United Kingdom

The UK’s High Court has ruled that the government ban on the pro-Palestinian campaign group Palestine Action as a ‘terror group’ was unlawful. The case was brought by the group’s co-founder Huda Ammori. Rory Challands is outside the court in London.

United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer has emerged rattled but ultimately unscathed after a day and night of drama during which a key member of his Labour Party called for him to resign over revelations about a former ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson, in the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Starmer has faced more than a week of mounting pressure since the release of the latest tranche of documents from the US Department of Justice relating to the criminal cases against the late sex offender. They revealed that Mandelson had maintained a close friendship with the disgraced financier even after Epstein had pleaded guilty to solicitation of sex with a minor and was jailed in 2008.

They include documents and emails that suggest Mandelson may have received payments from Epstein and passed sensitive information to him during the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

Since then, Starmer has admitted that he knew of the pair’s friendship when he appointed Mandelson as ambassador but said the peer had lied about the extent of it. The affair has caused outrage in parliament. Two key members of Starmer’s inner circle have resigned and a third is under pressure to go. On Monday, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar called for the prime minister to do the same.

While Starmer’s position has been shored up for now by a rally of support from his cabinet on Monday night, just how badly has this affair shaken his government?

Why did Anas Sarwar call for Starmer to resign?

Sarwar said at a news conference early on Monday afternoon that he had called Starmer and told him it was time for him to resign. “I spoke to the prime minister earlier today, and I think it’s safe to say he and I disagreed,” Sarwar said.

He said “too many mistakes” had been made in relation to the appointment of Mandelson.

“The distraction needs to end, and the leadership in Downing Street has to change,” Sarwar said as he became the first Labour heavyweight to stand against the prime minister.

While Sarwar said he believed Starmer to be a “decent man”, the fury over the Epstein files had severely damaged the government’s support and wrecked its chances in the upcoming Scottish parliament elections. Opinion polls put Scottish Labour some distance behind the Scottish National Party, followed by the far-right Reform party, led by Nigel Farage.

But cabinet members came out in support of Starmer, ultimately ending the coup that never was. Angela Rayner, former deputy prime minister and a senior member of the Labour Party, was the first to show him support. She said in a post on X that while she did not defend Starmer’s judgement, “the worst possible response [to the scandal] would be to play party politics or factional games.”

“I urge all my colleagues to come together, remember our values and put them into practice as a team,” she wrote on X. “The Prime Minister has my full support in leading us to that end.”

Within hours, nearly every minister had followed suit. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, urged people to “give Keir a chance”. Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, said he hoped the prime minister would stay on, and Douglas Alexander, Scotland secretary, said he “respected” Sarwar’s stance but backed the prime minister.

On Monday night, Starmer addressed more than 400 MPs and peers at a Labour Party meeting. “I have won every fight I’ve ever been in. I fought to change the Labour Party to allow us to win an election again,” he told them.

“But I’ll tell you this, after having fought so hard for the chance to change our country, I’m not prepared to walk away from my mandate and my responsibility to my country or to plunge us into chaos as others have done.”

Who has resigned from Starmer’s team and why?

Two key figures have already resigned, and a third is under pressure to do so, UK media has reported.

Amid growing outrage over the new revelations about Mandelson and Epstein, Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, resigned on Sunday, taking “full responsibility” for advising the prime minister to appoint Mandelson to the ambassadorship, which he took up in 2025, despite the risks.

“The decision to appoint Mandelson was wrong,” McSweeney said. “He has damaged our party. … I advised the prime minister to make that appointment and I take full responsibility for that.”

Mandelson was dismissed from the post in September after serving seven months after the UK daily The Sun obtained other emails between him and Epstein that showed the depth of their friendship.

After the release of the latest tranche of Epstein documents on January 30, Mandelson resigned from the Labour Party and the House of Lords.

Tim Allan, Starmer’s communications chief, resigned on Monday, saying he was leaving to pave the way for a “new No 10 team” to be built as Starmer tries to reset his government.

Allan, who founded the Portland Communications firm specialising in reputation management, had been in the job for only five months, and Starmer is now looking to hire his fifth communications chief since taking office in 2024.

Chris Wormald, the cabinet secretary and senior-most civil servant in Downing Street, is also reportedly under pressure to resign and is said to be currently negotiating his exit from the role, which he has been in for less than a year.

The UK’s Guardian newspaper reported that some people close to Starmer view him as a “disastrous” appointment.

What did the Epstein files reveal about Mandelson?

The latest release of files showed Mandelson maintained his relationship with Epstein after the latter was jailed in 2008.

They also suggested Mandelson received payments from the late financier and may have shared market-sensitive information with him that was of financial interest to Epstein.

Leaks of sensitive information by Mandelson allegedly took place in 2009 while he was serving as the UK’s business secretary.

The UK police have launched a criminal investigation over suspected misconduct in public office linked to Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein.

In one of the emails revealed in the most recent tranche of documents released from the US Justice Department, Mandelson told Epstein to “fight for early release” shortly before he was sentenced in 2008.

“I think the world of you,” Mandelson told Epstein, adding about his prosecution: “I can still barely understand it. It just could not happen in Britain. You have to be incredibly resilient, fight for early release and be philosophical about it as much as you can.”

How damaging has this all been for Starmer?

Starmer has apologised publicly for appointing Mandelson as ambassador to the US despite knowing of his ties – but not the extent of them, he said – to the disgraced financier.

“None of us knew the depth and the darkness of that relationship,” Starmer said on Thursday as he apologised to Epstein’s victims.

“I am sorry – sorry for what was done to you, sorry that so many people with power failed you, sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointing him.”

But this has not been enough to let him off the hook entirely, experts said.

Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, said the scandal has been hugely damaging for Starmer. “A more popular PM might have been able to ride it out, but he was already facing a good deal of hostility from voters before it blew up,” Bale told Al Jazeera. “He’s managed so far to hold on to his cabinet, but he’s completely lost the trust of the electorate – and that’s hard to get back.”

Bale said “people are disgusted by” Starmer’s decision to appoint Mandelson “despite knowing that he’d stayed friends with Epstein after he’d been convicted”.

Can Starmer’s leadership still be challenged?

While Starmer has survived Monday night, his position is still weak with low approval ratings, experts said.

Labour is expected to suffer losses in crucial Scottish elections in May. A parliamentary by-election is also due on February 26.

“The immediate danger [to Starmer] is that [Labour] suffers catastrophic losses in a by-election and then a big set of elections in May,” Bale said. “That will reignite calls for Starmer to resign and, if he doesn’t, a challenge from one or more of his colleagues.”

Among the top runners to replace Starmer are Rayner, his former deputy prime minister who resigned from the cabinet last year over a tax scandal.

A website pitching Rayner as leader, angelaforleader.co.uk, went live in January briefly, The Guardian newspaper reported. Rayner has denied any links to the website.

Another politician gearing up to replace Starmer is Wes Streeting, the health secretary.

Streeting, 43, has also been called out for his ties with Mandelson. In a bid to distance himself from the former ambassador, Streeting this week shared private chats he had with Mandelson that questioned the government’s growth plan.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, 45, is another possible successor to Starmer. She has grown popular among several right-aligned leaders of the Labour Party with her moves to tighten border controls and crack down on unauthorised immigration.

What other issues has Labour faced under Starmer?

The Labour Party swept to power in July 2024, ending nearly 14 years of Conservative rule. However, the prime minister has since had a difficult time in Downing Street.

In the 2024 elections, Reform UK, the right-wing, populist, anti-immigration party led by Farage, won just five of the 650 seats in parliament. However, it has gone on to become one of the best polling British parties. In July, a YouGov poll put Reform in the lead, predicting it could win 271 seats if elections were held then.

In his speech on Monday, Starmer called the challenge posed by the rise of the Reform party, which has won over a number of high-profile defectors from the Conservative Party in recent weeks, “a fight for our lives”.

Starmer is also facing domestic pressure to put a stop to undocumented immigration to the UK. More than 32,000 people tried to cross the English Channel from France in small boats last year. These crossings are dangerous and have resulted in many deaths.

The UK and France have laid the blame on each other for the rising numbers. This led to a “one-in-one-out” migrant deal signed between the UK and France last year, under which the UK returns one migrant to France for each accepted refugee. The scheme has had little success, however, with only a handful of migrants returned.

Starmer himself has dropped in popularity by 20 percentage points from July 2024 to January this year, according to YouGov.

“Reform has obviously spooked some in the Labour Party,” Bale said, adding, however, that Reform is eating into the Conservatives’ base more. “And Labour probably needs to worry more about the Greens and the Liberal Democrats at this stage.”

“The break-up of the two-party duopoly that has dominated British politics for a century is no longer simply an aspiration among challenger parties but an ongoing reality,” Bale said.

British police are assessing a complaint that the former prince sent confidential trade reports to convicted US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Buckingham Palace says King Charles III will “support” UK police assessing reports that the former Prince Andrew gave confidential information to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The statement on Monday came after police said they were examining reports that the former prince, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, sent trade reports to Epstein in 2010.

Thames Valley Police, which serves areas west of London, including the ex-royal’s former home in Windsor, launched the inquiry after news organisations reported on emails that suggest the then-prince sent Epstein reports from a 2010 tour of Southeast Asia he took as Britain’s envoy for international trade.

“The King has made clear, in words and through unprecedented actions, his profound concern at allegations which continue to come to light in respect of Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor’s conduct,” the palace said in a statement.

“While the specific claims in question are for Mr Mountbatten-Windsor to address, if we are approached by Thames Valley Police we stand ready to support them as you would expect.”

Thames Valley Police confirmed earlier on Monday that it has launched an inquiry following a complaint from an anti-monarchy campaigner.

“We can confirm receipt of this report and are assessing the information in line with our established procedures,” the police force said in a statement.

Emails from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to Epstein were among the more than three million pages of documents released last month by the United States Justice Department.

Correspondence unearthed in recent days appears to show that Mountbatten-Windsor forwarded copies of his reports from a 2010 tour of Southeast Asia to Epstein soon after he returned to Britain.

An earlier email appears to show the ex-prince sharing his itinerary for the two-week trip to Hanoi, Saigon, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong with Epstein.

Thames Valley Police began its inquiry after Graham Smith, chief executive of the anti-monarchy group Republic, reported Mountbatten-Windsor for suspected abuse of public office and violations of Britain’s Official Secrets Act.

The former prince, 65, has faced years of scrutiny over his friendship with Epstein, a relationship that has cost him his role in the royal family, titles and home. Andrew has always denied any wrongdoing, and has not responded to requests for comment since the latest release of Epstein files.

Reporting from London, Al Jazeera’s Milena Veselinovic said Mountbatten-Windsor was acting as the United Kingdom’s international trade envoy when the claims were made that he sent sensitive information to Epstein.

“This [allegedly] includes a confidential memo about investment in the Helmand province in Afghanistan, which was being financed at that time by the UK taxpayer,” she explained.

Royal family faces jeopardy

The British royal family continued its effort to insulate itself from the scandal on Monday, as Prince William and Princess Catherine issued their first statement about the latest batch of Epstein files.

“I can confirm that the Prince and Princess of Wales have been deeply concerned by the continued revelations,’’ a spokesperson said as William travelled to Saudi Arabia for an official visit. “Their thoughts remain focused on the victims.”

The jeopardy faced by the royal family could be seen on Monday when King Charles visited Lancashire, in northwest England. While most of the public clapped, cheered and waved British flags, one person shouted, “How long have you known about Andrew?”

Last week, King Charles forced Mountbatten-Windsor to leave his longtime home at Royal Lodge near Windsor Castle, accelerating a move that was first announced in October but was not expected to be completed until later this year.

The former royal is now living temporarily at Wood Farm Cottage on the king’s Sandringham Estate in eastern England. He is then expected to move into a more permanent home, which is currently undergoing renovations.

In October 2001, two years into his presidency, Hugo Chávez made a trip to London to meet with then UK prime minister Tony Blair and other high-level officials.

Official records detail how the Venezuelan president’s proposed Hydrocarbons Law, a major restructuring of Venezuela’s oil industry, was high on the British agenda.

The law aimed to assert sovereignty over Venezuela’s resources by mandating at least 50% state ownership in mixed enterprises and increasing royalties on foreign oil interests.

This was a serious cause for concern for Britain, whose main interests in Venezuela centred on Shell, BP, and BG Group’s investments in the oil and gas industry.

“British companies have over $4bn already invested” in Venezuela, noted one Foreign Office official, with new investments of another $3bn planned for the oil industry.

Blair was thus instructed by advisers to impress on Chávez that the UK government was “following your proposed hydrocarbons legislation very closely”.

In private, Blair’s adviser and future MI6 chief John Sawers wrote that “the only reason for seeing him is to benefit British oil and gas companies”.

Sawers’ note drove at the core issue which had been guiding Britain’s relations with Venezuela for over a century: oil.

Declassified has combed through dozens of files in the National Archives which expose how the UK government has repeatedly sought to thwart the nationalisation of oil in Venezuela since it was first discovered during the early twentieth century.

Working in partnership with Britain’s leading oil corporations, the Foreign Office has resorted to political pressure, propaganda activities, and covert operations to maintain control over Venezuela’s lucrative crude. 

The origins of Britain’s interest in Venezuela’s oil

In 1912, Royal Dutch-Shell began operations in Venezuela and, two years later, the company – alongside US firm General Asphalt – discovered a petroleum field in the small town of Mene Grande.

George Bernard Reynolds, a geologist at Venezuelan Oil Concessions Limited (VOC), a Shell subsidiary, described the supplies as “enough to satisfy the most exacting”.

By 1920, the CIA reported that practically all of Venezuela’s oil production and its most promising concessions were held by Royal Dutch-Shell and two American companies, Jersey Standard (SOCNJ) and Gulf.

Indeed, Venezuelan oil controlled by Royal Dutch-Shell had increased by over 600% from 210,000 barrels in 1917 to 1,584,000 in 1921. 

“Is there any other company more conclusively British than this”, asked Sir Marcus Samuel, chairman of the Shell Transport and Trading Company, in June 1915, “who have proved themselves more willing and able to serve the interests of the Empire?”

But foreign control over oil had serious consequences for Venezuela’s land and people.

In 1936, oil workers in Maracaibo called a general strike in response to low wages, poor living conditions and the association of oil firms with the late dictator, Juan Vicente Gómez. It lasted for 43 days, during which time oil production decreased by 39%.

In response, Venezuelan president General Eleazar López Contreras introduced a series of reforms to improve labour conditions.

This made him unpopular with the British and US oil executives, who were described by US ambassador Meredith Nicholson as belonging to “the old school of ‘imperialists’ who believed that might – in the business sense – was right”.

Venezuela’s oil nonetheless remained central to the British imperial project and, by the outbreak of World War Two, Venezuelan oil “took on particular significance within the British war effort as oil from the Middle East became less accessible following the closure of the Mediterranean in 1940”, according to research by academic Mark Seddon.

Officials therefore became increasingly worried about nationalisation in Latin America, particularly after foreign oil interests – including those of Shell – had been expropriated in Mexico in 1938.

That year, for instance, British diplomat John Balfour wrote: “We should do all we can to show that it is not in the interests of a Latin-American country like Mexico to eliminate British interests from participating in the exploitation of its oil resources”.

A dangerous opponent of capital

Concerns around nationalisation arose once again during the Rómulo Betancourt administration in the 1940s.

He was described by the Foreign Office in 1945 as “by far the most dangerous opponent of capital in Venezuela”, while the oil companies worried about his past support for communism.

These concerns proved overblown as Betancourt developed into a staunch anti-communist. According to a CIA file dated March 1948, Betancourt and his predecessor, Rómulo Gallegos, met to discuss “the proposed outlawing of the Communist Party in Venezuela.”

The first step, according to the document, “was the dismissal from the [oil workers union] Fedepetrol of all Communist Party petroleum syndicate delegates”.

Shell’s directors nonetheless responded positively to the military coup which toppled Betancourt in 1948.

They believed, as UK ambassador John H. Magowan noted in February 1949, that the new administration would “reverse the Betancourt tendency to hostility towards the ‘capitalists’ and ‘colonial’ powers”.

While US-owned SOCNJ had emerged as Venezuela’s main oil producer by this time, Shell remained the second most important player and, by 1950, the company had centralized its operations, building a modernist headquarters in northern Caracas.

The propaganda campaign

During the 1960s, as the shadow of the Cold War cast over Latin America, a propaganda unit within the Foreign Office secretly worked to protect Britain’s oil interests in Venezuela.

That unit, named the Information Research Department (IRD), had been set up in 1948 to collect information about communism and distribute it to contacts worldwide.

The goal was to build resilience against communist and other national liberation movements while cultivating foreign agents of influence such as journalists, politicians, military officers, and businessmen.

By 1961, the IRD viewed Venezuela as the third most important country in Latin America in light of the risk of left-wing “subversion” and Britain’s strategic stake in the country’s oil industry.

That year, the IRD worked with Britain’s intelligence services to promote a boycott of El Nacional, the largest newspaper in Venezuela, with the goal of forcing it “to abandon its campaign in favor of expropriating foreign companies and promoting communist agitation”.

The campaign not only had the backing of powerful conservative and anti-communist groups in Venezuela but also the foreign oil companies, who agreed to suspend their advertising in the newspaper.

By 1962, IRD officer Leslie Boas was able to boast that El Nacional had “changed its tone in a great way”, with the newspaper’s circulation also dropping from 70,000 to 45,000 per day.

Reactionary networks in Venezuela were also being covertly funded by Shell in this period, according to recently declassified files.

In April 1962, Boas wrote to IRD chief Donald Hopson about the Latin American Information Committee (LAIC) which was “now doing quite active work… in Venezuela”.

The first director of LAIC was Enno Hobbing, who divided his work between Time/Life magazine and the CIA and later played a role in Chile’s 1973 coup d’état.

Boas explained that he “had a long talk with Hobbing […] and there do seem to be one or two ways in which we can be of mutual help without either of us burning our fingers”.

Such help would include “an unattributable supply of IRD material to contacts” of LAIC in return for LAIC supplying Boas with access to and information about local anti-communist networks.

Remarkably, Boas disclosed that Shell was “contributing financially to” LAIC alongside US retailer Sears Roebuck and other “International Business Machines”.

He added that “none of the local branches of these companies such as Shell de Venezuela are cooperating either financially or overtly in any way, it is being done through their head offices and LAIC who have their own offices in New York”.

It was during this period that Shell and BP were also providing direct, “handsome” subsidies to the IRD to promote their oil interests across Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa.

Nationalisation rekindled

The IRD continued to promote Britain’s oil interests in Venezuela through the 1960s and 1970s, until the unit was closed down in 1977.

In a country assessment sheet for Venezuela, dated 1969, an IRD official noted how “we have considerable investments in the country, particularly those of Shell, whose fixed installations alone have been conservatively valued at £300 million”.

The official continued: “Shell’s operations in Venezuela play an important role in the company’s very substantial contribution in invisibles [earnings through intangible assets] to our balance of payments”, noting that Britain’s key objective was therefore “to protect our investments”.

Two years later, IRD field officer Ian Knight Smith wrote to London with concerns about how “the emotional issue of economic nationalism, always a potent force in a country whose main natural resources are largely in the hands of foreign companies, was [being] rekindled”.

Worse still, the Venezuelan president, Rafael Caldera, had “made his own contribution to the new nationalism – in the shape of a law nationalising all natural gas deposits”.

The IRD consequently prepared briefings “on communist instigation of charges against the international oil companies” to be shared with contacts across Venezuela.

In addition, the propaganda unit “cast around for material with which to brief IRD contacts who are in a position to influence government policy or legislation affecting foreign investments in Venezuela”.

Officials were particularly interested in commissioning a “well-researched paper on the positive aspects of foreign investment in developing countries, helping to counter the growing assumption, carefully fostered by the extreme left, that all foreign investment is basically suspect”.

It was within this context that the Foreign Office privately advised that “we should protect as far as we are able Shell’s continued access to Venezuelan oil”.

Share of the gravy

For all its efforts, the IRD was not able to turn the tide of nationalisation in Venezuela, with plans developed during the 1970s for the early reversion of foreign oil interests to the state.

Venezuelan oil was officially nationalised in 1976, with foreign companies including Shell being replaced by the state-owned Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

But this was by no means the end of the road for Britain’s oil interests in Venezuela.

In a background briefing for a visit by Venezuelan president Carlos Andrés Pérez, dated November 1977, the Foreign Office observed that “Shell is still our largest single interest”.

The official added: “It should not be forgotten that despite nationalisation our largest commercial stake in this country is still Shell, and although they no longer, since nationalisation, produce oil here, they earn millions of dollars from their service and marketing contracts with their former company”.

The company also continued “to off-take very large volumes of Venezuelan oil for sale mostly in the US and Canada”.

