Peter Mandelson arrested

It’s a complex investigation. I’m sure the police team is working with caution and forensic assessment. None of them will want to jeopardise any investigation or trial. Y missing evidence or estimating its value incorrectly. Careers can be made or broken with something as high profile.

All posters recognise Mandelson a slippery, ace manipulator, who as eazybee has posted, are successful . Lyndsay Hall isn’t my favourite Speaker either. That’s irrelevant. What matters is he was given information that any public servant at any grade level would know must go to the police. That’s what he did.

The Solicitors working for Peter Mandelson, Mishcon de Reya, one of three firms he is employing, are the most successful, not necessarily the best. They charge huge fees which means they have large teams of experts combing through accusations and evidence and eventually manage to find an error which prejudices the case.
Hence their delight in learning the name of the supposed accuser as leaked by a police informant only for Lindsay Hoyle to swiftly correct them and give reasons why he was suspicious of Mandelson. As a man of good character he is believed to be a credible witness and was able to prove he was acting in good faith. The police had to apologise.

Casdon: "Could it mean that no evidence has been found that he was planning to flee in the first place? It’s hard to know how reliable a source told the speaker."

We can only speculate. I would imagine the Police had reasonable grounds to accept the tip off as genuine and to suspect the flight risk was possible/ probable, in order to have sufficient grounds to arrest PM and impose the bail conditions in the first place. The solicitor representing PM, was able object during period of arrest, to the bail conditions by way of providing evidence and submissions why they were not necessary and/or disproportionate. They are renowned to be one of the best firms in the business. Seemingly they were not successful at the time of arrest...

Either PM or his solicitors may have since provided further submissions and/or evidence sufficient to mitigate the flight risk in order to have them lifted. Or the police decided on reflection (PM's solicitors were vociferous and aggressive in the press statement they made about the bail conditions) no doubt to put the police on the defensive, that the flight risk not sufficient to warrant the press scrutiny.

The police are highly unlikely to provide details as to reasons and PM's lawyers just capitalising on them being lifted.

I’m not a fan of Hoyle either, but I try not to let my personal views about him or anybody else cloud my judgement over the reporting of potentially criminal activity. The police took the information he passed on seriously, and I prefer to trust them rather than the amateur detectives of Gransnet.

sneer: to be scornful or contemptuous; derisive; to take away a person's reputation (by sneering) which in would appear to apply to the comments about Lindsay Hoyle's manner, expenses, accommodation and 'passing on what seems to be inaccurate information.'

Peter Thiel, of Palantir, is linked to the Epstein case.

We all know that it's not politicians who run the world.

They might make laws but the law only applies to people like us.

Catching up here. Nothing to add to my comments about the Speaker. Tuliptree I’m genuinely surprised this disagreement has led to you feeling the need to flounce.

Petra - I suspect we know the tip of a fingers worth about Mandelson’s ‘business’ dealings. He’s a very astute manipulator with an absence of morals or ethics. I’ve just seen a daily mail article suggesting Epstein was a Russian asset. We have Epstein, Mandelson, Trump all involved in shady dealings it seems

Peter Mandelson.
I got caught out yesterday going into the sewer. That’s what I now call the rabbit hole.
I was reading an article on how Peter Thiel he started PayPal and now owns a company called Palantir was responsible for putting JD Vance in the position of vice president.
Btw, Palantir was awarded a £440 ml contract by the nhs.
That led me to the head of 4 nhs trusts in north London who was very influential in Palantir winning the bid for the £440ml contract.
This nhs manger was also working for a lobbying company once owned by Peter Mandelson

Rosie51

As someone who's been on the receiving end of some of your posts TulipTree my first thought was 'those that live by the sword........' I wonder if you've given a moment's thought to how any of your critical posts have impacted on others? That's not to say I dismiss your stress at being called to account or criticised, just that I think a moment or two to reflect might make you wonder if you've been 100% kind and thoughtful in your treatment of other posters?

What goes round comes round. 🤷‍♀️

I was neither pleased nor impressed
by Speaker that time he harassed Caroline Lucas as she tried to make a point at PMQS.

As someone who's been on the receiving end of some of your posts TulipTree my first thought was 'those that live by the sword........' I wonder if you've given a moment's thought to how any of your critical posts have impacted on others? That's not to say I dismiss your stress at being called to account or criticised, just that I think a moment or two to reflect might make you wonder if you've been 100% kind and thoughtful in your treatment of other posters?

