Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Jack by the hedge]

It has never been considered corruption for a capitalist to try to make as much money as possible by way of investment, avoiding tax and strategic planning.

More an ethical issue.

It's never been considered corruption for a capitalist to walk on the cracks in the pavement either. There is a long list of things which are not the relevant bit of criminality.

What about coercing another person in public office to lie to the public about a matter of concern? Is that okay too?

 

[The Common Potato]

Just personally, "I think it may be a Diesel" is less certain than, after presumably checking, "I believe it is a Diesel".

^^^^
not real quotation marks

I assume it's the fire officer's wording that's being questioned? Hard to tell; hard to care, really.

 

[The Common Potato]

Duplicate.

 

[phiwum]

Yeah, that struck me as pretty unusual, too. I almost wondered whether it was an extremely improbable autocorrect fail.

Nope. I don't use autocorrect. It was a simple brain failure. It's a shame I have such a simple brain.

 

[smartcooky]

Row X, column Y. Demand 'evidence' that's unlikely to exist. Even if you found it she'd complain it's a different vehicle.

Vixen-weaseling (xviii). It's pathetic to watch.

Well, such video evidence could exist, but I cannot be bothered wasting my time looking for evidence that I absolutely know Vixen will dismiss for the reasons you say... "aha, but that's a 2015 model Range Rover Sport NOT the 2014 model", or she will claim its faked, or the flame pattern is not exactly the same, or the smoke is a different colour, or the ground isn't level etc.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Also from the Crown Prosecution Service:

Inchoate Offences:

Conspiracy

A conspiracy is an agreement where two or more people agree to carry their criminal scheme into effect, the very agreement is the criminal act itself: Mulcahy v. The Queen (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 306; R v Warburton (1870) L.R. 1 C.C.R. 274; R. v. Tibbits and Windust [1902] 1 K.B. 77 at 89; R. v. Meyrick and Ribuffi, 21 Cr.App.R. 94, CCA.

Nothing need be done in pursuit of the agreement: O’Connell v. R. (1844) 5 St.Tr.(N.S.) 1.

Repentance, lack of opportunity and failure are all immaterial: R. v. Aspinall (1876) 2 Q.B.D. 48.

It is the course of conduct agreed upon which is critical; if that course involves some act by an innocent party, the fact that he does not perform it and thus prevents the commission of the substantive offence, does not absolve the parties to the agreement from liability: R. v. Bolton, 94 Cr.App.R. 74, CA.

The agreement cannot be a mere mental operation; it must involve spoken or written words or other overt acts. If the defendant repents and withdraws immediately after the agreement has been concluded, they are still guilty of the offence. Withdrawal from it goes to mitigation only: R. v. Gortat and Pirog [1973] Crim.L.R. 648.

There must be an agreement to commit the criminal offence, but the motives of the conspirators are irrelevant. For example, in Yip Chiu-Cheung v The Queen (1994) 2 All E.R. 924, the fact that one conspirator was an undercover police officer who only entered the conspiracy to catch drug dealers did not prevent the offence of conspiracy from being committed.​

Vixen, you have already admitted that at least one other minister besides Sunak would need to be involved in your purported coverup, which, despite your denial, would clearly constitute Misconduct in Public Office. And they would therefore also be engaged in a criminal conspiracy. IOW, your theory is that there is a conspiracy to conceal the truth about the fact that an EV started the fire. Yet you continue to proclaim that you're not a conspiracy theorist.

 

[JayUtah]

Well, such video evidence could exist...

It doesn't matter, because it won't be exactly what Vixen is looking for, and therefore unacceptable. This is the part of conspiracy rhetoric where the conspiracy theorist thinks she gets to dictate exactly what type and form of evidence is required in order to refute her claim. It's a ploy. Either no one will bother trying to hunt down evidence that fits the narrow policy, or whatever is provided will be dismissed as missing the mark. In the former case, the conspiracy theorist gloats over her ridiculous standard of proof. In the later case, she gets 10 more pages of ignorant nit-picking.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Tried; didn't work.



