Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

Status
Not open for further replies.
P.J. Denyer said:
I will confirm for anyone that wasn't aware, when I was studying for CIMA none of the units covered firefighting or automotive design/repair. ACA or ACCA might have been different, but in my experience they were less likely to get their hands dirty!
Click to expand...

The closest I got to getting my hands dirty during my Big4 career was doing stock counts in grubby warehouses. Apart from that it was lots of spreadsheeting in comfy offices.
 
Darat said:
I think it was their shared history of being in unfulfilling relationships with men and how all their lives they had felt stifled, their road trip was both a metaphorical and literal escape from these dissatisfactions.
Click to expand...
;)
Sounds like one of those 'friends to lovers' lesbian romances
 
JayUtah said:
Nope.



Don't forget you're the one who insinuated expertise, and tried to back it up with statements like, "I had five years of physics," and "I'm a scientist," and "I have two Master's equivalents in accounting." As I said: if you don't want people asking how you know what you insinuate that you know, come up with a better basis for your arguments than, "Because I say so."



Nope. But you were awfully reluctant to reveal it. Now I know why.



You're not a psychologist either.



True. They're a conspiracy theorist when they propose conspiracy theorists. And in your case, it's not that you have a different viewpoint. You have a wrong viewpoint, predicated on speaking confidently from ignorance.
Click to expand...

If you recall, you asked me if I had studied physics and I politely responded, accordingly, in response to your question. You also asked if I was a scientist, and again, I responded factually and straightforwardly. You insisted that I could not be a postgraduate and I pointed out that my two chartered accountancy designations were achieved precisely on the basis of my being a STEM postgraduate. In addition, the professional bodies' webpage itself together with Gov.UK confirms they are internationally recognised as Masters equivalent for formal educational purposes. You were the one who asked and I replied.

If I were to ask you what your profession was and you replied, 'Police officer'. would you think it honest and fair for me to later constantly claim on social media that you bragged and boasted that you were a Police Officer, trying to make people believe you were a bighead, when AFAYAC you were simply giving a straight answer to a straight question and the accusation of bragging would be a problem with my attitude, not yours?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
If you recall, you asked me if I had studied physics and I politely responded, accordingly, in response to your question. You also asked if I was a scientist, and again, I responded factually and straightforwardly. You insisted that I could not be a postgraduate and I pointed out that my two chartered accountancy designations were achieved precisely on the basis of my being a STEM postgraduate. In addition, the professional bodies' webpage itself together with Gov.UK confirms they are internationally recognised as Masters equivalent for formal educational purposes. You were the one who asked and I replied.

If I were to ask you what your profession was and you replied, 'Police officer'. would you think it honest and fair for me to later constantly claim on social media that you bragged and boasted that you were a Police Officer, trying to make people believe you were a bighead, when AFAYAC you were simply giving a straight answer to a straight question and the accusation of bragging would be a problem with my attitude, not yours?
Click to expand...

You do realize that most of us commenting here have read this and your other threads? As such, we know this comment is complete and utter ********.
 
Vixen said:
If you recall, you asked me if I had studied physics and I politely responded, accordingly, in response to your question.
Click to expand...

Nope.

It was several days before you admitted that your study was at the high school level. This was in response to your insinuation that you understood enough physics to endorse the arguments made by professionals in the MS Estonia case.

You also asked if I was a scientist, and again, I responded factually and straightforwardly.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Someone else pointed out that you were not a scientist, and you asserted that in fact you were. Again, it was several days before you revealed that you were a practitioner of the "science" of accountancy.

You insisted that I could not be a postgraduate and I pointed out that my two chartered accountancy designations...
Click to expand...

Nope.

Someone else pointed out that you were not a psychologist, and you asserted that you were a "psychology post-graduate." This led to you trying to equivocate between your claims to have once written a psychology paper in college and your later irrelevant certifications in accountancy.

You were the one who asked and I replied.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Aside from me asking what your qualifications in physics were, all the rest were you claiming expertise when challenged by others. In all cases you were evasive and misleading until a final answer was obtained. And as I wrote at length—and you still haven't addressed—almost all your claims here insinuate some form of personal authority that you refuse to substantiate. You're not being bullied. You're simply being held accountable to your claims and insinuations.

Now that we're clearing up your misremembered past, are you going to address the rather large elephant in the room: Carol Vorderman?
 
Last edited:
SpitfireIX said:
As I've noted in the past, correctly and relevantly calling attention to your apparent incompetence in a field where you're claiming to be an expert is not abuse, even if it hurts your feelings.




What I said was that you didn't understand the difference between tax fraud and tax avoidance, because you claimed that Degorce was charged with tax fraud, when all he'd done was invest in a questionable tax shelter. And I stand by that assertion.




Second, when I pointed this out to you, you strongly implied that tax avoidance ought to be a crime, and insinuated that the fact that it isn't is somehow proof of your fantasy that Britain still largely adheres to Victorian social stratification. :rolleyes:

As a side note, something I didn't pick up on before is that you refer to Degorce as "co-partner," when he actually founded and currently runs the fund. You presumably did this in an attempt to inflate Sunak's importance and role in the firm, when, as I've mentioned, he was only a junior partner. In fact, one article I read from The Guardian referred to Degorce as "Sunak's boss at Theleme."

