Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[smartcooky]

Apart from the fire service have said it wasn't a hybrid or EV, it was a diesel.

Are they telling deliberate lies?

Well she is telling deliberate lies, that is for sure.

Even her own photos show that the front and rear views actually do not match at all. They are clearly different cars.

 

[Vixen]

Irrelevant. Sunak was still only a junior partner, still didn't "own" the company, still left in 2013, and still doesn't know whether his trust currently has any interest. This is just your latest attempt to avoid admitting that you were wrong about something. Further, this is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether Sunak is conspiring to cover up the type of vehicle that started the Luton fire.




After a brief investiGoogle, I'm going to crawl out on what I'm confident is a very sturdy limb and state that, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about. What actually happened is that he invested in a tax-avoidance scheme which was disallowed by HMRC, and he lost both of his appeals. He was never "charged" with fraud or any other crime; he was simply required to pay the the tax, which actually amounted to £7.5m (possibly more with interest). You may have gotten the £80m into your head because the total amount of tax avoidance claimed by all UK investors (not just Degorce) was £44m, which, at the time, translated into euros or US dollars, could have been around 80 million. If you have a reliable source that states otherwise, then by all means provide it.

Oh, and BTW, the initial investment happened before Theleme was ever founded, and the initial ruling by HMRC happened before Sunak ever stood for Parliament. And again, this is all irrelevant. You're just trying to smear Sunak, as usual.




Again, this has all been explained to you ad nauseam. Sunak does not know what interests he has in the blind trust, and that is the whole idea of the arrangement.




I should have called you on this before. Kindly explain and provide evidence for these purported strong links to Tata. Are you just referring to the fact that his mother-in-law worked there as an engineer decades ago??

ETA: And what Jay said.

It was a scheme in which if you invested in a film production you could avoid tax on box office earnings. Many very wealthy people invested accordingly only to have HM Inspector of Taxes putting the kybosh on it and sending out tax bills. Okaaay. When it's a few million in taxes it is unfortunate but when it is a careworker claiming one penny over the limit in Care Allowance it is fraud. This illustrates the forelock tugging cap doffing mentality nicely. I suspect Sunak has an interest on Tata JLR via his wife based on his financial history of non-declaration and opportunism. The link is as I pointed out before via businessman Murthy. Both Tata and Murthy have great business acumen. I don't think Sunak has committed any crime although time will tell if he has engaged in insider dealing, as Carol Vorderman currently alleges. As they say, it is not what you know, it is who you know. Join the dots. Follow the money. Do the sniff test.

 

[JayUtah]

It was a scheme in which if you invested in a film production you could avoid tax on box office earnings. Many very wealthy people invested accordingly only to have HM Inspector of Taxes putting the kybosh on it and sending out tax bills. Okaaay. When it's a few million in taxes it is unfortunate but when it is a careworker claiming one penny over the limit in Care Allowance it is fraud. This illustrates the forelock tugging cap doffing mentality nicely. I suspect Sunak has an interest on Tata JLR via his wife based on his financial history of non-declaration and opportunism. The link is as I pointed out before via businessman Murthy. Both Tata and Murthy have great business acumen. I don't think Sunak has committed any crime although time will tell if he has engaged in insider dealing, as Carol Vorderman currently alleges. As they say, it is not what you know, it is who you know. Join the dots. Follow the money. Do the sniff test.

Gibberish.

 

[GlennB]

Well she is telling deliberate lies, that is for sure.

Even her own photos show that the front and rear views actually do not match at all. They are clearly different cars.

I thought a poster called Smart Cooky analysed this earlier today?

Maybe Vick's Hen didn't see it?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Do the sniff test.

Your argument smells like Comic-Con on a submarine.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Your argument smells like Comic-Con on a submarine.

With or without tracks?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen, you do know that insider dealing is a crime, right?

 

[SpitfireIX]

I suppose I really shouldn't waste time responding to this "gibberish," but oh, well.

First, I observe that you failed to acknowledge that you were wrong about Sunak's owning Theleme, and simply ignored the issue.

It was a scheme in which if you invested in a film production you could avoid tax on box office earnings. Many very wealthy people invested accordingly only to have HM Inspector of Taxes putting the kybosh on it and sending out tax bills. Okaaay. When it's a few million in taxes it is unfortunate but when it is a careworker claiming one penny over the limit in Care Allowance it is fraud. This illustrates the forelock tugging cap doffing mentality nicely.

What it illustrates nicely is that you clearly don't understand the difference between a questionable tax shelter and tax fraud, for which people are routinely sent to prison in the UK. (See here, here, and here, for examples.) This is yet another pronouncement of yours that causes everyone to question whether you're actually the competent forensic accountant you've claimed to be.

