Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[JayUtah]

The idea of the Trustee/s is to ringfence the company/companies...

No. A blind trust has nothing to do with companies. You're still conflating this with company stewardship, which you apparently hastily Googled early in the process and decided mattered here. And you don't have the right idea of company stewardship, either.

AFAICS for it to be authentic it needs to be legally formalized.

There is no requirement for external recognition of a trust, blind or otherwise. If a valid contract exists between trustee and beneficiary, it is authentic.

I am sceptical there is any such arrangement and there is no supervision to ensure it is genuinely blind.

Your skepticism is noted and disregarded as being based on faulty information.

 

[Here_to_learn]

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.

Follow what money exactly? The only link I can see is owning part of Infosys that is an Indian company. And Tata is also an Indian company. Is that your connection?

 

[Vixen]

Follow what money exactly? The only link I can see is owning part of Infosys that is an Indian company. And Tata is also an Indian company. Is that your connection?

Sunak has handed Tata a contract for a Jaguar Land Rover plant and electric car battery factory. Tata will receive a taxpayers' subsidy that it never needs to pay back. Sunak has not told the taxpayer how much this taxpayer subsidy is but the press estimates it to be at least £500m. Perhaps you can now see why Sunak doesn't want this deal to go pear shaped because of brand reputational damage to JLR vehicles catching fire and the public perception of EV's being a car park fire hazard. His father-in-law is a close friend of Mr. Tata.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Sunak has handed Tata a contract for a Jaguar Land Rover plant and electric car battery factory. Tata will receive a taxpayers' subsidy that it never needs to pay back. Sunak has not told the taxpayer how much this taxpayer subsidy is but the press estimates it to be at least £500m. Perhaps you can now see why Sunak doesn't want this deal to go pear shaped because of brand reputational damage to JLR vehicles catching fire and the public perception of EV's being a car park fire hazard. His father-in-law is a close friend of Mr. Tata.

You brought up stock in Infosys in the discussion. How does that fit into your theory?

 

[zooterkin]

Sunak has handed Tata a contract for a Jaguar Land Rover plant and electric car battery factory. Tata will receive a taxpayers' subsidy that it never needs to pay back. Sunak has not told the taxpayer how much this taxpayer subsidy is but the press estimates it to be at least £500m. Perhaps you can now see why Sunak doesn't want this deal to go pear shaped because of brand reputational damage to JLR vehicles catching fire and the public perception of EV's being a car park fire hazard. His father-in-law is a close friend of Mr. Tata.

Which might be remotely relevant if the fire had not started in a diesel car.

 

[JayUtah]

Perhaps you can now see why Sunak doesn't want this deal to go pear shaped because of brand reputational damage to JLR vehicles catching fire and the public perception of EV's being a car park fire hazard.

Frantically trying to establish a motive for Sunak does not establish that the car was an EV.

This is another hallmark of conspiracy theories. Rather than establish according to fact what actually happened, they focus on "soft" claims like motive and opportunity to insinuate their way around the empty corpus delicti.

 

[JayUtah]

I notice you were equally contemptuously scornful of Carol Vorderman having a degree in Engineering.

I'm waiting, Vixen.

 

[Vixen]

You brought up stock in Infosys in the discussion. How does that fit into your theory?

Sunak says he gave his shares in Infosys to his wife so that means he no longer has an interest in it. Therefore, it is not a conflict of interest - goes Sunak's logic - to give multi-million pound contracts to Infosys. Likewise, with his claim he has had nothing to do with the company he co-founded in 2010, Theleme, putting out a statement he no longer has anything to do with it. But who believes he just left behind £536m? It's clear, he thinks going 'blind' means he doesn't have to declare interests he certainly does have. Of course he has an interest in Infosys via his spouse. I wouldn't be surprised if he has handed over his partnership at Theleme to one of his daughters and she gets the dividends instead. Of course he has interests. Of course he will gain from the Tata contract in one way or another is my view, because he has not been transparent and that is why I am sceptical.

 

[smartcooky]

Follow what money exactly? The only link I can see is owning part of Infosys that is an Indian company. And Tata is also an Indian company. Is that your connection?

 

[JayUtah]

Therefore, it is not a conflict of interest - goes Sunak's logic - to give multi-million pound contracts to Infosys.

Where did Sunak say this?

But who believes he just left behind £536m?

Your personal incredulity is not evidence.

It's clear, he thinks going 'blind' means he doesn't have to declare interests he certainly does have.

"Clear" because you say so?

You can either prove he has those interests and knows about them, or you can't.

Of course he has an interest in Infosys via his spouse.

"...because I say so."

I wouldn't be surprised if he has handed over his partnership at Theleme to one of his daughters and she gets the dividends instead.

Imagination is not evidence.

Of course he has interests.

"...because I say so."

Of course he will gain from the Tata contract in one way or another is my view, because he has not been transparent and that is why I am sceptical.

Your skepticism seems to feed quite voraciously off your imagination.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Sunak says he gave his shares in Infosys to his wife so that means he no longer has an interest in it. Therefore, it is not a conflict of interest - goes Sunak's logic - to give multi-million pound contracts to Infosys. Likewise, with his claim he has had nothing to do with the company he co-founded in 2010, Theleme, putting out a statement he no longer has anything to do with it. But who believes he just left behind £536m? It's clear, he thinks going 'blind' means he doesn't have to declare interests he certainly does have. Of course he has an interest in Infosys via his spouse. I wouldn't be surprised if he has handed over his partnership at Theleme to one of his daughters and she gets the dividends instead. Of course he has interests. Of course he will gain from the Tata contract in one way or another is my view, because he has not been transparent and that is why I am sceptical.

