[Continuation] Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[novaphile]

Straw man. The context is the official publication organ of competent authority. There is no need for its individual author—if any—to be identified.

Once again, Vixen conflates the byline on a newspaper article (which names the author) and a press release, that does not have a published author.

In four years of publishing press releases, guess how many stated my name?

Zero.

Yet another topic that Vixen knows nothing about.

 

[Vixen]

Please answer the question I asked, rather than the one you wish I'd asked. How is it that Davies admitted that in issuing false press releases he was part of a conspiracy, but whoever is responsible for the purportedly false press release about vehicle 0 isn't part of a conspiracy?

The difference is: time. That instance had been ongoing several years, with quite a few investigative journalists asking probing questions. The defence? (As would be in the Luton Airport car park case): “It was the right thing to do.” (i.e., Give out not-quite-true press releases). The other classic, in explaining the covering up behaviour is: that his communications “look ludicrous” with the benefit of hindsight.

So there will always be rationalization. That guy was on a million a year. Of course he will do whatever he can do to protect his bosses as they are delighted with his performance. It is not lying, it is corporate loyalty. It's only with the benefit of hindsight (= translated: got caught out by a silk at a Public Inquiry).


Luton Airport is obviously not that scale but the same principles apply: the PR guys do whatever you think the bosses are paying you for (loyalty towards the Junior Minister for Policing, for example), rationalize it as 'reassuring the public' and the get-out clause is nobody takes responsibility because the PR was never signed by any one person. It was just someone précising what the man said. 'Sorry about that: hindsight's a fine thing, eh?'

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The difference is: time. That instance had been ongoing several years, with quite a few investigative journalists asking probing questions. The defence? (As would be in the Luton Airport car park case): “It was the right thing to do.” (i.e., Give out not-quite-true press releases). The other classic, in explaining the covering up behaviour is: that his communications “look ludicrous” with the benefit of hindsight.

So there will always be rationalization. That guy was on a million a year. Of course he will do whatever he can do to protect his bosses as they are delighted with his performance. It is not lying, it is corporate loyalty. It's only with the benefit of hindsight (= translated: got caught out by a silk at a Public Inquiry).


Luton Airport is obviously not that scale but the same principles apply: the PR guys do whatever you think the bosses are paying you for (loyalty towards the Junior Minister for Policing, for example), rationalize it as 'reassuring the public' and the get-out clause is nobody takes responsibility because the PR was never signed by any one person. It was just someone précising what the man said. 'Sorry about that: hindsight's a fine thing, eh?'

Are you physically incapable of actually answering questions put to you?

 

[Vixen]

Weasel words.

The statement is an allegation of fact. It is therefore either factually true or factually false. Here it is being made under color of competent authority and in a manner suggesting it should be reliably regarded as factually true.

Despite your unwillingness to face the operative conclusions of your claims, you are alleging that it is false. You claim you can determine whether it is true or false by your own armchair investigation. Rather than wait for competent authority to issue its final report—as you insinuate must occur before any reliable conclusions can be drawn—you have thrown your ignorance full force against photographic evidence and declared that you can determine the statement must be false.

Alternatively you claim can determine that the statement is false by a yarn-and-pushpins argument connecting Hopkinson's "bosses" to the Prime Minister, claiming that Sunak is manipulating this investigation in order to protect private business interests. Even if motivations could be considered a corpus delicti, your argument is based on patent ignorance of how those alleged interests operate.

You clearly believe the statement is false. You're just to cowardly to state that as a claim.

I never said it was false. I never said it was true either. I just do not see how it can be confirmed on Day One when the investigation has only just opened.

It's not like a horse race, where people try to hedge their bets and start working out the odds.

It's boring but some of is like to see the verified scientific facts, not an affirmation of faith.

 

[Vixen]

Quit with the ********. It is a definitive factual statement.

Do you think it is true or untrue?

I will wait for the report.

 

[Craig4]

I will wait for the report.

If you were going to do that, there wouldn't be a thread.

 

[JayUtah]

As would be in the Luton Airport car park case...

"...because I say so."

...Of course he will do whatever he can do to protect his bosses as they are delighted with his performance.

"...because I say so."

It is not lying, it is corporate loyalty.

If corporate loyalty is one's reason for lying, that doesn't make it not lying.