Another official remarked upon the “furious activity of all European countries, including ourselves, in trying to get our share of Venezuela’s economic gravy”.

By 1978, the New York Times went so far as to say that Shell was “busier in Venezuela than before the oil industry was nationalized”.

‘Shell has been active‘

Even still, Britain’s oil firms wished to return to Venezuela’s oilfields.

Those hopes were stoked in the early 1990s by the “Oil Opening” of President Carlos Andrés Péres, whose austerity measures led to an explosion of poverty and street protests, but dashed once again by Chávez’ proposed Hydrocarbons Law in 2001.

In the lead-up to Chávez’ visit that year to London, Britain’s leading oil companies were once again in the prime minister’s ear about the projected impact on their interests.

Blair’s briefing noted unambiguously that UK and US companies were “concerned” about the oil reforms and wanted them watered down.

Days before the visit, Shell’s chairman Philip Watts offered suggestions on how Blair might handle Chávez.

“As you may have appreciated, Shell has been active in helping in the preparations for the visit through the Foreign Office”, Watts wrote.

“Considering the importance of the energy sector for both the Venezuelan and UK economies, I thought the PM may appreciate a small briefing on our… plans in Venezuela”, he added.

Those plans involved ameliorating the “uncertain investment climate” and softening the “fiscal and legal framework” in the country.

As part of the charm offensive, Watts also hosted a “farewell” banquet for Chávez, to which foreign secretary Jack Straw and other senior ministers were invited.

BP and BG Group also “registered their interest with No.10 about the visit”, with BP preparing “to put their case… forcefully” in favour of a meeting between the two leaders.

‘The Americans are concerned‘

The US government also weighed in on the matter.

On 18 October, an official in the British embassy in Washington wrote to London that “the Americans are concerned about the impact that the Hydrocarbons Law will have on investment in the energy sector”.

They continued: “The major oil companies, including BP, had all made clear that its tax and restrictive joint venture productions would hinder their operations”.

The US state department “thought it would be particularly useful for Chavez to hear these concerns in London, given his tendency to discount messages from the US”.

To this end, the George Bush administration hoped Blair would “talk sense into [Chávez] on the Hydrocarbons Law, where BP are among those who stand to lose”.

Further pressure was applied by Gustavo Cisneros, a Venezuelan billionaire and media mogul who was introduced to Blair in 2000 by Daily Telegraph owner Conrad Black.

Sawers, Blair’s adviser, noted that Cisneros’ “sole message” for Blair “was that Chávez was a real danger to stability and free markets (and, of course, rich Venezuelans like himself)”.

A briefing document prepared by Cisneros, for instance, warned that “Chavez will likely react” to oil prices dropping “by lashing out at the private sector”.

Sawers viewed Cisneros with suspicion but broadly agreed that Chávez was objectionable. There was, he wrote, “a chance that the picture [with Chávez] at the front door [of Downing Street] would come back to haunt us”.

He continued: “This is one of the World’s tyrants whose hand I won’t have to shake”.

The coup against Chávez

A coup against Chávez broke out in April 2002, orchestrated by dissident military and political figures with support from Washington.

Pedro Carmona, an economist who was unconstitutionally appointed Venezuela’s president, quickly set about dismantling the country’s democracy and reversing Chávez’s oil reforms.

He happened to be in the offices of Cisneros, the mega mogul who had taken the opportunity to “pour poison” into Blair’s ears about Chávez, when the coup broke out.

The declassified files show how Britain quietly hoped the Carmona regime would be more accommodating to foreign interests while noting the unconstitutional nature of the coup.

“The Cabinet is strong on experience and business” and “hopefully its management capability will be much higher”, wrote the British embassy in Caracas.

The embassy was also informed by UK business leaders in Venezuela that “their operations should be back to normal by 15 April”, while Shell’s “production of oil was unaffected”.

At the same time, however, the Foreign Office was disturbed by the fact that “no one” had “ever elected” the Carmona regime.

“Venezuela may or may not have wanted to get rid of Chavez, but not necessarily to lose the other parts of their democratic system”, one official wrote. “The right-wing businessmen seem to have shot themselves in the foot”.

Notably, the UK government seemed to have some knowledge of Washington’s role in the events.

On 14 April, with Chávez imprisoned in a military barracks, the British embassy in Caracas cabled to London that the US ambassador had been spending “some hours in the Presidential Palace”.

“Please protect [the information]”, they instructed.

The opposition

The coup was short-lived.

Chávez was reinstated within 47 hours following a wave of popular mobilisations across Caracas.

With Chávez back at the helm, the Foreign Office quietly hoped that “the events of the last few days” would be seen as “a serious warning to change his ways”.

But the situation remained tense, with UK foreign secretary Jack Straw noting in July 2002 that Chávez’s position “remain[ed] shaky”.

The political opposition in Venezuela was seen by Whitehall as particularly intransigent, with Straw declaring that Chávez looks “positively resplendent compared with [them]”.

The Venezuelan opposition, Straw continued, “appear to be united, indeed motivated, by sheer indignation that someone like Chávez (not one of them and above all not white) should be in charge and have such a popular power base”.

An official in Britain’s embassy in Caracas similarly noted in 2002 that the Venezuela opposition “looks like a train that tried to breach a wall on one track in April and are now seeking to do the same on a slightly different track and at a slightly different angle”.

They added: “The opposition’s self-delusion is growing worse by the day: they claim alternately they are living in either a fascist or communist dictatorship”.

One of the key opposition figures in this period was María Corina Machado, with whom the UK government is currently in talks amid a renewed regime change campaign in Venezuela.

Source: Declassified UK

Tim Allan steps down a day after Starmer’s chief of staff, ‍Morgan McSweeney, ⁠quits, adding pressure on the PM.

United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s communications chief, Tim Allan, has stepped down as the leader of the governing Labour Party faces fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

The move on Monday came a day after Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, also quit.

“I have decided to stand down to allow a new No. 10 team to be built,” Tim Allan said in a short statement.

Starmer has come under criticism for appointing Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States despite his known links to Epstein, a convicted late US sex offender.

The prime minister said on Monday politics should be a force for good ⁠and emphasised the importance of moving forward after the resignations.

“We must prove that ‌politics can be a force ‌for good. I believe it ⁠can. I believe it is. We go forward from here. We ‌go with confidence as we continue changing the country,” Starmer told his Downing Street staff.

Mandelson has been under investigation since his name appeared in files on the Epstein investigations released by the US Department of Justice.

He was sacked by Starmer in September over his friendship with Epstein and last week also quit the Labour Party and House of Lords, the upper chamber of the UK Parliament. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office said it is reviewing an exit payment made to him after he was fired.

Mumbai, India — For most of a warm and breezy Sunday afternoon in Mumbai, the Wankhede Stadium felt closer to Kathmandu than India’s southern metropolis as thousands of Nepalese fans sang, danced and dared to dream while their cricket team took on the mighty England in the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2026.

A sea of red and blue replica shirts heaved in every nook and corner of the iconic 33,000-capacity venue, with supporters turning the famed Indian stadium into their adopted home.

A banner, saying “Feel the Thrill” stretched across stands and captured the mood perfectly as chants, drums and Nepali tunes echoed throughout the ground.

From children arriving with flags painted on their faces to elderly supporters proudly wearing the traditional Dhaka topi – a traditional Nepalese hat – fans of all ages turned up for what felt like a cricketing festival drenched in Nepali culture.

‘We almost won’

On the pitch, Nepal’s players delivered one of their most memorable performances in recent years, with the match ending in heartbreak as the team’s spirited chase fell agonisingly short on the final ball.

With the odds stacked heavily against them, Nepal walked out to face two-time champions England fully aware of the vast gulf in experience and pedigree compared to their opponents.

They hoped, though, that their hunger, intensity and fearless approach to the game could keep them firmly in the contest.

Chasing a challenging target of 185, the Rhinos proved why they are one of the most promising teams in associate cricket, as Lokesh Bam’s late heroics, coupled with Rohit Paudel and Dipendra Singh Airee’s onslaughts, pushed the contest to the last ball.

“We almost won but couldn’t go through because the players lack experience,” Nepal fan Subodh Dhakal, who travelled from Kathmandu, told Al Jazeera. “Experience will come with time, but the team played well.”

Dhakal, a doctor and passionate Nepal supporter, planned a quick two-day trip to attend the match with his wife, after watching the Nepal Premier League – the domestic league whose growth has been central to the nation’s progress in the sport.

Like Dhakal, Satyam Pokhrel also made his way to Mumbai from the Nepalese capital. Joined by a group of friends, Pokhrel revealed his plans to stay for the remaining three Nepal games, all of which are scheduled at the same venue.

“Nepal had a really good chance [to win], but were unlucky,” he said. “The match was very close; I’m proud of the team. They showed great energy and are capable of winning the upcoming games.”

Sunday’s heroics against England were not the first time Nepal troubled stronger opponents. Five months before the World Cup, they beat the West Indies 2-1 in a three-match series — their first bilateral series victory over a full member of the International Cricket Council (ICC) — while in 2024 they came within a run of upsetting South Africa at the T20 World Cup.

Nepal’s debut at the tournament, in 2014, led to a famous win over a highly-rated Afghanistan team.

‘Don’t count us out’

For many in the stands, being part of the atmosphere required journeys just as memorable as the match itself.

Bhuvan Rawal travelled from Tikapur in far-western Nepal, spending three days on the road to reach Mumbai by bus.

“I wasn’t bothered by the time or money taken to come here. Watching Nepal play at a World Cup is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for me,” said the 26-year-old.

“I’ve come with around 200 to 300 supporters from Nepal. We were aware of the match schedule since last year and were excited to be at Wankhede Stadium… Mumbai is our second home now!”

Rawal, who played cricket in his younger years and works as a gym trainer, believes lowly-ranked teams such as Nepal aren’t just here to make up the numbers at the expanded 20-team T20 World Cup.

“We may be a small country, but Nepal is very beautiful and can play wonderful cricket. I understand there’s a difference between full ICC members and associate teams, but don’t count us out.

“No team is too small to challenge the giants,” he said.

Erling Haaland’s penalty in second-half stoppage time kept Manchester City’s Premier League title challenge alive with a chaotic 2-1 win away at Liverpool.

Haaland’s spot kick sealed a comeback victory for Pep Guardiola’s team in an explosive football game at Anfield on Sunday and brought the gap on first-place Arsenal back to six points.

