General News Thread

[Sampson]

Also some of this Mandelson stuff is crazy. Like allegedly messaging Epstein - a foreign financier with secrets about trying to lobby to allegedly stop taxes on banker bonuses in the financial crisis and getting Gordon Brown to resign. 
 

One of the biggest corruption stories in uk politics. Think he’ll end up in prison. 

[StanSP]

8 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Also some of this Mandelson stuff is crazy. Like allegedly messaging Epstein - a foreign financier with secrets about trying to lobby to allegedly stop taxes on banker bonuses in the financial crisis and getting Gordon Brown to resign. 
 

One of the biggest corruption stories in uk politics. Think he’ll end up in prison. 

One can hope. 

[kenny]

11 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Also some of this Mandelson stuff is crazy. Like allegedly messaging Epstein - a foreign financier with secrets about trying to lobby to allegedly stop taxes on banker bonuses in the financial crisis and getting Gordon Brown to resign. 
 

One of the biggest corruption stories in uk politics. Think he’ll end up in prison. 

End of Starmer as well.

 

Rayner has been positioning today. Its been a fairly united house in PMQ's, with the majority of MP's agreeing with each other.

[Tommy G]

So Keir Starmer has confirmed the vetting process on appointing Peter Mandelson identified his ongoing association with Jeffrey Epstein, surely his time is up now??

 

It's outrageous. 

[CornwallFox]

4 minutes ago, kenny said:

End of Starmer as well.

 

Rayner has been positioning today. Its been a fairly united house in PMQ's, with the majority of MP's agreeing with each other.

I'm not a huge fan of attempting to damn politicians for things they couldn't know. 

 

Think there are legitimate questions about whether due diligence was done initially but equally it isn't right to not appoint somebody based on their old friend being a wrong-un. 

 

Obviously what's come out since looks pretty bad but nobody could've known any of it was coming. 

[CornwallFox]

2 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

So Keir Starmer has confirmed the vetting process on appointing Peter Mandelson identified his ongoing association with Jeffrey Epstein, surely his time is up now??

 

It's outrageous. 

What do you/he/they mean by association? 

Again, Epstein was a wrong un but was there any suggestion mandelson had done anything wrong himself at that point? Personally I think that's the only relevant information we need an answer to. 

 

Edited 4 February by CornwallFox

[Tommy G]

Just now, CornwallFox said:

I'm not a huge fan of attempting to damn politicians for things they couldn't know. 

 

Think there are legitimate questions about whether due diligence was done initially but equally it isn't right to not appoint somebody based on their old friend being a wrong-un. 

 

Obviously what's come out since looks pretty bad but nobody could've known any of it was coming. 

Would like to know your opinion if this happened under the previous regime, presume it would be different? He has admitted in PMQ he knew about it and still appointed him, how clear cut is that?  

[kenny]

Just now, CornwallFox said:

I'm not a huge fan of attempting to damn politicians for things they couldn't know. 

 

Think there are legitimate questions about whether due diligence was done initially but equally it isn't right to not appoint somebody based on their old friend being a wrong-un. 

 

Obviously what's come out since looks pretty bad but nobody could've known any of it was coming. 

I agree with the 2 lines, but the third im not sure.

 

I think we all knew what Epstein was like and the same with Mandelson. The releases are just confirming in writing what was known already.

 

I can't fathom why he was appointed once KS realised he was still talking to Epstein after his conviction. Being friends before that could be passed off as "their old friend being a wrong-un", their current friend is more difficult when a public firgure.

[CornwallFox]

Just now, Tommy G said:

Would like to know your opinion if this happened under the previous regime, presume it would be different? He has admitted in PMQ he knew about it and still appointed him, how clear cut is that?  

What I'm trying to establish - I haven't watched PMQs so you may have info I don't - is WHAT did he know about? 

 

I see a difference between having a friendship with somebody that has done wrong, and doing wrong yourself. What is it that was actually said today in terms of what was it wasn't known?

[Innovindil]

There's gonna be a few of that 8 (maybe even Starmer himself) that regret blocking Burnham from having a shot at that MP seat. 

 

Some of the emails coming out from that guy. Jeez. If he doesn't end up in jail something has gone horribly wrong. 

[CornwallFox]

1 minute ago, kenny said:

I agree with the 2 lines, but the third im not sure.

 

I think we all knew what Epstein was like and the same with Mandelson. The releases are just confirming in writing what was known already.

 

I can't fathom why he was appointed once KS realised he was still talking to Epstein after his conviction. Being friends before that could be passed off as "their old friend being a wrong-un", their current friend is more difficult when a public firgure.

This is the bit I'm trying to find out what was known, as I haven't seen it myself, to work out whether there's an excuse to have appointed. I haven't made my mind up as I don't know enough at this point, you guys might know more.

[kenny]

3 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

What I'm trying to establish - I haven't watched PMQs so you may have info I don't - is WHAT did he know about? 

 

I see a difference between having a friendship with somebody that has done wrong, and doing wrong yourself. What is it that was actually said today in terms of what was it wasn't known?

Starmer says it was known that the friendship continued, and that is why Mandelson was asked about it duing vetting. Mandelson misrepresented the friendship, he says.

 

 

Starmer says he did not know the extent of that friendship.

(It is a matter of public record that the friendship continued, because the FT ran a story about Mandelson staying in Epstein’s flat after the first convicton.)

 

Edited 4 February by kenny

[Tommy G]

Just now, CornwallFox said:

This is the bit I'm trying to find out what was known, as I haven't seen it myself, to work out whether there's an excuse to have appointed. I haven't made my mind up as I don't know enough at this point, you guys might know more.

Click on BBC news, Sky news, any news outlet you wish and have a read - then tell me you think he made the right decision appointing him. This is brewing as one of the biggest political scandals so far under labour and it's only going to get worse, he needs to go. 

