Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
According to the https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php military power rankings, NATO without the US still contains the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 17th, 21st, 27th, 28th and 30th strongest countries in the world. NATO without the US combined has the second largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world (after the US). If you add up the number of active military personnel, NATO without the US comes in second (after China).
But it's my understanding that in things like key weaponry, intelligence, surveillance, command and control, it's America and American capabilities that makes NATO what it is.
That need not be the case. Europe has its own AEW capability; several different military aircraft manufacturers; ditto missile manufactures; ditto armoured vehicles.
Trump has clearly demonstrated that over reliance on US kit represents a strategic risk. We should take more of an Israeli attitude to buying from the US: anything we don't have full and unrestricted control over shouldn't be an option.
Obvious comment, I know, but this should have started ages ago rather than waiting for the US to elect a hostile cowboy president. But things rarely happen that way, do they. When you have a situation that works for you, you just carry on with it until something forces you to change.
The west has been in denial for decades. We could not see a threat that required a large military force, partly because it was convenient. China was relatively friendly, and provided us with loads of plastic crud. Russia was giving us oodles of cheap oil and gas. Who else was there that would require a Cold War style military?
The peace dividend we have been spending since the early 1990s ignored one simple fact; that countries can turn from friendly to foe within a few years. In WW1 Japan was firmly aligned with the UK; twenty years later we were enemies.
Re the last sentence; that was, I was once told by an Australian academic in Thailand, at least partly due to the Americans.
I believe that is correct. We had a treaty with the Japanese and were minded to renew it, but the US told us that they wouldn't look favourably on us doing so. And we didn't.
That's Badenoch's best PMQs and Starmer is a national embarrassment
Lord Yum Yum must be gone before the State visit. The UK needs a British Ambassador, not a shifty self serving networker. How Starmer orchestrates it will be interesting to see - as what is abundantly clear from today’s PMQs, WHAT CLEARLY MAKES A RESIGNATION MATTER NOW WAS ALREADY KNOWN TO STARMER WHEN HE MADE THE APPOINTMENT. Who predicted the first weeks after the holidays would be such fun politics. Looking back, these weeks, days and hours may be redefining British Politics for a generation.
A Labour Party implosion in the polls with benefit Kemi and the Conservatives most of all.
It's hard to picture the Labour voter who is going to abandon them because they have only now come to the conclusion that Peter Mandelson is a shifty knave.
Starmer needs to sack Mandelson before the story becomes allabout what he knew and when and its his head on the block. But can he afford another high profile departure right now
Badenoch had a smile on her face today. A smirk. She knows how damaging this is potentially
Ed Davey joining in must end Mandelson's role
This all now depends on what Nigel decides to do - he's the only British politician anyone takes any notice of these days. Sir Keir's fate is now firmly in his hands. Will he want Sir Keir replaced is now the biggest question in the world.
...Modern hybrid war bears little resemblance to blockbusters. It looks more like those few drones that crossed into the borders of Poland – our neighbor and ally – and NATO last night.
Something unclear, but threatening. First – meetings and condemnations. Then, debates over whether these are russian drones or “strays.” Can we even officially call them russian? And if we can, what else can be said besides condemning?
Next – arguments about whether to shoot them down, but no talk of Article 5 and “every inch of NATO territory.” These isolated drones have already entered Romania and Poland over the past year. Now they have “accidentally” reached the area of logistics hubs. And do you know what might come next?
No tank fists, no breakthroughs. “Accidental, unknown” drones appear more frequently. Another communications cable gets cut. A few ammunition trucks explode “by accident” – probably because of faulty wiring.
Strange armed groups take control of towns along the border of an EU country. Will anyone invoke Article 5? And then – suddenly – you are no longer in control of a piece of territory. 2, 3, 5 percent.
Endless meetings – the strength of democracy, and at the same time its weakness when facing dictatorships. How would Article 5 work against a nuclear state? Maybe these are your “internal separatists.” Send in the army or the national guard.
The troops move into the troubled area. Then, from the forests around them, unidentified FPVs swarm out. Article 5? We are not sure. Suddenly, this is presented as a “people’s republic” defending its interests and right to self-determination.
Behind territorial issues, behind the minor cuts on the bodies of small countries, come political destabilizations. russia is very skilled at this. First – cracks between EU and NATO members, then cracks within the states themselves.
This is creeping, hybrid aggression – corrosion of security that eats away at states through small cuts, provocations, and humiliations on the international stage. When people no longer trust their government and stop believing it can protect them.
The russian doctrine of “liminal war” involves testing the opponent with operations “below the threshold” – actions where it’s unclear how or whether to respond. The threshold gradually rises until the opponent finally reacts, but by then, the operation is already finished and its goals have been met.
Starmer retrospectively stabbing His DPM in between the shoulder blades...in fr9nt of his own MP's He just doesn't have a grasp on his job.. its painful and awful to watch.
Starmer retrospectively stabbing His DPM in between the shoulder blades...in fr9nt of his own MP's He just doesn't have a grasp on his job.. its painful and awful to watch.
