________
No 10 immediately tried deflecting attention away from themselves by claiming that what happens to Mandelson now was all the responsibility of the House of Lords. At first No 10 said the Prime Minister had no power to do anything about it, it was all very complex and it was up to the Lords to take action. This spin was deceptive – and it was legal and constitutional nonsense.
The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 removes peers who are sentenced to more than 12 months’ imprisonment and, under an act of 2015, peers can be now expelled following an investigation. But two problems arose in Mandelson's case – first, that even if the House were to expel him, or any other member, that individual would still remain a peer of the realm and could still describe himself as such.
There is also the small problem of whether the House could even punish a member for infractions alleged to have been committed before the rules and powers they now have even existed. English law does not readily allow for retrospective penalty and in this way it accords with modern concepts of natural justice. So Mandelson has resigned from the House – but he remains a peer.
Legally a peerage is bestowed by the Sovereign. That means only the Sovereign can remove it. A standards commissioner, a committee or a quango can't do it. This precedent was confirmed in 1917 by an act of Parliament – the Titles Deprivation Act – when peerages were annulled for four individuals who had "adhered to the King's enemies" in the First World War.
Please go to The Telegraph to continue reading.
________
Editor's note: Former U.K. Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson - who was fired last September from his new role as ambassador to the US due to his ties to Jeffrey Epstein - is facing mounting political and legal pressure following disclosures that he may have shared market-sensitive government information with Epstein during the global financial crisis:
How King Charles could strip Mandelson of his peerage
Legally the honour is bestowed by the Sovereign. That means only the Sovereign can remove it
By Sir Michael Ellis | February 4, 2026
We are witnessing a game of blame-shifting in full flow. Amid the horror being expressed at the allegations against Lord Mandelson, No 10 is frantically seeking to divert attention from its own role in this sorry saga. The Prime Minister appointed a man known to have connections with a convicted sex offender to the highest diplomatic posting in the land. [Editor's note: That is putting it mildly.]
Legally the honour is bestowed by the Sovereign. That means only the Sovereign can remove it
By Sir Michael Ellis | February 4, 2026
We are witnessing a game of blame-shifting in full flow. Amid the horror being expressed at the allegations against Lord Mandelson, No 10 is frantically seeking to divert attention from its own role in this sorry saga. The Prime Minister appointed a man known to have connections with a convicted sex offender to the highest diplomatic posting in the land. [Editor's note: That is putting it mildly.]
To witness the panic at No 10 unfold in real time, just look at how the spin started when this latest tranche of documents was released by the US Department of Justice.
No 10 immediately tried deflecting attention away from themselves by claiming that what happens to Mandelson now was all the responsibility of the House of Lords. At first No 10 said the Prime Minister had no power to do anything about it, it was all very complex and it was up to the Lords to take action. This spin was deceptive – and it was legal and constitutional nonsense.
The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 removes peers who are sentenced to more than 12 months’ imprisonment and, under an act of 2015, peers can be now expelled following an investigation. But two problems arose in Mandelson's case – first, that even if the House were to expel him, or any other member, that individual would still remain a peer of the realm and could still describe himself as such.
There is also the small problem of whether the House could even punish a member for infractions alleged to have been committed before the rules and powers they now have even existed. English law does not readily allow for retrospective penalty and in this way it accords with modern concepts of natural justice. So Mandelson has resigned from the House – but he remains a peer.
Legally a peerage is bestowed by the Sovereign. That means only the Sovereign can remove it. A standards commissioner, a committee or a quango can't do it. This precedent was confirmed in 1917 by an act of Parliament – the Titles Deprivation Act – when peerages were annulled for four individuals who had "adhered to the King's enemies" in the First World War.
Please go to The Telegraph to continue reading.
________
Editor's note: Former U.K. Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson - who was fired last September from his new role as ambassador to the US due to his ties to Jeffrey Epstein - is facing mounting political and legal pressure following disclosures that he may have shared market-sensitive government information with Epstein during the global financial crisis:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.