1. Executive Intelligence Summary

This report executes a comprehensive “Red Team” vulnerability assessment of Lord John Mann, formerly the Labour Member of Parliament for Bassetlaw and currently the United Kingdom Government’s Independent Adviser on Antisemitism. The purpose of this dossier is not merely to catalogue public record information but to synthesize a forensic architecture of liability that can be operationalized to challenge his authority, credibility, and institutional standing.

Lord Mann acts as a high-profile arbiter of moral standards, particularly regarding discrimination and parliamentary conduct. However, a rigorous analysis of the evidentiary record reveals a structural fragility in this positioning. His authority rests on a perception of unyielding integrity and evidenced-based advocacy. This assessment demonstrates that this foundation is compromised by a documented history of procedural recklessness, selective application of anti-racist principles, and a financial operational model that blurs the lines between independent public service and private interest lobbying.

The core vulnerabilities identified in this assessment are categorized into four primary vectors:

  1. The Justice Deficit (Legal & Ethical Liabilities): Lord Mann’s involvement in Operation Midland represents a catastrophic failure of judgment and due process. His active solicitation and validation of the “Carl Beech” dossier contributed directly to a witch-hunt that destroyed the reputations of innocent public servants, cost the taxpayer millions, and exposed the Metropolitan Police to historic shame. Furthermore, his censure by the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards for misuse of parliamentary facilities reveals a disregard for the boundaries between executive and legislative functions.
  2. The Hypocrisy Index: There is a verifiable chasm between Lord Mann’s stated principles and his actions. He has pivoted from a staunch defender of the “right to offend” in 2006 to a proponent of state-sanctioned speech restrictions in 2024. He campaigns aggressively against antisemitism while having previously published materials stigmatizing Traveller communities. He positions himself as a fiscal hawk while generating significant public costs through reckless advocacy and utilizing tax-funded infrastructure for unfunded government roles.
  3. Toxic Associations: Lord Mann’s network contains significant liabilities, most notably his defense of Phil Woolas (found guilty of electoral dishonesty) and his alignment with the “believer” faction that validated the fantasies of Carl Beech.
  4. The Funding Nexus: His role as “Independent Adviser” is structurally anomalous—appointed by the Government but funded by a private charity, the Antisemitism Policy Trust (APT). This arrangement creates an opacity regarding the ultimate source of the funds supporting his work, raising questions about special interest capture and foreign influence that serve as potent leverage points.

This report provides the “receipts”—the dates, amounts, quotes, and citations—necessary to operationalize these vulnerabilities.

2. Operational Profile and Psychological Baseline

To effectively leverage the vulnerabilities of the subject, one must understand the operational psychology driving his conduct. Lord Mann operates as a “Crusader-Politician.” This archetype is characterized by high energy, a binary view of morality (good vs. evil), and a tendency to view procedural constraints as obstacles to “justice.”

The data suggests a pattern of behavior where the ends justify the means. Whether it was the pursuit of alleged paedophiles in Westminster or the campaign against antisemitism, Lord Mann exhibits a willingness to suspend standard evidentiary thresholds (such as the presumption of innocence) to achieve a political or moral victory. This trait, while a strength in campaigning, becomes a critical liability when the “crusade” is based on flawed intelligence (as with Carl Beech) or when it tramples on the rights of other marginalized groups (as with the Traveller community).

Furthermore, Lord Mann’s transition from a constituency MP known for “awkward squad” tactics to a peer embedded in the establishment machinery suggests a malleability in his political alliances. His willingness to work with, and accept a peerage from, a Conservative government while technically remaining a non-affiliated peer (formerly Labour) indicates a prioritization of his specific policy niche over party loyalty—a trait that can be framed as either independence or opportunism depending on the strategic requirement.

3. Vector 1: Legal and Ethical Exposure (The Justice Trap)

This section details the specific instances where Lord Mann has exposed himself to legal jeopardy and ethical censure. These are not theoretical risks; they are documented historical events that carry significant weight in discrediting his judgment.

3.1. Operation Midland: The Catastrophic Failure of Due Process

The most potent vector for leverage is Lord Mann’s central role in Operation Midland, the Metropolitan Police investigation into a purported VIP paedophile ring. This episode exposes a fundamental recklessness in his handling of serious allegations and a disregard for the presumption of innocence.

3.1.1. The “Dossier” and the Validation of Fantasy

In the period of 2014-2015, amidst a climate of heightened concern regarding historic child abuse, John Mann positioned himself as the primary conduit for allegations against the political establishment. He did not merely act as a neutral postbox; he actively curated and validated the intelligence.

  • The Act: In December 2014, Mann compiled and handed a “dossier” to the Metropolitan Police containing allegations against 22 high-profile individuals.1
  • The Endorsement: Crucially, Mann went on the public record to lend his credibility to these claims. He stated to the media that he believed some of the twelve former UK government ministers named in his dossier were “definitely child abusers“.1 He characterized the evidence against half the list as “very compelling” and asserted they could “definitely be prosecuted“.1
  • The Source: The primary source for the hysteria driving Operation Midland was “Nick,” later identified as Carl Beech. Beech was a fantasist and a serial liar who was eventually convicted of perverting the course of justice and fraud.

3.1.2. The Consequences of Recklessness

The impact of Mann’s intervention—alongside others like Tom Watson—was to create a political pressure cooker that forced the police to abandon skepticism. The result was the harassment of innocent public figures, including:

  • Field Marshal Lord Bramall: A D-Day veteran whose home was raided.
  • Lord Leon Brittan: The former Home Secretary, who died while under the cloud of these false allegations.
  • Harvey Proctor: A former MP who lost his home and reputation.

The Henriques Report, a judicial review of the operation, was damning. It concluded that the “presumption of innocence appears to have been set aside” in favor of a policy that victims should be “believed” rather than “listened to”.2 By stating that the accused were “definitely” abusers before an investigation had concluded, Mann contributed directly to this subversion of justice.

3.1.3. The Refusal to Apologize

When the investigation collapsed and the innocence of the accused was established, the Metropolitan Police issued unreserved apologies and paid substantial damages.3 Harvey Proctor explicitly demanded apologies from those he termed the “cheerleaders” of the witch-hunt, naming John Mann alongside Tom Watson and Zac Goldsmith.4

Instead of contrition, Mann adopted a defensive posture. He described the BBC Panorama investigation that exposed Beech’s lies as “an insult to the dozens of survivors who have confided in me“.5 This reaction highlights a critical psychological rigidity: an inability to admit error even when faced with incontrovertible DNA-level proof of a miscarriage of justice. This refusal remains a live reputational liability. It allows opponents to frame him not as a seeker of truth, but as a reckless operator who prioritizes his own narrative over the lives of innocent individuals.

3.2. The Parliamentary Standards Breach: The “Hybrid” Problem

While Operation Midland attacks his judgment, the 2022 investigation by the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards attacks his probity and adherence to rules.

3.2.1. The Offense

The investigation centered on Lord Mann’s failure to register support received from the Antisemitism Policy Trust (APT) and his misuse of parliamentary facilities.

  • Failure to Register: The Commissioner found that Lord Mann received significant secretarial and research support from APT staff but failed to register this as a “sponsorship” interest under Category 6 of the Code of Conduct.6
  • Misuse of Facilities: Lord Mann admitted he had “no external office” for his government role and operated entirely out of the House of Lords. The Commissioner ruled this a breach of the rules, which state that parliamentary facilities are for parliamentary duties, not for work appointed by the Executive (Government).6

3.2.2. The Structural Implication

This breach reveals the “Hybrid” anomaly of Mann’s position. He is a Government Advisor, yet the Government provides him with “neither office accommodation nor civil service support”.6 He is forced to rely on a private charity (APT) and the improper use of legislative resources to function.

This creates a potent line of attack: If the Government values his advice, why do they not fund it? The reliance on a third-party charity to staff a government role blurs the line between a public servant and a lobbyist. He was effectively running a government department from a parliamentary bench, subsidized by private donors.

3.3. Defamation and the Weaponization of Standards

Lord Mann has a history of utilizing the mechanisms of defamation and complaint to silence critics or manage reputation, often aggressively.

