Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

Also, would anyone like to review their suggestion the press failing to pick up the story about that alleged number plate was evidence that such news was embargoed?

 

[Andy_Ross]

MOT is 12 months but tax can be either 6 or 12. As zooterkin says, it seems very unlikely to be the car in the video/photo.

Plus you can claim back unused months if the car is no longer on the road.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

The only way that logic works is if there was only one Range Rover Sport produced during the 2014 model year. Now I admit that I haven't actually looked it up, but I'd be willing to bet that they made rather more than that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

just noticed the date was in November, my post is superfluous to the thread so I've taken it down.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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?

If headlights have motor adjustments for loaded and unloaded and one of the motors stopped working then it would fail for bad adjustment. I had a car fail for it once. I had to get the motor replaced.

Luckily I could do it myself.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... And my reply to Andy is also superfluous etc.

 

[JayUtah]

First, Sunak does not own any companies, and as far as I have been able to determine, he never has.

Hence Vixen's misguided invocation of the concept of company stewardship. There is the UK Stewardship Code, which covers some aspects of asset management, but this is not the same as a trust. The only overlap is that a fiduciary duty exists in both cases. And since the code is a more of a corporate governance standard, it includes many things that are not appropriate to trusteeships. It might apply to publicly held and traded companies, for example, where the corporate officers act by proxy for shareholders, but any private ownership interest such as that attributed to Sunak is not relevant.

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.

Vixen seems to be laboring under the misconception that a trust is not legally enforceable or morally justified unless it has somehow been registered for public inspection and that its parties must be disclosed publicly. No such obligation exists, and Vixen's unwillingness to recognize the validity of a blind trust seems to be based entirely on rules she has made up. The identity of the trustee need not be disclosed. The terms of the trusteeship need not be disclosed. It is a simple contract. It is valid and legally enforceable insofar as it has been properly executed by the parties to it.

A trust is the object of a trusteeship, which is created by a private contract between the trustee and the beneficiary for the management of some property or interest. Necessarily the trustee has limited power of attorney to exercise the interest in a market. The contract usually requires the trustee also to be a fiduciary, meaning there is a legal obligation for the trustee to act in the beneficiary's best interest when so acting. A blind trust adds the provision that prevents the trustee from disclosing the structure of the interest under management in a way that the beneficiary could reasonably discover. The identity of the trustee need not be disclosed publicly, however the trustee will necessarily need to prove his power of attorney when doing business on the beneficiary's behalf. That disclosure need not be public, and may certainly be guarded by non-disclosure agreements—especially to implement the provision against allowing the beneficiary to become aware of transactions involving the property in trust.

Obviously controversies that may arise in the operation of the trusteeship may come to court, in which case the parties will necessarily be disclosed, and possibly also the structure of the interest in trust. However, the legal posture of litigation is usually agreed to by the parties and may provide, for example, for binding private arbitration.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Vixen seems to be laboring under the misconception that a trust is not legally enforceable or morally justified unless it has somehow been registered for public inspection...

Seems like it would be rather impossible to keep the beneficiaries from learning the holdings if literally everyone else could easily find out what they are.

 

[zooterkin]

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.

Nonsense.

 

[JayUtah]

Seems like it would be rather impossible to keep the beneficiaries from learning the holdings if literally everyone else could easily find out what they are.

Or if the identity of the operative trustee in a blind trust had to be publicly disclosed.

Obviously, the trustee and the beneficiary know each other, even in a blind trust. But nothing in the trustee's fiduciary duty prevents him supervising an agent by separate agreement, who is unknown to the beneficiary and whose activity the beneficiary cannot observe so as to pierce the trust.

ETA: Makes you think if that's what she thought the "blind register" was—that unless certain information were provided on the register of interest, the trust would not be "legally recognized" as regards a Member of Parliament.

Vixen's bumbling around, pretending she knows how all these rules work, is really comical when she paints herself into a corner like this.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

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.

Quote someone insisting it was so based upon the numberplate.

 

[Mojo]

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.

The only way that logic works is if there was only one Range Rover Sport produced during the 2014 model year. Now I admit that I haven't actually looked it up, but I'd be willing to bet that they made rather more than that.

In fact, they only produced one, but Rishi ordered them to say they'd made thousands to protect his investments.

