"Keir Starmer's side of the ever-unfolding Jeffrey Epstein scandal clearly centres on one big decision, the twisted calculations that must have led to it, and a question that is not going to go away: between late 2024 and early 2025, despite knowing that Peter Mandelson had maintained his friendship with Epstein after the latter's conviction for what US law calls soliciting prostitution from a minor, why did Starmer and his inner circle still conclude that he was the right man to be the UK's ambassador in Washington DC?"
"They surely know it, and so does everyone else: presented with a due diligence report based on a vivid account of what Mandelson had been up to (much of which was well known anyway), they apparently took his denials at face value. Despite warnings to the contrary from, we now hear, the-then foreign secretary David Lammy and Starmer's then-deputy Angela Rayner they gave Mandelson exactly what he wanted."
Peter Mandelson received appointment as UK ambassador to Washington between late 2024 and early 2025 despite known links to Jeffrey Epstein following his conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. A due diligence report reportedly contained vivid accounts of Mandelson's conduct, yet his denials were accepted and the appointment proceeded. Warnings from senior figures including David Lammy and Angela Rayner were reportedly ignored. The decision demonstrates apparent disregard for Epstein's victims and risks damaging trust among those campaigning against abuse. The appointment initially attracted little alarm in politics and media, suggesting collective amnesia, and has produced public backlash and political consequences.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]