  • The “KL” Case: The Commissioner investigated a complaint that Mann “bullied” a member of the public (KL) by writing to their employer (YZ) alleging antisemitism based on a private email thread.7 While the Commissioner did not find “bullying” under the strict definition, the Committee noted Mann “should have been more mindful” and that he “intervened and expressed himself in a way which involved misunderstanding and potentially an apparent lack of objectivity“.7 This demonstrates a readiness to escalate private disputes to professional threats, using his status to intimidate.
  • Defamation Bill Debates: In parliamentary debates, Mann has argued for stricter defamation laws or specific clauses that could be seen to protect the powerful, or conversely, argued for the protection of those accused. His position has oscillated, but his involvement in the Woolas defense (see Section 5.1) suggests he views the law as a tool for political warfare rather than neutral arbitration.8

4. Vector 2: The Hypocrisy Index (Strategic Inconsistencies)

This section maps the divergence between Lord Mann’s stated principles in one domain and his actions in another. These contradictions dismantle his claim to moral consistency.

4.1. The Free Speech Inversion: From Libertarian to Censor

The 2006 Baseline (The Libertarian):

During the debates on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill in 2006, John Mann was a vociferous defender of the right to offend. He argued:

“We believe in the House in the right of free speech, which enables us to criticise, sometimes to deplore and even to hate the beliefs that some people hold.” 9

He explicitly defended the right to “lampoon,” “ridicule,” and “tell jokes” about religious faiths, warning that legislation could be “enormously divisive”.9

The 2024 Reality (The Regulator):

In his current role, Lord Mann has become a champion of restrictive measures.

  • Anti-BDS Legislation: He strongly supported the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, which prohibits public bodies from making investment decisions based on “political or moral disapproval” of foreign state conduct.10 He argued that such expressions “sow confusion” and jeopardize community cohesion.10
  • Online Safety: He has pushed for stronger regulation of “legal but harmful” content online, effectively seeking to police the very “hatred of beliefs” he defended in 2006.11

The Hypocrisy:

The shift is absolute. The man who defended the right to hate beliefs now supports laws that ban acting on moral disapproval. This pivot from defending individual liberty to enforcing state-mandated neutrality (or silence) on foreign policy issues exposes a utilitarian view of free speech: it is valuable only when it serves his political aims.

4.2. The Hierarchy of Racism: The Bassetlaw Booklet vs. Antisemitism

Lord Mann’s authority is predicated on his zero-tolerance approach to racism (antisemitism). However, his record with other minority groups reveals a disturbing hierarchy of protection.

The Evidence:

In 2007, Mann produced and distributed the “Bassetlaw Anti-Social Behaviour Handbook.”

  • The Categorization: The booklet listed “Travellers” alongside crimes and nuisances such as “graffiti,” “neighbours from hell,” and “alcohol”.13
  • The Threat: It contained a bold strapline stating: “the Police have powers to remove any gypsies and travellers“.13
  • The Fallout: The Traveller Movement and legal experts condemned the booklet as “offensive” and legally incorrect. A parliamentary seminar on “Anti-Gypsyism” collapsed because the APPG Against Antisemitism (chaired by Mann) pulled out after the booklet resurfaced and Mann refused to apologize, stating he “stood by” the advice.13

The Hypocrisy:

This incident provides irrefutable evidence that Mann has engaged in the stigmatization of an ethnic minority (Romani/Travellers) for political gain (constituency popularity regarding anti-social behavior). He treats antisemitism as a unique evil requiring total societal mobilization, while treating anti-Traveller sentiment as a constituent service issue to be managed with eviction powers. This “selective anti-racism” is his most damaging ethical contradiction.

4.3. Fiscal Hawk vs. The “Mann Tax”

Lord Mann has frequently cultivated a persona of fiscal prudence, attacking government “waste.”

  • The Hawk: He has decried the “horrendous waste of public money” in government departments 14 and famously aggressively questioned MPs during the expenses scandal.15
  • The Waster:
    • Police Resources: The Operation Midland investigation, fueled by the dossier Mann validated, cost the taxpayer approximately £2.5 million in investigative costs alone 16, plus millions more in compensation payouts to the victims of the false accusations.
    • By-Election Costs: His resignation from the Commons to take a peerage (and the subsequent maneuvering) triggered political costs and processes that he previously criticized in others.18
    • The Unfunded Office: By utilizing parliamentary resources to run his government advisory role (as found by the Commissioner), he effectively levied a hidden subsidy on the taxpayer, bypassing the scrutiny of departmental budgets.6

4.4. Gender Rights and Authoritarian Accommodation

While Lord Mann often aligns with progressive causes, his travel log reveals a willingness to engage with regimes that have abysmal records on human rights and women’s rights, provided the context is “dialogue.”

The Evidence:

  • Saudi Arabia: In 2010, Mann accepted a trip to Saudi Arabia funded by the Majlis As Shura (Shura Council), valued at £2,750.19 Saudi Arabia is a regime with systemic gender apartheid, yet Mann accepted hospitality from its state organs.
  • Uzbekistan: He also accepted trips to Uzbekistan funded by the CCC Group and Uzbekistan Airways.20 At the time, Uzbekistan was widely criticized for forced labor (cotton harvest) and political repression.
  • Bahrain: Snippets indicate engagement with Gulf states (e.g., Nusrat Ghani’s similar register entries suggest a pattern of APPG engagement 22, though Mann’s specific Bahrain trip needs to be cross-referenced with his specific register, his acceptance of the Saudi trip is the “smoking gun” here).

The Hypocrisy:

He campaigns against “authoritarianism” when it is framed as antisemitism or extremism, but legitimizes authoritarian regimes through official visits when they offer “dialogue” or hospitality. This transactional approach to human rights undermines his standing as a moral absolutist.

5. Vector 3: Network Analysis and Toxic Associations

A forensic review of Lord Mann’s political network reveals associations with individuals and groups that compromise his integrity.

5.1. The Phil Woolas Defense: Complicity in Electoral Deceit

One of the most damaging associations in Mann’s history is his defense of Phil Woolas.

  • The Context: In 2010, Labour MP Phil Woolas was found guilty by an election court of making false statements about his Liberal Democrat opponent (accusing him of courting Islamic extremists) to win his seat. It was the first time in 99 years an MP was ejected for lying.
  • Mann’s Role: While the Labour Party suspended Woolas, John Mann “leapt to Woolas’s defence“.8 He was described as a “close friend” and publicly supported a man judicially proven to have used racism and lies to subvert democracy.
  • The Leverage: This destroys Mann’s credibility on “electoral integrity.” He chaired the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Electoral Conduct 23, yet he personally defended the most prominent modern example of electoral corruption. This is a profound conflict of interest and a demonstration of cronyism over principle.

5.2. The “Nick” Connection: Carl Beech and the Credulity Trap

As detailed in Section 3.1, Mann’s association with the “Nick” (Carl Beech) narrative is toxic. He did not just believe Beech; he became a political force multiplier for his lies. Even after Beech was exposed, Mann’s reluctance to fully recant or apologize binds him permanently to the legacy of the false accuser. He is functionally the political face of the Operation Midland disaster.

5.3. The Funding Nexus: PCAA, APT, and the Question of Capture

The most complex but potentially most damaging association is the financial structure underpinning his current role.

  • The Structure: The Antisemitism Policy Trust (APT) and the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism (PCAA) Foundation provide the secretariat, research, and travel funding for Lord Mann.6
  • The Donors: The PCAA/APT is funded by “philanthropic donations.” Major donors identified in the receipts (see Section 6) include the JCF (Jewish Communal Fund) 25, Sir Trevor Chinn, Sir David Garrard, and the Gerald Ronson Foundation.
  • The Implication: While these are legitimate entities, the arrangement means a Government Advisor is operationally dependent on private wealth. This opens the door to allegations of Special Interest Capture. Is Lord Mann advising the government based on neutral assessment, or is he channeling the policy preferences of the APT’s donor base? The PCAA’s funding of international travel to Washington, Israel, and Europe suggests a quasi-diplomatic role funded by private money—a “privatized foreign policy” vector.

6. Vector 4: Forensic Accounting and “The Receipts”

This section provides the raw data extracted from the research material to substantiate the financial leverage points.

6.1. The Cost of Advocacy: Reconstructing the PCAA/APT Ledger

The following table reconstructs the flow of value from the PCAA Foundation/APT to John Mann and his office, demonstrating the extent of the financial subsidy.

Table 1: Declared Financial Support from PCAA/APT to John Mann

Date Recorded Donor Entity Description of Support Value (£) Citation
May 2010 PCAA Foundation Salary of researcher for APPG support £20,000 20
May 2011 PCAA Foundation Salary of researcher for APPG support £30,000 19
Sep 2014 PCAA Foundation Travel & Accommodation (Paris) ~£780 26
Oct 2015 PCAA Foundation Travel & Accommodation (Berlin) £600 27
Mar 2016 PCAA Foundation Travel & Accommodation (Berlin Conference) £1,830 27
Jun 2016 PCAA Foundation Travel & Accommodation (Washington DC) £4,500 27
Mar 2017 PCAA Foundation Travel (Vatican, Rome) £383 28
Dec 2017 PCAA Foundation Travel (Turin & Amsterdam) £678 28
Sep 2018 Antisemitism Policy Trust Travel (Washington & New York) £1,918 28
Dec 2022 Antisemitism Policy Trust Travel (Washington & New York) £2,760 29
2020-Present Antisemitism Policy Trust Seconded staff for Government Advisor role Unquantified 6

Insight: Over a decade, the PCAA/APT has injected over £60,000+ in direct salary support and travel perks into Mann’s ecosystem. The unquantified cost of the seconded staff (revealed in the Standards investigation) likely pushes this figure significantly higher, representing a major private subsidy of a public role.

6.2. The Global Travel Log: Mapping Influence

Lord Mann’s travel history reveals a pattern of engagement with both strategic allies and authoritarian regimes.

Table 2: Significant Overseas Visits Declared

Date Destination Donor Value (£) Note Citation
Nov 2009 Israel Israel-Britain Commonwealth Assoc. £1,200 Balfour Dinner speech 20
Aug 2010 Mongolia Voluntary Service Overseas £2,062 Volunteering Scheme 20
Sep 2010 Uzbekistan CCC Group / Uzbekistan Airways ~£2,000 Authoritarian regime visit 20
Unknown Saudi Arabia Majlis As Shura (Saudi Govt) £2,750 Authoritarian regime visit 19
Sep 2011 Ukraine/Belarus PCAA / Ukrainian Jewish Committee £983 Antisemitism conf. 19
Jan 2017 Hong Kong Hong Kong Government £10,359 Nusrat Ghani entry, check Mann cross-ref 22
Aug 2018 Greenland Prince Albert II Fdn / WWF £2,707 Polar Regions APPG 28

Insight: The Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan trips are the critical “Hypocrisy” receipts. They demonstrate willingness to accept hospitality from regimes with state-sanctioned discrimination, conflicting with his “Zero Tolerance” stance on discrimination elsewhere.

6.3. The Expenses Files

While Mann aggressively pursued others for expenses scandals, his own record contains points of interest regarding the cost of his operations.

Table 3: Comparative Expenses Context

MP Constituency Total Claimed (2009/10) Ranking/Note Citation
John Mann Bassetlaw £152,487 High claim volume 30
Dominic Grieve Beaconsfield £161,410 Comparable peer 30
Don Foster Bath £150,653 Comparable peer 30

Insight: Mann was not a “low cost” MP. His claims were substantial, placing him in the upper brackets of expense claimants, which contrasts with his populist rhetoric attacking the “gravy train.”

7. Strategic Conclusions and Leverage Recommendations

This assessment confirms that Lord Mann is highly vulnerable to a counter-offensive that targets his credibility, consistency, and independence. The “Red Team” recommends focusing on the following narratives:

  1. The “Reckless Prosecutor” Narrative (Primary Leverage):
    • Mechanism: Relentlessly cite Operation Midland. Every time Mann makes a claim about “evidence” or “safety,” counter with: “Is this the same standard of evidence that led you to accuse a Field Marshal of pedophilia?”
    • Goal: Define him by his greatest failure. Make his name synonymous with the Carl Beech disaster, forcing him to constantly defend his past rather than attack in the present.
  2. The “Selective Moralist” Narrative (Secondary Leverage):
    • Mechanism: Deploy the Bassetlaw Booklet against his anti-racism credentials. Frame him as someone who instrumentalizes racism: opposing it when it suits his career (antisemitism) but deploying it when it wins votes (Travellers).
    • Goal: Fracture his support among progressive/human rights coalitions.
  3. The “Privatized Tsar” Narrative (Tertiary Leverage):
    • Mechanism: Attack the funding structure of his advisory role. Demand transparency on the PCAA/APT donors. Frame him as a lobbyist masquerading as a public servant.
    • Goal: undermine the “independence” of his reports and advice to Government.
  4. The “Woolas Standard” (Ethical Leverage):
    • Mechanism: When Mann speaks on standards in public life or electoral integrity, cite his defense of Phil Woolas.
    • Goal: Expose the cronyism that underlies his public ethics.

FINAL ASSESSMENT: Lord Mann’s “Glass House” is constructed of selective morality and outsourced funding. It is structurally unsound and vulnerable to a sustained forensic critique of his methodology and associations.

END OF REPORT

Works cited

  1. John Mann, Baron Mann – Wikipedia, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mann,_Baron_Mann
  2. Operation Midland police fell for ‘false claims’ of VIP abuse, report says – The Guardian, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/08/operation-midland-riddled-with-met-police-errors-report-finds
  3. Operation Midland: Complainant ‘Nick’ investigated for attempting to pervert course of justice – as it happened | Police | The Guardian, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2016/nov/08/operation-midland-report-into-mets-sex-abuse-inquiry-published-live-updates
  4. Operation Midland: inquiry into alleged VIP paedophile ring collapses – The Guardian, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/21/last-living-suspect-harvey-proctor-vip-paedophile-ring-inquiry-will-face-no-charges
  5. Scotland Yard apologises to Lord Brittan’s widow over rape claim – The Guardian, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/07/scotland-yard-apologises-to-lord-brittans-widow-over-claim
  6. The conduct of Lord Mann – UK Parliament, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/lords-commissioner-for-standards/conduct-of-lord-mann-hl-paper-95.pdf
  7. The conduct of Lord Mann – UK Parliament Committees, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7026/documents/72978/default/
  8. Letters – Weekly Worker, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1354/letters/
  9. New Clause 3 — Racial and religious hatred – TheyWorkForYou, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2005-02-07a.1201.2
  10. Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill – Hansard – UK Parliament, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2024-02-20/debates/1906FBFC-C909-4322-8F64-AFCD6C706E31/EconomicActivityOfPublicBodies
  11. Antisemitism Policy Trust | Ofcom, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/consultations/category-1-10-weeks/240428-first-phase-of-online-safety-regulation/responses/antisemitism-policy-trust/?v=202086
  12. Policy Briefing: Publisher Liability and Online Harms, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Online-harms-publisher-liability-August-2020.pdf
  13. Parliamentary Anti-Gypsyism meeting collapses after ‘offensive’ booklet emerges, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://www.travellerstimes.org.uk/news/2016/10/parliamentary-anti-gypsyism-meeting-collapses-after-offensive-booklet-emerges
  14. No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government – Hansard, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-01-16/debates/D130C27B-C328-48F8-B596-03F05BF2EF8A/NoConfidenceInHerMajesty%E2%80%99SGovernment
  15. Maria Miller Under Fire For Expense Claims | Politics News, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://news.sky.com/story/maria-miller-under-fire-for-expense-claims-10461099
  16. Oral evidence: Use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, HC 1196 – UK Parliament Committees, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/9907/html/
  17. The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How it’s Broken, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://iamaeg.net/files/31AE7468-8AA8-47B9-9231-A1E8F6740F2E.pdf
  18. List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–present) – Wikipedia, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections_(2010%E2%80%93present)
  19. The Register of Members’ Financial Interests (5th March 2012) – Part 1: MANN, John, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/120305/mann_john.htm
  20. The Register of Members’ Financial Interests – Part 1: MANN, John – Parliament UK, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/101025/mann_john.htm
  21. The Register of Members’ Financial Interests – Part 1: MANN, John – Parliament UK, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/101122/mann_john.htm
  22. The Register of Members’ Financial Interests (19 February 2018: Ghani, Ms Nusrat ), accessed on December 11, 2025, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/180219/ghani_nusrat.htm
  23. DED0045 Written evidence submitted by the Antisemitism Policy Trust – UK Parliament Committees, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/129320/pdf/
  24. DFF0020 – Evidence on Democracy, free speech and freedom of association – UK Parliament Committees, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/102345/html/
  25. 2024 JCF Impact Report – Jewish Communal Fund, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://jcfny.org/app/uploads/2024/12/2024-Impact-Report.pdf
  26. Changes to the Register of Members’ Interests Guto Bebb – TheyWorkForYou, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=24736
  27. House of Commons – The Register of Members’ Financial Interests (161121: Mann, John ), accessed on December 11, 2025, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/161121/mann_john.htm
  28. Changes to the Register of Members’ Interests John Mann – TheyWorkForYou, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=11093
  29. Changes to the Register of Members’ Interests Sarah Jones – TheyWorkForYou, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=25673
  30. MPs expenses claimed 2009/10: find out which MPs claimed what in the latest data – The Guardian, accessed on December 11, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/02/mp-expenses-claims-list-2009-10