As the Telegraph reports this morning:
Jeffrey Epstein brokered a deal with Lord Mandelson over the sale of a UK taxpayer-owned banking business after he had been convicted of child sex offences, emails have revealed.
The £1bn deal was negotiated while Lord Mandelson was Business Secretary and only months after Epstein had been released from prison.
Sempra Commodities, a joint venture between the taxpayer-owned Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Sempra Energy, was sold to JP Morgan in a deal on which Epstein gave advice to both Lord Mandelson and to Jes Staley, a senior executive with JP Morgan who has since been banned from the City over his relationship with the disgraced financier.
Three things come to mind.
Firstly, the Telegraph could be wrong. It has, of course, happened before, and there could be another interpretation to place on all this.
Secondly, if they are right, then the ethical implications of this do, politely, stink to high heaven. Anyone with the slightest sense should have been steering well clear of Jeffrey Epstein at this time, as Andrew York (or Windsor, or whatever he calls himself in the silly games that royals play) has discovered to his cost.
Third, Mandelson had already proved over a number of years, as the Telegraph documents, that he had no sense when it came to Epstein. They clearly were close and over an extended period.
So, what are the implications?
Epstein's victims clearly want Mandelson out of the British Embassy in the USA, and I have to say, rightly so. A man who has such poor judgment has no right to hold the office that he has, even if there is no evidence that he, personally, did anything wrong.
Perhaps as significantly, in political rather than ethical terms, are the obvious questions that this poses about Keir Starmer's judgement. Presumably, the security briefing prepared before Mandelson's appointment would have highlighted all these issues, because if it did not, British security would be rather pointless. Let's presume for a moment that MI5 has not reached that point, and that Starmer was aware of all the risks of appointing someone as ambassador in Washington despite his past history with Epstein. What, then, does that say about Starmer?
There is no good spin that anyone in Labour can create out of this situation, and the Telegraph may well be right to go for its second Labour scalp in a very short period of time by pursuing this issue. Mandelson should not be where he is. But then, nor should Starmer be so either.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I think the nefarious architect of New Labour and the destroyer of the left will get away with it. Again.
Another example of Two Tier Keir?
According to the Independent “Sir Keir Starmer has given Peter Mandelson his full backing after it emerged the British ambassador to the US had described notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein as his “best pal.”
“After the message was made public in files released by a US congressional committee, the prime minister’s official spokesperson stressed he has full confidence in the Labour grandee, praising his work in strengthening Britain’s relations with the US under Donald Trump”.
“Wes Streeting also backed the under-fire ambassador, saying that he has “been very clear that he deeply regrets ever having been introduced to Epstein”.
I find myself nostalgic and misty-eyed for that bygone era when politicians, at the merest hint of impropriety of whatever sleazy kind, would immediately resign. It doesn’t seem all that long ago.
Now, it appears that the UK public are being groomed to accept a wholly unacceptable level of grift, corruption and unsavouriness in their elected officials and it’s all led by this LINO government and its leader, Starmer.
Starmer and Streeting will back anyone if there’s something in it for them!
note the way Streeting frames it ; not that Mandelson chose to befriend Epstein; no – rather he was somehow inveigled into this relationship by someone (not named) who somehow persuaded this ever so innocent Mandelson into it! At least you could say that sleazebags stand up for each other…
Often once someone receives “my full backing” they are soon removed. I hope the mendacious Mandelson suffers the same fate.
I think you are right, It sounds like he has already got away with it.
Hello Richard.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Starmer was told what’s happening, whether he like it or not.
Starmer doesn’t appear to be a man in control – of the country, the Red-Tory Party, or much else.
However, I feel that Mandelson shall somehow deflect any blame onto Starmer, and slink away to some other post, whilst still retaining some power in the background. He’s a snake. A dangerous snake with experience.
Starmer’s just useless.
Mandelson – how many more times?
Mandelson is a worshipper of money, he is a simple fellow really. He seems to be one of those middle class liberals who has come down on the side of ultra-individualism, in that he has principles but if you find them unreasonable, he has others one might find more agreeable.
He seems completely oblivious to moral questions about money. He and too many like him seem happy to deal with the Devil himself. He is Giddens in action, the Third Way personified. He is not grounded in anything except making deals. Deals that get around politics where it should be involved and acting as a referee.
Mandelson’s capriciousness is always his undoing and ours too.
The stories about corrupt politicians come thick and fast, Rayner, Mandelson, Boris Johnson. It simply embeds the belief in the public mind that ALL politicians are corrupt and therefore tends to lessen the distrust of right wing charlatans such as Farage. He appears no more or less corrupt than the rest of them and another nail is hammered into democracy’s coffin. Do people like Mandelson have absolutely no sense of responsibility for the harm their actions have caused and continue to cause? if the history of the demise of democracy in Britain is ever written, which I pray it never has to be, then the likes of Johnson and Mandelson will surely be named amongst the ranks of ” Guilty Men.”
