The Epstein class: the Mandelson files

The government has published an initial batch of documents related to Peter Mandelson's appointment as ambassador to the United States, following a parliamentary push for greater disclosure over his vetting and official role. The media say the disclosures have answered some questions about internal warnings and the financial settlement, but did not resolve the dispute over whether Mandelson had misled officials during vetting.
The roughly 147-page released material marks the first installment in a wider handover of papers linked to Mandelson's time in the post. The media reported that some records could remain withheld for now, given the ongoing police investigation and possible future legal proceedings.
Mandelson's appointment had already drawn wild controversy in Britain, with opposition MPs pressing the Starmer government to explain what was known about his past links to Jeffrey Epstein, the dead American financier and convicted sex offender, when he was chosen for the Washington role.
The issue added to political pressure on the Prime Minister who has said Mandelson did not fully disclose the nature of the relationship during the vetting process.
The newly released documents showed that officials had warned Starmer in advance that Mandelson's past association with Epstein could pose a "reputational risk". In a note described as advice to the prime minister and based on checks conducted on 4th December 2024, officials said Mandelson's relationship with Epstein had continued for a period after Epstein's 2008 conviction for procuring an under-age girl.
According to the document, the relationship extended across 2009 to 2011, beginning when Mandelson was serving as business minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government.
The note also referred to reports that Mandelson stayed at Epstein's house in June 2009 while Epstein was in jail.
A separate briefing note indicated that the issue had been discussed inside government before the appointment. It said Starmer's then chief of staff Morgan McSweeney had raised Mandelson's links to Epstein, while communications director Matthew Doyle was said to be satisfied with Mandelson's answers to questions about the contact. However, further correspondence and follow-up questions to Mandelson were not included in this first disclosure.
The files also suggested unease among senior officials over the way the appointment was handled. Government officials had warned that Starmer could be left more politically exposed if a personally connected political appointee encountered problems in office.
In a summary of a fact-finding call held in September, National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell described the appointment process as "unusual" and "weirdly rushed," while also raising concerns about Mandelson's reputation. The documents added that Philip Barton, then the Foreign Office's top civil servant, had also expressed reservations.
The released papers further detailed discussions over Mandelson's severance after he was removed from the Washington post. According to the documents, Mandelson initially sought payment covering the remainder of the four-year fixed-term appointment, amounting to £547,201. The government ultimately approved £34,670 in discretionary payments in addition to £40,330 to which he was legally entitled.
The BBC reported that Mandelson disputes the characterisation that he requested or demanded more than £500,000 pounds in severance pay, and maintains that he answered questions about his relationship with Epstein accurately. Mandelson has repeatedly denied criminal wrongdoing, denied acting for personal gain, and said he is cooperating with police inquiries. 
In late January, the U.S. Justice Department made public a large cache of files related to Epstein, prompting renewed scrutiny in Britain. British police confirmed later that they had opened a criminal investigation into Mandelson over alleged misconduct while in public office, including possible disclosure of market-sensitive information.
Mandelson previously served as a senior cabinet minister under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He was appointed ambassador to Washington in early 2025 but was dismissed by Starmer after seven months due to questions over his past. 

Xinhua

Stop the bombing now!

London comrades at the march

by Ed Newman

Angry protesters marched on the American embassy in London last weekend demanding an end to US-Israeli strikes on Iran. The march was organised by a coalition of groups, including Hands off Iran, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War, the Muslim Association of Britain, the Palestinian Forum in Britain and CND.
The organisers said more than 50,000 demonstrators marched from Millbank to the US embassy in Vauxhall on Saturday afternoon. It cames on the eighth day of the US-Israeli attack on Iran, shortly after President Donald Trump said the US would hit Iran “very hard” in the coming days.
Protesters were heard chanting “stop the bombing now, now, now” and “Keir Starmer be afraid, we will see you in The Hague”.
Your Party MP Zarah Sultana spoke at the demonstration outside the US embassy, saying “back then [in 2003], we were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We were told that war would bring peace and democracy.
“We were told that the war would protect Iraqis and protect the world, but the truth was very different. And 23 years ago, when we marched against the Iraq war, we were ignored.
“We will not be ignored again, because history proved them right, and today, we raise our voices for peace, for justice and for a world where governments learn the lessons of the past”.
Hours before the march on Saturday morning, US Air Force B-1 Lancer bombers landed at the RAF Fairford base in Gloucestershire, in southern England.
Trump’s War Secretary, Pete Hegseth, said that the USA would use British bases to “dramatically” increase its strikes on Iran. The Starmer government has allowed the Americans to use UK military bases for the purpose of targeting Iranian missile sites.

