(Sorry I know Mail stories are out of favour)
Basically, as per title - although it looks like a good chunk of it was actually in a Nationwide savings account.
Now, I don't doubt this is most likely gained nefariously. However, I think the judge is quite correct that just because he's been caught engaged in burglary it cannot just be assumed anything else in his possession was obtained in this manner unless there is proof.
It also seems to be the thin end of the wedge in a disturbing police trend of assuming that anyone holding large, particularly cash but also, bank savings, is potentially engaged in criminal activity.
I think DM readers are beginning to feel a bit like mugs for paying taxes because by the comments they seem very unhappy he won't have paid any on this money but, if (obviously a big if but unless it can be proved otherwise) it was acquired from car boot sales over a number of years I think they'd be disappointed with the size of the actual liability - excluding penalty fines.
I just don't like it. There seems to be an undercurrent of 'you're not behaving as we expect the average UK adult/Mail reader to behave therefore you're up to no good' - this leads to a sort of Minority Report world where if the police seize your laptop and your internet browsing history doesn't feature the average amount of page views for busty blonde women then you must be a nonce.
Edited by Soon Not a Chain Retailer, 05 April 2012 - 08:16 PM.