Explain plz?
Starmer answered a Kemi Q on Mandy by saying 'the questions she should have asked about the DPM last week'
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
According to the https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php military power rankings, NATO without the US still contains the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 17th, 21st, 27th, 28th and 30th strongest countries in the world. NATO without the US combined has the second largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world (after the US). If you add up the number of active military personnel, NATO without the US comes in second (after China).
But it's my understanding that in things like key weaponry, intelligence, surveillance, command and control, it's America and American capabilities that makes NATO what it is.
That need not be the case. Europe has its own AEW capability; several different military aircraft manufacturers; ditto missile manufactures; ditto armoured vehicles.
Trump has clearly demonstrated that over reliance on US kit represents a strategic risk. We should take more of an Israeli attitude to buying from the US: anything we don't have full and unrestricted control over shouldn't be an option.
Obvious comment, I know, but this should have started ages ago rather than waiting for the US to elect a hostile cowboy president. But things rarely happen that way, do they. When you have a situation that works for you, you just carry on with it until something forces you to change.
The west has been in denial for decades. We could not see a threat that required a large military force, partly because it was convenient. China was relatively friendly, and provided us with loads of plastic crud. Russia was giving us oodles of cheap oil and gas. Who else was there that would require a Cold War style military?
The peace dividend we have been spending since the early 1990s ignored one simple fact; that countries can turn from friendly to foe within a few years. In WW1 Japan was firmly aligned with the UK; twenty years later we were enemies.
Re the last sentence; that was, I was once told by an Australian academic in Thailand, at least partly due to the Americans.
I believe that is correct. We had a treaty with the Japanese and were minded to renew it, but the US told us that they wouldn't look favourably on us doing so. And we didn't.
Yes, that's more or less what I was told. The royalist and militaristic Japanese Government were sympathetic to idea of being allied to another monarchy, even one like ours, but didn't like the republican Americans. However the Americans wanted the North Pacific as an 'American lake'.
FFS Starmer . What has Mandelson got on Starmer that he’s impossible to remove .
The longer Lord Yum Yum clings on to his job before eventually removed, the more damage he will do to Starmer, Starmer’s government, and the Labour Party. Simples.
To be fair, the Labour brand is so Raynered there's not much further to fall...
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
Poland are in NATO and have come under attack from Russia and in these circumstances it is de facto a NATO issue
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
Putin also has more nuclear missiles than anyone else on earth. Putin's ally Belarus have now said the drones were sent in error into Poland, the drones have been shot down by the Poles in response, I would leave it there.
That is not yet the response from NATO, which is why the Russians are now trying to walk things back a little, given the very vigorous response from Warsaw. The drone attack is not accidental, it is a deliberate provocation of NATO, which has been expected for some time. The forced closure of Warsaw Airport amongst others is not something the Poles will or can ignore - hence the disinformation story from Minsk that its all a little misunderstanding. In fact the NATO walk back will come only after a proportionate response is made and the Russians are trying to mitigate the response they know is coming. This could include helping the Ukrainians to destroy a significant Russian asset such as further refinery strikes or the Kerch bridge or even a further drone attack on Murmansk or other strategic assets.
Can you imagine if Heathrow and Brize Norton had been closed in such a manner? The Poles are rightly furious.
While I would not wish to test it, the efficiency of the Russian nuclear triad is an open question. Since NATO too has nuclear forces, the need for restraint cuts both ways and the Russians just made a big mistake. They know the game and also know that their provocation will be answered. This is not WWIII, and Putin is the problem here, not NATO.
The other thing open to question, though, is the capability of European air defence. We do not seem presently to have the capacity to reliably intercept these drones (and there were only a score of them this time, not several hundred)
Probing Europe's air defences was surely part of this thing ?
Yes of course, and he knew that either the Patriots would have to be fired or the Jets scrambled. Both are expensive, so that tells them that the cheaper anti drone systems have not yet been deployed in Poland, whereas they probably have been in the Baltic. However he must now pay a price for putting the Polish SP into the sky.
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
It is mind boggling
And in the FT Mandelson himself is quoted as saying “there is probably much more to come out”
For me the killer is, as you say, the fact he stayed in Epstein’s NYC house even as Epstein was in jail for underage sex and trafficking
There’s no way around that. You can’t say you didn’t know. You knew. And did it anyway
...Modern hybrid war bears little resemblance to blockbusters. It looks more like those few drones that crossed into the borders of Poland – our neighbor and ally – and NATO last night.
Something unclear, but threatening. First – meetings and condemnations. Then, debates over whether these are russian drones or “strays.” Can we even officially call them russian? And if we can, what else can be said besides condemning?
Next – arguments about whether to shoot them down, but no talk of Article 5 and “every inch of NATO territory.” These isolated drones have already entered Romania and Poland over the past year. Now they have “accidentally” reached the area of logistics hubs. And do you know what might come next?
No tank fists, no breakthroughs. “Accidental, unknown” drones appear more frequently. Another communications cable gets cut. A few ammunition trucks explode “by accident” – probably because of faulty wiring.
