing up dangerous characteristics of JLR vehicles want to have a whole fleet of them?

An abiding love of impromptu al fresco cooking? Can't beat a serving of Lithium cooked chicken breasts with asparagus beside the M1?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

And why would someone looking to protect his Tata investments conspire to blame the fire on another Tata Motors product?

Maybe he put the cover up in the worthy hands of the skilled professionals handling his general election campaign?

 

[Darat]

5 dimensional chess!

 

[SpitfireIX]

I didn't ask whether you were familiar with the case. I'd be astounded if you weren't. I asked whether you'd actually read the article to which you linked, because you don't appear to understand the context in which the two quotations you lifted from it were given.




Yet you keep insisting that you don't believe Sunak is guilty of a crime, while continuing to insinuate that he's directed those under him to cover up the "fact" that the Luton fire was started by an EV, in order to protect some speculative financial interest of his or his family's in Tata JLR. This would still be Conspiracy to commit Misconduct in Public Office, whether or not you choose to admit it. You are therefore proposing (although you sometimes hedge with weasel words) a theory that there is a conspiracy to keep the true source of the fire a secret. Therefore, you are a conspiracy theorist.




And, as has been explained to you repeatedly, this is irrelevant. The fact that you think Sunak probably won't get caught is irrelevant. The fact that you think that even if he does get caught, he [ETA: probably] won't be punished is irrelevant. The fact that you think that even if he is punished, it will only amount to "a slap on the wrist" is irrelevant. You are still accusing him of participating in a criminal conspiracy.




What Jay said.

Vixen, now that the thread's been reopened, how about responding?

 

[JesseCuster]

This bit of your conspiracy theory doesn't really fit with the rest. Why would someone who is hushing up dangerous characteristics of JLR vehicles want to have a whole fleet of them?

Also, why would owning a personal fleet of vehicles made by a certain company make someone go to the bizarre trouble of covering up a fire where a vehicle made by that company was involved?

There is no connection between fleets of personal vehicles and the Luton car park because it's ludicrous and Vixen won't and can't provide any connection, any attempt to respond to these questions will simply result in an irrelevant tangent of storytelling and make believe about something that wasn't asked.