City’s title prospects looked in dire shape when Dominik Szoboszlai crashed a stunning long-range free kick in off the post in the 74th minute.

And even when Bernardo Silva equalised 10 minutes later, second-place City was still looking at ending the match eight points adrift of the leader.

But Haaland sent the away fans wild by firing into the bottom corner from the spot in the 93rd after Liverpool goalkeeper Alisson brought down Matheus Nunes in the box.

Then City substitute Rayan Cherki scored from the halfway line – only for VAR to overrule it and send off Szoboszlai for a foul on Haaland in the process of the ball crossing the line.

These two clubs have combined to win the last eight titles in English football’s Premier League. But both showed the flaws that have opened the door for Arsenal to potentially end their long wait to be crowned champions once again.

Haaland has scored just once from open play in his last 13 games, and an uncharacteristic lack of confidence from the Norwegian showed with the best chance of the first half inside the opening two minutes.

Silva’s clever pass split the Liverpool defence, but Haaland’s shot lacked conviction under pressure from Milos Kerkez, and Alisson Becker was able to save low to his left.

Haaland hooked another effort straight at Alisson among 10 first-half City attempts without a breakthrough.

Second-half slumps have been a consistent feature of City’s season, and the visitors again faded in the second period until a late flurry saved their title challenge.

Hugo Ekitike should have opened the scoring when he completely miscued his header just before the hour mark after a lightning-fast Liverpool break.

Marc Guehi was fortunate to escape with just a yellow card when he dragged down Mo Salah just outside the box.

But it was City who were left fuming at the award of the free kick that led to the opener when Ryan Gravenberch went down under minimal contact.

Szoboszlai scored the only goal with an outrageous free kick when Arsenal visited Anfield in August and produced another stunning strike that clipped the inside of the post before finding the net.

However, the Hungarian went from hero to villain when City levelled six minutes from time.

Szoboszlai played Silva onside as he slid in to volley home Haaland’s header for City’s first second-half goal in the Premier League this year.

Alisson then wiped out Matheus Nunes to concede a penalty and Haaland kept his cool from the spot to put City in front.

Pep Guardiola’s men still needed a stunning save from Gianluigi Donnarumma to tip behind Alexis Mac Allister’s deflected shot.

With Alisson remaining forward from the resulting corner, the Liverpool goal was open when Cherki took aim from the halfway line to roll the ball into an empty net.

However, Haaland and Szoboszlai’s grappling as the ball trickled towards the goal saw the strike ruled out, with a free kick awarded to City instead, and the Liverpool player given his marching orders.

Silva, who was named player of the match, told Sky Sports that it was a vital win for City.

“I feel the whole team knew before the game if we lost it then the title race was probably over. We felt like we needed to win,” he said.

“The hope is there, and we are going to fight until the end. We need to keep doing our job that we haven’t lately.”

Liverpool boss Arne Slot said he was disappointed not to come away with a result and claimed that several key decisions had gone against his side.

“You cannot compare this game with three or four months ago. We have improved so much – but we need to improve the results,” he told Sky.

“So many times this year we haven’t got what I think we deserve, and this is another time.”

Palace end dire run at Brighton

Earlier on Sunday, Crystal Palace ended a 12-game winless run in all competitions by beating rival Brighton 1-0.

Ismaila Sarr scored the only goal of the match at the Amex Stadium to move Palace nine points clear of the relegation zone and leapfrog Brighton into 13th place.

“It was an unbelievable atmosphere and what a way to start my Palace career, a win in a derby,” said Palace’s record signing Jorgen Strand Larsen, who joined from Wolves on deadline day. “It was really important to win, as there has been a run without wins before I joined.

“This is the most intense game I have ever played, so I’m tired now, but it is worth it.”

Sarr’s winner came after running through in the 61st minute and firing past goalkeeper Bart Verburggen. It was his second goal in as many games and his 10th of the season.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s chief of staff has quit over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States after files revealed the extent of Mandelson’s relationship with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

“After careful reflection, I have decided to resign from the government. The decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was wrong. He has damaged our party, our country and trust in politics itself,” Starmer’s top aide Morgan McSweeney said in a statement on Sunday.

“I advised the Prime Minister to make that appointment and I take full responsibility for that advice,” he added.

Labour members of parliament had called for McSweeney’s resignation after new evidence about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein was revealed in the latest tranche of documents and photos from the investigation into the American financier were released by the US Department of Justice. The lawmakers blamed McSweeney for the appointment of Mandelson and the damage caused by the publication of the crude exchanges between him and Epstein.

McSweeney, 48, who was a protege and friend of Mandelson, was accused by some Labour lawmakers and his political opponents of failing to ensure that there were proper background checks when the ambassador was appointed.

In a statement on Sunday, Starmer said it had been “an honour” to work with McSweeney, who had held the role of chief of staff since October 2024.

Mandelson’s payout

Mandelson was sacked by Starmer in September over his friendship with Epstein and last week also quit the Labour Party and House of Lords, the upper chamber of the UK Parliament. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office said it is reviewing an exit payment made to him after he was fired.

Mandelson, a pivotal figure in British politics and the Labour Party for decades, received an estimated payout of between 38,750 pounds and 55,000 pounds ($52,000 to $74,000) after only seven months in the job, according to a report in the Sunday Times newspaper.

Documents released on January 30 by the US Justice Department appeared to show that Mandelson had also allegedly leaked confidential UK government information to Epstein when he was a British minister, including during the 2008 financial crisis.

The Foreign Office said in a statement that it has launched a review into Mandelson’s severance payment “in light of further information that has now been revealed and the ongoing police investigation”.

Mandelson’s lawyers have said he “regrets, and will regret until his dying day, that he believed Epstein’s lies about his criminality”.

“Lord Mandelson did not discover the truth about Epstein until after his death in 2019,” said a spokesperson for the law firm Mishcon de Reya, which represents Mandelson.

“He is profoundly sorry that powerless and vulnerable women and girls were not given the protection they deserved,” the law firm added.

Starmer’s political future in peril?

The departure of McSweeney has thrown the future direction of the government into doubt, less than two years after the Labour Party won one of the largest parliamentary majorities in modern British history.

With polls showing Starmer is already hugely unpopular with voters, some in his own party are openly questioning his judgement and future, and it remains to be seen whether McSweeney’s exit will be enough to silence his critics.

Cabinet minister Pat McFadden earlier insisted Starmer should remain in office despite his “terrible mistake” in appointing Mandelson.

The close Starmer ally told broadcasters the party should stick with the prime minister.

“He [Starmer] should be realistic and accept that this has been a terrible story, that this appointment was a terrible mistake,” McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, told BBC television.

He said the real blame lay “squarely with Peter Mandelson”, who put himself forward for the job despite knowing the extent of his relationship with Epstein.

But according to a report by the Sunday Telegraph, Starmer’s deputy, David Lammy, has become the first cabinet minister to appear to distance himself from Starmer.

The deputy prime minister had not been in favour of appointing Mandelson due to his known links to Epstein, the report quoted friends of Lammy as saying.

Lokesh Bam’s late heroics with the bat are not enough as Nepal are beaten by two-time champions in their Group C match in Mumbai.

Nepal were left heartbroken after they came agonisingly close to pulling off a massive T20 World Cup upset against England but fell short by four runs as the two-time champions won the Group C match in Mumbai.

Lokesh Bam’s heroics with the bat – 39 runs off 20 balls – were not enough to see Nepal over the line at the Wankhede Stadium, which was packed with Nepalese fans on Sunday.

Nepal finished on 180-6, handing England a nervy win to kick off their campaign in the controversy-hit cricket tournament.

When England’s captain Harry Brook (53) and teammate Jacob Bethell (55) hit fifties to power England to 184-7, they seemingly did enough to take the match out of Nepal’s reach.

But Rohit Paudel produced a captain’s innings of his own as he, alongside star all-rounder Dipendra Singh Airee, put Nepal on course for a shock win.

The pair’s departure slowed down Nepal’s progress, but Lokesh resumed the big hitting against some wayward bowling by England’s seamers.

Needing 10 off the last over, the Rhinos were unable to get Sam Curran’s accurate bowling over the boundary and could only score six runs.

The Rhinos’ fans, hundreds of whom had travelled from across the border, were left disheartened.

Earlier, electing to bat at the Wankhede Stadium, England slumped to 57-3 in the seventh over to find themselves in a spot of bother.

Sher Malla struck with the first ball on his World Cup debut, dismissing Phil Salt for one, and the pressure mounted on England after Jos Buttler and Tom Banton fell in quick succession.

Bethell had no problem adjusting to the nature of the track, where other batters found shot-making difficult. He and Brook combined in a 71-run partnership during their 45-ball collaboration to rebuild their innings.

Airee (44) and skipper Paudel (39) kept Nepal in the hunt with a stand of 82 from 54 balls.

Curran brought relief to the English camp when he had Airee caught in the deep and Paudel also departed soon afterwards.

Bam hit Jofra Archer for back-to-back sixes to turn the match on its head.

With Nepal needing 10 runs off the last over from Curran, Bam needed to hit the last ball for a six, but he managed only one as England heaved a huge sigh of relief.

Follow the build-up, analysis and live text commentary of the football match as Liverpool host City for a crunch game at Anfield.

Bryan Mbeumo and Bruno Fernandes score for ‍United while Spurs captain Christian Romero sees red for a wild challenge.

Manchester United profited from Tottenham captain Cristian Romero’s red card to stretch their perfect start under Michael Carrick to four games, with a 2-0 win at Old Trafford in the Premier League.

Goals from Bryan Mbeumo and Bruno Fernandes on Saturday ended an eight-game winless run against Spurs for the Red Devils, who cemented their position in the Premier League’s top four.

United close to within two points of third-placed Aston Villa and open up a five-point cushion over Liverpool in sixth.

A place in the top five is likely to secure a spot in next season’s Champions League due to the strong performance of English sides in European competition.

Spurs’ hopes of qualifying for the Champions League through their league position have long since disappeared, as another damaging defeat for Thomas Frank leaves Tottenham in 14th.

But there could be lasting consequences for Romero after his ill-discipline cost his side just days after a social media outburst aimed at the club’s hierarchy.

Frank said the Argentinian international had been “dealt with internally” after he described Tottenham’s threadbare squad as “disgraceful” following the closure of the transfer window.

Romero’s future as skipper had already been called into question, and the 27-year-old will now be suspended for four matches after his second red card of the season and sixth of his Spurs career.

The centre-back lunged in to catch Casemiro on the ankle on 29 minutes after playing himself into trouble just outside the Tottenham box.

