Analysis Breaking Exclusive News

Exclusive: sadism, fraud, threats, blackmail, theft – the witness statement Mahmood’s team accepted without challenge

‘Victim A’ statement accepted onto legal record in full as Labour right-winger’s legal team opts not to put witness on stand for cross-examination

The tribunal case brought by whistleblower Elaina Cohen against right-wing former Labour front-bencher Khalid Mahmood – against whom Keir Starmer never took action despite repeated complaints including racism, theft and more – took a dramatic turn on Friday as Mahmood’ s legal team chose to allow a damning witness statement by the victim of one of Mahmood’s staff to enter the legal record without challenge.

Normally, if a witness does not appear on the stand a judge can only place limited weight on their statement as it has not been challenged under cross-examination. However, because in this case it was the decision Mahmood’s team not to challenge a statement against him – presumably for fear of worse damage if she took the stand – the whole statement of ‘Victim A’ is now a matter of legal record with the full weight of its allegations.

Whilst befriending them she would find out their weaknesses and secrets and then would blackmail and exploit them for her own benefit and amusement and that of others.

Part of Victim A’s evidence about a Mahmood staffer. Mahmood faces claims that he sacked a whistleblower rather than act.

The damning statement falls into two main parts: serious allegations against a member of Mahmood’s staff, often backed by WhatsApp messages – and details of how Mahmood, once informed of the allegations, not only took no action but dismissed the witness as ‘a fake’ without even talking to her, after failing to turn up at a meeting arranged to discuss them.

Victim A told the court via her unchallenged statement that Mahmood’s female staffer, with whom he was said to be in a relationship:

  • used a domestic violence charity she ran to blackmail domestic violence victims into shoplifting and giving her their social security benefits
  • made victims take speeding points on their licence that they did not incur
  • sadistically abused victims
  • made the chief executive of the charity suicidal by blackmailing her and taunting her
  • targeted Victim A on social media
  • revealed details of the charity’s vulnerable ‘service users’ to others
  • used her and other women from the now-defunct charity ‘for the private entertainment of important people’
  • introduced one victim to a male friend who hurt the woman, ‘but she didn’t care’
  • berated two victims for stealing the wrong jacket from a local department store
  • made victims fund meals for local Labour politicians
  • made victims ‘stalk’ Mahmood and report back on him
  • mocked Mahmood as an ‘ugly fat pig’
  • must have been in control of Mahmood for him to take no action

Victim A related how she shook as she related this information to Ms Cohen, a former Mahmood staffer, including a recording of the charity’s former CEO making her own accusations against Mahmood’s employee. However, when Cohen and a friend arranged a meeting between Victim A and Mahmood so that she could relate her information and pass on evidence, Mahmood didn’t turn up:

On February 14, 2020, I met with Majid Khan and Elaina Cohen at a venue in Birmingham. He was called on his mobile in my presence by Majid Khan and asked if he was still intending on coming.

At this time, it was my intention to show him the ‘Bigger, Better A team’ messages on my phone and tell him everything.

We waited several hours but he didn’t show, and I left. I was very disappointed to learn later that he still thought I was a fake.

By calling me a fake he did not just disrespect me, but he also called me a liar. And he was [calling] Majid Khan and Elaina Cohen liars. How could he call me a fake when he didn’t turn up to find out this for himself?

What really hurt me was he is meant to be an member of parliament , a pillar of the community supporting especially vulnerable people and he did not even take the time out to meet me when it had been prior arranged and he had agreed to come.

I took time out. It took me a lot to want to see him and trust him .

I just thought this was finally a way to resolve this situation. I built up my hopes to finally face Khalid Mahmood and tell him what I knew and what had happened to me.

Only to be told I am a fake is absolutely disgusting and the fact also that he sacked Elaina Cohen without hearing the truth from the victims .

Ms Cohen has taken the MP to the tribunal claiming that he sacked her because she would not keep quiet about these and other ‘protected disclosures’ and kept demanding that he take action.

Cohen has also accused Mahmood personally of theft from a local charity, taking money from the Kuwaiti embassy and others and ignoring her complaints of racism. Mahmood denied those allegations when approached by Skwawkbox.

Emails obtained by Skwawkbox showed that both party leader Keir Starmer and general secretary David Evans were repeatedly made aware of the accusations against Mahmood but took no action, leaving Mahmood on Starmer’s front bench until Mahmood eventually resigned over what he said were political differences.

The case continues, with Mahmood scheduled to give evidence on Monday if his side fails to reach a settlement before then, after a ‘sick note’ attempt to delay the proceedings failed.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

26 comments

  1. Plenty of criminal accusations there – what are plod doing about them?

    1. Totally agree Toffee. The behaviour cited is not only vile and disgusting it is also criminal and cannot therefore be properly dealt by a Tribunal.
      Either the police are to say the least extremely lax or the issues have not been referred to them. However whichever way it is it is absolutely cleat that the criminal aspects of this case need to be addressed by the police right away.

      1. This is a case of what seems truly vile behaviour which needs to go before a court with sentences passed.

        Given this centres on a former shadow-cabinet minister as well as the leader of the opposition, this is explosive and should be on front pages nationally.

  2. Presumably, Mahmood’s lawyers know who Witness/Victim ‘A’ is. They must reckon that it’s better for their client to just nod-though the evidence in the statement as fact, ratyher than treat it as an accusation and challenge it, risking more or worse coming out.

    It’s true, lawyers (have to?) play to the lowest common denominator. But now people (like me) who wanted to give Khalid Mahmood the benefit of a doubt, will find it difficult to do so.

  3. >> It’s true, lawyers (have to?) play to the
    >> lowest common denominator.

    “The law is an ASS sir .. ” (The Beadle
    – from the novel Oliver Twist
    by Dickens .. )

    I too wondered why the plod was not
    involved for to be fair to the Tory Party
    it IS involved in the case of one of
    their MPs who has been accused of
    Rape so why not here?

    But worse still – even if no criminality is
    involved .. Starmer – the former DPP
    ignored an extremely serious case.

    1. But there ARE allegations of criminality Holby and it appears that Starmer not only failed to take action within the party disciplinary procedure but he also failed to involve or follow up matters the police. This is inexplicable behaviour from a man who is prepared to expel lifelong members for liking a tweet.

      1. On the other hand if this individual had posted on Social Media his appreciation for the Foo fighters his Labour Party Membership would have been toast.

  4. SW article “Emails obtained by Skwawkbox showed that both party leader Keir Starmer and general secretary David Evans were repeatedly made aware of the accusations against Mahmood but took no action, leaving Mahmood on Starmer’s front bench until Mahmood eventually resigned over what he said were political differences.”

    I’d love to know the full reasonS why Evans and Starmer didn’t act on the accusations (some of which are criminal) against Mahmood. Any ideas?

    The most ‘charitable’ reason (and remember, for Starmer, that means “least corrupt/nefarious/shady”) is that he believed Khalid Mahmood directly influenced the (once) 30,000+ Pakistani members and supporters of Labour (Khalid Mahmood was born in Pakistan-Administered Kashmir) and didn’t want to risk Mahmood’s displeasure and their departure (too late!).

    FWIW, Mahmood did resign from Starmer’s shadow cabinet in May ’21- almost certainly because Starmer & Co reversed Jerfemy Corbyn’ and Conference’s “Support for Kashmir” poosition on the invasion by India. Moreover, the MSM might have played it down, but the Asian press knew exactly why Britain’s longest-sitting Asian MP was furious with ‘show-me-you-papers Starmer and is the only parts of the MSM to be less than happy publicly about SirKS.

    (Spiked wrote up an interview with him which is routinely ignored by the MSM (as is excess deaths and infection-fatality ratios ofthe pretend killer virus causing ‘covid’).

  5. What puzzles me then is, having heard
    that this case is coming up, the police
    didn’t stage an intervention and start
    an investigation?

    For this is what they did in the case of
    “Partygate” which is not remotely of
    the same seriousness as this one.
    There must have been enough
    information about it to give them a
    reason for doing so even before
    the recent revelations.

