Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

Status
Not open for further replies.

EHocking

Penultimate Amazing
EHocking
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
10,485
Location
Nowhere, man.
Vixen said:
No 'class bigotry'.
Click to expand...
Of course it was class bigotry. You’ve already stated you have “no love for the working classes” and your claim that because Luton airport services so many budget airlines, that poses a security risk, certainly implies the cause is all those working class low-lifes
It should have been apparent and my apologies if it was not, that the reference to the 'working class' was shorthand for the UKIP-voting, anti-EV, anti-ULEZ, anti-boats Brexit flag-waving mob, usually associated with this type of issue (EV fires).
Click to expand...
HOW are the working class “usually associated” with EV fires?!?
Even if you wish to mistakenly redescribe “working class” as “right wing nut jobs” HOW are they “usually associate” with EV fires.?
That should have been clear from the context. It should not be necessary to have to quote AJP Taylor, EP Thompson, Marx Engels, Hegel or Gramsci to fully agree that the working classes are the salt of the earth. The people who put food on your table, clothes on your back, build your houses and cars, serve you in shops, deliver your babies, install and fix your plumbing; in fact do almost all of the productive work.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no classism here at all.
Still the question, why are the budget-airline-flying, working class usually associated with EV fires?


 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm working class and proud of it.

I have never once contemplated voting for UKIP, I am not anti EV, ULEZ or boats. I have never to the best of my memory ever waved a flag unless it was to send a semaphore message.
 
EHocking said:
Of course it was class bigotry. You’ve already stated you have “no love for the working classes” and your claim that because <snipped disallowed topic> certainly implies the cause is all those working class low-lifesHOW are the working class “usually associated” with EV fires?!?
Even if you wish to mistakenly redescribe “working class” as “right wing nut jobs” HOW are they “usually associate” with EV fires.?
Yeah, no classism here at all.
Still the question, why are the <snip ditto>, working class usually associated with EV fires?
Click to expand...


Stop desperately trying to twist my words.
 
Vixen said:
Stop desperately trying to twist my words.
Click to expand...

Please tell us how properly to interpret your words then :—
Vixen said:
It should have been apparent and my apologies if it was not, that the reference to the 'working class' was shorthand for the UKIP-voting, anti-EV, anti-ULEZ, anti-boats Brexit flag-waving mob, usually associated with this type of issue (EV fires).
Click to expand...
How specifically is this group "associated with...EV fires" and what objective, verifiable evidence can you offer in support of that?
 
JayUtah said:
Please tell us how properly to interpret your words then :—
​
How specifically is this group "associated with...EV fires" and what objective, verifiable evidence can you offer in support of that?
Click to expand...

Read my original post explaining why I believe information is being withheld. Sunak himself said he had no working class friends. The whole ethos of the press releases seems to be 'it wasn't an EV and that's all you (the public) need to know'. It is well known that the anti-EV stereotype is of a reactionary SUN reading ignoramus who hates Khan and ULEZ. Sunak OTOH is not known for being transparent about his very lucrative financial affairs. So yes, there is almost certainly something in it for him and his wife to protect the JLR brand IMV. As a UK taxpayer this attitude annoys me.
 
Vixen said:
Read my original post explaining why I believe information is being withheld.
Click to expand...

I did. No objective, verifiable evidence.

The whole ethos of the press releases seems to be 'it wasn't an EV and that's all you (the public) need to know'.
Click to expand...

Because you say so?

It is well known that the anti-EV stereotype is of a reactionary SUN reading ignoramus who hates Khan and ULEZ.
Click to expand...

Because you say so?

Sunak OTOH is not known for being transparent about his very lucrative financial affairs.
Click to expand...

Because you say so?

So yes, there is almost certainly something in it for him and his wife to protect the JLR brand IMV.
Click to expand...

Because you say so?

I asked for objective, verifiable evidence and you gave me...

...a conspiracy theory.
 
Vixen said:
Read my original post explaining why I believe information is being withheld. Sunak himself said he had no working class friends. The whole ethos of the press releases seems to be 'it wasn't an EV and that's all you (the public) need to know'. It is well known that the anti-EV stereotype is of a reactionary SUN reading ignoramus who hates Khan and ULEZ. Sunak OTOH is not known for being transparent about his very lucrative financial affairs. So yes, there is almost certainly something in it for him and his wife to protect the JLR brand IMV. As a UK taxpayer this attitude annoys me.
Click to expand...

This is why this thread belongs in the CT forum. You have no factual evidence, just a lot of innuendo.
 
Foster Zygote said:
This is why this thread belongs in the CT forum. You have no factual evidence, just a lot of innuendo.
Click to expand...


Not to mention the absurd notion (if Vixen's CT is to work) of Sunak or his people somehow acting in cahoots with Beds Fire & Rescue Service to deliberately hush up the "true" cause of the fire and the precise make/model of "car zero".

We are, in other words, being invited to believe that Sunak (or his people) contacted Beds Fire & Rescue service immediately upon hearing early reports that 1) car zero was an EV, and/or 2) car zero was a Land Rover/Range Rover vehicle....... and telling BF&RS something like: "Look, Sunak has economic interests at stake here. He and his wife stand to lose money if the make/model of car zero becomes publicly known, and also if EVs were a prominent cause of the fire. Therefore we are instructing you to actively suppress any such details, and you will obey those instructions".