Strange armed groups take control of towns along the border of an EU country. Will anyone invoke Article 5? And then – suddenly – you are no longer in control of a piece of territory. 2, 3, 5 percent.
Endless meetings – the strength of democracy, and at the same time its weakness when facing dictatorships. How would Article 5 work against a nuclear state? Maybe these are your “internal separatists.” Send in the army or the national guard.
The troops move into the troubled area. Then, from the forests around them, unidentified FPVs swarm out. Article 5? We are not sure. Suddenly, this is presented as a “people’s republic” defending its interests and right to self-determination.
Behind territorial issues, behind the minor cuts on the bodies of small countries, come political destabilizations. russia is very skilled at this. First – cracks between EU and NATO members, then cracks within the states themselves.
This is creeping, hybrid aggression – corrosion of security that eats away at states through small cuts, provocations, and humiliations on the international stage. When people no longer trust their government and stop believing it can protect them.
The russian doctrine of “liminal war” involves testing the opponent with operations “below the threshold” – actions where it’s unclear how or whether to respond. The threshold gradually rises until the opponent finally reacts, but by then, the operation is already finished and its goals have been met.
Add in "But, we must never respond, because we'd be provoking Russia". We have an unerring ability, as a species, to ignore threats that could easily have been nipped in the bud, with the result that far more blood and money has to be ultimately expended in confronting them.
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
It is mind boggling
And in the FT Mandelson himself is quoted as saying “there is probably much more to come out”
For me the killer is, as you say, the fact he stayed in Epstein’s NYC house even as Epstein was in jail for underage sex and trafficking
There’s no way around that. You can’t say you didn’t know. You knew. And did it anyway
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
Poland are in NATO and have come under attack from Russia and in these circumstances it is de facto a NATO issue
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
Putin also has more nuclear missiles than anyone else on earth. Putin's ally Belarus have now said the drones were sent in error into Poland, the drones have been shot down by the Poles in response, I would leave it there.
You really are a Putin apologist
And you believe Belarus
Maybe you should listen to Europe allies
None of them unlike you seem to want WW3, the drones have been shot down, leave it there
Okay. Let's start by assuming that no-one (*) on this board wants WW3. That line
As you seem to be one of the most fervent "Putin has nukes!!!!" screechers, I'll ask you the usual questions. Where is your red line? What would Putin have to do, how much of Europe would Putin have to seize, before you think that the risk of WW3 (**) is lower than the risk of letting his ambitions go unchecked?
I don't expect much of an answer from you.
(*) Except perhaps @Dura_Ace ... (**) Which would be much greater by this stage.
...Modern hybrid war bears little resemblance to blockbusters. It looks more like those few drones that crossed into the borders of Poland – our neighbor and ally – and NATO last night.
...
The russian doctrine of “liminal war” involves testing the opponent with operations “below the threshold” – actions where it’s unclear how or whether to respond. The threshold gradually rises until the opponent finally reacts, but by then, the operation is already finished and its goals have been met.
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
It is mind boggling
And in the FT Mandelson himself is quoted as saying “there is probably much more to come out”
For me the killer is, as you say, the fact he stayed in Epstein’s NYC house even as Epstein was in jail for underage sex and trafficking
There’s no way around that. You can’t say you didn’t know. You knew. And did it anyway
Surely toast
Yup, the veneer of plausible deniability has gone. I also saw people defending Mandy on the basis that he wouldn't be interested in the underage girls that Epstein was procuring, but is it difficult to imagine that he wouldn't also be able to procure underage boys too?!
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
Poland are in NATO and have come under attack from Russia and in these circumstances it is de facto a NATO issue
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
Putin also has more nuclear missiles than anyone else on earth. Putin's ally Belarus have now said the drones were sent in error into Poland, the drones have been shot down by the Poles in response, I would leave it there.
You really are a Putin apologist
And you believe Belarus
Maybe you should listen to Europe allies
None of them unlike you seem to want WW3, the drones have been shot down, leave it there
Okay. Let's start by assuming that no-one (*) on this board wants WW3. That line
As you seem to be one of the most fervent "Putin has nukes!!!!" screechers, I'll ask you the usual questions. Where is your red line? What would Putin have to do, how much of Europe would Putin have to seize, before you think that the risk of WW3 (**) is lower than the risk of letting his ambitions go unchecked?
I don't expect much of an answer from you.
(*) Except perhaps @Dura_Ace ... (**) Which would be much greater by this stage.
The question is: why isn't Putin deterred by our nukes?
Tricky to draft his resignation mind. If he’s leaving because his links to Epstein make it impossible for him to stay, then what does His Majesty’s Gvt think of Trump, who has done the same….?
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
It is mind boggling
And in the FT Mandelson himself is quoted as saying “there is probably much more to come out”
For me the killer is, as you say, the fact he stayed in Epstein’s NYC house even as Epstein was in jail for underage sex and trafficking
There’s no way around that. You can’t say you didn’t know. You knew. And did it anyway
Surely toast
Yup, the veneer of plausible deniability has gone. I also saw people defending Mandy on the basis that he wouldn't be interested in the underage girls that Epstein was procuring, but is it difficult to imagine that he wouldn't also be able to procure underage boys too?!
