 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what’s your point exactly? As is well-known Mandy is/was a skilled operator for better and (this case) worse. We needed to take some kind of gamble to get close to the orange nutter and this was worth a punt. That’s the nature of politics. Looks messy but I wouldn’t personally hang Starmer for taking the risk. He’s not exactly denying it. " Oh dear! Do I really need to spell this out for you? This wasn't a 'calculated gamble'—it was a total bypass of national security protocols! The files show Starmer’s own National Security Adviser described the vetting as 'weirdly rushed' and 'not standard procedure.' There is a massive difference between 'messy politics' and a Prime Minister who is handed a dossier saying his appointee stayed at Epstein’s house while Epstein was literally in jail and decides to hire him anyway! If it was such a brilliant 'punt,' why did it end with Mandelson being sacked for a 'litany of deceit,' a police investigation into leaked government documents, and a £75,000 taxpayer-funded payout to stop a disgraced peer from suing us for half a million+? When you ignore the experts, break the vetting process, and leave the public to pay the settlement fee for your 'mistake,' that’s not a gamble—it’s negligence. But hey, if you’re happy paying the 'Mandelson Tax' for Starmer’s bad judgment, that’s on you! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what’s your point exactly? As is well-known Mandy is/was a skilled operator for better and (this case) worse. We needed to take some kind of gamble to get close to the orange nutter and this was worth a punt. That’s the nature of politics. " No, that’s the nature of grubby politics. The previous ambassador, Dame Karen Pierce, had been in post for 5 years and the President said he liked her a lot and was sad to see her go. There was no gamble to take in the first place, it was a jobs for the boys situation. Anybody with an ounce of savvy knew that appointing the menace & corrupt Mandelson would end in controversy. Starmer must go without question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These is no evidencd whatsoever in the Epstein files tochargr anyone with anything." No evidence’? Really? 😅 You clearly haven't been paying attention! ?If there’s 'no evidence,' why was Peter Mandelson arrested on 23rd February at his London home on suspicion of misconduct in public office? The 2026 Epstein files contained specific evidence suggesting he sent market-sensitive government documents to Epstein back in 2009 - information that wasn't public and was highly valuable. And he’s not the only one. The files released in January 2026 provided the 'missing links' for the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on suspicion of misconduct in public office, including allegations that he too shared confidential documents with Epstein. ?Legal experts and the UN have even stated that the patterns of systematic abuse documented in these 3.5 million pages could meet the threshold for crimes against humanity. ?So, when the police are literally making arrests based on these 'non-existent' files, saying there’s no evidence isn't just a bad take - it’s a total denial of reality. Do I need to spell it out, or are you just waiting for the trial transcripts printed in the Daily Mirror? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Talk about "Flogging a dead horse" Keir Starmer's ethics advisor REJECTS inquiry into Peter Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador. End of story." Very much a live horse, as it is the current government and their senior contact with the most power country on Earth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Mandelson files, released on Wednesday - 11th March 2026, reveal that Starmer was explicitly warned about the "reputational risk" of appointing Peter Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the US due to his ties with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Despite being handed a vetting dossier detailing how Mandelson stayed in Epstein’s home in June 2009 - specifically while the financier was serving a prison sentence for sex crimes. Starmer opted to turn a blind eye and push forward with the appointment in December 2024. Internal documents show that senior officials, including National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell, described the vetting process as "weirdly rushed" and "not a standard procedure." This suggests a deliberate bypass of the usual security checks to get Mandelson into the post! Starmer has since attempted to distance himself from the failure, yet the files show he was briefed on these risks months before the appointment. He was eventually forced to sack Mandelson in September 2025 for a "litany of deceit" after further allegations surfaced regarding the sharing of sensitive government documents with Epstein. Although Starmer has now apologised to Epstein’s victims, he continues to face intense criticism for ignoring clear red flags. Further adding insult to injury, following his dismissal, Mandelson had the audacity to demand a £547,201 "golden handshake" to cover his full four-year contract!! To avoid a messy public lawsuit, the government eventually settled on a £75,000 taxpayer-funded payout to our employee Mandelson - who was, in effect sacked in disgrace! " Don't you sound clever 🙄 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Talk about "Flogging a dead horse" Keir Starmer's ethics advisor REJECTS inquiry into Peter Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador. End of story. Very much a live horse, as it is the current government and their senior contact with the most power country on Earth. " Exactly!! ... and we've only seen the very tip of a very large iceberg! This isn't just about a 'messy' appointment, it's about the Mandelson Files (11th March, 2026) proving that Starmer was warned of the risks and chose to bypass standard vetting. We are talking about a man who allegedly leaked market-sensitive government documents to a convicted paedophile, was then handed the keys to the Washington Embassy by a Prime Minister who 'turned a blind eye,' and then cost the taxpayer £75,000 just to get him to leave! Some dead horse eh!! 😅 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what’s your point exactly? As is well-known Mandy is/was a skilled operator for better and (this case) worse. We needed to take some kind of gamble to get close to the orange nutter and this was worth a punt. That’s the nature of politics. Looks messy but I wouldn’t personally hang Starmer for taking the risk. He’s not exactly denying it. " Starmer took a risk and rather a foolish risk. A risk that has really come back to 'bite him in the bum'. No question about it Mandelson is a clever guy and a smooth operator. The transformation of the Labour Party which resulted in the 13 years of Blair/Brown government, was largely down to Mandelson. He was the great reformer, the 'power behind the throne'. Trouble is he was not so clever with his personal and non-political life. Sacked twice as a minister and now sacked in disgrace from the most important ambassadorial role. Shame the people of Clacton elected Farage as an MP. He would have been ideal as ambassador to Washington. Oh--wait a minute---not so sure he would have got an audience in the Oval Office despite being such a big pal of Trump's. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Mandelson files, released on Wednesday - 11th March 2026, reveal that Starmer was explicitly warned about the "reputational risk" of appointing Peter Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the US due to his ties with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Despite being handed a vetting dossier detailing how Mandelson stayed in Epstein’s home in June 2009 - specifically while the financier was serving a prison sentence for sex crimes. Starmer opted to turn a blind eye and push forward with the appointment in December 2024. Internal documents show that senior officials, including National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell, described the vetting process as "weirdly rushed" and "not a standard procedure." This suggests a deliberate bypass of the usual security checks to get Mandelson into the post! Starmer has since attempted to distance himself from the failure, yet the files show he was briefed on these risks months before the appointment. He was eventually forced to sack Mandelson in September 2025 for a "litany of deceit" after further allegations surfaced regarding the sharing of sensitive government documents with Epstein. Although Starmer has now apologised to Epstein’s victims, he continues to face intense criticism for ignoring clear red flags. Further adding insult to injury, following his dismissal, Mandelson had the audacity to demand a £547,201 "golden handshake" to cover his full four-year contract!! To avoid a messy public lawsuit, the government eventually settled on a £75,000 taxpayer-funded payout to our employee Mandelson - who was, in effect sacked in disgrace! Don't you sound clever 🙄" I don't know, you tell me! Although it doesn’t take a genius to read the Mandelson Files—just a basic interest in where our taxes are being squandered! ?However, it would be interesting to read your own views on the actual evidence, though. Please, do feel free to furnish us with your thoughts on why the Prime Minister ignored his own National Security Adviser’s warning that the vetting was 'weirdly rushed'—or perhaps you can explain why we just paid a £75,000 settlement to a man the police arrested for misconduct in public office? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How Starmer was ever called to the Bar is a genuine mystery. His judgement stinks, not just with this, but on so many things. His Inn of Court must have dropped a bollock at his ceremony day that’s for sure." A minion to do their bidding perhaps. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Amazing how Mandy always seems to end up covered in shit....but somehow he always comes up smelling of roses. Will he ever recover from this latest debacle and convince some other senior in government that he's still worth a punt or is this his final demise?" 7-day gold-fish memory and an electorate that need their parties to be colour-coded to know who to vote for. Many turds that won't flush in all parties. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How Starmer was ever called to the Bar is a genuine mystery. His judgement stinks, not just with this, but on so many things. His Inn of Court must have dropped a bollock at his ceremony day that’s for sure." Barristers are a strange breed. Very clever actors who write their own script. They can argue black is white even though they know it is black at its darkest hue. Seen them in action. Even once been cross-examined by one. I was a mere witness yet she tried to make out I was the biggest liar going. I just don't think a barrister is the right person to be prime minister. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How Starmer was ever called to the Bar is a genuine mystery. His judgement stinks, not just with this, but on so many things. His Inn of Court must have dropped a bollock at his ceremony day that’s for sure. Barristers are a strange breed. Very clever actors who write their own script. They can argue black is white even though they know it is black at its darkest hue. Seen them in action. Even once been cross-examined by one. I was a mere witness yet she tried to make out I was the biggest liar going. I just don't think a barrister is the right person to be prime minister." She was literally being paid to do that. Presumably you weren't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How Starmer was ever called to the Bar is a genuine mystery. His judgement stinks, not just with this, but on so many things. His Inn of Court must have dropped a bollock at his ceremony day that’s for sure. Barristers are a strange breed. Very clever actors who write their own script. They can argue black is white even though they know it is black at its darkest hue. Seen them in action. Even once been cross-examined by one. I was a mere witness yet she tried to make out I was the biggest liar going. I just don't think a barrister is the right person to be prime minister. She was literally being paid to do that. Presumably you weren't." Exactly though I did get travel expenses and lunch paid. My point is she was arguing for the sake of arguing. I know she was being paid to defend a violent psycho thug but if I, or any of the other witnesses, had crumbled or lost their cool, the jury might have delivered the wrong verdict. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Amazing how Mandy always seems to end up covered in shit....but somehow he always comes up smelling of roses. Will he ever recover from this latest debacle and convince some other senior in government that he's still worth a punt or is this his final demise? 7-day gold-fish memory and an electorate that need their parties to be colour-coded to know who to vote for. Many turds that won't flush in all parties. " Absolutely agree. It is inevitable that Rayner comes back into government by the sounds of it from Starmer. What was the point in her resigning in the first place if this happens? And should some other grubby controversy arise from her behaviour will Starmer still hang on? Will this man ever learn? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How Starmer was ever called to the Bar is a genuine mystery. His judgement stinks, not just with this, but on so many things. His Inn of Court must have dropped a bollock at his ceremony day that’s for sure." In fairness to Sir Keir Starmer KC, you don't become the Director of Public Prosecutions or a top-tier Human Rights lawyer by accident. His Inn of Court didn't proverbially 'drop a bollock'; they called a man who was, by all accounts, a legal Titan. He reached the absolute summit of that profession because his judgment in a courtroom was clinical and precise. The real issue is that legal prowess doesn't automatically translate to political instinct. In the law, you win on cold facts, technicalities, and 'the brief.' In politics, you win on vision, charisma, and an ability to read the public mood - and that is where his judgment seems to hit a wall. As for The Rt. Hon. Sir Keir Starmer MP, it's almost as if he is trying to run the country like a giant legal department. He might be a world-class lawyer, but many would argue his political skills are the total opposite: over-cautious, robotic, and often out of touch with the emotive side of leadership. It is a classic case of being a master of the courtroom but a novice on the national stage. You can see this "legalistic" blind spot in how he handles controversy. Take the rows over high-value gifts and "freebies" - his instinct was to argue that everything was "within the rules" and technically declared. In a courtroom, if it is within the rules, you win. In politics, if it looks wrong to the average voter, you have already lost. Similarly, with the Chagos Islands handover, he approaches it as a complex knot of international law to be untied, seemingly oblivious to how the "optics" of a strategic retreat play out at home. He is technically right, but politically tone-deaf. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Epstein knew about Peter's boy toys Peter knows about Kier's boy toys. Not hard to see how Mandelson was appointed by Starmer on a nod and a wink. From page 4 of the labour's own manifesto - 'Politics should be driven by a sense of service to the country, not considerations of party or self-interest' Starmer is not a trustworthy leader. " Epstein knew about Peter's boy toys Peter knows about Kier's boy toys. Not hard to see how Mandelson was appointed by Starmer on a nod and a wink. From page 4 of the labour's own manifesto - 'Politics should be driven by a sense of service to the country, not considerations of party or self-interest' Starmer is not a trustworthy leader. Unproven gossip is one thing, but the documented facts sink any claim of integrity. The Mandelson Files released on 11 March 2026 confirm Starmer was explicitly warned of the reputational risk in December 2024. He was handed a report detailing how Mandelson stayed at Epstein's home in 2009 while Epstein was in jail for sex crimes. Starmer ignored his National Security Adviser, who called the vetting weirdly rushed, and pushed the appointment through. We are now left with a police investigation into leaked state secrets and a £75000 taxpayer-funded payout for a man sacked in disgrace. This is a direct violation of Starmer's service over self-interest manifesto pledge. The facts show the system was bypassed, warnings were ignored, and the public is picking up the tab. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If he departs, another failure is eager to take his place. The Labour Party has completely faltered over the years by rejecting the EU. They appropriated Brexit for their own benefit, despite their discontent with it, don’t forget the situation with Corbyn and his associates which has been disastrous. Additionally, they have also turned down the USA, as Starmer believes that China is a better option; good luck to him. We do not engage in wars, yet the conflict in Ukraine persists, and we have been involved for many years. Can they genuinely explain how they intend to enhance the economy while remaining detached from the USA and all EU nations, especially with the ongoing war against Russia? That manifesto is truly destined for the trash." Seriously, are you on drugs? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are you on drugs to blindly follow labour and starmer , you pathetically think you are so intelligent and have all the answers maybe you need to leave a gay sex site and show the world how so clever you are " This from the person who keeps starting threads on a sex site about the same subjects  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are you on drugs to blindly follow labour and starmer , you pathetically think you are so intelligent and have all the answers maybe you need to leave a gay sex site and show the world how so clever you are " How bizarre 🤔 no longer on site. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are you on drugs to blindly follow labour and starmer , you pathetically think you are so intelligent and have all the answers maybe you need to leave a gay sex site and show the world how so clever you are How bizarre 🤔 no longer on site. " A lot of angst on-board it seemed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Epstein knew about Peter's boy toys Peter knows about Kier's boy toys. Not hard to see how Mandelson was appointed by Starmer on a nod and a wink. From page 4 of the labour's own manifesto - 'Politics should be driven by a sense of service to the country, not considerations of party or self-interest' Starmer is not a trustworthy leader. Epstein knew about Peter's boy toys Peter knows about Kier's boy toys. Not hard to see how Mandelson was appointed by Starmer on a nod and a wink. From page 4 of the labour's own manifesto - 'Politics should be driven by a sense of service to the country, not considerations of party or self-interest' Starmer is not a trustworthy leader. Unproven gossip is one thing, but the documented facts sink any claim of integrity. The Mandelson Files released on 11 March 2026 confirm Starmer was explicitly warned of the reputational risk in December 2024. He was handed a report detailing how Mandelson stayed at Epstein's home in 2009 while Epstein was in jail for sex crimes. Starmer ignored his National Security Adviser, who called the vetting weirdly rushed, and pushed the appointment through. We are now left with a police investigation into leaked state secrets and a £75000 taxpayer-funded payout for a man sacked in disgrace. This is a direct violation of Starmer's service over self-interest manifesto pledge. The facts show the system was bypassed, warnings were ignored, and the public is picking up the tab. " Maybe you could yell us who starmers boy toys? As you say you are in civil service or government etc were you ok with Boris ditching his security detail to say at the home of an ex kgb officer or the fact that he sacked two ethics advisors, or shut down government and lied to the queen to get his breakfast "deal" (it wasn't a deal) through. Where as starmer has apologised for mistakes made appointing mandleson, something the tories or reform never do. You could also farage thought the appointment of Mandleson was a great idea. Maybe you could also say who you would actually like to see running the country.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are you on drugs to blindly follow labour and starmer , you pathetically think you are so intelligent and have all the answers maybe you need to leave a gay sex site and show the world how so clever you are How bizarre 🤔 no longer on site. " How bizarre that you were unable to respond | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If he departs, another failure is eager to take his place. The Labour Party has completely faltered over the years by rejecting the EU. They appropriated Brexit for their own benefit, despite their discontent with it, don’t forget the situation with Corbyn and his associates which has been disastrous. Additionally, they have also turned down the USA, as Starmer believes that China is a better option; good luck to him. We do not engage in wars, yet the conflict in Ukraine persists, and we have been involved for many years. Can they genuinely explain how they intend to enhance the economy while remaining detached from the USA and all EU nations, especially with the ongoing war against Russia? That manifesto is truly destined for the trash. Seriously, are you on drugs? " Am I under the influence of drugs, or are your heroes in the Labour Party who are seated with the Ayatollahs in their embassy, celebrating their revolution? I am quite certain you can provide some insight on this while you enjoy your pint of milk, feeling so robust. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If he departs, another failure is eager to take his place. The Labour Party has completely faltered over the years by rejecting the EU. They appropriated Brexit for their own benefit, despite their discontent with it, don’t forget the situation with Corbyn and his associates which has been disastrous. Additionally, they have also turned down the USA, as Starmer believes that China is a better option; good luck to him. We do not engage in wars, yet the conflict in Ukraine persists, and we have been involved for many years. Can they genuinely explain how they intend to enhance the economy while remaining detached from the USA and all EU nations, especially with the ongoing war against Russia? That manifesto is truly destined for the trash. Seriously, are you on drugs? Am I under the influence of drugs, or are your heroes in the Labour Party who are seated with the Ayatollahs in their embassy, celebrating their revolution? I am quite certain you can provide some insight on this while you enjoy your pint of milk, feeling so robust." Labour party seated with the ayotollahs in their embassy.. you're going to have to explain that one too me as I have no idea what you are talking about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If he departs, another failure is eager to take his place. The Labour Party has completely faltered over the years by rejecting the EU. They appropriated Brexit for their own benefit, despite their discontent with it, don’t forget the situation with Corbyn and his associates which has been disastrous. Additionally, they have also turned down the USA, as Starmer believes that China is a better option; good luck to him. We do not engage in wars, yet the conflict in Ukraine persists, and we have been involved for many years. Can they genuinely explain how they intend to enhance the economy while remaining detached from the USA and all EU nations, especially with the ongoing war against Russia? That manifesto is truly destined for the trash. Seriously, are you on drugs? Am I under the influence of drugs, or are your heroes in the Labour Party who are seated with the Ayatollahs in their embassy, celebrating their revolution? I am quite certain you can provide some insight on this while you enjoy your pint of milk, feeling so robust. Labour party seated with the ayotollahs in their embassy.. you're going to have to explain that one too me as I have no idea what you are talking about." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/12/civil-servants-celebrate-islamic-revolution-iranian-embassy/ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I seem to remember all the right wing pundits/newspapers cheerleading for mandy...didn't the daily mail pay for his drinks reception before the Whitehouse correspondents dinner last year....?" Yep. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If he departs, another failure is eager to take his place. The Labour Party has completely faltered over the years by rejecting the EU. They appropriated Brexit for their own benefit, despite their discontent with it, don’t forget the situation with Corbyn and his associates which has been disastrous. Additionally, they have also turned down the USA, as Starmer believes that China is a better option; good luck to him. We do not engage in wars, yet the conflict in Ukraine persists, and we have been involved for many years. Can they genuinely explain how they intend to enhance the economy while remaining detached from the USA and all EU nations, especially with the ongoing war against Russia? That manifesto is truly destined for the trash. Seriously, are you on drugs? Am I under the influence of drugs, or are your heroes in the Labour Party who are seated with the Ayatollahs in their embassy, celebrating their revolution? I am quite certain you can provide some insight on this while you enjoy your pint of milk, feeling so robust. Labour party seated with the ayotollahs in their embassy.. you're going to have to explain that one too me as I have no idea what you are talking about. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/12/civil-servants-celebrate-islamic-revolution-iranian-embassy/ " Sorry, can't read that as I don't subscribe to the torygraph. I very much doubt they were partying about people dying, but whatever gets you up in the morning. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If he departs, another failure is eager to take his place. The Labour Party has completely faltered over the years by rejecting the EU. They appropriated Brexit for their own benefit, despite their discontent with it, don’t forget the situation with Corbyn and his associates which has been disastrous. Additionally, they have also turned down the USA, as Starmer believes that China is a better option; good luck to him. We do not engage in wars, yet the conflict in Ukraine persists, and we have been involved for many years. Can they genuinely explain how they intend to enhance the economy while remaining detached from the USA and all EU nations, especially with the ongoing war against Russia? That manifesto is truly destined for the trash. Seriously, are you on drugs? Am I under the influence of drugs, or are your heroes in the Labour Party who are seated with the Ayatollahs in their embassy, celebrating their revolution? I am quite certain you can provide some insight on this while you enjoy your pint of milk, feeling so robust. Labour party seated with the ayotollahs in their embassy.. you're going to have to explain that one too me as I have no idea what you are talking about. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/12/civil-servants-celebrate-islamic-revolution-iranian-embassy/ Sorry, can't read that as I don't subscribe to the torygraph. I very much doubt they were partying about people dying, but whatever gets you up in the morning. " There are significant differences between "I cannot read it" and "I do not wish to read it." Your excuses indicate that you are indeed consuming milk. Simply search for the Labour Party's attendance at the Islamic Republic's embassy celebration. It is not difficult to press a button and discover how embarrassing they are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If he departs, another failure is eager to take his place. The Labour Party has completely faltered over the years by rejecting the EU. They appropriated Brexit for their own benefit, despite their discontent with it, don’t forget the situation with Corbyn and his associates which has been disastrous. Additionally, they have also turned down the USA, as Starmer believes that China is a better option; good luck to him. We do not engage in wars, yet the conflict in Ukraine persists, and we have been involved for many years. Can they genuinely explain how they intend to enhance the economy while remaining detached from the USA and all EU nations, especially with the ongoing war against Russia? That manifesto is truly destined for the trash. Seriously, are you on drugs? Am I under the influence of drugs, or are your heroes in the Labour Party who are seated with the Ayatollahs in their embassy, celebrating their revolution? I am quite certain you can provide some insight on this while you enjoy your pint of milk, feeling so robust. Labour party seated with the ayotollahs in their embassy.. you're going to have to explain that one too me as I have no idea what you are talking about. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/12/civil-servants-celebrate-islamic-revolution-iranian-embassy/ Sorry, can't read that as I don't subscribe to the torygraph. I very much doubt they were partying about people dying, but whatever gets you up in the morning. " Echo chambers are a prison of your own making. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If he departs, another failure is eager to take his place. The Labour Party has completely faltered over the years by rejecting the EU. They appropriated Brexit for their own benefit, despite their discontent with it, don’t forget the situation with Corbyn and his associates which has been disastrous. Additionally, they have also turned down the USA, as Starmer believes that China is a better option; good luck to him. We do not engage in wars, yet the conflict in Ukraine persists, and we have been involved for many years. Can they genuinely explain how they intend to enhance the economy while remaining detached from the USA and all EU nations, especially with the ongoing war against Russia? That manifesto is truly destined for the trash. Seriously, are you on drugs? Am I under the influence of drugs, or are your heroes in the Labour Party who are seated with the Ayatollahs in their embassy, celebrating their revolution? I am quite certain you can provide some insight on this while you enjoy your pint of milk, feeling so robust. Labour party seated with the ayotollahs in their embassy.. you're going to have to explain that one too me as I have no idea what you are talking about. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/12/civil-servants-celebrate-islamic-revolution-iranian-embassy/ Sorry, can't read that as I don't subscribe to the torygraph. I very much doubt they were partying about people dying, but whatever gets you up in the morning. There are significant differences between "I cannot read it" and "I do not wish to read it." Your excuses indicate that you are indeed consuming milk. Simply search for the Labour Party's attendance at the Islamic Republic's embassy celebration. It is not difficult to press a button and discover how embarrassing they are." I've just done that "A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It is the job of the Foreign Office to maintain diplomatic relations with countries across the globe, and it is standard practice as part of that engagement for the UK to be represented at these kind of national day events. 'The event in question has been regularly attended by Foreign Office officials under successive governments since the Iranian embassy in London reopened in 2015" Bloody labour being in power from 2015 - 2026 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If he departs, another failure is eager to take his place. The Labour Party has completely faltered over the years by rejecting the EU. They appropriated Brexit for their own benefit, despite their discontent with it, don’t forget the situation with Corbyn and his associates which has been disastrous. Additionally, they have also turned down the USA, as Starmer believes that China is a better option; good luck to him. We do not engage in wars, yet the conflict in Ukraine persists, and we have been involved for many years. Can they genuinely explain how they intend to enhance the economy while remaining detached from the USA and all EU nations, especially with the ongoing war against Russia? That manifesto is truly destined for the trash. Seriously, are you on drugs? Am I under the influence of drugs, or are your heroes in the Labour Party who are seated with the Ayatollahs in their embassy, celebrating their revolution? I am quite certain you can provide some insight on this while you enjoy your pint of milk, feeling so robust. Labour party seated with the ayotollahs in their embassy.. you're going to have to explain that one too me as I have no idea what you are talking about. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/12/civil-servants-celebrate-islamic-revolution-iranian-embassy/ Sorry, can't read that as I don't subscribe to the torygraph. I very much doubt they were partying about people dying, but whatever gets you up in the morning. There are significant differences between "I cannot read it" and "I do not wish to read it." Your excuses indicate that you are indeed consuming milk. Simply search for the Labour Party's attendance at the Islamic Republic's embassy celebration. It is not difficult to press a button and discover how embarrassing they are. I've just done that "A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It is the job of the Foreign Office to maintain diplomatic relations with countries across the globe, and it is standard practice as part of that engagement for the UK to be represented at these kind of national day events. 'The event in question has been regularly attended by Foreign Office officials under successive governments since the Iranian embassy in London reopened in 2015" Bloody labour being in power from 2015 - 2026" What a completely outrageous justification for defending a party that visits an embassy following a massacre, celebrating their revolution two weeks after the killing of 40,000 individuals. Months ago, all EU countries designated the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, and many were perplexed as to why protesters in front of the Iranian embassy were assaulted by police without justification. Engaging with the Ayatollahs at a time when the entire world labels them as terrorists, and you are referencing back to 2015? We are discussing 2026, a time when it has become evident to all nations what a dreadful regime they represent. Please refrain from making further excuses for their attendance, as it only serves to embarrass you further. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If he departs, another failure is eager to take his place. The Labour Party has completely faltered over the years by rejecting the EU. They appropriated Brexit for their own benefit, despite their discontent with it, don’t forget the situation with Corbyn and his associates which has been disastrous. Additionally, they have also turned down the USA, as Starmer believes that China is a better option; good luck to him. We do not engage in wars, yet the conflict in Ukraine persists, and we have been involved for many years. Can they genuinely explain how they intend to enhance the economy while remaining detached from the USA and all EU nations, especially with the ongoing war against Russia? That manifesto is truly destined for the trash. Seriously, are you on drugs? Am I under the influence of drugs, or are your heroes in the Labour Party who are seated with the Ayatollahs in their embassy, celebrating their revolution? I am quite certain you can provide some insight on this while you enjoy your pint of milk, feeling so robust. Labour party seated with the ayotollahs in their embassy.. you're going to have to explain that one too me as I have no idea what you are talking about. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/12/civil-servants-celebrate-islamic-revolution-iranian-embassy/ Sorry, can't read that as I don't subscribe to the torygraph. I very much doubt they were partying about people dying, but whatever gets you up in the morning. There are significant differences between "I cannot read it" and "I do not wish to read it." Your excuses indicate that you are indeed consuming milk. Simply search for the Labour Party's attendance at the Islamic Republic's embassy celebration. It is not difficult to press a button and discover how embarrassing they are. I've just done that "A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It is the job of the Foreign Office to maintain diplomatic relations with countries across the globe, and it is standard practice as part of that engagement for the UK to be represented at these kind of national day events. 'The event in question has been regularly attended by Foreign Office officials under successive governments since the Iranian embassy in London reopened in 2015" Bloody labour being in power from 2015 - 2026 What a completely outrageous justification for defending a party that visits an embassy following a massacre, celebrating their revolution two weeks after the killing of 40,000 individuals. Months ago, all EU countries designated the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, and many were perplexed as to why protesters in front of the Iranian embassy were assaulted by police without justification. Engaging with the Ayatollahs at a time when the entire world labels them as terrorists, and you are referencing back to 2015? We are discussing 2026, a time when it has become evident to all nations what a dreadful regime they represent. Please refrain from making further excuses for their attendance, as it only serves to embarrass you further." I'm making no excuses for anything you sanctimonious dipshit, just ridiculing your pompous claims | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If he departs, another failure is eager to take his place. The Labour Party has completely faltered over the years by rejecting the EU. They appropriated Brexit for their own benefit, despite their discontent with it, don’t forget the situation with Corbyn and his associates which has been disastrous. Additionally, they have also turned down the USA, as Starmer believes that China is a better option; good luck to him. We do not engage in wars, yet the conflict in Ukraine persists, and we have been involved for many years. Can they genuinely explain how they intend to enhance the economy while remaining detached from the USA and all EU nations, especially with the ongoing war against Russia? That manifesto is truly destined for the trash. Seriously, are you on drugs? Am I under the influence of drugs, or are your heroes in the Labour Party who are seated with the Ayatollahs in their embassy, celebrating their revolution? I am quite certain you can provide some insight on this while you enjoy your pint of milk, feeling so robust. Labour party seated with the ayotollahs in their embassy.. you're going to have to explain that one too me as I have no idea what you are talking about. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/12/civil-servants-celebrate-islamic-revolution-iranian-embassy/ Sorry, can't read that as I don't subscribe to the torygraph. I very much doubt they were partying about people dying, but whatever gets you up in the morning. There are significant differences between "I cannot read it" and "I do not wish to read it." Your excuses indicate that you are indeed consuming milk. Simply search for the Labour Party's attendance at the Islamic Republic's embassy celebration. It is not difficult to press a button and discover how embarrassing they are. I've just done that "A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It is the job of the Foreign Office to maintain diplomatic relations with countries across the globe, and it is standard practice as part of that engagement for the UK to be represented at these kind of national day events. 'The event in question has been regularly attended by Foreign Office officials under successive governments since the Iranian embassy in London reopened in 2015" Bloody labour being in power from 2015 - 2026 What a completely outrageous justification for defending a party that visits an embassy following a massacre, celebrating their revolution two weeks after the killing of 40,000 individuals. Months ago, all EU countries designated the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, and many were perplexed as to why protesters in front of the Iranian embassy were assaulted by police without justification. Engaging with the Ayatollahs at a time when the entire world labels them as terrorists, and you are referencing back to 2015? We are discussing 2026, a time when it has become evident to all nations what a dreadful regime they represent. Please refrain from making further excuses for their attendance, as it only serves to embarrass you further." ...why are you hijacking a thread about mandelson and Epstein? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If he departs, another failure is eager to take his place. The Labour Party has completely faltered over the years by rejecting the EU. They appropriated Brexit for their own benefit, despite their discontent with it, don’t forget the situation with Corbyn and his associates which has been disastrous. Additionally, they have also turned down the USA, as Starmer believes that China is a better option; good luck to him. We do not engage in wars, yet the conflict in Ukraine persists, and we have been involved for many years. Can they genuinely explain how they intend to enhance the economy while remaining detached from the USA and all EU nations, especially with the ongoing war against Russia? That manifesto is truly destined for the trash. Seriously, are you on drugs? Am I under the influence of drugs, or are your heroes in the Labour Party who are seated with the Ayatollahs in their embassy, celebrating their revolution? I am quite certain you can provide some insight on this while you enjoy your pint of milk, feeling so robust. Labour party seated with the ayotollahs in their embassy.. you're going to have to explain that one too me as I have no idea what you are talking about. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/12/civil-servants-celebrate-islamic-revolution-iranian-embassy/ Sorry, can't read that as I don't subscribe to the torygraph. I very much doubt they were partying about people dying, but whatever gets you up in the morning. There are significant differences between "I cannot read it" and "I do not wish to read it." Your excuses indicate that you are indeed consuming milk. Simply search for the Labour Party's attendance at the Islamic Republic's embassy celebration. It is not difficult to press a button and discover how embarrassing they are. I've just done that "A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It is the job of the Foreign Office to maintain diplomatic relations with countries across the globe, and it is standard practice as part of that engagement for the UK to be represented at these kind of national day events. 'The event in question has been regularly attended by Foreign Office officials under successive governments since the Iranian embassy in London reopened in 2015" Bloody labour being in power from 2015 - 2026 What a completely outrageous justification for defending a party that visits an embassy following a massacre, celebrating their revolution two weeks after the killing of 40,000 individuals. Months ago, all EU countries designated the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, and many were perplexed as to why protesters in front of the Iranian embassy were assaulted by police without justification. Engaging with the Ayatollahs at a time when the entire world labels them as terrorists, and you are referencing back to 2015? We are discussing 2026, a time when it has become evident to all nations what a dreadful regime they represent. Please refrain from making further excuses for their attendance, as it only serves to embarrass you further. I'm making no excuses for anything you sanctimonious dipshit, just ridiculing your pompous claims " Did you genuinely believe that you were ridiculing my statement? You must be mistaken. Perhaps next time, consider using a different dictionary to enhance your language skills. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry guys, I seem to be experiencing text formatting issues on my laptop ATM. But this thread seems to have taken a rather bizarre meandrous tangent from the core topic of the Mandelson scandal in which Starmer, despite knowing of his connections with convicted sex offender Epstein, opted to blatantly ignore the fact and take a seriously negligent action in appointing Mandelson to the high-profile position as UK Ambassador to the US! Can we please refocus on this and its aftermath effect as the focal topic of the thread? " Why? Just because its a bee in your bonnet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Indeed it was as the justification was included in the article you referenced. Or did you only read, or choose to read, the bit you wanted? I could look up plenty of words for you in Roger Nellie's Profanisaurus" You're putting in a lot of effort, but it doesn't really make sense. Like I mentioned, you made yourself look bad and revealed what the Labour supporters are like. That's the kind of language they use. Keep trying, but use words that will at least earn you some respect. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry guys, I seem to be experiencing text formatting issues on my laptop ATM. But this thread seems to have taken a rather bizarre meandrous tangent from the core topic of the Mandelson scandal in which Starmer, despite knowing of his connections with convicted sex offender Epstein, opted to blatantly ignore the fact and take a seriously negligent action in appointing Mandelson to the high-profile position as UK Ambassador to the US! Can we please refocus on this and its aftermath effect as the focal topic of the thread? " ...yes...its called hijacking... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry guys, I seem to be experiencing text formatting issues on my laptop ATM. But this thread seems to have taken a rather bizarre meandrous tangent from the core topic of the Mandelson scandal in which Starmer, despite knowing of his connections with convicted sex offender Epstein, opted to blatantly ignore the fact and take a seriously negligent action in appointing Mandelson to the high-profile position as UK Ambassador to the US! Can we please refocus on this and its aftermath effect as the focal topic of the thread? Why? Just because its a bee in your bonnet. " No bonnet!👒 No bee 🐝! The only bee here seems to hold the sting in your attitude 'respectdue'! You seem to have to gone from a position of offering a once reasonable but sometimes erroneous perspective on a topic to a position of retaliating in a nonsensical and often irrelevant oafish angst which casts a rather untoward shadow over your once respected opinions! Indeed the 'respect due' seems to have sadly got lost somewhere en route. Politically we are clearly polar opposites, but I always had respect for you as a decent adversary, this is written with only good upstanding intentions, but maybe it's time that you considered taking a short sabbatical from these columns? Just a thought. Now, perhaps we can now focus on the topic in question guys? Namely the unfortunate Mandelson Scandal! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry guys, I seem to be experiencing text formatting issues on my laptop ATM. But this thread seems to have taken a rather bizarre meandrous tangent from the core topic of the Mandelson scandal in which Starmer, despite knowing of his connections with convicted sex offender Epstein, opted to blatantly ignore the fact and take a seriously negligent action in appointing Mandelson to the high-profile position as UK Ambassador to the US! Can we please refocus on this and its aftermath effect as the focal topic of the thread? Why? Just because its a bee in your bonnet. No bonnet!👒 No bee 🐝! The only bee here seems to hold the sting in your attitude 'respectdue'! You seem to have to gone from a position of offering a once reasonable but sometimes erroneous perspective on a topic to a position of retaliating in a nonsensical and often irrelevant oafish angst which casts a rather untoward shadow over your once respected opinions! Indeed the 'respect due' seems to have sadly got lost somewhere en route. Politically we are clearly polar opposites, but I always had respect for you as a decent adversary, this is written with only good upstanding intentions, but maybe it's time that you considered taking a short sabbatical from these columns? Just a thought. Now, perhaps we can now focus on the topic in question guys? Namely the unfortunate Mandelson Scandal! " ...you may be blaming the wrong person for hijacking your thread...if you don't mind me saying... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry guys, I seem to be experiencing text formatting issues on my laptop ATM. But this thread seems to have taken a rather bizarre meandrous tangent from the core topic of the Mandelson scandal in which Starmer, despite knowing of his connections with convicted sex offender Epstein, opted to blatantly ignore the fact and take a seriously negligent action in appointing Mandelson to the high-profile position as UK Ambassador to the US! Can we please refocus on this and its aftermath effect as the focal topic of the thread? Why? Just because its a bee in your bonnet. No bonnet!👒 No bee 🐝! The only bee here seems to hold the sting in your attitude 'respectdue'! You seem to have to gone from a position of offering a once reasonable but sometimes erroneous perspective on a topic to a position of retaliating in a nonsensical and often irrelevant oafish angst which casts a rather untoward shadow over your once respected opinions! Indeed the 'respect due' seems to have sadly got lost somewhere en route. Politically we are clearly polar opposites, but I always had respect for you as a decent adversary, this is written with only good upstanding intentions, but maybe it's time that you considered taking a short sabbatical from these columns? Just a thought. Now, perhaps we can now focus on the topic in question guys? Namely the unfortunate Mandelson Scandal! ...you may be blaming the wrong person for hijacking your thread...if you don't mind me saying..." Thanks, but I'm not blaming anyone at all, just attempting to re-rail the thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To get back to the actual evidence, the Mandelson Files released on 11th March 2026 confirm this is not a matter of opinion. The Cabinet Office due diligence report, handed to the Prime Minister on 4th December 2024, explicitly warned of a "general reputational risk" regarding Mandelsons ties to Epstein. ?The documents detail how Mandelson stayed at Epsteins home in June 2009 while Epstein was literally in jail for sex crimes. Despite this, and warnings from the National Security Adviser about a "rushed" process, the appointment went ahead. ?We also now know that following his sacking in September 2025, Mandelson originally demanded a £547201 golden handshake before settling for £75000 of taxpayer money. With the Metropolitan Police still investigating misconduct in public office and withholding key files, this is a serious national security failure that requires full transparency. " ....the dogs in the street knew he wasn't squeaky clean...yet many prominent Tories, and most of the right wing press endorsed him.....along with the labour party of course | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ....the dogs in the street knew he wasn't squeaky clean...yet many prominent Tories, and most of the right wing press endorsed him.....along with the labour party of course " Actually, it was the Conservatives who used a Humble Address in Parliament to force Starmer to release these files in the first place. Conservative MP Alex Burghart stated in the House on 11th March that while Mandelson may have lied, the Prime Minister "wasn't lied to by this due diligence document" and that he "knew all he needed to know." ?Kemi Badenoch has also been relentless, pointing out that Starmer—a former chief prosecutor—showed "dreadful judgment" by ignoring the red flags. ?The documents prove that National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell warned the appointment was "weirdly rushed" and that the Cabinet Office explicitly flagged the "general reputational risk" of his Epstein links on 4th December 2024. This isn't partisan waffle; it is a documented bypass of security protocols by Number 10 that led to the current criminal investigation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ....the dogs in the street knew he wasn't squeaky clean...yet many prominent Tories, and most of the right wing press endorsed him.....along with the labour party of course Actually, it was the Conservatives who used a Humble Address in Parliament to force Starmer to release these files in the first place. Conservative MP Alex Burghart stated in the House on 11th March that while Mandelson may have lied, the Prime Minister "wasn't lied to by this due diligence document" and that he "knew all he needed to know." ?Kemi Badenoch has also been relentless, pointing out that Starmer—a former chief prosecutor—showed "dreadful judgment" by ignoring the red flags. ?The documents prove that National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell warned the appointment was "weirdly rushed" and that the Cabinet Office explicitly flagged the "general reputational risk" of his Epstein links on 4th December 2024. This isn't partisan waffle; it is a documented bypass of security protocols by Number 10 that led to the current criminal investigation. " ...I was referring to when he was given the job.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As an onlooker in English politics, it would seem to me that characters like epstien don't care about political affiliation..." Actually, to be precise, it is a matter of British Politics as it affects all 4 countries of the UK not only England and if you think they don't care about party lines, you're spot on! Jeffrey Epstein was equal-opportunity when it came to influence. But the scandal here isn't just about who Mandelson knew; it's about a documented failure of the British state's security apparatus. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As an onlooker in English politics, it would seem to me that characters like epstien don't care about political affiliation... Actually, to be precise, it is a matter of British Politics as it affects all 4 countries of the UK not only England and if you think they don't care about party lines, you're spot on! Jeffrey Epstein was equal-opportunity when it came to influence. But the scandal here isn't just about who Mandelson knew; it's about a documented failure of the British state's security apparatus. " ...and perhaps the willingness of all politicians and both wings of the press to cheerlead his appointment...let's be honest...who opposed him getting the job? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ....the dogs in the street knew he wasn't squeaky clean...yet many prominent Tories, and most of the right wing press endorsed him.....along with the labour party of course Actually, it was the Conservatives who used a Humble Address in Parliament to force Starmer to release these files in the first place. Conservative MP Alex Burghart stated in the House on 11th March that while Mandelson may have lied, the Prime Minister "wasn't lied to by this due diligence document" and that he "knew all he needed to know." ?Kemi Badenoch has also been relentless, pointing out that Starmer—a former chief prosecutor—showed "dreadful judgment" by ignoring the red flags. ?The documents prove that National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell warned the appointment was "weirdly rushed" and that the Cabinet Office explicitly flagged the "general reputational risk" of his Epstein links on 4th December 2024. This isn't partisan waffle; it is a documented bypass of security protocols by Number 10 that led to the current criminal investigation. ...I was referring to when he was given the job...." That is completely false The Conservatives did not endorse Mandelson. In fact, leading Tories like Kemi Badenoch and Alex Burghart have been the ones leading the charge to expose the truth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ....the dogs in the street knew he wasn't squeaky clean...yet many prominent Tories, and most of the right wing press endorsed him.....along with the labour party of course Actually, it was the Conservatives who used a Humble Address in Parliament to force Starmer to release these files in the first place. Conservative MP Alex Burghart stated in the House on 11th March that while Mandelson may have lied, the Prime Minister "wasn't lied to by this due diligence document" and that he "knew all he needed to know." ?Kemi Badenoch has also been relentless, pointing out that Starmer—a former chief prosecutor—showed "dreadful judgment" by ignoring the red flags. ?The documents prove that National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell warned the appointment was "weirdly rushed" and that the Cabinet Office explicitly flagged the "general reputational risk" of his Epstein links on 4th December 2024. This isn't partisan waffle; it is a documented bypass of security protocols by Number 10 that led to the current criminal investigation. " You have said all this multiple times on this thread and I along with others have said yes, it was a dodgy decision that was hailed as a great idea by other parties. So I really don't see what you are looking to get from going over and over the same ground. Maybe thats why someone else with an axe to grind with starmer changed the subject? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As an onlooker in English politics, it would seem to me that characters like epstien don't care about political affiliation... Actually, to be precise, it is a matter of British Politics as it affects all 4 countries of the UK not only England and if you think they don't care about party lines, you're spot on! Jeffrey Epstein was equal-opportunity when it came to influence. But the scandal here isn't just about who Mandelson knew; it's about a documented failure of the British state's security apparatus. ...and perhaps the willingness of all politicians and both wings of the press to cheerlead his appointment...let's be honest...who opposed him getting the job?" Actually, that is a total rewrite of history. Far from cheerleading, it was the opposition who spent over a year warning Starmer he was making a massive mistake. Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives were so opposed to it that they eventually used a Humble Address in Parliament to force the government to release the secret vetting files. The documents released on 11th March 2026 prove that the National Security Adviser warned the appointment was weirdly rushed and that the Foreign Office senior civil servant, Philip Barton, also had serious reservations. Even within the press, the right-wing papers were constantly flagging his ties to China and his past scandals as reasons he was unfit for the role. This wasnt a case of everyone cheering him on; it was a case of Keir Starmer ignoring his own security advisers and the opposition to push through a political friend. That is exactly why the Metropolitan Police are now investigating misconduct in public office. It was a one-man decision, not a consensus. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As an onlooker in English politics, it would seem to me that characters like epstien don't care about political affiliation... Actually, to be precise, it is a matter of British Politics as it affects all 4 countries of the UK not only England and if you think they don't care about party lines, you're spot on! Jeffrey Epstein was equal-opportunity when it came to influence. But the scandal here isn't just about who Mandelson knew; it's about a documented failure of the British state's security apparatus. ...and perhaps the willingness of all politicians and both wings of the press to cheerlead his appointment...let's be honest...who opposed him getting the job? Actually, that is a total rewrite of history. Far from cheerleading, it was the opposition who spent over a year warning Starmer he was making a massive mistake. Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives were so opposed to it that they eventually used a Humble Address in Parliament to force the government to release the secret vetting files. The documents released on 11th March 2026 prove that the National Security Adviser warned the appointment was weirdly rushed and that the Foreign Office senior civil servant, Philip Barton, also had serious reservations. Even within the press, the right-wing papers were constantly flagging his ties to China and his past scandals as reasons he was unfit for the role. This wasnt a case of everyone cheering him on; it was a case of Keir Starmer ignoring his own security advisers and the opposition to push through a political friend. That is exactly why the Metropolitan Police are now investigating misconduct in public office. It was a one-man decision, not a consensus. " ...who was the leader of the Conservative Party when he was appointed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It was simply rank stupidity by Keir. Can understand the advantages he thought there were but the disadvantages were more abundant Everybody is human and makes mistakes but this was ridiculous and extremely bad politics Keir Starmer is clearly, and in general, an intelligent man with decent life principles but seems to have poor judgment too many times so far" Fair enough. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ....the dogs in the street knew he wasn't squeaky clean...yet many prominent Tories, and most of the right wing press endorsed him.....along with the labour party of course Actually, it was the Conservatives who used a Humble Address in Parliament to force Starmer to release these files in the first place. Conservative MP Alex Burghart stated in the House on 11th March that while Mandelson may have lied, the Prime Minister "wasn't lied to by this due diligence document" and that he "knew all he needed to know." ?Kemi Badenoch has also been relentless, pointing out that Starmer—a former chief prosecutor—showed "dreadful judgment" by ignoring the red flags. ?The documents prove that National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell warned the appointment was "weirdly rushed" and that the Cabinet Office explicitly flagged the "general reputational risk" of his Epstein links on 4th December 2024. This isn't partisan waffle; it is a documented bypass of security protocols by Number 10 that led to the current criminal investigation. You have said all this multiple times on this thread and I along with others have said yes, it was a dodgy decision that was hailed as a great idea by other parties. So I really don't see what you are looking to get from going over and over the same ground. Maybe thats why someone else with an axe to grind with starmer changed the subject?" You clearly haven't been paying attention respectdue, just like your beloved leader at PMQ'S every Wednesday when Kemi roasts him like a pig on a split !! The point is only reiterated because I keep having to address the same false claim that everyone "hailed" this as a great idea. It is a total rewrite of history to suggest there was a consensus. Far from an endorsement, the Conservatives spent months warning Starmer he was making a massive mistake!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ....the dogs in the street knew he wasn't squeaky clean...yet many prominent Tories, and most of the right wing press endorsed him.....along with the labour party of course Actually, it was the Conservatives who used a Humble Address in Parliament to force Starmer to release these files in the first place. Conservative MP Alex Burghart stated in the House on 11th March that while Mandelson may have lied, the Prime Minister "wasn't lied to by this due diligence document" and that he "knew all he needed to know." ?Kemi Badenoch has also been relentless, pointing out that Starmer—a former chief prosecutor—showed "dreadful judgment" by ignoring the red flags. ?The documents prove that National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell warned the appointment was "weirdly rushed" and that the Cabinet Office explicitly flagged the "general reputational risk" of his Epstein links on 4th December 2024. This isn't partisan waffle; it is a documented bypass of security protocols by Number 10 that led to the current criminal investigation. You have said all this multiple times on this thread and I along with others have said yes, it was a dodgy decision that was hailed as a great idea by other parties. So I really don't see what you are looking to get from going over and over the same ground. Maybe thats why someone else with an axe to grind with starmer changed the subject? You clearly haven't been paying attention respectdue, just like your beloved leader at PMQ'S every Wednesday when Kemi roasts him like a pig on a split !! The point is only reiterated because I keep having to address the same false claim that everyone "hailed" this as a great idea. It is a total rewrite of history to suggest there was a consensus. Far from an endorsement, the Conservatives spent months warning Starmer he was making a massive mistake!! " ...she asked the same question 6 times last week...I didn't see much roasting tbh | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry guys, I seem to be experiencing text formatting issues on my laptop ATM. But this thread seems to have taken a rather bizarre meandrous tangent from the core topic of the Mandelson scandal in which Starmer, despite knowing of his connections with convicted sex offender Epstein, opted to blatantly ignore the fact and take a seriously negligent action in appointing Mandelson to the high-profile position as UK Ambassador to the US! Can we please refocus on this and its aftermath effect as the focal topic of the thread? Why? Just because its a bee in your bonnet. No bonnet!👒 No bee 🐝! The only bee here seems to hold the sting in your attitude 'respectdue'! You seem to have to gone from a position of offering a once reasonable but sometimes erroneous perspective on a topic to a position of retaliating in a nonsensical and often irrelevant oafish angst which casts a rather untoward shadow over your once respected opinions! Indeed the 'respect due' seems to have sadly got lost somewhere en route. Politically we are clearly polar opposites, but I always had respect for you as a decent adversary, this is written with only good upstanding intentions, but maybe it's time that you considered taking a short sabbatical from these columns? Just a thought. Now, perhaps we can now focus on the topic in question guys? Namely the unfortunate Mandelson Scandal! ...you may be blaming the wrong person for hijacking your thread...if you don't mind me saying..." Oh really? Are you now concerned about hijacking the threads? Then stop criticising conservatives and right-wing individuals with your favourite whataboutism. How many threads have you personally hijacked? Countless times. Is that new initiative for Labour supporters? Once Starmer shows some concern, we need to discuss the specific issues rather than the irrelevant ones. Wow.. what complete nonsense that individuals should only discuss the Labour Party's Epstein affair and not other issues. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ....the dogs in the street knew he wasn't squeaky clean...yet many prominent Tories, and most of the right wing press endorsed him.....along with the labour party of course Actually, it was the Conservatives who used a Humble Address in Parliament to force Starmer to release these files in the first place. Conservative MP Alex Burghart stated in the House on 11th March that while Mandelson may have lied, the Prime Minister "wasn't lied to by this due diligence document" and that he "knew all he needed to know." ?Kemi Badenoch has also been relentless, pointing out that Starmer—a former chief prosecutor—showed "dreadful judgment" by ignoring the red flags. ?The documents prove that National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell warned the appointment was "weirdly rushed" and that the Cabinet Office explicitly flagged the "general reputational risk" of his Epstein links on 4th December 2024. This isn't partisan waffle; it is a documented bypass of security protocols by Number 10 that led to the current criminal investigation. You have said all this multiple times on this thread and I along with others have said yes, it was a dodgy decision that was hailed as a great idea by other parties. So I really don't see what you are looking to get from going over and over the same ground. Maybe thats why someone else with an axe to grind with starmer changed the subject? You clearly haven't been paying attention respectdue, just like your beloved leader at PMQ'S every Wednesday when Kemi roasts him like a pig on a split !! The point is only reiterated because I keep having to address the same false claim that everyone "hailed" this as a great idea. It is a total rewrite of history to suggest there was a consensus. Far from an endorsement, the Conservatives spent months warning Starmer he was making a massive mistake!! " On Wednesday badenoch used all of her questions on a fuel rise that is still 4 months away while being roasted for the fact she wanted our troops to join the war. Then she tried to say she didn't. It was like listening to basil fawlty, don't mention the war! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ....the dogs in the street knew he wasn't squeaky clean...yet many prominent Tories, and most of the right wing press endorsed him.....along with the labour party of course Actually, it was the Conservatives who used a Humble Address in Parliament to force Starmer to release these files in the first place. Conservative MP Alex Burghart stated in the House on 11th March that while Mandelson may have lied, the Prime Minister "wasn't lied to by this due diligence document" and that he "knew all he needed to know." ?Kemi Badenoch has also been relentless, pointing out that Starmer—a former chief prosecutor—showed "dreadful judgment" by ignoring the red flags. ?The documents prove that National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell warned the appointment was "weirdly rushed" and that the Cabinet Office explicitly flagged the "general reputational risk" of his Epstein links on 4th December 2024. This isn't partisan waffle; it is a documented bypass of security protocols by Number 10 that led to the current criminal investigation. You have said all this multiple times on this thread and I along with others have said yes, it was a dodgy decision that was hailed as a great idea by other parties. So I really don't see what you are looking to get from going over and over the same ground. Maybe thats why someone else with an axe to grind with starmer changed the subject? You clearly haven't been paying attention respectdue, just like your beloved leader at PMQ'S every Wednesday when Kemi roasts him like a pig on a split !! The point is only reiterated because I keep having to address the same false claim that everyone "hailed" this as a great idea. It is a total rewrite of history to suggest there was a consensus. Far from an endorsement, the Conservatives spent months warning Starmer he was making a massive mistake!! On Wednesday badenoch used all of her questions on a fuel rise that is still 4 months away while being roasted for the fact she wanted our troops to join the war. Then she tried to say she didn't. It was like listening to basil fawlty, don't mention the war! " You really should stop attempting to misrepresent easily verifiable information. It only further undermines your credibility. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ahhh, I see that you're assuming attendance at an embassy as agreement with a murderous regime. Embarrassing maybe, proof of support, not. Just as your claim that we seem to be not close to Europe and America. "So you are proud of being close to China.. Happy days 👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On Wednesday badenoch used all of her questions on a fuel rise that is still 4 months away while being roasted for the fact she wanted our troops to join the war. Then she tried to say she didn't. It was like listening to basil fawlty, don't mention the war! You really should stop attempting to misrepresent easily verifiable information. It only further undermines your credibility. " Indeed! A good attempt by respectdue though! He seems back on form barking up the wrong tree in typical fashion, overlooking the fact that it was PMQs, i.e. the focus being on Questions put TO the PRIME MINISTER (not to the Leader of the Opposition!) which Starmer failed and failed several times to answer by attempting to use the war as smokescreen!! He refused to answer because he knew that he'd have to admit an increase in fuel duty despite previously promising the complete opposite! Evading the truth, just like any good silk in defence should, excellent performance Starmer, but not what the electorate want to hear, you're trying to convince an electorate of 48 million-plus not just 12 Good Men and true! ?As Kemi Badenoch told him to his face on 11th March, the "mother of all U-turns" is the Prime Minister claiming the government isn't increasing fuel duty when the Chancellor already confirmed it is going up in September. He tried to hide behind global instability by saying he would merely "keep the situation under review in the light of what is happening in Iran," but the electorate knows when they're being used as a cash cow! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry guys, I seem to be experiencing text formatting issues on my laptop ATM. But this thread seems to have taken a rather bizarre meandrous tangent from the core topic of the Mandelson scandal in which Starmer, despite knowing of his connections with convicted sex offender Epstein, opted to blatantly ignore the fact and take a seriously negligent action in appointing Mandelson to the high-profile position as UK Ambassador to the US! Can we please refocus on this and its aftermath effect as the focal topic of the thread? Why? Just because its a bee in your bonnet. No bonnet!👒 No bee 🐝! The only bee here seems to hold the sting in your attitude 'respectdue'! You seem to have to gone from a position of offering a once reasonable but sometimes erroneous perspective on a topic to a position of retaliating in a nonsensical and often irrelevant oafish angst which casts a rather untoward shadow over your once respected opinions! Indeed the 'respect due' seems to have sadly got lost somewhere en route. Politically we are clearly polar opposites, but I always had respect for you as a decent adversary, this is written with only good upstanding intentions, but maybe it's time that you considered taking a short sabbatical from these columns? Just a thought. Now, perhaps we can now focus on the topic in question guys? Namely the unfortunate Mandelson Scandal! ...you may be blaming the wrong person for hijacking your thread...if you don't mind me saying... Oh really? Are you now concerned about hijacking the threads? Then stop criticising conservatives and right-wing individuals with your favourite whataboutism. How many threads have you personally hijacked? Countless times. Is that new initiative for Labour supporters? Once Starmer shows some concern, we need to discuss the specific issues rather than the irrelevant ones. Wow.. what complete nonsense that individuals should only discuss the Labour Party's Epstein affair and not other issues. " ...don't tell me what to do....I can criticise anyone or anything I want....im Irish..I don't support any political party in Britain. The op asked for the thread to stay on topic...please respect his wishes.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!" ...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now..." The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 " ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!" Only 'This time last year' ... 'everyone' wasn't aware of the extent of Mandelson's close connections with the convicted child sex offender Epstein While 'This time last year' ... Starmer was fully aware, and gave Mandelson the job. The buck stops at Starmer .... he's responsible for his terrible choices. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!! Only 'This time last year' ... 'everyone' wasn't aware of the extent of Mandelson's close connections with the convicted child sex offender Epstein While 'This time last year' ... Starmer was fully aware, and gave Mandelson the job. The buck stops at Starmer .... he's responsible for his terrible choices. " That's wrong actually. It was known. Only Jim Pickard from the FT tried to raise it with mandelson and Starmer. Starmer ducked the question unconvincingly and Mandelson told him to fuck off. For whatever reason it didn't suit the right wing agenda at the time to pick it up and run with it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!! Only 'This time last year' ... 'everyone' wasn't aware of the extent of Mandelson's close connections with the convicted child sex offender Epstein While 'This time last year' ... Starmer was fully aware, and gave Mandelson the job. The buck stops at Starmer .... he's responsible for his terrible choices. " ...to be fair...it was common knowledge about mandlesons ties to Epstein, and he made a great choice to not follow America into a pointless war | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications..." Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On Wednesday badenoch used all of her questions on a fuel rise that is still 4 months away while being roasted for the fact she wanted our troops to join the war. Then she tried to say she didn't. It was like listening to basil fawlty, don't mention the war! You really should stop attempting to misrepresent easily verifiable information. It only further undermines your credibility. Indeed! A good attempt by respectdue though! He seems back on form barking up the wrong tree in typical fashion, overlooking the fact that it was PMQs, i.e. the focus being on Questions put TO the PRIME MINISTER (not to the Leader of the Opposition!) which Starmer failed and failed several times to answer by attempting to use the war as smokescreen!! He refused to answer because he knew that he'd have to admit an increase in fuel duty despite previously promising the complete opposite! Evading the truth, just like any good silk in defence should, excellent performance Starmer, but not what the electorate want to hear, you're trying to convince an electorate of 48 million-plus not just 12 Good Men and true! ?As Kemi Badenoch told him to his face on 11th March, the "mother of all U-turns" is the Prime Minister claiming the government isn't increasing fuel duty when the Chancellor already confirmed it is going up in September. He tried to hide behind global instability by saying he would merely "keep the situation under review in the light of what is happening in Iran," but the electorate knows when they're being used as a cash cow! " I've no idea why you keep mentioning my name like a school kid trying to get a class mate into trouble. He simply said he'll keep an eye on the situation, he would be mad to say fuel won't go up while there's missiles threatening the global supply of oil. He answered her questions, sorry, question, just not with the answer she and apparently you wanted. I hardly think hes hiding behind war, thats just an idiotic comment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!! Only 'This time last year' ... 'everyone' wasn't aware of the extent of Mandelson's close connections with the convicted child sex offender Epstein While 'This time last year' ... Starmer was fully aware, and gave Mandelson the job. The buck stops at Starmer .... he's responsible for his terrible choices. " "Not everyone was aware" - certainly but those who needed to know were aware. While Starmer bears the ultimate responsibility, the intelligence services clearly did their jobs by providing the necessary caveats. Documents released on 11th March 2026 prove that the Cabinet Office and National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell explicitly flagged the "general reputational risk" of Mandelson’s Epstein links as early as 4th December 2024. The security services had identified the relevant associations and private life concerns; the failure was not a lack of intelligence, but Starmer’s personal decision to ignore those warnings and bypass the standard vetting protocols to rush through a political ally. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" On Wednesday Badenoch used all of her questions on a fuel rise that is still 4 months away while being roasted for the fact she wanted our troops to join the war. Then she tried to say she didn't. It was like listening to Basil Fawlty, don't mention the war! " PMQ last Wednesday was a bit of a farce. More like a spat in a cattery or a tiff in a kindergarten. Ms Badenoch, whom I have grown to admire, didn't conduct herself over well. Starmer went red and was clearly rattled. True she's done a bit of a u-turn over Iran but she does not have a say in what happens at the moment. Starmer, however, does and he does so many u-turns I don't think he knows what direction he is facing at any given time. Back to 'Mandy-gate'. Yes it was a very serious misjudgment on Starmer's behalf. Mandelson might have looked the perfect candidate on paper but he cannot airbrush his past as a failed minister tainted with scandal and now the Epstein files. It has seriously undermined his premiership and he is probably only surviving because there is no obvious successor. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment " .....you were lonely... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" On Wednesday Badenoch used all of her questions on a fuel rise that is still 4 months away while being roasted for the fact she wanted our troops to join the war. Then she tried to say she didn't. It was like listening to Basil Fawlty, don't mention the war! PMQ last Wednesday was a bit of a farce. More like a spat in a cattery or a tiff in a kindergarten. Ms Badenoch, whom I have grown to admire, didn't conduct herself over well. Starmer went red and was clearly rattled. True she's done a bit of a u-turn over Iran but she does not have a say in what happens at the moment. Starmer, however, does and he does so many u-turns I don't think he knows what direction he is facing at any given time. Back to 'Mandy-gate'. Yes it was a very serious misjudgment on Starmer's behalf. Mandelson might have looked the perfect candidate on paper but he cannot airbrush his past as a failed minister tainted with scandal and now the Epstein files. It has seriously undermined his premiership and he is probably only surviving because there is no obvious successor." ...his stance on the epstien war seems to have helped him a lot... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!! Only 'This time last year' ... 'everyone' wasn't aware of the extent of Mandelson's close connections with the convicted child sex offender Epstein While 'This time last year' ... Starmer was fully aware, and gave Mandelson the job. The buck stops at Starmer .... he's responsible for his terrible choices. ...to be fair...it was common knowledge about mandlesons ties to Epstein, and he made a great choice to not follow America into a pointless war " He could be forgiven for those connections pre-conviction (If generously giving Mandelson the benefit of doubt) ... But not for the continued close friendship and mutual support post conviction. Whichever way you look at it ... Starmer fucked up badly when he took Mandelson on | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Back to 'Mandy-gate'. Yes it was a very serious misjudgment on Starmer's behalf. Mandelson might have looked the perfect candidate on paper but he cannot airbrush his past as a failed minister tainted with scandal and now the Epstein files. It has seriously undermined his premiership and he is probably only surviving because there is no obvious successor....his stance on the epstien war seems to have helped him a lot..." Still confused as to who has declared war on Epstein Island. Didn't even get mentioned on the lunchtime News. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!! Only 'This time last year' ... 'everyone' wasn't aware of the extent of Mandelson's close connections with the convicted child sex offender Epstein While 'This time last year' ... Starmer was fully aware, and gave Mandelson the job. The buck stops at Starmer .... he's responsible for his terrible choices. ...to be fair...it was common knowledge about mandlesons ties to Epstein, and he made a great choice to not follow America into a pointless war He could be forgiven for those connections pre-conviction (If generously giving Mandelson the benefit of doubt) ... But not for the continued close friendship and mutual support post conviction. Whichever way you look at it ... Starmer fucked up badly when he took Mandelson on " ...its just a shame there wasn't the same outrage when he was appointed.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely..." Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂" ...and only the intelligence services.....? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!! Only 'This time last year' ... 'everyone' wasn't aware of the extent of Mandelson's close connections with the convicted child sex offender Epstein While 'This time last year' ... Starmer was fully aware, and gave Mandelson the job. The buck stops at Starmer .... he's responsible for his terrible choices. ...to be fair...it was common knowledge about mandlesons ties to Epstein, and he made a great choice to not follow America into a pointless war He could be forgiven for those connections pre-conviction (If generously giving Mandelson the benefit of doubt) ... But not for the continued close friendship and mutual support post conviction. Whichever way you look at it ... Starmer fucked up badly when he took Mandelson on ...its just a shame there wasn't the same outrage when he was appointed.... " Not sure how I can explain the timeline and context any clearer for you really ... 
"These are SMALL. But the ones out there are FAR AWAY... Small... far away... " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....?" Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....? Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐" ....nonsense...didn't Badenoch know all about it...? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....? Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐....nonsense...didn't Badenoch know all about it...?" It's totally ridiculous and downright rude of you to call it "nonsense" unless you are refering to your own script! Access to intelligence including that relating to Mandelson's private life and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein is strictly limited to a small group within Parliament. The primary body is the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a cross-party group of MPs and Peers with high-level security clearance who oversee the intelligence agencies. Additionally, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary have access through their executive roles and oversight of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. The Leader of the Opposition may also be briefed on a confidential "Privy Council" basis to ensure national security continuity. So it is possible, if the ISC had approved of the release of the intelligence to all relevant parties that Kemi Badenoch may well have been privy to the intelligence on Mandelson, which may have well have provided her with fuel for her protestation in Parliament, however, only the ISC or Kemi Badenoch can truly answer your question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" On Wednesday Badenoch used all of her questions on a fuel rise that is still 4 months away while being roasted for the fact she wanted our troops to join the war. Then she tried to say she didn't. It was like listening to Basil Fawlty, don't mention the war! PMQ last Wednesday was a bit of a farce. More like a spat in a cattery or a tiff in a kindergarten. Ms Badenoch, whom I have grown to admire, didn't conduct herself over well. Starmer went red and was clearly rattled. True she's done a bit of a u-turn over Iran but she does not have a say in what happens at the moment. Starmer, however, does and he does so many u-turns I don't think he knows what direction he is facing at any given time. Back to 'Mandy-gate'. Yes it was a very serious misjudgment on Starmer's behalf. Mandelson might have looked the perfect candidate on paper but he cannot airbrush his past as a failed minister tainted with scandal and now the Epstein files. It has seriously undermined his premiership and he is probably only surviving because there is no obvious successor." Indeed. Yes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....? Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐....nonsense...didn't Badenoch know all about it...? It's totally ridiculous and downright rude of you to call it "nonsense" unless you are refering to your own script! Access to intelligence including that relating to Mandelson's private life and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein is strictly limited to a small group within Parliament. The primary body is the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a cross-party group of MPs and Peers with high-level security clearance who oversee the intelligence agencies. Additionally, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary have access through their executive roles and oversight of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. The Leader of the Opposition may also be briefed on a confidential "Privy Council" basis to ensure national security continuity. So it is possible, if the ISC had approved of the release of the intelligence to all relevant parties that Kemi Badenoch may well have been privy to the intelligence on Mandelson, which may have well have provided her with fuel for her protestation in Parliament, however, only the ISC or Kemi Badenoch can truly answer your question. " Its not up to you to decide what other people think is nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....? Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐....nonsense...didn't Badenoch know all about it...? It's totally ridiculous and downright rude of you to call it "nonsense" unless you are refering to your own script! Access to intelligence including that relating to Mandelson's private life and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein is strictly limited to a small group within Parliament. The primary body is the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a cross-party group of MPs and Peers with high-level security clearance who oversee the intelligence agencies. Additionally, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary have access through their executive roles and oversight of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. The Leader of the Opposition may also be briefed on a confidential "Privy Council" basis to ensure national security continuity. So it is possible, if the ISC had approved of the release of the intelligence to all relevant parties that Kemi Badenoch may well have been privy to the intelligence on Mandelson, which may have well have provided her with fuel for her protestation in Parliament, however, only the ISC or Kemi Badenoch can truly answer your question. Its not up to you to decide what other people think is nonsense. " Hmmm! 🤔....How about making a worthwhile contribution to a discussion respectdue in the way you once did? I am genuinely concerned that you seem to be very angry these days, taking childish potshots with nonsensical remarks from the sidelines. You have always proven yourself to be a decent person with an intelligent mind, so it is concerning that your attitude has changed. I sincerely hope you are okay. That is 100% genuine. On the technical side, the ISC report released last Wednesday actually confirms that they were the ones who cleared the Mandelson files for release to Kemi and the rest of Parliament. So, far from being nonsense, it is literally how the documents reached the public. All best wishes - Dev. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....? Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐....nonsense...didn't Badenoch know all about it...? It's totally ridiculous and downright rude of you to call it "nonsense" unless you are refering to your own script! Access to intelligence including that relating to Mandelson's private life and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein is strictly limited to a small group within Parliament. The primary body is the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a cross-party group of MPs and Peers with high-level security clearance who oversee the intelligence agencies. Additionally, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary have access through their executive roles and oversight of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. The Leader of the Opposition may also be briefed on a confidential "Privy Council" basis to ensure national security continuity. So it is possible, if the ISC had approved of the release of the intelligence to all relevant parties that Kemi Badenoch may well have been privy to the intelligence on Mandelson, which may have well have provided her with fuel for her protestation in Parliament, however, only the ISC or Kemi Badenoch can truly answer your question. " ...so its rude of me to call it nonsense...but you're somehow exempt from your own standard ..?.ok | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....? Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐....nonsense...didn't Badenoch know all about it...? It's totally ridiculous and downright rude of you to call it "nonsense" unless you are refering to your own script! Access to intelligence including that relating to Mandelson's private life and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein is strictly limited to a small group within Parliament. The primary body is the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a cross-party group of MPs and Peers with high-level security clearance who oversee the intelligence agencies. Additionally, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary have access through their executive roles and oversight of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. The Leader of the Opposition may also be briefed on a confidential "Privy Council" basis to ensure national security continuity. So it is possible, if the ISC had approved of the release of the intelligence to all relevant parties that Kemi Badenoch may well have been privy to the intelligence on Mandelson, which may have well have provided her with fuel for her protestation in Parliament, however, only the ISC or Kemi Badenoch can truly answer your question. ...so its rude of me to call it nonsense...but you're somehow exempt from your own standard ..?.ok " Yes it was rather rude, but Oh Lord no James, I'm not exempt, I’m just referencing the facts. If you check the official record from last Wednesday, March 11th, the Government explicitly confirmed that the ISC met on March 5th to oversee the redactions of the Mandelson files. This proves my point that the intelligence was restricted to that specific committee before Kemi Badenoch or anyone else in Parliament was allowed to see it. It isn't a double standard to point out how the law works. If you think the ISC's legal role in national security is "nonsense," that’s a disagreement with the British constitution, not me sorry! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....? Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐....nonsense...didn't Badenoch know all about it...? It's totally ridiculous and downright rude of you to call it "nonsense" unless you are refering to your own script! Access to intelligence including that relating to Mandelson's private life and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein is strictly limited to a small group within Parliament. The primary body is the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a cross-party group of MPs and Peers with high-level security clearance who oversee the intelligence agencies. Additionally, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary have access through their executive roles and oversight of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. The Leader of the Opposition may also be briefed on a confidential "Privy Council" basis to ensure national security continuity. So it is possible, if the ISC had approved of the release of the intelligence to all relevant parties that Kemi Badenoch may well have been privy to the intelligence on Mandelson, which may have well have provided her with fuel for her protestation in Parliament, however, only the ISC or Kemi Badenoch can truly answer your question. ...so its rude of me to call it nonsense...but you're somehow exempt from your own standard ..?.ok Yes it was rather rude, but Oh Lord no James, I'm not exempt, I’m just referencing the facts. If you check the official record from last Wednesday, March 11th, the Government explicitly confirmed that the ISC met on March 5th to oversee the redactions of the Mandelson files. This proves my point that the intelligence was restricted to that specific committee before Kemi Badenoch or anyone else in Parliament was allowed to see it. It isn't a double standard to point out how the law works. If you think the ISC's legal role in national security is "nonsense," that’s a disagreement with the British constitution, not me sorry!" ...so now that we've established that we're both "rude"...let's face the fact that mandlesons affiliation with Epstein has been common knowledge for years...office my ass...everyone knew, and they went along with it...Badenoch is like a small dog...barking at everyone, but not really having much impact on anything. You have to admit that her performance at last weeks pmq was dismal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes it was rather rude, but Oh Lord no James, I'm not exempt, I’m just referencing the facts. If you check the official record from last Wednesday, March 11th, the Government explicitly confirmed that the ISC met on March 5th to oversee the redactions of the Mandelson files. This proves my point that the intelligence was restricted to that specific committee before Kemi Badenoch or anyone else in Parliament was allowed to see it...so now that we've established that we're both "rude"...let's face the fact that mandlesons affiliation with Epstein has been common knowledge for years...office my ass...everyone knew, and they went along with it...Badenoch is like a small dog...barking at everyone, but not really having much impact on anything. You have to admit that her performance at last weeks pmq was dismal. " ?I haven't established that at all James. I am sticking to the facts while you are attempting to make it personal. You mentioned PMQs, but last Wednesday Kemi actually focused on fuel duty and the Middle East. The Mandelson files were not even released until that afternoon. ?As for everyone knowing, the 147-page dossier released on Wednesday proves that is not true. It shows a formal Cabinet Office warning from December 2024 about reputational risk that Starmer chose to ignore. There is a massive difference between public gossip and a Prime Minister being handed a red-flag security report and proceeding anyway. Whether you like Kemi's style or not, the Humble Address she pushed for is the only reason those internal warnings are now public. Dismissing the legal process as nonsense does not change the fact that the files have now been released because of it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes it was rather rude, but Oh Lord no James, I'm not exempt, I’m just referencing the facts. If you check the official record from last Wednesday, March 11th, the Government explicitly confirmed that the ISC met on March 5th to oversee the redactions of the Mandelson files. This proves my point that the intelligence was restricted to that specific committee before Kemi Badenoch or anyone else in Parliament was allowed to see it...so now that we've established that we're both "rude"...let's face the fact that mandlesons affiliation with Epstein has been common knowledge for years...office my ass...everyone knew, and they went along with it...Badenoch is like a small dog...barking at everyone, but not really having much impact on anything. You have to admit that her performance at last weeks pmq was dismal. ?I haven't established that at all James. I am sticking to the facts while you are attempting to make it personal. You mentioned PMQs, but last Wednesday Kemi actually focused on fuel duty and the Middle East. The Mandelson files were not even released until that afternoon. ?As for everyone knowing, the 147-page dossier released on Wednesday proves that is not true. It shows a formal Cabinet Office warning from December 2024 about reputational risk that Starmer chose to ignore. There is a massive difference between public gossip and a Prime Minister being handed a red-flag security report and proceeding anyway. Whether you like Kemi's style or not, the Humble Address she pushed for is the only reason those internal warnings are now public. Dismissing the legal process as nonsense does not change the fact that the files have now been released because of it." Again not true. It was due to Angela Rayner coming out against the government that forced the government to publish the documents. And again. It was all known and printed in the FT last year by Jim Pickard | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes it was rather rude, but Oh Lord no James, I'm not exempt, I’m just referencing the facts. If you check the official record from last Wednesday, March 11th, the Government explicitly confirmed that the ISC met on March 5th to oversee the redactions of the Mandelson files. This proves my point that the intelligence was restricted to that specific committee before Kemi Badenoch or anyone else in Parliament was allowed to see it...so now that we've established that we're both "rude"...let's face the fact that mandlesons affiliation with Epstein has been common knowledge for years...office my ass...everyone knew, and they went along with it...Badenoch is like a small dog...barking at everyone, but not really having much impact on anything. You have to admit that her performance at last weeks pmq was dismal. ?I haven't established that at all James. I am sticking to the facts while you are attempting to make it personal. You mentioned PMQs, but last Wednesday Kemi actually focused on fuel duty and the Middle East. The Mandelson files were not even released until that afternoon. ?As for everyone knowing, the 147-page dossier released on Wednesday proves that is not true. It shows a formal Cabinet Office warning from December 2024 about reputational risk that Starmer chose to ignore. There is a massive difference between public gossip and a Prime Minister being handed a red-flag security report and proceeding anyway. Whether you like Kemi's style or not, the Humble Address she pushed for is the only reason those internal warnings are now public. Dismissing the legal process as nonsense does not change the fact that the files have now been released because of it. Again not true. It was due to Angela Rayner coming out against the government that forced the government to publish the documents. And again. It was all known and printed in the FT last year by Jim Pickard " ?That is not quite right Roath. The release was forced by a Conservative Humble Address on February 4th. Angela Rayner’s role was leading a Labour rebellion to stop Starmer from blocking it on national security grounds. She insisted the ISC handle the vetting because she didn't trust the Cabinet Office to do it fairly. ?As for the FT, Jim Pickard reported on the emails, but he did not have the internal Cabinet Office due diligence report from December 2024. That document was only made public last Wednesday, and it proves Starmer was formally warned about the Epstein links before the appointment and went ahead anyway. You can’t claim everyone knew the contents of a secret security briefing that was only declassified four days ago. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....? Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐....nonsense...didn't Badenoch know all about it...? It's totally ridiculous and downright rude of you to call it "nonsense" unless you are refering to your own script! Access to intelligence including that relating to Mandelson's private life and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein is strictly limited to a small group within Parliament. The primary body is the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a cross-party group of MPs and Peers with high-level security clearance who oversee the intelligence agencies. Additionally, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary have access through their executive roles and oversight of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. The Leader of the Opposition may also be briefed on a confidential "Privy Council" basis to ensure national security continuity. So it is possible, if the ISC had approved of the release of the intelligence to all relevant parties that Kemi Badenoch may well have been privy to the intelligence on Mandelson, which may have well have provided her with fuel for her protestation in Parliament, however, only the ISC or Kemi Badenoch can truly answer your question. Its not up to you to decide what other people think is nonsense. Hmmm! 🤔....How about making a worthwhile contribution to a discussion respectdue in the way you once did? I am genuinely concerned that you seem to be very angry these days, taking childish potshots with nonsensical remarks from the sidelines. You have always proven yourself to be a decent person with an intelligent mind, so it is concerning that your attitude has changed. I sincerely hope you are okay. That is 100% genuine. On the technical side, the ISC report released last Wednesday actually confirms that they were the ones who cleared the Mandelson files for release to Kemi and the rest of Parliament. So, far from being nonsense, it is literally how the documents reached the public. All best wishes - Dev." I'm not angry, I'm just bored with you repeating the same lines over and over. It really is getting boring. The Mandleson thing is now this week's chip paper. I think the ongoing middle East crisis is rather more important. So I am rather disappointed that you cannot seem to think of two things at once or move on. I thought you were better than that. The fact you cannot see what an absolute embarrassment Kemi was at pmq's really is quite bizarre. I have to point out again that you really don't need to keep writing my name as people can read my name at the top of the message. Shame I have to point that out to someone who is so well read. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes it was rather rude, but Oh Lord no James, I'm not exempt, I’m just referencing the facts. If you check the official record from last Wednesday, March 11th, the Government explicitly confirmed that the ISC met on March 5th to oversee the redactions of the Mandelson files. This proves my point that the intelligence was restricted to that specific committee before Kemi Badenoch or anyone else in Parliament was allowed to see it...so now that we've established that we're both "rude"...let's face the fact that mandlesons affiliation with Epstein has been common knowledge for years...office my ass...everyone knew, and they went along with it...Badenoch is like a small dog...barking at everyone, but not really having much impact on anything. You have to admit that her performance at last weeks pmq was dismal. ?I haven't established that at all James. I am sticking to the facts while you are attempting to make it personal. You mentioned PMQs, but last Wednesday Kemi actually focused on fuel duty and the Middle East. The Mandelson files were not even released until that afternoon. ?As for everyone knowing, the 147-page dossier released on Wednesday proves that is not true. It shows a formal Cabinet Office warning from December 2024 about reputational risk that Starmer chose to ignore. There is a massive difference between public gossip and a Prime Minister being handed a red-flag security report and proceeding anyway. Whether you like Kemi's style or not, the Humble Address she pushed for is the only reason those internal warnings are now public. Dismissing the legal process as nonsense does not change the fact that the files have now been released because of it. Again not true. It was due to Angela Rayner coming out against the government that forced the government to publish the documents. And again. It was all known and printed in the FT last year by Jim Pickard ?That is not quite right Roath. The release was forced by a Conservative Humble Address on February 4th. Angela Rayner’s role was leading a Labour rebellion to stop Starmer from blocking it on national security grounds. She insisted the ISC handle the vetting because she didn't trust the Cabinet Office to do it fairly. ?As for the FT, Jim Pickard reported on the emails, but he did not have the internal Cabinet Office due diligence report from December 2024. That document was only made public last Wednesday, and it proves Starmer was formally warned about the Epstein links before the appointment and went ahead anyway. You can’t claim everyone knew the contents of a secret security briefing that was only declassified four days ago. " If it wasn't for Angela Rayner the humble address would have failed. Sooooooo, it was due to Angela Rayner. Jim Pickard printed that Mandy had been friends with Epstein post the conviction. Starmer admitted all this in the house of commons a few weeks ago . It's all been a damp Squibb so far | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the record's stuck!" ?The record is only "stuck" Towzer because the facts haven't changed since Wednesday. I'm citing the official 147-page government dossier while you're just providing sound effects from the sidelines. If you have any actual evidence that contradicts the December 2024 security warnings or the ISC’s role in the redactions, I’d love to hear it. Otherwise, you’re just proving my point that there isn't a factual defence for what happened. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's what they want the politics of hate and grievance. They don't want a solution or they'll become irrelevant." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just give it a rest guys! Who actually gives a fuck any more. The whole bus load of them at or near the top are in it for number one. Nine of them give a fuck for us peasants!!" I get the cynicism, Tammy, but that "they are all the same" attitude is exactly why people in power think they can get away with it. If we just "give it a rest", then we’re basically saying it’s fine for a Prime Minister to be handed a red-flag security report and ignore it anyway. The 147 pages released last Wednesday aren't just gossip; they are the internal receipts showing that Starmer’s own staff warned him this would happen. If "us peasants" don't care when the government ignores its own security advice, then we shouldn't be surprised when things keep going wrong. Whether you like the politicians involved or not, the truth only came out because people refused to just... "give it a rest." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just give it a rest guys! Who actually gives a fuck any more. The whole bus load of them at or near the top are in it for number one. Nine of them give a fuck for us peasants!! I get the cynicism, Tammy, but that "they are all the same" attitude is exactly why people in power think they can get away with it. If we just "give it a rest", then we’re basically saying it’s fine for a Prime Minister to be handed a red-flag security report and ignore it anyway. The 147 pages released last Wednesday aren't just gossip; they are the internal receipts showing that Starmer’s own staff warned him this would happen. If "us peasants" don't care when the government ignores its own security advice, then we shouldn't be surprised when things keep going wrong. Whether you like the politicians involved or not, the truth only came out because people refused to just... "give it a rest." " As has been pointed out on other topics, you're debating this on a men's hookup site, even with Mandy being a poof, it's hardly going to have any consequence outside this forum | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....? Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐....nonsense...didn't Badenoch know all about it...? It's totally ridiculous and downright rude of you to call it "nonsense" unless you are refering to your own script! Access to intelligence including that relating to Mandelson's private life and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein is strictly limited to a small group within Parliament. The primary body is the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a cross-party group of MPs and Peers with high-level security clearance who oversee the intelligence agencies. Additionally, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary have access through their executive roles and oversight of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. The Leader of the Opposition may also be briefed on a confidential "Privy Council" basis to ensure national security continuity. So it is possible, if the ISC had approved of the release of the intelligence to all relevant parties that Kemi Badenoch may well have been privy to the intelligence on Mandelson, which may have well have provided her with fuel for her protestation in Parliament, however, only the ISC or Kemi Badenoch can truly answer your question. Its not up to you to decide what other people think is nonsense. Hmmm! 🤔....How about making a worthwhile contribution to a discussion respectdue in the way you once did? I am genuinely concerned that you seem to be very angry these days, taking childish potshots with nonsensical remarks from the sidelines. You have always proven yourself to be a decent person with an intelligent mind, so it is concerning that your attitude has changed. I sincerely hope you are okay. That is 100% genuine. On the technical side, the ISC report released last Wednesday actually confirms that they were the ones who cleared the Mandelson files for release to Kemi and the rest of Parliament. So, far from being nonsense, it is literally how the documents reached the public. All best wishes - Dev. I'm not angry, I'm just bored with you repeating the same lines over and over. It really is getting boring. The Mandleson thing is now this week's chip paper. I think the ongoing middle East crisis is rather more important. So I am rather disappointed that you cannot seem to think of two things at once or move on. I thought you were better than that. The fact you cannot see what an absolute embarrassment Kemi was at pmq's really is quite bizarre. I have to point out again that you really don't need to keep writing my name as people can read my name at the top of the message. Shame I have to point that out to someone who is so well read." I am sorry you find it boring, respectdue, but accountability isn't meant to be entertainment. You're not obliged to read it, do feel free to pass by onto matters that stimulate your interests. I am perfectly capable of caring about the Middle East crisis and domestic security failures at the same time; they aren’t mutually exclusive. If this is just "chip paper", then it’s odd that the Prime Minister was in Belfast only three days ago, on 12th March, admitting he made a mistake and personally apologising to Epstein’s victims. If Starmer thinks it is serious enough for a public apology, then it is more than just gossip. As for PMQs, it’s a bit confusing to call Kemi an embarrassment on the Mandelson files when they weren't even released until that afternoon. She spent the session on the Iran escalation and fuel duty. I’m not repeating myself to be difficult; I’m sticking to the facts because the 147 pages released on Wednesday proved there was a formal "reputational risk" warning that was ignored. If you’d rather talk about the Middle East, I’m happy to, but a global crisis doesn't mean the government gets a free pass on ignoring its own security advice at home. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Badenock is a complete ..... Nasty piece of work who will never get a sniff of power.And that voice ! Starmer is handling Trumps war on Iran well." No nastier than a good many others from various parties. Perhaps she won't get a 'sniff of power' Politics are so unpredictable. Her voice however sounds more authorative than your Sir Keir's monotonous whine. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
".If it wasn't for Angela Rayner the humble address would have failed. Sooooooo, it was due to Angela Rayner. Jim Pickard printed that Mandy had been friends with Epstein post the conviction. Starmer admitted all this in the house of commons a few weeks ago . It's all been a damp Squibb so far " Hmmm??? 🤔 The Humble Address was a Conservative motion, Roath. Angela Rayner’s role was leading the rebellion that forced Starmer to stop blocking it on national security grounds. She brokered the compromise to let the ISC handle the vetting to ensure it wasn’t a whitewash. Without that specific legal motion, none of this would be public. As for Jim Pickard, he reported on the friendship, but he didn’t have the secret Cabinet Office due diligence report from December 2024. That document was only released last Wednesday, and it proves Starmer had a formal "red-flag" warning on his desk and chose to ignore it. There is a huge difference between a newspaper article and a Prime Minister ignoring official security advice. If Starmer was in Belfast three days ago apologizing to Epstein’s victims, it’s clearly not a damp squib to him! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does it actually matter who was responsible for getting documents released? Steamer knew of Mandlesons friendship wit Epstein, and also knew that as a short term fix he, Mandleson, was already well known in the right places to do a job. He was a least bad choice at the time, that has spectacularly misfired. But as a high ranked Civil Servant lining his own pockets, Mandleson is hardly unique is he." It matters who released the documents because for months the Government claimed they didn't exist or were too sensitive to show. Now we know why! The files released last Wednesday prove this wasn't just a "least bad choice"—it was a choice made in direct defiance of official advice. Also, Mandelson wasn't a career civil servant; he was a political appointee. That is a crucial distinction! A regular civil servant is vetted before they get the job, but the 147-page dossier shows Mandelson was given access to highly classified Foreign Office briefings before his vetting was even finished! If it's "hardly unique", then it's strange that Starmer felt the need to go to Belfast three days ago, on 12th March, to publicly apologise to Epstein’s victims and admit he personally made a "mistake"! Prime Ministers don't usually apologise for the behavior of every "lining their pockets" official—they apologise when they know they’ve personally bypassed the security protocols that are supposed to protect the office! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And those who support Trumps illegal war on Iran are no doubt going to get more boat people arriving .. a likelyhood of more terrorism occuring from fanatics and punching themselves in the face with higher inflation on everything from bananas to petrol. Thats what Trumos war will give us." It is rather telling, that when faced with the actual timeline and the 147-page dossier from last Wednesday, the response is to pivot to a completely different topic!! Whether it is Trump, Iran, or the price of bananas, none of that changes the domestic facts we were discussing: that the Prime Minister was handed a formal security warning in December 2024 and chose to ignore it. The dossier explicitly contains a due diligence report from that month which flagged a "general reputational risk" and warned that Starmer would be "more exposed" because of Mandelson's personal connection to him. Even the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, is on record in those files calling the appointment process "weirdly rushed". Dragging in "off-topic" global issues is a classic way to avoid talking about the specific failure of judgment that Starmer admitted to just three days ago in Belfast. On 12th March, he stated: "It was me that made the mistake... and it's me that makes the apology to the victims of Epstein." If we are moving away from the Mandelson files because the evidence is too uncomfortable to address, then that effectively ends the debate. You can’t argue with a security report that was only declassified four days ago by talking about a different war in a different country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just give it a rest guys! Who actually gives a fuck any more. The whole bus load of them at or near the top are in it for number one. Nine of them give a fuck for us peasants!! I get the cynicism, Tammy, but that "they are all the same" attitude is exactly why people in power think they can get away with it. If we just "give it a rest", then we’re basically saying it’s fine for a Prime Minister to be handed a red-flag security report and ignore it anyway. The 147 pages released last Wednesday aren't just gossip; they are the internal receipts showing that Starmer’s own staff warned him this would happen. If "us peasants" don't care when the government ignores its own security advice, then we shouldn't be surprised when things keep going wrong. Whether you like the politicians involved or not, the truth only came out because people refused to just... "give it a rest." As has been pointed out on other topics, you're debating this on a men's hookup site, even with Mandy being a poof, it's hardly going to have any consequence outside this forum " The Forum is open for the discussion of a wide spectrum of topics other than hookups, if you have no interest, no problem, just feel free to pass by! Simple! 😊👍 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Badenock is a complete ..... Nasty piece of work who will never get a sniff of power.And that voice ! Starmer is handling Trumps war on Iran well. No nastier than a good many others from various parties. Perhaps she won't get a 'sniff of power' Politics are so unpredictable. Her voice however sounds more authorative than your Sir Keir's monotonous whine." Agreed _ildwesthero, It is interesting to read Starmer’s leadership on the Iran war described as "handling it well" when his own party is currently polling at a historic low of 17% to 21%, trailing behind Reform and neck-and-neck with the Greens! The "calm leadership" line isn’t really landing with a public facing an oil crisis and the fallout of Starmer initially being snubbed by the US before his U-turn on using British bases. As for Kemi Badenoch never getting a "sniff of power", she is currently the Leader of the Opposition and has a significantly higher net satisfaction rating (-35) than Starmer (-53). While "Brocky" focuses on her voice, the reality is that the Prime Minister’s personal approval has collapsed since the 2024 election! It’s hard to claim someone is irrelevant when they are outperforming the PM in almost every favorability metric during a national security crisis! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Badenock is a complete ..... Nasty piece of work who will never get a sniff of power.And that voice ! Starmer is handling Trumps war on Iran well. No nastier than a good many others from various parties. Perhaps she won't get a 'sniff of power' Politics are so unpredictable. Her voice however sounds more authorative than your Sir Keir's monotonous whine." Oh please, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....? Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐....nonsense...didn't Badenoch know all about it...? It's totally ridiculous and downright rude of you to call it "nonsense" unless you are refering to your own script! Access to intelligence including that relating to Mandelson's private life and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein is strictly limited to a small group within Parliament. The primary body is the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a cross-party group of MPs and Peers with high-level security clearance who oversee the intelligence agencies. Additionally, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary have access through their executive roles and oversight of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. The Leader of the Opposition may also be briefed on a confidential "Privy Council" basis to ensure national security continuity. So it is possible, if the ISC had approved of the release of the intelligence to all relevant parties that Kemi Badenoch may well have been privy to the intelligence on Mandelson, which may have well have provided her with fuel for her protestation in Parliament, however, only the ISC or Kemi Badenoch can truly answer your question. Its not up to you to decide what other people think is nonsense. Hmmm! 🤔....How about making a worthwhile contribution to a discussion respectdue in the way you once did? I am genuinely concerned that you seem to be very angry these days, taking childish potshots with nonsensical remarks from the sidelines. You have always proven yourself to be a decent person with an intelligent mind, so it is concerning that your attitude has changed. I sincerely hope you are okay. That is 100% genuine. On the technical side, the ISC report released last Wednesday actually confirms that they were the ones who cleared the Mandelson files for release to Kemi and the rest of Parliament. So, far from being nonsense, it is literally how the documents reached the public. All best wishes - Dev. I'm not angry, I'm just bored with you repeating the same lines over and over. It really is getting boring. The Mandleson thing is now this week's chip paper. I think the ongoing middle East crisis is rather more important. So I am rather disappointed that you cannot seem to think of two things at once or move on. I thought you were better than that. The fact you cannot see what an absolute embarrassment Kemi was at pmq's really is quite bizarre. I have to point out again that you really don't need to keep writing my name as people can read my name at the top of the message. Shame I have to point that out to someone who is so well read. I am sorry you find it boring, respectdue, but accountability isn't meant to be entertainment. You're not obliged to read it, do feel free to pass by onto matters that stimulate your interests. I am perfectly capable of caring about the Middle East crisis and domestic security failures at the same time; they aren’t mutually exclusive. If this is just "chip paper", then it’s odd that the Prime Minister was in Belfast only three days ago, on 12th March, admitting he made a mistake and personally apologising to Epstein’s victims. If Starmer thinks it is serious enough for a public apology, then it is more than just gossip. As for PMQs, it’s a bit confusing to call Kemi an embarrassment on the Mandelson files when they weren't even released until that afternoon. She spent the session on the Iran escalation and fuel duty. I’m not repeating myself to be difficult; I’m sticking to the facts because the 147 pages released on Wednesday proved there was a formal "reputational risk" warning that was ignored. If you’d rather talk about the Middle East, I’m happy to, but a global crisis doesn't mean the government gets a free pass on ignoring its own security advice at home. " I really can't believe that is have to point out so many points again. If you keep mentioning my name and others when they are on the top of our replies then we do indeed feel the need to reply. Check how many people quote your name to see if this is needed. The whole point of quote and reply makes this unnecessary. Starmer has apologised to epstiens victims, which is more than anyone else in public office has done. You do not seem to care about the poor girls that were abused,as long as you score some kind of weird point. Seems a bit sick to me.. I pointed out to you a while ago that Johnson ditched his security detail to attend a party at the home of an ex kgb officer straight after a nato summit. He then put that mans son in the house of lords and got a Russian company to build the government press office. Unsurprisingly you did not seem to bother about this as you seem to have a fixation on something that is now old news and is common knowledge. You used to be known as mister copy and paste, you now sound more like a not very good bot.