Why should Starmer resign? I don’t get it

It’s very interesting when perception of information shifts from gossip to conspiracy theory to fact.

There have been a lot of ‘person x in photo with Epstein, heads must roll’, headlines, and ‘person x may have been introduced to Epstein’.
That means absolutely nothing, it’s just mud slinging.

Andrew Windsor Whatsit may well be a pedophile, but there hasn’t been evidence until possibly recently. Just mud slinging based on US laws.

Now stuff is being released that looks much more concrete and much more damning.
And now everyone is supposed to have known all along.

I’m confused about who should have known better- apart from the series of rich men who were flying sex workers around for sex. Some of those sex workers were groomed and vulnerable, it would seem. Were they all? Is sex ever work or is it always abuse? Lots of mixed messages.

Alex Jones could have told you the extent of Epsteins depravity. So could a lot of maligned conspiracy theorists

Starmer's whole manifesto is build on the fact that Labour would be different, transparent, not like the sleazy Conservative Party who were full of MPs with no moral compass.

He promotes himself as a man of integrity who will always put the country first.

He already had a very competent US ambassador who Trump respected and instead he ignored information and red flags from our security services about Mandy and appointed him anyway.

Starmer knew Mandleson lies down with dogs and is covered with fleas but went ahead with giving him such a prominent position - our sleaze to deal with the US sleaze.

I think the real question is why Peter Mandleson was so powerful. Why is he calling the shots in this country and is reappointed when continuously sacked?

I don't understand why anyone thinks he should stay? He should have resigned by now. Whether it is a very poor lack of judgement on Starmers part, or that he knew what Mandy was all about and chose to ignore it, either way he is not fit to be PM.

This is just same sh!t different party. Their own dramas and internal bullshit taking precedence over the issues we have going on in the country. None of them are fit to run this country. I despair.

Alex Jones could have told you the extent of Epsteins depravity. So could a lot of maligned conspiracy theorists

I’m not a big fan, but I don’t understand why people believe he should go. Yes he appointed Mandelson as US ambassador when he knew about Epstein’s conviction and that Mandelson was still friends with him - which was wrong IMO.

BUT - people have known that was the case for over a year haven’t they? And Starmer got rid of him as ambassador as soon as he was first mentioned in the Epstein files last year.

Now all this extra stuff has come to light about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein in the last few days and of course it is dreadful, but how is that Starmer’s fault? Aren’t these disclosures (due to the release of further documents from the Epstein files) as much news to him as they are to everyone else? I don’t think anyone knew the extent of Epstein’s depravity until recently apart from those involved - I don’t see how Starmer could have been expected to know.

Can someone with more understanding of the situation please enlighten me?

As far as I'm aware, there is no information currently in the public domain which details exactly what KS was and wasn't told about PM during the vetting process, so I'm interested in your statement that the intelligence services told KS about PM in detail prior to the appointment. Can you confirm your sources for this claim?

It seems to me that, either you have access to insider info which hasn't yet been published. Which would make you a massive risk to our national security if you are reporting confidential information on MN before it is published.

Or you are just making it up.

I suspect the latter, but if I'm wrong, do feel free to share your sources.

It was not known that mandelson was insider trading/ sending classified information to Epstein

@Topseyt123 "Trump too is connected to the Epstein case. Why is his relationship with Epstein not more often examined in the media, alongside Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and Peter Mandelson?"

I expect Trump had the intelligence not to put anything in writing that could incriminate himself, ever.

If that is the case then presumably Starmer would have been warned. But he said he didn’t know the extent of Epstein’s depravity. Do you think he’s lying?

@working9 For me primarily because he's lying through his teeth. The extent of Mandelson's relationship with EPstein was public knowledge from at least 2023 - Financial Times article here https://archive.is/19g6R.
That's what was in the public domain. Starmer will, in addition, have had MI5/MI6 information.

Despite this, as said above, he forced through a political appointment for what is usual a prestigious career diplomatic post, replacing the respected diplomat who was already there.

He is now trying to say it was Mandelson's fault 'because he lied in vetting'.

If Starmer is “feeling the heat”, why wasn’t Boris Johnson roasted to a fucking cinder long before he was dragged out kicking and screaming? Tory press, and mates in high places?

I am sick to back teeth if hearing about bloody Epstein.

If that is the case then presumably Starmer would have been warned. But he said he didn’t know the extent of Epstein’s depravity. Do you think he’s lying?

@working9 For me primarily because he's lying through his teeth. The extent of Mandelson's relationship with EPstein was public knowledge from at least 2023 - Financial Times article here https://archive.is/19g6R.
That's what was in the public domain. Starmer will, in addition, have had MI5/MI6 information.

Despite this, as said above, he forced through a political appointment for what is usual a prestigious career diplomatic post, replacing the respected diplomat who was already there.

He is now trying to say it was Mandelson's fault 'because he lied in vetting'.

Starmer was told about Mandelson in detail by the Secret Services. It is their job to know these things. Usually they get it right.
Starmer then sacked a perfectly good and capable experienced Diplomat who had been in Washington and New York at the United Nations for years. Dame Karen Pierce was well respected and well connected. She also had a tough gig in Afghanistan.
But not liking women much Starmer installed his mate.

It seem Starmer wanted to release the vetting process but is unable to due to the police investigation? I wonder when they will be made public - it could be a while presumably.