Epstein had quite a few famously gay guests. Eg the actor and disgraced sex offender Kevin Spacey. I presume that he was attracted to pedo island by the yummy yum yum omelettes
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
Poland are in NATO and have come under attack from Russia and in these circumstances it is de facto a NATO issue
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
Putin also has more nuclear missiles than anyone else on earth. Putin's ally Belarus have now said the drones were sent in error into Poland, the drones have been shot down by the Poles in response, I would leave it there.
You really are a Putin apologist
And you believe Belarus
Maybe you should listen to Europe allies
None of them unlike you seem to want WW3, the drones have been shot down, leave it there
Okay. Let's start by assuming that no-one (*) on this board wants WW3. That line
As you seem to be one of the most fervent "Putin has nukes!!!!" screechers, I'll ask you the usual questions. Where is your red line? What would Putin have to do, how much of Europe would Putin have to seize, before you think that the risk of WW3 (**) is lower than the risk of letting his ambitions go unchecked?
I don't expect much of an answer from you.
(*) Except perhaps @Dura_Ace ... (**) Which would be much greater by this stage.
It is an axiom of nuclear deterrence that no nuclear-armed power, or alliance, must ever yield to threats to use nuclear weapons from another. That was pretty well-understood in the Cold War, and that lesson should not be forgotten now.
If Russia is probing Western defences, then it must be met with a proportionate response. One can debate what is proportionate, not the need for a response.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
Poland are in NATO and have come under attack from Russia and in these circumstances it is de facto a NATO issue
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
Putin also has more nuclear missiles than anyone else on earth. Putin's ally Belarus have now said the drones were sent in error into Poland, the drones have been shot down by the Poles in response, I would leave it there.
You really are a Putin apologist
And you believe Belarus
Maybe you should listen to Europe allies
None of them unlike you seem to want WW3, the drones have been shot down, leave it there
Okay. Let's start by assuming that no-one (*) on this board wants WW3. That line
As you seem to be one of the most fervent "Putin has nukes!!!!" screechers, I'll ask you the usual questions. Where is your red line? What would Putin have to do, how much of Europe would Putin have to seize, before you think that the risk of WW3 (**) is lower than the risk of letting his ambitions go unchecked?
I don't expect much of an answer from you.
(*) Except perhaps @Dura_Ace ... (**) Which would be much greater by this stage.
Sir Keir will now have to resign. I wonder if he could sweeten the pill by saying that 'on reflection' it would be better if the Labour party chose both a new deputy leader and a new leader at the same time. That way he could leave the stage with what remains of his dignity intact.
I think Starmer's been an absolute fool since he became PM. (*). From griftgate to Rayner and Mandelson, he seems to think that the rules don't apply to him and his friends. In this, he is not too far from being like Boris.
It's like some think that as they're Labour, they can't do wrong. Actions they would excoriate if it was from their opponents, is fine if you're Labour. Because they're the good guys. And for the ones who started with little, whose story is one of working hard to reach the top, think that the story is some form of protection.
(*) Perhaps he was before, but could rely on the "We're not the Tories!!!!" defence.
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
What an utter fool you are.
Russia does everything it does - not just last night, but all of the political interference in western democracies, the attacks on Ukraine, Georgia etc - and you accuse *us* of being bellicose.
I sometimes wonder what Russia would have to do before some idiots say: "Okay, Putin's gone a little too far..."
A hell of a lot more than flying a few drones over Poland. A 100 division armoured invasion towards Warsaw would do it but are we seeing that? No.
Yet there are people on here openly advocating some sort of retaliatory strike into Russia - seriously?
And you accuse ME of ridiculing the term "beliicose".
Russia won't ever send divisions into Poland. It will be kilometre by kilometre, coup by coup. Boiling frog syndrome - at every stage it won't be rational to respond with force, but they'll keep on creeping up towards Berlin/Vienna/Helsinki.
Tricky to draft his resignation mind. If he’s leaving because his links to Epstein make it impossible for him to stay, then what does His Majesty’s Gvt think of Trump, who has done the same….?
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
It is mind boggling
And in the FT Mandelson himself is quoted as saying “there is probably much more to come out”
For me the killer is, as you say, the fact he stayed in Epstein’s NYC house even as Epstein was in jail for underage sex and trafficking
There’s no way around that. You can’t say you didn’t know. You knew. And did it anyway
Surely toast
Yes, even if he was "taken in" by the skilful liar that Epstein certainly was (perfectly credible in the context of Mandelson's penchant for networking), at that point there's just no good excuse.
While that doesn't make him any kind of accomplice in Epstein's crimes , it surely renders him utterly unacceptable as a representative of the UK government.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
Poland are in NATO and have come under attack from Russia and in these circumstances it is de facto a NATO issue
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
Putin also has more nuclear missiles than anyone else on earth. Putin's ally Belarus have now said the drones were sent in error into Poland, the drones have been shot down by the Poles in response, I would leave it there.