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Badenock is a complete ..... Nasty piece of work who will never get a sniff of power.And that voice ! Starmer is handling Trumps war on Iran well. No nastier than a good many others from various parties. Perhaps she won't get a 'sniff of power' Politics are so unpredictable. Her voice however sounds more authorative than your Sir Keir's monotonous whine. Agreed _ildwesthero, It is interesting to read Starmer’s leadership on the Iran war described as "handling it well" when his own party is currently polling at a historic low of 17% to 21%, trailing behind Reform and neck-and-neck with the Greens! The "calm leadership" line isn’t really landing with a public facing an oil crisis and the fallout of Starmer initially being snubbed by the US before his U-turn on using British bases. As for Kemi Badenoch never getting a "sniff of power", she is currently the Leader of the Opposition and has a significantly higher net satisfaction rating (-35) than Starmer (-53). While "Brocky" focuses on her voice, the reality is that the Prime Minister’s personal approval has collapsed since the 2024 election! It’s hard to claim someone is irrelevant when they are outperforming the PM in almost every favorability metric during a national security crisis! " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Badenock is a complete ..... Nasty piece of work who will never get a sniff of power.And that voice ! Starmer is handling Trumps war on Iran well. No nastier than a good many others from various parties. Perhaps she won't get a 'sniff of power' Politics are so unpredictable. Her voice however sounds more authorative than your Sir Keir's monotonous whine. Oh please, "Yes please do elaborate respectdue, your opinion is always welcome in discussion! 😊 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Badenock is a complete ..... Nasty piece of work who will never get a sniff of power.And that voice ! Starmer is handling Trumps war on Iran well. No nastier than a good many others from various parties. Perhaps she won't get a 'sniff of power' Politics are so unpredictable. Her voice however sounds more authorative than your Sir Keir's monotonous whine. Agreed _ildwesthero, It is interesting to read Starmer’s leadership on the Iran war described as "handling it well" when his own party is currently polling at a historic low of 17% to 21%, trailing behind Reform and neck-and-neck with the Greens! The "calm leadership" line isn’t really landing with a public facing an oil crisis and the fallout of Starmer initially being snubbed by the US before his U-turn on using British bases. As for Kemi Badenoch never getting a "sniff of power", she is currently the Leader of the Opposition and has a significantly higher net satisfaction rating (-35) than Starmer (-53). While "Brocky" focuses on her voice, the reality is that the Prime Minister’s personal approval has collapsed since the 2024 election! It’s hard to claim someone is irrelevant when they are outperforming the PM in almost every favorability metric during a national security crisis! "Again respectdue, three emojis are totally meaningless, let's have some words from you please! 😊 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what’s your point exactly? As is well-known Mandy is/was a skilled operator for better and (this case) worse. We needed to take some kind of gamble to get close to the orange nutter and this was worth a punt. That’s the nature of politics. Looks messy but I wouldn’t personally hang Starmer for taking the risk. He’s not exactly denying it. " Good point | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....? Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐....nonsense...didn't Badenoch know all about it...? It's totally ridiculous and downright rude of you to call it "nonsense" unless you are refering to your own script! Access to intelligence including that relating to Mandelson's private life and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein is strictly limited to a small group within Parliament. The primary body is the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a cross-party group of MPs and Peers with high-level security clearance who oversee the intelligence agencies. Additionally, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary have access through their executive roles and oversight of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. The Leader of the Opposition may also be briefed on a confidential "Privy Council" basis to ensure national security continuity. So it is possible, if the ISC had approved of the release of the intelligence to all relevant parties that Kemi Badenoch may well have been privy to the intelligence on Mandelson, which may have well have provided her with fuel for her protestation in Parliament, however, only the ISC or Kemi Badenoch can truly answer your question. Its not up to you to decide what other people think is nonsense. Hmmm! 🤔....How about making a worthwhile contribution to a discussion respectdue in the way you once did? I am genuinely concerned that you seem to be very angry these days, taking childish potshots with nonsensical remarks from the sidelines. You have always proven yourself to be a decent person with an intelligent mind, so it is concerning that your attitude has changed. I sincerely hope you are okay. That is 100% genuine. On the technical side, the ISC report released last Wednesday actually confirms that they were the ones who cleared the Mandelson files for release to Kemi and the rest of Parliament. So, far from being nonsense, it is literally how the documents reached the public. All best wishes - Dev. I'm not angry, I'm just bored with you repeating the same lines over and over. It really is getting boring. The Mandleson thing is now this week's chip paper. I think the ongoing middle East crisis is rather more important. So I am rather disappointed that you cannot seem to think of two things at once or move on. I thought you were better than that. The fact you cannot see what an absolute embarrassment Kemi was at pmq's really is quite bizarre. I have to point out again that you really don't need to keep writing my name as people can read my name at the top of the message. Shame I have to point that out to someone who is so well read. I am sorry you find it boring, respectdue, but accountability isn't meant to be entertainment. You're not obliged to read it, do feel free to pass by onto matters that stimulate your interests. I am perfectly capable of caring about the Middle East crisis and domestic security failures at the same time; they aren’t mutually exclusive. If this is just "chip paper", then it’s odd that the Prime Minister was in Belfast only three days ago, on 12th March, admitting he made a mistake and personally apologising to Epstein’s victims. If Starmer thinks it is serious enough for a public apology, then it is more than just gossip. As for PMQs, it’s a bit confusing to call Kemi an embarrassment on the Mandelson files when they weren't even released until that afternoon. She spent the session on the Iran escalation and fuel duty. I’m not repeating myself to be difficult; I’m sticking to the facts because the 147 pages released on Wednesday proved there was a formal "reputational risk" warning that was ignored. If you’d rather talk about the Middle East, I’m happy to, but a global crisis doesn't mean the government gets a free pass on ignoring its own security advice at home. I really can't believe that is have to point out so many points again. If you keep mentioning my name and others when they are on the top of our replies then we do indeed feel the need to reply. Check how many people quote your name to see if this is needed. The whole point of quote and reply makes this unnecessary. Starmer has apologised to epstiens victims, which is more than anyone else in public office has done. You do not seem to care about the poor girls that were abused,as long as you score some kind of weird point. Seems a bit sick to me.. I pointed out to you a while ago that Johnson ditched his security detail to attend a party at the home of an ex kgb officer straight after a nato summit. He then put that mans son in the house of lords and got a Russian company to build the government press office. Unsurprisingly you did not seem to bother about this as you seem to have a fixation on something that is now old news and is common knowledge. You used to be known as mister copy and paste, you now sound more like a not very good bot.. " 'Fixation on something that is now old news and commin knowledge' You do realise that you keep going on about boris and the party? That is actual old news, nothing to do with the topic and clear whataboutery? Why is starmers current scandal old news that dev should (apparently) stop talking about, but a pre covid indescretion from BJ is somehow current affairs and relevant to starmer appointing epsteins mate to a top job? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....? Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐....nonsense...didn't Badenoch know all about it...? It's totally ridiculous and downright rude of you to call it "nonsense" unless you are refering to your own script! Access to intelligence including that relating to Mandelson's private life and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein is strictly limited to a small group within Parliament. The primary body is the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a cross-party group of MPs and Peers with high-level security clearance who oversee the intelligence agencies. Additionally, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary have access through their executive roles and oversight of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. The Leader of the Opposition may also be briefed on a confidential "Privy Council" basis to ensure national security continuity. So it is possible, if the ISC had approved of the release of the intelligence to all relevant parties that Kemi Badenoch may well have been privy to the intelligence on Mandelson, which may have well have provided her with fuel for her protestation in Parliament, however, only the ISC or Kemi Badenoch can truly answer your question. Its not up to you to decide what other people think is nonsense. Hmmm! 🤔....How about making a worthwhile contribution to a discussion respectdue in the way you once did? I am genuinely concerned that you seem to be very angry these days, taking childish potshots with nonsensical remarks from the sidelines. You have always proven yourself to be a decent person with an intelligent mind, so it is concerning that your attitude has changed. I sincerely hope you are okay. That is 100% genuine. On the technical side, the ISC report released last Wednesday actually confirms that they were the ones who cleared the Mandelson files for release to Kemi and the rest of Parliament. So, far from being nonsense, it is literally how the documents reached the public. All best wishes - Dev. I'm not angry, I'm just bored with you repeating the same lines over and over. It really is getting boring. The Mandleson thing is now this week's chip paper. I think the ongoing middle East crisis is rather more important. So I am rather disappointed that you cannot seem to think of two things at once or move on. I thought you were better than that. The fact you cannot see what an absolute embarrassment Kemi was at pmq's really is quite bizarre. I have to point out again that you really don't need to keep writing my name as people can read my name at the top of the message. Shame I have to point that out to someone who is so well read. I am sorry you find it boring, respectdue, but accountability isn't meant to be entertainment. You're not obliged to read it, do feel free to pass by onto matters that stimulate your interests. I am perfectly capable of caring about the Middle East crisis and domestic security failures at the same time; they aren’t mutually exclusive. If this is just "chip paper", then it’s odd that the Prime Minister was in Belfast only three days ago, on 12th March, admitting he made a mistake and personally apologising to Epstein’s victims. If Starmer thinks it is serious enough for a public apology, then it is more than just gossip. As for PMQs, it’s a bit confusing to call Kemi an embarrassment on the Mandelson files when they weren't even released until that afternoon. She spent the session on the Iran escalation and fuel duty. I’m not repeating myself to be difficult; I’m sticking to the facts because the 147 pages released on Wednesday proved there was a formal "reputational risk" warning that was ignored. If you’d rather talk about the Middle East, I’m happy to, but a global crisis doesn't mean the government gets a free pass on ignoring its own security advice at home. I really can't believe that is have to point out so many points again. If you keep mentioning my name and others when they are on the top of our replies then we do indeed feel the need to reply. Check how many people quote your name to see if this is needed. The whole point of quote and reply makes this unnecessary. Starmer has apologised to epstiens victims, which is more than anyone else in public office has done. You do not seem to care about the poor girls that were abused,as long as you score some kind of weird point. Seems a bit sick to me.. I pointed out to you a while ago that Johnson ditched his security detail to attend a party at the home of an ex kgb officer straight after a nato summit. He then put that mans son in the house of lords and got a Russian company to build the government press office. Unsurprisingly you did not seem to bother about this as you seem to have a fixation on something that is now old news and is common knowledge. You used to be known as mister copy and paste, you now sound more like a not very good bot.. " I address you by your username, respectdue, because I am replying to your specific comments and sometimes usernames and postings are parted. Addressing people by name is, of course, a basic form of respect, though the irony of your username is sometimes sadly lost on you. If you find the standard quoting and reply format of a forum too complex to navigate, that is something I'm unable to help with, sorry. As for "scoring points," it is quite the opposite. I care about the victims enough to ask why the Prime Minister ignored a formal Cabinet Office warning in December 2024 that explicitly flagged a "general reputational risk" and warned him he would be "personally exposed" by appointing Mandelson. Using victims as a shield to protect a Prime Minister’s failure of judgment is what is actually "sick." If Starmer thought this was "old news," he wouldn't have gone to Belfast on 12th March to issue a public apology and admit, "It was me that made the mistake." Regarding Boris and the Lebedevs, that was a shameful disgrace too. But pointing at a past scandal doesn't give the current Prime Minister a free pass to ignore his own National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who called this appointment process "weirdly rushed." One leader’s failure doesn't justify another's. We are talking about 147 pages of evidence that were declassified only five days ago. Finally, your "bot" comment is the desperate whimper of someone who has run out of facts; another prolific Forum user tried the same defamatory allegation until he was duly timed-out and invited to retract and apologise with a lesson learnt! If providing documented evidence from a dossier released last Wednesday makes me a "not very good bot," then your absolute refusal to engage with those facts makes you a very good sycophant. You can't "bot" your way out of the truth: the Prime Minister was warned, he ignored it, and now he’s apologising for it. Deal with the data or, as I said before, feel free to pass by. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....? Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐....nonsense...didn't Badenoch know all about it...? It's totally ridiculous and downright rude of you to call it "nonsense" unless you are refering to your own script! Access to intelligence including that relating to Mandelson's private life and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein is strictly limited to a small group within Parliament. The primary body is the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a cross-party group of MPs and Peers with high-level security clearance who oversee the intelligence agencies. Additionally, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary have access through their executive roles and oversight of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. The Leader of the Opposition may also be briefed on a confidential "Privy Council" basis to ensure national security continuity. So it is possible, if the ISC had approved of the release of the intelligence to all relevant parties that Kemi Badenoch may well have been privy to the intelligence on Mandelson, which may have well have provided her with fuel for her protestation in Parliament, however, only the ISC or Kemi Badenoch can truly answer your question. Its not up to you to decide what other people think is nonsense. Hmmm! 🤔....How about making a worthwhile contribution to a discussion respectdue in the way you once did? I am genuinely concerned that you seem to be very angry these days, taking childish potshots with nonsensical remarks from the sidelines. You have always proven yourself to be a decent person with an intelligent mind, so it is concerning that your attitude has changed. I sincerely hope you are okay. That is 100% genuine. On the technical side, the ISC report released last Wednesday actually confirms that they were the ones who cleared the Mandelson files for release to Kemi and the rest of Parliament. So, far from being nonsense, it is literally how the documents reached the public. All best wishes - Dev. I'm not angry, I'm just bored with you repeating the same lines over and over. It really is getting boring. The Mandleson thing is now this week's chip paper. I think the ongoing middle East crisis is rather more important. So I am rather disappointed that you cannot seem to think of two things at once or move on. I thought you were better than that. The fact you cannot see what an absolute embarrassment Kemi was at pmq's really is quite bizarre. I have to point out again that you really don't need to keep writing my name as people can read my name at the top of the message. Shame I have to point that out to someone who is so well read. I am sorry you find it boring, respectdue, but accountability isn't meant to be entertainment. You're not obliged to read it, do feel free to pass by onto matters that stimulate your interests. I am perfectly capable of caring about the Middle East crisis and domestic security failures at the same time; they aren’t mutually exclusive. If this is just "chip paper", then it’s odd that the Prime Minister was in Belfast only three days ago, on 12th March, admitting he made a mistake and personally apologising to Epstein’s victims. If Starmer thinks it is serious enough for a public apology, then it is more than just gossip. As for PMQs, it’s a bit confusing to call Kemi an embarrassment on the Mandelson files when they weren't even released until that afternoon. She spent the session on the Iran escalation and fuel duty. I’m not repeating myself to be difficult; I’m sticking to the facts because the 147 pages released on Wednesday proved there was a formal "reputational risk" warning that was ignored. If you’d rather talk about the Middle East, I’m happy to, but a global crisis doesn't mean the government gets a free pass on ignoring its own security advice at home. I really can't believe that is have to point out so many points again. If you keep mentioning my name and others when they are on the top of our replies then we do indeed feel the need to reply. Check how many people quote your name to see if this is needed. The whole point of quote and reply makes this unnecessary. Starmer has apologised to epstiens victims, which is more than anyone else in public office has done. You do not seem to care about the poor girls that were abused,as long as you score some kind of weird point. Seems a bit sick to me.. I pointed out to you a while ago that Johnson ditched his security detail to attend a party at the home of an ex kgb officer straight after a nato summit. He then put that mans son in the house of lords and got a Russian company to build the government press office. Unsurprisingly you did not seem to bother about this as you seem to have a fixation on something that is now old news and is common knowledge. You used to be known as mister copy and paste, you now sound more like a not very good bot.. 'Fixation on something that is now old news and commin knowledge' You do realise that you keep going on about boris and the party? That is actual old news, nothing to do with the topic and clear whataboutery? Why is starmers current scandal old news that dev should (apparently) stop talking about, but a pre covid indescretion from BJ is somehow current affairs and relevant to starmer appointing epsteins mate to a top job? " Spot on "wigan4" and thankyou, it is a rather bizarre form of cognitive dissonance to claim that Boris Johnson’s lockdown parties from six years ago are "relevant," while dismissing a security scandal that resulted in the Prime Minister making a public apology in Belfast just 72 hours ago. The 147 pages of evidence released last Wednesday aren't "common knowledge"—they are a massive disclosure that actually contradicts what Starmer told Parliament last year. We now know that the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, warned that the process was "weirdly rushed" and that a formal due diligence report flagged a "general reputational risk" in December 2024. If this were truly "old news," the government wouldn't have fought for months to keep these specific files hidden, and Starmer wouldn't have spent last Thursday issuing an abject mea culpa to Epstein’s victims. Bringing up Boris is just a smoke screen to avoid the fact that the current PM was warned by his own security team and chose to press ahead anyway. One leader's past mistakes don't provide a shield for the current leader's failures in 2024. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes it was rather rude, but Oh Lord no James, I'm not exempt, I’m just referencing the facts. If you check the official record from last Wednesday, March 11th, the Government explicitly confirmed that the ISC met on March 5th to oversee the redactions of the Mandelson files. This proves my point that the intelligence was restricted to that specific committee before Kemi Badenoch or anyone else in Parliament was allowed to see it...so now that we've established that we're both "rude"...let's face the fact that mandlesons affiliation with Epstein has been common knowledge for years...office my ass...everyone knew, and they went along with it...Badenoch is like a small dog...barking at everyone, but not really having much impact on anything. You have to admit that her performance at last weeks pmq was dismal. ?I haven't established that at all James. I am sticking to the facts while you are attempting to make it personal. You mentioned PMQs, but last Wednesday Kemi actually focused on fuel duty and the Middle East. The Mandelson files were not even released until that afternoon. ?As for everyone knowing, the 147-page dossier released on Wednesday proves that is not true. It shows a formal Cabinet Office warning from December 2024 about reputational risk that Starmer chose to ignore. There is a massive difference between public gossip and a Prime Minister being handed a red-flag security report and proceeding anyway. Whether you like Kemi's style or not, the Humble Address she pushed for is the only reason those internal warnings are now public. Dismissing the legal process as nonsense does not change the fact that the files have now been released because of it." ...ok....so I'm rude...but you couldn't possibly be...she focused on a fuel duty that hasn't actually happened yet. Anything to distract from her disastrous stance on the epstien war. The vast majority of America's allies don't want anything to do with it. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of Americans don't want it either. Don't you agree? He made a mistake on Mandelson, he's apologised for it,he's apologised to Epsteins victims, what more do you want? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what’s your point exactly? As is well-known Mandy is/was a skilled operator for better and (this case) worse. We needed to take some kind of gamble to get close to the orange nutter and this was worth a punt. That’s the nature of politics. Looks messy but I wouldn’t personally hang Starmer for taking the risk. He’s not exactly denying it. " Mandelson was never “worth a punt” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....? Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐....nonsense...didn't Badenoch know all about it...? It's totally ridiculous and downright rude of you to call it "nonsense" unless you are refering to your own script! Access to intelligence including that relating to Mandelson's private life and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein is strictly limited to a small group within Parliament. The primary body is the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a cross-party group of MPs and Peers with high-level security clearance who oversee the intelligence agencies. Additionally, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary have access through their executive roles and oversight of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. The Leader of the Opposition may also be briefed on a confidential "Privy Council" basis to ensure national security continuity. So it is possible, if the ISC had approved of the release of the intelligence to all relevant parties that Kemi Badenoch may well have been privy to the intelligence on Mandelson, which may have well have provided her with fuel for her protestation in Parliament, however, only the ISC or Kemi Badenoch can truly answer your question. Its not up to you to decide what other people think is nonsense. Hmmm! 