United had been the better side during the opening half hour, even against 11 men, and made their numerical advantage count.

Mbeumo stroked into the bottom corner for his third goal in four games since Carrick took charge, after a clever corner involving Fernandes and Kobbie Mainoo freed the Cameroon international at the edge of the box.

Amad Diallo and Matheus Cunha had goals ruled out for offside as the home side dominated but had to wait until nine minutes from time to make the points safe.

Fernandes showed Romero how to lead from the front with another fine individual display.

The United captain prodded in Diogo Dalot’s cross at the back post for his 200th goal or assist in 314 games for the club.

Carrick said before the game that United cannot afford to rush their choice of a new permanent manager.

But the former midfielder, who enjoyed a stellar playing career at Old Trafford, is making his case for that job as he continues overseeing United’s stunning turnaround in fortunes since the departure of Ruben Amorim last month.

Fernandes had plenty of praise for Carrick in a post-match interview with TNT Sports.

“The energy ⁠is different because we are winning games and when you win games, everything is brighter,” Fernandes said.

“Michael came in with the right idea of giving the players more responsibility and freedom to make decisions on the pitch. I was always sure Michael could be a great manager, and he is showing that.”

Meanwhile, it is now two Premier League wins in 16 for Frank and his Spurs side.

“I think the first 30 minutes were a good away performance,” Frank told TNT Sports after the game.

“I’m very proud of the players, the resilience, staying in the game, mentality [to] still be a threat at times, to try to create something. Very proud of them.”

Spurs keeper Guglielmo Vicario told TNT Sports that Romero had apologised to his teammates for the sending off.

“Yeah, of course, he’s disappointed, because he knows that this card could have been avoidable, and so he apologised,” he said.

“He made his mistake, but we know the player he is, and he’ll be back for sure, stronger, and he’s going to help us massively.”

Who: England vs Nepal
What: 2026 ICC T20 World Cup
Where: Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai, India
When: Sunday, February 8, at 3pm (09:30 GMT)
How to follow: We’ll have all the buildup on Al Jazeera Sport from 06:30 GMT in advance of our text commentary stream.

England are undoubtedly among the frontrunners to lift the T20 World Cup title, but, unlike years gone by, they do not start as one of the red-hot favourites.

Despite his undoubted ability with the bat, questions surround the captaincy of Harry Brook, while English cricket as a whole is licking its wounds following recent woes – including the Ashes humiliation in Australia.

Al Jazeera Sport takes a look at their open against Nepal.

What have England said about the pressure on Brooks?

All-rounder Will Jacks said on Friday that under-fire England T20 captain Harry Brook had “100 percent” support from the players after going through a “tough time”.

The 26-year-old Brook, in charge at a global tournament for the first time, has recently been in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons.

He had to apologise last month for being involved in an altercation with a nightclub bouncer during England’s white ball tour of New Zealand last year, something that had been a “terrible mistake”.

Jacks has been close to Brook since they were roommates with England Under-19s.

“Obviously, it’s been a tough time, and that’s been well documented in the media,” Jacks told reporters before team training in Mumbai on the eve of the tournament.

“I wasn’t actually in New Zealand, so I didn’t know anything about it.

“He’s obviously made the wrong decision, but he’s accepted that. He’s obviously making amends on the pitch, and we all back him 100 percent.”

Brook, a richly gifted run-scorer, has an early chance to shift the focus back onto his batting in England’s opening match against Nepal in Mumbai on Sunday.

“He wants his cricket to do the talking,” said Jacks.

What is England and Brook’s T20 form before the World Cup?

England come into the World Cup in good form in T20, heartened by a 3-0 series win in Sri Lanka – one of the tournament co-hosts – this week.

In the preceding ODI series against the same opposition, the explosive Brook bludgeoned 136 off just 66 balls.

“It’s not so much we are taking momentum from that, but team unity, feeling strong within ourselves,” said Jacks.

“We have been performing well over the last 12 months, since Harry’s become captain, and we’re very happy with that.

“What we did in the last few weeks in Sri Lanka is another stepping stone.”

Who else is in England and Nepal’s group?

England are expected to make the Super Eight stage from a Group C that also features two-time winners West Indies, debutants Italy and Scotland.

“We come into here full of confidence and belief that we can go a long way in this tournament.

“But that doesn’t guarantee us anything. We know that there’s amazing teams in this World Cup.”

“India, on home soil, I think everyone knows who’s favourites.”

What is England’s T20 World Cup record?

England are the joint-record winners of the T20 World Cup with two trophy lifts to their name, alongside West Indies and holders India.

Paul Collingwood captained the English to the third edition of the competition, before Jos Buttler’s side sealed their second win in 2022.

What is Nepal’s T20 World Cup record?

Nepal made their debut at the 2014 edition of the competition, but had to wait until the West Indies and US co-hosted tournament in 2024 to make a second appearance.

On both occasions, the Nepalese were eliminated at the first stage, with 12th- and 17th-placed rankings.

Salt passed fit for England’s opener

Hard-hitting batsman Phil Salt was passed fit as England named their team on Saturday for their first match in the T20 World Cup.

He will open the batting alongside wicketkeeper Jos Buttler against Nepal at Mumbai’s Wankhede Stadium on Sunday in Group C.

Salt missed Tuesday’s third T20 against Sri Lanka with a back spasm, but trained successfully on Friday and will take his place at the top of the order.

Tom Banton, fresh from a sparkling 54 off 33 balls against Sri Lanka five days ago, is preferred to Ben Duckett and will bat at number four.

Left-arm fast bowler Luke Wood gets the nod ahead of Jamie Overton and joins express man Jofra Archer and Sam Curran in the seam attack.

England have opted to have four spinners at their disposal, with spearheads Adil Rashid and Liam Dawson backed up by all-rounders Jacob Bethell and Will Jacks.

England’s starting lineup

Phil Salt, Jos Buttler, Jacob Bethell, Tom Banton, Harry Brook (capt), Sam Curran, Will Jacks, Liam Dawson, Jofra Archer, Adil Rashid, Luke Wood

England squad

Harry Brook (captain), Rehan Ahmed, Jofra Archer, Tom Banton, Jacob Bethell, Jos Buttler (wicketkeeper), Sam Curran, Liam Dawson, Ben Duckett, Will Jacks, Jamie Overton, Adil Rashid, Phil Salt (captain), Josh Tongue, Luke Wood

Nepal squad

Rohit Paudel (captain), Aarif Sheikh, Aasif Sheikh (wicketkeeper), Dipendra Singh Airee, Basir Ahamad, Kushal Bhurtel, Sundeep Jora, Lokesh Bam, Gulshan Jha, Karan KC, Sompal Kami, Sandeep Lamichhane, Sher Malla, Lalit Rajbanshi, Nandan Yadav

Who: Liverpool vs Manchester City
What: English Premier League
Where: Anfield, Liverpool, UK
When: Sunday at 4:30pm (16:30 GMT)
How to follow: We’ll have all the build-up on Al Jazeera Sport from 13:30 GMT in advance of our live text commentary stream.

Liverpool host City for a match with huge ramifications for the title race and the battle to qualify for next season’s Champions League.

City trail leaders Arsenal by six points and could find themselves nine adrift by the time they kick off, with the Gunners hosting Sunderland on Saturday.

Liverpool could also be four points outside the top five, which should secure a place in the Champions League, should Manchester United and Chelsea win on Saturday.

The champions head into the weekend in sixth place on 39 points but in high spirits after a commanding 4-1 win over Newcastle United last weekend, while ⁠City dropped points against 14th-placed Tottenham Hotspur, surrendering a two-goal advantage in a 2-2 draw.

Hugo Ekitike and Florian Wirtz, two of Liverpool’s big-money summer signings, are beginning to deliver returns. Ekitike scored twice in the win over Newcastle to take his tally for the season to 15, while Wirtz has netted six times in 10 matches since ending a 22-game wait for his first Liverpool goal.

City’s Erling Haaland, meanwhile, is experiencing an unusual lean spell with just two goals in his last 12 games. He has never scored for City at Anfield.

Slot targets improved display against City

Liverpool are eager to ‌showcase how far they have progressed after losing 3-0 to City in November, manager Arne Slot said on Thursday.

“I mainly remember the game we played at Etihad, and we were outplayed for large parts in the first half,” Slot told reporters.

“So, this is another moment to see where we are in the development of this team. We know the importance of ⁠a result.”

Liverpool have endured a difficult season so far, but have regained some measure of form in recent weeks.

“It’s the end phase of the season, so results matter more,” Slot said.

“We have not found the consistency for the results, but we have shown against ‌all the [teams], that we can compete.”

Liverpool know there has to be ‘life after Virgil’

Slot also explained the club’s decision to recruit four central defenders during the winter transfer window – Jeremy Jacquet, Ifeanyi Ndukwe, Mor Talla Ndiaye and Noah Adekoya – describing it as planning ‌for life after captain and star centre-back Virgil van Dijk, who will turn 35 this year.

“Hopefully, Virgil can stay fit for multiple years, but this club is not stupid,” Slot said.

“We do know, somewhere in the upcoming years, there is life after Virgil, but that is for every position. We don’t think about short term only.”

Slot singled out the Jacquet for extra praise. The France under-21s defender was also linked with Chelsea, but will move to Anfield in July after Liverpool agreed to a big-money deal to sign him from Rennes, where he will finish the season.

“Such a big talent and another example of the model we’re using at this club,” Slot said.

“Young, very talented players, sometimes at the start of their careers or sometimes already a little bit a few years into their career, but always players that are young and can improve us in the short term but also definitely in the long term.”

Guardiola emphasises mental fortitude ahead of tough trip

Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola said ‌mental strength separates elite players from the rest as his team prepares for the game against Liverpool.

“The biggest stages and the biggest games always need big personalities,” Guardiola told reporters on Friday.

“I have said many times, it’s not about the skills of the players in the top leagues. In ⁠the top clubs, the skills are there. I never know one player that is not good enough to play in the top clubs, it is how you behave.

“How you play in the latter stages of the biggest competitions is what defines you as a player. The mind of the players you have defines the big teams.”

Guardiola said that despite their travails this season, playing Liverpool at Anfield is still one of the toughest away fixtures in football.

“They remain an exceptional team,” he said. “Top-class manager and an exceptional team, no doubt.”

City boss lauds Haaland as ‘world’s best striker’ but won’t confirm Liverpool start

Guardiola insisted Haaland is the “best striker in the world” despite refusing to confirm if the misfiring City star will start Sunday’s crucial clash.

“I don’t know until tomorrow. But all I say is Erling is the best. Erling is the best striker in the world,” Guardiola told reporters.

The 55-year-old also doubled down on his comments about the “hurt” he feels for victims of conflicts in Palestine, Ukraine and Sudan after Jewish community leaders told him to “focus on football”.

“To be honest, I didn’t say anything special. I think, why should I not express how I feel just because I am a manager? So I do not agree, but I respect absolutely all opinions,” he said.

“What I said basically is how many conflicts there are right now around the globe or around the world. How many? A lot, right? I condemn all of them. All of them.”

Head-to-head

The two clubs have faced each other on 219 occasions, with Liverpool winning 110 of those games, City winning 61, and 58 ending as draws.

While City comfortably won their home league game against Liverpool this season, their only victory away to Liverpool since 2003 came in an empty stadium during COVID restrictions in 2021.

Liverpool’s team news

Slot confirmed that defender Jeremie Frimpong will miss the game, ‌but Joe Gomez could return to the squad to bolster the defensive ⁠line.

Dominik Szoboszlai is expected to continue deputising for Frimpong at right-back.

Alexander Isak, Conor Bradley and Giovanni Leoni all remain on the sidelines with long-term injuries.

Predicted lineup:

Alisson (GK); Szoboszlai, Konate, Van Dijk, Kerkez; Gravenberch, Mac Allister; Salah, Wirtz, Gakpo; Ekitike

City’s team news

City could be without Bernardo Silva, who has a back issue, so Nico O’Reilly could move into midfield to replace him.

Ruben Dias has returned from injury but likely lacks full match fitness and sharpness, so Abdukodir Khusanov will likely start in the centre of defence alongside new signing Marc Guehi.

Predicted lineup:

Donnarumma (GK); Nunes, Khusanov, Guehi, Ait-Nouri; Rodri, O’Reilly; Semenyo, Foden, Cherki; Haaland

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has agreed to reveal the vetting process used by the ruling Labour Party to approve Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States in December 2024 after new revelations from the Jeffrey Epstein files about the relationship between the diplomat and the billionaire sex offender.

For one, the latest release of files relating to the investigation of Epstein by the US Department of Justice showed that Mandelson maintained his relationship with Epstein after Epstein served a sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor in 2008. But chief among the claims against Mandelson now are the suggestions he received payments from the late financier and may have shared market-sensitive information with him that was of financial interest to Epstein.

Epstein died in prison by suicide in 2019 before his trial stemming from his second prosecution for sex offences, including allegations of trafficking dozens of girls, could take place.

On Thursday, Starmer apologised to victims of Epstein for appointing Mandelson as ambassador to the US despite knowing of his ties to the disgraced financier.

“It had been publicly known for some time that Mandelson knew Epstein, but none of us knew the depth and the darkness of that relationship,” Starmer said.

“I am sorry. Sorry for what was done to you, sorry that so many people with power failed you, sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointing him.”

Who is Peter Mandelson and what is he accused of?

Since the release on Friday of the latest tranche of Epstein files, including emails between Epstein and Mandelson, UK media have widely reported that the government suspects Mandelson may have illegally shared market-sensitive information with Epstein 15 years ago.

The newly released files include more than 3 million pages of documents and more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images.

As a life peer, Mandelson, 72, was a member of the House of Lords before he resigned this week. He was a veteran Labour politician who served in the cabinets of Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from 1997 to 2010. After Labour swept back into power after 14 years in the opposition in 2024, he was appointed ambassador to the US, taking up his post on February 10 last year.

He resigned from the Labour Party on Sunday.

“I have been further linked this weekend to the understandable furore surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and I feel regretful and sorry about this,” Mandelson said in a letter reported by British media.

“While doing this I do not wish to cause further embarrassment to the Labour Party and I am therefore stepping down from membership of the party.”

Alleged leaks of sensitive information by Mandelson took place in 2009 when he was serving as the UK’s business secretary in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

This is not the first time that Mandelson has been embarrassed by his friendship with Epstein. On September 11, the UK fired Mandelson as ambassador to the US over emails between the two men, the British Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) said.

On Tuesday, UK police launched a criminal investigation into Mandelson over suspected misconduct in public office linked to his relationship with Epstein.

Misconduct in public office is punishable in the UK with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Besides his sacking as ambassador, Mandelson has previously been forced to resign from ministerial posts for alleged misconduct on two occasions – in 1998 and 2001.

Who was Jeffrey Epstein?

Epstein was a billionaire financier born and raised in New York who was known for socialising with celebrities and politicians.

Criminal investigations indicated he may have abused hundreds of girls over the course of his high-profile career. He was arrested in 2019 on federal criminal charges relating to alleged exploitation of underage girls dating back two decades. He died in prison before he could come to trial.

He also was previously accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in 2005 after her parents made a report to the police. In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting prostitution and soliciting prostitution from a minor in relation to a single victim.

He spent 13 months in prison on a work-release programme, which allowed him to leave jail to go to work during the day and return at night.

The US attorney in Manhattan also prosecuted Epstein’s former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell as a coconspirator in his sexual abuse scheme. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence, which she received in 2022.

What do we know about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein?

When Mandelson was fired as ambassador to the US in September, the FCDO wrote: “In light of the additional information in emails written by Peter Mandelson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador.

“The emails show that the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment.”

These particular emails were obtained and published by the UK’s Sun newspaper in September. In them, Mandelson told Epstein to “fight for early release” shortly before he was sentenced in 2008.

“I think the world of you,” Mandelson told Epstein before his sentence began.

“I can still barely understand it. It just could not happen in Britain,” Mandelson wrote. “You have to be incredibly resilient, fight for early release and be philosophical about it as much as you can.”

It is now clear from the latest tranche of Epstein files that Mandelson continued his friendship with Epstein for some time after the financier had been convicted of sex offences.

What do the new Epstein files reveal?

From 2003 to 2004, bank records indicated that Epstein made three payments totalling $75,000 to accounts connected to Mandelson or his partner Reinaldo Avila da Silva. Mandelson has said he does not recall receiving any such funds and has pledged to examine whether the documents are genuine.

According to these documents, in 2009, Epstein sent da Silva 10,000 pounds ($13,607, or $20,419 today after inflation) to pay for an osteopathy course. This week, Mandelson told The Times of London: “In retrospect, it was clearly a lapse in our collective judgement for Reinaldo to accept this offer.”

Emails revealed in the latest tranche of files from the US Justice Department also shine a light on the close friendship between the two men.

In October 2009, Epstein wrote in an email to Mandelson: “You can marry princess beatrice, the queen would have a queen as a grandson,” referring to the daughter of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former prince whose royal titles were stripped last year over his own links to Epstein and allegations of the sexual abuse of Virginia Giuffre, who successfully sued Mountbatten-Windsor.

“does that make it incest, how exciting,” Epstein wrote.

In 2010, Lesley Groff, known to have been Epstein’s long-term executive assistant, emailed his boss: “Mandelson’s holiday plans arc still being sorted out. They hope to be in touch soon.”

In 2013, Epstein emailed Mandelson, saying he knew Mandelson was visiting St Petersburg, Russia. Mandelson described the city as “a rave”, to which Epstein asked whether “its for gays”. Mandelson responded, “Er no, tastey [sic] models and dancing.”

But the emails also suggested Mandelson passed sensitive information to the financier.

On May 9, 2010, Mandelson emailed Epstein, saying: “Sources tell me 500 b euro bailout, almost compelte [sic].” The next morning, European governments approved a 500-billion-euro bailout for banks in the wake of the global financial crisis.

Also in May 2010, Mandelson emailed Epstein, saying, “Finally got him to go today.” It is believed that Mandelson was referring to former Labour Prime Minister Brown.

Epstein replied to this email: “I have faith, the value of some chapters in your book should now increase.”

Brown announced his resignation just hours after this email exchange.

What has Starmer said?

Under mounting pressure from opposition politicians and within his own party this week, Starmer agreed to release information about the process through which Mandelson was appointed ambassador in 2024.

At a question and answer session on Wednesday in the House of Commons dominated by the Epstein revelations, Starmer admitted that he knew of Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein but said Mandelson had “lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador”.

“Mandelson betrayed our country, our parliament and my party,” Starmer said. “I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.”

Starmer said he would ensure that “all of the material” is published, except for documents that compromise Britain’s national security, international relations or the police investigation into Mandelson’s activities.

On Tuesday, Starmer told his cabinet he was “appalled by the information” regarding Mandelson and was concerned more details could come to light, according to a Downing Street readout of the cabinet meeting.

Starmer also said he had ordered the civil service to conduct an “urgent” review of all of Mandelson’s contacts with Epstein while he was in government.

“The alleged passing on of emails of highly sensitive government business was disgraceful,” Starmer said, adding that he was not yet “reassured that the totality of information had yet emerged”.

How will this affect Starmer?

Members of parliament expressed their dismay and called on him to step down.

Conservative MP Luke Evans said: “At the end of the day, he [Starmer] made the decision to appoint Mandelson to the post of ambassador, so he must explain his decision-making process.”

Alex Burghart, the shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said: “There is no doubt that the prime minister’s judgement is being called sharply into question at this moment. It is becoming harder to see how any of us can rely on his judgement in future.”

Conservative MP Graham Stuart added: “The fact is that he appointed a person who had already broken all the Nolan Principles before his appointment as well as doing so after it. I think that makes the prime minister’s position untenable.”

The Nolan Principles are a set of ethical standards for all public office holders in the UK.

“I would say that today is the crumbling of Starmer. His judgement is poor, and it is ruining this country and the Labour Party,” Conservative MP Esther McVey said.

What do we know about how Mandelson was approved as US ambassador?

Facing questions from Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch in the House of Commons in September, Starmer maintained that “full due process was gone through” for the purposes of Mandelson’s appointment.

Mandelson’s ties to Epstein, who is said to have nicknamed him “Petie”, had been publicly known for years.

But The Times of London reported that Starmer received just a two-page vetting note from the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team about Mandelson’s appointment.

That document suggested that while Epstein was in prison in 2009, Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s townhouse in Manhattan. The report also contained a photograph of Mandelson and Epstein together.

This indicated that by late 2024, the UK government had documentation showing Mandelson had remained close to Epstein even after his 2008 conviction.

Names of the rich and powerful are littered throughout the latest batch of the “Epstein files.” Here are some of the most prominent global figures.