As for the Carer's Allowance, despite your overwrought contention (in a previous post) that anyone "claiming" (you mean earning) more than the income limit is sent to prison, what actually happens in virtually all cases is that the wrongly claimed allowance is simply required to be paid back, just as people who invest in tax shelters that are subsequently disallowed are simply required to pay the tax, plus interest and penalties.

I suspect Sunak has an interest on Tata JLR via his wife based on his financial history of non-declaration and opportunism.

In other words, you've got nothing.

The link is as I pointed out before via businessman Murthy. Both Tata and Murthy have great business acumen.

Which is evidence of exactly nothing.

I don't think Sunak has committed any crime . . .

You have claimed that he orchestrated a coverup of the fact that the Luton carpark fire was actually started by an EV, and that he did so in order to avoid financial loss to himself and his friends and family. This would clearly be a crime, whether or not you choose to admit it. The fact that you also believe he's going to get away with it, or at worst receive "a slap on the wrist," does not change that. As we've discussed, this would also make him guilty of conspiracy, which makes you beyond all doubt a conspiracy theorist.

. . . although time will tell if he has engaged in insider dealing, as Carol Vorderman currently alleges.

From a couple of articles I skimmed, it appears that she, like you, doesn't understand the operation of a blind trust, although she at least has the excuse of not being an accountant.

As they say, it is not what you know, it is who you know. Join the dots. Follow the money. Do the sniff test.

Classic conspiracy theorist drivel.

 

[JayUtah]

First, I observe that you failed to acknowledge that you were wrong about Sunak's owning Theleme, and simply ignored the issue.
* * *
This is yet another pronouncement of yours that causes everyone to question whether you're actually the competent forensic accountant you've claimed to be.

My mind is made up. There are only so many things you can be wrong about before a claim to expertise rings hollow.

Yes, the difference between tax fraud and a questionable tax shelter is something a two-Masters-equivalents "post-graduate" should know. I learned that in my Accountancy for Dummies class.

But what I quoted above illustrates what to me is the more glaring error. The difference between ownership or stake in a company and a trust of any kind is fundamental. Vixen thought Theleme was the trust. The fact that it was incorporate overseas meant to her that the "trust" was not legally recognized in the U.K.—as if "recognition" in that sense is anything that existed outside Vixen's addled imagination.

Even if your job doesn't involve corporate accountancy or forming a trusteeship, you know that equating a company with a trust is like equating the Magna Carta with a pile of orange peels. And if your job is forensic accounting, you almost certainly ran into trusts and know how they work. Among other things, trusts can hide assets in the case where title to the asset transfers to the trust and is protected from certain obligations, but the trustee just does whatever you say with it. That's red meat for accountants looking for impropriety.

...just as people who invest in tax shelters that are subsequently disallowed are simply required to pay the tax, plus interest and penalties.

In the U.S., the Tax Court is an Article I court that rules on—among other things—the legitimacy of enterprises used as tax shelters. The posture is that those who invest in them do so in good faith. Their aim is not to avoid paying taxes they know are owed, but to lawfully reduce their tax liability. Thus when the Tax Court arrives at a decision that deems the scheme newly unlawful (or the specific use of a lawful one unlawful) there's no mens rea and no criminal liability.

From a couple of articles I skimmed, it appears that she, like you, doesn't understand the operation of a blind trust, although she at least has the excuse of not being an accountant.

Tsk, tsk. She might have only one "Master's equivalent."

 

[SteveAitch]

Tsk, tsk. She might have only one "Master's equivalent."

Her (Carol's) degree is in Engineering, so if she can't hit it with a hammer...

 

[Vixen]

My mind is made up. There are only so many things you can be wrong about before a claim to expertise rings hollow.

Yes, the difference between tax fraud and a questionable tax shelter is something a two-Masters-equivalents "post-graduate" should know. I learned that in my Accountancy for Dummies class.

But what I quoted above illustrates what to me is the more glaring error. The difference between ownership or stake in a company and a trust of any kind is fundamental. Vixen thought Theleme was the trust. The fact that it was incorporate overseas meant to her that the "trust" was not legally recognized in the U.K.—as if "recognition" in that sense is anything that existed outside Vixen's addled imagination.

Even if your job doesn't involve corporate accountancy or forming a trusteeship, you know that equating a company with a trust is like equating the Magna Carta with a pile of orange peels. And if your job is forensic accounting, you almost certainly ran into trusts and know how they work. Among other things, trusts can hide assets in the case where title to the asset transfers to the trust and is protected from certain obligations, but the trustee just does whatever you say with it. That's red meat for accountants looking for impropriety.



In the U.S., the Tax Court is an Article I court that rules on—among other things—the legitimacy of enterprises used as tax shelters. The posture is that those who invest in them do so in good faith. Their aim is not to avoid paying taxes they know are owed, but to lawfully reduce their tax liability. Thus when the Tax Court arrives at a decision that deems the scheme newly unlawful (or the specific use of a lawful one unlawful) there's no mens rea and no criminal liability.