You really are a Putin apologist
And you believe Belarus
Maybe you should listen to Europe allies
None of them unlike you seem to want WW3, the drones have been shot down, leave it there
Okay. Let's start by assuming that no-one (*) on this board wants WW3. That line
As you seem to be one of the most fervent "Putin has nukes!!!!" screechers, I'll ask you the usual questions. Where is your red line? What would Putin have to do, how much of Europe would Putin have to seize, before you think that the risk of WW3 (**) is lower than the risk of letting his ambitions go unchecked?
I don't expect much of an answer from you.
(*) Except perhaps @Dura_Ace ... (**) Which would be much greater by this stage.
Invade a NATO nation with troops and tanks
So you're happy with his malign influence spreading politically through countries like Hungary, without an invasion? Because that's Putin's first route to gain power over somewhere, and he's doing it throughout Europe.
Mandleson is saying he regrets ever having met Wiensten but the truth is surely he regrets being found out. He certainly didn't regret the fun and favours he received
Sir Keir will now have to resign. I wonder if he could sweeten the pill by saying that 'on reflection' it would be better if the Labour party chose both a new deputy leader and a new leader at the same time. That way he could leave the stage with what remains of his dignity intact.
Want to bet on whether Keir resigns in the next year?
Sir Keir will now have to resign. I wonder if he could sweeten the pill by saying that 'on reflection' it would be better if the Labour party chose both a new deputy leader and a new leader at the same time. That way he could leave the stage with what remains of his dignity intact.
There's be a certain hilarity if the first major political victim of the Epstein scandal is the British PM, who (AFAIAA) never even met the guy.
I think Starmer's been an absolute fool since he became PM. (*). From griftgate to Rayner and Mandelson, he seems to think that the rules don't apply to him and his friends. In this, he is not too far from being like Boris.
It's like some think that as they're Labour, they can't do wrong. Actions they would excoriate if it was from their opponents, is fine if you're Labour. Because they're the good guys. And for the ones who started with little, whose story is one of working hard to reach the top, think that the story is some form of protection.
(*) Perhaps he was before, but could rely on the "We're not the Tories!!!!" defence.
I think there is a difference in the Boris sees all rules as optional and are there to be broken. Starmer looks at the rules, puts lawyer hat on and then goes well if I stay right on this line I will be ok, because its within the rules, not realising that the court of public opinion doesn't care for such nuances e.g. the vast bulk of expenses claims weren't illegal or even broke the rules. Starmer taking all the freebies, not against the rules, but seemed confused when the public said sorry, you got £100k's in freebies for glasses, suits, concert tickets, tiny toiletries....when you very wealthy and earn £150k+ a year.
As I said last night, he has also in the past had this incredibly lucky magical ability for really awkward things to have never crossed his desk or bothered to look into them. The problem with being PM is it tests such a magical power to the absolute limits all while the media and public follow along.
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
It is mind boggling
And in the FT Mandelson himself is quoted as saying “there is probably much more to come out”
For me the killer is, as you say, the fact he stayed in Epstein’s NYC house even as Epstein was in jail for underage sex and trafficking
There’s no way around that. You can’t say you didn’t know. You knew. And did it anyway
Surely toast
Yup, the veneer of plausible deniability has gone. I also saw people defending Mandy on the basis that he wouldn't be interested in the underage girls that Epstein was procuring, but is it difficult to imagine that he wouldn't also be able to procure underage boys too?!
Don’t you always follow the money with Mandelson? He’s intensely relaxed being around rich people and their no doubt fabulously luxurious lifestyles, and wasn’t he involved with some big financial deal with Epstein?
I think Starmer's been an absolute fool since he became PM. (*). From griftgate to Rayner and Mandelson, he seems to think that the rules don't apply to him and his friends. In this, he is not too far from being like Boris.
It's like some think that as they're Labour, they can't do wrong. Actions they would excoriate if it was from their opponents, is fine if you're Labour. Because they're the good guys. And for the ones who started with little, whose story is one of working hard to reach the top, think that the story is some form of protection.
(*) Perhaps he was before, but could rely on the "We're not the Tories!!!!" defence.
I think there is a difference in the Boris sees all rules as optional and are there to be broken. Starmer looks at the rules, puts lawyer hat on and then goes well if I stay right on this line I will be ok, because its within the rules, not realising that the court of public opinion doesn't care for such nuances e.g. the vast bulk of expenses claims weren't illegal or even broke the rules. Starmer taking all the freebies, not against the rules, but seemed confused when the public said sorry, you got £100k's in freebies for glasses, suits, concert tickets, tiny toiletries....when you very wealthy and earn £150k+ a year.
As I said last night, he has also in the past had this incredibly lucky magical ability for really awkward things to have never crossed his desk or bothered to look into them. The problem with being PM is you can't pull that trick for very long.
