Whistleblower refused pay-off offered by MP to abandon tribunal case but was rejected because he ‘showed no remorse’ for suffering of vulnerable women
As Skwawkbox revealed earlier today, whistleblower Elaina Cohen has won her tribunal case for unfair dismissal against right-wing Labour MP Khalid Mahmood in a judgment that confirms the ‘protected disclosures’ Cohen made to Mahmood, party leader Keir Starmer, general secretary David Evans and others in the party hierarchy about the horrific and criminal abuse victims of domestic violence suffered at the hands of Mahmood’s staffer and alleged lover.
Despite repeated appeals from Cohen to act to protect vulnerable women who were being blackmailed, threatened and coerced to commit fraud and act as entertainment for powerful men – now sworn evidence that Mahmood accepted without challenge and the tribunal has also validated – Starmer and Evans took no action. Khalid Mahmood remained on Starmer’s front bench and has never been eve administratively suspended pending investigation, much less disciplined or expelled.
And Skwawkbox can also reveal that Ms Cohen turned down escalating offers reaching a six-figure sum to drop the case, because the offers sought to gag her from discussing the abuse and subsequent cover-up – and because of the lack of regret shown about what they suffered.
Skwawkbox understands from sources around the case that Ms Cohen refused to accept the gagging clauses but also that she was outraged that Mahmood ‘showed no remorse’, despite the offers continuing to increase even as the tribunal hearing proceeded.
Starmer has since attempted to present himself as the champion of domestic violence victims. But the tribunal decision – and the sworn evidence of ‘Victim A’, that Mahmood and his team did not even challenge – along with emails that Skwawkbox revealed exclusively months ago, make Starmer’s position untenable, all the more so because he has continued to enjoy hospitality and photo opportunities with Mahmood in Birmingham around the Commonwealth Games.
Today’s decision should be Starmer’s ‘Pincher moment’ – and Elaina Cohen deserves huge applause for putting the truth and the needs of vulnerable women above the chance of a huge and easy pay-day.
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.
When will we get to see the Tribunal’s actual judgement.
Judgement was In favour of Cohen.
Understand?
Verstehen?
Comprende?
Capisci?
Panjemajo?
Toffee – I will once I’ve had the opportunity to read the Tribunal’s actual judgement.
Toffee – The Tribunal’s findings present a fuller picture and tell a different story. Have you read it yet, I have.
Be patient. It’s Labour Tories we’re dealing with. The sordid details will be far more horrendous than the headlines.
When it appears on the website, as Maria has already told you.
Get a grip.
goldbach – This is what was reported at the conclusion of the case so I think it is quite reasonable to reserve my judgement.
“Bringing the tribunal to a conclusion today, employment judge Timothy Adkin said the decision could be over a month away as he was anxious to ensure it “communicates exactly what we want it to”. He described the hearing as a “complicated case” as he set a provisional date for a potential remedy hearing, if required, on September 29. Judge Adkin told the court they would hear from him in due course.
The standard strategy of changing the discussion when you have shown yourself up as not having read a response to a question that you have asked.
goldbach – What’s your problem, do you actually know yet or are you still making up your mind up.
I’ve freely admitted that I don’t have enough information to make a judgement and explained why I wish to reserve commenting until (unlike yourself) I know what I’m talking bout
Try reading what people write.
You asked a question.
I answered “When it appears on the website, as Maria has already told you.”.
So my mind is made up that we’ll seen the full judgement when it appears on the website, as Maria has already told you.
What’s so difficult to understand about that.
You are clearly not as simple-minded as you make out, so I must conclude that you are being disingenuous.
goldbach – I may not be simple minded but I’m struggling to see your train of thought.
No surprise there then, since you appear to struggle to follow almost everything.
(only you do actually follow but are being disingenuous).
goldbach – You are more than welcome to enlighten me, if you can. You might even get an answer
goldbach – Have you got around to reading the Tribunal’s findings yet, I have. It turns out that I was justified in wanting to know the facts before commenting further.
You will… what exactly?
Look for a way to bullshit us all further?
Just bugger off, you predictable, boring ballache.
Toffee – Understand what the actual judgement is. I thought that given the stated complexities of the case that this would have been obvious.
What is complex about the verdict?
Stop blowing FartBubbles in the wind! Your TORY Party is Fucked and no manner of Luntzspeak is going to unFucked them!
nellyskelly – It was the judge who oversaw the case that said it was complicated. I am guessing he’s in a better position to know than you are.
Give over, SteveH- Cohen won, the MP lost, there is nothing that could possibly be in the actual judgment that could mitigate what’s happened here. You’ve no business saying “we need more information” on this. It really IS this simple. OK?
Ken – But the judge himself said he needed to take the time ensure that he could properly convey the case’s complexities. I’m guessing that he would be in a better position to know than you are.
As you are so desperate to see it https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/elaina-cohen-v-khalid-mahmood-mp/
That’s quite a judgment. And much as people will not want to hear this, it vindicates SteveH’s caution.
Both sides come out of this looking pretty awful. But the central claim in the article is not made out. The judgment explicitly confirms that the Respondent made no admissions as to the truth of the allegations about the charity, and the Tribunal made no findings because this was not relevant; all that was relevant for the purposes of this hearing was that Cohen reasonably believed the allegations, and that her reporting of them was a protected disclosure.
Cohen’s allegation of anti-Semitism related to a supportive but very moderately toned facebook post about the sacking of Rachel Long-Bailey and the Maxine Peake article that lay behind it – exactly the sort of contentious anti-Semitism accusation that most of us here have been complaining about for years. It is to my mind a good outcome that the Tribunal rejected that complaint.
But the Respondent seems to have behaved really shabbily too. He mixed his personal and professional life. He turned a blind eye to a member of his staff, who also seems to have been his girlfriend, fraudulently using Parliamentary stationery to challenge the DVLA. He marginalised and isolated the Claimant because of her protected disclosures. He seems to have been wilfully incurious about the serious charity allegations. However, that lack of curiosity seems to be the only substantive allegation in relation to the charity against him personally.
It is important to note,too, that the charity allegations were investigated by the police, but could not proceed because all the complainants withdrew their allegations. Personally I suspect foul play against the complainants there, though by whom I could not say. But without evidence, further action could not be taken.
All in all it is a really sorry tale all round.
Stevie boy 👦You were in no hurry to see the Ford report despite it being doctored by you lot in the Nazi party labour……Youve just been told the judgment…can’t you read plain English or would you like it in Labour speak forked tongue 😝 comrade?
Joseph – On the contrary I have frequently drawn attention to the delay in publishing the Forde report and I immediately posted a link to the full download as soon as I knew it.
I’ll quite happily pass judgement once I’ve read the report, when can we have the link?
Forget that Stevie boy and get to your bunker that Pelosi idiot has just signaled that the western world order want a nuclear war in the Asia Pacific by landing in one China land..
Joseph – The Taiwanese might dispute that, don’t they have a right to self determination?
Does Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales have a right to self determination?
nellyskelly – You mean apart from it being a part of the Belfast Agreement you numpty
As for Scotland and Wales, of course they do, Scotland’s even had a referendum on it. You really should try and keep up.
Do we, uou could have fooled me! So if China’s first Minister swoops in to Scotland and declares it The Republic of Scotland or to discuss bussiness sensitive to London, that would be okay with London do you think?
nellyskelly – You are getting confused again. 😟
No, but you are ducking and diving again.
nellyskelly – About what?
WOW!
nellyskelly – so you don’t know either.
Agh! Can you REALLY not use a tiny bit of your own initiative and read up the thread a bit, for your delightful, sticking your ore, anticlimax?
nellyskelly – I’m guessing that there is a reason why you can’t just tell me
Oh fuck off now, really, try doing something for yourself!
nellyskelly – I do wonder why you have expended so much time and effort avoiding just telling me what this question is. You obviously think it’s time well spent.
Joseph Okeefe, Let’s face it Starmer has a history of protecting Establishment paedos and sex abusers. What else to expect?
baz2001 – You have no evidence of that and both Savile’s victims and their solicitors have already publicly disagreed with you.
Si why does t keef sue people who say otherwise?
Because intimately the buck stops with him.
End of discussion.
Toffee – What would be the point in suing you?
“Exclusive: Cohen ‘turned down six-figure gagging offer’ to pursue case that has disgraced Starmer.”
Some call it HONOUR!
SteveH, we will see when the Employment Tribunal publishes the transcript on its website.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that Elaina Cohen didn’t win her case at the Employment Tribunal?
I can see that the MSM hasn’t pick up the news yet. It only proves in my opinion how protective of Starmer is the MSM. Boris Johnson was forced to resign over Chris Pincher MP pinching men’s derriers.
I am waiting in awe to see how many Labour MPs in the Shadow Cabinet and Shadow Front bench are prepared to resign over these revelations if Starmer and Evans don’t resign on their own volition..
I would like to suggest that we wait until the remedial hearing (it is August now) and them if Starmer and Evans haven’t resigned yet, start filing complaints against Starmer, Evans and Mahmood on the Labour Party website.
