Last edited Thu Sep 11, 2025, 08:46 AM - Edit history (2)
They would have known he had been an Epstein friend, and they took his word (he had been a power in the party for decades) that all that was then public was all there was. Taking Mandelson's word was a dubious thing to do, though - this is the third time he's had to resign/be sacked (first in 1998 for an undisclosed loan from a fellow minister, then in 2001 over a British passport for an Indian billionaire).
When Starmer appointed him as ambassador, I thought "why bring him back? He's too slippery."
On edit: I've added "...but..." to the title because:
The diplomat’s close relationship with Epstein was also brought to light in 2019 in an internal report from JPMorgan Chase. That report, filed in a New York court in 2023, said Mandelson planned to stay at Epstein’s Manhattan apartment in 2009, while the latter was serving what was initially an 18-month sentence related to charges of procuring a child for prostitution and soliciting a prostitute.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/5495866-peter-mandelson/If a court filing recorded they were that close after the conviction and
it was reported in British media, it should have been investigated properly. Yes, that's a failure of vetting.
= new reply since forum marked as read