Not forgetting the curry & beers. He’ll get done for that one day
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
It is mind boggling
And in the FT Mandelson himself is quoted as saying “there is probably much more to come out”
For me the killer is, as you say, the fact he stayed in Epstein’s NYC house even as Epstein was in jail for underage sex and trafficking
There’s no way around that. You can’t say you didn’t know. You knew. And did it anyway
Surely toast
Yes, even if he was "taken in" by the skilful liar that Epstein certainly was (perfectly credible in the context of Mandelson's penchant for networking), at that point there's just no good excuse.
While that doesn't make him any kind of accomplice in Epstein's crimes , it surely renders him utterly unacceptable as a representative of the UK government.
To allow him to carry on would be grotesque.
I do hope that all of those on the right (correctly) calling for Mandelson's head recognise that all of the above, and more, applies to Trump.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
Poland are in NATO and have come under attack from Russia and in these circumstances it is de facto a NATO issue
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
Putin also has more nuclear missiles than anyone else on earth. Putin's ally Belarus have now said the drones were sent in error into Poland, the drones have been shot down by the Poles in response, I would leave it there.
You really are a Putin apologist
And you believe Belarus
Maybe you should listen to Europe allies
None of them unlike you seem to want WW3, the drones have been shot down, leave it there
Okay. Let's start by assuming that no-one (*) on this board wants WW3. That line
As you seem to be one of the most fervent "Putin has nukes!!!!" screechers, I'll ask you the usual questions. Where is your red line? What would Putin have to do, how much of Europe would Putin have to seize, before you think that the risk of WW3 (**) is lower than the risk of letting his ambitions go unchecked?
I don't expect much of an answer from you.
(*) Except perhaps @Dura_Ace ... (**) Which would be much greater by this stage.
This is probably a good comparison. I don't understand why he hasn't made the call yet and said that it was unacceptable for Mandy to be staying in Epstein's flat after his conviction for child sex trafficking.
FFS Starmer . What has Mandelson got on Starmer that he’s impossible to remove .
The longer Lord Yum Yum clings on to his job before eventually removed, the more damage he will do to Starmer, Starmer’s government, and the Labour Party. Simples.
To be fair, the Labour brand is so Raynered there's not much further to fall...
Rayner was defenestrated within a working week, probably two or three days later than was optimal Starmer, on the other hand didn't attempt to save her by disposing of the Ministerial Code.
Labour maybe on a 3/10 in terms of integrity, however your team are still in negative figures, and lo and behold up comes Johnson in the Guardian to take your party even lower whilst out of Government.
The Conservative brand is so Johnsoned and yet even out of office he drags them down even further.
Did Starmer ask Mandy about Epstein before making him our most important diplomat? How did that go
Starmer [coughing politely]: so, um, Peter. I have to ask you. Is there anything in this Epstein connection? Anything we should worry about?
Mandelson: no no no. Don’t worry. I only visited his underage sex island several times, wrote him a ten page birthday letter saying I loved him and adored his yummy secrets and interesting friends, and then I did a billion pound deal for him and stayed in his New York house after he was convicted for pedophile sex and trafficking. In fact the house was empty because Jeff was in jail
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
It is mind boggling
And in the FT Mandelson himself is quoted as saying “there is probably much more to come out”
For me the killer is, as you say, the fact he stayed in Epstein’s NYC house even as Epstein was in jail for underage sex and trafficking
There’s no way around that. You can’t say you didn’t know. You knew. And did it anyway
Surely toast
Yes, even if he was "taken in" by the skilful liar that Epstein certainly was (perfectly credible in the context of Mandelson's penchant for networking), at that point there's just no good excuse.
While that doesn't make him any kind of accomplice in Epstein's crimes , it surely renders him utterly unacceptable as a representative of the UK government.
To allow him to carry on would be grotesque.
I do hope that all of those on the right (correctly) calling for Mandelson's head recognise that all of the above, and more, applies to Trump.
Mandleson is saying he regrets ever having met Wiensten but the truth is surely he regrets being found out. He certainly didn't regret the fun and favours he received
FFS Starmer . What has Mandelson got on Starmer that he’s impossible to remove .
The longer Lord Yum Yum clings on to his job before eventually removed, the more damage he will do to Starmer, Starmer’s government, and the Labour Party. Simples.
To be fair, the Labour brand is so Raynered there's not much further to fall...
Rayner was defenestrated within a working week, probably two or three days later than was optimal Starmer, on the other hand didn't attempt to save her by disposing of the Ministerial Code.
Labour maybe on a 3/10 in terms of integrity, however your team are still in negative figures, and lo and behold up comes Johnson in the Guardian to take your party even lower whilst out of Government.
The Conservative brand is so Johnsoned and yet even out of office he drags them down even further.
Starmer had enough cover as well, because Big Ange told this fairy tale of having taken all this legal advice. Starmer can then say well given what she claimed, I couldn't sack her because it could well have been duff legal opinion.
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
It is mind boggling
And in the FT Mandelson himself is quoted as saying “there is probably much more to come out”
For me the killer is, as you say, the fact he stayed in Epstein’s NYC house even as Epstein was in jail for underage sex and trafficking
There’s no way around that. You can’t say you didn’t know. You knew. And did it anyway
Surely toast
Yes, even if he was "taken in" by the skilful liar that Epstein certainly was (perfectly credible in the context of Mandelson's penchant for networking), at that point there's just no good excuse.
