Starmer's vision quest

[secretsqirrel]

Re ‘weasel words’….

Starmer apology a 'huge step', says Epstein survivorpublished at 10:50
10:50​

After Keir Starmer apologised to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for believing Mandelson's "lies" and appointing him as the UK's ambassador to the US - one survivor gave her reaction.

Speaking last night, Marina Lacerda told BBC's Newsnight: "I have to commend him for going on national television and admitting he was wrong and apologising to us.

"I think that's a huge step, right.

"You have also people here in America that have not even tried to apologise to us. So I have to commend him for that."

BBC.

 

[briantrumpet]

Re ‘weasel words’….

Starmer apology a 'huge step', says Epstein survivorpublished at 10:50​

10:50​

After Keir Starmer apologised to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for believing Mandelson's "lies" and appointing him as the UK's ambassador to the US - one survivor gave her reaction.

Speaking last night, Marina Lacerda told BBC's Newsnight: "I have to commend him for going on national television and admitting he was wrong and apologising to us.

"I think that's a huge step, right.

"You have also people here in America that have not even tried to apologise to us. So I have to commend him for that."

BBC.

I'm pretty sure that Starmer's got used to people from either side (Corbynistas and Tory) criticising him whatever he does, but criticising him for apologising to the real victims is rather scraping the barrel. Of course, criticism is always going to go with the job (especially if you're left wing, as that is seen to be a crime in itself by some), and he'd not have got where he is if he didn't know when to ignore it. Even so, he probably realises he gets an easier ride than if he were a woman with ginger hair.

 

[secretsqirrel]

Even so, he probably realises he gets an easier ride than if he were a woman with ginger hair.

This.

 

[Dorset Boy]

This is an extremely good piece by Lewis Goodall on Starmer/Mandelson, with a hefty mea culpa. It's worth reading the whole thing, but the quote below is at the heart of it.

https://goodallandgoodluck.substack...&shareImageVariant=overlay&triedRedirect=true

"I recount this not because the decision was especially important, but because it reveals something I cannot ignore but which many are: how distant the Epstein story felt then. That makes it harder for me to judge Starmer — unless he knew something I did not. Like me, he made the wrong judgment in light of what we now know. But I also know this: if those now shouting loudest had been shouting then, the question would have been harder to avoid — and the appointment less likely to be made. Because of this episode reveals anything it is the power of the old media to dictate the terms.

None of this is intended to excuse Starmer. Labour MPs were right about one thing: he was visibly strangulated at the dispatch box. His hand trembled. He seemed to shrink as the minutes passed. Perhaps it will yet emerge that he was hiding something — something he knows, deep in his lawyer’s bones, will destroy him. A Prime Minister of probity ejected from Downing Street in the worst ethics scandal since the last one.

But perhaps it was something else. Deep down, in those same lawyer’s bones, he knows and we know, the real reason he appointed Mandelson, another truth from which we still look away: he appointed him not in spite of his relationship with Epstein, but because of his relationship with Epstein.

That does not mean Starmer regarded it as an asset. But it did signify something: Mandelson’s ease in the world of the wealthy and the lawless, the lurid and the powerful, the beautiful and the damned. He was at home among global elites for whom scandal is survivable. In other words, he would be entirely at home in the court of Trump. Many of the same columnists now condemning Starmer praised him at the time for appointing a “master of the dark arts”, for taking a gamble. Starmer was no natural admirer of Mandelson, but came to believe that the jeopardy of the US-UK relationship under Trump justified the risk."

Hang on Lewis! The Epstein story didn't surface a few months ago, it has been in the news for years, and was certainly big in the news around the time of Mandelson's appointment as the US electioneering was also going on, and we all know about the Donnie relationship with Epstein.

 

[Dorset Boy]

To be fair to Starmer, he is at least admitting he ballsed up, and apologising to the victims is the right thing to do, but did he need to caveat the apology with theclaim he was lied to by Mandelson?

 

[CXRAndy]

There is spin going on, trying to blame the security services for not doing a thorough job on investigating Mandelson.

Allegedly Starmer took Mandelsons answers as gospel.

Thats OK.

The security services are going to drop starmer right in it very soon, when it comes out starmer knew everything

 

[TailWindHome]

Starmer's political problem is that everyone knows the truth, but Starmer can't say it

Mandleson was appointed as he was considered the best person for the job, he did the job, he did the job well, and nothing else mattered

 

[Pblakeney]

Starmer's political problem is that everyone knows the truth, but Starmer can't say it

Mandleson was appointed as he was considered the best person for the job, he did the job, he did the job well, and nothing else mattered

That doesn't score political points though.

 

[briantrumpet]

Hang on Lewis! The Epstein story didn't surface a few months ago, it has been in the news for years, and was certainly big in the news around the time of Mandelson's appointment as the US electioneering was also going on, and we all know about the Donnie relationship with Epstein.

But he references that, hence the mea culpa, and the bit about Starmer being in dep doodoo if he did know more than he's letting on.

I'd be very surprised, given Starmer's caution, that he'd have made the apologies he did if he knew more at the time than he's letting on.

 

[BoldonLad]

So in that case he's responsible for a current 82% success rate on the manifesto and also appointing an appropriate sleezebag to swim with sleezebags. Unfortunately the sleezebag in question had a bit more sleeze in his bag than was expected.

The furore instigated by the likes of the Mail is disingenuous at best. You would think that the only suitable ambassador would be the purest of virgins untainted by humanity. That's not how diplomacy works.

if this is 82% success I hope I do not live to see failure 😂

 

[BoldonLad]

Perhaps we should be grateful that the Labour sleazebag wasn't PM, unlike the Tories choosing Johnson.

Sorry, I forgot we're not allowed to mention the Tories' record in office.

You are right, it could have been worse, but, just because Johnson was a liar, does that mean we have to tolerate liars, without comment? Plus of course, just because a person is not a Labour apologist does not mean they are automatically a Johnson or Farage apologist.

 

[BoldonLad]

Thanks Rusty. I'm obliged. Unfortunately it can't be removed by me.

The problem being not AI but unknown bad faith actors, there's really not much we can now do.

Without the photo, I do think my wider point remains, that as the investigations continue and the net drags both deeper and wider there are more fish to be caught.

100%, I daresay there are lots of squeaky arses at the moment.

 

[briantrumpet]

You are right, it could have been worse, but, just because Johnson was a liar, does that mean we have to tolerate liars, without comment? Plus of course, just because a person is not a Labour apologist does not mean they are automatically a Johnson or Farage apologist.

All true. We should carry on calling out liars.

 

[icowden]

if this is 82% success I hope I do not live to see failure 😂

This may blow your mind, but the likes of the Sun, Times, Mail etc are not reporting on what's going well.
The area where Starmer isn't helping himself is the knee jerk responses. Digital ID was in the manifesto. Instead of saying "well this is what you voted for", he collapsed and did a u-turn.

All of the "fails" are due to showing weakness or failing to justify why they are failures. That's the major Starmer problem.

 

[Blazing Saddles]

if this is 82% success I hope I do not live to see failure 😂

We’ve already seen it from the previous government.