Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Gordon Brown and AMW

207 replies

Shadeflower · 23/02/2026 09:35

Presumably the information GB is now presenting on AMW is stuff he had access to while he was in Governement? If so, why is he only speaking out now? Or did he try earlier and the establishment was such that even the PM couldn't be heard?

I like GB, always did, I'm curious about what it was that means he's only speaking out now.

OP posts:
deadpan · 23/02/2026 18:36

wordler · 23/02/2026 17:40

Gordon Brown brought Mandelson back into his cabinet in 2008 as Business and trade secretary.

That’s the same year Epstein went to prison the first time for soliciting children for prostitution.

He’s clearly known a lot more about all of this for decades - he’s only speaking out now about it because it’s become public.

The extent to which mandelson was connected to Epstein wasn't known in 2008. It came to light a few years later.

LambriniBobInIsleworthISeesYa · 23/02/2026 18:53

VimesandhisCardboardBoots · 23/02/2026 09:59

I don't think it's stuff he's been sitting on for years, more that there's all these reams of new information that's been released as part of the Epstein files, and he's been going through it and making links to privileged information he has due to being Prime Minister, and then supplying that to the police.

To give a completely hypothetical example, he might see a reference in the Epstein files to Andrew being somewhere on a specific date, and be able to corroborate that via his own diaries.

To be honest, I rather respect GB for doing this. I had a quick trawl through the files when they came out, and very quickly realised I really don't have the stomach for it. GB doesn't need to do this, he had no real reason to get involved at all, but he seems to be utterly disgusted with what possibly went on "under his watch" as it were, and have a real need to get to the bottom of it.

What she said. Good for GB says I.

willstarttomorrow · 23/02/2026 19:13

I personally beleive Gorden Brown is a decent, principled man who was driven by his principles and still is. He was handed a poisoned chalice by the time he became PM. The last Labour government did actually do lots of very good things, which have been over shadowed by Tony Blair and his involvement in the Iraq War and its legacy. There was also outgoing 'joke' made about there being no money left- which was a gift to the incoming government and still gets trotted out as fact.

I also believe Keir Starmer is actually a decent man, motivated by principles, rather than a desire to be in power. However, his constant need to try and appease all voters and subsequent u-turns as a result have been really damaging to the party. This also detracts from any positive changes that have been made in the short term they have been in power against the backdrop of what they have inherited.

The world has also changed a lot. The electorate now want 'a character' which Starmer is not (neither was Brown). I personally would rather grown-ups are in charge but the last few decades have shown that both in the UK and abroad, populist, dog-whistle politics wins votes. The standards the current government are being held to by the (largely) right wing press are completely different to those of the last government over three terms and people seem to have short memories.

Arguably this started with Thatcher, who successfully changed the mindset of the country from 'we' to 'me' with her policies, which in lots of ways have been incredibly harmful, but there is no going back. Many people benefitted in the short term, but in the longer term we are still feeling the impact (eg privitisation of utilities, council housing being sold off). Tory policy will always favour the rich, the most recent and stiking example was the contracts handed out to their mates during covid. Anyone who works within the NHS or social care knows that there has been a lot of privitisation through the back door and in order to meet statutory requirements, there is no choice but to use these services which takes money away from the frontline. There are a lot of investors making a huge amount of money from our most vulnerable.

As a country we want everything to work but no one wants to fund it through taxation and everyone has an argument why they should not pay more (businesses and individuals). Interestingly, people often cite Scandinavian countries as places that function and where they would like to live. However, they function due to an acceptance that this requires high taxation but the benefits this brings to society means people are more accepting. So both parents working and contributing is the norm- almost a societal duty, but in return there is very cheap and capped child care, social care provision for older people, maternity and paternity leave etc. In the mists of time, Sweden based their welfare model on our welfare state which is arguably much easier to do with a much smaller population.

I know this has turned into an essay, and I am sure many people with disagree with it! However, our model of politics is very much based on the short-term and therefore change is hard to sustain. I was speaking to someone today about the abolition of Sure Start, and how incredibly determental this has been to the most vulnerable in our society. The same with austerity, the majority of studies show that this was detrimental to society as a whole, short sighted and has has had a far reaching impact way beyond those directly effected. There is a strong argument that the Brexit vote was really an anti-austerity vote, but I probably should not go into that as well! Unfortunately, the self-serving and arrogant arsehole who led us to this mess did not think to stick it on the side of a bus. He then quickly disappeared when he realised it back-fired, no accountability.

To bring it back to Gordon Brown, he understands this and has continued to advocate for the most vulnerable. He continued to act as an MP for his constituency until 2015, and my family in that area report he was well liked and a good MP. He continues to be a fierce advocate against child poverty, education for all and a sustained improvement in living for the most vulnerable. He was instrumental to the most popular and significant changes to address inequality when in government, such as a minimum wage, tax credits for the low paid and a massive investment in public services. He is credited with huge cuts in pensioner and child poverty at the time. Others may not agree that this was a good thing, but as one of the wealthiest nations in the world in the 21st century- I consider this should be a given within a functioning society.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

PandoraSocks · 23/02/2026 19:27

willstarttomorrow · 23/02/2026 19:13

I personally beleive Gorden Brown is a decent, principled man who was driven by his principles and still is. He was handed a poisoned chalice by the time he became PM. The last Labour government did actually do lots of very good things, which have been over shadowed by Tony Blair and his involvement in the Iraq War and its legacy. There was also outgoing 'joke' made about there being no money left- which was a gift to the incoming government and still gets trotted out as fact.

I also believe Keir Starmer is actually a decent man, motivated by principles, rather than a desire to be in power. However, his constant need to try and appease all voters and subsequent u-turns as a result have been really damaging to the party. This also detracts from any positive changes that have been made in the short term they have been in power against the backdrop of what they have inherited.

The world has also changed a lot. The electorate now want 'a character' which Starmer is not (neither was Brown). I personally would rather grown-ups are in charge but the last few decades have shown that both in the UK and abroad, populist, dog-whistle politics wins votes. The standards the current government are being held to by the (largely) right wing press are completely different to those of the last government over three terms and people seem to have short memories.

Arguably this started with Thatcher, who successfully changed the mindset of the country from 'we' to 'me' with her policies, which in lots of ways have been incredibly harmful, but there is no going back. Many people benefitted in the short term, but in the longer term we are still feeling the impact (eg privitisation of utilities, council housing being sold off). Tory policy will always favour the rich, the most recent and stiking example was the contracts handed out to their mates during covid. Anyone who works within the NHS or social care knows that there has been a lot of privitisation through the back door and in order to meet statutory requirements, there is no choice but to use these services which takes money away from the frontline. There are a lot of investors making a huge amount of money from our most vulnerable.

As a country we want everything to work but no one wants to fund it through taxation and everyone has an argument why they should not pay more (businesses and individuals). Interestingly, people often cite Scandinavian countries as places that function and where they would like to live. However, they function due to an acceptance that this requires high taxation but the benefits this brings to society means people are more accepting. So both parents working and contributing is the norm- almost a societal duty, but in return there is very cheap and capped child care, social care provision for older people, maternity and paternity leave etc. In the mists of time, Sweden based their welfare model on our welfare state which is arguably much easier to do with a much smaller population.

I know this has turned into an essay, and I am sure many people with disagree with it! However, our model of politics is very much based on the short-term and therefore change is hard to sustain. I was speaking to someone today about the abolition of Sure Start, and how incredibly determental this has been to the most vulnerable in our society. The same with austerity, the majority of studies show that this was detrimental to society as a whole, short sighted and has has had a far reaching impact way beyond those directly effected. There is a strong argument that the Brexit vote was really an anti-austerity vote, but I probably should not go into that as well! Unfortunately, the self-serving and arrogant arsehole who led us to this mess did not think to stick it on the side of a bus. He then quickly disappeared when he realised it back-fired, no accountability.

To bring it back to Gordon Brown, he understands this and has continued to advocate for the most vulnerable. He continued to act as an MP for his constituency until 2015, and my family in that area report he was well liked and a good MP. He continues to be a fierce advocate against child poverty, education for all and a sustained improvement in living for the most vulnerable. He was instrumental to the most popular and significant changes to address inequality when in government, such as a minimum wage, tax credits for the low paid and a massive investment in public services. He is credited with huge cuts in pensioner and child poverty at the time. Others may not agree that this was a good thing, but as one of the wealthiest nations in the world in the 21st century- I consider this should be a given within a functioning society.

Terrific post ❤️

IceBrownie · 23/02/2026 20:10

willstarttomorrow · 23/02/2026 19:13

I personally beleive Gorden Brown is a decent, principled man who was driven by his principles and still is. He was handed a poisoned chalice by the time he became PM. The last Labour government did actually do lots of very good things, which have been over shadowed by Tony Blair and his involvement in the Iraq War and its legacy. There was also outgoing 'joke' made about there being no money left- which was a gift to the incoming government and still gets trotted out as fact.

I also believe Keir Starmer is actually a decent man, motivated by principles, rather than a desire to be in power. However, his constant need to try and appease all voters and subsequent u-turns as a result have been really damaging to the party. This also detracts from any positive changes that have been made in the short term they have been in power against the backdrop of what they have inherited.

The world has also changed a lot. The electorate now want 'a character' which Starmer is not (neither was Brown). I personally would rather grown-ups are in charge but the last few decades have shown that both in the UK and abroad, populist, dog-whistle politics wins votes. The standards the current government are being held to by the (largely) right wing press are completely different to those of the last government over three terms and people seem to have short memories.

Arguably this started with Thatcher, who successfully changed the mindset of the country from 'we' to 'me' with her policies, which in lots of ways have been incredibly harmful, but there is no going back. Many people benefitted in the short term, but in the longer term we are still feeling the impact (eg privitisation of utilities, council housing being sold off). Tory policy will always favour the rich, the most recent and stiking example was the contracts handed out to their mates during covid. Anyone who works within the NHS or social care knows that there has been a lot of privitisation through the back door and in order to meet statutory requirements, there is no choice but to use these services which takes money away from the frontline. There are a lot of investors making a huge amount of money from our most vulnerable.

As a country we want everything to work but no one wants to fund it through taxation and everyone has an argument why they should not pay more (businesses and individuals). Interestingly, people often cite Scandinavian countries as places that function and where they would like to live. However, they function due to an acceptance that this requires high taxation but the benefits this brings to society means people are more accepting. So both parents working and contributing is the norm- almost a societal duty, but in return there is very cheap and capped child care, social care provision for older people, maternity and paternity leave etc. In the mists of time, Sweden based their welfare model on our welfare state which is arguably much easier to do with a much smaller population.

I know this has turned into an essay, and I am sure many people with disagree with it! However, our model of politics is very much based on the short-term and therefore change is hard to sustain. I was speaking to someone today about the abolition of Sure Start, and how incredibly determental this has been to the most vulnerable in our society. The same with austerity, the majority of studies show that this was detrimental to society as a whole, short sighted and has has had a far reaching impact way beyond those directly effected. There is a strong argument that the Brexit vote was really an anti-austerity vote, but I probably should not go into that as well! Unfortunately, the self-serving and arrogant arsehole who led us to this mess did not think to stick it on the side of a bus. He then quickly disappeared when he realised it back-fired, no accountability.

To bring it back to Gordon Brown, he understands this and has continued to advocate for the most vulnerable. He continued to act as an MP for his constituency until 2015, and my family in that area report he was well liked and a good MP. He continues to be a fierce advocate against child poverty, education for all and a sustained improvement in living for the most vulnerable. He was instrumental to the most popular and significant changes to address inequality when in government, such as a minimum wage, tax credits for the low paid and a massive investment in public services. He is credited with huge cuts in pensioner and child poverty at the time. Others may not agree that this was a good thing, but as one of the wealthiest nations in the world in the 21st century- I consider this should be a given within a functioning society.

I'm amplifying this post because I agree with every single comma.

As an aside this obsession with "charismatic" leaders and this cult of personality is one of the many, many traps of Populism.

Give me a GB to steer the nation and keep your Boris Johnsons as court jesters, or TV pundits.

EasternStandard · 23/02/2026 20:45

IceBrownie · 23/02/2026 20:10

I'm amplifying this post because I agree with every single comma.

As an aside this obsession with "charismatic" leaders and this cult of personality is one of the many, many traps of Populism.

Give me a GB to steer the nation and keep your Boris Johnsons as court jesters, or TV pundits.

I don’t think it is going to be a factor. Not being charismatic was sold in as a plus for Starmer, ie that ridiculous ‘adults in room’ some went for. But it likely won’t be what people remember after the Mandelson affair.

u3ername · 23/02/2026 20:54

willstarttomorrow · 23/02/2026 19:13

I personally beleive Gorden Brown is a decent, principled man who was driven by his principles and still is. He was handed a poisoned chalice by the time he became PM. The last Labour government did actually do lots of very good things, which have been over shadowed by Tony Blair and his involvement in the Iraq War and its legacy. There was also outgoing 'joke' made about there being no money left- which was a gift to the incoming government and still gets trotted out as fact.

I also believe Keir Starmer is actually a decent man, motivated by principles, rather than a desire to be in power. However, his constant need to try and appease all voters and subsequent u-turns as a result have been really damaging to the party. This also detracts from any positive changes that have been made in the short term they have been in power against the backdrop of what they have inherited.

The world has also changed a lot. The electorate now want 'a character' which Starmer is not (neither was Brown). I personally would rather grown-ups are in charge but the last few decades have shown that both in the UK and abroad, populist, dog-whistle politics wins votes. The standards the current government are being held to by the (largely) right wing press are completely different to those of the last government over three terms and people seem to have short memories.

Arguably this started with Thatcher, who successfully changed the mindset of the country from 'we' to 'me' with her policies, which in lots of ways have been incredibly harmful, but there is no going back. Many people benefitted in the short term, but in the longer term we are still feeling the impact (eg privitisation of utilities, council housing being sold off). Tory policy will always favour the rich, the most recent and stiking example was the contracts handed out to their mates during covid. Anyone who works within the NHS or social care knows that there has been a lot of privitisation through the back door and in order to meet statutory requirements, there is no choice but to use these services which takes money away from the frontline. There are a lot of investors making a huge amount of money from our most vulnerable.

As a country we want everything to work but no one wants to fund it through taxation and everyone has an argument why they should not pay more (businesses and individuals). Interestingly, people often cite Scandinavian countries as places that function and where they would like to live. However, they function due to an acceptance that this requires high taxation but the benefits this brings to society means people are more accepting. So both parents working and contributing is the norm- almost a societal duty, but in return there is very cheap and capped child care, social care provision for older people, maternity and paternity leave etc. In the mists of time, Sweden based their welfare model on our welfare state which is arguably much easier to do with a much smaller population.

I know this has turned into an essay, and I am sure many people with disagree with it! However, our model of politics is very much based on the short-term and therefore change is hard to sustain. I was speaking to someone today about the abolition of Sure Start, and how incredibly determental this has been to the most vulnerable in our society. The same with austerity, the majority of studies show that this was detrimental to society as a whole, short sighted and has has had a far reaching impact way beyond those directly effected. There is a strong argument that the Brexit vote was really an anti-austerity vote, but I probably should not go into that as well! Unfortunately, the self-serving and arrogant arsehole who led us to this mess did not think to stick it on the side of a bus. He then quickly disappeared when he realised it back-fired, no accountability.

To bring it back to Gordon Brown, he understands this and has continued to advocate for the most vulnerable. He continued to act as an MP for his constituency until 2015, and my family in that area report he was well liked and a good MP. He continues to be a fierce advocate against child poverty, education for all and a sustained improvement in living for the most vulnerable. He was instrumental to the most popular and significant changes to address inequality when in government, such as a minimum wage, tax credits for the low paid and a massive investment in public services. He is credited with huge cuts in pensioner and child poverty at the time. Others may not agree that this was a good thing, but as one of the wealthiest nations in the world in the 21st century- I consider this should be a given within a functioning society.

Yes 🙌

RainbowZebraWarrior · 23/02/2026 21:21

willstarttomorrow · 23/02/2026 19:13

I personally beleive Gorden Brown is a decent, principled man who was driven by his principles and still is. He was handed a poisoned chalice by the time he became PM. The last Labour government did actually do lots of very good things, which have been over shadowed by Tony Blair and his involvement in the Iraq War and its legacy. There was also outgoing 'joke' made about there being no money left- which was a gift to the incoming government and still gets trotted out as fact.

I also believe Keir Starmer is actually a decent man, motivated by principles, rather than a desire to be in power. However, his constant need to try and appease all voters and subsequent u-turns as a result have been really damaging to the party. This also detracts from any positive changes that have been made in the short term they have been in power against the backdrop of what they have inherited.

The world has also changed a lot. The electorate now want 'a character' which Starmer is not (neither was Brown). I personally would rather grown-ups are in charge but the last few decades have shown that both in the UK and abroad, populist, dog-whistle politics wins votes. The standards the current government are being held to by the (largely) right wing press are completely different to those of the last government over three terms and people seem to have short memories.

Arguably this started with Thatcher, who successfully changed the mindset of the country from 'we' to 'me' with her policies, which in lots of ways have been incredibly harmful, but there is no going back. Many people benefitted in the short term, but in the longer term we are still feeling the impact (eg privitisation of utilities, council housing being sold off). Tory policy will always favour the rich, the most recent and stiking example was the contracts handed out to their mates during covid. Anyone who works within the NHS or social care knows that there has been a lot of privitisation through the back door and in order to meet statutory requirements, there is no choice but to use these services which takes money away from the frontline. There are a lot of investors making a huge amount of money from our most vulnerable.

As a country we want everything to work but no one wants to fund it through taxation and everyone has an argument why they should not pay more (businesses and individuals). Interestingly, people often cite Scandinavian countries as places that function and where they would like to live. However, they function due to an acceptance that this requires high taxation but the benefits this brings to society means people are more accepting. So both parents working and contributing is the norm- almost a societal duty, but in return there is very cheap and capped child care, social care provision for older people, maternity and paternity leave etc. In the mists of time, Sweden based their welfare model on our welfare state which is arguably much easier to do with a much smaller population.

I know this has turned into an essay, and I am sure many people with disagree with it! However, our model of politics is very much based on the short-term and therefore change is hard to sustain. I was speaking to someone today about the abolition of Sure Start, and how incredibly determental this has been to the most vulnerable in our society. The same with austerity, the majority of studies show that this was detrimental to society as a whole, short sighted and has has had a far reaching impact way beyond those directly effected. There is a strong argument that the Brexit vote was really an anti-austerity vote, but I probably should not go into that as well! Unfortunately, the self-serving and arrogant arsehole who led us to this mess did not think to stick it on the side of a bus. He then quickly disappeared when he realised it back-fired, no accountability.

To bring it back to Gordon Brown, he understands this and has continued to advocate for the most vulnerable. He continued to act as an MP for his constituency until 2015, and my family in that area report he was well liked and a good MP. He continues to be a fierce advocate against child poverty, education for all and a sustained improvement in living for the most vulnerable. He was instrumental to the most popular and significant changes to address inequality when in government, such as a minimum wage, tax credits for the low paid and a massive investment in public services. He is credited with huge cuts in pensioner and child poverty at the time. Others may not agree that this was a good thing, but as one of the wealthiest nations in the world in the 21st century- I consider this should be a given within a functioning society.

Another here who agrees with this post

willstarttomorrow · 23/02/2026 21:25

@ EasternStandard, but that was is some way the point I was trying to make. Starmer is very conscious that he thinks that he needs to be 'populist' and this is impacting his decision making and ultimately undermining him. The press have it in for him and like it or not, most people make their minds up based on headlines etc. Appointing Mandelson was a grave error, but I do understand why he did and likewise a lot of his actions to appease Trump. Like it or not, we have to maintain some kind of working relationship with the current President, which is like trying to reason with a toddler. I would love him to tell him to fuck off, as I am sure he and most of the cabinet would, but this would be incredibly harmful for the UK. He has however stood his ground were needed (Greenland being an example) and Trump threw his toys out of the pram.

There have also been some very positive steps made on home soil to start to re-address the absolute carnage caused by years of Tory policy (such as waiting lists coming down in the NHS, starting to implement recommendations from several reports into Children's Social Care reform and provision for looked after children) but this never is headline news, and the cynic in me thinks this is because lots of people do not care unless it directly impacts them. It should be however be headline news and there is still a long way to go.

Instead of being distracted by and responding to the Tories and Reform all the time, Labour should be shouting about what they are doing. However, as history shows, people vote in the conservatives until they get pissed off, Labour come in and redress the balance until people decide they are better served by the Conservatives.

The worry is, people may now vote Reform as a protest. Obviously we have no idea as yet if they can actually do better. However the fact that their leader is never in his constituency, never turns up to the House to vote and their councellors are reported to have no idea what their role is since being voted in does not bode well..... They also have no actual costed policies.

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 26/02/2026 00:19

I have always had a lot of respect for Gordon Brown. As a pp said, it is clear that he is driven by a genuine moral compass and we need more politicians like him.

It sounds like he has been very diligently going through the Epstein files and criss referencing the evidence against his own records and recollections. Knowing what we know about him, I suspect that he feels morally obliged to do what he can. All credit to him. It is clear that he really cares.

Giraffehaver · 26/02/2026 00:22

I have always liked and admired GB and think he is speaking up now because he couldn't before

ElizabethFryIsSpinning · 26/02/2026 08:09

Perhaps the reason why GB didn't last long as prime minister and why we have a current PM and cabinet who seem out of their depth is due to influence from Epstein and his cronies in selecting weak politicians .

SoftIce · 26/02/2026 08:53

@notimagain : Very interesting article, thanks.

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 26/02/2026 09:08

notimagain · 26/02/2026 08:34

I guess many people have seen and read all of this:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/25/why-gordon-brown-delving-deep-into-epstein-files

It's lnow many people are keen on pointing out what a fine person GB is but there's no getting round the fact that he is in part responsible for Mandelson's rise through the system.

I think we all know that Brown brought PM back into government. It's easy to see with hindsight what a bad judgement this was, and there were others who disliked PM greatly at the time, but I haven't seen any suggestion regarding the fact that GB would have known about PM's ongoing friendship with Epstein at the time, nor that he would have been able to predict that PM would share confidential information etc.

If Brown feels responsible for it now because of his own role in putting PM in high office, I think that merely reinforces my view that GB is a man of integrity who feels a sense of ongoing responsibility for the decisions that he made when he was in power.

Are you suggesting that GB ignored evidence of PM's misconduct when he appointed him as First Secretary of State? Can you link to a source for this?

PandoraSocks · 26/02/2026 09:38

If Brown feels responsible for it now because of his own role in putting PM in high office, I think that merely reinforces my view that GB is a man of integrity who feels a sense of ongoing responsibility for the decisions that he made when he was in power

Totally agree.

notimagain · 26/02/2026 09:44

Are you suggesting that GB ignored evidence of PM's misconduct when he appointed him as First Secretary of State?

Nice try but no I am not.

OTOH he doesn't get a free pass from me over giving Mandelson a help up the slippery pole.

TBH the "Saint Gordon" opinion is wearing a bit thin....he darn well should be expressing regret.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/06/gordon-brown-deeply-regrets-bringing-peter-mandelson-into-his-government

EasternStandard · 26/02/2026 09:54

notimagain · 26/02/2026 09:44

Are you suggesting that GB ignored evidence of PM's misconduct when he appointed him as First Secretary of State?

Nice try but no I am not.

OTOH he doesn't get a free pass from me over giving Mandelson a help up the slippery pole.

TBH the "Saint Gordon" opinion is wearing a bit thin....he darn well should be expressing regret.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/06/gordon-brown-deeply-regrets-bringing-peter-mandelson-into-his-government

Plus Epstein was arrested in 2008 and Mandelson stayed in his apartment in 2009. Perhaps who knew about that and when will come out with the release of the files.

ElizabethFryIsSpinning · 26/02/2026 09:55

GB got Wendied by Mandleson

PandoraSocks · 26/02/2026 09:55

Nobody has said he's a saint. What he is is a decent, principled person who has made mistakes. If only we had more people like him in politics.

SansSouciii · 26/02/2026 10:06

PM is such a compulsive, manipulative lying slippery fish.

Even yesterday in the middle of all this he lied to his lawyers to put out a statement (during an active investigation) to say that he was only and erroneously arrested because concern for him being a flight risk and he isn’t. Despite the police checking this out and deeming it valid.

The real issue is him passing on confidential, critical, sensitive, economic data to a convicted serial child rapist and sex trafficker. Classic narc caught in a corner pointing and blaming and lying.

My point being that PM always was and always will be the prince of dark arts who will and has manipulated many leaving no trace.

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 26/02/2026 10:09

EasternStandard · 26/02/2026 09:54

Plus Epstein was arrested in 2008 and Mandelson stayed in his apartment in 2009. Perhaps who knew about that and when will come out with the release of the files.

Perhaps, but as a manager, I don't tend to keep track of where my staff might stay when they're travelling on their own personal business.

EasternStandard · 26/02/2026 10:13

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 26/02/2026 10:09

Perhaps, but as a manager, I don't tend to keep track of where my staff might stay when they're travelling on their own personal business.

That’s great.

The good thing is all comms will be looked at for this. Mandelson already claiming he had no idea about Epstein even though his friend was imprisoned is an easy lie to see already. How far that went can be looked at.

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 26/02/2026 10:26

EasternStandard · 26/02/2026 10:13

That’s great.

The good thing is all comms will be looked at for this. Mandelson already claiming he had no idea about Epstein even though his friend was imprisoned is an easy lie to see already. How far that went can be looked at.

It seems abundantly clear that Mandelson lied about his relationship with Epstein.

If others have been guilty of any wrongdoing, then I'm sure that will come out in the evidence, but let's not try to discredit people before there is any evidence against them.

EasternStandard · 26/02/2026 10:29

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 26/02/2026 10:26

It seems abundantly clear that Mandelson lied about his relationship with Epstein.

If others have been guilty of any wrongdoing, then I'm sure that will come out in the evidence, but let's not try to discredit people before there is any evidence against them.

Let’s see. He hardly hid it either, with all those email trails. He thought Epstein was not a problem.

It’s only now politicians and others are scrambling to distance themselves.