 

[zooterkin]

That's a lie, Vixen. You're lying again. I never claimed that it was confirmed. I pointed out that the car on fire was clearly a Range Rover in the video.

Since then, Rolfe has pointed out to me that the plate has been identified and it is a Range Rover Sport with a diesel engine.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8RQBUDXsAAatUX?format=jpg&name=small

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.

Oddly, the screenshot of the MOT details linked in the original post by Foster Zygote says the same car was red, and has a different registration date (2014 rather than 2016).

I wonder if this is a vanity plate and has been transferred to a different but similar vehicle, which means that the reg could be correct.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

E10 EFL is almost definitely a personalised plate.

All UK number plates issued since September 2001 have been in a specific format unless the plate is personalised.

The format is ALWAYS (again unless it's personalised) AB12CDE. Always. No exception.

The first two letters indicate the area the vehicle was registered, the numbers correlate to the section of the year when it was registered, and the last 3 are the individual vehicle identifier. So any vehicle registered in a place that uses the hypothetical AB after September 2020 would be AB70.

If there is only 1 letter before the numbers then the vehicle must have either been issued before September 2001 or is a personalised plate, as before September 2001 the layout was A123BCD and the single letter denoted the time the vehicle was first registered.

Therefore for it NOT to be a personalised plate it would need to be an E reg vehicle, which means the vehicle was first registered between August 1987 and July 1988.

So either it's a personalised plate or the vehicle is nearly 37 years old.

 

[zooterkin]

E10 EFL is almost definitely a personalised plate.

All UK number plates issued since September 2001 have been in a specific format unless the plate is personalised.

The format is ALWAYS (again unless it's personalised) AB12CDE. Always. No exception.

The first two letters indicate the area the vehicle was registered, the numbers correlate to the section of the year when it was registered, and the last 3 are the individual vehicle identifier. So any vehicle registered in a place that uses the hypothetical AB after September 2020 would be AB70.

If there is only 1 letter before the numbers then the vehicle must have either been issued before September 2001 or is a personalised plate, as before September 2001 the layout was A123BCD and the single letter denoted the time the vehicle was first registered.

Therefore for it NOT to be a personalised plate it would need to be an E reg vehicle, which means the vehicle was first registered between August 1987 and July 1988.

So either it's a personalised plate or the vehicle is nearly 37 years old.

I'm aware, the bit I was speculating about was that, since the fire, the plate has been transferred to a different Range Rover, and that would support the original identification of the numberplate being correct.

 

[jimbob]

Seems like it would be rather impossible to keep the beneficiaries from learning the holdings if literally everyone else could easily find out what they are.

It really isn't rocket science, but is worth pointing out (repeatedly)

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.

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.



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.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I'm aware, the bit I was speculating about was that, since the fire, the plate has been transferred to a different Range Rover, and that would support the original identification of the numberplate being correct.

Oh I'm sure you were, I'm just filling in the blanks to ensure that no one could, say, deliberately twist your question by pretending you meant something completely different.

 

[Mojo]

Oh I'm sure you were, I'm just filling in the blanks to ensure that no one could, say, deliberately twist your question by pretending you meant something completely different.

Come on, who would do a thing like that?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Come on, who would do a thing like that?

I dunno, I can't imagine anyone here doing that.

What was I thinking?

 

[JayUtah]

It really isn't rocket science, but is worth pointing out (repeatedly)

Vixen is conflating what it takes to register a company. Yes, certain disclosures are required. But that has absolutely nothing to do with a trust. There is no canonical disclosure or registration without which a trust is not legally valid and enforceable. Because she invoked corporate governance earlier (the concept, not just the wording), she can't very easily back out of it now. She's trying, though.

"I see no evidence of a legally recognized trust, so I'm going to keep using 'steward,'" is dumb on two levels. The first we've already mentioned: there is no general public registration or recognition process for a trust. Nor should there be for a blind trust. That a blind trust is registered on Parliament's register of interests is a feature of being a Member of Parliament, not a requirement of trusts in general.

Second, someone properly called a steward would need public recognition of that. It's like saying, "I don't accept that you're legally recognized babysitter, so I'm going to call you 'police officer.'" Phiwum continues to be vindicated: Vixen seems oblivious to the instances where her evidence hurts her argument instead of helping it.