Leaked audio from the Epstein files suggests former UK prime minister and ‘Board of Peace’ member Tony Blair was known for earning large sums of money for advisory work after leaving office. Blair’s office told Al Jazeera the figures mentioned in the audio were ‘rubbish’.

Police are looking into allegations Peter Mandelson may have passed sensitive government information to Jeffrey Epstein.

British politician Peter Mandelson is stepping down from the United Kingdom’s upper house of Parliament amid renewed scrutiny and the prospect of a criminal review into his ties to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The speaker of the House of Lords, Michael Forsyth, said on Tuesday that Mandelson, 72, had notified the chamber of his intention to resign. Forsyth said the move would come into effect on Wednesday.

Mandelson, a former UK ambassador to the United States and longtime senior figure in the country’s Labour Party, has come under intense pressure following the release of a new tranche of US government documents related to Epstein.

The material includes emails from Mandelson to Epstein sharing political insights, including market-sensitive information during the 2008 financial crisis that critics say may have broken the law.

British police have said they are assessing reports of possible misconduct “to determine if they meet the criminal threshold for investigation”.

The files also include bank documents suggesting Epstein transferred tens of thousands of dollars to accounts linked to Mandelson or his partner, Reinaldo Avila da Silva. Mandelson has said he does not recall such transactions and will examine the documents.

Additional material includes emails suggesting a friendly relationship between the two men after Epstein’s 2008 convictions for sex offences, as well as an image showing Mandelson in his underwear beside a woman whose face was obscured by US authorities.

Mandelson told the BBC that he “cannot place the location or the woman, and I cannot think what the circumstances were”.

Starmer says he’s ‘appalled’

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Tuesday told his cabinet he was “appalled by the information” regarding Mandelson and was concerned more details would come to light, according to a Downing Street readout of a cabinet meeting.

Starmer also said he has ordered the civil service to conduct an “urgent” review of all of Mandelson’s contacts with Epstein while he was in government.

“The alleged passing on of emails of highly sensitive government business was disgraceful,” the prime minister said, adding he was not yet “reassured that the totality of information had yet emerged” regarding Mandelson’s links with Epstein.

Mandelson, who was sacked from his post as British ambassador to the US in September following earlier revelations about his Epstein ties, quit the Labour Party on Sunday to avoid what he called “further embarrassment”.

In an interview with The Times conducted late last month and published on Tuesday, Mandelson described Epstein as a “master manipulator,” adding: “I’ve had a lot of bad luck, no doubt some of it of my own making.”

Prime Minister Keir Starmer says ex-envoy Peter Mandelson should no longer hold a seat in the upper house of parliament.

Police in the United Kingdom have announced they are reviewing allegations of misconduct in public office following revelations that London’s former ambassador to Washington leaked confidential government information to the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The announcement by the Metropolitan Police on Monday came after investigative files released by United States authorities revealed that Peter Mandelson shared government plans with Epstein while serving as a UK minister.

Mandelson, who served as business secretary under former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, told Epstein about asset sales and tax changes under consideration by London in 2009, as well as plans for the 500 billion euro ($590bn) bailout of the single currency in 2010, according to emails released by the US Department of Justice on Friday.

“Following this release and subsequent media reporting, the Met has received a number of reports relating to alleged misconduct in public office. The reports will all be reviewed to determine if they meet the criminal threshold for investigation,” Metropolitan Police Commander Ella Marriott said in a statement.

“As with any matter, if new and relevant information is brought to our attention we will assess it, and investigate as appropriate,” Marriott added.

The Metropolitan Police did not name Mandelson, but its statement came after the leader of the pro-independence Scottish National Party said he had written to the police commissioner urging him to investigate the former ambassador for alleged misconduct in public office.

Earlier on Monday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced an inquiry into Mandelson’s ties to Epstein.

Starmer, who sacked Mandelson as London’s top diplomat in Washington last year after the emergence of correspondence detailing his ties to Epstein, also said the former minister should lose his lifelong appointment to the UK’s upper house of parliament.

On Sunday, Mandelson resigned from the governing Labour Party, whose return to electoral dominance he helped to engineer in the 1990s, citing his wish to avoid causing further embarrassment to his colleagues.

In further fallout in the UK on Monday, the charity launched by Sarah Ferguson, the ex-wife of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, announced that it would close “for the foreseeable future” amid revelations about her friendly relationship with Epstein.

“Our chair Sarah Ferguson and the board of trustees have agreed that with regret the charity will shortly close for the foreseeable future,” a spokesman said in a statement, without elaborating on the reasons for the closure.

Separately on Monday, the US Justice Department said it had removed thousands of Epstein-related files from the internet after lawyers representing some of his alleged victims said their identities had been exposed due to insufficient redactions in the latest release of documents.

The Clintons agree to testify in congressional probe of high-society sex offender Jeffrey Epstein amid contempt threat.

Former ‍United States President Bill ‍Clinton and Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, will testify in a congressional investigation into the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a spokesperson for the ex-president said.

The ⁠decision by the Clintons announced on Monday could head off a planned vote in the Republican-led ​House of Representatives to hold the high-profile Democratic Party veterans in contempt for refusing to appear before lawmakers, which could lead to criminal charges.

“The former President and former ‌Secretary of State will be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone,” the Clintons’ deputy chief of staff, Angel Urena, said ‌in a post on social media.

Urena posted the announcement above a House Oversight Committee statement from earlier on Monday that accused the Clintons of “defying lawful subpoenas” and of “trying to dodge contempt by requesting special treatment”.

“The Clintons are not above the law,” the Oversight Committee said.

Last week, the Oversight Committee recommended the couple be held in contempt for refusing ‍to testify about ⁠their relationship with Epstein.

The Clintons had offered to cooperate with the committee’s probe into Epstein, but refused to appear in person, saying the investigation was a partisan exercise aimed at protecting President Donald Trump, who was a longtime friend of Epstein.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson welcomed the news from the Clintons, but ‌did not say whether the chamber ⁠would drop its planned contempt vote.

“That’s a good development,” he said. “We expect everyone to comply with Congress’s subpoenas.”

Democrats say the House probe is being weaponised to attack political opponents of Trump – who has not been called to testify despite being long associated with Epstein – rather than to conduct legitimate oversight.

Trump spent months trying to block the disclosure of investigative files linked to Epstein, but pressure from his Make America Great Again (MAGA) base and some Republican lawmakers forced the president to order the release of millions of documents in the case.

Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane several ‌times in the early 2000s after leaving office. He has expressed regret about the relationship and said he knew nothing about  Epstein’s criminal activity.

Hillary Clinton said she had no meaningful interactions with Epstein, never flew on his plane and never visited his private island.

The Epstein affair continues to cast a long shadow over US politics, and now, the United Kingdom’s, entangling prominent figures including the disgraced former-prince Andrew and ex-UK ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson.

UK police said on Monday they are reviewing reports of alleged misconduct involving Mandelson, whose name surfaced more than 5,000 times in the US Justice Department files on Epstein.

The veteran British politician was fired as ambassador to the US last ‍year after emails came to light that showed him calling Epstein “my best pal” and advising him on seeking early release from prison.

Mandelson has apologised to Epstein’s victims and denied wrongdoing.

New Delhi, India – The latest release of documents related to the US Justice Department investigation into the crimes of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has set off political infernos around the globe for featuring the names of world leaders.

The tranche of files, which includes more than three million pages of documents, was released on Friday. This is the largest release since US President Donald Trump’s administration passed a law last year to force the release of the documents.

Epstein was convicted in 2008 of sex offences but avoided federal charges – which could have seen him face life in prison – by doing a deal with prosecutors. Instead, he received an 18-month prison sentence, which allowed him to go on “work release” to his office for 12 hours a day, six days a week. He was released on probation after 13 months.

In 2019, he was arrested again on charges including the sex trafficking of minors. But he died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 before his trial could commence.

With this latest disclosure of documents and emails linked to the cases against him, yet more has been revealed about the disgraced financier’s sexual abuse of young girls and his interactions with wealthy and powerful figures from the United Kingdom, Australia, Norway, Slovakia and India.

Simply being named in Epstein documents or emails does not mean a person is guilty of criminal wrongdoing, and, so far, no charges have been brought against individuals named in connection with the sex offender.

However, the new documents show communications between high-profile figures in the US, including Trump, former President Bill Clinton, and business tycoons such as Bill Gates and Elon Musk.

Here is what we know about some of the powerful men (and one woman) from other countries who have featured in these documents.

Narendra Modi, Indian prime minister

Documents released on Friday reveal conversations between Anil Ambani, the billionaire chairman of Reliance Group who is close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Epstein. All the conversations took place in the years following Epstein’s first conviction for sex offences in 2008.

The two emailed each other about a range of issues, from sizing up incoming US ambassadors to India to setting up meetings for Modi with top US officials.

Ambani is the elder brother of India’s richest man, Mukesh Ambani, who is also close to PM Modi.

On March 16, 2017, two months after Trump was sworn in for his first term as president of the US, Ambani sent an iMessage to Epstein, saying “Leadership” was asking for his help to connect with senior figures in Trump’s circle, including Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon.

Ambani also asked for advice from Epstein about a possible visit by Modi to meet Trump “in may (sic)”, before setting up a call in the messages.

In another iMessage exchange two weeks later, on March 29, Epstein wrote to Ambani: “Discussions re israel strategy dominating modi dates (sic).” Two days later, Ambani informed Epstein that Modi would visit Israel in July and asked the disgraced financier: “who do u know fir track 2”.

On June 26, Modi met Trump in Washington on his first visit since Trump became president.

Then, on July 6, 2017, Modi became the first-ever Indian prime minister to visit Israel. He snubbed the Palestinian Authority, prompting condemnation from Palestinian officials.

That year, New Delhi became the largest buyer of Israeli weapons, amounting to $715m worth of purchases. The defence partnership between the two countries has since continued despite Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza.

This marked a sharp change from India’s history of advocating for the Palestinian cause. It only opened up formal diplomatic ties with Israel in 1992. Before that, Indian citizens had been barred by India from travelling to Israel since the country’s creation in 1948.

After Modi’s visit on July 6, Epstein emailed an unidentified individual he referred to as “Jabor Y”, saying: “The Indian Prime minister modi took advice. and danced and sang in israel for the benefit of the US president. they had met a few weeks ago.. IT WORKED. !”

Ambani Reliance Defence Ltd also entered a joint venture with an Israeli state defence group last year in a deal valued at $10bn over a decade.

