From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/4/2026 7:19 AM, Julian wrote:   
   > Truth and Reconciliation is Needed   
   >   
   >   
   > Now that Peter Mandelson’s crimes have become undeniable the British   
   > right-wing press (with the noble and notable exception of Guido Fawkes)   
   > are kicking into their ‘Operation London Bridge’ Jimmy Savile   
   > revelations mode. We will be told by hundreds of hacks that they ‘always   
   > knew’ about Mandelson (why didn’t you write about him, then?) Fiat 500   
   > rent-a-grinch women will watch spooky true crime docs about Mandelson   
   > and pretend they never liked him when, in fact, they didn’t know who he   
   > was. Mandelson will have his royal palace taken away like Prince Andrew   
   > and then get pardoned by an ‘impressive’ judge who will never be named   
   > or criticised in any of the papers.   
   >   
   > The reality is, everyone over the mental age of 12 knew, the moment it   
   > was confirmed Mandelson retained contact with Epstein in 2011, that he   
   > was a culprit.   
    >   
   Finally something interesting to read!   
      
   As a military brat, we lived in East Anglia for three years, so I'm   
   always interested in news from Great Britain. Thanks for bringing this   
   to our attention.   
      
   It looks like Peter Mandelson is accused of passing on market-sensitive   
   information that was of clear financial interest to Jeffrey Epstein in   
   the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.   
      
   Then, there was that book compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003.   
   Mandelson had penned a handwritten note describing Epstein as “my best   
   pal.” Apparently, he was also pictured in a bathrobe sitting with   
   Epstein, talking.   
      
   You just can't make this stuff up!   
    >   
    > It is not the job of Prime Ministers, intelligence > agencies and   
   journalists to let judges do their thinking for them, it is   
   > their job to exercise something called ‘discretion’ or ‘Intelligence’   
   > where you reason likely conclusions from available evidence. One use of   
   > ‘intelligence’ would be to deduce appointing a man with an existing   
   > misconduct record, who is now known to be friends with a foreign spy to   
   > a sensitive diplomatic role is a bad idea. Barely a single Westminster   
   > journalist even thought it merited comment. That would make one a   
   > “crank.” Let’s talk about headphones on the tube.   
   >   
   > Of course, many of you will be genuinely angry about Mandelson’s crimes.   
   > But you know, deep down, you have no way of avenging yourself upon him.   
   > Last year, many people were talking about a grooming gang inquiry. It   
   > did not take a tripos mind to see the problem. The issue of the grooming   
   > gangs inculpated so many people, and required scrutinising so many   
   > different aspects of law, that to really stage an ‘inquiry’ it would   
   > mean putting the entire British government on trial. And to do that, you   
   > need a new government first. Not just a new name you put a tick next to   
   > at the election. New judges. New civil servants. New police inspectors.   
   > Similarly, with Mandelson, you think about the issue for more than five   
   > minutes and it becomes apparent multiple layers of the state must’ve   
   > consciously abetted his behaviour. Gordon Brown could have known   
   > Mandelson knew Epstein in 2008 and he would’ve certainly known about his   
   > past record of sleaze.   
   >   
   > SIS would’ve almost certainly been informed by foreign intelligence   
   > services about Mandelson’s behaviour in 2024 at the absolute latest when   
   > he was vetted for the diplomatic role. Indeed, one of the most   
   > disappointing things about the media coverage thusfar is how nobody is   
   > holding SIS responsible. Preventing an easily compromised individual   
   > with a track record of corruption from getting access to official   
   > documents and selling them to a foreign intelligence agent is minimal   
   > baseline competence for a public intelligence organisation. That SIS   
   > were not monitoring Mandelson in 2006 is a failure, that they didn’t   
   > prevent his appointment as ambassador in 2025 is a disgrace. I seriously   
   > hope the occasional fawning over this obsolete body, which routinely   
   > attempts to meddle in democratic politics, from the Right will be tested   
   > by this scandal.   
   >   
   > What makes the mainstream reaction so enraging, to those of you who   
   > think, is that they describe Mandelson as a lone individual who did   
   > something wrong. Treating Mandelson’s corruption as the actions of one   
   > man, rather than the logical consequence of the New Labour machine, is   
   > like if the South African press pretended Wouter Basson was just ‘a bad   
   > scientist’ who happened to be working on chemical weapons, ignoring that   
   > he was only able to do this because of laws and cultural norms inherent   
   > in the society in which he lived. This required people to come to see   
   > this period not as a natural extension of this society’s history but as   
   > a ‘regime’, distinct and illegitimate from its predecessors and the new   
   > order. Every real moment of lasting political change relies upon these   
   > events, in which it is clearly and loudly declared by the voice of   
   > progressive society that the old ways are unacceptable and a line is   
   > drawn under the past. The officials responsible for the Marian   
   > persecutions were punished in their turn. After the Glorious Revolution,   
   > the Jacobites were outlawed. There is never going to be any permanent   
   > victory for ‘the Right’ and Basically Fine future unless this happens in   
   > Britain. We must draw a line under the whole New Labour period and I   
   > shall explain how this is reasonably achievable in a court of law.   
   >   
   > The crimes of Mandelson, the perjury of Parliament which led to Iraq,   
   > the grooming gang scandal and systematic harassment of civil society are   
   > not isolated crimes perpetrated by individuals but the actions of a   
   > regime deriving from collective conspiracy. Some individuals might not   
   > have benefited, or participated, in the crimes of others but the   
   > testimony of Nuremberg shows this is no defence. They deliberately   
   > created a culture in which these crimes, against both humanity and the   
   > state, were covered up and opposition to them silenced.   
   >   
      
   > https://x.com/Jaccusepaper   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)