Luton Airport is obviously not that scale but the same principles apply...

"...because I say so."

the PR guys do whatever you think the bosses are paying you for (loyalty towards the Junior Minister for Policing, for example)...

A very dangerous thing to do when you're breaking the law to do it. What if you weren't supposed to break the law that one time? What if you second-guessed "the bosses" wrong?

Have you ever actually worked in a large organization? You have a very fantasy-based assessment of what goes on in them.

...rationalize it as 'reassuring the public' and the get-out clause is nobody takes responsibility because the PR was never signed by any one person.

Just because the publication of the statement doesn't come with a signature doesn't mean it can't be determined who is responsible for it, if it happens to be the wrong thing.

It was just someone précising what the man said. 'Sorry about that: hindsight's a fine thing, eh?'

And once again you simply spin tall tales of your uncanny ability to know how organizations habitually lie and get away with it. Except you cannot answer a single, simple question.

 

[JayUtah]

I will wait for the report.

Nope.

You aren't waiting for the report. You're already second-guessing, gainsaying, and naysaying everything you think will go into it. Competent authority isn't waiting for the final report to state unequivocally what the fuel type of the initial vehicle was. So in all your conspiracy-mongering, you can kindly provide us your answer now.

 

[JayUtah]

I never said it was false. I never said it was true either.

Repeating the weasel words only makes them more weasely. The statement is an allegation of fact. You have presented an argument clearly aimed at showing it to be false. Own it.

I just do not see how it can be confirmed on Day One when the investigation has only just opened.

That's not the question you are being asked to answer.

It's not like a horse race, where people try to hedge their bets and start working out the odds.

Correct, it's very much like the public investigation of an accident. In such a scenario, the competent authority may release findings as they go, at such time as they have evidence to support them. I know more about this than you do, and you're clearly the one betting the horses. You're disputing those findings vigorously, but you refuse to do so honestly.

It's boring but some of is like to see the verified scientific facts, not an affirmation of faith.

You have not even the slightest passing acquaintance with verified scientific facts, much less any respect for them and those of us who provide them. It is not an "affirmation of faith" to note that the authority investigating a fire in a car park has determined what kind of vehicle started it. On the contrary, you ask us several times a day to place faith in your personal authority, even when we have ample reason to distrust it.

 

[welshdean]

Vixen, if the final report says, unequivocally, that it was a diesel ICE and not an EV, plug-in or mild-hybrid vehicle that was the cause of the fire, will you accept it?


ETA: If not, please explain why.

 

[phiwum]

I will wait for the report.

Really? It wasn't so long ago you weren't so coy.

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.

Pretty clear right there. You reckon that video is good evidence the vehicle was a hybrid. It's quite good evidence until someone points out that if you think this is good evidence, then you also have good evidence that the BF&RS press release contains a false statement.

And rather than actually following your convictions, wherever they may lead, you balk and claim to be waiting on the final report. This caution is sure to last, golly, hours perhaps. Or minutes, if you're not already asleep tonight.

 

[smartcooky]

Vixen, if the final report says, unequivocally, that it was a diesel ICE and not an EV, plug-in or mild-hybrid vehicle that was the cause of the fire, will you accept it?

Hell will freeze over before that ever happens!

Even if the final report states unequivocally that the car park fire was started by a vehicle fire in diesel powered vehicle, and names the vehicle make, model, colour and year, Vixen will never admit she was wrong. I foresee three possibilities

1. She will accuse whoever releases the report of lying and publishing a false report, or

2. She will claim some insignificant and/or unimportant detail is missing from the report, or

3. She will disappear from this thread (flounce?) never to post in it again.

How do I know this? Because she has form!

 

[Mojo]

You have not even the slightest passing acquaintance with verified scientific facts, much less any respect for them and those of us who provide them.

When Vixen says, "scientific fact" she's using the term in the sense that "there's no real evidence for it".

 

[junkshop]

I never said it was false. I never said it was true either. I just do not see how it can be confirmed on Day One when the investigation has only just opened...

From the press release published by BF&RS on March 21^st 2024 (over five months after the fire):

...Following the fire, a multi-agency investigation took place between Bedfordshire Police and Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, which finished this week...

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

 

[SpitfireIX]

The difference is: time. That instance had been ongoing several years, with quite a few investigative journalists asking probing questions.