🤔....How about making a worthwhile contribution to a discussion respectdue in the way you once did? I am genuinely concerned that you seem to be very angry these days, taking childish potshots with nonsensical remarks from the sidelines. You have always proven yourself to be a decent person with an intelligent mind, so it is concerning that your attitude has changed. I sincerely hope you are okay. That is 100% genuine. On the technical side, the ISC report released last Wednesday actually confirms that they were the ones who cleared the Mandelson files for release to Kemi and the rest of Parliament. So, far from being nonsense, it is literally how the documents reached the public. All best wishes - Dev. I'm not angry, I'm just bored with you repeating the same lines over and over. It really is getting boring. The Mandleson thing is now this week's chip paper. I think the ongoing middle East crisis is rather more important. So I am rather disappointed that you cannot seem to think of two things at once or move on. I thought you were better than that. The fact you cannot see what an absolute embarrassment Kemi was at pmq's really is quite bizarre. I have to point out again that you really don't need to keep writing my name as people can read my name at the top of the message. Shame I have to point that out to someone who is so well read. I am sorry you find it boring, respectdue, but accountability isn't meant to be entertainment. You're not obliged to read it, do feel free to pass by onto matters that stimulate your interests. I am perfectly capable of caring about the Middle East crisis and domestic security failures at the same time; they aren’t mutually exclusive. If this is just "chip paper", then it’s odd that the Prime Minister was in Belfast only three days ago, on 12th March, admitting he made a mistake and personally apologising to Epstein’s victims. If Starmer thinks it is serious enough for a public apology, then it is more than just gossip. As for PMQs, it’s a bit confusing to call Kemi an embarrassment on the Mandelson files when they weren't even released until that afternoon. She spent the session on the Iran escalation and fuel duty. I’m not repeating myself to be difficult; I’m sticking to the facts because the 147 pages released on Wednesday proved there was a formal "reputational risk" warning that was ignored. If you’d rather talk about the Middle East, I’m happy to, but a global crisis doesn't mean the government gets a free pass on ignoring its own security advice at home. I really can't believe that is have to point out so many points again. If you keep mentioning my name and others when they are on the top of our replies then we do indeed feel the need to reply. Check how many people quote your name to see if this is needed. The whole point of quote and reply makes this unnecessary. Starmer has apologised to epstiens victims, which is more than anyone else in public office has done. You do not seem to care about the poor girls that were abused,as long as you score some kind of weird point. Seems a bit sick to me.. I pointed out to you a while ago that Johnson ditched his security detail to attend a party at the home of an ex kgb officer straight after a nato summit. He then put that mans son in the house of lords and got a Russian company to build the government press office. Unsurprisingly you did not seem to bother about this as you seem to have a fixation on something that is now old news and is common knowledge. You used to be known as mister copy and paste, you now sound more like a not very good bot.. I address you by your username, respectdue, because I am replying to your specific comments and sometimes usernames and postings are parted. Addressing people by name is, of course, a basic form of respect, though the irony of your username is sometimes sadly lost on you. If you find the standard quoting and reply format of a forum too complex to navigate, that is something I'm unable to help with, sorry. As for "scoring points," it is quite the opposite. I care about the victims enough to ask why the Prime Minister ignored a formal Cabinet Office warning in December 2024 that explicitly flagged a "general reputational risk" and warned him he would be "personally exposed" by appointing Mandelson. Using victims as a shield to protect a Prime Minister’s failure of judgment is what is actually "sick." If Starmer thought this was "old news," he wouldn't have gone to Belfast on 12th March to issue a public apology and admit, "It was me that made the mistake." Regarding Boris and the Lebedevs, that was a shameful disgrace too. But pointing at a past scandal doesn't give the current Prime Minister a free pass to ignore his own National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who called this appointment process "weirdly rushed." One leader’s failure doesn't justify another's. We are talking about 147 pages of evidence that were declassified only five days ago. Finally, your "bot" comment is the desperate whimper of someone who has run out of facts; another prolific Forum user tried the same defamatory allegation until he was duly timed-out and invited to retract and apologise with a lesson learnt! If providing documented evidence from a dossier released last Wednesday makes me a "not very good bot," then your absolute refusal to engage with those facts makes you a very good sycophant. You can't "bot" your way out of the truth: the Prime Minister was warned, he ignored it, and now he’s apologising for it. Deal with the data or, as I said before, feel free to pass by. " On the contrary, t'is you who doesn't understand that quote and reply actually mentions the writers name, so you don't need too. That, is the whole point of using it. I didn't mention covid or lockdown. Try reading. The reason for calling you a bot is you have mentioned 147 pages many many times, you've had nothing new to say on this subject for days now. It really is repetitive. Its taken a prompting from me for you too even bother about epstiens victims. Starmers has admitted he made a mistake, everyone knows he made a mistake. He's not going anywhere yet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....? Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐....nonsense...didn't Badenoch know all about it...? It's totally ridiculous and downright rude of you to call it "nonsense" unless you are refering to your own script! Access to intelligence including that relating to Mandelson's private life and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein is strictly limited to a small group within Parliament. The primary body is the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a cross-party group of MPs and Peers with high-level security clearance who oversee the intelligence agencies. Additionally, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary have access through their executive roles and oversight of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. The Leader of the Opposition may also be briefed on a confidential "Privy Council" basis to ensure national security continuity. So it is possible, if the ISC had approved of the release of the intelligence to all relevant parties that Kemi Badenoch may well have been privy to the intelligence on Mandelson, which may have well have provided her with fuel for her protestation in Parliament, however, only the ISC or Kemi Badenoch can truly answer your question. Its not up to you to decide what other people think is nonsense. Hmmm! 🤔....How about making a worthwhile contribution to a discussion respectdue in the way you once did? I am genuinely concerned that you seem to be very angry these days, taking childish potshots with nonsensical remarks from the sidelines. You have always proven yourself to be a decent person with an intelligent mind, so it is concerning that your attitude has changed. I sincerely hope you are okay. That is 100% genuine. On the technical side, the ISC report released last Wednesday actually confirms that they were the ones who cleared the Mandelson files for release to Kemi and the rest of Parliament. So, far from being nonsense, it is literally how the documents reached the public. All best wishes - Dev. I'm not angry, I'm just bored with you repeating the same lines over and over. It really is getting boring. The Mandleson thing is now this week's chip paper. I think the ongoing middle East crisis is rather more important. So I am rather disappointed that you cannot seem to think of two things at once or move on. I thought you were better than that. The fact you cannot see what an absolute embarrassment Kemi was at pmq's really is quite bizarre. I have to point out again that you really don't need to keep writing my name as people can read my name at the top of the message. Shame I have to point that out to someone who is so well read. I am sorry you find it boring, respectdue, but accountability isn't meant to be entertainment. You're not obliged to read it, do feel free to pass by onto matters that stimulate your interests. I am perfectly capable of caring about the Middle East crisis and domestic security failures at the same time; they aren’t mutually exclusive. If this is just "chip paper", then it’s odd that the Prime Minister was in Belfast only three days ago, on 12th March, admitting he made a mistake and personally apologising to Epstein’s victims. If Starmer thinks it is serious enough for a public apology, then it is more than just gossip. As for PMQs, it’s a bit confusing to call Kemi an embarrassment on the Mandelson files when they weren't even released until that afternoon. She spent the session on the Iran escalation and fuel duty. I’m not repeating myself to be difficult; I’m sticking to the facts because the 147 pages released on Wednesday proved there was a formal "reputational risk" warning that was ignored. If you’d rather talk about the Middle East, I’m happy to, but a global crisis doesn't mean the government gets a free pass on ignoring its own security advice at home. I really can't believe that is have to point out so many points again. If you keep mentioning my name and others when they are on the top of our replies then we do indeed feel the need to reply. Check how many people quote your name to see if this is needed. The whole point of quote and reply makes this unnecessary. Starmer has apologised to epstiens victims, which is more than anyone else in public office has done. You do not seem to care about the poor girls that were abused,as long as you score some kind of weird point. Seems a bit sick to me.. I pointed out to you a while ago that Johnson ditched his security detail to attend a party at the home of an ex kgb officer straight after a nato summit. He then put that mans son in the house of lords and got a Russian company to build the government press office. Unsurprisingly you did not seem to bother about this as you seem to have a fixation on something that is now old news and is common knowledge. You used to be known as mister copy and paste, you now sound more like a not very good bot.. I address you by your username, respectdue, because I am replying to your specific comments and sometimes usernames and postings are parted. Addressing people by name is, of course, a basic form of respect, though the irony of your username is sometimes sadly lost on you. If you find the standard quoting and reply format of a forum too complex to navigate, that is something I'm unable to help with, sorry. As for "scoring points," it is quite the opposite. I care about the victims enough to ask why the Prime Minister ignored a formal Cabinet Office warning in December 2024 that explicitly flagged a "general reputational risk" and warned him he would be "personally exposed" by appointing Mandelson. Using victims as a shield to protect a Prime Minister’s failure of judgment is what is actually "sick." If Starmer thought this was "old news," he wouldn't have gone to Belfast on 12th March to issue a public apology and admit, "It was me that made the mistake." Regarding Boris and the Lebedevs, that was a shameful disgrace too. But pointing at a past scandal doesn't give the current Prime Minister a free pass to ignore his own National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who called this appointment process "weirdly rushed." One leader’s failure doesn't justify another's. We are talking about 147 pages of evidence that were declassified only five days ago. Finally, your "bot" comment is the desperate whimper of someone who has run out of facts; another prolific Forum user tried the same defamatory allegation until he was duly timed-out and invited to retract and apologise with a lesson learnt! If providing documented evidence from a dossier released last Wednesday makes me a "not very good bot," then your absolute refusal to engage with those facts makes you a very good sycophant. You can't "bot" your way out of the truth: the Prime Minister was warned, he ignored it, and now he’s apologising for it. Deal with the data or, as I said before, feel free to pass by. On the contrary, t'is you who doesn't understand that quote and reply actually mentions the writers name, so you don't need too. That, is the whole point of using it. I didn't mention covid or lockdown. Try reading. The reason for calling you a bot is you have mentioned 147 pages many many times, you've had nothing new to say on this subject for days now. It really is repetitive. Its taken a prompting from me for you too even bother about epstiens victims. Starmers has admitted he made a mistake, everyone knows he made a mistake. He's not going anywhere yet. " ....they miss Liz the lettuce...hahaha | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes it was rather rude, but Oh Lord no James, I'm not exempt, I’m just referencing the facts. If you check the official record from last Wednesday, March 11th, the Government explicitly confirmed that the ISC met on March 5th to oversee the redactions of the Mandelson files. This proves my point that the intelligence was restricted to that specific committee before Kemi Badenoch or anyone else in Parliament was allowed to see it...so now that we've established that we're both "rude"...let's face the fact that mandlesons affiliation with Epstein has been common knowledge for years...office my ass...everyone knew, and they went along with it...Badenoch is like a small dog...barking at everyone, but not really having much impact on anything. You have to admit that her performance at last weeks pmq was dismal. ?I haven't established that at all James. I am sticking to the facts while you are attempting to make it personal. You mentioned PMQs, but last Wednesday Kemi actually focused on fuel duty and the Middle East. The Mandelson files were not even released until that afternoon. ?As for everyone knowing, the 147-page dossier released on Wednesday proves that is not true. It shows a formal Cabinet Office warning from December 2024 about reputational risk that Starmer chose to ignore. There is a massive difference between public gossip and a Prime Minister being handed a red-flag security report and proceeding anyway. Whether you like Kemi's style or not, the Humble Address she pushed for is the only reason those internal warnings are now public. Dismissing the legal process as nonsense does not change the fact that the files have now been released because of it....ok....so I'm rude...but you couldn't possibly be...she focused on a fuel duty that hasn't actually happened yet. Anything to distract from her disastrous stance on the epstien war. The vast majority of America's allies don't want anything to do with it. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of Americans don't want it either. Don't you agree? He made a mistake on Mandelson, he's apologised for it,he's apologised to Epsteins victims, what more do you want?" Did he call you rude ???o dear Weren't you the individual who mentioned that we should have respect for op? Ha ha ha. How many times must we endure the Mickey Mouse spectacle? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Badenock is a complete ..... Nasty piece of work who will never get a sniff of power.And that voice ! Starmer is handling Trumps war on Iran well. No nastier than a good many others from various parties. Perhaps she won't get a 'sniff of power' Politics are so unpredictable. Her voice however sounds more authorative than your Sir Keir's monotonous whine. Agreed _ildwesthero, It is interesting to read Starmer’s leadership on the Iran war described as "handling it well" when his own party is currently polling at a historic low of 17% to 21%, trailing behind Reform and neck-and-neck with the Greens! The "calm leadership" line isn’t really landing with a public facing an oil crisis and the fallout of Starmer initially being snubbed by the US before his U-turn on using British bases. As for Kemi Badenoch never getting a "sniff of power", she is currently the Leader of the Opposition and has a significantly higher net satisfaction rating (-35) than Starmer (-53). While "Brocky" focuses on her voice, the reality is that the Prime Minister’s personal approval has collapsed since the 2024 election! It’s hard to claim someone is irrelevant when they are outperforming the PM in almost every favorability metric during a national security crisis! " Explain Caerphilly then? They were third there too and not polling much higher at the time and there was no oil crisis at the time. The thing about facts is they have tricky way of remaining true | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what’s your point exactly? As is well-known Mandy is/was a skilled operator for better and (this case) worse. We needed to take some kind of gamble to get close to the orange nutter and this was worth a punt. That’s the nature of politics. Looks messy but I wouldn’t personally hang Starmer for taking the risk. He’s not exactly denying it. Mandelson was never “worth a punt”" He's not even worth a rusty bath tub on the cut! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lol. This time last year everyone one was saying what a good appointment he was. The daily mail even hosted a party for Mandy!!...my point exactly...its very easy to criticise now... The fire of criticism was already well alight at the hint of Mandelsons appointment, but Capt'n Hindsight ignored the warnings and steered the ship directly into it, with the inevitable result! 🔥🔥🔥 ...not according to the daily mail and similar publications... Well as a Labour sympathiser I can honestly I was immediately stunned by the appointment .....you were lonely... Well obviously the details were privy to the SECRET intelligence services at that time !! Doh! 😂...and only the intelligence services.....? Well as it was...err secret......! Yer know! 🤐....nonsense...didn't Badenoch know all about it...? It's totally ridiculous and downright rude of you to call it "nonsense" unless you are refering to your own script! Access to intelligence including that relating to Mandelson's private life and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein is strictly limited to a small group within Parliament. The primary body is the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a cross-party group of MPs and Peers with high-level security clearance who oversee the intelligence agencies. Additionally, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary have access through their executive roles and oversight of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. The Leader of the Opposition may also be briefed on a confidential "Privy Council" basis to ensure national security continuity. So it is possible, if the ISC had approved of the release of the intelligence to all relevant parties that Kemi Badenoch may well have been privy to the intelligence on Mandelson, which may have well have provided her with fuel for her protestation in Parliament, however, only the ISC or Kemi Badenoch can truly answer your question. Its not up to you to decide what other people think is nonsense. Hmmm! 🤔....How about making a worthwhile contribution to a discussion respectdue in the way you once did? I am genuinely concerned that you seem to be very angry these days, taking childish potshots with nonsensical remarks from the sidelines. You have always proven yourself to be a decent person with an intelligent mind, so it is concerning that your attitude has changed. I sincerely hope you are okay. That is 100% genuine. On the technical side, the ISC report released last Wednesday actually confirms that they were the ones who cleared the Mandelson files for release to Kemi and the rest of Parliament. So, far from being nonsense, it is literally how the documents reached the public. All best wishes - Dev. I'm not angry, I'm just bored with you repeating the same lines over and over. It really is getting boring. The Mandleson thing is now this week's chip paper. I think the ongoing middle East crisis is rather more important. So I am rather disappointed that you cannot seem to think of two things at once or move on. I thought you were better than that. The fact you cannot see what an absolute embarrassment Kemi was at pmq's really is quite bizarre. I have to point out again that you really don't need to keep writing my name as people can read my name at the top of the message. Shame I have to point that out to someone who is so well read. I am sorry you find it boring, respectdue, but accountability isn't meant to be entertainment. You're not obliged to read it, do feel free to pass by onto matters that stimulate your interests. I am perfectly capable of caring about the Middle East crisis and domestic security failures at the same time; they aren’t mutually exclusive. If this is just "chip paper", then it’s odd that the Prime Minister was in Belfast only three days ago, on 12th March, admitting he made a mistake and personally apologising to Epstein’s victims. If Starmer thinks it is serious enough for a public apology, then it is more than just gossip. As for PMQs, it’s a bit confusing to call Kemi an embarrassment on the Mandelson files when they weren't even released until that afternoon. She spent the session on the Iran escalation and fuel duty. I’m not repeating myself to be difficult; I’m sticking to the facts because the 147 pages released on Wednesday proved there was a formal "reputational risk" warning that was ignored. If you’d rather talk about the Middle East, I’m happy to, but a global crisis doesn't mean the government gets a free pass on ignoring its own security advice at home. I really can't believe that is have to point out so many points again. If you keep mentioning my name and others when they are on the top of our replies then we do indeed feel the need to reply. Check how many people quote your name to see if this is needed. The whole point of quote and reply makes this unnecessary. Starmer has apologised to epstiens victims, which is more than anyone else in public office has done. You do not seem to care about the poor girls that were abused,as long as you score some kind of weird point. Seems a bit sick to me.. I pointed out to you a while ago that Johnson ditched his security detail to attend a party at the home of an ex kgb officer straight after a nato summit. He then put that mans son in the house of lords and got a Russian company to build the government press office. Unsurprisingly you did not seem to bother about this as you seem to have a fixation on something that is now old news and is common knowledge. You used to be known as mister copy and paste, you now sound more like a not very good bot.. I address you by your username, respectdue, because I am replying to your specific comments and sometimes usernames and postings are parted. Addressing people by name is, of course, a basic form of respect, though the irony of your username is sometimes sadly lost on you. If you find the standard quoting and reply format of a forum too complex to navigate, that is something I'm unable to help with, sorry. As for "scoring points," it is quite the opposite. I care about the victims enough to ask why the Prime Minister ignored a formal Cabinet Office warning in December 2024 that explicitly flagged a "general reputational risk" and warned him he would be "personally exposed" by appointing Mandelson. Using victims as a shield to protect a Prime Minister’s failure of judgment is what is actually "sick." If Starmer thought this was "old news," he wouldn't have gone to Belfast on 12th March to issue a public apology and admit, "It was me that made the mistake." Regarding Boris and the Lebedevs, that was a shameful disgrace too. But pointing at a past scandal doesn't give the current Prime Minister a free pass to ignore his own National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who called this appointment process "weirdly rushed." One leader’s failure doesn't justify another's. We are talking about 147 pages of evidence that were declassified only five days ago. Finally, your "bot" comment is the desperate whimper of someone who has run out of facts; another prolific Forum user tried the same defamatory allegation until he was duly timed-out and invited to retract and apologise with a lesson learnt! If providing documented evidence from a dossier released last Wednesday makes me a "not very good bot," then your absolute refusal to engage with those facts makes you a very good sycophant. You can't "bot" your way out of the truth: the Prime Minister was warned, he ignored it, and now he’s apologising for it. Deal with the data or, as I said before, feel free to pass by. On the contrary, t'is you who doesn't understand that quote and reply actually mentions the writers name, so you don't need too. That, is the whole point of using it. I didn't mention covid or lockdown. Try reading. The reason for calling you a bot is you have mentioned 147 pages many many times, you've had nothing new to say on this subject for days now. It really is repetitive. Its taken a prompting from me for you too even bother about epstiens victims. Starmers has admitted he made a mistake, everyone knows he made a mistake. He's not going anywhere yet. " Quote and reply doesn't mention names when read on mobile. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I address you by your username, respectdue, because I am replying to your specific comments and sometimes usernames and postings are parted. Addressing people by name is, of course, a basic form of respect, though the irony of your username is sometimes sadly lost on you. If you find the standard quoting and reply format of a forum too complex to navigate, that is something I'm unable to help with, sorry. As for "scoring points," it is quite the opposite. I care about the victims enough to ask why the Prime Minister ignored a formal Cabinet Office warning in December 2024 that explicitly flagged a "general reputational risk" and warned him he would be "personally exposed" by appointing Mandelson. Using victims as a shield to protect a Prime Minister’s failure of judgment is what is actually "sick." If Starmer thought this was "old news," he wouldn't have gone to Belfast on 12th March to issue a public apology and admit, "It was me that made the mistake." Regarding Boris and the Lebedevs, that was a shameful disgrace too. But pointing at a past scandal doesn't give the current Prime Minister a free pass to ignore his own National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who called this appointment process "weirdly rushed." One leader’s failure doesn't justify another's. We are talking about 147 pages of evidence that were declassified only five days ago. Finally, your "bot" comment is the desperate whimper of someone who has run out of facts; another prolific Forum user tried the same defamatory allegation until he was duly timed-out and invited to retract and apologise with a lesson learnt! If providing documented evidence from a dossier released last Wednesday makes me a "not very good bot," then your absolute refusal to engage with those facts makes you a very good sycophant. You can't "bot" your way out of the truth: the Prime Minister was warned, he ignored it, and now he’s apologising for it. Deal with the data or, as I said before, feel free to pass by. On the contrary, t'is you who doesn't understand that quote and reply actually mentions the writers name, so you don't need too. That, is the whole point of using it. I didn't mention covid or lockdown. Try reading. The reason for calling you a bot is you have mentioned 147 pages many many times, you've had nothing new to say on this subject for days now. It really is repetitive. Its taken a prompting from me for you too even bother about epstiens victims. Starmers has admitted he made a mistake, everyone knows he made a mistake. He's not going anywhere yet. " Thank-you respectdue, I appreciate the "147 pages" ref may seem like a repetitive Starmer quote, but of course provide key evidence—declassified five days ago—showing the Prime Minister was warned of a "general reputational risk" on 4th December 2024. If you find the truth "repetitive", that doesn't make these facts irrelevant. You said "everyone knows he made a mistake", but until last Wednesday, the Government claimed "full due process" was followed. Now, the Chief Secretary admits Mandelson "should never have been afforded the privilege"! This involves potential crime. Documents show Mandelson allegedly leaked a 2009 memo to Epstein and tipped him off about a bailout. Starmer was warned, yet bypassed vetting. A Prime Minister ignoring security advice to appoint a man under police investigation is tantamount to gross negligence. The Belfast apology was an admission of guilt, not of course a solution for the victims. If it was another government minister involved with such a blatant security breach, Starmer would have quite correctly sacked them! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I address you by your username, respectdue, because I am replying to your specific comments and sometimes usernames and postings are parted. Addressing people by name is, of course, a basic form of respect, though the irony of your username is sometimes sadly lost on you. If you find the standard quoting and reply format of a forum too complex to navigate, that is something I'm unable to help with, sorry. As for "scoring points," it is quite the opposite. I care about the victims enough to ask why the Prime Minister ignored a formal Cabinet Office warning in December 2024 that explicitly flagged a "general reputational risk" and warned him he would be "personally exposed" by appointing Mandelson. Using victims as a shield to protect a Prime Minister’s failure of judgment is what is actually "sick." If Starmer thought this was "old news," he wouldn't have gone to Belfast on 12th March to issue a public apology and admit, "It was me that made the mistake." Regarding Boris and the Lebedevs, that was a shameful disgrace too. But pointing at a past scandal doesn't give the current Prime Minister a free pass to ignore his own National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who called this appointment process "weirdly rushed." One leader’s failure doesn't justify another's. We are talking about 147 pages of evidence that were declassified only five days ago. Finally, your "bot" comment is the desperate whimper of someone who has run out of facts; another prolific Forum user tried the same defamatory allegation until he was duly timed-out and invited to retract and apologise with a lesson learnt! If providing documented evidence from a dossier released last Wednesday makes me a "not very good bot," then your absolute refusal to engage with those facts makes you a very good sycophant. You can't "bot" your way out of the truth: the Prime Minister was warned, he ignored it, and now he’s apologising for it. Deal with the data or, as I said before, feel free to pass by. On the contrary, t'is you who doesn't understand that quote and reply actually mentions the writers name, so you don't need too. That, is the whole point of using it. I didn't mention covid or lockdown. Try reading. The reason for calling you a bot is you have mentioned 147 pages many many times, you've had nothing new to say on this subject for days now. It really is repetitive. Its taken a prompting from me for you too even bother about epstiens victims. Starmers has admitted he made a mistake, everyone knows he made a mistake. He's not going anywhere yet. Thank-you respectdue, I appreciate the "147 pages" ref may seem like a repetitive Starmer quote, but of course provide key evidence—declassified five days ago—showing the Prime Minister was warned of a "general reputational risk" on 4th December 2024. If you find the truth "repetitive", that doesn't make these facts irrelevant. You said "everyone knows he made a mistake", but until last Wednesday, the Government claimed "full due process" was followed. Now, the Chief Secretary admits Mandelson "should never have been afforded the privilege"! This involves potential crime. Documents show Mandelson allegedly leaked a 2009 memo to Epstein and tipped him off about a bailout. Starmer was warned, yet bypassed vetting. A Prime Minister ignoring security advice to appoint a man under police investigation is tantamount to gross negligence. The Belfast apology was an admission of guilt, not of course a solution for the victims. If it was another government minister involved with such a blatant security breach, Starmer would have quite correctly sacked them! " Not even the secret service knew about the leak. That only came to light in the Epstein files. Mandelson wasn't under police investigation when they appointed him | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Did he call you rude ???o dear Weren't you the individual who mentioned that we should have respect for op? Ha ha ha. How many times must we endure the Mickey Mouse spectacle? " Mickey Mouse is a disguise 'chubs'! We appear to have a pesky troll in our midst, discussion with whom is said to be like playing chess with a pigeon:- no matter how good you are, the bird is going to crap on the board and strut around like it won anyway! 😆 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I address you by your username, respectdue, because I am replying to your specific comments and sometimes usernames and postings are parted. Addressing people by name is, of course, a basic form of respect, though the irony of your username is sometimes sadly lost on you. If you find the standard quoting and reply format of a forum too complex to navigate, that is something I'm unable to help with, sorry. As for "scoring points," it is quite the opposite. I care about the victims enough to ask why the Prime Minister ignored a formal Cabinet Office warning in December 2024 that explicitly flagged a "general reputational risk" and warned him he would be "personally exposed" by appointing Mandelson. Using victims as a shield to protect a Prime Minister’s failure of judgment is what is actually "sick." If Starmer thought this was "old news," he wouldn't have gone to Belfast on 12th March to issue a public apology and admit, "It was me that made the mistake." Regarding Boris and the Lebedevs, that was a shameful disgrace too. But pointing at a past scandal doesn't give the current Prime Minister a free pass to ignore his own National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who called this appointment process "weirdly rushed." One leader’s failure doesn't justify another's. We are talking about 147 pages of evidence that were declassified only five days ago. Finally, your "bot" comment is the desperate whimper of someone who has run out of facts; another prolific Forum user tried the same defamatory allegation until he was duly timed-out and invited to retract and apologise with a lesson learnt! If providing documented evidence from a dossier released last Wednesday makes me a "not very good bot," then your absolute refusal to engage with those facts makes you a very good sycophant. You can't "bot" your way out of the truth: the Prime Minister was warned, he ignored it, and now he’s apologising for it. Deal with the data or, as I said before, feel free to pass by. On the contrary, t'is you who doesn't understand that quote and reply actually mentions the writers name, so you don't need too. That, is the whole point of using it. I didn't mention covid or lockdown. Try reading. The reason for calling you a bot is you have mentioned 147 pages many many times, you've had nothing new to say on this subject for days now. It really is repetitive. Its taken a prompting from me for you too even bother about epstiens victims. Starmers has admitted he made a mistake, everyone knows he made a mistake. He's not going anywhere yet. Thank-you respectdue, I appreciate the "147 pages" ref may seem like a repetitive Starmer quote, but of course provide key evidence—declassified five days ago—showing the Prime Minister was warned of a "general reputational risk" on 4th December 2024. If you find the truth "repetitive", that doesn't make these facts irrelevant. You said "everyone knows he made a mistake", but until last Wednesday, the Government claimed "full due process" was followed. Now, the Chief Secretary admits Mandelson "should never have been afforded the privilege"! This involves potential crime. Documents show Mandelson allegedly leaked a 2009 memo to Epstein and tipped him off about a bailout. Starmer was warned, yet bypassed vetting. A Prime Minister ignoring security advice to appoint a man under police investigation is tantamount to gross negligence. The Belfast apology was an admission of guilt, not of course a solution for the victims. If it was another government minister involved with such a blatant security breach, Starmer would have quite correctly sacked them! Not even the secret service knew about the leak. That only came to light in the Epstein files. Mandelson wasn't under police investigation when they appointed him " And the gold medal for the most boring and longest message goes too..... ffs | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Not even the secret service knew about the leak. That only came to light in the Epstein files. Mandelson wasn't under police investigation when they appointed him " Thank-you, I do appreciate the technicality, Roath, but that actually reinforces the point. The National Security Adviser warned the process was "weirdly rushed" because you don't bypass standard vetting for someone with a high "reputational risk." Vetting exists to find what isn't yet in the public domain. By ignoring security services' warnings on 4th December 2024 to rush Mandelson into the job, Starmer personally ensured the Government was "exposed" when those leaks surfaced in the January files. Whether the police investigation started then or now is secondary to the primary failure: Starmer was given a "red flag" warning about Mandelson’s Epstein links and chose to ignore it. Mandelson was arrested in Camden on 23rd February on suspicion of misconduct in public office and remains under active investigation. As the Chief Secretary admitted last Wednesday, "he should never have been afforded the privilege" in the first place. You don't wait for a police investigation to show basic common sense in high-level appointments. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I address you by your username, respectdue, because I am replying to your specific comments and sometimes usernames and postings are parted. Addressing people by name is, of course, a basic form of respect, though the irony of your username is sometimes sadly lost on you. If you find the standard quoting and reply format of a forum too complex to navigate, that is something I'm unable to help with, sorry. As for "scoring points," it is quite the opposite. I care about the victims enough to ask why the Prime Minister ignored a formal Cabinet Office warning in December 2024 that explicitly flagged a "general reputational risk" and warned him he would be "personally exposed" by appointing Mandelson. Using victims as a shield to protect a Prime Minister’s failure of judgment is what is actually "sick." If Starmer thought this was "old news," he wouldn't have gone to Belfast on 12th March to issue a public apology and admit, "It was me that made the mistake." Regarding Boris and the Lebedevs, that was a shameful disgrace too. But pointing at a past scandal doesn't give the current Prime Minister a free pass to ignore his own National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who called this appointment process "weirdly rushed." One leader’s failure doesn't justify another's. We are talking about 147 pages of evidence that were declassified only five days ago. Finally, your "bot" comment is the desperate whimper of someone who has run out of facts; another prolific Forum user tried the same defamatory allegation until he was duly timed-out and invited to retract and apologise with a lesson learnt! If providing documented evidence from a dossier released last Wednesday makes me a "not very good bot," then your absolute refusal to engage with those facts makes you a very good sycophant. You can't "bot" your way out of the truth: the Prime Minister was warned, he ignored it, and now he’s apologising for it. Deal with the data or, as I said before, feel free to pass by. On the contrary, t'is you who doesn't understand that quote and reply actually mentions the writers name, so you don't need too. That, is the whole point of using it. I didn't mention covid or lockdown. Try reading. The reason for calling you a bot is you have mentioned 147 pages many many times, you've had nothing new to say on this subject for days now. It really is repetitive. Its taken a prompting from me for you too even bother about epstiens victims. Starmers has admitted he made a mistake, everyone knows he made a mistake. He's not going anywhere yet. Thank-you respectdue, I appreciate the "147 pages" ref may seem like a repetitive Starmer quote, but of course provide key evidence—declassified five days ago—showing the Prime Minister was warned of a "general reputational risk" on 4th December 2024. If you find the truth "repetitive", that doesn't make these facts irrelevant. You said "everyone knows he made a mistake", but until last Wednesday, the Government claimed "full due process" was followed. Now, the Chief Secretary admits Mandelson "should never have been afforded the privilege"! This involves potential crime. Documents show Mandelson allegedly leaked a 2009 memo to Epstein and tipped him off about a bailout. Starmer was warned, yet bypassed vetting. A Prime Minister ignoring security advice to appoint a man under police investigation is tantamount to gross negligence. The Belfast apology was an admission of guilt, not of course a solution for the victims. If it was another government minister involved with such a blatant security breach, Starmer would have quite correctly sacked them! Not even the secret service knew about the leak. That only came to light in the Epstein files. Mandelson wasn't under police investigation when they appointed him And the gold medal for the most boring and longest message goes too..... ffs" Thanks but, if you've nothing constructive to add, perhaps it's best to let others contribute. Ignorant insults won't help your cause, do feel free to move on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I address you by your username, respectdue, because I am replying to your specific comments and sometimes usernames and postings are parted. Addressing people by name is, of course, a basic form of respect, though the irony of your username is sometimes sadly lost on you. If you find the standard quoting and reply format of a forum too complex to navigate, that is something I'm unable to help with, sorry. As for "scoring points," it is quite the opposite. I care about the victims enough to ask why the Prime Minister ignored a formal Cabinet Office warning in December 2024 that explicitly flagged a "general reputational risk" and warned him he would be "personally exposed" by appointing Mandelson. Using victims as a shield to protect a Prime Minister’s failure of judgment is what is actually "sick." If Starmer thought this was "old news," he wouldn't have gone to Belfast on 12th March to issue a public apology and admit, "It was me that made the mistake." Regarding Boris and the Lebedevs, that was a shameful disgrace too. But pointing at a past scandal doesn't give the current Prime Minister a free pass to ignore his own National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who called this appointment process "weirdly rushed." One leader’s failure doesn't justify another's. We are talking about 147 pages of evidence that were declassified only five days ago. Finally, your "bot" comment is the desperate whimper of someone who has run out of facts; another prolific Forum user tried the same defamatory allegation until he was duly timed-out and invited to retract and apologise with a lesson learnt! If providing documented evidence from a dossier released last Wednesday makes me a "not very good bot," then your absolute refusal to engage with those facts makes you a very good sycophant. You can't "bot" your way out of the truth: the Prime Minister was warned, he ignored it, and now he’s apologising for it. Deal with the data or, as I said before, feel free to pass by. On the contrary, t'is you who doesn't understand that quote and reply actually mentions the writers name, so you don't need too. That, is the whole point of using it. I didn't mention covid or lockdown. Try reading. The reason for calling you a bot is you have mentioned 147 pages many many times, you've had nothing new to say on this subject for days now. It really is repetitive. Its taken a prompting from me for you too even bother about epstiens victims. Starmers has admitted he made a mistake, everyone knows he made a mistake. He's not going anywhere yet. Thank-you respectdue, I appreciate the "147 pages" ref may seem like a repetitive Starmer quote, but of course provide key evidence—declassified five days ago—showing the Prime Minister was warned of a "general reputational risk" on 4th December 2024. If you find the truth "repetitive", that doesn't make these facts irrelevant. You said "everyone knows he made a mistake", but until last Wednesday, the Government claimed "full due process" was followed. Now, the Chief Secretary admits Mandelson "should never have been afforded the privilege"! This involves potential crime. Documents show Mandelson allegedly leaked a 2009 memo to Epstein and tipped him off about a bailout. Starmer was warned, yet bypassed vetting. A Prime Minister ignoring security advice to appoint a man under police investigation is tantamount to gross negligence. The Belfast apology was an admission of guilt, not of course a solution for the victims. If it was another government minister involved with such a blatant security breach, Starmer would have quite correctly sacked them! Not even the secret service knew about the leak. That only came to light in the Epstein files. Mandelson wasn't under police investigation when they appointed him And the gold medal for the most boring and longest message goes too..... ffs Thanks but, if you've nothing constructive to add, perhaps it's best to let others contribute. Ignorant insults won't help your cause, do feel free to move on. " Like squabbling kids in the playground. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I address you by your username, respectdue, because I am replying to your specific comments and sometimes usernames and postings are parted. Addressing people by name is, of course, a basic form of respect, though the irony of your username is sometimes sadly lost on you. If you find the standard quoting and reply format of a forum too complex to navigate, that is something I'm unable to help with, sorry. As for "scoring points," it is quite the opposite. I care about the victims enough to ask why the Prime Minister ignored a formal Cabinet Office warning in December 2024 that explicitly flagged a "general reputational risk" and warned him he would be "personally exposed" by appointing Mandelson. Using victims as a shield to protect a Prime Minister’s failure of judgment is what is actually "sick." If Starmer thought this was "old news," he wouldn't have gone to Belfast on 12th March to issue a public apology and admit, "It was me that made the mistake." Regarding Boris and the Lebedevs, that was a shameful disgrace too. But pointing at a past scandal doesn't give the current Prime Minister a free pass to ignore his own National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who called this appointment process "weirdly rushed." One leader’s failure doesn't justify another's. We are talking about 147 pages of evidence that were declassified only five days ago. Finally, your "bot" comment is the desperate whimper of someone who has run out of facts; another prolific Forum user tried the same defamatory allegation until he was duly timed-out and invited to retract and apologise with a lesson learnt! If providing documented evidence from a dossier released last Wednesday makes me a "not very good bot," then your absolute refusal to engage with those facts makes you a very good sycophant. You can't "bot" your way out of the truth: the Prime Minister was warned, he ignored it, and now he’s apologising for it. Deal with the data or, as I said before, feel free to pass by. On the contrary, t'is you who doesn't understand that quote and reply actually mentions the writers name, so you don't need too. That, is the whole point of using it. I didn't mention covid or lockdown. Try reading. The reason for calling you a bot is you have mentioned 147 pages many many times, you've had nothing new to say on this subject for days now. It really is repetitive. Its taken a prompting from me for you too even bother about epstiens victims. Starmers has admitted he made a mistake, everyone knows he made a mistake. He's not going anywhere yet. Thank-you respectdue, I appreciate the "147 pages" ref may seem like a repetitive Starmer quote, but of course provide key evidence—declassified five days ago—showing the Prime Minister was warned of a "general reputational risk" on 4th December 2024. If you find the truth "repetitive", that doesn't make these facts irrelevant. You said "everyone knows he made a mistake", but until last Wednesday, the Government claimed "full due process" was followed. Now, the Chief Secretary admits Mandelson "should never have been afforded the privilege"! This involves potential crime. Documents show Mandelson allegedly leaked a 2009 memo to Epstein and tipped him off about a bailout. Starmer was warned, yet bypassed vetting. A Prime Minister ignoring security advice to appoint a man under police investigation is tantamount to gross negligence. The Belfast apology was an admission of guilt, not of course a solution for the victims. If it was another government minister involved with such a blatant security breach, Starmer would have quite correctly sacked them! Not even the secret service knew about the leak. That only came to light in the Epstein files. Mandelson wasn't under police investigation when they appointed him And the gold medal for the most boring and longest message goes too..... ffs Thanks but, if you've nothing constructive to add, perhaps it's best to let others contribute. Ignorant insults won't help your cause, do feel free to move on. Like squabbling kids in the playground." Thanks but, if you've nothing constructive to add, perhaps it's best to let others contribute. Ignorant insults won't help your cause, do feel free to move on! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You've had nothing constructive to say on this subject for days now. " Thanks respectdue, I appreciate that facts can feel unconstructive when they are uncomfortable. Some people seem to find the truth inconvenient! The point here is accountability, which you seem to be missing. ?Last Wednesday, the Chief Secretary admitted Mandelson 'should never have been afforded the privilege' of the role. Following his Camden arrest for misconduct in public office, the PM's Belfast apology was a clear admission that 'full due process' was never followed. ?Current affairs may seem boring to many which is why we are ruled by the voice of the few! If ignoring national security warnings isn't worth discussing, what is?" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You've had nothing constructive to say on this subject for days now. Thanks respectdue, I appreciate that facts can feel unconstructive when they are uncomfortable. Some people seem to find the truth inconvenient! The point here is accountability, which you seem to be missing. ?Last Wednesday, the Chief Secretary admitted Mandelson 'should never have been afforded the privilege' of the role. Following his Camden arrest for misconduct in public office, the PM's Belfast apology was a clear admission that 'full due process' was never followed. ?Current affairs may seem boring to many which is why we are ruled by the voice of the few! If ignoring national security warnings isn't worth discussing, what is?"" It's not really a discussion though, it's a tedious repetition of the same old same old | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
