Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[JayUtah]

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.

We're not interested in what you imagine Sunak could or would do. We're asking for evidence of what he has done.

You're alleging that Sunak has misused the power of his office to manipulate an official investigation with the intent of covering up the true identity of its cause, in order to give himself a financial advantage. Dozens of pages later you have provided no evidence and a badly written plot.

 

[Vixen]

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?

He completely cleared his desk, as it were, in 2013 to make way for his politcal ambitions, as backed by David Cameron who was introduced to him by Indian PM Modi iirc. Parachuted into a safe seat. Rapid rise up the ladder. Has PPE from Oxford but definitely more a businessman than a politician, with his MBA from Stanford. He knows how to hide stuff (registers his company in the Cayman Islands, for a start). His company put out a 'statement' (probably dicatated by Sunak himself) saying he no longer has anything to do with Theleme in 2013. Nobody knows what his business has been since 2013. Married a near-billionaire. He is very very astute. There is no way he does not profit in one way or another from the Tata JLR deal. No way will he allow the blame for the Luton fire to be pinned onto his Rising Star (cf. Boston Matrix).

 

[Vixen]

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.

You sneered about Vordeman being worth only one Masters, as if you weren't trying to score points.

 

[Vixen]

We're not interested in what you imagine Sunak could or would do. We're asking for evidence of what he has done.

You're alleging that Sunak has misused the power of his office to manipulate an official investigation with the intent of covering up the true identity of its cause, in order to give himself a financial advantage. Dozens of pages later you have provided no evidence and a badly written plot.

That is my opinion, and the Romanian lady's video confirms what we can all see if only people would look.

 

[JayUtah]

You sneered about Vordeman being worth only one Masters, as if you weren't trying to score points.

That's not what you claimed I said, and that's not what I said, and that's not what I intended by it.

Shame on you.

After stamping your little feet about how badly you thought you were being abused and how awful it was that people were spreading false information about you, you demonstrate that you're not willing to face the music when you make the misstep you accuse others of.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You sneered about Vordeman being worth only one Masters, as if you weren't trying to score points.

Where? Quote him doing it.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

That is my opinion, and the Romanian lady's video confirms what we can all see if only people would look.

Your opinion is worthless. You're a noted serial liar.

 

[LondonJohn]

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're demonstrating here that you have no idea whatsoever* about the dynamics behind inward investment into the UK. Stop trying to sound authoritative about things of which you're rankly ignorant.


* And I have zero interest in correcting/explaining your ignorance, since you've amply demonstrated (wrt to the many, many other corrections that have come your way) that it would be a complete waste of my time.

 

[Steve]

That is my opinion, and the Romanian lady's video confirms what we can all see if only people would look.

It confirms no such thing. And your uneducated, and frankly ignorant, opinion along with $5 might be enough to purchase a cup of coffee.

 

[JayUtah]

That is my opinion..

And it's based mostly on your imagination, not facts or evidence.

and the Romanian lady's video confirms what we can all see if only people would look.

You simply insist that the "Romanian lady's video" illustrates what—in your inexpert judgment—can only be an electric vehicle fire. That's begging the question.

Even if that interpretation were correct, it has nothing to do with proving what you allege Sunak to have done in response.

 

[LondonJohn]

That is my opinion, and the Romanian lady's video confirms what we can all see if only people would look.

"...if only people would look" LMAO

If only people would LOOK, they'd see that 7 World Trade Center collapsed in what was clearly a controlled demolition.

If only people would LOOK, they'd see that the flag planted on the "lunar surface" was waving in the wind, yet the Moon has no atmosphere.

If only people would LOOK, they'd see President Kennedy's head snapping back and to the left, which could only happen in response to a gunshot from the front-right of the car.

See any pattern* here.....?



* And of course the pattern is semi-scientifically-literate (at best) conspiracy theorists believing that they've got slam-dunk evidence pointing to a matter which supports their conspiracy theory.... when in fact proper science and critical thinking can easily & categorically disprove these CT nonsenses.

 

[JayUtah]

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

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

You sneered about Vordeman being worth only one Masters, as if you weren't trying to score points.

You're not finished, Vixen. Provide evidence for your accusation or withdraw it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You sneered about Vordeman being worth only one Masters, as if you weren't trying to score points.

This is where we see your lack of reading compression, again.

 

[junkshop]

I fear Vixen may have Corriganed me. If true, that would be a shame, I've not been able to add a new silliness to my sig in a while.

C'mon, Vixen. It's a simple question. Is this statement true?

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

Yes or no?

 

[phiwum]

That is my opinion, and the Romanian lady's video confirms what we can all see if only people would look.

Really?

You believe the video is sufficient evidence that the initial vehicle was a hybrid or EV and in fact any reasonable, disinterested observer would come to the same conclusion.

Hence, it must be the case that this same video is sufficient evidence that the sentence, "The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle," is false. Moreover, the fire investigators must know that they haven't sufficient evidence for this conclusion -- and they must also be familiar with the press release, so this must be a deliberate deception.

This sequence of inferences must be obvious to any reader.

1. The video shows that the initial vehicle was an EV or hybrid.
2. Hence, it is false that the initial vehicle is neither an EV or hybrid.
3. Hence, the sentence "The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle," is also false.
4. The fire investigators must know that they haven't sufficient evidence for the above sentence.
5. Hence, the fact that the sentence is still on a press release, unamended, is evidence that the BF&RS is deliberately deceiving the public.

Now, we might quibble over the last two propositions, but that (2) and (3) follow from (1) is undeniable.

Yet, curiously, you can't draw such a trivial inference when asked. Here's our exchange from May 6.

I didn't ask about what Hopkinson said on October 11.

I asked whether the sentence

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

is true or false.

Just read that sentence and consider whether it is true or not. That's all.

When doing so, keep in mind that you have said that,

So, whilst he was offering the opinion it was a 'diesel' vehicle, 'at this stage subject to verification', the video that was widely circulated on social media and the national press (even as a BBC video) - none of them able to officially confirm its authenticity - but which showed a clear thermal runaway fire.

You have also conceded that the video very probably shows the initial vehicle on fire.

Hence, if the video showed it was a thermal runaway fire, then the vehicle must have been an EV or hybrid.

Now, with all that in mind, is the quoted sentence true or false?

I do not have sufficient information to come to a conclusion.

Why are you so damned timid to draw the conclusions from your own assertions? If the video shows a hybrid on fire and anyone can see that, then the press release contains a baldly false claim. Hence, the fire department is deceiving us.

Do tell me if I misrepresent you. From where I sit, there are two possibilities. The first is that you haven't the basic reasoning capabilities of a typical carrot. The second is that you somehow don't want to claim the fire department has deceived us, even though that is a consequence of your other claims. The principle of charity requires I place my money on the latter possibility, but I don't get your timidity.

 

[smartcooky]

I note nobody has been able to produce a video of an 'electrical fault in the engine bay of a diesel-only powered car' that looks exactly like the one released by the Romanian lady, which itself looks remarkably like a lithium-ion fire.

It isn't as if this is exactly unknown with their vehicles, reliability issues have plagued them for decades...

I guess ignorance really is bliss. I would really like to see how someone could video an electrical fault in the engine bay of a car. This sounds a lot like trying to say the cause of fires is a lack of sprinklers.

 

[smartcooky]

Really?

You believe the video is sufficient evidence that the initial vehicle was a hybrid or EV and in fact any reasonable, disinterested observer would come to the same conclusion.

Hence, it must be the case that this same video is sufficient evidence that the sentence, "The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle," is false. Moreover, the fire investigators must know that they haven't sufficient evidence for this conclusion -- and they must also be familiar with the press release, so this must be a deliberate deception.

This sequence of inferences must be obvious to any reader.

1. The video shows that the initial vehicle was an EV or hybrid.
2. Hence, it is false that the initial vehicle is neither an EV or hybrid.
3. Hence, the sentence "The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle," is also false.
4. The fire investigators must know that they haven't sufficient evidence for the above sentence.
5. Hence, the fact that the sentence is still on a press release, unamended, is evidence that the BF&RS is deliberately deceiving the public.

Now, we might quibble over the last two propositions, but that (2) and (3) follow from (1) is undeniable.

Yet, curiously, you can't draw such a trivial inference when asked. Here's our exchange from May 6.





Why are you so damned timid to draw the conclusions from your own assertions? If the video shows a hybrid on fire and anyone can see that, then the press release contains a baldly false claim. Hence, the fire department is deceiving us.

Do tell me if I misrepresent you. From where I sit, there are two possibilities. The first is that you haven't the basic reasoning capabilities of a typical carrot. The second is that you somehow don't want to claim the fire department has deceived us, even though that is a consequence of your other claims. The principle of charity requires I place my money on the latter possibility, but I don't get your timidity.

