Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Jack by the hedge]

We are asked to believe the British prime minister has unchallengable powers to gag the press and require public officials to lie about anything he chooses on the grounds that he decides the public would be upset by the truth. And it's all fine and lawful for him to wield these powers in his own financial interest.

Perhaps this is a new conspiracy theory which deserves it's own thread.

 

[jimbob]

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.

OK, can you explain how one can put one's investments into a blind trust, and then declare what is in the blind trust without violating the whole principle of a blind trust? It's not actually Schrödinger's trust but maybe the analogy might help you.

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

Indeed, just as I was familiar with the phrase "guilding the lily" (and the work from whence the actual version came). Like most of the people in these threads , our incredulity at Vixen's misuse of technical nomenclature is not from an unfamiliarity with the terminology, but a from an understanding of what it should be.

 

[JayUtah]

In many conspiracy theories, the Powers That Be have limitless power and ability, except to prevent the truth from reaching certain select armchairs.

 

[jimbob]

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.

A little extra detail on your first point.


For starters, the Parliamentary standards committee may issue penalties, including suspension from parliament. If the suspension is sufficiently long (10 working days or 14 calendar days), then the MP is subject to a recall petition, and if 10% of eligible voters in their constituency sign the recall petition, then a by election is called.

The first recall petition failed, with 9.4% but the remaining 4 succeeded (with another MP resigning before the petition ran it's course).

So apart from the threat of losing his seat, there's little sanction [/s]

 

[Vixen]

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.




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




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.




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.




Rank hyperbole noted.

And it is 100% the word of Sunak - and others with such blind arrangements - that he has no idea what the steward of his company is investing on their behalf. Ex-PM Theresa May put some of her stuff into blind trust by handing it over to ...her husband. Sunak handed over his shares in Infosys to his wife. We have to take them at their word that there is no way they know how their investments are doing or with whom. That their spouse (or steward) would never indicate to them how their stocks and shares are performing. Because they are, you know, Right Honourable. You just have to trust them.

We have to accept on their word that the Sunaks have no financial interest in Tata's performance. We can't know one way or other whether Tata is on their long or short term capital reserves because (a) Sunak's business arrangements are listed as 'blind' (= we cannot inspect them) and (b) his company Theleme [_sp?] is based in the Cayman Islands so you cannot inspect its financial affairs either. However, we do know that the US agent for his firm has invested in Moderna stock, which doesn't make it right just because Sunak is blind to what the US agent does (or so he claims).

Given Sunak had a direct role during the Covid crisis hence the concerns with his professed Moderna vaccine links, how credible do you think it likely that neither he nor his wife stands to gain from close family friend Tata's links, or that he now cannot benefit from Infosys since he gave his shares to his wife?

Think about it. Think about why Jaguar Land Rover has not been named in the Luton Airport car park fire. It wasn't named in the Liverpool one either, except in the tabloid press as a generalized make, although not in the report.

 

[Mojo]

I have never claimed there was a conspiracy...

Yes, you have. You have claimed that there was a conspiracy involving the PM, at least one named junior minister, the police, and the fire brigade, to hush up information about the Luton Airport fire. It's no use denying it because it's way too late for you to delete the posts where you did it.

 

[Mojo]

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...

Please tell us what constituency she represented.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, you have. You have claimed that there was a conspiracy involving the PM, at least one named junior minister, the police, and the fire brigade, to hush up information about the Luton Airport fire. It's no use denying it because it's way too late for you to delete the posts where you did it.

Point me to the news article that confirms the model make and year of the vehicle concerned.

 

[Vixen]

Please tell us what constituency she represented.

Soz, she was the SECOND PERMANENT SECRETARY.

 

[Mojo]

Dumb or troll, hard to decide.

Apply Hanlon's razor.

 

[Mojo]

Point me to the news article that confirms the model make and year of the vehicle concerned.

You see? You're still doing it.

 

[The Common Potato]

Not mutually exclusive.

Good to know. I guessed as much.

 

[sinnikal]

Soz, she was the SECOND PERMANENT SECRETARY.

Which is a senior civil service role, neither elected nor a political position.

 

[JayUtah]

And it is 100% the word of Sunak - and others with such blind arrangements - that he has no idea what the steward of his company is investing on their behalf.

Irrelevant. You argued that interests held in a blind trust had to be declared on the register of interests. That requires the beneficiary to see into the trust, and is clearly precluded by what a blind trust inherently is. When corrected, you backpedaled to say that Members had to declare that they had a blind trust. That is not true.

And the proper word is "trustee." And a blind trust is not a company. By all means keep demonstrating how little you know about this.

Think about it. Think about why Jaguar Land Rover has not been named in the Luton Airport car park fire. It wasn't named in the Liverpool one either, except in the tabloid press as a generalized make, although not in the report.

Begging the question. You want the reason to be the one that makes your conspiracy theory seems true. But you have no evidence that this information has been intentionally withheld for reasons.

 

[JayUtah]

Point me to the news article that confirms the model make and year of the vehicle concerned.

Rampant straw-manning and question-begging do not address the flaws identified in the post you're responding to.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Yes, you have. You have claimed that there was a conspiracy involving the PM, at least one named junior minister, the police, and the fire brigade, to hush up information about the Luton Airport fire. It's no use denying it because it's way too late for you to delete the posts where you did it.

And Jenny from Comms.

 

[Vixen]

Which is a senior civil service role, neither elected nor a political position.

Yes, that is correct.

Permanent secretaries are appointed under a scheme in which the prime minister has the final say in the recruitment process; the PM now chooses directly from a list created by the Civil Service Commissioners rather than only having a veto over the Commissioners' preferred candidate.

wiki

I erred when I labelled her an 'MP'.

 

[Mojo]

Think about it. Think about why Jaguar Land Rover has not been named in the Luton Airport car park fire. It wasn't named in the Liverpool one either, except in the tabloid press as a generalized make, although not in the report.

I've thought about it, and concluded that you are using innuendo to try to avoid having to defend your position.

 

[Vixen]

Irrelevant. You argued that interests held in a blind trust had to be declared on the register of interests. That requires the beneficiary to see into the trust, and is clearly precluded by what a blind trust inherently is. When corrected, you backpedaled to say that Members had to declare that they had a blind trust. That is not true.

And the proper word is "trustee." And a blind trust is not a company. By all means keep demonstrating how little you know about this.



Begging the question. You want the reason to be the one that makes your conspiracy theory seems true. But you have no evidence that this information has been intentionally withheld for reasons.

Stop telling lies, I said no such thing. What I said was minister could cloak their affairs by labelling them 'blind', meaning they should step away from stewardship of their company/ financial interests whilst in office to obviate any concerns about conflicts of interest. This means, on the Ministerial Register, it has to be registered as being 'blind'. A blind arrangement still has to be registered.

As this arrangement is not supervised by anybody, we only have Sunak's word that his secretive company in the Caymans is no longer under his stewardship whilst he is PM. Likewise any other interests.

But he wasn't obliged to. He could have just as easily declared ALL of his financial interests, whilst at the same time still appointing a steward to take over his affairs whilst in office.

 

[Mojo]

And Jenny from Comms.

She has now been replaced by "Jeremy", apparently. Possibly the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to keep his employment options open for after the election.