My grandfather was a rural blacksmith who went to the west coast to build Liberty ships during the war. He knew many of the people who stayed on to operate the museum ships that use the same engine, so I'm literally grandfathered into that brotherhood. I'm not qualified to run the engines. But I'm qualified to do other things in the engine spaces.

It must be so embarrassing for Vixen to question the veracity of a common mode of combustion used in thousands of ships and other thermodynamic engines for more than a century and a half.

This is a good primer for Scotch Boilers and 'Up and downers'

Tulipbank had almost exactly the same plant, just half of it, one boiler, one engine.

It was more sophisticated than Shieldhall, there was a 'vertical' auxiliary boiler to get some pressure on line to power the auxiliaries when the main boiler was down, it made firing it up a lot easier as well. Plus Tulipbank had a steam turbo alternator so you could have electrical power from the auxiliary or main boiler.
I guess the RN were more generous with equipment than the original owners of Shieldhall. At some time in the past a diesel genset had been installed in a compartment in the superstructure.

The steam telemotor steering gear is exactly the same just a bit larger and in a much nicer compartment than the Tulipbank, her's was in a cramped compartment with no ports below deck right aft.

 

[smartcooky]

Vixen, you have already admitted that at least one other minister besides Sunak would need to be involved in your purported coverup, which, despite your denial, would clearly constitute Misconduct in Public Office. And they would therefore also be engaged in a criminal conspiracy. IOW, your theory is that there is a conspiracy to conceal the truth about the fact that an EV started the fire. Yet you continue to proclaim that you're not a conspiracy theorist.

And no matter how you slice it Vixen is a conspiracy theorist who is arguing that a criminal conspiracy has taken place, and it is ridiculously easy to walk though the steps to categorically prove she is beyond any doubt whatsoever..

FACT 1. Vixen argues that Sunak has instructed the media and the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, to lie about the type of car that started the Luton Airport Fire.

FACT 2. Vixen argues that the media and the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service are co-operating with the instructions, If they go along with those instructions, that is a conspiracy right there. Even if (and this needs to be made absolutely clear) the media and the Fire Rescue Service go long with Sunak's instructions reluctantly, it is still a conspiracy

FACT 3. Vixen also argues that Sunak's instructions are for the intent of hiding a business advantage he would gain by not having an EV tagged as the firestarter. This is corruption, and therefore, a criminal act carried out in furtherance of a conspiracy.

CONCLUSION: We therefore have an allegation of a criminal conspiracy between Sunak, the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service and the media. Vixen is the one making this allegation, so the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is that Vixen is a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Vixen]

Also from the Crown Prosecution Service:

Inchoate Offences:

Conspiracy

A conspiracy is an agreement where two or more people agree to carry their criminal scheme into effect, the very agreement is the criminal act itself: Mulcahy v. The Queen (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 306; R v Warburton (1870) L.R. 1 C.C.R. 274; R. v. Tibbits and Windust [1902] 1 K.B. 77 at 89; R. v. Meyrick and Ribuffi, 21 Cr.App.R. 94, CCA.

Nothing need be done in pursuit of the agreement: O’Connell v. R. (1844) 5 St.Tr.(N.S.) 1.

Repentance, lack of opportunity and failure are all immaterial: R. v. Aspinall (1876) 2 Q.B.D. 48.

It is the course of conduct agreed upon which is critical; if that course involves some act by an innocent party, the fact that he does not perform it and thus prevents the commission of the substantive offence, does not absolve the parties to the agreement from liability: R. v. Bolton, 94 Cr.App.R. 74, CA.

The agreement cannot be a mere mental operation; it must involve spoken or written words or other overt acts. If the defendant repents and withdraws immediately after the agreement has been concluded, they are still guilty of the offence. Withdrawal from it goes to mitigation only: R. v. Gortat and Pirog [1973] Crim.L.R. 648.

There must be an agreement to commit the criminal offence, but the motives of the conspirators are irrelevant. For example, in Yip Chiu-Cheung v The Queen (1994) 2 All E.R. 924, the fact that one conspirator was an undercover police officer who only entered the conspiracy to catch drug dealers did not prevent the offence of conspiracy from being committed.​

Vixen, you have already admitted that at least one other minister besides Sunak would need to be involved in your purported coverup, which, despite your denial, would clearly constitute Misconduct in Public Office. And they would therefore also be engaged in a criminal conspiracy. IOW, your theory is that there is a conspiracy to conceal the truth about the fact that an EV started the fire. Yet you continue to proclaim that you're not a conspiracy theorist.

