Mandelson

[CollieModdle]

Should he / will he face criminal charges?
For sending sensitive / confidential information to Epstein?

Obviously the man’s integrity was in the sewer and it would break every code of good practice in public office to discuss raising Epstein’s point of view with the Chancellor but that probably counts as misconduct rather than criminal?

But forwarding sensitive e mails that could threaten the financial security of the country?

Despite him being a useless leader, I don’t really want to see Starmer resign, as I’m not sure who else we would get, but this statement as part of yesterday’s debate does worry me. Palantir is already a worry for various UK areas, but this is suspicious and alarming. Starmer visited Palantir HQ in Washington while on a visit. It was not in his diary and Palantir is represented by Mandelson’s company. Shortly after this, Palantir is awarded a major contract directly with no open competition.

https://x.com/lizwebstersbf/status/2019119246425362775?s=61&t=708dEn_EkpuN3JVBO9mR8A

Is there a petition we can sign to support Mandelson facing charges??

I don’t think a petition is necessary or would do any good. The police are already investigating, Gordon Brown has sent them documents and the government also. If there’s a case that will stand up in court and it certainly looks like there is, then he will be prosecuted

You can't petition for people to face charges. It is a decision firstly for the police as to whether to refer it to the Crown Prosecution Service. Then it is for the CPS to decide whether to prosecute and they have a two level test - whether evidence supports a conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecution.

No amount of petitioning can have any impact on these matters. It's governed by legal obligations of public bodies - the police and the CPS.

I hope he (and others) are brought to justice.

I hope he (and others) are brought to justice.

I wonder if this is likely tbh. It's extraordinary after all this time and all the stuff in the Epstein files that the only person in jail is G Maxwell. Logic would dictate that there must have been material to convict others in existence but if there have been no prosecutions other than GM and the deceased Epstein.

If the rumours about Epstein having cameras everywhere to get kompromat are true (men in power having sex with underage girls), where did it all go. It must have been disappeared.

If the rumours about Epstein being involved as a spy or as a foreign intelligence assets of a sort, that may explain much.

It may sound a bit conspiracy theory but it fits and would explain so many strange anomalies.

Ive recently become well up for conspiracy theories. We all thought a world wide group of billionaires that shared girls and women and trafficked them between countries and that had tentacles in high levels of government and passing information on to foreign people and the involvement of shady finances was a conspiracy theory and now see where we are today!

Is anyone able to explain why Mandelson received a pay off of tens of thousands of pounds when he was sacked after 7 months in office as Ambassador to the USA?
I just can't fathom why or how this happens.

It might be a standard provision in the diplomatic contract. MPs get redundancy money when the electors vote them out!

It’s a proportion of his salary as per the terms and conditions of his contract.

I would take a bet that PM never even read his contract and probably wasn’t even aware he was entitled to it. Stuff like employment contracts are for the little people. Someone should have taken the “let’s not pay him and see if he notices” line at the FO.

£55k will be very small beer to PM. I doubt whether he cares that much. He’s got bigger issues

I am by no means an expert on these things, nor do I have access to the sort of classified information many high level people in government and civil service would have had, but I distinctly remember raising an eyebrow and going 'WTAF?' when his appointment was announced. If I can know he was a wrong'un then trust me, everyone who is anyone in this government would have known.

It was a cynical choice made for cynical reasons. The idea that all these intelligent, powerful people whose job it is to know stuff had the wool pulled over their eyes is absolute bollocks. The red flags on Mandelson were about as easy to spot as the £22 billion black hole in the public finances that this government claimed they didn't know was there until they acidentally fell into it.

Let's face it. They took a pragmatic view on Mandelson, held their noses because they knew he was fishier than a lump of three week old haddock and and hoped it wouldn't come back to bite them.

If Starmer isn't a liar then he's even more of a useless, spineless, easily manipulated idiot than any of us thought. And that's really saying something.

Just reading the Times.. It was 3 months pay in lieu of notice when he was sacked. He did know about it as apparently there were “negotiations” about how much he was entitled to.

That Mandelson in his pants is a vile creepy photo i wish i could erase from my memory banks - who does that? Gay or straight, no man should be virtually exposing himself like that, the poor woman. Shocking

It's probably contractually standard. Compare Hugh Edwards in a similar position.

Assume a normal person taking the role of ambassador. For most people, that is a disruptive life change - involving moving country, having an official residence in some cases, giving up an existing job. The contract will need to be able to be terminated by the employer (the government) because anything could happen - an election, a war and recall or just on a whim. The employed person (the ambassador) would need some financial protection and cushion because they will be losing their job, their home and livelihood in one go plus have relocation costs.

If it's contractual, then the person is legally entitled to it. As it stands, Mandelson hasn't been convicted of anything and at the point he was sacked (before the later government info emails came to light) it was just a reputational problem so there wouldn't have been a basis to refuse to pay it.

In practical terms, the government could have refused to pay it but would have been gambling on Mandelson choosing not to sue. If he has a contractual entitlement, then he would win so that would be a waste of more tax payers money.

The other possibility is that he may have been contractually entitled to more and the ultimate sum was as the result of a legal negotiation to get him to go. That is also fairly standard in situations where the employer wants a person out fast, they know they are on weak ground but the law requires a process to be followed - it is sometimes a trade off with a non disclosure agreement and a lump sum that gets the person out quickly and avoids litigation. That's more likely in a non-government situation.

He won't repay anything paid though - why would he? Just like Hugh Edwards. If you are legally entitled to some money, it's been paid to you and you are going to have big problems getting any other work, you will cling on to every penny.

Completely agree tbh

mandelson needs to face charges.

Does anyone have any idea what this was about or why Keir Starmer went so insane at PMQs today?

Kemi Badenoch had already asked him about appointing Matt Doyle to the peerage (who had campaigned for someone who was known to be charged with pedophile offences). Ed Davey went back to it - referring to both Mandelson and Doyle and Keir Starmer lost his temper, didn't answer the question and made himself look like a nutcase. It seemed such an odd reaction to that particular question. Any theories why it touched such a nerve with him?

Even Ed Davey said he appeared to have touched a raw nerve. It's the start here:

Yes he lost it. Clearly can’t bear his own words said back to him. Latent anger issues.

So Mandleson got £75,000 for losing his job as UK ambassador to the US.
😱

He wanted £547,000!

Worth a try. The job was for four years and he was unfairly dismissed 🙃

Keir Starmer. Morgan McSweeney. Matthew Doyle. Three white, middle-aged men who all thought it was fine to appoint to a high-profile public role a man who had been close to a convicted paedophile and chose to stay in his house whilst he was in prison. This from the party that wants to halve violence against women and girls. Matthew Doyle of the three should have been counselling against the appointment because he would have been the one managing the press fallout.

Has he no srup Oh wait. No

"The dark lord"

Not just a fun nickname.