Peter Mandelson - Epstein . Should Starmer sack him?

Quote Eloethan Fri 12-Sept-25 14:37:42
Why do you argue about everything anniebach? I accept that there are certain issues on which the degree of transgression might be into account. But surely a man glorifying and accepting the hospitality of someone who has used vulnerable girls in order to build his sordid empire and pleasure his disgusting friends, should not be given a plum job representing our country? Not to forget that Mandelson had previously been involved in some shady dealings and had had to resign.

How is it that these people get to lie low for a few years and then appear back on the scene, eg Jeffrey Archer and Liam Fox. Jeffrey Archer in particular was sent to prison for perjury.

These people! what do they have in common? three friends with a peodophile , commited perjury, breach of the ministerial code ?
I do not argue about everything, I questioned at times if something doesn’t seem factual

Interesting discussion about Mandelson on the latest The Rest is Politics. I agree that I don’t understand why people like him keep re emerging politically when they’ve been disgraced but then again the inner world of politics is not a place for the faint hearted and I have no comprehension of what it must be like. And Starmer needed someone with his sort of experience to deal with Trump ( who has cast a shadow over our country since he was elected).

On this issue I view mandelsson and Trump as exactly the same. That is why it was a terrible decision.

👏👏👏 MayBee

The Rest is politics.

The programme presented by Alastair Campbell?

That says it all.

eazybee

^The Rest is politics.^

The programme presented by Alastair Campbell?

That says it all.

Do you actually listen to it?

Ive been reading that Emily Thornberrys committee wanted to raise questions before his appointment was confirmed but they were told they couldn’t. Also he is/was Morgan McSweeneys mentor and he pushed Starmer to appoint him. Hmmmm……

Oh I have done.
Cannot bear either of them.

eazybee

What astonished me about Mandelson's appointment as Ambassador seven months ago was the fact that, publicly disgraced twice for inappropriate conduct, he should consider himself suitable for such a high-ranking appointment, let alone Starmer and Morgan McSweeny. It seems that they chose him because they thought he would be able to work well with Trump; his own lack of morality counting for nothing. But it has come back to bite them.

The same applies to Lucy Powell, disgraced for unpleasant comments in the House, sacked from her post, immediately applies for one of the highest. appointments in the Labour party.
A complete lack of shame, particularly in view of Labour's continuous attack on Conservative values and their claiming of the moral high ground.
Labour is a democratically elected government with a large majority and four years to go; their disastrous first year and the infighting and factions developing within its ranks which so damaged the Conservatives does not bode well for their future and that of the country.

Good comment.

Anniebach

Iam I have not said he shouldn’t be sacked, I spoke of the use of ‘Mandy’, his letters to Epstein troubles me much, something unknown

I dont think you have said he should, either.

Quote fancythat Fri 12-Sept-25 22:40:05
Anniebach
Iam I have not said he shouldn’t be sacked, I spoke of the use of ‘Mandy’, his letters to Epstein troubles me much, something unknown

I dont think you have said he should, either.

I think you may be correct

fancythat

Anniebach

Iam I have not said he shouldn’t be sacked, I spoke of the use of ‘Mandy’, his letters to Epstein troubles me much, something unknown

I dont think you have said he should, either.

I’ve read my post that led to your response pointing out you hadn’t said he shouldn’t have been sacked. I can’t see that I suggested you had.
I was trying to stress my concern remains Mandelson’s support to Epstein, his dismissal of the guilty plea and prison sentence. Mandelson being gay is irrelevant to me, other than when he used it in his recent interview with the Sun, as an attempt to explain why he saw nothing of concern about all those young girls..
apologies for any misunderstanding