Pulitzer law suit ?? What’s that all about ? Or do you mean the BBC law suit ??
Oh got it now Pulitzer Prize group / board
Pulitzer law suit ?? What’s that all about ? Or do you mean the BBC law suit ??
Seven years ago, The New York Times and The Washington Post received Pulitzers for their respective coverage of Trump’s Russia scandal, and by any fair standard, the honours were well deserved.Pulitzer law suit ?
Politicians have to know how to lie mislead and manipulate, and deal with regimes far worse record than Mandy. The PM took a balanced view that despite all the negatives Mandy was the right person to deal with Trumpf, who is also associated with Epsteen.Blair era (1998)
Brown era (2001)
- Mandelson resigned as Trade and Industry Secretary after it emerged he’d taken an undeclared £373,000 loan from a fellow minister. - Basically lies and dishonesty proved he couldn't be trusted.
Starmer (2025)
- Under Gordon Brown, Mandelson resigned again,this time as Northern Ireland Secretary.
Basically lies and dishonesty proved he couldn't be trusted.
Mandelson 'Found' to be best mates with Epstein. (which was common knowledge for some time in many circles.
Sorry but if Starmer and co genuinely say they are shocked he lied and didn't realise he couldn't be trusted, on top of trying to manipulate this enquiry they should all go down.

Miliband chose not to, Corbyn chose not to.Politicians have to know how to lie mislead and manipulate, and deal with regimes far worse record than Mandy. The PM took a balanced view that despite all the negatives Mandy was the right person to deal with Trumpf, who is also associated with Epsteen.
Gold dust
Starmer is doing all his own kicking to his own head.Anything from Far rage on all this other than taking the opportunity to give Starmmer a kicking.
Mandy is good friends with a whole bunch of evil people as is Trumpf. There were hundreds of powerful rich individuals who stayed in contact with Epsteen. The episode shows how lacking in talent Starmmer was, and how Trumpf accepted Mandy knowing - as he must have- about his connections with Eppy. This can’t be reduced to a simple anti OMMiliband chose not to, Corbyn chose not to.
Why?
Because they made the right choice balancing risk over reward, includng ultimately their own tenure as PM.
We now know for Starmer, that view was incorrect, and if as you say he took that balanced view knowing he caclculated risk its ok for a man known to be good friends of a convicted paedophile to be ambasador for the UK, well, even more so thats on him, live by the sword...
McSwiny might not the PM. There’s stillStarmer is doing all his own kicking to his own head.
Starmer will be gone within days --- Remember where you heard it first.

What were his exact words?He's pretty much said so.