On 27/03/2024 08:32, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 24/03/2024 07:30, Andy Burns wrote:
>> First official statement I've noticed about it ...
>>
>> <https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-started-accidentally>
>
> I've read through just about all the replies and have some questions
> which perhaps someone with a chemistry background can answer.
>
> Does anyone know what colour the original fire was? If it was a
> lithium-based fire it /might/ have had a reddish tinge to it.
>
A typical orangey red flame. Sadly there is not much difference between
that and any other organic polymers burning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-nE-w72Yrg

has some CCTV footage of lithium batteries going up. To my mind it looks
almost identical to the Luton CCTV footage

> Now for the scientific questions. If a fire is lithium-battery based,
> would it be possible to use a spectrometer to detect the specific line
> emitted by lithium at 671nm while the fire is taking place, or would
> there be too much interference from other emissions? And that leads to
> another question. If the fire is recorded, is it possible to detect the
> line at 671nm from the recording?

The lithium isn't what typically burns. And I am not sure how a typical
camera responds to spectral lines.

The most archetypal feature of a lithium battery fire is that a puncture
develops and gas under pressure (white vapour) jets out and catches
fire, much like an incendiary device. Or a blow torch.

It cannot be extinguished because the vapour is oxygen right due to
electrolyte decomposition

This is funny, or not, depending on your POV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxr1iXEf9lY

'she melting'

In this case the vapour stage was very protracted before it finally
caught fire.

Here fire happens immediately without much smoke. But its the explosive
nature of te fire when the smoke almost detonates, that spreads it so
rapidly and so fiercely

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T71cVhxG_v4

If you look at many of the you tube videos where people have lost cars,
houses and indeed, possibly an entire car park, you will realise how
'green' BEVs and hybrids really are.

I've used many many lithium batteries in model planes, and although none
of mine ever caught fire I have seen what happens when other peoples
driven harder, did. And its NOTHING like a petrol or methanol fire. Its
the explosive nature of the initial combustion and the high heat that
really marks them out.

Finally, believe this guy or not...is your choice...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZEku6lHfDM.
Note the white smoke. Not conclusive, but suggestive.

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

Jeff Layman wrote:

> we've all got spectrometers lying around at home, haven't we?

rPI with webcam, shoe-box and a diffraction grating ...

On 27/03/2024 08:32, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 24/03/2024 07:30, Andy Burns wrote:
>> First official statement I've noticed about it ...
>>
>> <https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-started-accidentally>
>
> I've read through just about all the replies and have some questions
> which perhaps someone with a chemistry background can answer.
>
> Does anyone know what colour the original fire was? If it was a
> lithium-based fire it /might/ have had a reddish tinge to it.
>
> Now for the scientific questions. If a fire is lithium-battery based,
> would it be possible to use a spectrometer to detect the specific line
> emitted by lithium at 671nm while the fire is taking place, or would
> there be too much interference from other emissions? And that leads to
> another question. If the fire is recorded, is it possible to detect the
> line at 671nm from the recording?

The cameras are broadband detectors. They wouldn't see the 671nm line in
isolation and will be swamped and obfuscated by yellow flames and other
lines in the red spectrum.

I wouldn't be surprised if the camera's (near) IR filter would be
reducing the 671nm line too.

On 27/03/2024 10:44, alan_m wrote:
> On 26/03/2024 10:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> They looked identical from outside.  Credible deniability....
>>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpCjHKrAfAg
>
It's an electric car that *identifies* as a petrol car...
--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

In article <uu1141$2qndt$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 27/03/2024 08:32, Jeff Layman wrote:
> > On 24/03/2024 07:30, Andy Burns wrote:
> >> First official statement I've noticed about it ...
> >>
> >> <https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-started-accidentally>
> >
> > I've read through just about all the replies and have some questions
> > which perhaps someone with a chemistry background can answer.
> >
> > Does anyone know what colour the original fire was? If it was a
> > lithium-based fire it /might/ have had a reddish tinge to it.
> >
> A typical orangey red flame. Sadly there is not much difference between
> that and any other organic polymers burning