Radio Havana Cuba

No War on Iran

 

 Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Independent Alliance group in the House of Commons, being interviewed by the Al Mayadeen Arab TV channel at an anti-war protest in Parliament Square last weekend. Peace campaigners rallied to the call for an emergency rally held soon after the news broke of the American-Israeli attack on Iran.

Chris and Ben on trial – the story so far

 by Jennie Walsh

Four days into the trial of Stop the War vice-chair Chris Nineham and Palestine Solidarity Campaign director Ben Jamal on public order offences arising from a peaceful Palestine protest in Whitehall on 18th January 2025, the case has been adjourned for seven days to enable the prosecution to consider the defence’s legal arguments to have the case thrown out on the grounds that there is no case to answer in law.
But it’s worth outlining what’s happened so far at court, given that the case represents part of the wider attack on the right to protest.  
To understand why Chris and Ben’s defence barrister Mark Summers KC submitted the application to have the case thrown out, we can go back to the first day of the trial, when Summers set out three grounds on which the judge should acquit.
The conditions were imposed under powers already found to be unlawful by the court of appeal in a previous case. 
The decision of the Metropolitan Police’s Gold Commander Adam Slonecki as to which conditions on the planned march from the BBC were necessary was unreasonable – not based on any proper balancing exercise on Convention rights.
That, on the facts of events on the day, neither defendant knowingly breached conditions and were following police directions.
The case referred to is Liberty v Secretary for the Home Department, when in May 2024 the High Court ruled that regulations introduced in 2023 by the former Home Secretary Suella Braverman into the Public Order Act 1986, were unlawful. These regulations introduced the concept of “cumulative disruption” and lowered the threshold for police to intervene in protests from “serious” to “more than minor” disruption. 
Proceedings continued with prosecution barrister Kevin Dent KC calling Commander Slonecki to recount his witness statement and logs of events leading up to his decision not to allow the Palestine Coalition to assemble at BBC Portland Place for the national demonstration on 18th January.
Summers cross-examined Slonecki and during that exchange the officer accepted that the 21 marches (as the tally stood then) for Palestine over the previous 15 months had been lawful, peaceful and orderly. He agreed that this was an unprecedented achievement.
The court heard that the police had agreed to the route of the march and its public announcement during a meeting with the Coalition in November 2024. This was after the Coalition had accepted a police request to postpone a planned march from the BBC on 30th  November 2024, mainly due to the concerns of retailers (it would have fallen on the Black Friday weekend), on the understanding it would go ahead in January 2025.
However, after receiving a number of arguments from representatives of some sections of the Jewish community from 13th  December, including the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC), Central London Synagogue and the Chief Rabbi, none of which were logged by Slonecki at the time, he had, by the 20th  December, formed the view that he would be required to act on the basis of “cumulative disruption” and would impose conditions on the march being near the BBC. 
Summers suggested Slonecki did not give the counter arguments of the Palestine Coalition any serious consideration in forming this view. Neither did he give serious consideration to compromise proposals that would have allowed the protest to take place in some form, at or near the BBC, even though such compromises had allowed two previous Palestine demonstrations to start there without disorder and were even initially raised by the police themselves.
Cumulative disruption
The court heard the commander decided to adopt a “different approach” based on the concept of “cumulative disruption” after lawyers for the JLC made representations including pointing out the 2023 amendment to the Act. There was also a threat of judicial review. Slonecki denied the letter formed the basis of his decision to impose conditions on the march.
He also said that an email from the Palestine march Jewish Bloc pointing out that the organisations he had been meeting with and taking representations from were not representative of the entire Jewish community never got to him. The email was seen by other officers. Slonecki never met with the Jewish Bloc.
His imposition of a wide exclusion zone and other conditions was opposed by a coalition of public figures, including MPs and Holocaust survivors, but the court heard that Slonecki had already told the JLC’s lawyers that “there is no intention from me to vary” his decision. 
The conditions banning the BBC march were imposed just days later. He told the court that these were designed to “provide safe spaces” for the worshippers of the Central Synagogue and also for worshippers of the nearby Chabad Bloomsbury, including the “tourist community” visiting it.
Flower delegation
Met police Silver Commander Gareth Winnard was next to take the stand. He was watching events in Whitehall on 18th January remotely on CCTV and admitted he had no information from officers on the ground that a small delegation from the Palestine protest wanted to walk to the BBC at Portland Place to lay flowers in memory of those killed in Gaza or, if stopped by police, to lay flowers at their feet. He accepted this was a “learning point” and that he should have had this information. 
Inspector Tom Beresford, who was directing officers at the police cordon, also said he let the delegation through the cordon without knowing their plan was to lay flowers when stopped by police. He accepted he didn’t see pushing on the police cordon.
On the fourth day of the trial, the court heard about the lack of communication and coordination amongst officers on the ground, and that none of them were aware of the plan for the delegation to ask permission to walk towards the BBC to lay flowers.
PC Isabel Vale gave testimony about confusion and lack of consistency among police officers at the cordons at the top of Whitehall. Some officers were enforcing an absolute cordon, others were allowing people through. 
Some officers understood that Whitehall was in fact a predetermined exit point but PC Vale was not aware of this. She was also not aware that cordon one had been withdrawn and cordon two was “filtered”, on the orders of senior officers. Had she known about the flower delegation plan, she said her reactions to what was happening on the ground might have been different (she had talked about being fearful of being crushed).
Finally, Detective Inspector Christopher Rudd was taken through the chronology of Palestine Coalition social media posts using the hashtag #WeWillMarch. He agreed its use could be understood as part of a public campaign for the police to withdraw their restrictions on a march towards the BBC and that it could not be seen as incitement to breach conditions in itself. 
He agreed the intention to march could not be seen as an incitement to breach conditions until 17th January, when the police imposed a static assembly. But at that point there were no further social media posts using #WeWillMarch.
The trial is likely to recommence on 16th and 17th March, subject to court availability and other factors.
Stop the War

