It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Saturday, February 07, 2026
UK Parliamentary Motion calls for Public inquiry into Epstein links
Part of Epstein Files released by the DOJ on December 19 2025. This image or file is a work of a Federal Bureau of Investigation employee, taken or made as part of that person’s official duties. This image is in the Public Domain.
“Epstein’s victims deserve the truth: who was involved, who knew what and when, who covered for whom.”
Nadia Whittome MP
A Parliamentary Motion has been tabled by Nadia Whittome MP calling for a public inquiry into British public figures included the Epstein files.
Following the publication of the Early Day Motion, Nadia Whittome said:
“With child sexual abuse on this scale, it is unfathomable that other people did not know.”With child sexual abuse on this scale, it is unfathomable that other people did not know.
“Epstein’s victims deserve the truth: who was involved, who knew what and when, who covered for whom.
“No person or institution, no matter how powerful, should be above accountability.”No person or institution, no matter how powerful, should be above accountability.”
That this House stands with Jeffrey Epstein’s victims whose relentless courage and pursuit of justice has led to the publication of the Epstein files; notes with concern the number of British public figures included in these files; recognises that child sexual abuse on this scale is likely to have involved not only those directly perpetrating the abuse but other individuals who were complicit in a number of ways, including by ignoring this abuse or covering for those perpetrating it; and urges the Government to set up an independent, statutory inquiry into the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and British public figures and institutions, whether they had involvement in or awareness of his crimes, what action they took or failed to take, whether they assisted in covering up child sexual abuse, and if due diligence was undertaken in the case of any appointments to public roles.
You can view the Early Day Motion and its supporters here.
Lord Mandelson: Trapped in the Epstein Web
by Binoy Kampmark / February 6th, 2026
Jeffrey Epstein certainly got around. He moved virally, galloping through the cells of the establishment. What was more, he was permitted to. Dead and buried, the financier, convicted paedophile, sex trafficker, eugenics follower, and the man all in power would want to know, continues to ruin reputations, casting doubt on many relationships, and stirring investigations into his correspondents.
Much of this damage is emanating from that noxious font of revelation, despair and disgrace hosted by the US Department of Justice, entitled the Epstein Library. As a result of these 3.5 million files or so, Noam Chomsky, saint of the progressive Left, may well find himself the poorer for his foolish correspondence sneering at “the hysteria that has developed about abuse of women”. Former US President Bill Clinton and his wife and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have agreed to do filmed depositions for the House Committee on Oversight and Governance Reform. And in Britain, Lord Peter Mandelson, immodestly seeing himself as the creator of New Labour, finds himself facing potential criminal investigations in the UK and the European Union.
Mandelson’s case is particularly dire. Here was a person who had already lost his job in the cabinet twice over issues involving matters of money and the wealthy. In 1998, he resigned as trade and industry secretary after obtaining a loan of £373,000 from the Paymaster General, Geoffrey Robinson, to purchase a house. In 2001, he fell foul over a passport application from Indian billionaire Srichand Hinduja who had pledged £1m in sponsorship for the Millenium Dome project when Mandelson was in charge.
Despite a heavily blotted copybook, Mandelson still secured the confidence of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to be appointed ambassador to Washington in anticipation of the second Trump administration. The association between Mandelson and the late Epstein was already known, making the appointment dangerous in the extreme. The publication of certain emails revealing the continuing friendship post-conviction doomed yet another job.
The extent of that association is now becoming even more apparent. Now notorious for being a convicted paedophile, Epstein was receiving updates from Mandelson following the 2010 general election. (Mandelson had been politically revived as business secretary.) Seeing his hold on power slide, Prime Minister Gordon Brown was trying to secure a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. “GB now having ‘secret’ talks with [Lib Dem leader Nick] Clegg in Foreign Office,” Mandelson informs Epstein on May 9. On May 10, he again updates Epstein: “Finally got him to go today.”
Within hours Brown announced that he would be resigning as Labour leader but continuing as prime minister, a precondition demanded by Clegg in holding coalition talks. These came to naught, with Lib Dem leader preferring to share power with the Conservatives of David Cameron. But throughout, the Mandelson-Epstein exchanges take place, with the financier more than happy to offer morsels of wisdom. In one instance, Epstein suggests that the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition would comprise “15m v 10 million votes”. This is then followed by another suggestion: “[W]hy not let tories govern with minority, no coalition”. In doing so, they would be unable to get “anything done”. Mandelson replies that this was unlikely “cos GB thinks British economy will collapse without [him] at helm.”