    (Obviously they must have known
    about Parties at No 10 from the start
    – they were on guard there
    for security reasons 24/7 ..)

  6. Storm in a teacup or a nest of vipers?……Alleged criminality “we shall see but I wouldn’t want to pass judgment yet on a situation that the mp has by stupidity and relationships allowed to get out of control.Much of this I can’t get my head around although Cohen appears to be centrel to the plot along with Victim A..whatever thats about.This article sounds more like somthing the Sun newspaper would be more interested in.Frankly I hate these type of storys

  7. Joseph
    Its more about Starmers and Evans ignoring it
    that “gets in my craw” as they say.

    Not sure either why this was not submitted to
    Parliamentary disciplinary procedures – as
    have others related to bullying – egs Priti Patel,
    Bercow.

    Maybe that is because I do not understand how
    MPs bad behaviour is supposed to be tackled
    for they appear to be a law unto themselves.

    If it had been scrutinised by proper
    authorities – whatever these are – it would
    never have appeared on these pages.

  8. I agree with you Holby up to a point,its just were these entangled office relationships are involved we get into mud slinging and jealousy.As far as Starmer is involved and the whole labour machine I have made fairly clear my veiws before he was(elected)allegedly and the whole team of reprobates that slither around with him.This Mp has without doubt weaved a tangled web of disorder but whos guilty of what or who said or did it is for the tribunal to decide…and so its good luck with untangling this long standing mess of mr Mahmoud who should have known better .

    1. Reply to Joseph O’Keefe
      In my opinion you have, for your own reasons, trivialised what has happened in this case. Anyone looking at it objectively would see that it involves very serious and in some instances criminal activity which no reasonable person would turn a blind eye to.
      Therefore as a Tribunal has no investigatory powers and will be unable to unearth all the evidence (some of which may require a search warrant) relating to the criminal aspects of this case it must be handed over the police without further delay. It would not surprise me if the Tribunal ruled accordingly

      1. I certainly hope you are correct Smartboy – however in
        that case why did they not intervene as they did in
        the case of PartyGate which involved misdemeanours
        only?

        I can only think that it might have been the possible
        reluctance of victims to speak up if it was a criminal
        investigation?

      2. Reply to Holby
        I completely agree with you about Partygate – the police were not even handed in their application of the law and failed to take action in a timely manner against politicians and civil servants in Downing St and Whitehall.
        I also take your point that victims in the Mahmood case may have been reluctant to speak up but we don’t have just one victim here – there appear to be numerous victims of this blackmailer who made domestic abuse victims steal for them, lie and take responsibility for speeding offences for them, who endangered those escaping domestic violence by revealing their whereabouts etc. It is also indicated that the individual concerned procured (or coerced) some for sex with VIPs.
        In these circumstances find it hard to believe that nobody sought to involve the police. I think it is possible that as in the case of Partygate the police chose not to pursue matters as the case involved an MP , his staff and other VIPs.
        As my old gran used to say Holby ” it will all come out in the wash” – at least I hope so because what has come out so far exposes real evil and depravity in Mahmood’s office. Starmer’s backing of Mahmood for purely political reasons is no surprise – Starmer is a man without conscience or principal as more and more people are coming to realise.

      3. Smartboy……if you swim in a sewer you come out stinking of sh..t”now thats part of the problem of the labour party and thats your problem and those who support the anti working class party the labour party.I personally find this type of behaviour amongst mps,employees repulsive and goes to the core of what the labour party is.

      4. Reply to Joseph O’Keefe
        The behaviour you trivialised related to the exploitation of vulnerable domestic abuse survivors and the failure of Mahmood and leadership to take action about it. Shame on you and them.
        In relation to your other comments ,you were a Labour party activist for 40 years under Kinnock Blair and Brown. You were also proud to be a Labour councillor under Blair so obviously you know more about the politics of the sewers than most of us.

  9. Smartboy – I hope it will all come out in the wash ..

    I can well believe that the police were NOT told
    about this but surely must have been aware of
    the tribunal hearing before it actually took place?

    Whatever the case – maybe they thought it best
    to let the tribune run its course then step in
    after it is completed. It is all very messy
    especially if victims were coerced into
    committing crimes and by then they would
    have a strategy in place in how best to
    proceed.