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-nE-w72Yrg

> has some CCTV footage of lithium batteries going up. To my mind it looks
> almost identical to the Luton CCTV footage

> > Now for the scientific questions. If a fire is lithium-battery based,
> > would it be possible to use a spectrometer to detect the specific line
> > emitted by lithium at 671nm while the fire is taking place, or would
> > there be too much interference from other emissions? And that leads to
> > another question. If the fire is recorded, is it possible to detect the
> > line at 671nm from the recording?

> The lithium isn't what typically burns. And I am not sure how a typical
> camera responds to spectral lines.

> The most archetypal feature of a lithium battery fire is that a puncture
> develops and gas under pressure (white vapour) jets out and catches
> fire, much like an incendiary device. Or a blow torch.

> It cannot be extinguished because the vapour is oxygen right due to
> electrolyte decomposition

> This is funny, or not, depending on your POV

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxr1iXEf9lY

> 'she melting'

> In this case the vapour stage was very protracted before it finally
> caught fire.

> Here fire happens immediately without much smoke. But its the explosive
> nature of te fire when the smoke almost detonates, that spreads it so
> rapidly and so fiercely

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T71cVhxG_v4

> If you look at many of the you tube videos where people have lost cars,
> houses and indeed, possibly an entire car park, you will realise how
> 'green' BEVs and hybrids really are.

> I've used many many lithium batteries in model planes, and although none
> of mine ever caught fire I have seen what happens when other peoples
> driven harder, did. And its NOTHING like a petrol or methanol fire. Its
> the explosive nature of the initial combustion and the high heat that
> really marks them out.

> Finally, believe this guy or not...is your choice...

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZEku6lHfDM.
> Note the white smoke. Not conclusive, but suggestive.

When a lorry catches fire, the usual thought is "What was it carrying?".
Did this car have any "interesting" load in the passenger footwell? or even
on the front seat?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 3/27/2024 5:40 AM, nib wrote:
> On 2024-03-26 22:42, Paul wrote:
>> On 3/26/2024 2:16 PM, nib wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> They had the driver of the car, who was quite possibly also the owner, or would identify the owner. All of the information about the vehicle would then be on the V5 and with DVLA, and from the VIN, with the manufacturer. Why would anyone (other than amateurs!) be trying to discover what type of vehicle it was from grainy photos or ashes?
>>>
>>> nib
>>
>> I could not find any evidence that they positively
>> identified the driver. The driver has been neatly
>> hidden from view, almost as if they were in a
>> witness protection program.
>> ....
>
> ITV said a few days ago:
>
> "A man that was arrested in connection with the a fire at a £20m airport car park which wrote off up to 1,500 cars will face no further action."
>
> I assume if they arrested him that they do know who he was!
>
> https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2024-03-18/man-arrested-after-luton-airport-car-park-fire-to-face-no-further-action
>
> (True it doesn't actually say the man arrested on suspicion of criminal damage was the driver, but we can probably assume he was connected with the vehicle.)
>
> nib

If he was arrested, would there not be a public record ?
In the state diagram of life, he would be "arrested" and then "released".

If he was "apprehended", not so much.

Paul

On 3/27/2024 5:58 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Jeff Layman wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know what colour the original fire was? If it was a lithium-based fire it /might/ have had a reddish tinge to it.
>
> Judge for yourself
>
> <https://twitter.com/andysoullinux/status/1712232395049422942>
>
> With a bit of dicking about you can download the video file, and freeze frame it, squint at the numberplate too...
>
>> Now for the scientific questions. If a fire is lithium-battery based, would it be possible to use a spectrometer to detect the specific line emitted by lithium at 671nm while the fire is taking place, or would there be too much interference from other emissions?
>
> All the footage I've seen is mobile phone potato quality, hardly calibrated and un-fiddled with.
>
>> And that leads to another question. If the fire is recorded, is it possible to detect the line at 671nm from the recording?
>
> Maybe we'll be treated to some CCTV footage later?

