Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[JayUtah]

If it is legal, it is not corrupt.

How is your scenario legal?

You claim there is a press embargo justified and ordered by politicians' personal financial interest. That would be corrupt, if true. Explain how it would be a lawful exercise of official authority.

 

[Vixen]

Is this some type of performance art?


May I suggest that every time you think about using a well known phrase, you ask about it in chatgpt, as I suspect a large language model might have more insight and possibly genuine understanding.

You've never heard of 'gilding the lily' (gild = to make golden)? It is a common phrase oft used in the legal profession to mean over-egging the pudding, or embellishment to make something sound better.

 

[JayUtah]

It is a common phrase oft used in the legal profession...

Give examples from published legal writings.

...to mean over-egging the pudding, or embellishment to make something sound better.

No. It specifically differs from your misconception by the act of embellishing something that patently does not need it.

 

[Vixen]

I see your usual attention to detail.

John Ray recorded the saying "much and money go together" in his publication, A Collection of English Proverbs (1678).


(The full, rather cumbersome, title being: A collection of English proverbs digested into a convenient method for the speedy finding any one upon occasion : with short annotations : whereunto are added local proverbs with their explications, old proverbial rhythmes, less known or exotick proverbial sentences, and Scottish proverbs.)


And do, please, enlighten us as to what exactly your sense is, you have yet to make it clear what you think the saying means.

Oxford English cites the first written recorded use. It doesn't mean it was the first ever. To me it is immediately obvious what 'muck and brass goes together' means. I had no idea others find it baffling or think it means 'work hard and you can have brass'.

 

[JayUtah]

Oxford English cites the first written recorded use. It doesn't mean it was the first ever.

Then provide the citation to an older source that you are using to support your Vixensplaining.

To me it is immediately obvious what 'muck and brass goes together' means. I had no idea others find it baffling or think it means 'work hard and you can have brass'.

And we can add that to the growing pile of usages entirely particular to you and allegedly (but undocumentedly) to your little Humpty Dumpty corner of the world. Vixen is never wrong. Vixen can never be wrong. Vixen is ever only the victim of others' lack of breeding and erudition.

 

[Vixen]

So you agree with their statement that the car was a diesel and not an EV or hybrid of any sort?

What is the point in repeating the same sentence over and over again?

"Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking." ~ Steve Jobs.

 

[JayUtah]

What is the point in repeating the same sentence over and over again?

In your case, to get you to reconcile your apparently contradictory claims regarding it. You lament that others don't seem to be able to debate properly. Now's your chance to show us how it's done instead of running whining from every obligation to correct the obvious flaws in your argument.

 

[Vixen]

Why do you think coins haven't been available for the 'common people'?

What do we use?

In feudal times, people paid tithes by way of their produce, for example, a barrel of wheat, fish or as was common in Sweden a barrel of tar to help the king with his war ships.

 

[Vixen]

And Shakespeare said that so it must be true!

No, it was Rev Jonathan Swift.

 

[zooterkin]

Oxford English cites the first written recorded use. It doesn't mean it was the first ever.

Are you arguing with voices in your head? I made no such suggestion.

To me it is immediately obvious what 'muck and brass goes together' means.

And that is what, please?

 

[junkshop]

Does Vixen think that in the 17th century, the common people in England didn't have access to coins?

Why am I even asking, it's another bizarre derailment here Vixen makes a pig's ear out of understanding the simplest of things...

In feudal times, people paid tithes by way of their produce, for example, a barrel of wheat, fish or as was common in Sweden a barrel of tar to help the king with his war ships.

What's a couple of centuries between friends, heh?

 

[zooterkin]

No, it was Rev Jonathan Swift.

That said what?

 

[Vixen]

You are claiming that there's a conspiracy to hush up the cause of a major fire in order to protect the private investments of a senior politician. That's corrupt.

Incorrect. The Prime Minister has the power to issue an embargo on anything he likes. Hence we never got to see the Russia Report or the Bullying Report. Likewise, Parliament allows the Monarch complete secrecy in many areas in which the rest of the population are not. If the PM decides it is against national interests to name the make, model and type of vehicle involved in a serious incident then that is what is adhered to all the way down the chain, including the national press. Sunak has the power to and as it is not illegal, it is not corrupt. There is nothing conspiratorial about it. I wonder if people understand what conspiracy theory means.