No. It doesn't matter whether one false press release was issued or 100; they would both still be conspiracies. As the CPS webpage I linked stated, and you ignored as usual, as soon as two people agree to commit a crime, they are guilty of conspiracy. Why are you so unwilling to admit this?

The defence? (As would be in the Luton Airport car park case): “It was the right thing to do.” (i.e., Give out not-quite-true press releases).

Did you even read the article? Or did you just frantically Google for quotes that you thought would support your case, such as it is? "It was the right thing to do" was Davies's excuse for having immediately hired a media lawyer after a subpostmaster committed suicide over a £39,000 shortfall. Davies claimed the hiring was to ensure that the subject was handled with the proper sensitivity, rather than to combat bad press. The statement had nothing to do with his false ("not-quite-true" ) press releases.

The other classic, in explaining the covering up behaviour is: that his communications “look ludicrous” with the benefit of hindsight.

Again, did you even read the article? This was an admission, not an "explanation."

So there will always be rationalization. That guy was on a million a year. Of course he will do whatever he can do to protect his bosses as they are delighted with his performance. It is not lying, it is corporate loyalty. It's only with the benefit of hindsight (= translated: got caught out by a silk at a Public Inquiry).

What Jay said.

Luton Airport is obviously not that scale but the same principles apply: the PR guys do whatever you think the bosses are paying you for (loyalty towards the Junior Minister for Policing, for example), rationalize it as 'reassuring the public' and the get-out clause is nobody takes responsibility because the PR was never signed by any one person. It was just someone précising what the man said. 'Sorry about that: hindsight's a fine thing, eh?'

So, apparently your latest gambit to pretend that there's a coverup without a conspiracy is to claim that there's just some sort of tacit understanding to do what "the bosses" want. It doesn't work that way. To be guilty of conspiracy, agreement to commit a crime need not be explicit; it may also be implicit.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, if the final report says, unequivocally, that it was a diesel ICE and not an EV, plug-in or mild-hybrid vehicle that was the cause of the fire, will you accept it?


ETA: If not, please explain why.

It remains to be seen whether:

1. the report indicates the make, model, year and power trail type of the initiating vehicle
2. or refers to it in generic terms.

If the former, I will readily accept the report. If the latter, then we'll know it was a hybrid all along.

 

[Vixen]

No. It doesn't matter whether one false press release was issued or 100; they would both still be conspiracies. As the CPS webpage I linked stated, and you ignored as usual, as soon as two people agree to commit a crime, they are guilty of conspiracy. Why are you so unwilling to admit this?




Did you even read the article? Or did you just frantically Google for quotes that you thought would support your case, such as it is? "It was the right thing to do" was Davies's excuse for having immediately hired a media lawyer after a subpostmaster committed suicide over a £39,000 shortfall. Davies claimed the hiring was to ensure that the subject was handled with the proper sensitivity, rather than to combat bad press. The statement had nothing to do with his false ("not-quite-true" ) press releases.




Again, did you even read the article? This was an admission, not an "explanation."




What Jay said.




So, apparently your latest gambit to pretend that there's a coverup without a conspiracy is to claim that there's just some sort of tacit understanding to do what "the bosses" want. It doesn't work that way. To be guilty of conspiracy, agreement to commit a crime need not be explicit; it may also be implicit.

Yes, I am familiar with the case. I have been following it for at least five years and have watched some of the current live stream inquiry. I am indeed aware of what CPS criminal conspiracy says is a crime. However, the police do not usually get involved in corporate or government issues unless specifically asked to by the upper management or the Commons Standards Committee or Statutory Public Inquiry, when the issue concerns corporate governance issues or Ministerial breaches of codes of conduct. Of course, a member of the public can go to the police and make private complaints about individual employees or MP's, but normally, corporate/government stuff is usually dealt with in-house. For example, I have whistle-blown on at least three serious cases of fraud and embezzlement; not one of them went to the police or CPS. The persons involved were quietly sacked. That is how it works in the UK.

Likewise, a 'Communications Director' or 'Press Officer' role is largely to do with protecting the reputation of the organisation he or she works for, not you the member of public. In effect, they are paid to put a spin on things that paints the org in a good light and to avoid negative publicity. Hence, 'crisis management' teams for when there is a product recall because there is a real terror of brand reputation damage which can seriously impact on public perception of the org, so the Comms person is wheeled out to utter the right words.