    Starmer is evidently someone – like
    our PM – who thinks the law does not apply
    to him. Fortunately Elaina Cohen is NOT one
    of these people. I seem to remember that Elaina
    Cohen is represented – the costs being paid
    via Crowd Funder? If so I hope they eventually
    manage to not only get justice for Elaina –
    but also for the victims in this disgraceful
    episode plus exposure of Starmer for
    complete lack of principles.

    1. Smartboy….ON a point of order comrade….Do not tell porkys about my being a councillor under Blair.I was never proud of Blairs policy and left the council and the labour party in disgust at the decissions of more Privatisation on health and PFI.more givaway council houses and a distinct move away from the unions all very familiar to you that continue to feed the labour party parasites.I am sure that many on here are bored with your obsession with me and your lies and crocodile tears 😢for victims of this regime

    2. If I blamed you in the wrong I apologise but I was only going by what you said in earlier posts. You have previously stated that you were a member for 40 years but left the party recently.( from 1979 – 2019 approx?) That would mean you were active under Kinnock Blair Brown Milliband and Corbyn, If you left under Blair – say around 2003 -that would mean you were active from 1963 when you would have been about 11 years old ( you have also stated that you are around 70) Where you a councillor then under Kinnock who was even more right wing than Blair?

  10. PsHolby I would recommend a little more research into miz Cohen and her anti corbynista “comments about the labour party and clearly Naz shah labour mp re tweets and others involved in this nest of vipers including the labour mps who should have been involved in defending the working class rather than having “afairs” and general muck spreading.in the sewer system.ITs a tangled web this one no doubt …….and the police are aware …and have been in contact especially with Cohen and Naz shah labour mp…..The End.

    1. Well if Ms Cohen was anti Corbyn in the
      past maybe she knows better now – or at
      least will have had pause to reflect.

      All praise to her for pursuing this matter from
      when she first discovered it and not washing
      her hands – which she could well have done.

      1. Agreed Holby. People are entitled to hold opinions with which we profoundly disagree. Holding contrary views should not mean that they are condemned or belittled for raising issues concerning the criminal exploitation of vulnerable people. Instead as you say they should be praised for having the guts to expose it..
        Also I can find nothing on line to substantiate Joseph OKeefe’s allegations about Elaina Cohen who he contemptuously refers to as “miz” Cohen. Perhaps he would care to elaborate?

  11. Well toffee you only got to comment once on the Mahmood fiasco and Squawky closed down the comments section on the new one.
    noticed again that you are on the nightshift looking after loved ones for the so called welfare state.for freemans no doubt.and subsidising the wealthy and corperate power whilst our mps play around on the backs of the working class……justified anger is now the only response to them that supposedly represent us.

    1. Reply to Joseph O’Keefe
      I see you are continuing to trivialise the criminal exploitation of vulnerable domestic abuse victims/ survivors by referring to the Tribunal as a “fiasco”. The undisputed evidence of Witness A exposed the criminality and depravity which existed in Mahmoods office – criminality and depravity which Mahmood and the leadership failed to act on. As Toffee pointed out in an earlier post this amounts to complicity in criminal behaviour so this case is definitely no fiasco.

  12. Don’t you think I am angry Joseph? Just
    because I try to explain things carefully
    and reason them out – does not mean
    I am not furious. It means I am a techy
    nerdy academic used to presenting
    techy nerdy stuff to students and other
    academics ..

    And yes I am still in the Labour Party –
    my choice till they throw me out. I
    suspect there are a lot of us – waiting
    our chance.

    There are a lot of people still not
    understanding what has happened
    in the LP through ignorance – of historic
    events – of the (mostly past) bigotry of
    sections of the Christian Church etc.
    I can remember a time when we as
    Catholics were FORBIDDEN to attend
    Non Catholic services (apart from
    weddings ..) therefore I can understand
    that there are differences within the
    Jewish Community ..

    PS And talking about people who face
    up to politicians – I am glad that Nazanin
    is not letting Johnson off the hook.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: