Who actually believes this? 8

I now learn that Tessa Jowell not only claims that she did not know that her husband had received $600,000, but did not know that her own mortgage had been paid off.

I simply do not believe her. Let me be perfectly plain. I am calling her a liar. Go on, sue me.

I recently paid off my mortgage. That involves paperwork. It also involves the deeds of the house being sent from the mortgage company. This is a very careful and important transaction, and the mortgage company will make absolutely certain that it has the agreement of all parties to the mortgage as to where the deeds are being sent. Paying off a mortgage in your name is simply not the sort of thing you can miss happening.

Presumably she also didn’t notice for four years she wasn’t receiving any mortgage statements.

Who does believe her? I should be most grateful if anyone who does believe her could sign in and leave a comment. In fact, please sign in and tell me whatever you think. (I am sorry about the signing in, but it isn’t painful and has reduced the porno spam in which we would otherwise be drowning).

One last thought. If you do believe her, do you think that a woman who does not know if her own home is mortgaged or not, who does not know her family income within the odd 600 thousand dollars or so, is a sensible person to put in charge of an Olympic Games?

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

8 thoughts on “Who actually believes this?

  • Robin Stacey

    There are simply too many questions, too many unsatisfactory answers and far too much stench about the whole thing.

    There should be a full, *independent* investigation with a clear possibility of criminal proceedings if the outcome is not favourable. Blair's involvement needs to be scrutinised as well; he is far too politically involved to be able to make any decisions about this.

  • Nigel

    It seems entirely credible to me that she lets her husband deal with the money thing and doesn't get involved in transactions…… because she knows he's a lawyer wide-boy up to all kinds of 'barely legal' deals, and doesn't want to be implicated in any of it!

    Of course she is not averse to enjoying the benefits though…

  • whitemischief

    Yes she obviousley is a complete liar. If we are to believe what she says, she is not capable being involved in government.

    Its also more than slightly hypocritical to preach to us to pay more tax to improve the welfare state when her family is moving large sums of money all over the world to avoid paying that tax.

    Another case of do as I say not as I do.

  • BrianB

    I don't think there is sufficient evidence on which to accuse Tessa Jowell of being a liar. Her husband's and (in some cases) her own mortgages are very different from the kind you and I are familiar with, Craig — a one-off loan to enable us to buy a house, which we spend most of a lifetime paying off. Financiers like Mr Mills use mortgages as just another form of loan, to be paid off when another, cheaper kind of loan becomes available to replace it. Mills will have been conducting dozens, perhaps hundreds, of transactions every week, involving money transfers, borrowing, paying off, receiving payments of various kinds. There is no evidence so far that any of this has been illegal and to the best of my knowledge no-one, even the Italian prosecutors in full cry after Berlusconi, has so far charged him with any offence. Ms Jowell leads an intensely hectic life as a cabinet minister. Is it seriously suggested that on the rare occasions when she saw her husband for long enough to interrogate him about every large or small transaction in which he had been involved in the previous 24 hours, she would give priority to that task rather than discussing the political issues that would be on her mind? Baloney!

    So where's the lie?

    We seem to be in the age of Trial by Blogger, in which any old unsubstantiated accusation can be thrown around like confetti at a wedding (remember weddings?). Those who have themselves been the victims of unsubstantiated and never proven accusations ought surely to be the last to throw these rather smelly stones. For all I know, Tessa J may have been lying through her teeth and Mills may have been engaged in the worst kind of financial jiggery-pokery including crooked dealings with the appalling Berlusconi. But until there's some credible evidence to either effect, I suggest that both of them are entitled to the benefit of the very considerable doubt — and to that old thing called the presumption of innocence.

  • richard

    You make a reasonable point, Brian, but I think you're a little too generous to the government in general and Jowell in particular.

    Jowell lost her right to be taken at her word when, as part of the UK cabinet, she took us into a war based on lies. The woman has a record of complicity in fraud.

    It is not our job to presume innocence – that's the job of a judge and a jury, and given the power of the Blair cabal I doubt we'd ever see Jowell or Mills face such a process whatever they have or haven't done.

    If it wasn't for the fact that Jowell is part of a government already tainted by fraud and corruption, which is trying systematically to corrupt and obfuscate the institutions designed to prevent government corruption, I would agree that we should give her the benefit of the doubt.

    But the problem is that whatever the facts of the case, many of us have little confidence that the state would be capable of determining them and bringing them to light.

    If we could have confidence in the institutions whose job it is to deter, detect and prosecute high-level criminality by politicians, there would be much less concern about this among bloggers.

    Secondly, one of the undisputed facts about the case is that Mr. Mills has devoted his entire career to helping enormously rich people (like Berlusconi) find clever ways of avoiding paying their taxes. That's who Tessa Jowell chose to marry. And while the polite thing to do is to draw a clear line between private and public lives, I'm not sure that's sustainable. The fact that Jowell would chose to involve herself with someone in such a morally-questionable profession surely says something about her personal values and her judgement.

  • Richard

    BrianB wrote: "We seem to be in the age of Trial by Blogger, in which any old unsubstantiated accusation can be thrown around like confetti at a wedding (remember weddings?)."

    BrianB, this case ought to be resolved to the public's satisfaction, not to Tony Blair's or yours.

    The government works for the public, not the other way around. That makes politicians our employees, and answerable to us. We want to know the facts, not your worthless views.

    It's all well and good talking about a separation of private and public lives, but being in government is a special kind of job, one that is open to abuse of the state's power and of the people's trust.

  • Richard

    There seem to be, at least, two Richards on this board. I will change my name later, to avoid confusion.

Comments are closed.