While that doesn't make him any kind of accomplice in Epstein's crimes , it surely renders him utterly unacceptable as a representative of the UK government.
To allow him to carry on would be grotesque.
I do hope that all of those on the right (correctly) calling for Mandelson's head recognise that all of the above, and more, applies to Trump.
It does for sure, however, the UK government has no power to remove Trump. Ultimately that's up the American people and Congress to decide on. The government does have the power to sack Mandelson and it should. How was this not caught in basic vetting?
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
It is mind boggling
And in the FT Mandelson himself is quoted as saying “there is probably much more to come out”
For me the killer is, as you say, the fact he stayed in Epstein’s NYC house even as Epstein was in jail for underage sex and trafficking
There’s no way around that. You can’t say you didn’t know. You knew. And did it anyway
Surely toast
Yes, even if he was "taken in" by the skilful liar that Epstein certainly was (perfectly credible in the context of Mandelson's penchant for networking), at that point there's just no good excuse.
While that doesn't make him any kind of accomplice in Epstein's crimes , it surely renders him utterly unacceptable as a representative of the UK government.
To allow him to carry on would be grotesque.
I do hope that all of those on the right (correctly) calling for Mandelson's head recognise that all of the above, and more, applies to Trump.
Yes of course it applies to Trump. One of the reasons Mandy has to go is because, if he stays, it renders all our critiques of Trump (on this matter) utterly hypocritical and ignorable
Did Starmer ask Mandy about Epstein before making him our most important diplomat? How did that go
Starmer [coughing politely]: so, um, Peter. I have to ask you. Is there anything in this Epstein connection? Anything we should worry about?
Mandelson: no no no. Don’t worry. I only visited his underage sex island several times, wrote him a ten page birthday letter saying I loved him and adored his yummy secrets and interesting friends, and then I did a billion pound deal for him and stayed in his New York house after he was convicted for pedophile sex and trafficking. In fact the house was empty because Jeff was in jail
Starmer: phew that’s a relief! Job’s yours
I am still fascinated how Louise Haigh criminal conviction and subsequent sacking never came up in background checks or that Rachel from Account CV contained massive heaping of BS and questions were raised about her conduct when doing Customer Service.
I wonder if some Labour types are regretting ploughing into Prince Andrew quite so much.
Was it particularly a Labour thing? Istr pretty much everyone (justifiably) putting the boot into non sweaty Andrew.
I think most people think Andrew was an idiot but I did have a tiny bit of sympathy for him in that he was being kicked for remaining friends with Epstein. I don't know how bad someone has to be for them not allowed to talk to other people.
Epstein does seem to have something about him that made people like him. And I don't think it's just for what he could procure for people.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 33m It’s not possible to overstate how much trouble Starmer’s now in on Mandelson, having backed him in the House.
Hodges is wrong yet again, of course it is possible. How about "Starmer will not just have to resign, but will be found guilty of treason, hung, drawn and quartered, sent to hell for eternity, and be forced to become a Man United fan". I suspect that overstates it quite substantially.
Did Starmer ask Mandy about Epstein before making him our most important diplomat? How did that go
Starmer [coughing politely]: so, um, Peter. I have to ask you. Is there anything in this Epstein connection? Anything we should worry about?
Mandelson: no no no. Don’t worry. I only visited his underage sex island several times, wrote him a ten page birthday letter saying I loved him and adored his yummy secrets and interesting friends, and then I did a billion pound deal for him and stayed in his New York house after he was convicted for pedophile sex and trafficking. In fact the house was empty because Jeff was in jail
Starmer: phew that’s a relief! Job’s yours
I think it might have been: President Trump appointed the guy who negotiated Epstein's ridiculously lenient plea bargain to his cabinet, so I'm sure it's all above board.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 33m It’s not possible to overstate how much trouble Starmer’s now in on Mandelson, having backed him in the House.
Hodges is wrong yet again, of course it is possible. How about "Starmer will not just have to resign, but will be found guilty of treason, hung, drawn and quartered, sent to hell for eternity, and be forced to become a Man United fan". I suspect that overstates it quite substantially.
It's not Starmer resignation but Mandelson that is on the line but Starmer prevarication is not helping him at all
I wonder if some Labour types are regretting ploughing into Prince Andrew quite so much.
Was it particularly a Labour thing? Istr pretty much everyone (justifiably) putting the boot into non sweaty Andrew.
I think most people think Andrew was an idiot but I did have a tiny bit of sympathy for him in that he was being kicked for remaining friends with Epstein. I don't know how bad someone has to be for them not allowed to talk to other people.
Epstein does seem to have something about him that made people like him. And I don't think it's just for what he could procure for people.
No, I think it was because of the things he could do for these wealthy, powerful paedophiles. Whatever "charm" they're talking about is just cover for them trying to excuse a decades long relationship with someone who helped them rape and sexually abuse children and then covered it up for them.