Tsk, tsk. She might have only one "Master's equivalent."

Theleme LLP is a hedge fund company. And it is true, Sunak has never revealed who the trustee of his 'blind trust arrangement' although I believe he has now been ordered to comply with a legal request.

I asked you to stop spreading false information about me and please tone down your abusive language, based on the pejorative views of others. What I said was, a company registered in the Cayman Island is ipso facto secretive and their financial status is not transparent nor accessible for public inspection. We hunted down our money launderers and tax evaders in such tax havens where they thought they could never be caught or touched. That is not to say the aim is necessarily criminal intent, more to do with avoiding taxes or probity. In the meantime, I shall call the person who runs Sunak's 'blind trust arrangements' a steward of his company in the interim. As I said, Theleme is a LLP partnership, and unless you have seen the partnership agreements you cannot know what the arrangements between the partners are. I never said tax avoidance was a crime, either, nor that my job was 'a forensic accountant'; what I said was I was involved in POCA cases, some of which needed forensic investigation by way of tracking down the assets. Thus, based on what I know so far, I tend to suspect Sunak has an interest in protecting the Tata JLR brand, which is not even necessarily illegal or improper because parliamentary standards has not deemed it so. It relies on ministers making honest declarations. If suspected of breaching the code, they are often investigated by their fellow members. It is highly unlikely Sunak will face any consequences even if it turns out he was indeed covering up for Tata JLR.

 

[Vixen]

I suppose I really shouldn't waste time responding to this "gibberish," but oh, well.

First, I observe that you failed to acknowledge that you were wrong about Sunak's owning Theleme, and simply ignored the issue.




What it illustrates nicely is that you clearly don't understand the difference between a questionable tax shelter and tax fraud, for which people are routinely sent to prison in the UK. (See here, here, and here, for examples.) This is yet another pronouncement of yours that causes everyone to question whether you're actually the competent forensic accountant you've claimed to be.

As for the Carer's Allowance, despite your overwrought contention (in a previous post) that anyone "claiming" (you mean earning) more than the income limit is sent to prison, what actually happens in virtually all cases is that the wrongly claimed allowance is simply required to be paid back, just as people who invest in tax shelters that are subsequently disallowed are simply required to pay the tax, plus interest and penalties.




In other words, you've got nothing.




Which is evidence of exactly nothing.




You have claimed that he orchestrated a coverup of the fact that the Luton carpark fire was actually started by an EV, and that he did so in order to avoid financial loss to himself and his friends and family. This would clearly be a crime, whether or not you choose to admit it. The fact that you also believe he's going to get away with it, or at worst receive "a slap on the wrist," does not change that. As we've discussed, this would also make him guilty of conspiracy, which makes you beyond all doubt a conspiracy theorist.




From a couple of articles I skimmed, it appears that she, like you, doesn't understand the operation of a blind trust, although she at least has the excuse of not being an accountant.




Classic conspiracy theorist drivel.

I did try to explain how a blind trust operates but was sharply informed it was not relevant. Are you sure about your other assertion? You can say it's a crime for a minister to enrich himself by promoting his own financial interests but try proving it. It would literally take years to investigate (the PPE and Post Office ones have run and run and run). I am pretty sure Sunak will have covered his back well, as evidenced by announcing his giving his Infosys shares to his wife and not having any searchable financial investments record since 2013. I dare say he will only discover their fruits when he leaves politics, if he was not already quite well aware, thank you.

 

[LondonJohn]

I did try to explain how a blind trust operates...<snip conspiratorial drivel>

But here's the thing, Vixen. Not only didn't you "explain how a blind trust operates" - you self-evidently didn't know how a blind trust operates. Hell, you didn't even know the correct terminology to refer to it. It was a pitiful display of arrogance, hubris and ineptitude, as is this latest "I did try to explain...." schtick.

So do us all (and yourself, for that matter) a favour: don't try to lecture people on something you clearly don't understand yourself. OK?

 

[Here_to_learn]

Could someone please explain what owning stock in Infosys has to do with Tata investing in a battery plant in the UK?

 

[zooterkin]

Could someone please explain what owning stock in Infosys has to do with Tata investing in a battery plant in the UK?

And, in turn, how it means the Fire Service is lying about the fire starting in a diesel car?

 

[Foster Zygote]

But here's the thing, Vixen. Not only didn't you "explain how a blind trust operates" - you self-evidently didn't know how a blind trust operates. Hell, you didn't even know the correct terminology to refer to it. It was a pitiful display of arrogance, hubris and ineptitude, as is this latest "I did try to explain...." schtick.