The worst that could happen is a slap on Sunak's wrist by the Commons Standards Committee for 'inadvertently forgetting' to declare his interest.

I have never claimed there was a conspiracy, let alone a criminal one. Sunak as PM has the power to embargo news. His excuse, which will be accepted, is, 'I didn't want to cause public alarm'. End of.

Now, if he was a carer claiming just one minute more minimum wage whilst claiming DWP Carer's Allowance, yes, he would be swiftly carted off to Pentonville, before his feet could touch the ground.

 

[Vixen]

And no matter how you slice it Vixen is a conspiracy theorist who is arguing that a criminal conspiracy has taken place, and it is ridiculously easy to walk though the steps to categorically prove she is beyond any doubt whatsoever..

FACT 1. Vixen argues that Sunak has instructed the media and the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, to lie about the type of car that started the Luton Airport Fire.

FACT 2. Vixen argues that the media and the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service are co-operating with the instructions, If they go along with those instructions, that is a conspiracy right there. Even if (and this needs to be made absolutely clear) the media and the Fire Rescue Service go long with Sunak's instructions reluctantly, it is still a conspiracy

FACT 3. Vixen also argues that Sunak's instructions are for the intent of hiding a business advantage he would gain by not having an EV tagged as the firestarter. This is corruption, and therefore, a criminal act carried out in furtherance of a conspiracy.

CONCLUSION: We therefore have an allegation of a criminal conspiracy between Sunak, the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service and the media. Vixen is the one making this allegation, so the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is that Vixen is a conspiracy theorist.

Sorry, I am not sure our US, Aussie, Canuk and Kiwi friends understand how British politics work. Parliament is a gentleman's club and any errant MP is 'investigated' by another member or 'Select Committee' made up of same. Just look up the VIP fast lane scandal or google Mone and Barrowman, for examples. The only reason owing to 'Partygate', Boris Johnson and Sunak (plus re not wearing a seat belt in a political broadcast in a car) received a Fixed Penalty Notice was as a result of a lengthy investigation by fellow MP Sue Gray, who then advised the Met Police to do its thing, which it VERY reluctantly did a couple of years later.

1. the PM embargoing information is not a 'criminal conspiracy' as it within his remit to do so.

2. the PM hiding his business interests on the Ministerial Register as 'blind' is within the rules, so again, not a crime or a breach of rules.

3. none of this adds up to 'corruption', more a cynical taking advantage of the rules of the Gentleman's Club, in which Old Etonians and Wykehamists are considered to be inherently honourable and decent, old chap.

 

[The Common Potato]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 12

 

[Vixen]

Indeed. HOW ELSE CAN IT POSSIBLY WORK? "It's a blind trust and the politician only knows what is in his investment portfolio by checking it in the register of interests"? I think I can see a problem with that.

What? Did you not know how it works? What a peculiar thing to say whilst putting it in quotation marks as if it isn't you yourself claiming it. It is OK to be confused but it is easy enough to look it up as to how it works.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

What? Did you not know how it works? What a peculiar thing to say whilst putting it in quotation marks as if it isn't you yourself claiming it. It is OK to be confused but it is easy enough to look it up as to how it works.

There's only one person here confused about how it works and it isn't jimbob.

 

[Vixen]

Once again, your argument uses evidence that works best AGAINST, not FOR your theory.

If you are making a video from scratch, in order to spread the rumor that it was a diesel vehicle, then you'd make it so that the license plate is readable. There's not a reason in the world you can't do this.

The license plate can't be read in the current video primarily because the person filming is too far away[1], but if it's a generated video, THERE IS NO PERSON FILMING! You just make the video as if the person filming were closer. Or you make the video with the person zooming in on the vehicle, "coincidentally" making the license plate legible.

Your story is silly. They could easily have made the plate legible if they wanted to.