 

[Mojo]

If the latter, then we'll know it was a hybrid all along.

Non sequitur.

 

[LondonJohn]

Personally, I'm going to need a photo of the VIN of the (burnt-out) vehicle. And even then, I'll probably conclude that they used a car from a scrapyard for its VIN. You sheeple just can't accept that the car was actually an EV, can you?

(and it's powertrain, not power trail)

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, I am familiar with the case. I have been following it for at least five years and have watched some of the current live stream inquiry. I am indeed aware of what CPS criminal conspiracy says is a crime. However, the police do not usually get involved in corporate or government issues unless specifically asked to by the upper management or the Commons Standards Committee or Statutory Public Inquiry, when the issue concerns corporate governance issues or Ministerial breaches of codes of conduct. Of course, a member of the public can go to the police and make private complaints about individual employees or MP's, but normally, corporate/government stuff is usually dealt with in-house. For example, I have whistle-blown on at least three serious cases of fraud and embezzlement; not one of them went to the police or CPS. The persons involved were quietly sacked. That is how it works in the UK.

Likewise, a 'Communications Director' or 'Press Officer' role is largely to do with protecting the reputation of the organisation he or she works for, not you the member of public. In effect, they are paid to put a spin on things that paints the org in a good light and to avoid negative publicity. Hence, 'crisis management' teams for when there is a product recall because there is a real terror of brand reputation damage which can seriously impact on public perception of the org, so the Comms person is wheeled out to utter the right words.

Complete bollocks. All of it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... If the former, I will readily accept the report. If the latter, then we'll know it was a hybrid all along.

We already know it was a diesel.

The only mystery is why you are so comically scared of saying the authorities are lying when they make unambiguous statements you claim are false.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Yes, I am familiar with the case.

Sadly, experience shows your familiarity with a case does not mean your take on it will make a scrap of sense.

 

[LondonJohn]

We already know it was a diesel.

The only mystery is why you are so comically scared of saying the authorities are lying when they make unambiguous statements you claim are false.

The risible "it was someone in internal PR either overzealously making a point or ignorantly & erroneously extrapolating the Day 1 comments" doesn't even come close to passing a sniff test. It's pathetic CT rationalisation.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

It remains to be seen whether:

1. the report indicates the make, model, year and power trail type of the initiating vehicle
2. or refers to it in generic terms.

If the former, I will readily accept the report. If the latter, then we'll know it was a hybrid all along.

Just to be clear here, Vixen: you're saying that if the report does not say what kind of car it was, you will conclude that you (not we, as others here have pointed out) , that you will know what kind of car it was? Is that what you're saying?

 

[phiwum]

We already know it was a diesel.

The only mystery is why you are so comically scared of saying the authorities are lying when they make unambiguous statements you claim are false.

Yes, that is a puzzle. She alternates between saying that the vehicle was surely a hybrid (because look at the fire!) and saying that she has no opinion and will wait for the final report.

In all honesty, it seems like intellectual cowardice to me, but I don't get it.

 

[catsmate]

<>

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The risible "it was someone in internal PR either overzealously making a point or ignorantly & erroneously extrapolating the Day 1 comments" doesn't even come close to passing a sniff test. It's pathetic CT rationalisation.

Right. Not only is it utterly unbelievable that she actually believes this, but it doesn't matter anyway. When it comes to whether they're telling the truth, it doesn't matter in the slightest why they published that information. The fact is that they did, and it's still there.

She says the fact of its being a diesel car is false. But she will not say they published false information by publishing the statment that it was a diesel car.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed an aside that sparked a lengthy derail

 

[welshdean]

It remains to be seen whether:

1. the report indicates the make, model, year and power trail type of the initiating vehicle
2. or refers to it in generic terms.

If the former, I will readily accept the report. If the latter, then we'll know it was a hybrid all along.

Thanks for answering.
WRT the highlighted, If a reasonable person were to interpret this, in conjunction with them reading the BF&RS press release statement that 'it was a diesel ICE and not an EV, plug-in or mild-hybrid vehicle that was the cause of the fire'. Do you believe that this reasonable person could interpret your words to assume that you believe, at this point in time, that the BF&RS are lying?

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, I am familiar with the case. I have been following it...