Epstein also proffers his view about Brown’s credibility as a continuing prime minister, informed by a certain “jess”. Supporting the Labour leader “will be seen as bad form commercially, he has lost the confidence of the public.” The views of investment bank JP Morgan are also given, they being “very concerned that the pound could be the next currency to falter. and big time. uncertainty not in your favour”.
Epstein also received what appears to be advanced notice of a 500 billion euro bailout intended to save the euro as the Greek economy was imploding. European finance ministers had rapidly concluded that the bailout was necessary to contain financial contagion in the eurozone. The night prior to the deal’s conclusion, the financier badgers Mandelson: “Sources tell me 500 b euro bailout, almost complete.” The reply: “Sd be announced tonight.” Mandelson promised to call after leaving 10 Downing Street.
The previous year, Mandelson had gleefully informed Epstein about asset sales and tax changes being considered by the Brown government. That conduct, and the broader disposition of Mandelson as business secretary to Epstein, has led the Metropolitan Police to commence an investigation. “Following this release and subsequent media reporting,” Metropolitan Police Commander Ella Marriot stated, “the Met has received a number of reports relating to alleged misconduct in public office. The reports will be reviewed to determine if they meet the criminal threshold for investigation.”
On February 3, Balazs Ujvari, a spokesperson of the European Commission, also revealed interest in investigating potential breaches, considering Mandelson’s time as European Commissioner for Trade. “We have rules in place emanating from the treaty and the code of conduct that commissioners, including former commissioners, have to follow.”
Epstein’s web is looking increasingly, and alarmingly, expansive. Not only did the wily, persuasive man of advice slither his way into the confidence of the governing classes, he invited the easy betrayal of secrets. He was not only a conduit for young flesh and pleasures, but for classified information.
Being the Prince of Darkness, Mandelson has always managed some form of reputational reincarnation. This time, a stake has been taken to him. Let us hope it stays there, lodged for posterity. As for the party he represents, and the daft Prime Minister who made him ambassador to Washington, the die may well have been cast. What the Profumo affair did for the Macmillan government in the early 1960s Mandelson risks doing to Starmer’s in 2026.
Keir Starmer: ‘I regret appointing Peter Mandelson’ but admits Epstein questions had been raised during vetting
Daniel Green4th February, 2026
Photo: House of Commons
Keir Starmer has said he regrets appointing Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States and claimed that he had “lied repeatedly” about his relationship with Epstein.
Mandelson resigned as a member of the House of Lords after it emerged that he had exchanged sensitive information with Epstein while serving in Gordon Brown’s government.
During Prime Minister’s Questions, Starmer said: “To learn that there was a Cabinet minister leaking sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 crash is beyond infuriating.
“I am as angry as the public and any member of this House. Mandelson betrayed our country, our parliament and my party.
“He lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador. I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would have never been anywhere near government.
“Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary with my support took the decision to refer material to the police – and there is now a criminal investigation. I’ve instructed my team to draft legislation to strip Mandelson of his title and wider legislation to remove disgraced peers.
“This morning, I’ve agreed with His Majesty the King that Mandelson should be removed from the list of Privy Councillors on the grounds that he has brought the reputation of the Privy Council into disrepute.”
Labour benches in the Commons were deathly silent during the exchange between Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch.
One Labour MP told LabourList: “It’s like parallel PMQs. Loyal questions on one side and one issue on the other.”
When asked whether official security vetting mentioned Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Epstein, Starmer told MP that it did – and that questions were put to him as a result.
The Prime Minister said that he intends to allow MPs to see full documentation to show how Mandelson “completely misrepresented the extent to his relationship with Epstein”.
Keir Starmer defended Morgan McSweeney, who was said to have been heavily influential in Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador.
The Prime Minister said: “Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team. He helped me change the Labour Party and win an election. Of course I have confidence in him.”
Commenting on PMQs LabourList editor Emma Burnell said: “When talking specifically about Peter Mandelson, Starmer hit the right note – a combination of anger and disgust. He repeatedly said that he had lied to him and those vetting him.
“The problem is that this did not carry through in responses to the wider questions this whole sordid affair inevitably raise. Here Starmer repeatedly fell back on process, without the passion for pursuing the outcomes of that process that was needed to satisfy a party reeling from the damage Mandelson has done.”