 

[smartcooky]

Oh, and as for exact vehicle, we have not been told and I note the King's Dock report does not specify the vehicle either, even though it is commonly held to have been a Range Rover and the Liverpool Mayor is quoted in LIVERPOOL ECHO as saying it had been subjected to a 'fuel modification'.

Well that is not uncommon for a diesel. My Nissan X-Trail has has just such a 'fuel modification'. I replaced the stock injectors with PEC types, because they are more fuel efficient.

Sunak was Chancellor at the time, so join up the dots, although that is subject to speculation, obvs.

A phrase straight out of the Book of Conspiracy Theory Terminology.

 

[catsmate]

Incorrect. The Prime Minister has the power to issue an embargo on anything he likes. Hence we never got to see the Russia Report or the Bullying Report. Likewise, Parliament allows the Monarch complete secrecy in many areas in which the rest of the population are not. If the PM decides it is against national interests to name the make, model and type of vehicle involved in a serious incident then that is what is adhered to all the way down the chain, including the national press. Sunak has the power to and as it is not illegal, it is not corrupt. There is nothing conspiratorial about it. I wonder if people understand what conspiracy theory means.

More bollocks.

 

[JayUtah]

If the PM decides it is against national interests to name the make, model and type of vehicle involved in a serious incident then that is what is adhered to all the way down the chain, including the national press.

You're claiming it's not in the national interest, but in his personal interest. You haven't shown that not naming the make, model, and owner of the car is the result of any embargo.

I wonder if people understand what conspiracy theory means.

Pray enlighten us.

 

[theprestige]

Incorrect. The Prime Minister has the power to issue an embargo on anything he likes. Hence we never got to see the Russia Report or the Bullying Report. Likewise, Parliament allows the Monarch complete secrecy in many areas in which the rest of the population are not. If the PM decides it is against national interests to name the make, model and type of vehicle involved in a serious incident then that is what is adhered to all the way down the chain, including the national press. Sunak has the power to and as it is not illegal, it is not corrupt. There is nothing conspiratorial about it. I wonder if people understand what conspiracy theory means.

Cool story now show us the embargo order.

 

[Mojo]

Incorrect. The Prime Minister has the power to issue an embargo on anything he likes. Hence we never got to see the Russia Report or the Bullying Report. Likewise, Parliament allows the Monarch complete secrecy in many areas in which the rest of the population are not. If the PM decides it is against national interests to name the make, model and type of vehicle involved in a serious incident then that is what is adhered to all the way down the chain, including the national press. Sunak has the power to and as it is not illegal, it is not corrupt.

It is if, as you have repeatedly claimed, it is done to protect the PM's, and his wife's, personal investments. You are alleging corruption, and your misquotation, "where there's brass there's muck" followed by an exhortation to "follow the money" was a clear attempt to imply that there is corruption involved.

 

[Vixen]

How is your scenario legal?

You claim there is a press embargo justified and ordered by politicians' personal financial interest. That would be corrupt, if true. Explain how it would be a lawful exercise of official authority.

Mr. Sunak has done everything by the book. If he is allowed to make his business interests blind then he is not committing any wrongdoing in doing so.

Mr. Sunak's wife is not governed by the same ministerial rules as he is so she is allowed to make huge profits out of Infosys and other business interests as a direct result of her husband's own policies put through Parliament.

What is needed is a good investigative journalist to bring all of this out and find out what the issue is with JLR vehicles and the connection with the two car park fires. Likewise, the fire at Bristol and the one at Gatwick North Terminal - said to be 'accidental ignitions' and rumoured to be EV-caused fires, yet never revealed to the public.

 

[zooterkin]

What's a couple of centuries between friends, heh?

Even then, she's still wrong; while there was some bartering, coins were still in circulation amongst the whole population in feudal times. https://castellogy.com/history/medieval-money