Some of what is now being said about Peter Mandelson has long been known.
That is why questions about who knew what, when and why they did not say it will be raised long after he has slunk off somewhere to live out his days funded by some ne'er-do-well or other.
But I have a different question this morning, which is, why did the media whimper when they should have been barking?
The answer is, of course, obvious. English libel law is designed to protect the rich and powerful from scrutiny, whatever abuse they get up to, until that abuse is unavoidably in the public domain, when a free-for-all begins. I have no doubt that this is why much that should have been said has remained under wraps.
In that case, what we need, if we are to have a decent democracy (among many other necessary reforms), is a complete overhaul of UK libel law to significantly expand the public interest defence for disclosure. This should not allow invasion of privacy, but it should permit accountability. Without this, democracy is a farce whose lack of reach is something the wealthy, smug abuser can smile about unless and until they finally have nowhere to hide.
To be blunt, our libel laws are facilitating abuse. That is why they have to go.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Partly perhaps because he was a source for members of the press. As the original UK spin doctor that would have been part of his job.
Mandelson had a lot of jobs over the years, within the Labour Party, as an adviser and minister, an EU Commissioner, and an ambassador. And he has known a lot of rich men and a lot of journalists.
I’m not aware of evidence yet, but either the Epstein leaking was a one off, or it was part of a pattern of behaviour. From the immediate forwarding of emails, it seems to have become almost automatic.
So do we think it was only during this one time period in 2009 that he was leaking like a sieve? And do we think it was only Epstein who was receiving these nuggets of inside information? Was it only Epstein who was (it seems) providing favours of various kinds (cash, or accommodation, or information, or access, or other things) in return?
Good questions.
Answers are needed.
I think it is more than our libel laws. There is much more to come out from the Epstein files, but it seems that people were scared of him and he definitely had friends in high places.
Whilst Starmer appointing him as US ambassador was clearly bad judgement, why did Gordon Brown have him on his cabinet? Whatever you think of Brown, I believe he was fundamentally decent and it’s a strange choice. More will come out and I very much doubt it will show Blair in a good light. But I can’t see Gordon Brown compromising himself and his chancellor Alistair Darling’s memoirs are already been used to corroborate the email evidence coming out, showing the shocking email evidence to be true. We will wait and see, but I don’t think the best libel lawyers out there will be able to defend what is going to come out about some of our senior political figures and possibly journalists and financiars.
My theory is that Brown preferred to have Mandelson at the cabinet table where he could keep an eye on him. The alternative was having him skulking around the back benches, scheming and plotting like a budget Machiavelli.
He was on no benches until Brown made him a peer so this theory does not quite stack.
“Whilst Starmer appointing him as US ambassador was clearly bad judgement”
Mandelson was appointed US Ambassador to the USA for two reasons and two reasons only:
1. Donald Trump liked Mandelson
2. Mandelson was viewed as having the ability to “manage” Trump.
If Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsome or even Chris Christie was occupying the Oval Office, do you think Mandelson would have been anywhere near an official position in the USA such as Ambassador??? I think not!!!! This was all about placating, managing and babysitting Trump as Trump needed a babysitter who could and would flatter him to the point of no return.
If KCIII or Willy Boy come to the USA to attend the World Cup, they need to stay as far away from Trump and the Trump administration as possible.
Much to agree with
I think Mandelson was deliberately chosen as ambassador because of his contacts with Epstein and indirectly Trump. Starmer made a gamble and has now lost.
(Poor) Carole Cadwalladr knows a thing to two about all that. Shocking, and agreed.
and the people she exposed are not just British. They have links overseas.
I often quote -on social media- this bit of news. Just over two years ago.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68177357
800 govt officials protest Gaza policy -and say they are not being listened to.
“”It’s unique in my experience watching foreign policy in the last 40 years,” said Robert Ford, a former American ambassador to Algeria and Syria.”
Surely a ‘unique’ topic for investigative journalists but I can find no discussion of it.