Government accepts change to Mandelson document release amid rising backbench pressure
James Tibbitts,4th February, 2026
Photo: FCDO/Flickr
:
The government has put forward a change to its own amendment regarding the process of document release on Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador, following further revelations about his maintained relationship with disgraced paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
At Prime Minister’s Questions today, Keir Starmer said ministers could not release certain documents that would have been ‘prejudicial to the UK national security or international relations’.
It has now instead been agreed that any documents that could be deemed a risk will be sent to the Intelligence and Security Committee for them to decide if they can be released.
This comes following rising tensions from backbench Labour MPs, who felt the government should not attempt to withhold information relating to this decision.
Notably, former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Angela Rayner called on the government to make this change earlier in the day and allow ISC involvement in the review of documents related to the scandal.
It became apparent to the government that, had they not made this change to their amendment, they could face having it voted down by their own backbench members of the PLP who are significantly frustrated with decisions around Mandelson.
The backbenches were particularly quiet at Prime Ministers Questions earlier today, when Starmer was pressured by leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch on the details around the appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador.
MPs are due to vote on the amendment this evening, where it will be brought to the Commons in a closing speech.
Does the Mandelson scandal mark the endgame for Keir Starmer’s premiership?
Daniel Green5th February, 2026
Photo: Number 2010 (February 2025)
Yesterday marked 19 months since that landslide election victory that saw Labour return to power. I remember Starmer addressing supporters the following morning, talking of a “burden removed from the shoulders of this great nation” and returning “politics to public service”. It was truly a hopeful moment – that we could move past the disappointment and despair of the Tory era and usher in a new start for our country.
And yet, 19 months on from that great day, where are we? Starmer, who promised to “restore respect to politics”, admitted in Parliament he had been aware of Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein during the ambassador vetting process – and appointed him regardless. MPs have been reported as saying that scenes in Parliament yesterday were reminiscent of the Chris Pincher affair that eventually brought down Boris Johnson.
And all of this while the party fights to hold onto a seat in Greater Manchester as the forces of populism on the right and left circle like vultures, not to mention campaigns for councils across England and the devolved nations.
Some MPs have said that the Prime Minister was “advised badly”, not so subtly putting the blame at Morgan McSweeney’s door. This saga is the latest blot on his record, especially after claims he was behind briefings against Wes Streeting. However, as leader of the country, the buck always stops with the Prime Minister.
Surely the continuing relationship Mandelson maintained with Epstein after his conviction should have been disqualifying enough for any role in public office, even in the absence of all the information that has now come to light. How Starmer and those around him came to the opposite conclusion is beyond me.
This is only the latest example of where Starmer has demonstrated a lack of political nous, with a series of self-inflicted wounds from multiple U-turns after spending considerable political capital defending contentious policies, from changes to inheritance tax for farmers to digital ID. Even as he tried to clear up the mess from Mandelson, Starmer was only spared an embarrassing Commons defeat by the intervention of Angela Rayner.
In the Commons yesterday, the Prime Minister said he felt betrayed for what Mandelson had done to the country, Parliament and the Labour Party. For what it’s worth, I feel betrayed by Keir Starmer – for tarnishing the party’s reputation with this ill-thought-through appointment, a reputation that he had spent four years bringing out of the gutter after that dismal night in 2019.
A sea of bad decisions coming from Number 10 have drowned out all the positive measures the government has taken. Starmer has taken the rare opportunity afforded by a Labour government with a sizeable majority and squandered it. Decisions made by this Prime Minister will cost councillors, MSPs and MSs their jobs in just over three months’ time without a change of course.
Commentators and many Labour MPs have taken to the media to question whether Keir Starmer and Morgan McSweeney can weather this storm, with the Prime Minister said to be in crisis talks with his senior team. The deathly silence of the Labour benches during PMQs yesterday was extremely telling.
Labour has genuinely changed the country in ways that will have lasting effects, but the party is – and has always been – bigger than the person at the top. If Keir Starmer has become a distraction from this good work, it is perfectly reasonable for MPs, councillors or members knocking on doorsteps across the country to raise the questions they are asking.
I write this with a great deal of melancholy – Starmer does come across as a man in politics for all the right reasons, but as Prime Minister has been found wanting.
