Keir Starmer Is A Barrister - So How Is It......

He seems to take little notice of other people's opinions. Mandelson has been in politics for a long time. Surely anyone who knows him would have warned against his appointment.

There's often posts on GN of posters feeling something isoffabout certain people before more sinister stuff is even known or broadcast. Call it instinct or a sixth sense, but it's definitely there in many of us.

I agree that Starmer was misguided and not very discerning in this case. You could see he was very angry and upset, and I for once saw some true emotion, assuming it was genuine. It showed me he does actually have a soul, iygwim.

The question is, however, was he furious because his foresight had been made to look stupid, as surely he must have had his suspicions? It's no good blaming anyone else if you ignore your own hunches, and as a barrister, I assume he must have been trained to spot the worst in bad people.
Surely he doesn't believe everything someone tells him without thinking very hard about it and requesting absolute evidence? It isn't the first time either.

off should have been in bold script

But with lawyers, isn't it all about 'evidence' not 'feeling'.
What evidence of Mandelson's financial treachery was in the public domain before the recent Epstein info dumps?

So far, while in office, he has "stood by" all sorts of people.

This has all been no different. Except this one has blown up in his face.

Can’t stand the man and if he had any decency at all he would resign. I think Mangela Rainer is better than him, at least she has a good personality.

IMO his anger is because of how badly this reflects on him.

We don’t need the cult of personality in our prime minister. We need workable policies. The country is floundering. nanna8. We deserve better.

Maremia

But with lawyers, isn't it all about 'evidence' not 'feeling'.
What evidence of Mandelson's financial treachery was in the public domain before the recent Epstein info dumps?

Exactly, that's what I said in my conclusion,
Surely he doesn't believe everything someone tells him without thinking very hard about it and requesting absolute evidence?
If your question was to me, straight after my post?

Smileless2012

IMO his anger is because of how badly this reflects on him.

Maybe. I guess that's likely.

Maremia

But with lawyers, isn't it all about 'evidence' not 'feeling'.
What evidence of Mandelson's financial treachery was in the public domain before the recent Epstein info dumps?

Yes! My short term experience of the legal world is that legally trained people have no instinct for anything.

Liars get away with things in court all the time- how naive of me to believe this could be 'seen' through!

I find Starmer a typical legal person in this sense- there is little of feeling in him.

However getting rid of him would be a massive mistake for Labour and for the country,

However getting rid of him would be a massive mistake for Labour and for the country,

Why?

I still think there's nobody who could replace him at the moment.

I agree

Thinking back to Yes, Prime Minister and the advice and actions of Sir Humphrey, what were Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister or the Principal Private Secretary thinking when KS appointed Mandelson?

They have big responsibilities and highly paid jobs. Were they not aware of any of Mandelson‘s actions either?

Did they say nothing? Or did KS not listen?

It was a general question Martav/T, because someone on the Thread might know. GNs seem to have their sources and research methods.
Was there EVIDENCE before the recent disclosures, that PM was giving sensitive financial information to outsiders and foreign interests?
PM's house is being searched just now by the Police with reference to 'misconduct in public office'.
Allegedly Gordon Brown organised some checks into PM before he appointed him, back in the day. Nothing was found.
Now, that investigation need to be scrutinised.
Who gave the 'all clear' to Gordon Brown?

MartavTaurus

Maremia

But with lawyers, isn't it all about 'evidence' not 'feeling'.
What evidence of Mandelson's financial treachery was in the public domain before the recent Epstein info dumps?

Exactly, that's what I said in my conclusion,
Surely he doesn't believe everything someone tells him without thinking very hard about it and requesting absolute evidence?
If your question was to me, straight after my post?

How about being sacked a s a government minister afterit was discovered he had accepted a large interest free loan from another minister being investigated by Mandelson's department. How about putting pressure on the appropriate authorities to grant someone a British passpart?

Those are the two items where he was publically known to be dishonest. In circumstances like that there will also be many people in government circles who will know of numerous other cases, small and large where Mandelson was 'economical with the truth' but where it did not get further than those involved. His nickname 'The Prince of Darkness' goes back to 1985.

If Starmer did not know all this, then he should have and it reflects very poorly on his political skills if he didn't. The evidence would have been there if he wanted it. Mandelson's reputation has always been that of a man that you would not trust in broad daylight in an open field.