That looks mostly like a CHN fire (wood burning, organic material burning,
something relatively energetic based on the bright flame). I don't see
an inorganic colouring there. We can pretend we're seeing sodium if we
want, but I'm not sure that is what the characteristic colour of
burning organic items comes from. The sodium visible line is a different
shade than that, so equating "any yellow" with sodium isn't good.

sodium – yellow-orange (typical ‘street lamp’ yellow)
potassium – purple-pink, traditionally referred to as ‘lilac’ (often contaminated with small amounts of sodium)
lithium – crimson red
copper – green/blue
calcium – orange-red (probably the least spectacular)
barium – apple green
strontium – crimson

Flame temperature in combustion, depends on the reaction products
needing to be heated by the flame. If there are a lot of reaction
products (from a molar perspective), then of necessity, the flame
temperature comes down. This is why it's hard to make a super-hot
flame, without researching the topic first. Just selecting
a table leg and setting it alight, is unlikely to set any
temperature records. You have to pick your fuel and oxidizer
carefully, if you expect to hit 3000 degrees.

Just as important, is guessing what that smoke or vapour is
around the car. It's not all that combustible, whatever it is,
because it didn't flash-back. It could be a coolant of some sort.

Paul

In article <uu1i48$2usgm$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:
> On 3/27/2024 5:40 AM, nib wrote:
> > On 2024-03-26 22:42, Paul wrote:
> >> On 3/26/2024 2:16 PM, nib wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> They had the driver of the car, who was quite possibly also the
> >>> owner, or would identify the owner. All of the information about the
> >>> vehicle would then be on the V5 and with DVLA, and from the VIN, with
> >>> the manufacturer. Why would anyone (other than amateurs!) be trying
> >>> to discover what type of vehicle it was from grainy photos or ashes?
> >>>
> >>> nib
> >>
> >> I could not find any evidence that they positively identified the
> >> driver. The driver has been neatly hidden from view, almost as if they
> >> were in a witness protection program. ....
> >
> > ITV said a few days ago:
> >
> > "A man that was arrested in connection with the a fire at a £20m
> > airport car park which wrote off up to 1,500 cars will face no further
> > action."
> >
> > I assume if they arrested him that they do know who he was!
> >
> > https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2024-03-18/man-arrested-after-luton-airport-car-park-fire-to-face-no-further-action
> >
> > (True it doesn't actually say the man arrested on suspicion of criminal
> > damage was the driver, but we can probably assume he was connected with
> > the vehicle.)
> >
> > nib

> If he was arrested, would there not be a public record ? In the state
> diagram of life, he would be "arrested" and then "released".

> If he was "apprehended", not so much.

> Paul

A later news page states from the Fire Service report that the fire broke
out in the engine bay and that it was a diesel engined car.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Paul wrote:

> If he was arrested, would there not be a public record ?

There would be *A* record, but not public.

> In the state diagram of life, he would be "arrested" and then "released".

Could also be "de-arrested" rather than "released"