With a bit of luck the remedial hearing can coincide with Labour Conference in Liverpool no less! It could be a lot of fun.
I am reserving my judgement until after I’ve read the report. What you choose to do is your choice.
.SteveH02/08/2022 AT 4:19 PM
I am reserving my judgement until after I’ve read the report
YOUR judgement?
What a prick.
SteveH, indirectly you are casting aspersions about Skwawkbox reporting on the case without a shadow of evidence to suggest any different from the fact that Elaina Cohen won the case for unfair dismissal against Khalid Mahmood MP.
I am waiting to see the transcript of the hearing too and find out as to whatever the women were force to entertain friends of Mahmood at his bequest? was Mahmood present at these parties? were women taking speeding points for Mahmood or his friends or both?
I am sure is going to be interesting reading. If it was nothing to worry about, if all was part of Ms Cohen having a febrile mind, she wouldn’t have won this case.
It is a question of how much damage has been done to Starmer by comparison with the way Starmer very quickly suspended the Labour whip from Apsana Begum and Claudia Webbe without waiting for their cases to be heard and how Claudia Webbe still suspended from the Labour whip. How Apsana Begum despite her fragile health still faces a trigger ballot conducted by her ex-husband and abuser without Starmer saying a word about it.
Maria – I’m not casting aspersions on anybody but given the judge’s comments I think it is wiser to wait until I know what I’m talking about.
Stevie boy I I am still waiting for the leader of the Labour party and deputy dawg to resign over beergate were the police were intimidated to alter their findings.Typical strummer every report…findings or judgments nobbled before being seen or a straightforward bare faced lie.
Joseph – Or in other words everything that doesn’t fit with your rather weird personal agenda is corrupt. Do you have any evidence to support your ridiculous conspiracy theories?
Maria – Non whatsoever, either way, but in view of the reports at the time I thought it prudent to reserve judgement.
Bringing the tribunal to a conclusion today, employment judge Timothy Adkin said the decision could be over a month away as he was anxious to ensure it “communicates exactly what we want it to”. He described the hearing as a “complicated case” as he set a provisional date for a potential remedy hearing, if required, on September 29. Judge Adkin told the court they would hear from him in due course.
SteveH, reading between the lines and taking into account today’s sentence Judge Adkin expect Khalid Mahmood MP to offer appropriate compensation to Elaina Cohen and for the case to by settle out of Court with a non disclosure agreement.
I expect after the judgement’s today for Mahmood to offer compensation to Cohen as to avoid the remedial hearing.
Two Cheeks
What that means is your man of principle and his useful idiot will have to resign for hanging MS Cohen our to dry
Who pays the expected record award
Doug – Are you really so insecure that you feel the need to prop up your comments with childish taunts?
Stevie boy, don’t be backwards when letting us know YOUR judgement. Looking forward to it. Cheerio.
wobbly – You’re welcome.
What happens at the Remedial Hearing Maria? Hasn’t liability and remedy been decided yet? Forgive my ignorance, but in the other cases I have followed or been involved with, the determination of liability and the announcement of Remedy (??) seemed to happen together at the end of the main Hearing, which is maybe where we are now in this Mahmood case? (I can’t help myself, but my Kvetch instinct/ suspicion is becoming quite strong atm with this – RW Labour always has that effect on me). Please, if you can, use your legal expertise to re-assure me if it’s possible.
I can no longer gaze upon a picture of the faux Labour glorious leader without seeing horns protruding from his head.
Are you sure they’re horns…And not slug antennae?
I just see that damned Lamprey! Ultra slippery and slimy!
Any extended protrubences belonging to Headroom should be secataured immediately. As a protective measure of course.
Joshep, comrade? You are using irony, are you?
“YOUR JUDGEMENT” …. SteveH …. is not worth a wank.
johnsco1 – I’m struggling to find a reason why I should give a toss what you think.
The rest of us are struggling to find a reason why your response to everything has to be passive-aggressive dismissal. There is nothing that could turn up in the actual words of the judgment that could possibly mitigate Cohen’s unambiguous victory on this. She is vindicated and the MP is totally disgraced. There’s no reason to keep pretending the guy could still somehow be saved and Cohen could still be found to have deserved dismissal. Take the “L”, for god’s sakes.
Ken – Like myself, you self evidently don’t know that yet.
Because johnsco’s actually keef smarmers nom de plume
Ken Burch, A Chief Turd Polisher’s job is to try and polish the corrupt racist peado protecting Labour Leader’s reputation. It is a pointless task because you cannot polish a turd.