And one final note, I saw an article that referred to the amount Degorce owed as £8m, which you may have misread as £80m.
Click to expand...

Well OK, 'charged' was not the right phrase but he was forced to pay the tax bill as were the others he enticed into his brilliant idea. As I said before, unless you have a copy of the partnership agreement you cannot know what the agreed division of labour, profits and salaries are. Likewise you cannot know for sure it is a formalized 'blind trust arrangement' because Sunak will not reveal the name of the Trustee. For example, say you have three people - usually professionals such as lawyers or accountants, or whatever - then how they decide to set it up is entirely up to them. One could simply be retired and giving 100% of the investment, one could be remunerated on the basis of 80% of the profits (perhaps he's the one with the USP and acumen who will attract clients based on his past record), Partner C, might just be happy to draw a monthly salary. They might agree to spilt the remaining profits of 15% to the investor and 5% to Partner C. This is all drawn up in a contract. Your claim that Sunak 'only owned 5% and no longer works there is ergo meaningless, He might still be a partner for all you know and might still be on a retainer for dividends and what have you as soon as the 'blind arrangement' ceases to be an issue for the Ministerial Code.

https://x.com/BrightOcular/status/1763652090805584146


Well Mr. Murthy, Sunak's father-in-law has retired from Infosys but his daughter retains 1% of the £800bn share value. As for the link to Tata and/or JLR; it is probably labyrinthe but follow the money and it easily explains why there is an embargo on naming the Land Rover vehicle and the fact it was likely an EV fire, judging by its appearance.
 
Vixen said:
As I said before, unless you have a copy of the partnership agreement you cannot know what the agreed division of labour, profits and salaries are. Likewise you cannot know for sure it is a formalized 'blind trust arrangement' because Sunak will not reveal the name of the Trustee.
Click to expand...

A privately-held company and a blind trust have nothing to do with each other.
 
Vixen said:
Well OK, 'charged' was not the right phrase but he was forced to pay the tax bill as were the others he enticed into his brilliant idea. As I said before, unless you have a copy of the partnership agreement you cannot know what the agreed division of labour, profits and salaries are. Likewise you cannot know for sure it is a formalized 'blind trust arrangement' because Sunak will not reveal the name of the Trustee. For example, say you have three people - usually professionals such as lawyers or accountants, or whatever - then how they decide to set it up is entirely up to them. One could simply be retired and giving 100% of the investment, one could be remunerated on the basis of 80% of the profits (perhaps he's the one with the USP and acumen who will attract clients based on his past record), Partner C, might just be happy to draw a monthly salary. They might agree to spilt the remaining profits of 15% to the investor and 5% to Partner C. This is all drawn up in a contract. Your claim that Sunak 'only owned 5% and no longer works there is ergo meaningless, He might still be a partner for all you know and might still be on a retainer for dividends and what have you as soon as the 'blind arrangement' ceases to be an issue for the Ministerial Code.

https://x.com/BrightOcular/status/1763652090805584146


Well Mr. Murthy, Sunak's father-in-law has retired from Infosys but his daughter retains 1% of the £800bn share value. As for the link to Tata and/or JLR; it is probably labyrinthe but follow the money and it easily explains why there is an embargo on naming the Land Rover vehicle and the fact it was likely an EV fire, judging by its appearance.
Click to expand...


So no actual evidence then.
 
JayUtah said:
A privately-held company and a blind trust have nothing to do with each other.
Click to expand...

He claims ALL of his business interests are in a 'blind trust arrangement'. This is just a generic header for the Ministerial Code Registers of Interest. Good Law Project requested information about the name of the person/people acting as Trustee/s and they were told by the Cabinet Office that the information was withheld. It doesn't inspire confidence that Sunak does not have any interest in Tata either for himself or via his family. If it was at genuine arm's length as is the accepted criteria then he shouldn't have any problem holding out his hands and showing there is no personal interest there.
 
Vixen said:
He claims ALL of his business interests are in a 'blind trust arrangement'. This is just a generic header for the Ministerial Code Registers of Interest. Good Law Project requested information about the name of the person/people acting as Trustee/s and they were told by the Cabinet Office that the information was withheld. It doesn't inspire confidence that Sunak does not have any interest in Tata either for himself or via his family. If it was at genuine arm's length as is the accepted criteria then he shouldn't have any problem holding out his hands and showing there is no personal interest there.
Click to expand...


What evidence do you have that the vehicle the fire started in was an EV or hybrid?
 
JayUtah said:
A privately-held company and a blind trust have nothing to do with each other.
Click to expand...

The idea of the Trustee/s is to ringfence the company/companies completely away from the person who needs to step away to claim no conflict of interest. What the company does is neither here nor there. AFAICS for it to be authentic it needs to be legally formalized. It is possible Sunak has don e this but without disclosing who the Trustee/s is, I am sceptical there is any such arrangement and there is no supervision to ensure it is genuinely blind.

Just the Right Honourable friend's declaration it is blind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom