Tessa Jowell's husband found guilty (Lounged)

[AnotherPaul]

Tiger, please

Governments are not just the few politicians who make headlines. Tens of thousands of honest and often very well intentioned citizens work very hard to make Government function for us. They're not aligned to a political party but they do have to try and implement the politicians decisions.

Those politicians can do things which seem, or are actually are dodgy, which can make it seem that Government as a whole is a bit iffy. It's not. And if you want to go down that line of argument one should back it up with facts.

ap

[SteveT]

Is it correct that her husband will not serve his four year sentence inside?

How can that be?

[snoozequeen1]

See today's Independent

[louisiana]

While TJ may have been stupid not to enquire where such a large sum of money suddenly came from - and to have signed a mortgage for such a large sum, likewise - I still have no confirmation that she returned the money once she did know.

Has she returned the money? (or donated it to charity if it cannot be returned?). Because if not, she continues to benefit, substantially, from what has been deemed a crime in a court of law. It really is irrrelevant whether the crime is bank robbery or corruption. I'd love to hear that she has in fact returned the money to whence it came.

[Huguenot]

Good question Lousiana!

Although I guess it's quite an difficult area? Imagine, for example, that you worked in a pub and served someone who was underage - would you have to hand your salary back because you did something illegal while you were employed?

If it was proceeds from criminal activity then that's one thing, but if it was a salary performed for activities that were later found to be in breach of the law, I don't know how the courts would be able to address it.

Interesting!

[snorky]

Money laundering is one of thoses rare aspects of the law where you are put in a positon where you have to justify your actions, as opposed to someone having to prove that you were naughty - the usual "no comment " responses do you no favors at all in this area - guilty unless you can prove otherwise

This extends to anyone who has been in contact with the funds- if they should have resonably had an inkling of suspicion about the odd origin of the funds, then they have committed a crime by not reporting it. It doesnt matter whethetr they were expressly aware of any wrongdoing, if they are in a positon whereby they should have asked questions, then they are in trouble

Taking this onto consideration, the picture may seem somewhat different

" Hello dear, Im home"

"Good day at the offce? "

Yes, I got an unexpected & completley out of character ?400K bonus, tax free today and Im not even a hedge fund owner - shall we pay off the mortgage ?"

Ooh, well done- yes, lets do that - fancy opooing a bottle of champers ?"

"rather"

Policicians and rich corporate lawyers come a close second to coppers and hippies in the Snorky dont trust rankings.Give me a decent Banker/ trader any day - at least you know what you are getting and what their motivation is

TJ out. on her spotty arse. now.

[louisiana]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Good question Lousiana!

>

> Although I guess it's quite an difficult area?

> Imagine, for example, that you worked in a pub and

> served someone who was underage - would you have

> to hand your salary back because you did something

> illegal while you were employed?

Your example is a red herring.

TJ was not an employee, nor did she receive the dosh 'in the course of her duties', 'whilst performing her duties' or as part of running a business as either employee or employer, however defined.

Mr TJ came home with a wad of readies or equivalent, the proceeds of a crime but seemingly from an unnamed source, and she pocketed it. And it remains in her pocket, AFAIK. I would like to hear otherwise.

If your brother defrauded a bank, and handed the money to you for safekeeping, and he was found out, would you really expect to keep your hands on the money?

>

> If it was proceeds from criminal activity then

> that's one thing, but if it was a salary performed

> for activities that were later found to be in

> breach of the law, I don't know how the courts

> would be able to address it.

>

> Interesting!

[SteveT]

Louisiana I think I am falling in love with you, and the very alert Snoozequeen 1, who I think should change her name to

the more appropriate 'Sharpqueen'.

I really am impressed by some members of this forum.

[louisiana]

SteveT

Many thanks for your fan-dom. When it comes to white-collar crime, I hope to be always on the ball, as it were.

We have a specialised govt. unit tasked with (urgh! what an expression. But I'll use it anyway) recovering the proceeds of crime. And there are some very clear and public proceeds right there in TJ's pocket. This 'loyal' (I quote The Observer profile yesterday) public servant is perhaps a little too loyal to her bank balance. Everyone talks about what happened, but nobody asks her to hand over the substantial dosh. I find this quite remarkable. If we fail to do anything about it, the buggers will keep doing the same old thing. Upholding standards in public life is about just that: actually upholding each standard, and calling on people to account. I have little time for the Italian political and judicial systems, but they seem to be doing more in this case than we are.

[snorky]

These scum have been laughing at you for decades - the only service that MPs & their kind have any loyalty isnt public service, but self service.- vile, arrogant, sneering , greedy wankers , the lot of them

[????]

What snorky said....him and I are unlikely anarchist bedfollows..

[Huguenot]

Louisiana, you continue to refer to this situation as if it were a money-laundering crime committed by TJ, when an investigation has found that no such crime has taken place. This defies logic. Your agenda is tainted, and your opinion is soiled.

"Mr TJ came home with a wad of readies or equivalent, the proceeds of a crime but seemingly from an unnamed source, and she pocketed it. And it remains in her pocket, AFAIK."

'AFAIK'??? You don't know any of this. It's a smear, it's defamatory and unsupported. It's shameful. She's been investigated, and found innocent of any such crime. You're peddling the politics of the gutter.

If you know something that the investigators don't know then you should go to the relevant authorities with my full support. I don't think you do.

"I would like to hear otherwise."

In other words guilty until proven innocent? Your prejudice betrays you and undermines your credibility. You have no intention of hearing otherwise - you've got you're fingers in your ears and you're going 'la la la hate'.

This is ridiculous, a witch hunt.

[snorky]

She was cleared by Gus O'Donnell - hardly someone without a vested interest in keeping in with his paymasters

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[snorky]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Louisiana, you continue to refer to this situation

> as if it were a money-laundering crime committed

> by TJ, when an investigation has found that no

> such crime has taken place. This defies logic.

> Your agenda is tainted, and your opinion is

> soiled.

>

> "Mr TJ came home with a wad of readies or

> equivalent, the proceeds of a crime but seemingly

> from an unnamed source, and she pocketed it. And

> it remains in her pocket, AFAIK."

>

> 'AFAIK'??? You don't know any of this. It's a

> smear, it's defamatory and unsupported. It's

> shameful. She's been investigated, and found

> innocent of any such crime. You're peddling the

> politics of the gutter.

>

> If you know something that the investigators don't

> know then you should go to the relevant

> authorities with my full support. I don't think

> you do.

>

> "I would like to hear otherwise."

>

> In other words guilty until proven innocent? Your

> prejudice betrays you and undermines your

> credibility. You have no intention of hearing

> otherwise - you've got you're fingers in your ears

> and you're going 'la la la hate'.

>

> This is ridiculous, a witch hunt.

Hugey

In Money laundering, you are indeed guilty unless you can prove beyond a shred of doubt that you are not culpable

[Huguenot]

My case exactly. If what you say is true, and the money has been identified to the extent necessary by law, then the money will have gone, and TJ will be bang to rights.

If it hasn't, and the burden of proof is so low, then she ain't guilty.