But a question that remains unanswered is no doubt on the minds of many Labour MPs today – if not Starmer, then who?
The Epstein files and the right’s ‘selective transparency’
Today Left Foot Forward Even the young women and children who suffered because of the egos and sexual appetites of these powerful men are increasingly marginalised, and certainly the obscure source of Epstein’s wealth becomes lost in the psycho drama of media coverage.
The release of more than three million documents linked to the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein should have marked a watershed moment for transparency and accountability. Instead, it has exposed something else entirely: how selectively the truth is pursued when it threatens political power.
The files, made public by the US Department of Justice after pressure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, have reignited scrutiny of the powerful figures who moved in Epstein’s orbit for years. The Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump in November, required the full release of all Epstein-related documents. Yet survivors, Democratic lawmakers, watchdog groups and even some Republicans insist the Trump administration has still failed to meet its legal obligation, withholding as much as half of the material.
“This is outrageous and incredibly concerning,” said Robert Garcia, the Democratic member on the House oversight committee, which is investigating the handling of the release, promising a thorough review of “this latest limited production.”
Indeed, in both the US and the UK, scrutiny of the newly released files has varied somewhat depending on political convenience.
A familiar pattern in the British press
At one level in the UK, the story has produced a rare consensus among the liberal and right-wing media in that their coverage has focussed first on Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein and then increasingly on Keir Starmer’s judgement in appointing him US ambassador. Nicknamed “the Prince of Darkness,” Mandelson has been a chequered presence in British politics for decades. In 1998, he was forced into his first ministerial resignation after it emerged that he had received a secret £373,000 loan from fellow minister Geoffrey Robinson. In 2001, a second resignation followed given some dubious dealings around the wealthy Hinduja brothers passport applications, although he was subsequently cleared of wrong doing. He was then awarded a peerage and brought back into British politics by Gordon Brown as business secretary, presumably for his behind-the-scenes political skills and possibly and ironically, for his networks.
Fast-forward 16 years and Mandelson’s “casual corruption” has truly caught up with him. He is accused of leaking sensitive government information to Epstein and of offering to lobby ministers over a bankers’ bonus tax in 2009. He has quit the Labour Party to stave off “further embarrassment” and was sacked last year as UK ambassador to the US over the same links.
These developments raise serious questions about Keir Starmer’s judgment. It was, heaven forbid, hard not to find yourself nodding along with Kemi Badenoch at PMQs this week, as she made a series of points about Starmer’s decision to back scandal-scarred Mandelson.
In doing so, Starmer handed his opponents exactly the kind of ammunition they relish. The conservative press scarcely had to strain for copy; the goal was gaping. “Starmer’s judgment over Mandelson looks worse than ever,” declared the Telegraph, a verdict that, in the circumstances, was uncomfortably easy to legitimise.
The problem is not that Mandelson has been rightly scrutinised. It’s that others have not.
Royals, scandal and safe targets
Alongside Mandelson, the other favoured subject has been Andrew Mountatten-Windsor. Royal scandal reliably sells papers, and editors, particularly those most vocal about Brexit, patriotism and “traditional values,” rarely resist the temptation. The latest tranche of documents has once again drawn the former Duke of York, and his former wife Sarah Ferguson, into the Epstein story. Again, it is difficult to demur from much of this coverage, revealing as it does, two people who seem desperate to sustain privileged lives to which they feel they are entitled through no more than an accident of birth.
Yet conspicuously absent from much right-wing coverage, both in the UK and across the Atlantic, is any sustained attention on figures closer to conservative political power.
Take the messages involving Nick Candy, the former Tory donor appointed treasurer of Reform UK in December 2024. As reported by LFF, emails emerging from the new documents show Candy communicating with Epstein associates and requesting the email address and phone number of Ghislaine Maxwell, now serving a 20-year federal sentence for child sex trafficking. These revelations were scarcely reported, if at all, by the mainstream outlets, who had their man Mandelson and needed to look no further.
Another lesser-known entry in the files concerns Epstein’s reaction of Britain’s decision to leave the EU in 2016, which he reportedly hailed as a “return to tribalism.” In emails said to be exchanged with tech billionaire Peter Thiel just days after the referendum, Epstein described Brexit as “just the beginning,” according to the Independent.
“Return to tribalism, counter to globalisation, amazing new alliances,” Epstein allegedly wrote, prompting Thiel to reply: “Of what?”