He should never have been appointed ambassador in the first place. He has shown himself numerous times not to be trustworthy and to lack integrity, both basic qualifications for such a job, even for Trump’s America. And I’m not sure he will get away with this one. Trump has got rid of ambassadors before and he likes to deflect blame. And I can’t see him liking someone as clever and slippery as Mandleson. Starmer maybe toothless but Trump is not.
Wheels within wheels.
I read earlier about JCB being targeted at the DSEI exhibition in London about its connections with genocide in Israel. Stop Bulldozer Genocide, the group is called.
So I read a bit about Bamford and he has connections with Epstein. His and his wife’s names are in Ghislaine Maxwell’s address book.
Or am I reading too much into this?
On the other hand is that not how they get away with so much?
I think a lot of people were in her address book.
I am sure I was not.
Perhaps since Mandelson and Trump were both friends of Epstein’s they knew each other , and knew of each other’s behaviour, and this was deemed a positive in considering appointing Mandelson as ambassador.
Does that excuse this though?
I hadn’t for a moment meant to suggest it excused Mandelson or the vile behaviour of Epstein. More along the lines of John Warren’s comment – what does that say about the people who have power? Along with what feels like an endless stream of “celebrities” accused of rape, sexual assault, downloading paedophile pictures etc.
Has the world of the powerful always been this much of a cesspit?
Perhaps instead of following that facile chain of thought, it may be more appropriate to contemplate why so many people, who appear to share a lot in common, form so effectively the same network; a network which by some strange alchemy has so much influence in – an over – the world. People who, at best appear to have at best extremely bad judgement, but somehow persuade the movers and shakers of the international stage that their special gift to the world that cannot be ignored – is their judgement.
What does that say about us, our judgement our inertia; and the fairly obvious inadequacy of our networks?
Following on from AliB’s comment, I’ve no doubt whatsoever that the fact that Mandelson had also been a very good friend of Epstein, as had Trump, was seen as a positive when choosing Mandelson as US Ambassador. I can’t believe for one minute that it didn’t show up in his vetting – even if Starmer knew nothing of it before – (if it didn’t then our security services must be incompetent). But Starmer, like Trump – or perhaps even after it was discussed with Trump at one of their “love in ” meetings – would have believed it would never come out.
And of course, Mandelson should now pay the price. But more importantly, are we really still going to honour the invitation of a State Visit to Trump? If anyone ever doubted that he’s not up to his neck in the Epstein affair surely that’s beyond doubt now.
To close, I’d strongly advise watching these two segments from last night’s MSNBC shows.
https://www.msnbc.com/all
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-one-honest-thing-trump-said-about-epstein-s-survivors-is-i-haven-t-thought-about-it-247249989816
Today I find myself mourning the demise of Kim Darroch as Ambassador to the US. An honourable man, shafted, as some may recall, by leaks of official communications in which he told the truth about Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Darroch
“What, then, does that say about Starmer?”
To me, it says Tony Blair is calling the shots.
Oops, I missed off his title. Correct version:
To me, it says War Criminal Tony Blair is calling the shots.
Deja Vu. Last week, I thought Angela Rayner would be gone by teatime on Friday. She was. I think Mandelson will last a few more days, maybe until Monday or Tuesday. The media will pile in over the next three days and nobody who is dispensable can survive it.
As for Mandy, he has a chequered history in positioning himself near the money. I hope he’s kept a bit of it for his imminent retirement from his job.
For me, the lesson is always, “So what do these indisputable FACTS (not the spin not the media reporting but what Starmer DOES) tell me about Starmer and about what is important to Starmer?”
1. Trump’s approval.
2. Israel’s approval.
3. His donors’ approval.
4. Right wing media approval
5.Far right voter approval
6. Morgan Macsweeney
Whom does he have contempt for (or perhaps, fear of) in descending order of his respect for them…
His Cabinet
His MPs
Party conference delegates
Trade Unions
Party members
The UK public
The left
Children
Disabled people
European politicians
Foreigners
Arabs
Palestinians
Non white, foreign, Muslim, left wing, smart, articulate women.
84 year old retired female Bristol vicars who disagree with him. (Rev Sue Parfitt is his nemesis). One day there will be a statue of her (in handcuffs), hopefully just outside the old Bailey or in Parliament Square.
This is entirely based on Starmer’s own actions and words since about 2016.
Thanks
And much to agree with.