[CornwallFox]

Just now, kenny said:

Starmer says it was known that the friendship continued, and that is why Mandelson was asked about it duing vetting. Mandelson misrepresented the friendship, he says.

It's certainly not a very clever look I'll say that. 

Whether it's right or wrong to have a friend that's a wrong-un, I will say it's a decision that didn't need to be made and representative or some really poor decisions starmar made early on. He's not played politics very well. It's certainly not been a low risk decision for him. 

I'll be out of replies soon I imagine.

[Wymsey]

9 minutes ago, kenny said:

Starmer says it was known that the friendship continued, and that is why Mandelson was asked about it duing vetting. Mandelson misrepresented the friendship, he says.

 

 

Starmer says he did not know the extent of that friendship.

(It is a matter of public record that the friendship continued, because the FT ran a story about Mandelson staying in Epstein’s flat after the first convicton.)

 

Of quite equal importance, what cake is that?..

It looks great.

Edited 4 February by Wymsey

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

This is the bit I'm trying to find out what was known, as I haven't seen it myself, to work out whether there's an excuse to have appointed. I haven't made my mind up as I don't know enough at this point, you guys might know more.

 

1 minute ago, kenny said:

Starmer says it was known that the friendship continued, and that is why Mandelson was asked about it duing vetting. Mandelson misrepresented the friendship, he says.

The old  saying 

lie down with dogs and end up with fleas 

 

Starmer probably thought that mandelson would be a good appointment to liaise with the trump administration based on his past friends and acquaintances. Well suited as a dodgy operator to interact with the dodgiest operators ever in govt.

the Epstein stuff was just unedifying and nothing that wasn’t already known about would come out.  

massive risk and I’m certain that was pointed out to him but he judged that having someone that the trump people would get along with and would trust was more important. 
 

and now he has fleas 

[kenny]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

 

The old  saying 

lie down with dogs and end up with fleas 

 

Starmer probably thought that mandelson would be a good appointment to liaise with the trump administration based on his past friends and acquaintances. Well suited as a dodgy operator to interact with the dodgiest operators ever in govt.

the Epstein stuff was just unedifying and nothing that wasn’t already known about would come out.  

massive risk and I’m certain that was pointed out to him but he judged that having someone that the trump people would get along with and would trust was more important. 
 

and now he has fleas 

Starmer says of course he has confidence in McSweeney.

And he criticises Badenoch for questioning the integrity of the cabinet secretary.

 

The vote of confidence is out. Thats McSweeney getting sacked in the morning, KS will get rid of him to save his own skin will be my guess.

[CornwallFox]

9 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Click on BBC news, Sky news, any news outlet you wish and have a read - then tell me you think he made the right decision appointing him. This is brewing as one of the biggest political scandals so far under labour and it's only going to get worse, he needs to go. 

I'll be honest, I'm not sure some of those complaining loudest were quite the same when we had the government literally create a scheme for their friends to win contracts who then delivered dodgy gear. 

We also had a prime minister put a man with links the the KGB into the lords. 

I think I'm being fairer in my criticism of starmar than those questioning whether I'd have asked questions if it was the Tories. 

[Tommy G]

4 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

I'll be honest, I'm not sure some of those complaining loudest were quite the same when we had the government literally create a scheme for their friends to win contracts who then delivered dodgy gear. 

We also had a prime minister put a man with links the the KGB into the lords. 

I think I'm being fairer in my criticism of starmar than those questioning whether I'd have asked questions if it was the Tories. 

Depends on how important you place association with a convicted paedophile? I think it's pretty up there, maybe you don't? Each to their own. 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Depends on how important you place association with a convicted paedophile? I think it's pretty up there, maybe you don't? Each to their own. 

A question that might also be asked of those (perhaps justifiably) offering a large amount of criticism of Starmer at the present time, considering (in most but not all cases) this matter appears to name names from across the political spectrum. 

 

Mandelson is clearly filthy, and it's entirely possible Starmer may pay for it, and for acting in spite of the due diligence that showed such filth, with his own position. But let's not ignore the omnidirectional hypocrisy occurring on this matter. 

[leicsmac]

To add to the above, appointing Mandelson in order to schmooze with the sociopaths currently in charge across the pond was as clumsy as it was stupid and there should be repercussions for that even without all this additional filth. 

[Tommy G]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A question that might also be asked of those (perhaps justifiably) offering a large amount of criticism of Starmer at the present time, considering (in most but not all cases) this matter appears to name names from across the political spectrum. 

 

Mandelson is clearly filthy, and it's entirely possible Starmer may pay for it, and for acting in spite of the due diligence that showed such filth, with his own position. But let's not ignore the omnidirectional hypocrisy occurring on this matter. 

Go on, explain - without going round the roundabout twice and missing the exit. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Go on, explain - without going round the roundabout twice and missing the exit. 

Farage, Starmer, Badenoch and even Davey have been mentioned in them, from discovery so far. 

 

So was Corbyn and the Reform UK treasurer, apparently. 

 

As such, I think it's a dangerous game for anyone to be even inferring cleaner hands at the present time, even though it appears very clear that getting Mandelson involved in government was a massive error for many reasons.

[Zear0]

44 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Depends on how important you place association with a convicted paedophile? I think it's pretty up there, maybe you don't? Each to their own. 

You think knowing a criminal is worse than defrauding the state of billions of pounds? I know Kier lives in your head but this is quite a stretch. 

[Tommy G]

5 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

You think knowing a criminal is worse than defrauding the state of billions of pounds? I know Kier lives in your head but this is quite a stretch. 

Nope I said how important you place association with a convicted paedophile - I didn't mention anything that you've just quoted above.