Mandy

[BoldonLad]

Ah, legalese. I was not surprised to see the usual legal eagle pick me up on it as well.
"Yet" is doing the heavy lifting here.

I have an uncomfortable feeling that Mandy and Mr W may slide out yet, on the basis of claims of it being impossible to find an impartial jury.

 

[Beebo]

Seeing as he can afford what is probably one of the UK's most expensive legal firms you have to wonder why he was tapping up Epstein for a paltry £10k in course fees for his boyfriend. MDR will be billing him more than that for Ubers.

His London house is worth £7 million.
How does someone who has mainly worked as a well paid civil servant afford that?
Those £10k handouts add up over time.

 

[icowden]

His London house is worth £7 million.
How does someone who has mainly worked as a well paid civil servant afford that?
Those £10k handouts add up over time.

The cash is from his advisory firm and advising foreign governments. It pays well.

 

[BoldonLad]

The cash is from his advisory firm and advising foreign governments. It pays well.

Was (is?) it only Governments he (or his advisory firm) advised, or do Companies / Wealthy Individuals come in the mix? I seem to remember a flurry of photographs of Mandy on some wealthy Russian's yacht, a few years ago?

 

[briantrumpet]

Was (is?) it only Governments he (or his advisory firm) advised, or do Companies / Wealthy Individuals come in the mix? I seem to remember a flurry of photographs of Mandy on some wealthy Russian's yacht, a few years ago?

• Oleg Deripaska: Mandelson is a long-standing friend of Deripaska. The two were introduced by financier Nat Rothschild around 2004. Their relationship became public after Mandelson stayed on Deripaska's superyacht, Queen K, in Corfu. Mandelson also reportedly visited Deripaska in Siberia in 2005, which included a traditional visit to a Russian sauna.
• Petr Aven and Mikhail Fridman: Leaked documents from the "Uber Files" (2022) revealed that Mandelson’s firm, Global Counsel, helped Uber navigate relationships with these two oligarchs, who control the Alfa Group. Mandelson reportedly helped secure a meeting with Aven in 2016 to discuss political issues Uber faced in Russia.
• Evgeny Lebedev: While Lebedev is often more closely associated with Boris Johnson, Mandelson has been photographed with him and moved in the same social circles. Lebedev, the owner of the Evening Standard, is the son of former KGB officer Alexander Lebedev.
• Yuri Milner: Emails from the "Epstein files" suggest that in 2011, Mandelson consulted with Jeffrey Epstein regarding potential business dealings with Milner, a tech billionaire known for early investments in Facebook and Twitter.
  
  Through his strategic advisory firm, Global Counsel, Mandelson and his business partner Benjamin Wegg-Prosser developed extensive links within the Russian business world:
• German Gref: The CEO of Sberbank and a former Russian economics minister. Mandelson hosted Gref during a visit to the UK and was described as the "architect" of Gref's visit to Uber’s headquarters in San Francisco.
• Vladimir Evtushenkov: Mandelson previously sat on the board of Sistema, a large Russian conglomerate owned by Evtushenkov.
• Rusnano Group: Global Counsel reportedly solicited business from this Russian state-owned nanotechnology firm.

Sourced from Gemini.

 

[BoldonLad]

• Oleg Deripaska: Mandelson is a long-standing friend of Deripaska. The two were introduced by financier Nat Rothschild around 2004. Their relationship became public after Mandelson stayed on Deripaska's superyacht, Queen K, in Corfu. Mandelson also reportedly visited Deripaska in Siberia in 2005, which included a traditional visit to a Russian sauna.
• Petr Aven and Mikhail Fridman: Leaked documents from the "Uber Files" (2022) revealed that Mandelson’s firm, Global Counsel, helped Uber navigate relationships with these two oligarchs, who control the Alfa Group. Mandelson reportedly helped secure a meeting with Aven in 2016 to discuss political issues Uber faced in Russia.
• Evgeny Lebedev: While Lebedev is often more closely associated with Boris Johnson, Mandelson has been photographed with him and moved in the same social circles. Lebedev, the owner of the Evening Standard, is the son of former KGB officer Alexander Lebedev.
• Yuri Milner: Emails from the "Epstein files" suggest that in 2011, Mandelson consulted with Jeffrey Epstein regarding potential business dealings with Milner, a tech billionaire known for early investments in Facebook and Twitter.
  
  Through his strategic advisory firm, Global Counsel, Mandelson and his business partner Benjamin Wegg-Prosser developed extensive links within the Russian business world:
• German Gref: The CEO of Sberbank and a former Russian economics minister. Mandelson hosted Gref during a visit to the UK and was described as the "architect" of Gref's visit to Uber’s headquarters in San Francisco.
• Vladimir Evtushenkov: Mandelson previously sat on the board of Sistema, a large Russian conglomerate owned by Evtushenkov.
• Rusnano Group: Global Counsel reportedly solicited business from this Russian state-owned nanotechnology firm.