With you that's a very loaded proposition. I've seen you "follow" cases. You imagine that you have some magical insight that lets you see the truth, while others must necessarily wallow in sheepish devotion to the conventional narrative. You have no such insight, and in most cases you lack even ordinary sight. You rarely know what you're talking about, but all your arguments reduce to, "Because I say so."

No, I do not accept you as an expert in any such matter.

For example, I have whistle-blown on at least three serious cases of fraud and embezzlement; not one of them went to the police or CPS. The persons involved were quietly sacked. That is how it works in the UK.

Assuming this is true among all the tall tales you've told, at best that's how it worked in the cases that concerned you. I don't accept you as an expert in all or many UK affairs.

Likewise, a 'Communications Director' or 'Press Officer' role is largely to do with protecting the reputation of the organisation he or she works for, not you the member of public.

Irrelevant. The emergency services are not a corporation and cannot be tarred with the same nefarious motives you imagine arise out of one. In their case, it is reasonable to presume they are acting in the public interest until evidence is shown they are not. You don't have any of that evidence. You imagine you see flames that you somehow know can only come from a lithium ion battery, and thus you've cracked then case.

Competent authority has already given the fuel type of the vehicle. The only reason you have for believing otherwise still ever and only boils down to, "Because I say otherwise."

 

[Andy_Ross]

It remains to be seen whether:

1. the report indicates the make, model, year and power trail type of the initiating vehicle
2. or refers to it in generic terms.

If the former, I will readily accept the report. If the latter, then we'll know it was a hybrid all along.

That means the fire service are deliberately telling lies by publishing an official statement that says it was not an EV or hybrid bet was in fact a diesel car.

Are the fire service telling a deliberate lie?

 

[JayUtah]

It remains to be seen whether:

1. the report indicates the make, model, year and power trail type of the initiating vehicle
2. or refers to it in generic terms.

If the former, I will readily accept the report.

And you levy this requirement from your vast experience in investigating and public reporting on accidents involving vehicle? Only if it satisfies this peculiarly specific requirement can such a report be considered correct and honest in your mind?

Sheesh, the sheer arrogance...

Despite the handwringing furor about this in social media, the focus of the investigation is not the minutia of how the car caught fire. It is well known that vehicles of all types catch fire, hence whether some particular make or model of car was inappropriately responsible for starting the fire is a separate matter. The proper scope of the investigation is the performance of all factors after the fire started. You look at building design and construction. You look at emergency response. You look at operational factors. You look at the performance of human operators. At that scope, the equipment involve is identified and described only insofar as it contributes to the understanding of what steps may not have properly been taken, and what steps should be taken in future.

Investigating a house fire rarely delves into the gory details of the make, model, and year of the cooker whose gas attachment failed. Conversely we do identify specifics about such things as airplanes and locomotives when they fail. While again this is only to the extent such details actually bear on the outcome, in those cases the failure of the equipment is not merely the precipitating event; it is the event.

Similarly, we know from your previous handling of accident reports that you really don't understand the scope and purpose of a final report in any such matter. Final reports are not comprehensive explanations of every aspect of the investigation from onset to publication. They are summaries of findings. The supporting details are still available, of course, but not often widely published. Only information relevant to the ultimate conclusions is presented in the final report.

If the latter, then we'll know it was a hybrid all along.

No. That's not how knowledge works. This little bugbear of yours is not the dispositive factor in the real world.

 

[JayUtah]

In all honesty, it seems like intellectual cowardice to me, but I don't get it.

Saying it was obviously a lithium ion battery because "look at the flames!" nets her three pages of attention wherein her betters test that proposition. When she says she doesn't subscribe to the obvious implications of her claims, she nets another five pages where her betters point out the flaws in her logic. Later in the week I'm sure we'll be back to Sunak's purported financial interests for another five pages of attention.

Contrary to what is sometimes claimed, conspiracy theorists are rarely in it for the money. They mostly want attention. Some have called it historical vandalism. Unable to rise to prominence on their own, they scrawl their names across others' misfortune or achievements.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It remains to be seen whether:

1. the report indicates the make, model, year and power trail type of the initiating vehicle
2. or refers to it in generic terms.

If the former, I will readily accept the report. If the latter, then we'll know it was a hybrid all along.