Note also that if the video were faked and the license plate number is attached to a vehicle that had nothing to do with the fire, then it's a little surprising that we haven't heard about the real owner of that plate. It seems somewhat likely that someone would have tracked him down and he would, of course, have quite loudly protested his non-involvement with the incident. Now, this is speculative enough that I wouldn't claim with confidence that the plate number discussed online is real, but if I were making the damn video, I would not be publicizing a plate number that had nothing to do with the fire.

Yet, that is precisely what your theory involves. The point of the video is to include the plate of a vehicle that isn't a hybrid. Of course, it's an illegible plate, but you still posit that the forces behind the video also posted the license plate number -- one necessarily for a vehicle that was uninvolved. It's a stupid plan, both because they didn't make the plate legible yet that was the point of the video and because a plate number for an uninvolved vehicle will quickly be debunked.

[1] Probably the quality has been downloaded downgraded in the upgrades uploads too, but the fixes mentioned above would still allow the plate to be read.

But he couldn't make the numberplate legible because he didn't want anyone to expose it as a fake. As it happens, he can simply claim that that is what he deciphered should anyone disprove his theory of it being such and such registration number and here's what DVLA says.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Presenting a conspiracy theory, arguing in its favor, and then denying being a conspiracy theorist is so common it should really be on the bingo card. I strongly suspect it stems from a desire to always be on the attack and never on defense. I also suspect that this behavior is the result of having already made numerous poor arguments that were ripped to shreds. Eventually, the conspiracy theorist learns to present their claims more obliquely in an effort to avoid painting herself into a corner. When the argument takes too many hits, just raise your hand and protest "I never explicitly said that".

 

[SpitfireIX]

The worst that could happen is a slap on Sunak's wrist by the Commons Standards Committee for 'inadvertently forgetting' to declare his interest.

Are you really this obtuse?? I honestly find it very difficult to believe that you are. Further, as has been explained to you ad nauseam, interests in a blind management arrangement are not required to be declared.

I have never claimed there was a conspiracy, let alone a criminal one.

The actions you claim Sunak has taken clearly amount to a criminal conspiracy, whether or not you choose to admit it.

Sunak as PM has the power to embargo news.

Granting, arguendo, that such an embargo could be applied in this case, he also has the power to have the SAS kill his secretary's ex-boyfriend because he called her "fat." That doesn't mean he would escape the legal consequences of doing so.

His excuse, which will be accepted, is, 'I didn't want to cause public alarm'. End of.

No. That doesn't even pass the laugh test. And you've also utterly failed to explain why the opposition haven't figured out what's going on, why they haven't blown the whistle, and why they would go along with your "slap-on-the-wrist" punishment fantasy.

Now, if he was a carer claiming just one minute more minimum wage whilst claiming DWP Carer's Allowance, yes, he would be swiftly carted off to Pentonville, before his feet could touch the ground.

Rank hyperbole noted.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Dumb or troll, hard to decide.

Not mutually exclusive.

 

[JayUtah]

The worst that could happen is a slap on Sunak's wrist by the Commons Standards Committee for 'inadvertently forgetting' to declare his interest.

Interests held in a blind trust do not have to be declared. Members are not required to disclose that their interests are held in a blind trust.

I have never claimed there was a conspiracy...

Hair split. What you're proposing is clearly a conspiracy theory, whether you agree or not.

What? Did you not know how it works?

He has demonstrated he knows exactly how a blind trust works. You have not, and still cannot. Your ongoing conflations and errors have been explained to you several times with citations to authoritative and reliable sources.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The worst that could happen is a slap on Sunak's wrist by the Commons Standards Committee for 'inadvertently forgetting' to declare his interest.



I have never claimed there was a conspiracy, let alone a criminal one. Sunak as PM has the power to embargo news. His excuse, which will be accepted, is, 'I didn't want to cause public alarm'. End of.



Now, if he was a carer claiming just one minute more minimum wage whilst claiming DWP Carer's Allowance, yes, he would be swiftly carted off to Pentonville, before his feet could touch the ground.

Not remotely plausible. If Sunak declared he was obliged in the public interest to gag the newspapers and to force the fire service to lie about one car fire, when car fires happen every day and a proportion of them are EVs, nobody is going to buy that for a second. Much like nobody buys your conspiracy theory.