You should keep in mind that Vixen is a conspiracy theorist (a fact that she will deny, but which the rest of us have proven over and over). As such, she has reached her preferred overall conclusions based on almost no evidence, but will never commit to accepting details. Most importantly, she is never going to allow you, or anyone else, to set the goal posts in concrete.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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.

Why are we talking about Sunak at all? There is no evidence of his actually having done anything relevant, nor for that matter that there was anything relevant for him to have done.

It is your headcanon that the vehicle that started the fire was really an EV vehicle, and that this is somehow being hidden.

And it is your headcanon that Rishi Sunak somehow did something to help that hiding.

Until you can substantiate the above two claims with more than supposition, there is no point in following Sunak's money.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

You're not finished, Vixen. Provide evidence for your accusation or withdraw it.

Am I reading this right: Vixen is misreading your mockery of *her* (Vixen's) way of tracking credentials as mockery of Voldemort Vordeman's actual credentials?

 

[novaphile]

Am I reading this right: Vixen is misreading your mockery of *her* (Vixen's) way of tracking credentials as mockery of Voldemort Vordeman's actual credentials?

That's probably a good read, because it is part of her modus operandi.

If anyone mentions that she is a bit slow on the uptake, she tries to spin it as the person being disparaging to anyone with a disability.

It's part of the twisting and turning of a twisty turny thing.

Or, just another part of the ongoing Gish-Gallop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

 

[Mojo]

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.

It's begging the question. Vixen claims that the fire started in an EV or hybrid, then assumes this as fact in her attempt to find someone to pin a cover-up on. We saw essentially the same thing in the Estonia threads, where she tried to use the concept of cui bono to establish that a crime had taken place rather than to identify possible suspects for an actual crime.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

He completely cleared his desk, as it were, in 2013... <more irrelevant response snipped>.

Did he wear an onion on his belt too?

None of this addresses the question you are replying to. Not even obliquely. Always keeping six steps ahead of answering a question.

 

[Vixen]

"...if only people would look" LMAO

If only people would LOOK, they'd see that 7 World Trade Center collapsed in what was clearly a controlled demolition.

If only people would LOOK, they'd see that the flag planted on the "lunar surface" was waving in the wind, yet the Moon has no atmosphere.

If only people would LOOK, they'd see President Kennedy's head snapping back and to the left, which could only happen in response to a gunshot from the front-right of the car.

See any pattern* here.....?



* And of course the pattern is semi-scientifically-literate (at best) conspiracy theorists believing that they've got slam-dunk evidence pointing to a matter which supports their conspiracy theory.... when in fact proper science and critical thinking can easily & categorically disprove these CT nonsenses.

Oh dear. Thank you for admitting you are prejudiced by thinking this has anything whatsoever to do with 9/11, Apollo or JFK.


My goodness me!

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh dear. Thank you for admitting you are prejudiced by thinking this has anything whatsoever to do with 9/11, Apollo or JFK.


My goodness me!

That's very clearly not what he's saying.

Are you actually fluent in English?

 

[Vixen]

I fear Vixen may have Corriganed me. If true, that would be a shame, I've not been able to add a new silliness to my sig in a while.

C'mon, Vixen. It's a simple question. Is this statement true?




Yes or no?

As I have stated multiple times by now, Jeremifer, in charge of a webpage, has nothing at all to do with the investigation into the fire. They just bang up whatever the Fire Chief said at his press conference. The Fire Chief has had just one such Press briefing, and as of that time, had not seen the Romanian lady's video, nor the one from the front. Jeremifer simply put it into 'plain English' and being an eco-warrior thought it 'kinda' amusing to sock one in the eye to the anti-EV mob. They probably go chucking orange paint over famous paintings at weekends.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

As I have stated multiple times by now, Jeremifer, in charge of a webpage, has nothing at all to do with the investigation into the fire. They just bang up whatever the Fire Chief said at his press conference. The Fire Chief has had just one such Press briefing, and as of that time, had not seen the Romanian lady's video, nor the one from the front. Jeremifer simply put it into 'plain English' and being an eco-warrior thought it 'kinda' amusing to sock one in the eye to the anti0EV mob. They probably go chucking orange paint over famous paintings at weekends.

Baseless speculation from your febrile imagination.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I'll try a direct question and see if when that gets ignored.