Shortly after Modi’s visit to Israel, Larry Summers, former Harvard University president and former secretary of the US Treasury, asked Epstein if he still thought Trump was a better president than rival candidate Hillary Clinton would have been. Epstein responded affirmatively, stating, “yes, defintley India israel. for example great and all his doing (sic).”

In another conversation revealed in the latest document drop, Epstein offered to arrange a meeting between Modi and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon just hours after Modi had won a thumping majority in the Indian national election in 2019.

In an iMessage to Bannon on May 19, 2019, Epstein wrote, “modi sending someone to see me on thurs,” referring to Ambani.

That Thursday, May 23, Epstein met Ambani in New York and his calendar for that day shows no other meeting scheduled.

After the meeting with Ambani, Epstein wrote to Bannon: “really interesting modi meeting. He won [the 2019 parliamentary elections] with HUGE mandate. His guy said that no one in wash speaks to him however his main enemy is CHINA!   And their proxy in the region pakistan. They will host the g20 in 22.. Totally buys into your vision.”

Epstein then messaged Ambani: “I think mr modi might enjoy meeting steve bannon, you all share the china problem.” And Ambani wrote back: “sure.”

Epstein then wrote back to Bannon: “modi on board.”

It is not immediately clear if Ambani was authorised to approve such decisions on behalf of the Indian government. There is no public record either of a meeting between Bannon and Indian officials that summer.

Hardeep Singh Puri, Indian politician

Another major Indian name featured in the Epstein files is Hardeep Singh Puri, who retired from the Indian Foreign Service to join Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014.

In the documents are email exchanges between Puri and Epstein that began in June 2014, with the sex offender writing to Puri about Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, and arranging a visit by Hoffman to India.

Following an exchange of emails, Puri wrote a detailed pitch for investment opportunities in India to Epstein and Hoffman, laying out economic plans in India under the newly elected Modi government, and urging Hoffman to visit. Documents also show Puri met Epstein at his Manhattan townhouse on at least three occasions: February 4, 2015; January 6, 2016; and May 19, 2017.

Puri told Indian media on Sunday that his visits and interactions with Epstein were strictly business-related.

In December 2014, Puri wrote to Epstein again by email. “Please let me know when you are back from your exotic island,” he wrote, asking to set up a meeting in which Puri could give Epstein some books to “excite an interest in India”.

How has the Indian government responded?

India has dismissed the references to Modi in the Epstein files.

“Beyond the fact of the prime minister’s official visit to Israel in July 2017, the rest of the allusions in the email are little more than trashy ruminations by a convicted criminal, which deserve to be dismissed with the utmost contempt,” External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said on Saturday.

However, the opposition, led by the Congress Party, has demanded answers about the latest disclosures – particularly those relating to Israel relations.

The Congress Party’s general secretary in charge of organisation, KC Venugopal, wrote in a post on X: “The reports of the new batch of Epstein Files are a huge wake-up call about the kind of monsters who have access to PM Modi, and how susceptible he is to foreign manipulation. The Congress demands that the Prime Minister personally come clean on these disturbing disclosures that raise serious questions.”

Kevin Rudd, former Australian prime minister

Australian diplomat Kevin Rudd, who served as the country’s prime minister from 2007 to 2010 and again in 2013, has also been named in the Epstein files.

Rudd’s name appeared on Epstein’s daily meeting schedule for June 8, 2014, at 4:30pm. On that day, Epstein flew to New York from his private island, Little Saint James in the US Virgin Islands, for several meetings, including with Rudd.

Rudd, who is currently serving as Australia’s ambassador to the US, claims he did not visit Epstein and denies any friendship with him.

But the newly released files show that two days before the scheduled appointment, Epstein emailed his assistant, Lesley Groff, on June 6, 2014 to ask for non-vegetarian food to be made available at the upcoming Sunday lunch “as now kevin rudd is also coming”. Rudd was not in government at the time.

Just seconds later, Epstein follows up in another email to Groff: “Kevin Rudd might also stop by former prime minister austrailia [sic].”

Peter Mandelson, UK politician

The name of Peter Mandelson, a former UK cabinet minister and life peer, had appeared in tranches of Epstein files previously made public. But he resigned from his membership of the UK’s ruling Labour Party on Sunday after yet more links to Epstein surfaced in the latest dump.

Mandelson was sacked as the UK’s ambassador to the US last year over his connections to Epstein.

The latest documents reveal that Epstein made $75,000 in payments to Mandelson in three separate transactions in 2003 and 2004.

In his resignation letter to Labour’s general secretary, Mandelson wrote: “I have been further linked this weekend to the understandable furore surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and I feel regretful and sorry about this.”

He said he had “no recollection” of the payments, however.

The latest documents also show that Mandelson discussed with Epstein by email a campaign against Rudd’s proposed mining tax, which would have taxed “super profits” reaped by mining companies at 40 percent, while Rudd was still prime minister.

Mette-Marit, Norway’s crown princess

The latest disclosures from the US Justice Department have embroiled Norway’s crown princess, Mette-Marit, in the Epstein scandal, as they reveal her years of extensive contact with the sex offender.

Mette-Marit, who is married to Crown Prince Haakon, the heir apparent to the Norwegian throne, appears nearly 1,000 times in the Epstein files, with scores of emails sent between the two.

In the emails, Mette-Marit told Epstein, “you tickle my brain”, and called him “soft hearted” and “such a sweetheart”. In another, she thanked Epstein for flowers he had sent when she was feeling unwell, signing off with “Love, Mm”.

In 2012, Mette-Marit told Epstein he was “very charming” and asked if it was “inappropriate for a mother to suggest two naked women carrying a surfboard for my 15 yr old sons wallpaper?”

The revelations come at a tricky time for Norway’s royal family, with Mette-Marit’s son, Marius Borg Hoiby – who was born before her marriage to Crown Prince Haakon – set to go on trial for rape later this week. Hoiby has been accused of 38 crimes, including the rapes of four women as well as assault and drug offences.

Miroslav Lajcak, Slovakian national security adviser

The new tranche of Espstein files has also prompted the resignation of Slovakia’s national security adviser, Miroslav Lajcak.

Photos and emails released with the documents reveal that he met with Epstein several years after the sex offender was released from jail and exchanged text messages about women in 2018 during his second spell as foreign minister.

On Sunday, Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico accepted Lajcak’s resignation, and wrote on Facebook that the government was losing “an incredible source of experience and knowledge in foreign policy”, adding that the former minister had “categorically denied and rejected” the allegations made against him.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Peter Mandelson says he is stepping down to avoid causing further embarrassment to the governing party.

Peter Mandelson, the United Kingdom’s former ambassador to the United States, has resigned from Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party following further revelations of his links to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, UK media have reported.

Mandelson, who was removed as London’s top representative in Washington last year after the emergence of emails detailing his associations with Epstein, said he had resigned to avoid causing further embarrassment to the governing party, the reports said on Sunday.

“I have been further linked this weekend to the understandable furore surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and I feel regretful and sorry about this,” Mandelson said in a letter reported by the BBC and The Guardian.

Mandelson said he believed that reports over the weekend that he had received several payments from Epstein in the early 2000s were false, but that he needed to investigate them, the reports said.

“While doing this I do not wish to cause further embarrassment to the Labour Party and I am therefore stepping down from membership of the party,” Mandelson said, according to the reports.

More to follow…

Manchester United produce stunning winner to beat Fulham 3-2 in Premier League thriller at Old Trafford.

Manchester United interim manager Michael Carrick extended his perfect start as Benjamin Sesko’s stoppage-time strike sealed a pulsating 3-2 win over Fulham on Sunday.

United took the lead through Casemiro’s first-half header and looked in command when Matheus Cunha netted after the interval at Old Trafford.

In an incredible finale, Raul Jimenez’s penalty with five minutes left gave Fulham hope before Kevin’s wonder-goal hauled the visitors level in stoppage time.

To United’s immense credit, they hit straight back as the much-maligned Sesko’s fourth goal in his last four games sealed Carrick’s third successive victory.

After new manager Carrick masterminded surprise wins over Manchester City and Premier League leaders Arsenal, this remarkable encounter suggested the former United midfielder might have the Midas touch.

Unbeaten in their last seven league matches, United moved up to fourth place as their bid to qualify for next season’s Champions League gathers pace.

Reaching the Champions League would be a significant statement for Carrick, who was sacked by second-tier Middlesbrough last year.

Only once in former manager Ruben Amorim’s turbulent 14-month reign did United win three games in a row. And Carrick has matched that run within weeks of his appointment until the end of the season.

United’s hierarchy may have to consider hiring Carrick on a permanent basis if he can continue his impressive run.

Whether that is enough to appease the 1958 Manchester United fans group is another matter after they staged a protest against the owners outside Old Trafford before kickoff.

Hundreds of fans, some wearing clown masks, gathered to express their frustration with United’s decline under the Glazer family and the lack of improvement since co-owner Jim Ratcliffe took charge of football operations.

The group claimed United are “being dragged through chaos by clown ownership” and are “run like a circus”.

Fans chanted against the owners and held aloft banners as flares filled the air on Sir Matt Busby Way.

When the smoke cleared, Carrick’s intuition paid off as he brought Cunha into the starting lineup to replace the injured Patrick Dorgu after the Brazilian scored the winner at Arsenal last weekend.

Only Arsenal had taken more points than in-form Fulham over the previous eight games, but United found the formula to end that strong spell.

United thought they had won a penalty for Jorge Cuenca’s foul on Cunha.

But a VAR check showed the offence took place just outside the area.

It was only a temporary reprieve for Fulham as United took the lead from the resulting free kick in the 19th minute.

Bruno Fernandes swung his delivery to the far post, and Casemiro rose highest to thump a towering header past Bernd Leno.

United struck again in the 56th minute with Cunha’s sixth goal this season.

It was a goal made in Brazil as Casemiro’s clever no-look pass found Cunha inside the Fulham area, and he smashed a fine finish past Leno from an acute angle.

Fulham were controversially denied a lifeline when VAR disallowed Cuenca’s 65th-minute goal.

Samuel Chukwueze was ruled offside by the narrowest of margins when he prodded Jimenez’s free kick to Cuenca.

But United were wobbling and Jimenez converted an 85th-minute penalty after the Mexican was fouled by Harry Maguire.

United looked to have collapsed in stoppage time when Kevin cut in from the right wing and curled a sublime strike into the far corner from the edge of the area.

Two minutes after Kevin’s leveller, United showed their spirit as Sesko took Fernandes’s pass and drilled high into the net from 12 yards to spark wild celebrations.