On 3/27/2024 1:02 PM, Paul wrote:
> On 3/27/2024 5:58 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Jeff Layman wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone know what colour the original fire was? If it was a lithium-based fire it /might/ have had a reddish tinge to it.
>>
>> Judge for yourself
>>
>> <https://twitter.com/andysoullinux/status/1712232395049422942>
>>
>> With a bit of dicking about you can download the video file, and freeze frame it, squint at the numberplate too...
>>
>>> Now for the scientific questions. If a fire is lithium-battery based, would it be possible to use a spectrometer to detect the specific line emitted by lithium at 671nm while the fire is taking place, or would there be too much interference from other emissions?
>>
>> All the footage I've seen is mobile phone potato quality, hardly calibrated and un-fiddled with.
>>
>>> And that leads to another question. If the fire is recorded, is it possible to detect the line at 671nm from the recording?
>>
>> Maybe we'll be treated to some CCTV footage later?
>
> That looks mostly like a CHN fire (wood burning, organic material burning,
> something relatively energetic based on the bright flame). I don't see
> an inorganic colouring there. We can pretend we're seeing sodium if we
> want, but I'm not sure that is what the characteristic colour of
> burning organic items comes from. The sodium visible line is a different
> shade than that, so equating "any yellow" with sodium isn't good.
>
> sodium – yellow-orange (typical ‘street lamp’ yellow)
> potassium – purple-pink, traditionally referred to as ‘lilac’ (often contaminated with small amounts of sodium)
> lithium – crimson red
> copper – green/blue
> calcium – orange-red (probably the least spectacular)
> barium – apple green
> strontium – crimson
>
> Flame temperature in combustion, depends on the reaction products
> needing to be heated by the flame. If there are a lot of reaction
> products (from a molar perspective), then of necessity, the flame
> temperature comes down. This is why it's hard to make a super-hot
> flame, without researching the topic first. Just selecting
> a table leg and setting it alight, is unlikely to set any
> temperature records. You have to pick your fuel and oxidizer
> carefully, if you expect to hit 3000 degrees.
>
> Just as important, is guessing what that smoke or vapour is
> around the car. It's not all that combustible, whatever it is,
> because it didn't flash-back. It could be a coolant of some sort.
>

OK, this source is a bit better.

The colour is a match for Carbon.
Or a match for Iron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_test

Common elements

Some common elements and their corresponding colors are: <series of pictures>

Paul

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 19:32:55 +1100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

> On 24/03/2024 07:30, Andy Burns wrote:
>> First official statement I've noticed about it ...
>>
>> <https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-started-accidentally>
>
> I've read through just about all the replies and have some questions
> which perhaps someone with a chemistry background can answer.
>
> Does anyone know what colour the original fire was? If it was a
> lithium-based fire it /might/ have had a reddish tinge to it.
>
> Now for the scientific questions. If a fire is lithium-battery based,
> would it be possible to use a spectrometer to detect the specificline
> emitted by lithium at 671nm while the fire is taking place,

Yes, but not later with a video of the fire.

> or would there be too much interference from other emissions?

No. That's the whole point of a spectrophotometer.
to separate the different emissions.

But its much easier to examine the remains and
see if there are any remains of the batterys. They
don't evaporate completely. Even diesel doesnt.

> And that leads to another question. If the fire is recorded, is it
> possible to detect the line at 671nm from the recording?

Nope.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 20:40:41 +1100, nib <news@caffnib.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2024-03-26 22:42, Paul wrote:
>> On 3/26/2024 2:16 PM, nib wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> They had the driver of the car, who was quite possibly also the owner,
>>> or would identify the owner. All of the information about the vehicle
>>> would then be on the V5 and with DVLA, and from the VIN, with the
>>> manufacturer. Why would anyone (other than amateurs!) be trying to
>>> discover what type of vehicle it was from grainy photos or ashes?
>>>
>>> nib
>> I could not find any evidence that they positively
>> identified the driver. The driver has been neatly
>> hidden from view, almost as if they were in a
>> witness protection program.
>> ....
>
> ITV said a few days ago:
>
> "A man that was arrested in connection with the a fire at a £20m airport
> car park which wrote off up to 1,500 cars will face no further action."
>
> I assume if they arrested him that they do know who he was!

But they didn't necessarily arrest someone
who had anything to do with the fire.

> https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2024-03-18/man-arrested-after-luton-airport-car-park-fire-to-face-no-further-action
>
> (True it doesn't actually say the man arrested on suspicion of criminal
> damage was the driver, but we can probably assume he was connected with
> the vehicle.)