Vixen, what makes you equipped to properly judge the image as you have been doing? What expertise do you have in either fires, vehicle fires, or photographic interpretation?

 

[zooterkin]

As I have stated multiple times by now, Jeremifer, in charge of a webpage, has nothing at all to do with the investigation into the fire. They just bang up whatever the Fire Chief said at his press conference. The Fire Chief has had just one such Press briefing, and as of that time, had not seen the Romanian lady's video, nor the one from the front. Jeremifer simply put it into 'plain English' and being an eco-warrior thought it 'kinda' amusing to sock one in the eye to the anti-EV mob. They probably go chucking orange paint over famous paintings at weekends.

Please stop lying.

 

[Vixen]

Really?

You believe the video is sufficient evidence that the initial vehicle was a hybrid or EV and in fact any reasonable, disinterested observer would come to the same conclusion.

Hence, it must be the case that this same video is sufficient evidence that the sentence, "The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle," is false. Moreover, the fire investigators must know that they haven't sufficient evidence for this conclusion -- and they must also be familiar with the press release, so this must be a deliberate deception.

This sequence of inferences must be obvious to any reader.

1. The video shows that the initial vehicle was an EV or hybrid.
2. Hence, it is false that the initial vehicle is neither an EV or hybrid.
3. Hence, the sentence "The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle," is also false.
4. The fire investigators must know that they haven't sufficient evidence for the above sentence.
5. Hence, the fact that the sentence is still on a press release, unamended, is evidence that the BF&RS is deliberately deceiving the public.

Now, we might quibble over the last two propositions, but that (2) and (3) follow from (1) is undeniable.

Yet, curiously, you can't draw such a trivial inference when asked. Here's our exchange from May 6.





Why are you so damned timid to draw the conclusions from your own assertions? If the video shows a hybrid on fire and anyone can see that, then the press release contains a baldly false claim. Hence, the fire department is deceiving us.

Do tell me if I misrepresent you. From where I sit, there are two possibilities. The first is that you haven't the basic reasoning capabilities of a typical carrot. The second is that you somehow don't want to claim the fire department has deceived us, even though that is a consequence of your other claims. The principle of charity requires I place my money on the latter possibility, but I don't get your timidity.

Beds F&RS hasn't deceived you. It said on Day One that it was subject to verification. Nothing has been confirmed in the press except that people are unable to make out that the whole thing is conditional on the outcome of the investigation. The guy who was arrested was not even cleared until six month's later, so what makes you think 'the case is closed' as of Day One even?

Let's see if the make, model and year and power train type is ever revealed in the final report.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Beds F&RS hasn't deceived you. It said on Day One that it was subject to verification. Nothing has been confirmed in the press except that people are unable to make out that the whole thing is conditional on the outcome of the investigation. The guy who was arrested was not even cleared until six month's later, so what makes you think 'the case is closed' as of Day One even?

Let's see if the make, model and year and power train type is ever revealed in the final report.

You cannot stop lying can you?

 

[Vixen]

Am I reading this right: Vixen is misreading your mockery of *her* (Vixen's) way of tracking credentials as mockery of Voldemort Vordeman's actual credentials?

It's exactly that. JayUtah gets very very angry if he thinks someone is queering his pitch. He thinks this is HIS pitch. Hence the mockery on his part. He's defending his pitch by loudly wailing.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

It's exactly that. JayUtah gets very very angry if he thinks someone is queering his pitch. He thinks this is HIS pitch. Hence the mockery on his part. He's defending his pitch by loudly wailing.

Amazingly delusional response.

 

[zooterkin]

Am I reading this right: Vixen is misreading your mockery of *her* (Vixen's) way of tracking credentials as mockery of Voldemort Vordeman's actual credentials?

It's exactly that.

Really?


Once again, a spectacular failure to comprehend basic English.

 

[Steve]

It's exactly that. JayUtah gets very very angry if he thinks someone is queering his pitch. He thinks this is HIS pitch. Hence the mockery on his part. He's defending his pitch by loudly wailing.