Two Cheeks
Two hopes of PWC keeping his job
No Hope and Bob Hope
Doug – Yet more childish taunts, for goodness sake grow up. you’re pathetic.
I guess we’ll know the answer to that once we’ve had the opportunity to read the findings in full.
Two Cheeks
The fact that you deliberately avoid the issue of criminality is pretty much why your man is now up shit creek without a lolly stick
Now off you must fuck
Doug – Oh dear, I see you’ve felt the need to resort to your comfort blanket of patheticly childish taunts again.
The Judge will want to make sure any criminality is punished
West Midlands Plod are already in the Dock, as for PWC, his RB and Mahmood
Oh Dear
Doug – Who’s this PWC that you keep referring to and who or what is RB.
SteveH, now that is good question. Are they persons? Dunno. Pip pip
wobbly – I’ve no idea who he is referring to, do you?
Doug, WMPF are you sure. Could be worse, could be the Met.
To ensure it communicates exactly what we want it to
Questions will be asked, as someone of integrity your man will have to fall on his sword
Are you seriously saying no offence has been committed
Doug – Like ypu I simply don’t know, yet.
Even now I expect Starmer HQ are planning
and plotting how they can weasel out of their
responsibilities for this – what they usually do
is take a sentence out of context and quote
that
So I guessTHEY are waiting for the full report
too ..
Though to be realistic I would be very surprised
if there was any reporting at all in the MSM.
HFM – If what is being claimed by many on this page is true then you will be proved wrong.
The tribunal is over.
The judge has found in favour of Cohen. The evidence given about keef & fat dave being informed and doing nothing will have been considered AND deliberated over in reachng the verdict.
This is NOT Twelve angry men
You are NOT Hank Fonda’s character on that film**
Got that? If not, you best start getting it.
**You ARE, however i- n real life – an arrogant, sneering, condescending, contrary gobshite..
Now ffs shut the fuck up.
Toffee – ….and yet here you are again encouraging me to respond. 🙄
Toffee – Is there a reason you’ve gone quiet on this subject since the report was published?
Corbyn would have been 20 points ahead by now…..hahahahaha
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 35% (-4)
CON: 34% (+2)
LDEM: 13% (+1)
GRN: 7% (-1)
via
@YouGov
27 – 28 Jul
One point ahead in an already cooked and corrupted, billionaire owned, poll.
Against an atrocious Conservative TORY Party, WITHOUT A LEADER, I reckon that automatically deducts at least 20 points off BlueKeef and the Neo-Labour Party TORIES, if that was to be an honest poll!?
A realistic poll, if ever there was such a thing as an honest pollster, would probably look something like this:
CON: 54% (+22)
LAB: 15% (-24)
LDEM: 13% (+1)
GRN: 7% (-1)
nellyskelly – You can fantasise all you like but back in the real world here’s some real polling figures.
Labour Leader Net Approval Index
07/22 Starmer (-1)
11/19 Corbyn (-47)
Of course it is, “very real” unverified and conveniently targeted “real polls”.
A billionaire pollsters who runs a poll will do so for what purpose? To satisfy his client for payment or for the lay person in a Specific Demographic Pool, who, may believe in MSP and MSM, and slurp up his BS or the lay person, who is awake and know how pollters bend the results and who most certainly will not give him a single thing, but disbelief?
nellyskelly – Meanwhile back in the real world it is undeniable that the 2019 polls were confirmed by Labour’s devastating losses in the 2019 General Election. If you check you will also find that all the polls very accurately predicted the actual national vote share in the 19GE. Just dismissing anything that you disagree with as a conspiracy isn’t a good look and doesn’t do much for your credibility..
Unverified Billionaire Pollsters, MSM, MSSM, The BLiar, Campbell and Mandelson Spinporn Factory, threats from Israel, the USA and Allan Duncan, and of course The Clients, The Sabotaging Thatcherite Neo-Labour Party TORIES had quite a lot to do with that toxic concoction you mention above.
PS. We can’t forget the easily corrupted UK Ellection System with it’s Monopoly of One Company for all provisions from pencil to sign to booth to ballot paper to ballot box to security tags and a Electorate Commission who thinks that it is sensible for ONE volunteer from, each of 33+K polling stations, to put the ballot boxes with our votes in the boot of their OWN PRIVATE CAR, unescorted, un marked, untraced, and then drive 5/10/30 minutes, ALONE to the Counting Centre.
PPS. “Yes, I do struggle to see” why some people may have an issue with the validity of anything that happened between September 2015 and December 2019!