There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Peter Thiel, but did his name feature in the Brexit-cheering pages of the Sun, the Express, or GB News? Of course not.
Nor was there meaningful scrutiny of revelations concerning former Donald Trump strategist Steve Bannon who boasted to Epstein in 2018 that he had become an adviser to Nigel Farage. On the same day Bannon addressed France’s far-right National Front, proclaiming that “history is on our side,” Epstein messaged him: “Very well done, congratulations!”
Bannon responded by boasting of advisory roles not only to Farage but also to Matteo Salvini, Germany’s AfD and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán.
The story barely registered in the right-wing press, despite resurfacing alongside a photograph of Bannon posing in January 2025 with Matt Goodwin, Reform’s candidate in the widely-anticipated Gorton and Denton by-election. Of course, the nature of Epstein’s networks which extended as they did, to liberal politicians, Labour as represented by Mandelson, and even the ‘left’ intellectual Noam Chomsky, obscure the corrupt nature of power at their heart. Even the young women and children who suffered because of the egos and sexual appetites of these powerful men are increasingly marginalised, and certainly the obscure source of Epstein’s wealth becomes lost in the psycho drama of media coverage. In fact, aside from Starmer’s apology to Epstein’s victims for appointing Mandelson as US ambassador, the victims themselves have been largely absent from the narrative.
Cherry-picked transparency in the United States
Meanwhile, in the US, accusations of delay, cherry-picking and obfuscation have followed the Trump administration’s handling of the files.
The Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, said: “The law required all the Epstein files to be released on December 19, 2025. For 43 days, the justice department delayed release, cherrypicked documents – many were heavily redacted – all to obscure the truth and delay justice for the survivors.
“Until yesterday, the justice department admitted to having released less than 1% of all documents. Now it’s saying the work is done. Americans are very dubious.
“The American people want the complete truth on the Epstein files, not puffed-up statistics.”
In a joint statement, a group of 20 Epstein survivors said the document once again shields powerful figures while exposing victims to renewed harm.
“This latest release of Jeffrey Epstein files is being sold as transparency, but what it actually does is expose survivors,” they said. “As survivors, we should never be the ones named, scrutinised, and re-traumatised while Epstein’s enablers continue to benefit from secrecy.”
Fox News and the art of looking away
And conservative US outlets such as Fox News have shown little appetite for examining Trump’s own relationship with Epstein. Interest spikes when Democrats are implicated, but fades when Republicans are.
The Murdoch-owned channel has constantly provided extensive coverage of former president Bill Clinton’s ties to Epstein. “New Epstein documents include photos of Bill Clinton shirtless in hot tub, socialising with Michael Jackson,” it sensationally gushed in December.
Yet similar attention has not been given to Trump’s associations with Epstein.
Even when House Democrats released emails showing Epstein claiming Trump “knew about the girls,” right-wing broadcasters fell silent. Viewers were spared the details, aside from a rare slip when a progressive guest on Sean Hannity’s show told the audience: “Trump’s all over the Epstein files.”
And when Republicans prepared to defy Trump by voting to release the documents, Fox News reframed the retreat as tactical brilliance. “Trump’s calling their bluff,” Laura Ingraham declared, assisted by Republican congressman James Comer, who accused Democrats of exploiting victims in the hope of embarrassing Trump.
Soon after, Fox ran an “exclusive” headline reassuring viewers: “Epstein emails released as DOJ says no criminal or inappropriate conduct by Trump.”
This is the same Ingraham who had, in November, promised, on air, to cover new information on Epstein. She told her audience she had “new news coming on [about the Epstein saga] from the Wall Street Journal.” That day, the Journal had reported that Trump had sent Epstein a lewd letter for his 50th birthday album, a revelation which led to follow-up reporting from much of the media.
Yet despite the Fox host’s promise, Ingraham never covered the Journal’s story.
For a political movement that claims to champion free speech and transparency, the Epstein files, and the reaction to them, tell a different story. They reveal a truth that is managed, curated and weaponised, deployed ruthlessly against opponents, and quietly buried when it threatens allies.
The scandal isn’t just who appears in the Epstein files, but who is protected by the way they are released, reported and discussed. Transparency, it turns out, is only welcome when it points in the right direction – or should that be left direction?
Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch
No comments:
Post a Comment