Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[zooterkin]

From https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot

Yes, but I'm looking at the actual test date, not the renewal date.

https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/results?registration=E10+EFL&checkRecalls=true

 

[Wudang]

I see Date tested:10 November 2023 at https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/results?registration=E10+EFL&checkRecalls=true

It failed in 2022 with badly aligned headlights -one too high, one too low - suggesting the owner does some repairs ineptly themselves or a rubbish garage. I've fitted headlights of various sorts and it's not hard but can be boring (remembering my old 1989 mk2 Golf). Maybe they stuffed something up requiring a new test?

 

[erwinl]

I see Date tested:10 November 2023 at https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/results?registration=E10+EFL&checkRecalls=true

That would suggest, it is a different car.
Edit: Different from the car zero of the Luton fire, of course.
Edit2: Based on a picture of Car zero from the front, that one looked like it was red(dish). The car from the MOT link is gold in color.

 

[Wudang]

That would suggest, it is a different car.
Edit: Different from the car zero of the Luton fire, of course.

Ah of course. E10 would imply the plate was originally issued in 1987. The RR was first registered in Decemeber 2016.

 

[zooterkin]

It failed in 2022 with badly aligned headlights -one too high, one too low - suggesting the owner does some repairs ineptly themselves or a rubbish garage. I've fitted headlights of various sorts and it's not hard but can be boring (remembering my old 1989 mk2 Golf). Maybe they stuffed something up requiring a new test?

The point is that it can hardly be car zero if it passed its MOT three weeks after the blaze at Luton airport.

 

[Wudang]

The point is that it can hardly be car zero if it passed its MOT three weeks after the blaze at Luton airport.

I'm not sure. I usually combine MOT and service and I recall my car dropping suddenly to 20mph and refusing to go faster on the M27 in rush hour due to an error during the service. It was the day after the service IIRC.

 

[zooterkin]

I'm not sure. I usually combine MOT and service and I recall my car dropping suddenly to 20mph and refusing to go faster on the M27 in rush hour due to an error during the service. It was the day after the service IIRC.

One of us is missing something. The fire was on 23rd October 2023. The car with the registration E10 EFL, supposedly car zero, passed its MOT on 10 November 2023, 17 days after the fire. Do you think that can have been the same car? Or have you adopted Vixen's strategy of posting answers that bear no relation to the post they're replying to?

 

[Wudang]

One of us is missing something. The fire was on 23rd October 2023. The car with the registration E10 EFL, supposedly car zero, passed its MOT on 10 November 2023, 17 days after the fire. Do you think that can have been the same car? Or have you adopted Vixen's strategy of posting answers that bear no relation to the post they're replying to?

Correct and it's me. It gives the actual test date passed as being after the fire.

 

[zooterkin]

Correct and it's me. It gives the actual test date passed as being after the fire.

Perhaps I should have mentioned it more.

That does throw doubt on that being the correct number plate, since fixing the car ready for an MOT on 10/11/23, when it passed, after the state the car in the video was in on 23/10/23 would have been a bit of a challenge!

I see Date tested:10 November 2023 at https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/results?registration=E10+EFL&checkRecalls=true

Yes, but I'm looking at the actual test date, not the renewal date.

https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/results?registration=E10+EFL&checkRecalls=true

The point is that it can hardly be car zero if it passed its MOT three weeks after the blaze at Luton airport.

 

[erwinl]

Somebody put a frame around this post to mark this momentous day in the history of this forum.

Vixen admitted she was wrong!

I noticed as well. It truly was a momentous occasion.
One which I've only witnessed once before (that was when she tried to put the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff down as a ‘peacetime civilian shipping accidents’).

Edit.
Put in the correct term used, back then.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I see Date tested:10 November 2023 at https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/results?registration=E10+EFL&checkRecalls=true

Apologies! I must have misread it. Very sorry about that.

So you're quite right, E10 EFL cannot have been car zero as it passed an MOT some weeks after the fire. Which might at least explain why the press were not quick to publish (whoever that twitter user was that Vixen found) claiming they had deciphered the plate.

 

[JayUtah]

I hesitate to use the term 'Trustee' in respect of Sunak's blind interests as for me the word has a specific legal meaning.

Yes. It does have a specific legal meaning. That's what makes it the correct term to use here, and why your hesitation and preferences are irrelevant. Your attempt to conflate trusteeship with company governance is more evidence you don't know what you're talking about.

A trusteeship is a private contractual agreement between two parties: the trustee and the beneficiary. The trustee has limited power of attorney to manage beneficiary's property interest and a fiducial duty to act in the beneficiary's best interest. No company or any organization at all need be involved. A company may be involved, and may be the trustee. But it's still the trustee, not any other sort of thing.

The trustee of a blind trust does not suddenly become something else just because the trust is blind. The only difference in a blind trust is the trustee's obllgation not to disclose the composition of the trust. That's merely another term in the private contract.

You don't know what you're talking about. No, it's not that you simply prefer to use other words. You are consistently using the wrong words and referring to the wrong concepts.

I doubt very much Sunak set up any such legal Trustee arrangements in any UK court as the UK has no jurisdiction over companies registered in the Cayman Islands.

Company governance is irrelevant. Company stewardship has zilch to do with trusteeship.

Sunak's Cabinet Office also refuses to confirm the name of his imaginary US trustee so it is obvious it is not a formal trustee arrangement, it is just on Sunak's say so to avoid declaring his interests in the parliamentary registers of interest.

Begging the question.

 

[phiwum]

I am pretty sure they insisted it was a 2104 Range Rover Sport. It could well be the front view video is genuine (although one has to ask how come only a handful of anonymous X/twitter accounts, some opened on the day with zero followers). But I doubt anyone was able to decipher the number plate to be able to confidently claim it is a specific car which can be looked up on DVLA. If this is the case, how come none of the press has followed up on it, as it did with the Romanian lady's video?

