From: punditster@gmail.com
On 2/4/2026 11:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 10:15:29 -0800, Dude wrote:
>
>> 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,
>
> So ignore judges? Nah, that dog won't hunt.
>
You be the judge. Was he guilty of sitting in a bathrobe talking to Epstein?
>
>> 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)
|