I M H O it is not just related to the Israeli lobby. It is also about the power to manipulate the media and intimidate opponents. And use the libel laws, as Richard points out today, as part of their armoury.
I am catching up. I found ‘Thenerve.news’ yesterday and will be watching with interest.
Its more than “failure to speak out”. It also involves active suppression of those who DO speak out. And that’s worse.
Anyone who has campaigned or agitated against a systematic injustice (v gov’t or commercial interest or both, in cahoots w each other) knows how this works and how there is a sliding scale of intimidatory escalation. (My personal experience of some of this)
Censorship of below the line comments in online press (Guardian v active in this area) and in corporate consumer forums (I got banned repeatedly from BT forums for complaining about Phorm/BT’s illegal behaviour, then it all came out, we were right, but no heads rolled).
Shadow-banning or outright closure of social media accounts or takeover of whole company (twitter, tiktok).
Personal harassment, threats, targeted personal surveillance, spyware, snooping.
Doxing, smearing, libelling, complaining to people’s employers, aiming to get them sacked – especially popular with the Israel lobby, against public servants and academics).
Denial of access to finance (money transfer systems, VISA, Mastercard, Paypal, Applepay etc, closure of bank accounts, freezing of assets).
Intimidation, arrest, prosecution, of activists and journalists, esp at borders, where one’s civil rights take a dive even in very liberal jurisdictions. Occasionally – successful convictions. (Esp relating to Palestine/Israel and fossil fuel activism).
The introduction of repressive legislation to redefine legitimate protest or free speech as sedition, terrorism or a threat to national security, enabling draconian punishment for “absolute offences” (relating to palestine action or intifada, or from river to sea, or being near a synagogue).
Murder (Russia, who have a reputation for it, and of course Israel, who have industrialised the process of murdering journalists in Gaza, where wearing a press tabard is akin to putting a target on yourself and your family).
Once your opponents are sending out spokespersons to deny everything on the MSM news media, you know you’ve (technically) won, especially when they have to contradict their own earlier lies, denials and obfuscations. But you rarely see justice. Just the end of that particular bit of wrongdoing, the exposure of that particular lie.
Those who organise and mandate such repression, even in the earlist stages, have blood on their hands.
The libel laws? – maybe, but the whole New Labour – ‘public-private partnership’ way of thinking with all that lucrative cash flow to be creamed off – would seem to be designed for corrupt ‘insider dealing’ between politicians and their private sector donors or collaborators – as with West Streeting today.
Is it libellous to name Wes Streeting? He has received private healthcare ‘donations’ – a clear conflict of interest.
Because the media, the politicians and the financiers were all getting what they wanted – rich, in collaboration with each other…
I take the point about libel, but I believe that Mandelson has now become a very useful tool with which to dislodge Starmer and replace him with another more pliable stodge. He wasn’t such a tool ( in that sense) previously.
Starmer has again shown poor judgement, but I doubt that this affair imperils his premiership. He has only a tenuous link to the Epstein affair, whereas most of those connected were very much on the other side of the political spectrum. I speak of Trump, Bannon, and many politicians and business people, including Farage who has links with several people named.
Badenoch is doing what any opposition politician would do in these circumstances.
I can[t see STARMER SURVIVING.
HE WAS DIRE IN THE COMMONS TODAY FROM WHAT I SAW.
Apologies for caps, not corrected in haste
@Alan Surtees “I believe that Mandelson has now become a very useful tool with which to dislodge Starmer ”
Epstein is being used as a stick to beat Mandelson with (one might well think deservedly) and Mandelson is being used as a stick to beat Starmer with.
Would they be so bothered about Mandelson if he couldn’t be made into a stick to beat Starmer with, I doubt it.
The pursuance of people for knowing Epstein is guilt by association, a standard feature of witch hunts, in this case there really are some witches but not everyone who associated with Epstein is a witch. Epstein put significant effort into associating with as many of the rich and famous as he could possibly manage.
