ARREST BLAIR AND BROWN?

🔎 Key Quotes & Timestamps (for reference)

On alleged hypocrisy vs Prince Andrew

0:18–0:29 – “…the body of evidence against Peter Mandelson, against Tony Blair, against Gordon Brown is significantly higher… forget about Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. Take a good long hard look at Mandelson, Brown, and Blair.”

On reappointing Mandelson

2:42–2:49 – “Tony Blair had to sack him for corruption but brought him back as the vice president of the European Commission.”
3:08–3:16 – “Gordon Brown… brings in Mandelson… to business secretary and then to Lord President of the Council… effectively the deputy prime minister…”

On ‘misconduct in public office’

3:27–3:41 – “Misconduct in public office is if you benefited from something… and did it undermine people’s opinion of the prime minister?”

On alleged politicisation of policing

6:15–6:31 – “…the Labour home secretary will have the power to hire and fire chief constables… that will mean a politicisation of the police…”

On predictions about monarchy/power

5:19–5:31 – “…Mandelson will end up taking power… these people are constantly trying to extend their power…”

On Prince Andrew (speaker’s belief)

6:02–6:09 – “Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is going to prison as far as I can see… I’m saying that because he’s been arrested…”

⚖️ Legal Accuracy Check: “Misconduct in Public Office”

What the offence actually requires (UK common law, simplified):
To prove misconduct in public office, prosecutors must show all of the following:

The person is a public officer acting as such
They wilfully neglected to perform their duty or wilfully misconducted themselves
The misconduct was serious enough to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust
They acted without reasonable excuse or justification

What the video claims (and where it’s off):

❌ “Undermining public confidence” alone = misconduct
The speaker suggests that if an action undermines public confidence, that’s enough.
👉 Not accurate. Public confidence being undermined can be relevant to seriousness, but it’s not sufficient on its own. Prosecutors must prove wilful misconduct in office (e.g., corruption, misuse of power), not just controversial decisions.
❌ Reappointing a controversial figure = misconduct
The video argues Blair/Brown committed misconduct by reappointing Mandelson after past scandals.
👉 Not accurate as a legal standard.
Reappointing someone who previously resigned is not a crime by itself. It would only be misconduct if:
- There was wilful abuse of office (e.g., reappointing to facilitate corruption, bribery, cover-ups), and
- Evidence showed intentional wrongdoing, not just poor judgment or political favouritism.
❌ “Benefit” is defined
The speaker says misconduct exists if leaders “benefited,” even without evidence of financial gain.
👉 Benefit alone isn’t enough. There must be clear evidence of wilful misconduct (e.g., quid pro quo, misuse of authority). Employing someone you sacked for misconduct is dubious
👉 Factual Evidence exists that Blair and Mandelson, and Dunkley in New York, with Clinton creating a framework for abducting children, is concerning. Evidence exists that Blair tried to redact this information in the Clinton library, which is very concerning
👉 Someone must have extracted Matt Dunkley from the Operation Dunham Victoria IBAC investigation. It must have been one of these people removing him from extortion and embezzling charges on learning he was recorded stating he sanctioned deleting complaint documents.
⚠️ Speculation presented as legal risk
Claims about future power grabs, coordinated political conspiracies, and mass cover-ups are political opinions, not legal arguments. Courts require evidence, not predictions.
❌ Claims about arrests
The transcript states Prince Andrew “has been arrested.”
👉 This is presented as fact in the news and public press and is still under investigation.

🧠 Bottom Line (Straight Talk)

The video uses legal language and mixes it with political opinion.
Misconduct in public office is a high legal bar — it’s about wilful abuse of power, not unpopular decisions or controversial appointments.
Based on what’s in the transcript, the claims about Blair/Brown/Mandelson meet the legal test for that offence. They’re political accusations, prosecutable allegations as presented? See more at https://www.stealingofemily.world

ARREST OF MANDELSON at 4PM