You can't assume that.Its also possible he
had nothing to do with the vehicle at all.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 22:35:25 +1100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

> On 27/03/2024 09:31, nib wrote:
>> On 2024-03-27 09:11, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 27 Mar 2024 at 08:32:55 GMT, "Jeff Layman" <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24/03/2024 07:30, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>> First official statement I've noticed about it ...
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-started-accidentally>
>>>>
>>>> I've read through just about all the replies and have some questions
>>>> which perhaps someone with a chemistry background can answer.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know what colour the original fire was? If it was a
>>>> lithium-based fire it /might/ have had a reddish tinge to it.
>>>>
>>>> Now for the scientific questions. If a fire is lithium-battery based,
>>>> would it be possible to use a spectrometer to detect the specific line
>>>> emitted by lithium at 671nm while the fire is taking place, or would
>>>> there be too much interference from other emissions? And that leads to
>>>> another question. If the fire is recorded, is it possible to detect
>>>> the
>>>> line at 671nm from the recording?
>>>
>>> You could have done it at the time of the fire, but it's unlikely that
>>> any
>>> recording would contain enough spectral info to do it.
>>>
>> Especially as the recording will have the colour encoded as three
>> discrete fixed colour channels not as the original wavelength!

> That might well be true of white and yellow light, but would a red
> sensor be of sufficiently narrow spectral range, and any red led used to
> generate a visual output from that sensor also be of sufficiently narrow
> spectral range that anyone using a spectrometer on the red led's light
> be able to say that the "red" was possibly, or even probably, due to
> lithium?

Nope.

> I very much doubt it, but just wondered if anyone had actually tried it
> (well, we've all got spectrometers lying around at home, haven't we?).

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 03:39:34 +1100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/27/2024 5:40 AM, nib wrote:
>> On 2024-03-26 22:42, Paul wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2024 2:16 PM, nib wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> They had the driver of the car, who was quite possibly also the
>>>> owner, or would identify the owner. All of the information about the
>>>> vehicle would then be on the V5 and with DVLA, and from the VIN, with
>>>> the manufacturer. Why would anyone (other than amateurs!) be trying
>>>> to discover what type of vehicle it was from grainy photos or ashes?
>>>>
>>>> nib
>>>
>>> I could not find any evidence that they positively
>>> identified the driver. The driver has been neatly
>>> hidden from view, almost as if they were in a
>>> witness protection program.
>>> ....
>>
>> ITV said a few days ago:
>>
>> "A man that was arrested in connection with the a fire at a £20m
>> airport car park which wrote off up to 1,500 cars will face no further
>> action."
>>
>> I assume if they arrested him that they do know who he was!
>>
>> https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2024-03-18/man-arrested-after-luton-airport-car-park-fire-to-face-no-further-action
>>
>> (True it doesn't actually say the man arrested on suspicion of criminal
>> damage was the driver, but we can probably assume he was connected with
>> the vehicle.)

> If he was arrested, would there not be a public record ?

A record, but not necessarily one available to the public.

> In the state diagram of life, he would be "arrested" and then "released".

> If he was "apprehended", not so much.

On 27 Mar 2024 at 11:49:20 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> The lithium isn't what typically burns. And I am not sure how a typical
> camera responds to spectral lines.

Well, think about it a bit. A camera has three sensors, for R, G, and B (for
each pixel, that is). The more the sensors match the eye's colour response,
the more natural (to us) the image will look in colour terms. The red sensor
isn't just gpoing to be sensitive to a single spectral line, but to red over a
broad range. So in fact any spectral informtion will be lost.

--
Bessie Braddock: "Winston, you are drunk!"
Churchill: "And you, madam, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning."

