Is it possible that Mandelson might bring Starmer down?

Bows politely!

You might find this interesting. Inside information to Palantir goes back more than a decade.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/palantir-ministry-defence-hire-four-officials-2025-record-defence-contract-240-million/

Palantir for one being given access to our defences via Peter Mandelson fixing an introduction to KS in secret.

Can we rely on Peter Mandelsons judgement and honor and loyalty to his country? No. Did he have huge influence and access to the centre of government? Yes. Can we assume that more will be uncovered? Well let's wait and see.

She is, isn’t she?

How does it affect security? It potentially affected the UK financially 18 years ago with disclosures bordering on treasonous for sure but even then there was no impact on security.

You're wasted here @Papyrophile !

So the police investigation into Mandelson centers around whether he provided insider information to Epstein:

https://www.politico.eu/article/peter-mandelson-appeared-send-uk-government-plans-epstein/

On Profumo there was no state secrets passed to the Russians. Lord Denning concluded that there had been no breaches of security arising from the Ivanov connection, although clearly was a security risk that Keeler was sleeping with Profumo and Ivanov at the same time.

I am curious to understand what exactly you believe is "a lot more to this" relating to Starmer?

Mandelson is known as The Prince of Darkness and should never have been appointed even on the basis of his behaviour before his Epstein connection. I wasn’t impressed by Starmer’s speech this morning and feel that constant comments about supporting the victims is a totally untrue attempt at a smokescreen.

?

If you think its "hysteria" you havent been paying attention. What did Profumo do? Pass on state secrets to someone who then passed them on to the Russians. What did Mandelson do? We will just have to wait and see but the first part of the story has repeated itself already. And he was also passing market moving material. Eg Epstein knew before any of us that Gordon Brown was resigning.
There's an awful lot more to this than KS poor judgement.

Mandelson is known as The Prince of Darkness and should never have been appointed even on the basis of his behaviour before his Epstein connection. I wasn’t impressed by Starmer’s speech this morning and feel that constant comments about supporting the victims is a totally untrue attempt at a smokescreen.

Exactly. The press had a field day with partygate and eye test drives. And the school day stories of Farage. Its just that this story is much worse and actually affects the security of the country.

No really not. The media thrived on partygate and then anti last gov, followed by Farage stories now. Labour just feels attacked but it’s more an excuse than anything.

@Pineneedlesincarpet
’Theres plenty of left wing press that would love to find a scoop on Farage for example as big as this one. Hes had more scrutiny than anyone during the 30 years in politics. So wishful thinking really. Its important to not try and misdirect on this one I think. There are real victims and potential serious crimes.
Addiotinally this one is unfortunately supported with an enormous amount of written evidence rather than simply he said she said.’

I think that you are profoundly wrong there. Any queries re Farage and Boris do not get anywhere near the coverage that Starmer has had since day one. It’s not ‘misdirect’ as you call it, just an observation that they are treated very differently.
For example, anyone would think that Starmer’s name is in the files instead of Farage being mentioned multiple times…..

For the lack of a comma, a snit begins!

Of course anyone can see that there’s an issue. My point is (again) that main stream media reporting is very inconsistent when you look at how Starmer and eg Raynor are treated compared to Farage, Johnson etc.
I would love to see the same high level of scrutiny applied to all of them all of the time.

This really isn’t the case. You do know why there’s an issue with Starmer, Mandelson and Epstein links?

@Pineneedlesincarpet
’Theres plenty of left wing press that would love to find a scoop on Farage for example as big as this one. Hes had more scrutiny than anyone during the 30 years in politics. So wishful thinking really. Its important to not try and misdirect on this one I think. There are real victims and potential serious crimes.
Addiotinally this one is unfortunately supported with an enormous amount of written evidence rather than simply he said she said.’

I think that you are profoundly wrong there. Any queries re Farage and Boris do not get anywhere near the coverage that Starmer has had since day one. It’s not ‘misdirect’ as you call it, just an observation that they are treated very differently.
For example, anyone would think that Starmer’s name is in the files instead of Farage being mentioned multiple times…..

Yes we know. But I just explained what I thought she meant by it? Anyway forget it. I cant start explaining the posts of other people, particularly those I usually disagree with on most things. That would be a pretty pass!

I think there is an element of hysteria to this story. Let's be clear the criticism of Starmer is in that there was insufficient due diligence on Mandelson before appointing him as the UK Ambassador to the US. To be fair Starmer would not have been doing the DD himself- that would have been given to a specialist team, so that's not directly Starmer's fault.

Also going by the level of news coverage you would think that it was Starmer who was chums with Epstein and hanging out at his island. Whereas in reality Starmer just knew someone who was (Mandelson) and gave him a job.

Sadly it's another example of the level of polarisation in today's politics where facts don't matter, what matters is which political camp you are in.