Mandelson - How long has he got left?
Mandelson - How long has he got left?
Author
Discussion

BigJonMcQuimm

Original Poster:

975 posts

241 months

Wednesday 14th January 2009
quotequote all
So Mandy seemingly has been caught out again..... Will he forced out again?

Lets hope so!

Fittster

20,120 posts

242 months

Wednesday 14th January 2009
quotequote all
Isn't this still just the suspicions of the London Standard. As far as I’m aware they haven’t proved any wrong doing.

Seight_Returns

1,640 posts

230 months

Wednesday 14th January 2009
quotequote all
What's he done this time ? Can't see anything from a quick peep at BBC and Sky.

Seight_Returns

1,640 posts

230 months

Wednesday 14th January 2009
quotequote all
What's he done this time ? Can't see anything from a quick peep at BBC and Sky.

rev-erend

21,619 posts

313 months

Wednesday 14th January 2009
quotequote all
It never takes long for him to trip over his own size 12's..

Gunny Sergeant D

2,248 posts

269 months

Wednesday 14th January 2009
quotequote all
Unless there is proof - he can just ignore their article as idle speculation. They wont have seen his tax returns, so cant be sure what he has really earned(scavenged).

tinman0

18,231 posts

269 months

Wednesday 14th January 2009
quotequote all
Is this the question of how someone who earns £160k a year is buying a £2.5m property? And with the best wind in the world every ££ calculation comes up £400k short?

Gunny Sergeant D

2,248 posts

269 months

Wednesday 14th January 2009
quotequote all
Has anyone else picked up on the story? BBC wont (scared sh¦tless).

scotal

8,751 posts

308 months

Wednesday 14th January 2009
quotequote all
Gunny Sergeant D said:
Unless there is proof - he can just ignore their article as idle speculation. They wont have seen his tax returns, so cant be sure what he has really earned(scavenged).
Doesnt their proof come from the register of earnings that he has to submit as a peer. These are a matter of record and its these that the Standard have based their figures on. Teir argument being that if they don't add up he's either committed fraud to get the loan, or he's not turhtfully revealed his earnings to parliament.

(Or of course the bank that's lent him the money could have bent their own rules to fit the loan to him, but that would be far less entertaining.)