You are projecting again. Nothing in any of JayUtah's posts indicates anger on his part. He is the most rational and informed poster here. An actual expert in incident investigations. You could learn a lot from his posts if you were not so ignorant of your own limitations. Your feeble attempts to disparage him merely provide more evidence of your own irrational thought processes.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As I have stated multiple times by now, Jeremifer, in charge of a webpage, has nothing at all to do with the investigation into the fire. They just bang up whatever the Fire Chief said at his press conference. The Fire Chief has had just one such Press briefing, and as of that time, had not seen the Romanian lady's video, nor the one from the front. Jeremifer simply put it into 'plain English' and being an eco-warrior thought it 'kinda' amusing to sock one in the eye to the anti-EV mob. They probably go chucking orange paint over famous paintings at weekends.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Beds F&RS hasn't deceived you. It said on Day One that it was subject to verification. Nothing has been confirmed in the press except that people are unable to make out that the whole thing is conditional on the outcome of the investigation. The guy who was arrested was not even cleared until six month's later, so what makes you think 'the case is closed' as of Day One even?

Let's see if the make, model and year and power train type is ever revealed in the final report.

The fire service have stated unequivocally that it wasn't an EV or Hybrid and was in fact a diesel car.

Are they telling a deliberate lie?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Am I reading this right: Vixen is misreading your mockery of *her* (Vixen's) way of tracking credentials as mockery of Voldemort Vordeman's actual credentials?

It's exactly that.

Really?


Once again, a spectacular failure to comprehend basic English.

Vixen is telling us her understanding of the English language rivals Stundie's:

I'll illiterate​

 

[JesseCuster]

I fear Vixen may have Corriganed me. If true, that would be a shame, I've not been able to add a new silliness to my sig in a while.

C'mon, Vixen. It's a simple question. Is this statement true?

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

Yes or no?

Simple yes or no question.

This is Vixen's response:

As I have stated multiple times by now, Jeremifer, in charge of a webpage, has nothing at all to do with the investigation into the fire. They just bang up whatever the Fire Chief said at his press conference. The Fire Chief has had just one such Press briefing, and as of that time, had not seen the Romanian lady's video, nor the one from the front. Jeremifer simply put it into 'plain English' and being an eco-warrior thought it 'kinda' amusing to sock one in the eye to the anti-EV mob. They probably go chucking orange paint over famous paintings at weekends.

A rambling fantasy about what's going behind scense instead of just giving a yes or no answer to a yes or question.

Serious question Vixen, consider how freakishly often it happens, do you deliberately make it look like you're responding to someone where you go off on a tangent about something else, or are you so bad at this that you can't even read a question that's written in plain English, and just type of a reply in plain English? You come across like a slimy politician who can't just answer direct questions with direct replies.

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

Yes or no?

Well?

 

[SpitfireIX]

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.

He didn't "entice" anyone, and it wasn't "his" idea. You really have no clue about the situation. And I still stand by my assertion that you didn't understand the difference between questionable tax shelters and tax fraud, and it's not clear that you do now, even after it's been explained to you repeatedly.

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.

In addition to what Jay and Mojo said, it's simply not reasonable to believe that the partnership agreement says anything to the effect of "Rishi Sunak will have a 5% interest in as long as he works at Theleme, but will assume a secret controlling interest upon leaving." So you were still wrong when you claimed that Sunak "owns" Theleme. Further, from a Business Today article:

Earlier on February 1 [2022], the investment firm in a statement said Sunak worked at Theleme from 2010 to 2013. "Once he left, he ceased to have any ongoing financial interest in the funds managed by Theleme. Neither Mr Sunak, nor any of his family members, have held a financial interest in any fund managed by Theleme, or in any Theleme management company entity, since 2013."​

You will naturally claim that this is or could be a lie, but of course you have no evidence, as usual.

Likewise you cannot know for sure it is a formalized 'blind trust arrangement' because Sunak will not reveal the name of the Trustee.

How would his revealing the name of the trustee prove that it's actually a formalized arrangement? Further, you and your ilk would just claim that Sunak and the trustee are somehow secretly in communication about the management of the assets, e.g., through an intermediary.

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

I don't believe anyone said he might not have retained any interest in the company after he left, although we know now that he didn't. What I and others took exception to was your silly claim that Sunak "owns" Theleme.

Well Mr. Murthy, Sunak's father-in-law has retired from Infosys but his daughter retains 1% of the £800bn share value.

Infosys is a publicly traded corporation. Theleme is a limited partnership. The situations are not necessarily comparable. And she still doesn't "own" the company.

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.

Yet more conspiracy theorist drivel.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It's exactly that. JayUtah gets very very angry if he thinks someone is queering his pitch. He thinks this is HIS pitch. Hence the mockery on his part. He's defending his pitch by loudly wailing.

That's not even remotely what I said.