Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Jack by the hedge]

I am relieved it's an older version. ISTM instead of understanding nuance, the latest just seems to be a direct translation into modern English with little understanding of what the original author was eloquently conveying.

How does your old copy help you understand the nuance of phrases it doesn't contain?

 

[JayUtah]

So you meant a blind trust, which has been declared on the register of members interests. Which nobody in the world calls a blind register because that would imply it was itself some kind of register.

One of the hallmarks of genuine expertise is the habitual, second-nature use of proper terminology. You can't spend much time in an industry that uses a specialized vocabulary without that vocabulary becoming second-nature and therefore a habitual part of one's speech both in and out of the industry.

Conversely, one of the hallmarks of pretended expertise—and especially of conspiracy theorists—is the misuse of standardized terms and the invention of new names for concepts, techniques, and instances of things for which standardized names already exist. This is what Vixen has done several times in this thread. It is evidence that she does not have the expertise she claims. Vixen has suggested that the expertise is relevant in her ability to ferret out nefarious schemes in the intersection of finance and government, which is a central theme in her conspiracy theory.

The evidence indicates that Vixen is not qualified as an expert in financial matters as they regard government officials, and that conclusions and judgments made solely upon her personal authority do not have evidentiary value.

 

[Vixen]

As you may be aware, she probably means "tax shelter."

@Vixen: In addition to the above, this is at least the second time you've referred to blind trusts (or blind management arrangements) as "blind registers" and claimed that their purpose is to allow politicians to hide their investments from the public, after you've been repeatedly corrected on both points. Is it really surprising that people would question whether you're actually a competent accountant, as you claim?

Further, here's something that I found when I was looking up the UK Ministerial Code. This report was published when Sunak was Chancellor. From the Cabinet Office, 27 April 2022:

Advice from the Independent Adviser on Ministers' Interests about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's outside interests

1. I have been asked by the Prime Minister [Boris Johnson] to advise on the Chancellor’s adherence to the requirements of the Ministerial Code in respect of his declarations of interest. While I have hitherto been satisfied with the Chancellor’s adherence to the requirements of the Ministerial Code, I have approached this exercise with an open mind and reviewed the material held by the office of Independent Adviser as well as requesting further information from HM [Her Majesty's] Treasury and the Chancellor. . . .

The blind management arrangement

13. Blind management arrangements are longstanding mechanisms for protecting ministers in the handling of their interests. They ensure Ministers are not involved in decisions on the management, acquisition or disposal of items in the arrangement and do not have live knowledge of the contents of such arrangements. The Chancellor has confirmed that he does not have live knowledge of the contents of the arrangement nor influence or control over the management of his investment. I am therefore satisfied that the existence of such an arrangement does not give rise to a conflict of interest. The Chancellor’s actions cannot be said to be coloured with any knowledge of the impact that it might have on his personal interests and ministerial office does not preclude holding of financial or other assets per se. This arrangement therefore represents the ‘alternative steps’ as set out in paragraph 7.7 of the Ministerial Code. . . .

Infosys Shareholding

24. I have also considered Ms Murty’s existing shareholding in Infosys Limited, an Indian multinational information technology company of which Ms Murty’s father was a founder. I am satisfied that this shareholding has been properly declared.

25. Whilst Infosys Limited has contracted with certain organisations in the wider UK public sector, they have not contracted with HM Treasury during the time that the Chancellor has held ministerial office in the department. No conflict of interest, real or perceived, has therefore arisen between this interest, held by Ms Murty, and the Chancellor’s public duties as a Minister of the Crown. In these circumstances, and taking into account Ms Murty’s rights to privacy, it has not been considered necessary for this interest to be specifically published in the respective Lists of Ministerial Interests.

Conclusions

26. I advise that the requirements of the Ministerial Code have been adhered to by the Chancellor, and that he has been assiduous in meeting his obligations and in engaging with this investigation.​

So please explain to us again, Vixen, exactly how Sunak knows that he has shares in Tata JLR, and that he can just give Infosys a big government contract whenever he feels like it.

I didn't say Sunak did have shares in Tata. I simply pointed out his family's close connections to Tata.

