Starmer's 'I Didn't Know' Defence

Prime Minister Claims He Didn't Know About Extent of Relationship Between Mandelson And His 'Best Pal' Epstein

When the emails surfaced showing Lord Peter Mandelson urging Jeffrey Epstein to fight for early release and telling him he thought the world of him, the fallout was swift. Mandelson was dismissed as Britain's ambassador to the United States. The Prime Minister then offered his now-familiar defence. It didn't cross his desk. As with Jimmy Saville, he claimed ignorance of the full extent of Mandelson's relationship with Epstein. Had he known, he insisted, he would never have made the appointment.

This line crumbles under the most basic scrutiny. Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and his network were already public knowledge. The outrage stems not from surprise that Epstein was a criminal, but from the fact that these details had long been known and should have featured prominently in any proper vetting process.

Epstein's name had been synonymous with sexual exploitation and trafficking for years before Mandelson's appointment. His 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor in Florida was a matter of public record. His friendships with powerful figures, the unexplained nature of his wealth, and his influence had been the subject of extensive reporting for over a decade. None of this was hidden. When Mandelson was being considered for one of the most sensitive postings in British diplomacy, such ties should have triggered immediate alarm bells.

A government source told the BBC: “The fact the prime minister has chosen to make a political appointment and sent Lord Mandelson to Washington shows just how importantly we see our relationship with the Trump administration. We’re sending someone close to the prime minister with unrivalled political and policy experience, particularly on the crucial issue of trade. He’s the ideal candidate to represent the UK’s economic and security interests in the USA.”

The ambassador to Washington is no ceremonial position. It represents one of the most senior and visible diplomatic roles in government. Appointments of this calibre undergo exhaustive vetting procedures. The security services, Foreign Office and MI6 prepare comprehensive dossiers, assessments and recommendations. These are not newspaper clippings hastily assembled, but detailed briefings on risk factors. To suggest a Prime Minister could plausibly claim ignorance when Epstein's reputation was already globally established stretches credibility beyond breaking point.

Two possibilities present themselves. Either the security services failed so catastrophically that they missed what everyone else already knew, or the Prime Minister received the briefings and chose not to examine them closely. Neither explanation inspires confidence. Both demand answers.

This scandal extends beyond a single appointment. It concerns trust and responsibility. Keir Starmer cannot escape his own record. As Director of Public Prosecutions between 2008 and 2013, he presided over the mishandling of countless grooming gang cases. Victims were abandoned, entire communities betrayed. When Starmer later dismissed criticism as far-right scaremongering, survivors witnessed yet again a leader unwilling to confront uncomfortable truths. That history remains.

Now, as Prime Minister, he finds himself defending an appointee whose private correspondence reveals far more than sympathy for one of the most notorious abusers and traffickers in modern history. The emails show Mandelson telling Epstein "I think the world of you" and urging him to "fight for early release" whilst he faced charges. In a birthday book, Mandelson called Epstein his "best pal." This was not mere sympathy but active encouragement and support.

Starmer appointed Mandelson, defended him in the Commons, and only dismissed him after press revelations forced his hand. This represents a pattern. The same evasions, the same reluctance to confront uncomfortable realities, the same instinct to protect insiders whilst victims become collateral damage.

Starmer's supporters claim due process was followed, that Mandelson underwent proper checks, that the emails only emerged after his appointment. But leadership transcends hiding behind process. When you occupy the highest office, you bear responsibility for asking hard questions, reading the files thoroughly, and judging not merely what is legal but what is right. Claiming afterwards that you were unaware of the full extent constitutes not a defence but an admission of failure in your duty.

The political consequences are now inescapable. Within Labour, dissatisfaction with Starmer's leadership has been simmering for months. Angela Rayner's resignation over her stamp duty affairs and other failures had already exposed cracks. The Mandelson episode has widened those divisions. If MPs continue defending Starmer whilst he clings to this line of defence, they risk complicity in something far worse than a simple lapse of judgement. They risk confirming what the public already suspects. That Westminster protects its own whilst leaving ordinary people to bear the consequences.

The deeper issue here is cultural. Westminster operates on networks of loyalty, patronage and mutual protection. For too long, connections and favours have mattered more than truth and accountability. When these networks intersect with the darkest crimes imaginable, the culture itself becomes toxic. This represents not merely the failure of one man or one office, but of a system that places establishment figures beyond scrutiny until the press forces otherwise.

What must happen now is clear. Full transparency is required. The public must see what briefings reached the Prime Minister's desk and when. If the security services failed to flag what was obvious to everyone else, that scandal must be exposed. If the Prime Minister was briefed and pressed ahead regardless, the political consequences should be swift and severe. An independent review of the vetting process for senior diplomatic posts must be launched. Labour MPs who remain silent should be held accountable for their complicity.

This is not about party political advantage but about standards of government and basic decency. Epstein was not some obscure figure but a convicted child abuser whose global network was extensively documented. A Prime Minister who appoints, defends and only belatedly dismisses a compromised figure cannot be trusted to tell the public the truth.

The victims of Jimmy Saville were failed. The victims of the grooming gangs were failed. The victims connected to Epstein were failed. Now the public is being failed again with another politician hoping that denial and delay will suffice for survival.

The country deserves better. The victims deserve better. Leadership means more than plausible deniability. It means owning the truth, however uncomfortable. Until that happens, Britain will continue to appear on the world stage as a nation controlled by child abusers.

The public deserves answers, the victims deserve justice, and we must keep demanding both until the truth is faced.

I am Raja Miah. Seven years ago I began exposing how politicians protected the rape gangs. If my words have ever helped you make sense of a broken system, if they’ve ever made you feel seen, heard, or hopeful, please don’t scroll past.

🔴 Support the work. This fight is far from over.

There are NO paywalls to access any of my work. I share ALL of my content for free. I ask, for those that can afford to do so, to support me with £3/month or £30/year. That’s 75p a week. Pennies to most - everything to help keep me going.

🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution?
👉 http://BuyMeACoffee.com/recusantnine
👉 http://paypal.me/RecusantNine

- Raja 🙏