Politics 2024/25 General Election Voting Intention (2022)

[DaGaffer]

Sure.

If Starmer did not know about any of this how can he be responsible?

It's a bit like the other day a person who was employed by Leicester Council got sacked after 2 weeks due to something that a previous employer disclosed, by that logic someone should resign in the council too, no?

But it's not just Epstein is it? Mandleson has a litany of dodginess going back to the 90s. Even without all this shit there were red flags everywhere.

 

[Scouse]

But it's not just Epstein is it? Mandleson has a litany of dodginess going back to the 90s. Even without all this shit there were red flags everywhere.

Hinduja? Undeclared loans? Russian Oligarchs, billionaires yachts, sleaze...

...nothing to see here eh?

 

[Raven]

Keir Starmer apologises to Epstein victims for believing Mandelson's 'lies'

The PM says the depth of the pair's relationship was not known when he was appointed US ambassador.

www.bbc.co.uk

So wewy wewy sowwy.

 

[Embattle]

You would think a lawyer might be a bit better when it comes to dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

 

[Scouse]

You mean a human rights lawyer might know that turning off power and water to a whole population might not only be illegal under international law, but also immoral?

 

[Gwadien]

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/VALndOGSMbU?si=hpeAXjYoC-SJDADO


Interesting take

 

[caLLous]

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/VALndOGSMbU?si=hpeAXjYoC-SJDADO


Interesting take

Yeah he said the same on the News Agents yesterday. He also pointed out that most of the reaction to Mandelson's appointment from the press at the time was that he was a good pick but it could be problematic re: China. Barely a mention of Epstein. It's only this recent release of files that's revealed how fucking awful his behaviour was when he was in Brown's government and quite how close him and Epstein were after Epstein's release.

So, leaving aside the motives for appointing him in the first place (him being a foil for Trump seems like the most likely), if he lied through his teeth in the vetting process and there was nothing to prove otherwise, what were they supposed to do? Maybe he thought "Epstein's dead so it all died with him" or that he knew Trump was so embedded in the files himself that he'd never allow them to be released at all.

I think it's fair to say that everyone has been caught off guard by the sheer scale of Mandelson's treachery. I guess we'll see when the communications surrounding his return are released but it's looking more like a serious error of judgement than anything else. If the comms show that all of this came out and Starmer still appointed him then that's a different thing altogether.

 

[Scouse]

I think it's fair to say that everyone has been caught off guard by the sheer scale of Mandelson's treachery.

Really? I don't think that's fair to say.

And why would you think our government won't be redacting stuff just like the US?

 

[caLLous]

Really? I don't think that's fair to say.

The sheer scale of it, yes. Forwarding the decisions of Brown's government to Epstein, as they were made, practically in real time? Sending an instruction to Epstein to tell the JP Morgan guy to "mildly threaten" Darling (which Darling said actually happened in his biography)? Actively working against his government and the UK as a whole in the most challenging financial crisis of our time?

You don't think it's fair to say because you hate Labour and you hate Starmer and your obvious bias doesn't allow you to step back and look at it objectively. Normal people recognise that some of his main areas of focus in his pre-politics career were sexual violence and victims' rights, on top of the emphasis Labour put on tackling violence against women and girls. It's obviously something he's cared about throughout his career and I don't believe he'd throw that legacy away by appointing Mandelson if he knew the extent of his friendship with Epstein after Epstein's release. I don't think he'd be stupid enough, for a start. As Goodall said, there's not a cat in hell's chance Mandelson would've been brought back in if Harris had won - he was put in specifically to interface with Trump.

And you said before that Brown was only "covering his ass" by calling for an investigation as if you believe that he knew about Mandelson's betrayal at the time and wouldn't have instantly sacked him. It's laughable.

And why would you think our government won't be redacting stuff just like the US?

I guess we'll see, won't we? What I do know is that Starmer stood there, apologised profusely (and believably) to Epstein's victims, and took uncomfortable question after uncomfortable question and answered them all whereas Trump called the reporter a liar and said she should be ashamed of herself for even mentioning the victims. I guess that's just Trump though right? He's such a card.

 

[Scouse]

Starmer can whatever the fuck he likes - he's provably - from his own mouth - a supporter of war crimes and collective punishment.

I wouldn't piss on the cunt if he was burning in front of me. And neither should you.