Bad news for Londoners

by New Worker correspondent

Putting fares up in London is a political choice – and it's the wrong one Fare Free London says.
On Sunday 1 March fares for tube, rail and DLR journeys in London will go up by six per cent and so will journeys by River Bus and the Docklands cable car across the Thames.
The Fare Free London  campaign rejects the logic of annual fare rises on public transport, which are presented as inevitable, rather than as the political choice made by the Mayor of London and the national government.
Certain public transport fares (TfL buses and National Rail fares) have been temporarily frozen, which give little comfort to public transport users – but also demonstrates that fare freezes can be implemented by the Mayor and Government at their will.
"This is a political choice. There is nothing inevitable about it", Pearl Ahrens of Fare Free London said. "And it's part of an agreement to keep pushing up fares by more than the rate of inflation. "The Mayor agreed with the government in June last year that fares in London will rise by one per cent more than the rate of inflation every year until 2030.
"This is going in completely the wrong direction. Increasing the proportion of income coming from fares has real costs for people who live in London, and it's not necessary. The transport systems in most of the world's big cities rely far less on fare income than London's does – more sustainable sources of funding can be drawn from elsewhere."
The burden of running the city's transport system is being pushed on to low-income Londoners – including the 26 per cent of households in London living below the poverty line.
Research by Fare Free London last year found that high tube fares mean that people are forced to take long journeys to work by bus, costing them more time, and they cannot take their children out at weekends.    
"The high cost of public transport has negative effects for London", Ahrens said. "Not only in depriving millions of people of leisure trips and quality time because they can't afford to make the journey, or spend too long getting home from work. Further, 62 per cent of respondents in our research said they worry about the cost of their journey 'often' or 'every time' they travel.
"Public transport in London relies more heavily on fare income than other global cities such as New York, Paris or Hong Kong. The most progressive cities are moving towards a zero-fares system, including several French cities and more than 100 municipalities in Brazil".
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and the Secretary of State for Transport, Heidi Alexander, have both said the fare increases are a necessary part of a funding package for TfL. The package also includes grants from the government to pay for new Piccadilly line trains and other capital investments.
However, the grants, averaging £550 million a year for five years, are only about five per cent of TfL's income. Passenger income is 51 per cent of the total – and will increase to 59 per cent by 2030. 
Pearl Ahrens said "there are many levers the Mayor could use to put the burden where it belongs, on businesses who benefit from London's transport system. A payroll levy on companies in the city, and coordinated parking charges, both used in Paris, would be a start.
"But the biggest change is needed at national government level. While high fares are adding to the soaring cost of living, billions are being committed to Gatwick Airport expansion, the Lower Thames Crossing and other transport projects that will exacerbate the climate crisis.
"Think of how bus services across the country could have benefited from the more than £100 billion in revenue lost as a result of fuel duty being frozen. Why are fares going up above the rate of inflation, while fuel duty has not increased for 15 years?
"An integrated approach to transport would shift subsidies away from roads and cars towards public transport and active travel," Ahrens said.  

End the blockade now!

by New Worker correspondent
 ·
Good turnout at last weekend’s rally outside the Cuban Embassy in London calling for an end to the US blockade which Cuba has been subject to since gaining its freedom. Also an end to Western aggression and attacks against Venezuela, where it is nearly two months since President Maduro and his wife were kidnapped in a terrorist attack. All these actions were and are illegal – where is the outrage from the so-called international community?
There’s been nothing, except from the Axis of Resistance countries. But when you consider that most Western politicians have no problem with the ongoing genocide and crimes in Palestine, a couple of regime change operations won’t make them lose a moment’s sleep. 
Nor will Ukraine where, sadly, Britain plays a more prominent role as a driver for more war and losses and a force against a peace settlement. The Russian intervention was reluctantly undertaken in February 2022 because of the immediate threats against the people of the Donbas and the longer term threat of Ukraine becoming the forward line of NATO and the whole country turned into an imperialist military base.
The conflict could have ended in April 2022 but for Johnson’s visit to Ukraine to personally persuade Zelensky to continue an unwinnable conflict, in line with NATO’s goal of weakening Russia at the cost of Ukrainian lives. The longer this goes on, more Ukrainian lives and the conditions for the final settlement will be worse for Ukraine. Sadly all these people are dying for nothing except Western shareholders, corrupt Ukrainian politicians desperate to keep the money flowing, and the geo-strategic aims of NATO and American imperialism.

The shape of things to come

The Green victory in the Gorton & Denton by-election was a slap in the face for all the major parliamentary parties. Labour lost a seat it’s held for a hundred years. Reform came a poor second  and the Tories lost their deposit trailing behind just a few hundred votes above the Liberal Democrats, the Monster Raving Loonies and the other also-rans. 
Trumped by the Greens the Faragists put their failure down to the “Muslim vote” while the Starmer crowd blame left “extremists” for making the common course with the Greens that led to Labour’s downfall in Manchester. But at the end of the day Starmer & Co got the kicking they so richly deserved because voters were sick of the lies of the false prophets of all the mainstream bourgeois parties in Britain today.
Jeremy Corbyn, one of those “extremists” that Starmer doubtless had in mind, welcomed the Greens’ stunning victory and said his supporters “will work constructively with the Greens, because there is only one way we can bring about real change: together”.
On the other hand Richard Burgon, one of the few left social-democrats still in the Parliamentary Labour Party says the “blame for Labour’s defeat lies squarely with Keir Starmer and his clique”.
He says “they put factional interests over having the candidate best placed to win, Andy Burnham. If Labour is to be the “Stop Reform” party, then the leadership must stop treating progressive voters with contempt - and start appealing to them.
“That means a return to real Labour values - through policies like a Wealth Tax, public ownership of energy and water, and an ethical foreign policy that are all popular with the public. And it means ditching the approach of trying to ape Reform and kicking the left, that has alienated so many people who have voted Labour previously”.
We’ll see. The Greens deservedly got a massive protest vote this time round but their “eco-socialism” is only a rehash of the stale left social-democracy we see time and time again within the European Union that the Greens much admire. 
Angela Rayner and Andy Burnham wait in the wings to pick up the pieces when Starmer inevitably goes. They uphold the NHS. They talk about public ownership. They pay lip-service to the old Bennite social-democratic tradition. They support the union bureaucrats at the helm of the labour movement. But that’s as far as it goes – and as far as it will ever go as long as the careerists and time-servers remain in charge. We, as communists,  want real change. We have to put socialism back on the working-class agenda. 
We must keep up the fight against the whole capitalist system in Britain and throughout the world. The struggle for peace and socialism must begin anew – in the unions, amongst the rank and file and on the street. It must start now...