So do us all (and yourself, for that matter) a favour: don't try to lecture people on something you clearly don't understand yourself. OK?

I'm reminded of someone I encountered once who claimed to have a "degree in astrophysic" [sic], but then claimed that lunar phases were caused by the earth's shadow.

 

[Darat]

And, in turn, how it means the Fire Service is lying about the fire starting in a diesel car?

You aren't clever enough to join the dots!

 

[JayUtah]

I asked you to stop spreading false information about me and please tone down your abusive language, based on the pejorative views of others.

Cry me a river.

You specifically claimed to be an expert in accounting. On no stronger a basis than your personal say-so—and ostensibly under color of this purported authority—you have accused the villain in your conspiracy theory of suspiciously arranging his finances so as to breathe life into your further claim that he is manipulating an official investigation. After scrutiny, your accusations boil down (as usual) to misconceptions and wanton ignorance of the underlying legal and financial principles. And, as usual, your claims to expertise do not absolve you from that particular error—and this time you actually made that claim and can't pretend otherwise.

If you don't like people measuring your claims and insinuations to authority according to what you can instead (fail to) demonstrate, stop doing that. If you don't like people properly questioning your claims whose basis is nothing more than your own proffered authority, stop doing that. Don't whine because your ham-fisted ploys don't fool anyone.

And as usual, if you believe you have been attacked personally or abused, report the post for moderation. Do not continue to signal your faux leniency as cover for making accusations you are unwilling to submit for adjudication.

What I said was, a company registered in the Cayman Island is ipso facto secretive and their financial status is not transparent nor accessible for public inspection.

And when you went on to try to equate this with Sunak's trust—blind or otherwise—you tipped your hand. You specifically argued that the purported secrecy endemic to this company's registration made Sunak's blind trust beyond the scope of "legal recognition by U.K. courts" and therefore suspicious. Those two concepts have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and there is no requirement that a trust or trustee be "recognized" by ,or otherwise identified to, a court in order for the trust to have legal effect.

In the meantime, I shall call the person who runs Sunak's 'blind trust arrangements' a steward of his company in the interim.

Still not the right word or concept. You're still trying to cobble up some "Because I want it to be this way" excuse for your prior conflation of company governance with trusteeship. You're still trying to argue that a company in the Cayman Islands and Sunak's blind trust ought to have anything to do with each other.

You can do whatever you want. But at this point all your doing is confirming that you really don't know what you're talking about and that your judgment on these matters can be properly dismissed no matter how many "Masters-equivalent" certifications you claim to have in the field.

As I said, Theleme is a LLP partnership, and unless you have seen the partnership agreements you cannot know what the arrangements between the partners are.

Still irrelevant to what a trust is, blind or otherwise.

I never said tax avoidance was a crime, either, nor that my job was 'a forensic accountant'; what I said was I was involved in POCA cases, some of which needed forensic investigation by way of tracking down the assets.

"I never said I was a forensic accountant, but I was a forensic accountant."

Thus, based on what I know so far, I tend to suspect...

You don't know anything so far, and there's the "on my own authority" basis that you seem to think is off-limits to point out. This is literally you making up a scenario you think might be the case, and measuring it against rules you're making up because you don't actually know what you're talking about. You have nothing to offer.

 

[JayUtah]

I did try to explain how a blind trust operates but was sharply informed it was not relevant.

No, that's not what happened.

What happened was that you tried to define a blind trust in conflation with concepts such as corporate governance and bankruptcy. None of those extraneous concepts is relevant, which is why your definition was wrong, and why you were told that your interpolation of them was irrelevant. And this is how we know you don't know what you're talking about.

Now that you realize you erred in trying to conflate corporate governance and ownership with a blind trust, you're trying to "thread the needle" and see if you can rewrite your previous arguments to make it seem like there's somehow still some way you were right all along. Next will come the, "Well, that's the way we did it where I grew up," excuse.

I am pretty sure Sunak will have covered his back well...

Begging the question.

I dare say he will...

Begging the question.

Your conspiracy theory that Sunak is orchestrating the misleading of an official investigation to benefit his private financial interest has had two of its important premises knocked out from under it. And none of that is saved by your continued appeal to some magical personal prowess in ferreting out financial misdeeds.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm reminded of someone I encountered once who claimed to have a "degree in astrophysic" [sic], but then claimed that lunar phases were caused by the earth's shadow.

Reminds me of a guy making similar claims, who then went on to say that a polar orbit was one in which a spacecraft orbits in a tight little circle around the North Pole.

What is it about the conspiracy mindset that stubbornly believes other people can't know that a conspiracy theorist is faking it? Do they really think other people are that dumb or than uninquisitive? Every conspiracy theorist I've encountered really does think they have an uncommonly good talent for bluffing and getting away with it.