I don’t agree with personal criticism of other posters, but I do think challenging people’s posts is fair Tuliptree. It would be nothing akin to a discussion if everybody just said what they thought and didn’t make comment about what anybody else said unless they agreed with them. I’m sorry if you feel you’ve been treated unjustly though.

I would add that if you dish it out, you have to be prepared to take it too.

I can't tell you what to do tulip, but what I will say is that you are frequently forthright in your views on other posters, I don't take that personally ( then again it would take a lot to upset me), if I was you I would keep on keeping on with regard to GN. .

Cardon - I’ll just try and explain what upset me. I’m in complete agreement that anyone and especially someone in an official position who heard anyone under investigation was a flight risk has a duty to report what they’d heard. I did also agree with Galaxy about being sceptical of his actually being a flight risk. These are two separate issues. However I then criticised the Speaker not for reporting PM but because I think he’s got poor judgement in general and could imagine an off the cuff remark that he took at face value and didn’t probe much if at all. But ok we’ll never know the truth of any of that What surprised me was not being criticised for what I said about him but the use of the word sneery which I found quite upsetting in fact and unfair. Then when I responded to the use of that word I felt taunted by the comment about taking it personally and being angry. Well yes of course I took it personally - because it was. Well I can see from the way that this has upset me that I made a real mistake in coming back to GN after a long absence. I think years ago there used to be a ‘flouncers corner’ ( or was it MN) where people could announce they were leaving.. I’ve found the last few weeks on GN really stimulating and there are some really well informed interesting posters, But I’ve realised this evening that I’m not tough enough. So off I go but not with a flounce. I’ll read more books.

Tuliptree

But Casdon, I have little faith in the Speaker’s judgement of what he’d heard/was told and I’m allowed to say that. We’ll never know what it was will we? I don’t think the police had any choice but to arrest once he’d passed the ‘information’ on. I doubt they tested it - that would take time and they couldn’t take the risk. But I don’t think we need to turn this into a pile on do we? It’s not exactly a big issue is ?

I wasn’t piling on Tuliptree, just saying that your personal view of the speaker doesn’t make a difference, given any politician should have done the same in those circumstances.

Allira

If he hadn't reported what he knew that could incur legal consequences.

Of course

But Casdon, I have little faith in the Speaker’s judgement of what he’d heard/was told and I’m allowed to say that. We’ll never know what it was will we? I don’t think the police had any choice but to arrest once he’d passed the ‘information’ on. I doubt they tested it - that would take time and they couldn’t take the risk. But I don’t think we need to turn this into a pile on do we? It’s not exactly a big issue is ?

If he hadn't reported what he knew that could incur legal consequences.

Having a go at a politician who reports somebody to the police because they have been given information which affects an ongoing court case is wrong in my opinion. I don’t care at all what people think of the speaker, I’d expect any politician to tell the police what they have heard in those circumstances. The police obviously thought it serious enough to arrest Mandelson, even if it later turned out not to be true.

We are just responding, that's all. Iam64 can more than speak for herself but I can also express a view on the issue.

Allira

Sneer might be the correct word to use if someone has described the Speaker as pompous and full of his own importance

Jeer? Scoff? Deride?
Aka Sneer? Probably an acceptable description.

However, constant personal attacks on other posters may not be so acceptable.

I think we should let Iam speak for herself - not good to look as though ganging up.

Sneer might be the correct word to use if someone has described the Speaker as pompous and full of his own importance

Jeer? Scoff? Deride?
Aka Sneer? Probably an acceptable description.

However, constant personal attacks on other posters may not be so acceptable.

Tuliptree

Iam64

I suspect it’s easy to critise, sneer at the Speaker. If he was given info suggesting Mandelson was a potential flight risk and didn’t pass that to the Police, criticising him would be reasonable and deserved. Criticising him for passing on what seems to have been inaccurate info makes me relieved in no longer a public servant

I’ve never thought much of his judgement as Speaker. He is rather full of himself - I think his expenses and money spent on his apartment have raised some eyebrows. I’m not sneering but criticising. I’m giving an opinion based on what I’ve seen and what I’ve read. To call that sneering is well frankly sneering .

I’m of the same opinion. I often think he throws his weight around unfairly. He was really nasty to Caroline Lucas once who, imo has always behaved impeccably in parliament and I complained to the speakers office about it. Having said that, having watched the latest series of Industry in which the banking gets embroiled with politics , some of it is remarkably close to the things that have been happening recently and my first thought was that maybe Hoyle was actually right about Mandelson doing a runner.