:rolleyes: *Dons tin foil helmet and hides under the stairs*
 
LondonJohn said:
Not to mention the absurd notion (if Vixen's CT is to work) of Sunak or his people somehow acting in cahoots with Beds Fire & Rescue Service to deliberately hush up the "true" cause of the fire and the precise make/model of "car zero".

We are, in other words, being invited to believe that Sunak (or his people) contacted Beds Fire & Rescue service immediately upon hearing early reports that 1) car zero was an EV, and/or 2) car zero was a Land Rover/Range Rover vehicle....... and telling BF&RS something like: "Look, Sunak has economic interests at stake here. He and his wife stand to lose money if the make/model of car zero becomes publicly known, and also if EVs were a prominent cause of the fire. Therefore we are instructing you to actively suppress any such details, and you will obey those instructions".

:rolleyes: *Dons tin foil helmet and hides under the stairs*
Click to expand...


You forgot the part about how they were all told that they'll be killed by the SAS if they don't cooperate.
 
JayUtah said:
I did. No objective, verifiable evidence.



Because you say so?



Because you say so?



Because you say so?



Because you say so?

I asked for objective, verifiable evidence and you gave me...

...a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

Stop changing the context. I was explaining why this wasn't just another case of keeping the usual suspects in their place by ignoring them. As an American equivalent perhaps the standard caricature of MAGA rednecks. The cavalier attitude of the current UK government is what I was addressing.
 
LondonJohn said:
Not to mention the absurd notion (if Vixen's CT is to work) of Sunak or his people somehow acting in cahoots with Beds Fire & Rescue Service to deliberately hush up the "true" cause of the fire and the precise make/model of "car zero".

We are, in other words, being invited to believe that Sunak (or his people) contacted Beds Fire & Rescue service immediately upon hearing early reports that 1) car zero was an EV, and/or 2) car zero was a Land Rover/Range Rover vehicle....... and telling BF&RS something like: "Look, Sunak has economic interests at stake here. He and his wife stand to lose money if the make/model of car zero becomes publicly known, and also if EVs were a prominent cause of the fire. Therefore we are instructing you to actively suppress any such details, and you will obey those instructions".

:rolleyes: *Dons tin foil helmet and hides under the stairs*
Click to expand...

What do you mean 'acting in cahoots' - the government embargoes all sorts of things. For example, the Russia Report, the Bullying Report, where BoJo really went on holiday in Scotland, the list is endless.

Definitely the rationale will be 'protecting UK business interests in Tata JLR battery and EV factories.

As evidence, show me the news report about the Gatwick Airport north terminal fire.
 
Vixen said:
What do you mean 'acting in cahoots' - the government embargoes all sorts of things. For example, the Russia Report, the Bullying Report, where BoJo really went on holiday in Scotland, the list is endless.

Definitely the rationale will be 'protecting UK business interests in Tata JLR battery and EV factories.

As evidence, show me the news report about the Gatwick Airport north terminal fire.
Click to expand...


Not sure what you imagine it's evidence of, but here you go: https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/gatwick-airport-car-park-fire-28813286.amp

The fire at the long-stay car park has now been put out, a spokesperson from Gatwick said.

The spokesperson told Express.co.uk that no one was hurt and the car park is still working.

They explained: "Fire services from Gatwick and West Sussex dealt with a vehicle fire in the North Terminal long stay car park overnight. The fire was extinguished and there were no injuries. The car park is still open for passengers. This is not being treated as suspicious.
Click to expand...
 
Foster Zygote said:
This is why this thread belongs in the CT forum. You have no factual evidence, just a lot of innuendo.
Click to expand...

You said, 9 April post #2691

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Citation please of where it was confirmed it was a Land Rover Discovery.
Sorry, I meant to type 'Evoque'. And like I said, we know this from the first photo, because that's what a Land Rover Evoque looks like. When the final report comes out this summer, it's virtually certain to to say the car was a Land Rover Evoque.

Now will you please answer my question? Why should anyone mark your words given how frequently you are wrong?


Catsmate avers that it has definitely been confirmed as a 2014 Range Rover Sport. You say it is an Evoque. But neither of you can provide a citation for your claim.

Which one of you is right?
 
Vixen said:
Where is the important detail of what car caused the fire and how many adjoining cars were destroyed?
Click to expand...


Are you claiming that a fire that was controlled and extinguished started in a diesel car, and this is being hushed up, or that a fire that was controlled and extinguished started in an EV, and this is being hushed up?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Catsmate avers that it has definitely been confirmed as a 2014 Range Rover Sport. You say it is an Evoque. But neither of you can provide a citation for your claim.

Which one of you is right?
Click to expand...
Can you provide any evidence whatsoever for you constant insinuation that the car where the fire started was not a diesel car?
 
Vixen said:
... The whole ethos of the press releases seems to be 'it wasn't an EV and that's all you (the public) need to know'.
Click to expand...

It looked to me a lot more like "it wasn't an EV, which is what the public seem to demand to know".

So maybe their note of condescension is entirely in your head.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom