I have much to say.
Take this, for example. Let's be real. Starmer appointed Mandelson with the knowledge that the latter had close ties with Epstein. In Starmer's view, the political risk associated with this appointment was offset by Mandelson's potential to foster good relations with Trump, and the fact that Mandelson is perceived to be an effective political operator despite his twisted moral compass.
In this context, the technicality of whether Madelson passed vetting and who knew what when isn't actually that relevant.