On 27 Mar 2024 at 16:39:34 GMT, "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/27/2024 5:40 AM, nib wrote:
>> On 2024-03-26 22:42, Paul wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2024 2:16 PM, nib wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> They had the driver of the car, who was quite possibly also the owner, or
>>>> would identify the owner. All of the information about the vehicle would
>>>> then be on the V5 and with DVLA, and from the VIN, with the manufacturer.
>>>> Why would anyone (other than amateurs!) be trying to discover what type of
>>>> vehicle it was from grainy photos or ashes?
>>>>
>>>> nib
>>>
>>> I could not find any evidence that they positively
>>> identified the driver. The driver has been neatly
>>> hidden from view, almost as if they were in a
>>> witness protection program.
>>> ....
>>
>> ITV said a few days ago:
>>
>> "A man that was arrested in connection with the a fire at a £20m airport car
>> park which wrote off up to 1,500 cars will face no further action."
>>
>> I assume if they arrested him that they do know who he was!
>>
>> https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2024-03-18/man-arrested-after-luton-airport-car-park-fire-to-face-no-further-action
>>
>> (True it doesn't actually say the man arrested on suspicion of criminal
>> damage was the driver, but we can probably assume he was connected with the
>> vehicle.)
>
> If he was arrested, would there not be a public record ?
> In the state diagram of life, he would be "arrested" and then "released".
>
> If he was "apprehended", not so much.

He'd need to be charged, I would think, before being publicly identified.

--
What power have you got?
Where did you get it from?
In whose interests do you use it?
To whom are you accountable?
How do we get rid of you?

Tony Benn

On Wed, 27 Mar 24 10:00:03 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>In article <dar60jt9f45o6maiv5koaume51i6lv8omq@4ax.com>, Cursitor Doom
><cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:13:03 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >On 26/03/2024 18:56, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:03:43 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:32:01 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> We were also told by the authorities that there were no muslim
>> >>>>>> gang rape and girl grooming gangs, that Jimmy Savile was a great
>> >>>>>> guy, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> When/where did "the authorities" (whoever they are) say that "Jimmy
>> >>>>> Savile was a great guy"?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Great guy" or "National treasure" - it's the same fucking thing.
>> >>>> The BBC has a habit of describing all their half-baked "talents" as
>> >>>> 'great guys' and 'national treasures' before they get outed as
>> >>>> anything but. John Peel was another one. Google the cunt why don't
>> >>>> you? And while you're at it, Google Eric Gill, who's sculpture of a
>> >>>> man fucking a boy is still in place about Broadcasting House despite
>> >>>> many a principled man's attempts to have it removed and destroyed.
>> >>>
>> >>> Since when has the BBC been "the authorities"? I'd assumed you meant
>> >>> some part of the government by that.
>> >>
>> >> The BBC is an authority in its own right - and a wholly unaccountable
>> >> one at that.
>> >
>> >So not like GB News, they're not accountable to anyone, like OFCOM?
>
>> GBN are constantly criticized by OFCOM, unlike the wonderful BBC. The BBC
>> can say what the hell they please, it's clear.
>
>The BBC are subjecct to OFCOM rules.

Yes, so they can say what the hell they like, because they're two
cheeks of the same arse.

>> >
>> >Did GB News say it was an EV that created the fire? Or is that just what
>> > the oil companies want us to believe?
>
>
>
>> Nothing to do with GBN or the oil companies. I'm suspicious because the
>> very first reports - within hours - from the BBC et al went out of their
>> way to state unequivocally that an EV was not involved. And that was
>> before they even knew the make and model of the vehicle! It's got
>> 'cover-up' written all over it IMV.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 11:05:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 27/03/2024 10:00, charles wrote:
>
>>> GBN are constantly criticized by OFCOM, unlike the wonderful BBC. The BBC
>>> can say what the hell they please, it's clear.
>>
>> The BBC are subjecct to OFCOM rules.
>
>But they are seldom applied.

They don't need to be, because the rules were written by cunts with
the same world-view as the BBC. Ergo no conflict.