As for his blind interests, we rely solely on Sunak's word ('honour') that he has no idea what the steward of his company is investing in. There is no supervision. Just an assurance it is blind.

But in the past, Sunak never declared anything until he was forced to,

Daniel Beizsley of the financial transparency campaign group Spotlight on Corruption said: “The issue as I see it with Sunak is that unless the trustee was given specific instructions to diversify the portfolio, then Sunak is fully aware of its contents. It’s difficult to see how this could absolve him of conflict of interest claims. Additionally, by placing assets into the blind trust arrangement, the public’s ability to judge potential conflicts is reduced as his ministerial declaration is now empty.”

GUARDIAN

 

[Vixen]

Vixen shows that as usual she has no idea about modern commonrail diesels...
They have an electric fuel pump in or near the fuel tank, which sends diesel through a high pressure fuel line from the back (tank) to the front (engine)- should this line be punctured for any reason it will sent a spray of atomised diesel shooting out- which is VERY easy to ignite and you get an instant 'flamethrower' of fire coming from the leak indeed there are some very impressive diesel flamethrowers available for sale... eg big-boy-flamethrower - available in the US, perfect for 'home defence' lol)
So a punctured fuel line (which runs right under the seats btw underneath the vehicle) explains the 'jet of flame' from a diesel car quite readily - far more so than this convoluted conspiracy theory of 'disguised EVs' and multiple coverups
A small pinhole leak would explain it readily...
[qimg]https://i.postimg.cc/9QHRDX3h/Screenshot-from-2024-05-09-13-32-59.png[/qimg]

I did know that but always useful to have a recap, thanks.

 

[Mojo]

I doubt anyone is covering it up.

Your entire premise for this thread has been that someone is covering something up, although you're not entirely consistent regarding who or what.

This is what you posted as evidence of a conspiracy:

Evidence is:

• lack of sprinklers, as recommended in the Merseyside Fire Brigade report into Liverpoool King's Dock Fire 2018
• The use of aluminium drainage pipes to disperse leaked petrochemicals, ditto.

In addition, NFPA mandated in Nov 2022 it be compulsory to have a sprinkler system in parking garages.

None of this was in place at Luton, and as confirmed by Andrew Hopkinson.

This equates to negligence, possibly even gross negligence, given it was an airport, which requires extra sensitivity to public safety and security issues.

 

[Mojo]

I did know that...

Were you pretending you didn't?

 

[Vixen]

Parliament's Register of Interests https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords...ssioner-for-standards/registers-of-interests/ is for "any interest which someone might reasonably consider to influence their actions or words as an MP." How are Members (including the Cabinet), supposed to register an interest to something to which they have been properly blinded?

The point being made that the higher the office, the greater the need to show transparency. Sunak is the first Prime Minister to declare his interests as blind. Not even Boris Johnson or David Cameron did that whilst PM, even though we all know both ministers took the proverbial (cf, wallpapergate, donorgate, Greensill).

 

[JayUtah]

I didn't say Sunak did have shares in Tata. I simply pointed out his family's close connections to Tata.

Your conspiracy theory relies on Sunak having shares so that the conduct you accuse him of in your conspiracy theory would have the motive of enriching him. If you do not have evidence for such a motive, there is no obligation to suppose one.

As for his blind interests, we rely solely on Sunak's word ('honour') that he has no idea what the steward of his company is investing in. There is no supervision. Just an assurance it is blind.

You have not reconciled your misunderstanding between what a blind trust is and what is required in a register of interest. If the trust is blind, then the Member cannot register interests that are unknown to him. Please either correct or withdraw your argument.

But in the past, Sunak never declared anything until he was forced to,

GUARDIAN

This article is based largely on speculation regarding how Sunak created the trust. It provides no evidence that he is operating under a conflict of interest of any kind, much less the specific one you allege.

 

[Mojo]

I am relieved it's an older version. ISTM instead of understanding nuance, the latest just seems to be a direct translation into modern English with little understanding of what the original author was eloquently conveying.

It was nothing to do with nuance, you managed to get it back-to-front, and implied that it meant that money leads to corruption, which is not a meaning it has ever had.

Oh, and you said it was a religious commentary on scripture, or possibly some sort of moralizing lecture.