The highlighted sentence is just plain stupid.

What's more, that sentence is a variety of stupid that cannot be attributed to Vixen's customary failure to understand the English language.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

"If they don't jump through every pointless hoop I demand, then it logically follows my nutty conspiracy theory must be true."

Seems impeccably sound to me. How can you argue with inescapable logic like that?

 

[JayUtah]

The highlighted sentence is just plain stupid.

What's more, that sentence is a variety of stupid that cannot be attributed to Vixen's customary failure to understand the English language.

"If they don't jump through every pointless hoop I demand, then it logically follows my nutty conspiracy theory must be true."

Seems impeccably sound to me. How can you argue with inescapable logic like that?

It's exemplary of every other conspiracy theory I've looked at. The conspiracy theory is held up as the default that must hold unless certain specific features appear to support the mainstream narrative. It usually (but not always) comes in the form of the ad hoc revision, or "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's exemplary of every other conspiracy theory I've looked at. The conspiracy theory is held up as the default that must hold unless certain specific features appear to support the mainstream narrative. It usually (but not always) comes in the form of the ad hoc revision, or "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Then if those specific features are pointed out, something else becomes what is needed and so on.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Yes, I am familiar with the case. I have been following it for at least five years and have watched some of the current live stream inquiry.

I didn't ask whether you were familiar with the case. I'd be astounded if you weren't. I asked whether you'd actually read the article to which you linked, because you don't appear to understand the context in which the two quotations you lifted from it were given.

I am indeed aware of what CPS criminal conspiracy says is a crime.

Yet you keep insisting that you don't believe Sunak is guilty of a crime, while continuing to insinuate that he's directed those under him to cover up the "fact" that the Luton fire was started by an EV, in order to protect some speculative financial interest of his or his family's in Tata JLR. This would still be Conspiracy to commit Misconduct in Public Office, whether or not you choose to admit it. You are therefore proposing (although you sometimes hedge with weasel words) a theory that there is a conspiracy to keep the true source of the fire a secret. Therefore, you are a conspiracy theorist.

However, the police do not usually get involved in corporate or government issues unless specifically asked to by the upper management or the Commons Standards Committee or Statutory Public Inquiry, when the issue concerns corporate governance issues or Ministerial breaches of codes of conduct. Of course, a member of the public can go to the police and make private complaints about individual employees or MP's, but normally, corporate/government stuff is usually dealt with in-house. For example, I have whistle-blown on at least three serious cases of fraud and embezzlement; not one of them went to the police or CPS. The persons involved were quietly sacked. That is how it works in the UK.

And, as has been explained to you repeatedly, this is irrelevant. The fact that you think Sunak probably won't get caught is irrelevant. The fact that you think that even if he does get caught, he [ETA: probably] won't be punished is irrelevant. The fact that you think that even if he is punished, it will only amount to "a slap on the wrist" is irrelevant. You are still accusing him of participating in a criminal conspiracy.

Likewise, a 'Communications Director' or 'Press Officer' role is largely to do with protecting the reputation of the organisation he or she works for, not you the member of public. In effect, they are paid to put a spin on things that paints the org in a good light and to avoid negative publicity. Hence, 'crisis management' teams for when there is a product recall because there is a real terror of brand reputation damage which can seriously impact on public perception of the org, so the Comms person is wheeled out to utter the right words.

What Jay said.

 

[JayUtah]

Yet you keep insisting that you don't believe Sunak is guilty of a crime...
* * *
The fact that you think Sunak probably won't get caught is irrelevant.

I'm still trying to suss out the logic that says you aren't accusing someone of a crime if that's exactly what you're doing, but you think he won't be caught or you think he has a really convincing cover story.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I'm still trying to suss out the logic that says you aren't accusing someone of a crime if that's exactly what you're doing, but you think he won't be caught or you think he has a really convincing cover story.

I think she's trying to pretend that no one in Britain thinks it's really a crime.

 

[JayUtah]

I think she's trying to pretend that no one in Britain thinks it's really a crime.

That seems like a reasonable interpretation of her rhetoric. However, that's just a different flavor of claiming it's a crime that's seldom enforced or trivially punishable. That doesn't absolve her to the point where she can say she's not accusing someone of something. But Vixen seems to have a lot of difficulty understanding how accusations work, so I guess we're stuck there.