On the Laura Kuensberg programme today, Mandelson refuses to apologise to victims of Rostein for continuing the friendship after Epstein’s conviction for sexual offences against a 14 year olc

He believed a convicted sex offender. He encouraged and supported him. That insulted victims and played into the myths about child sexual exploitation. An acknowledgement of that would be appropriate

Anniebach

Allegations of sexual abuse seems be guilty of all allegations

Epstein was convicted then continued his criminal behaviour. Died before trial

Maxwell is serving a long sentence for sexual offending alongside Epstein

Quote Iam64 Mon 12-Jan-26 09:48:58
Anniebach
Allegations of sexual abuse seems be guilty of all allegations
Epstein was convicted then continued his criminal behaviour. Died before trial

Maxwell is serving a long sentence for sexual offending alongside Epstei

Yes, I know Epstein died and Maxwell is imprisoned,

Iam64

He believed a convicted sex offender. He encouraged and supported him. That insulted victims and played into the myths about child sexual exploitation. An acknowledgement of that would be appropriate

I agree with this on a personal level, but there is no law saying that wrongdoers must apologise, and in any case he has not been charged with anything.

I’m not saying he’s innocent, but we don’t know that he’s guilty of breaking the law, so his personal behaviour (for want of a better term) is up to him. I am not defending him, but I don’t see how there can be a law forcing people to apologise for association with others, and (at this stage) that’s all we know he has done.

I do wonder how often these people actually met, half a dozen times or hundreds? It may be that Epstein did compartmentalise his ‘friends’. As he is now dead I am surprised these people don’t make more use of that

I am not sure why someone has to apologise for the misdeeds of a 'friend'! Even if he did I don't think it accounts for much.

Anniebach

No photographs of Mandelson at royal residences with Epstein and Maxwell ?

That doesn't prove or not prove anything.

Quote M0nica Mon 12-Jan-26 14:19:44
Anniebach
No photographs of Mandelson at royal residences with Epstein and Maxwell ?
That doesn’t prove or not prove anything

No it doesn’t,

This has prompted me consider again the meaning of apologies. My OP simply quoted heads from the Kuensberg programme.
FWIW my view on historical apologies like for the horrors of slavery acknowledge the horrors but this generation didn’t perpetrate the crimes.
Mandelson is not accused of involvement in the sexual exploitation of individuals, some children. My concern is his support for a convicted sex offender. It diminishes, ridicules, humiliates those victims. He’s an intelligent person. He’s held responsible positions. He should have known better
I’d like to have seen him acknowledge that his support of Epstein wasn’t just the action of someone who believed a friend, It was a wilful support of a Macon who’d been convicted.
If Mandelson had been involved with children it would have been a safeguarding issue

I watched the programme, and from memory he did say that he wished he had seen through Epstein's lies, but stopped short of apologising for his association with him. He said that his emails (from PM to Epstein) were embarrassing and more - can't remember - but that he had no idea that the abuse was going on.

Who knows? If Epstein could get girls, he could get boys, but that has not, AFAIK, been alleged, and PM has not been charged with abuse of any kind. He said on LK that being gay meant that he was kept separate from that sort of thing. Again, I don't know - my social life doesn't include orgies, so I'm not sure how they work. I suppose it would be a bit awkward if people were pairing off and there were those there who wouldn't want to join in? A bit like having teetotallers at a wine-tasting (and I'm not being flippant - I'm just looking for a parallel). You would invite them to something different, surely? Maybe that's how Epstein worked.

If PM apologised, maybe it would implicate him further? What I do know is that he is the ultimate politician, and he will know exactly what he is, and is not, doing. I suspect there is a lot more to this than we know, but it may be some time before we find out.

Radio 4 reporting today that PM has now offered an apology.
I remain concerned that when Epstein was sentenced to 18 months in prison, Mandelson continued to support him, advising him to fight for early release etc.

I also understand the Mandelson issue might not interest everyone.
His behaviour throughout this sorry tale reminds me of those who defend sex offenders in the face of evidence

I don't think he is defending him though - he was saying that he personally was unaware of the abuse, not that he excused Epstein for committing it. There is a huge difference, whether we believe that PM knew about it or not.