From the river to the sea!

by New Worker correspondent

Hundreds of Palestine Solidarity members from branches across Britain packed into London’s Conway Hall last weekend for their annual general meeting to decide on the direction of our movement for Palestine. We will never stop protesting, lobbying, boycotting & campaigning until Palestine is free.
Meanwhile Scotland other campaigners are demanding that Scotland's regulatory body revoke the charitable status of the Jewish National Fund — highlighting the organisation's role in land dispossession, support for settlement expansion, and the ongoing displacement of Palestinians, and pointing to the precedent set in Canada, where authorities recently revoked JNF's charitable status over concerns about its activities.  Two weeks ago activists from across Scotland marched to the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) in Dundee to demand action against the JNF – the oldest fund-raising organisation in the world supporting Israel, dedicated to, among other things, what is described as “land reclamation”.

End Zionist control!

by New Worker correspondent

The Anti-Zionist International was launched in Birmingham last weekend. The original venue, The Old Print Works in Balsall Heath, cancelled the booking stating it could not provide a "safe space" following police scrutiny of the group's social media activity. But the event was subsequently moved to another location nearby. 
The campaign was described by supporters as an incredibly powerful and important event for reaffirming Palestinian liberation principles, bringing renewed energy and genuine hope for justice and freedom for Palestinians.
Latifa Abouchakra, a London-based journalist and contributor to Iran’s Press TV,  was arrested while travelling to Birmingham to attend the launch. The police said the arrest was linked to enhanced security arrangements surrounding the event. But activists  claim the action reflects pressure from pro-Israel lobbying interests, accusing authorities of selectively policing events that challenge or criticise the Israeli government. Latif Abouchakra is a prominent voice on Press TV's Palestine Declassified, where she openly criticises Israeli policies and the Zionist presence within Western institutions. 

Nigerian court orders UK compensation for colonial crimes

Monument to the massacre in Enugu

by New Worker correspondent

A Nigerian court has ordered the British government to pay £420 million to the families of miners killed by the British colonial police in 1949. The court also ordered that written apologies be published in Nigerian and British newspapers within 60 days of the judgement.  Justice Anthony Onovo of the High Court, Enugu Division ordered the British Government to pay £20 million each to the families of the 21 coal miners who were shot dead at the Iva Valley Coal Mine in Enugu on 18 November 1949. 51 others were injured when the British superintendent ordered his men to open fire.
The miners were protesting against harsh working conditions, racial disparities in wages and unpaid back wages and when their demands were not met, they went on a go-slow work to rule and occupied the mine to prevent Management from locking them out.
The suit was brought by a Nigerian human rights campaigner who sought an acknowledgment of liability, a formal apology from the British Government, and comprehensive compensation for the loss of their loved ones.
Justice Onovo described the massacre as an unlawful and extrajudicial violation of the right to life. “These defenceless coal miners were asking for improved work conditions; they were not embarking on any violent action against the authorities, yet they were shot and killed” he said.
He added that the Nigerian Government must initiate and pursue diplomatic engagement with the British side within 60 days to seek justice, effective remedies and reparations.
Downing Street says it has not yet been formally notified by Nigeria and therefore cannot comment on whether the compensation will be paid. But there are precedents including a 2013 UK settlement of £19.9 million to more than 5,000 Kenyans tortured by the British colonial forces during the liberation struggle led by the Kenya Land and Freedom Army that the British authorities dubbed the ‘Mau Mau’.