Analysis Breaking News

Breaking: Mahmood tells court he personally made Starmer – who did nothing – aware of serious allegations

Former front-bencher tells tribunal he told party leader about serious ‘protected disclosure’ allegations of abuse and blackmail

Skwawkbox has previously made exclusive revelations of the allegations made by whistleblower Elaina Cohen against another member of right-wing (then-) front-bench Labour MP Khalid Mahmood’s staff – including blackmail, abuse, theft, antisemitism and more – and that neither Mahmood nor Labour leader Keir Starmer took any action, despite Cohen repeatedly making them aware.

Cohen has taken Mahmood to a tribunal for dismissing her for blowing the whistle on the alleged criminality – and today, Mahmood has told an employment tribunal that he personally brought the allegations to Starmer’s attention.

Mahmood was objecting to Mrs Cohen’s multiple emails to himself and copied to Keir Starmer – which he admitted he objected to because they made him look bad – and told the tribunal panel that he told Starmer about the ‘protected disclosures’ himself and it wasn’t her place to do it. Cohen has also accused Mahmood of corruption, including theft from a charity and accepting cash from a foreign embassy and says that Starmer ignored those too.

Khalid Mahmood has denied ‘all allegations of impropriety’. Keir Starmer has failed, over a prolonged period, to respond to Skwawkbox’s requests for comment on his failure to take any action against Mahmood’s staffer or the MP himself, who remained on Starmer’s front bench until he chose to resign last year over policy disagreements.

Mahmood and his lawyers last week accepted, unchallenged, a long witness statement from one of the alleged victims of the Mahmood staffer’s abuse, blackmail, fraud and coercion, despite having the opportunity to cross-examine – presumably to prevent the tribunal panel hearing and seeing her give evidence in person. Mahmood appeared to admit under oath yesterday that he had commissioned an investigator to pursue Mrs Cohen rather than the other colleague, with whom he is said to have had a relationship, and has claimed that he was bullied by Mrs Cohen despite his being the employer while she was the employee.

Mrs Cohen has accused Starmer of covering up or ignoring accusations against factional allies, while instantly suspending or expelling opponents on far flimsier grounds.

Mahmood’s cross-examination continues. Skwawkbox is attending the hearing on behalf of its readers.

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.


  1. Modus Operandi Either suspend or investigate the Whistler Blower(s). Labour Leaks and Julian Assange – common factor the Red Knignt

  2. Modus Operandi Either suspend , investigate or sacrafice the Whistler Blower(s). Labour Leaks and Julian Assange – common factor the Red Knignt

      1. It appears that the MP is determined that if
        he goes down he will take Starmer down
        with him ..

        And the police were involved .. but did not
        find enough evidence ..

        This case should certainly be reinvestigated
        by the plod – it is much more important than
        beer and curry

  3. True, Toffee, but they didn’t include the bit where she alleged that Starmer had been informed and nothing had been done. I wonder if they would have acted similarly if it had happened under Corbyn.

    1. True, Joseph – And skwawky didn’t mention cohen’s relationship with mahmood. Nor that plod investigated the allegations and found no evidence to bring a prosecution…

      Six of one.

      1. Toffee the police didn’t find evidence of criminality as the bar to bring a criminal prosecution is very high. The police needs uncontroversial, factual proof of a criminal act rather than sings that something is amiss.
        An Employment Tribunal isn’t a criminal court, thus the bar on evidence is lower, Ms Cohen doesn’t have to proof Mahmood’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt but, rather what a reasonable person will conclude by the evidence given by the witnesses in cross examination and the factual evidence that without necessarily pointing to criminality it clearly points to unsuitable behaviour.

      2. Toffee – You’re correct in saying that Skwawkbox didn’t mention that there had been a relationship between Mahmood and Cohen, but not about the investigation. In the first report about this case it was mentioned that the police had abandoned the investigation.
        I think you meant me when you addressed Joseph.

  4. Apologies for referring to you as Joseph, goldbach.

    On the subject of the police investigation

    Mr Mahmood said he advised her that a police investigation (by West Midlands Police) was under way into those allegations. Subsequently the police closed their investigations for lack of evidence, the tribunal heard

    Now,, whether the report is saying Mahmood told Cohen the plod closed the investigation, or plod had indeed closed the investigation, I’m left none the wiser. I take it to read as though plod closed the investigation as the next paragraph reads:

    Ms Cohen went on to make a personal complaint against a lead police officer in the case, said Mr Mahmood. In the face of questions from Ms Cohen’s barrister Ms Murphy, the MP also said he had asked Ms Cohen to detail specific evidence that could in turn be presented to the police about her allegations but this was not forthcoming.

    On a personal level, having read a bit more than skawaky’s letting on, couldn’t care less if they both lose their case, with as much shit sticking to smarmer as possible….Not that the MSM will make owt of it.

  5. The point is that Starmer should never have
    let this go on without intervening ..

    It seems that this woman’s concerns had not
    been met by her employer (Mahmood?)
    It is surely Starmer’s job then to concern
    himself in the matter – and he did not.

    He is supposed to be the super-forensic
    lawyer and should have been able to
    give advice/a ticking off as appropriate.
    Even on a human level this was an
    abrogation of responsibilities – and he
    is – as Party leader Mahmoods boss.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: