Peter Mandelson apology

Anniebach

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

Mandelson wrote to Epstein to support him after the conviction (which he had admitted to). Mandelson sent supportive messages to Epstein after his 2008 guilty plea for soliciting a minor, telling him to "fight for early release" and expressing belief in him.

That is what Mandelson is guilty of along with not disclosing his relationship with Epstein before taking up the Ambassador post knowing that it could cause a problem for the Government as Epstein had been accused of even worse crimes.

His apologies only came after an interview where he said he wouldn't apologise because he had done nothing wrong to the victims and it caused such an outcry.

I have always had a soft spot for Mandelson but am horrified by his earlier stance and think he has only apologised now to save face.

I think Epstein was the sort of social fixer that knew just about everyone. Anyone with money, power, influence, political connections etc would be on his potential list of contacts. It would have made him a very useful person to know as he could introduce people, grease the wheels in both social and business contexts and advise on all sorts of things, business opportunities, financial matters etc etc. Just imagine arriving in a new city/country and having someone able to introduce you to everyone you need to know! He sounds like the ultimate social fixer and would appear, on the surface, to have made himself very useful in so many respects. I'm sure not everyone who met him took advantage of the dark side of his empire but one would have thought that normal, intelligent and curious people would at least be aware that there might be more going on than appeared at first glance. Perhaps he was so useful as a contact that a blind eye was turned or his worst behaviour was somehow normalized. There are none so blind as those that don't want to see, as the saying goes and even very clever people can be very gullible. Ambassadors are required to hold their noses and interact socially with the most awful individuals at times, it's the nature of diplomacy. The late Queen certainly did so as part of her state role. Mandleson certainly appears to be guilty of extreme nieiavity, which, I'd have thought, is quite unusual in someone in such a prominent ambassadorial role.

And a CREEP!

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.

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.

Yes I know

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.

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

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

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

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.

Bridie22

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

👍

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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’?

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