| Comment | Let's be clear here - her husband is allowed to apply to the scheme. There is absolutely nothing wrong
She didn't establish the scheme for personal benefit.
She didn't award the place to her husband (unless it can be shown she exerted some pressure on City Properties, which hasn't been alleged). Do we even know if there were other properties that failed to get awards?
The only thing she is asserted to have done wrong is that she didn't declare it in her interests, which again she isn't required to, because her spouse is an independent businessperson and his rights are not interfered with by her job.
So, again, no corruption is evident here because there is no evidence she was actually in any way involved in assigning the rental to her husband.
I'm no fan of either of them, but let's not bandy about words like 'corruption' for stories that have no actual abuse of power in them. |
|---|