 

[Vixen]

Your entire premise for this thread has been that someone is covering something up, although you're not entirely consistent regarding who or what.

This is what you posted as evidence of a conspiracy:

I have never said it was a conspiracy. As far as I am concerned it is current affairs news.

 

[Vixen]

It was nothing to do with nuance, you managed to get it back-to-front, and implied that it meant that money leads to corruption, which is not a meaning it has ever had.

Oh, and you said it was a religious commentary on scripture, or possibly some sort of moralizing lecture.

What? Citation please.

 

[JayUtah]

The point being made that the higher the office, the greater the need to show transparency. Sunak is the first Prime Minister to declare his interests as blind. Not even Boris Johnson or David Cameron did that whilst PM, even though we all know both ministers took the proverbial (cf, wallpapergate, donorgate, Greensill).

This does not address the question.

By definition, a blind trust hides the identity and disposition of the assets from the beneficiary.

By defintion, a registry of interests requires the interest to be named to a degree sufficient to permit the public to reasonably judge the Member's behavior with respect to that interest.

You cannot have it both ways. Explain this discrepancy in your argument. Also explain why a professed chartered accountant is making these elementary errors.

 

[JayUtah]

I have never said it was a conspiracy. As far as I am concerned it is current affairs news.

You are proposing a conspiracy theory. Your ongoing dishonesty in pretending you aren't does not absolve your from the obligation to support your claims.

 

[JayUtah]

I did know that but always useful to have a recap, thanks.

The information you have just been provided, of which you were previously apparently unaware, undermines your claim that you can reliably infer the fuel type of a vehicle fire by observing what you believe to be "jets of flame" that you assert arise only in lithium ion battery fires. It has been explained to you by competent authority how that same observation can arise in internal-combustion engines.

Your dispute of the official finding that the initiating vehicle of the Luton fire was a diesel vehicle has been predicated largely on an ability claimed by you and others to be able to characterize the combustion fuel source by a casual inspection of flames in a conveniently obtained photographic record. You must reconcile this claimed ability with this new information.

 

[Vixen]

Your conspiracy theory relies on Sunak having shares so that the conduct you accuse him of in your conspiracy theory would have the motive of enriching him. If you do not have evidence for such a motive, there is no obligation to suppose one.



You have not reconciled your misunderstanding between what a blind trust is and what is required in a register of interest. If the trust is blind, then the Member cannot register interests that are unknown to him. Please either correct or withdraw your argument.



This article is based largely on speculation regarding how Sunak created the trust. It provides no evidence that he is operating under a conflict of interest of any kind, much less the specific one you allege.

I clearly said that Tata is the 100% owner of Jaguar Land Rover.

On his appointment, Sunak decided to declare his comapny's interests as blind. His company registered in the Cayman Island has long been established. The US arm that deals with Sunak's company's interests has shares in Moderna.

Do you now understand why declaring your interests as blind is not a good look for a lawmaker who makes the laws?

 

[JayUtah]

I clearly...

None of this addresses the points and questions in my post. Stop dodging.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Citation please.

Can't find anything? Thought not.

I recently provided an example of you lying in this post here.

You just ignored me and pretended the post didn't exist.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I have never said it was a conspiracy. As far as I am concerned it is current affairs news.

Vixen, if I said to you my sister has a pet, it's a quadruped with a tail and fur that meows and has retractable claws do you think I could then be dismissive of people who asked me about my sister's cat? Afterall I never said it was a cat.

 

[JesseCuster]

I have never said it was a conspiracy. As far as I am concerned it is current affairs news.

No-one believes you.

You have declared with great confidence that Luton car park fire has resulted in a wide ranging cover-up that involves everyone from Bedfordshire fire department to junior ministers to the Prime Minister himself and you've provided no evidence that a junior minister wrote the press release (you refuse to take at face value) with the help of government lawyers in order to prevent the PM's investments in the company from losing value. Random speculation about shoddy car park construction and cheap flights from Luton airport have something to do with the cover-up, but no-one knows what (I'm not sure you do).

If you don't think that's a conspiracy theory, then you don't know what a conspiracy theory is.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If you find you constantly have to change the subject rather than address the questions you're asked, don't worry. Pretend it's a virtue by claiming you're just 'six steps ahead'.