TBH the contrast between how Mandelson was dealt with (police and politicians acted swiftly, decisively) and the tiptoeing around Andrew, over very similar allegations, was getting too obvious to ignore
We see this rather differently.
Mandelson was repeatedly brought back into Cabinet positions after being forced to resign because of impropriety (usually financial).
Starmer appointed him ambassador to the US against advice, over the head of a respected career diplomat who worked well with the Trump administration.
This was some time after the closeness of his relationship to Epstein was in the public domain, so would definitely have been known by Cabinet advisors and security people (Financial Times 2023 https://archive.is/19g6R).
I don't know how he got through the advanced vetting process; my understanding of civil service vetting is that someone with two previous episodes of financial impropriety would usually struggle to get through basic vetting.
He was dismissed as ambassador in September 2025, causing a tricky diplomatic situation at the time of the US state visit, and investigated in February when there was significant concern about misconduct in public office and Starmer very nearly lost his own job over the matter.
None of this strikes me as swift and decisive action.
One point that hasn't been mentioned in these threads (possibly because it is the RF board - it may have been discussed elsewhere) is just how much Mandelson may have been masterminding things.
He pushed for AMW to be appointed as trade envoy. During that time (2001-11) Mandelson was Britain's European Commissioner for Trade (2004-8), Business Secretary (2008-9), Secretary of State for Business/Trade/Industry (2009/10).
I assume there will be questioning of the RF and those who work in the palaces. I really really hope there will be a proper investigation into the role of senior politicians over that period as well.