I didn't ask if they thought it was a Sport. Did they reason it was a Sport because of the reported license plate number or for some other reason?

You have to distinguish between a press release and a PR release. Public relations are rife and a lot of people cannot recognise the difference between news and PR. For example, half the stories in the papers are simply PR 'press releases' by agents of various 'celebrities' who are paid to keep their clients in the news by firing off tidbits of what their client is up to these days to keep them in the public eye. Likewise some politicians and various products use this method of PR dressed up as 'news'. AFAIAA Andrew Hopkinson has only had one press conference and only one press release proper. The rest is just hack Phil Page filling up news space and presenting old wine in new bottles.

The March 21 press release is a press release. It contains some (not a lot) new information. Among the explicit new information is that the vehicle was not a hybrid of any sort. There is also implicit new information. The investigation has found sufficient evidence to be confident that the vehicle was a diesel. We know this because there is no caveat regarding verification at all.

The notion that this was PR makes no sense in the context of a coverup. In fact, if you're trying to coverup the kind of fuel involved in the fire, you'd let the earlier releases stand without update. Coverups work better, I'd think, when the topic falls off the public's radar. Why remind the public of the ongoing investigation, given that you've already (according to your story) misled them about the kind of vehicle it was? And especially, why double down and claim it was not a hybrid? That removes all possibility of "plausible deniability".

You downplay this press release, calling it not a real Scotsman, just because it says something at odds with your current theory.

You will do the same when the investigation is released. At that point, you will work hard to conclude it was a sham investigation, because it will say the vehicle was a plain ol' diesel fire but you know better because you're quite a clever accountant.

 

[JayUtah]

You have to distinguish between a press release and a PR release. Public relations are rife and a lot of people cannot recognise the difference between news and PR.

No. There is no material difference and you're not somehow smarter than everyone else in your pretended ability to see one.

 

[catsmate]

There is a video on youtube available that replicates what you describe, I take it?

There is a universe outside YouTube, though this may be a strange concept to you.......

 

[Vixen]

Yes. It does have a specific legal meaning. That's what makes it the correct term to use here, and why your hesitation and preferences are irrelevant. Your attempt to conflate trusteeship with company governance is more evidence you don't know what you're talking about.

A trusteeship is a private contractual agreement between two parties: the trustee and the beneficiary. The trustee has limited power of attorney to manage beneficiary's property interest and a fiducial duty to act in the beneficiary's best interest. No company or any organization at all need be involved. A company may be involved, and may be the trustee. But it's still the trustee, not any other sort of thing.

The trustee of a blind trust does not suddenly become something else just because the trust is blind. The only difference in a blind trust is the trustee's obllgation not to disclose the composition of the trust. That's merely another term in the private contract.

You don't know what you're talking about. No, it's not that you simply prefer to use other words. You are consistently using the wrong words and referring to the wrong concepts.



Company governance is irrelevant. Company stewardship has zilch to do with trusteeship.



Begging the question.

I see no evidence that the Prime Minister has set up a legally recognised Trustee of his company, that is why I referred to them as 'stewards'.

 

[Vixen]

So if the numberplate cannot have been the one ascribed initially to car zero, then it was not ipso facto a 2014 Range Rover Sport.

Would anyone like to volunteer being wrong in their insistence that it was...?*


















*It's OK, I'll let you off.

 

[catsmate]

I erred when I labelled her an 'MP'.

No, you did far more, you revealed yourself as grossly ignorant of the UKian political and administrative system.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I see no evidence that the Prime Minister has set up a legally recognised Trustee of his company, that is why I referred to them as 'stewards'.

First, Sunak does not own any companies, and as far as I have been able to determine, he never has. This is a misapprehension you have due to your failure to research his actual business career and interests, because claiming he owns a company that is benefitting from decisions he might make as PM suits your conspiracy theory.

Second, Sunak has investments that are controlled by what the the Independent Adviser on Ministers' Interests characterized as a "blind management arrangement," as I mentioned earlier. However, if you Google "Sunak" and "blind trust," you will find that this was in fact reported in several newspapers at the time. So we're back to your demanding evidence well beyond that which would satisfy a reasonable person.

 

[JayUtah]

I see no evidence that the Prime Minister has set up a legally recognised Trustee of his company, that is why I referred to them as 'stewards'.

No.

You aren't simply choosing different words that you say more comfortably fit your inaccurate and inexpert understanding of the relevant facts. You're bringing in irrelevant concepts and conflating them in ways that show you don't really understand them. No amount of twisting, turning, or appealing to your personal vernacular hides this. You don't know what you're talking about, and you wrongly think we can't all see this.

Showing us that you don't know what a trustee is, or how a trusteeship is formed, or imagining that one has to be "legally recognized" in some public way, is not at all remedied by showing that you also don't know what a company steward is and pretending that the concept of stewardship applies in any way to a trusteeship. Steward also has a precise legal definition, and you alluded to it earlier. Therefore you can't just backpedal now and say it's some kind of random go-to convenience word you're going to throw out there just because you don't believe in a trusteeship.

Once again you've been caught trying to teach concepts you don't understand. You've been caught using words that do have meanings, just not the ones you give them. You've been caught trying to convince people that what you originally claimed can be effectively backpedaled to save face. You're being caught once again pretending that you are somehow still right and have been all along.

We're used to you faking it and trying to bluff your way along every time your ignorance is demonstrated. However, this time it's in a field you claim expertise in—two Master's degree equivalents. Trusts are common. Lots of people know about them and how they work. Lots of people use them—even poor people like me who set them up for minor children, for example. You aren't one of those people. And it's more than a little suspicious for the foundation of personal expertise you keep relying on.