What contract has he given to Infosys and what does that have to do with cars?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Why do you keep dodging people correcting you Vixen? Why are you repeatedly ignoring Jay's request that you provide evidence of the accusation you levelled at him?

Well I mean we all know the reason I just wonder if you're able to admit it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Sunak says he gave his shares in Infosys to his wife so that means he no longer has an interest in it...

You claimed this before but it took mere seconds to look it up and confirm that is untrue. Do you remember?

Nobody who had to abide by the ministerial code could fail to be aware that their spouse's interests count equally to their own.

Your sentence is ambiguous. If you meant "that means he no longer has an interest" to be an expression of Sunak's opinion then I don't believe you. Show us where he said that. If you meant it as your own opinion, then we already showed you it's not true so why are you repeating it?

 

[Dabop]

Sunak has handed Tata a contract for a Jaguar Land Rover plant and electric car battery factory. Tata will receive a taxpayers' subsidy that it never needs to pay back. Sunak has not told the taxpayer how much this taxpayer subsidy is but the press estimates it to be at least £500m. Perhaps you can now see why Sunak doesn't want this deal to go pear shaped because of brand reputational damage to JLR vehicles catching fire and the public perception of EV's being a car park fire hazard. His father-in-law is a close friend of Mr. Tata.

He tries to minimise the damage done to JLR- by releasing a 'deep fake' video and pictures of a JLR vehicle ON FIRE....
That then proceeds to burn out an entire carpark....

(Add 'minimise' to the ever increasing number of things that has a new 'vixen-meaning'....)
It isn't as if this is exactly unknown with their vehicles, reliability issues have plagued them for decades...

And then has Jenny/Jeremy of public relations to put out a story about it not being an EV (hybrid or other) implicating dozens of people in a criminal conspiracy- all of whom have to remain silent...

But then stupidly allows the public inquiry into the carpark fire to go ahead (meaning even MORE people are going to have to be included in the conspiracy- after all you have an entire team investigating it- surely after they finish they investigations and either nothing is reported at all, or the report is also 'faked' they will not all go- 'hmm thats not we found, oh well, nothing we can do about that, off to the next case'

The sheer stupidity of this 'conspiracy theory' makes flat earthers and moon landing conspiracy nuts look positively sensible by comparison....

 

[TheGoldcountry]

This thread long ago passed the point where ignorance was distinguishable from trolling, if it ever was.

 

[Vixen]

Where did Sunak say this?



Your personal incredulity is not evidence.



"Clear" because you say so?

You can either prove he has those interests and knows about them, or you can't.



"...because I say so."



Imagination is not evidence.



"...because I say so."



Your skepticism seems to feed quite voraciously off your imagination.

It's enshrined in many facets of law. Spouse has joint rights in many areas. Considered so close they are excused from giving evidence against each other in a criminal trial. Unless there is a specific will the spouse gets everything should one of them die (in the UK). A spouse has the right to carry on living in the spousal home should the other half die, ceteris parabus. So the idea of passing one's wealth over to the spouse and then claiming not to have an interest is nonsense.

 

[Vixen]

What contract has he given to Infosys and what does that have to do with cars?

It characterises his secretive behaviour, which was evidence requested as to whether he would do any such thing as to cover up the Luton Airport car park fire by embargoing confirmation of brand, model and year of car and that it was a hybrid.

 

[Vixen]

He tries to minimise the damage done to JLR- by releasing a 'deep fake' video and pictures of a JLR vehicle ON FIRE....
That then proceeds to burn out an entire carpark....

(Add 'minimise' to the ever increasing number of things that has a new 'vixen-meaning'....)
It isn't as if this is exactly unknown with their vehicles, reliability issues have plagued them for decades...

And then has Jenny/Jeremy of public relations to put out a story about it not being an EV (hybrid or other) implicating dozens of people in a criminal conspiracy- all of whom have to remain silent...

But then stupidly allows the public inquiry into the carpark fire to go ahead (meaning even MORE people are going to have to be included in the conspiracy- after all you have an entire team investigating it- surely after they finish they investigations and either nothing is reported at all, or the report is also 'faked' they will not all go- 'hmm thats not we found, oh well, nothing we can do about that, off to the next case'

The sheer stupidity of this 'conspiracy theory' makes flat earthers and moon landing conspiracy nuts look positively sensible by comparison....

Sunak doesn't need to put out a fake video, he has the power of embargo. He does have a slick political team backed by think tanks who produce all kinds of creative videos for him.

The front view video is a red herring. Just some guy on Twitter/x claiming to be able to read the numberplate.

 

[junkshop]

Vixen, is this statement from a press release published by BF&RS true?

...The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle...

Yes or no, no equivocation, no tangents, no squirrels.

Yes or no. Is it true?

 

[JayUtah]

It's enshrined in many facets of law.
* * *
So the idea of passing one's wealth over to the spouse and then claiming not to have an interest is nonsense.

Most of that drivel was irrelevant to anything I asked. However, in your haste to conflate marital rights with obligations to avoid conflicts of interest, you keep neglecting that spouses are bound under those obligations. Sunak giving something to his wife does not free either of them up to manipulate it without being obliged to disclose it.

Why are you avoiding clarifying your accusation against me for what you alleged I said about Carol Vorderman? Please address this.