Of course he knew all that but decided to go ahead and appoint him to the job anyway.
How do we get saddled with these lame duck PM’s🤬

Jonathan Freedland: There’s one argument Starmer could make to save his skin – but he won’t dare do it

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/06/keir-starmer-peter-mandelson-pm-argument

He could say that what has enraged so many, including among his own MPs, was his admission on Wednesday that he had known, when he appointed him, that Mandelson had continued his relationship with Epstein. But, Starmer could say, pointing his finger at the benches in front of and behind him, so did all of you. It had all been laid out, in detail, two years before Mandelson was posted to the US, in a JP Morgan report covered in the Financial Times. Why did so few of you protest at the time? Why, on the contrary, did the Westminster village, including Farage by the way, along with most of the media, support the appointment, declaring it a masterstroke?^

It’s not as though association with Epstein after the latter’s imprisonment was previously understood to be acceptable: look at the response to the then Prince Andrew’s Newsnight interview in 2019. Yet the outrage of that moment had clearly faded six years later. Just before Starmer sent him to Washington, Mandelson had been the chancellor of a British university and the co-host of a Times podcast; he was on screen throughout the BBC’s election night coverage in July 2024. What was once deemed disqualifying from public life was regarded so no longer.

The hypocrisy of the same people now clamouring for Starmer’s head is astonishing.

It doesn’t matter what was said at the time by others ( and they certainly weren’t all for it) the appointment was made by Starmer and the buck stops there.

Oreo

It doesn’t matter what was said at the time by others ( and they certainly weren’t all for it) the appointment was made by Starmer and the buck stops there.

Well said.

Information from a discussion group concerning Mandelson' appointment as Ambassador in 2024.
1997, Mandelson was credited with being the architect of Labour's win in and the creator of New Labour, along with Blair, Alistair Campbell and Philip Gould.
1998 he fell from favour because of an undisclosed loan from Geoffrey Robinson, MP, whose financial affairs were under investigation, by Mandelson's department. Each accused the other of lying and both were sacked from their posts.
1991 Secretary of State for N.Ireland
2001, allegations of using position to influence passport application for Srichand Hindiya, under investigation by Indian government. Resigned from post, or sacked?
Re elected 2001 but no further cabinet posts; stood down to becomeUK's Commissioner to Eu in 2004.
Conflict of loyalties about his EU pension.
2008 Returned to cabinet under aegis of Gordon Brown, as Business Secretary, more controversy over appointment. Raised to Peerage.
2009 intensive lobbying campaign concerning technical measures for music and film industry.
2010 Labour lost General Opposition.
Pursued business interests, some which aroused suspicion.
2011 discovered Mandelson had approved technical measures in music Industry 2 months before Public Consultation had completed; approved day following letter from CEO of Universal Group.
Mandelson opposed to Corbyn.
2021 advising Starmer to move beyond Corbyn, advised him for several years in his political life unspecified.

Consensus of the group, predominately Labour supporters, was that Mandelson was not a suitable candidate.
The fact overlooked was that from 2021 onward he was an 'advisor' to Starmer, helping him become Leader then Prime Minister.
Payback Time?
The connection with Epstein was unknown to the public; all the focus then was on Andrew. But Starmer knew plenty about Mandelson continual suspect business dealings and his controversial behaviour as a politician, but refused to listen to concerns raised.

Doesn't it just show that if Starmer
A. Didn't know about this or
B. Didn't think it was any big deal or
C. Didn't want to listen to concerns
that these sort of cock ups are endemic in politics, and in society in general.
I'm tempted to say, whether he did or whether he didn't, that we need to move on, but some things are too big to let them go unchecked.

And I guess even small indiscretions can grow into major disasters. I agree the buck stops with him.

Perhaps the best thing that will emerge from the current situation is that it opens the door wide to an overhaul of the whole system. Checks and balances reviewed and new, stricter and tighter ones put in their place. Gordon Brown was saying just that today. I think he, and KS, both of whom have had encounters with PM would be excellent at working together to overhaul the whole system. I believe both of them to be honest, honourable people. I am cynical enough to believe that a great many people in politics prefer a 'slightly' loose system as it gives them a loophole. IMO one of the problems with the current government is there are too many Government MPs. This allows for dissent without responsibility as they know certain things will pass anyway. It would be madness to call a general election now and I think the majority of other parties think so too. We'd get a 'knee jerk' response that won't serve any of us well.