One could certainly argue the non-witches were naive, one could argue they should have realised this was a person it was best to keep a distance from, but naivity is not generally a crime. One exception to that is that proven naivity of politicians could be argued to be enough of a failure to require resignation.
In defence of journalists, I don’t know how they could have known about the sent emails in this situation, unless the sender or recipient told them.
Agreed, on this one.
Perhaps they didn’t go after him because he openly defended the interests of the rich – the same people who employ journalists.
“We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes.”
Cleverly caveated but he did nothing to ensure they paid their taxes. Exactly what the oligarchs need in their governments.
Agree with many others above …. It is more than Libel Laws. Private Eye carried articles and put things out there.
Establishment organs do not carry those stories. So not sure we can say it’s primarily a libel issue.
And how much did even Private Eye not say?
John McDonnell has warned Starmer that this Mandelson scandal could hand victory to Reform. Are these people stupid? They should be jumping up and down about Reforms links to Epstein, through Farage. Why aren’t they putting all of it together? Not a single Reform MP turned up to PMQs to discuss the issue. Farage is just going to keep quiet and disappear in all the noise when he should be taken down too, along with all the others. Starmer is going down, he should do us all a favour and drag Farage with him.
Agreed
Epstein ingratiated himself with the rich and famous by being a fixer and “a mover and shaker”, the fixing could be as simple as a party invitation, or holiday, with other rich &/or famous people or extend to the kind of things he was convicted of. It’s unlikely that any of those he fixed things for knew the full extent of his activities, of course, they knew what he fixed for them, though not necessarily detail how it was achieved. Fixers are ammoral, the ends justify the means for them, and they like to keep an air of magic & mystery over how they fix, otherwise anyone could do it, a wariness over potential legal consequences also requires some secrecy.
Mandelson is also a fixer, though more politically orientated, and had long been known as fairly dodgy, ‘The Prince of Darkness’ is not a new nickname, that dodginess was probably perceived as a consequence of his skillset so was tolerated more than it otherwise might have been. it’s not surprising he and Epstein connected, that Epstein fixed some things for Mandelson shows him as a fixers fixer and it was a useful connection for both, fixing requires having lots of connections.
It’s interesting how loyal some his “contacts” were to Epstein , even after his conviction. The obvious thing would have been to drop him like a stone, it suggests he managed to make them see him as one of their own rather than just a useful toad. The person formally known as prince Andrew and his wife are obviously pretty stupid but one might have expected Mandelsson to be smarter.
To put it in perspective, the Mandelson furore would be much less if it related to someone other than Epstein, then it would just have been the ‘Prince of Darkness’ being dodgy again, like the previous occasions he had to resign from positions.
This is about so much more than just Mandelson, utterly appalling though he and the situation are, and the deep trouble that the Labour party is in. This is about that much wider and deeper nexus of political power, wealthy finance and tech. All feeding off each other to their mutual benefit, and bent on undermining democracy which gets in their way. Add in their control of most of the media, social and traditional which they abuse to promote their interests and create division.
Each of these sectors need to be taken head on and their overbearing power and influence broken up. Money and lobbying out of politics, finance and tech both broken down into manageable units and brutally – I use the word deliberately – regulated.
Agreed, in a word.
Libel law might play a part but I think the answer is darker. The story is being framed as “Mandelson the wrong’un” but what we’re actually looking at is “how the world works.” The network at the top is small and includes leaders in business, regulation, journalism and politics. There are revolving doors between all of them and no one wants to get cut off.
Mandelson has been caught leaking information to a convicted paedophile who in turn is caught sharing information with the leader of a conglomerate bank (still waiting for attention to turn to Jamie Dimon by the way). I strongly suspect regulators could be found to be aware of these conversations but as they are mostly ex-bankers who might want a CRO gig in the private sector one day they probably turned a blind eye. Journalists flitting between private sector marketing departments and news agencies might have known too, but it wouldn’t be in their interests to say anything.