Didn’t know Theresa May hated Peter Mandelson so muuch

MPs, councillors and civil servants suspected of corruption are to be targeted by a new law proposed by the home secretary.
Theresa May intends to establish an offence of “illicit enrichment” for cases where a public official’s assets have increased significantly without satisfactory explanation.
It is part of a wider shake-up of measures to tackle money laundering.

26 thoughts on “Didn’t know Theresa May hated Peter Mandelson so muuch”

  1. There is a he’ll of a lot of “How on Earth can he afford that?” where our politicians are involved. So she might like to be careful what she wishes for.

  2. The Meissen Bison

    Hatred of Peter Mandelson is pretty much universal – it’s not just a Labour Party thing.

  3. A law aimed at MPs etc???

    And my name is Hertz Van Rentals.

    “It is part of a wider shake-up of measures to tackle money laundering. ”
    “She said the economy was “at risk of being undermined” by money laundering, illicit finance and the funding of terrorism.”

    Ie–There is too much that the thieving scum of the state can’t steal because they don’t know it is there.

    “Her new proposals – subject to a six-week consultation period being launched in the Commons later – plan to give the civil courts powers to impose new “unexplained wealth orders”.

    They would force suspected money launderers to declare their wealth, and those who fail to satisfy authorities will face having their property and cash seized.”

    So–want something, save your pennies for years and pay for it–and become a person of interest to the tyrannical shite-scum of the state.

    That ugly, evil bag (looking at the photo you just somehow know she’s likely got bad breath as well) is one of the vilest political hags to blight this nation ever. Or rather the SCS scum who gave her the idea are because the brainless, mutton-dressed -as-lamb clotheshorse never thought it up herself.

    We know who the professional political scum class are. Their mugs pollute the media daily. What is needed is a cash bounty to discover which bureaucratic filth actually come up with these ideas. We never captured the record of SS membership. We need to make sure we have a full accounting of who has helped to advance tyranny in this country.

    I shall be giving their laughable “consultation” my thoughts.

  4. The law worked quite well in Hong Kong.
    Doubt that it’s targeted at Mandelson who seems to have made his pile legally (inheritance, big gain on London property where a Labour MP provided him with a mortgage, big salary in Brussels, TV appearances, newspaper columns …).
    Local planning officers coming to work in their Mercedes while their partner drives a Porsche is more likely.

  5. The real dodgy bit is: seizing assets of people *suspected* of illegal gains. With this and other cases, I can’t believe I’m living in a country so determined to destroy the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

  6. Bloke in North Dorset

    I don’t care how much we hate Peter Mandelson, I’m with Bil, this is a horrible law. If the State with all its resources can’t find any evidence to take to the criminal courts it has no business going to the civil courts where the test is much lower.

    And given that MPs have just exempted themselves from money laundering regulations how long before they exempt themselves from this process?

  7. The process will take months, and will involve great legal expense. It will be used as a weapon, in the same way Obama uses the IRS to go after political opponents.

  8. Serious question – So Mandelson is known for taking bungs?

    Can’t say I’ve followed news of the man since he went back to his crypt when the sun started to rise.

  9. Mr Ecks said:
    “There is too much that the thieving scum of the state can’t steal because they don’t know it is there.”

    Isn’t it more that they know it’s there, but they can’t prove that you got it improperly so they’re going to change the law so that they can just take it anyway?

  10. Although I hate the “guilty unless you can prove your innocence” approach, if it were confined only to politicians and government employees it might be worth it.

  11. “jgh
    The real dodgy bit is: seizing assets of people *suspected* of illegal gains. With this and other cases, I can’t believe I’m living in a country so determined to destroy the principle of innocent until proven guilty.”

    Guilty until proven innocence has always been the approach in tax. If, when I worked as a Tax Inspector, I raised an assessment on someone then provided it wasn’t obviously unreasonable it was up to the individual to prove it was wrong and not for me to prove it was right.

  12. Not so much innocent until proved guilty, but rather we think guilty but can’t be arsed to try and prove it. Actually this is how HMRC work already.

  13. If the proposal only applied to public officials I’d be all for it, they do seek to rule us after all. But from the description they are only mentioning politicians in order to distract from it applying to everyone.

  14. Mandy’s an ex-European Commissioner, no?

    Bound to be something in the small print that makes them untouchable, I would have expected.

  15. Andrew C

    Guilty until proven innocence has always been the approach in tax.

    I’m not sure that HMRC’s dubious standards should be any kind of wider benchmark or point of comparison for a decent or civilised society.

    In fairness though, when you said “I think it’s this” (an assessment), aren’t you simply asking the tax payer to produce good records to back up his version of events. And which he is bound (to some extent) by law to do in any case?

  16. PF, it isn’t about what they reported, it’s about what they didn’t report. If there was anything they didn’t report.

    In the U.S., no judge would issue a warrant to search the person’s records based on the evidence that “he seems to have too much.”

  17. I hope that this doesn’t become law. It reads to me to be saying guilty until proven innocent. Let’s not give reanimated Stalin more reasons to return from his Ceres base.

    Of more immediate concern to me is this from the sidebar:

    Hillary’s saucy confession
    Was Clinton’s culinary claim a case of ‘pandering’ to black voters?

    Not everything needs to be a racial symbol. When I want hot sauce I never think I want some of that ‘black food’. If Clinton did actually promote this stereotype then it is a good reason not to vote for her. The problem is that if I look into the issue further the media will think I want more stereotype promoting articles. Therefore I refuse to read the article or share the link. Once the icons of infamy are obliterated from lining memory then I can call a spade a spade while working in my garden and not have to look over my shoulder for SJWs.

  18. I could well believe Killery dines so regularly on Hog’s Jowls that she has come to resemble the dish herself.

  19. GC

    I don’t disagree with you at all. Unless I misunderstand you, I was mostly just responding to the “HMRC already do ‘guilty until proven innocent’ with assessments” bit?

    Far better, if there are genuine questions about an individual / serious money laundering, is to investigate quietly behind the scenes and build a rock solid case… Proper justice is then seen to be done.

    Tess apparently (and as she seems to have done ever since becoming home sec, including with all this internet / privacy stuff) rides with the Berkshire.

  20. So Much For Subtlety

    This is an outrageous law. The more risible is that it is being proposed by a Tory.

    Good thing we all voted for them and not UKIP isn’t it?

  21. ‘civil asset forfeiture’ is indeed heinous. But in no way connected with the topic at hand, investigation for appearing to have too much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *