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.
(Poor) Carole Cadwalladr knows a thing to two about all that. Shocking, and agreed.
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…