Doodledog

I don't think he is defending him though - he was saying that he personally was unaware of the abuse, not that he excused Epstein for committing it. There is a huge difference, whether we believe that PM knew about it or not.

I agree with this. An apology could be interpreted as Mandelson admitting guilt.
There is no proof that he knew about the abuse perpetrated by Epstein.
I would like to see others who actually took part in the abuse to be hauled out of the woodwork and held to account.

He isn’t defending him now, he was defending him during and after his first conviction, between the period leading to2008 when he pleaded guilty and went to prison, until 2019 when he was charged with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors and one of sex trafficking of minors. He died in prison in August 2019.

27 August District Judge Bergman hearing on a motion to dismiss the indictment against Epstein. He decides instead to “heat the testimony of victims here today.

It seems that onky after Epstein’s death did PM accept his friend had been a prolific sex offender.
PMs comments to questions have been shocking

Apology from Mandelson.
"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."

People are judged by the company they keep.
Andrew has been hounded out of everything in his life including family for maintaining a friendship with Epstein.

Mandelson remains in the House of Lords, passing judgement on new laws, despite having to resign three times, twice from Parliament and once from an Ambassadorship. once. He has since commented on Europe's ''histrionic reaction to Trump's plans for Greenland, and praised him for the kidnapping of Maduro, achieving more in a day than orthodox diplomacy achieved in a decade. Apparently.

In fairness eazybee, Andrew MW paid Virginia Guiffre a huge amount of money, despite claiming he’d never met her. There’s no evidence that I’m aware of , linking Mandelson directly to Epstein’s sex trafficking.

I’m completely with you of people being judged by the company they keep. I share your distaste about Mandelson passing judgement on new laws, based on his rejection and disregard for federal law relating to Epstein.

I would prefer to see him resign, but realise that that won't happen. I would definitely like to see him leave (voluntarily or otherwise) the Labour Party.

I can't bring myself to believe that people should be judged by their associates though, which I realise doesn't fit with the idea of his being asked to leave the PLP. That does feel like the thin end of a wedge.

A new thread “politicians with unsuitable friends who should resign from their political party “ ?

AGAA4

Doodledog

I don't think he is defending him though - he was saying that he personally was unaware of the abuse, not that he excused Epstein for committing it. There is a huge difference, whether we believe that PM knew about it or not.

I agree with this. An apology could be interpreted as Mandelson admitting guilt.
There is no proof that he knew about the abuse perpetrated by Epstein.
I would like to see others who actually took part in the abuse to be hauled out of the woodwork and held to account.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Peter Mandelson my well not have been present at any of the sexual events held at Epstein's house, and still more his island, but places like these have been furnished accessorised and built with sexual abandon in mind, and people who visited the island, including law enforcement staff have described what the place looked like.

Mandelson is a clever devious man, who has made his living out of finding out things other people would rather he didn't know. I simply cannot believe that a man like him wasn't fully knowledgeable about what Epsteins tastes and perversions were.

MOnica, I agree

I agree that he is clever and devious, but not that people should be forced to apologise against their will. Or, for that matter with the patronising ‘none so blind’ tone.

What is the point of a forced apology? An apology is an expression of regret for something one has done. If, as PM claims (and whether we believe him or not he has not been charged with anything) he has not done anything, how can an apology be sincere? If it isn’t, what value can it have?

If the day comes when we can be sacked, convicted or forced to apologise on the basis of who our friends are, justice will be a thing of the past.

I repeat that I am not defending PM. I am defending the right to be accused before being found guilty. I know I have felt that in cases where women have accused an individual of sex crimes they should be believed (and I stand by that), but nobody has accused PM of anything, much less tried him and found him guilty.

Mandelson has been accused of much wrongdoing in this thread

The suggestion PM acknowledge he was wrong to support a convicted sex offender isn’t demanding an apology that P
M broke any laws

Although Mandelson is a deeply unpleasant man as far as we know he abused nobody.
There must have been many men who actually did abuse those girls but I can see no point in pursuing Mandelson even if he was aware of abuse. His 'crime' was to stay friends with Epstein.
Is it frustration that all those dreadful men appear to have got away with it and PM is a scapegoat?