Toffee – ….and yet here you are again encouraging me to respond.
No – I’m quite clearly encouraging you to shut the fuck up.
Or must you – and therefore everybody else – wait for the wording of my judgement?
Cretin.
Toffee – Your strategy doesn’t appear to be working
And yours is???
Helmet. Trying to convince everyone that they’ve got it wrong and that Cohen – after informing smarmer & fat Dave,(with them subsequently doing sod-all about it, and therefore neglecting their duty of care – where have we seen that before with keef?) somehow wasn’t or isn’t an integral part of the verdict?
When it’s made mention in the summary you’ll continue to attempt to exonerate the muculent bellend and his elephantine sidekick.
Because you’re totally besotted with the gobshite… Moreso than the crank dorris is besotted with the fat tory scruff.
Oddball.
Have you read the published findings of the Tribunal yet.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62e9337ed3bf7f75b61f8bca/Ms_E_Cohen_vs_Mr_K_Mahmood_MP.pdf
As Ultraviolet noted above (and did I on the last Mahmood post) the tribunal’s findings are out and they are not an unambiguous slam-dunk for the claimant as the coverage here is portraying it: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62e9337ed3bf7f75b61f8bca/Ms_E_Cohen_vs_Mr_K_Mahmood_MP.pdf
Here is a summary from Jewish News:
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/former-parliamentary-aide-cohen-wins-dismissal-claim-against-mp/
Note though that Cohen is appealing against one of the findings .
Also – the police could not proceed with the allegations of criminality
because all 5 witnesses had withdrawn. Maybe now the tribunal is
out of the way they will be more willing to speak out? Did they first
offer to speak to Starmer and he brushed them away ? I dont think
there was a judgement on that but if he did that it is disgraceful.
We still have the matter of RLB’s opinion on the Israeli connection
with the George Floyd murder straightaway judged antisemitic
by Starmer
– Whereas Cohens report of antisemitism in a similar case was
ignored by him.
Contradictory I think M’Lud?
PS What is interesting is the light it shines on Starmers
flip-flopping his views on antisemitism when it suits him.
Not a new thing for us to observe – but meaningful when
highlighted by a – presumably – disinterested person whose
main concern is her employment/aka affair with her boss.
At one point she compares Corbyns lack of apology which
she seems to think is nothing compared with
antisemitism within Starmers shadow cabinet.
Peripheral to the tribunal possibly?
HFM – After examining all the evidence in great detail the Tribunal rejected her claims of anti-Semitism.
“395. The Claimant has not established that the decision to dismiss related to her race, religion or belief.
SteveH – I know the judge rejected her claims
of antisemitism!!
That was NOT the point of my post – it was
Starmer’s view of antisemitism I was pointing up ..
Starmer has exhibited TWO views – depending on
(1) who accused X of antisemitism
(2) who is X
So because RLB agreed with Maxine Peake about
the Israeli’s relationship to the “knee on throat”
incident Starmer decided within two minutes that
both the women were antisemitic. He blathered on
about “Zero tolerance” but we know the real reason
– he wanted rid of RLB. We are therefore in situation (2).
In the other similar case when Cohen was
the accuser – we have both situation (1) and (2).
Starmer refused to investigate and left it to
another (independent?) organisation who
decided it was NOT antisemitic.I guess that
in this case he made the right decision
and so did the independent organisation. Only
Cohen objected – thinking back to RLB and
lack of consistency. Noone else did ..
WE are talking here of lack of consistency and
possible rule breaking ..
Is that clear now?
HFM – Unlike you I’m struggling to see the connection between RLB a Cabinet Minister who was sacked for refusing to take down a post when instructed to do so by her party leader and a constituency worker.
I can’t be bothered explaining any more SteveH.
If you cannot work it out so be it.
We will see what happens in September –
when hopefully Cohen has got some justice
for the women or started to.
One thing which is apparent is Cohens sense
of justice – her rejecting the large sum of money
shows that. It is very very important that these
women are eventually heard and I hope they are
helped by a DV charity for there is more than
one form of DV.
WE dont know why the women bowed out -but
there is such a thing as coercive control which we
understand better now.
HFM – Or maybe she’s just an employee from hell.
PS I see that Cohen is appealing one of the decisions.
It is likely she is clarifying one or more facts – for the case
is extremely complicated. WHY she got involved with him
romantically is beyond me ..
I would bet that she does not settle out of court – for she
seems angry at both her ex-lover and Starmer and wants
the truthbrought to light and justice done.
HFM – Time will tell, I note that she has already dropped several of her original accusations.