Peter Mandelson apology

Sorry appalled.

Mandelson is simply sorry he has been found out, once again. Having been sacked in disgrace from his post as Ambassador for maintaining his relationship with Epstein, he retains his seat in the House of Lords and his influence within the Labour party, so nothing changes.

Mandelson has ‘been found out once again’ what has been found out ?
Loyalty to a friend, he believed was innocent,?

I did always wonder how he could be seen as a suitable ambassador to the US. Wasn’t he referred to among MPs (albeit jokingly) as ‘The Prince of Darkness’?

I'm not a fan but there were so many who spent time with Epstein. Was every single one of them wrong to do so? Why was Mandleson any different?

Astonishing.
Many spent time with Epstein, and saw him for what he was, and did not pursue the acquaintance. Many used him for money loans,some for business connections and some for access to sex. I would not consider these people gullible; they knew what they were dealing with.
As for 'being loyal to a friend' Epstein had been convicted of paedophile offences, not simply accused. This was the cause of Andrew's downfall; he needed to maintain the friendship for money.
Once again Starmer ignored or failed to put checks in place about Mandelson, who claimed to have to have forgotten about sending the emails.
Coupled with twice having to resign from Parliament, Mandelson was a disgraceful choice for such a high office, and he brought dishonour to it.

Anniebach

Mandelson has ‘been found out once again’ what has been found out ?
Loyalty to a friend, he believed was innocent,?

Mandelsohn KNEW Epstein was guilty.

In 2008 Epstein plead guilty to soliciting prostitution and soliciting a minor and is sentenced to 18 months.

In 2008 Mandelson knew Epstein was guilty of sex crime involving a 14 yr old because IN COURT Epstein admitted the above crime, was tried, convicted and served a prison sentence.

Quote butterandjam Tue 13-Jan-26 12:41:18
Anniebach
Mandelson has ‘been found out once again’ what has been found out ?
Loyalty to a friend, he believed was innocent,?
Mandelsohn KNEW Epstein was guilty.

In 2008 Epstein plead guilty to soliciting prostitution and soliciting a minor and is sentenced to 18 months.

In 2008 Mandelson knew Epstein was guilty of sex crime involving a 14 yr old because IN COURT Epstein admitted the above crime, was tried, convicted and served a prison sentence.

You have read the full confession of guilt? I haven’t

eazybee

Astonishing.
Many spent time with Epstein, and saw him for what he was, and did not pursue the acquaintance. Many used him for money loans,some for business connections and some for access to sex. I would not consider these people gullible; they knew what they were dealing with.
As for 'being loyal to a friend' Epstein had been convicted of paedophile offences, not simply accused. This was the cause of Andrew's downfall; he needed to maintain the friendship for money.
Once again Starmer ignored or failed to put checks in place about Mandelson, who claimed to have to have forgotten about sending the emails.
Coupled with twice having to resign from Parliament, Mandelson was a disgraceful choice for such a high office, and he brought dishonour to it.

once again Starmer failed to out in place...

Starmer was instrument in not pursuing the Jimmy Saville case. Now the disaster of the rape gangs enquiry/report.

Apology from Peter Mandelson, on Monday evening.

"Yesterday, I did not want to be held responsible for his [Jeffrey Epstein's] crimes of which I was ignorant, not indifferent, because of the lies he told me and so many others.
"I was wrong to believe him following his conviction and to continue my association with him afterwards. I apologise unequivocally for doing so to the women and girls who suffered."

PM is either a liar or a very naïve person with dreadful people judgement.

I don’t believe he’s in any way sorry and he’s a bit late to the apology party too.

He should never have any public serving role again, ever.

Namsnanny no, Starmer was neither instrumental nor responsible for not pursuing Saville.

Sadly, due to lack of both witnesses happy to come forward and hard evidence, along with very senior personnel both within Hospitals and at the BBC, who knew Saville well and were complicit in their actions, ie doing nothing to stop him or protect his victims, this case would not have held up in court.

Btw, I completely agree that Starmer should never have appointed PM

I can believe some people knew Epstein and might have been unaware of his disgusting practices. But Mandelson??
This is a man who is slippery as an eel and whip smart, a first class chancer who could spin like a top. Hence the reason why Starmer chose him to deal with Trump.
So, no, I don’t think Mandelson was naive, he doesn’t ‘do’ naive but relies heavily upon other peoples naïveté.

The right thing for Mandelson to do is to resign from ever holding a public office again, just fade away into the sunset.

Bridie22

The right thing for Mandelson to do is to resign from ever holding a public office again, just fade away into the sunset.

👍

Bridie22

The right thing for Mandelson to do is to resign from ever holding a public office again, just fade away into the sunset.

I couldn't agree more, but I would be more than surprised if he did so.

And why would he? His poor behaviour throughout his life has continued to be rewarded.

Well you know what they say, scum always rises to the top.

He did organise three consecutive general election victories for the Labour Party

In 1998 he resigned as Trade Secretary after not declaring an interest free loan from a colleague.
In 2001 resigned from government again over accusations of influencing a passport application for a Hindu family member.
In 2025 was removed from his roll a US ambassador due to renewed revelations about his close contact with Epstein
Hardly an asset to the Labour party, one might assume he used his position for his own good.

Yes I know

Yes, he did organise election victories for the Labour party.

The fact is that yet again through his poor personal decisions he has brought the Labour party into disrepute, yet remains entrenched in government.

I do believe that at first he may not have known about JE's practices and that being gay he would not have been included in such things. However once he was found guilty I can't believe how he could take JE's view that it was a miscarriage of justice and continue the friendship. Either he's a very bad judge of character, gullible, stupid or a liar and we'll never know which.