Sourced from Gemini.

Lots of "friends" hasn't he?, very social 😂

I think it was Deripaska I was thinking of.

 

[briantrumpet]

Lots of "friends" hasn't he?, very social 😂

I think it was Deripaska I was thinking of.

Yes, I couldn't remember specifics, which is why I asked Gemini. Obviously very gregarious with people who are extremely rich. I'm sure it's just their personalities that attracted him.

 

[Shortfall]

Mogg is a bit confused here I think. The 1840 Act serves to protect Hansard rather than the supremacy of parliament.

The Met Police was already established 10 or 11 years before the 1840 Act, so while this was foreseen, the fact that there would be cameras, Parliament TV etc was not. Access to Hansard at that time was not so simple a process as it is today.

The requested papers are not papers that have already been laid before the house, therefore the 1840 Act does not apply.

Nonetheless, if I'm incorrect about any of that, it is of little consequence. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 protects ongoing investigations using a strict liability rule which makes it a criminal act for any person to reveal information that may cause serious prejudice to the administration of justice, or lead to bias of a trial jury.

Setting aside any bias I have either way about Mogg or Starmer, Starmer appears to be correct on legal basis for refusing to put the information in the public domain.

I don't think he's confused at all, you just disagree with him. It's not like Labour have anything to hide is it? Next someone will be telling me they go around smearing journalists who are reporting things that might embarrass them. Heaven forfend!

 

[monkers]

I don't think he's confused at all, you just disagree with him. It's not like Labour have anything to hide is it? Next someone will be telling me they go around smearing journalists who are reporting things that might embarrass them. Heaven forfend!

If he (Mogg) is not confused, then perhaps he intends to mislead. Here, read the act yourself ...

I'm not interested in responding to your tittle tattle around Starmer or Mogg. I'm just showing you the law as written.

 

[Rusty Nails]

If he (Mogg) is not confused, then perhaps he intends to mislead. Here, read the act yourself ...

View attachment 13382

View attachment 13383

I'm not interested in responding to your tittle tattle around Starmer or Mogg. I'm just showing you the law as written.

If you’re not interested in (partisan) tittle tattle about politicians you’re on the wrong forum.

 

[Shortfall]

If he (Mogg) is not confused, then perhaps he intends to mislead. Here, read the act yourself ...

View attachment 13382

View attachment 13383

I'm not interested in responding to your tittle tattle around Starmer or Mogg. I'm just showing you the law as written.

JRM claims that the government has a duty to respond to the Humble Address made in The Commons and to publish all documents relating to the Mandelson appointment. He says that because the Humble Address is to the King who sits above the Prime Minister that it can't be refused. He also claims that the 1840 Protection of Papers Act gives Parliament an absolute right to freedom of speech. According to JRM this in effect trumps the Contempt of Court Act you are relying on. I don't know enough about the law and the constitution to say one way or another so I guess we'll have to let things run their course and see whether Starmer or Rees Mogg is right. What I would say is that if anyone genuinely believes that Starmer is refusing to disclose everything because he doesn't want to prejudice any future trial, then I have this bridge for sale.......

 

[Rusty Nails]

He is a party politician. They all delay, defer and obfuscate on matters that might be inconvenient. (Except for the vanishingly rare saint).

 

[Shortfall]

He is a party politician. They all delay, defer and obfuscate on matters that might be inconvenient. (Except for the vanishingly rare saint).

Sure. It remains to be seen whether he's allowed to use the Contempt of Court Act to do this though. I know it's a cliché but it's already his Watergate moment.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Sure. It remains to be seen whether he's allowed to use the Contempt of Court Act to do this though. I know it's a cliché but it's already his Watergate moment.

It’s certainly embarrassing and shows a lack of judgement but, as yet, falls short of the corruption and illegality that led to the impeachment of Nixon over Watergate.

 

[monkers]

JRM claims that the government has a duty to respond to the Humble Address made in The Commons and to publish all documents relating to the Mandelson appointment. He says that because the Humble Address is to the King who sits above the Prime Minister that it can't be refused. He also claims that the 1840 Protection of Papers Act gives Parliament an absolute right to freedom of speech. According to JRM this in effect trumps the Contempt of Court Act you are relying on. I don't know enough about the law and the constitution to say one way or another so I guess we'll have to let things run their course and see whether Starmer or Rees Mogg is right. What I would say is that if anyone genuinely believes that Starmer is refusing to disclose everything because he doesn't want to prejudice any future trial, then I have this bridge for sale.......

The Bill of Rights gave parliament the right to speak freely in parliament. The humble address can indeed be used to call for undisclosed papers such as the legal advice provided to government by the solicitor general or attorney general.

However, parliament has relaxed it own powers under the sub judice rule.

While the humble address is a legitimate means to demand the publications of documents from government, parliament has restricted itself from prejudicing active court proceedings and hearings with the sub judice rule amendment in 1972 and its passing of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

The Speaker has some power to decide.