OK you and Blup are both wrong, IMHO! Here's why:
I’m not fudging the timeline, and this isn’t a rant against Labour.
I’m not claiming Epstein was convicted during the Blair or Brown years. I’m saying Mandelson already had a proven record of poor judgement and ethical breaches
before any Epstein context even comes into play.
That record is not disputed:
- 1998 (Blair) – Peter Mandelson resigns over an undeclared £373k loan.
- 2001 (Brown) – resigns again over lobbying linked to a wealthy donor.
That alone would sink most senior appointments in any serious organisation.
As for Epstein.. yes i agree, his full legal collapse came later. But senior government vetting is not a courtroom. It’s about risk, associations, leverage, and judgement , not waiting for a conviction before acting. Pretending elites only operate on what’s printed on a charge sheet is naïve.
This also isn’t party-political. I’ve said repeatedly on these forums (and in social circles!) that Boris had to go for similar reasons: repeated bad judgement and unserious leadership, shopping trolley analogy etc was absolutely right despite coming from a despicable lowlife.
If a Tory PM or anyone else had done this, I’d be saying exactly the same thing, sorry i have no affiliation to anyone, i want whats best for our country, do you, or are you like a die hard ManUTD fan etc.
The real question still stands:
If you were running a high-risk organisation, would you
really reappoint someone with multiple resignations for ethical failures and controversial associations into a role involving sensitive information? Really????
Most companies wouldn’t i know that for sure. Government should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one, people who have been around for a while who may have worked for public sector know the rules around compliance and know sometimes those rules are still circumvented.
And as you have rightly poined out giving other examples, history shows this problem cuts
across parties, which is exactly why it deserves criticism not excuses. We are a global competitor we need to do better.
How much infighting and distraction is this causing us(same arguement about why Boris had to go), i don't believe this is **** stirring by the press, as it gives a text book example of why repeated red flags should not be ignored, anyone can show compliance by saying 'Why were you still friends and talking to Epstein' as part of the vetting. The issue being they ARE red flags which should then have been acted on not ignored.
My issue is, someone appointed Mandelson to this position first eg 'Make this so' with the arrogance to say 'ask the questions so we can prove we did our due diligence, don't worry we can show them we asked the questions in case this ever blows up, now Mandelson has his role ive done my part of the deal...'
<- this is very bad, vetting is all about ensuring you put a person who is
TRUST-worthy into information sensitive positions.
Just like credit checks, check people are
CREDIT-worthy, you wouldn't lend a twice bankrupt con artist a third time? No.
Have i made it clear now, this isn't bashing labour, this is about trying to make the way our country run is improved. I also have a beef with all Cabinet members appointed to roles they have no fekin idea about also (another topic).
Angela Rayner is still hanging around like a lingering fart, she should be gone also, again i say this from a perspective of what's best for our country and politics, she's been shown to be unfit for this level of politics, fine go back work in a civil role lower ranked but not when it influences the running of our country, she blew her chance.