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
It is mind boggling
And in the FT Mandelson himself is quoted as saying “there is probably much more to come out”
For me the killer is, as you say, the fact he stayed in Epstein’s NYC house even as Epstein was in jail for underage sex and trafficking
There’s no way around that. You can’t say you didn’t know. You knew. And did it anyway
Surely toast
Yes, even if he was "taken in" by the skilful liar that Epstein certainly was (perfectly credible in the context of Mandelson's penchant for networking), at that point there's just no good excuse.
While that doesn't make him any kind of accomplice in Epstein's crimes , it surely renders him utterly unacceptable as a representative of the UK government.
To allow him to carry on would be grotesque.
I do hope that all of those on the right (correctly) calling for Mandelson's head recognise that all of the above, and more, applies to Trump.
Mandy is a bit like Epstein in the sense that he manages to get everybody to like him and trust him e.g. Osborne trusted him and walked right into a massive bear trap. Although thought it was interesting how Yacht-gate, the bigger potential scandal was the EU bod in charge of metal tariffs was also at the dinner with the dodgy Russia bloke, somebody called Peter something, in fact he was staying with him for a extended period.
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
It is mind boggling
And in the FT Mandelson himself is quoted as saying “there is probably much more to come out”
For me the killer is, as you say, the fact he stayed in Epstein’s NYC house even as Epstein was in jail for underage sex and trafficking
There’s no way around that. You can’t say you didn’t know. You knew. And did it anyway
Surely toast
Yes, even if he was "taken in" by the skilful liar that Epstein certainly was (perfectly credible in the context of Mandelson's penchant for networking), at that point there's just no good excuse.
While that doesn't make him any kind of accomplice in Epstein's crimes , it surely renders him utterly unacceptable as a representative of the UK government.
To allow him to carry on would be grotesque.
I do hope that all of those on the right (correctly) calling for Mandelson's head recognise that all of the above, and more, applies to Trump.
I would be delighted to see Trump gone
I know that, Big_G.
Trump disturbs my whole being and soul and I do not know what the world has done to see such a malign person take the most powerful position on the planet
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
It is mind boggling
And in the FT Mandelson himself is quoted as saying “there is probably much more to come out”
For me the killer is, as you say, the fact he stayed in Epstein’s NYC house even as Epstein was in jail for underage sex and trafficking
There’s no way around that. You can’t say you didn’t know. You knew. And did it anyway
Surely toast
Yes, even if he was "taken in" by the skilful liar that Epstein certainly was (perfectly credible in the context of Mandelson's penchant for networking), at that point there's just no good excuse.
While that doesn't make him any kind of accomplice in Epstein's crimes , it surely renders him utterly unacceptable as a representative of the UK government.
To allow him to carry on would be grotesque.
I do hope that all of those on the right (correctly) calling for Mandelson's head recognise that all of the above, and more, applies to Trump.
Yes of course it applies to Trump. One of the reasons Mandy has to go is because, if he stays, it renders all our critiques of Trump (on this matter) utterly hypocritical and ignorable
Our government is still in a state of cringe towards the administration, which is I think why Mandelson isn't already gone. That's increasingly untenable.
I was thinking rather of those who still actively celebrate Trump (Farage, for example).
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 33m It’s not possible to overstate how much trouble Starmer’s now in on Mandelson, having backed him in the House.
Hodges is wrong yet again, of course it is possible. How about "Starmer will not just have to resign, but will be found guilty of treason, hung, drawn and quartered, sent to hell for eternity, and be forced to become a Man United fan". I suspect that overstates it quite substantially.
It's not Starmer resignation but Mandelson that is on the line but Starmer prevarication is not helping him at all
Sure Mandelson will probably have to go. It makes almost no long term difference to Starmer. His fate rests on ending asylum hotels, a big reduction in the boats combined with the fluctuations of the global economy, not this.
I wonder if some Labour types are regretting ploughing into Prince Andrew quite so much.
Was it particularly a Labour thing? Istr pretty much everyone (justifiably) putting the boot into non sweaty Andrew.
I think most people think Andrew was an idiot but I did have a tiny bit of sympathy for him in that he was being kicked for remaining friends with Epstein. I don't know how bad someone has to be for them not allowed to talk to other people.
Epstein does seem to have something about him that made people like him. And I don't think it's just for what he could procure for people.
No, I think it was because of the things he could do for these wealthy, powerful paedophiles. Whatever "charm" they're talking about is just cover for them trying to excuse a decades long relationship with someone who helped them rape and sexually abuse children and then covered it up for them.
I don’t think they were all pedophiles. eg I don’t believe prince Andrew is a pedo. He is a stupid lying oversexed clown who doesn’t deserve a penny of public money and entirely deserves the disgrace heaped upon him. But a pedo? Not really
What Epstein did was provide the sex these men wanted - underage or not - and for nearly all of them the attraction was indeed the sex. And maybe a chance to network once they were there
Starmer is now expending his last political capital defending an indefensible Ambassador to Washington that
1. he didn’t have to appoint in the first place, if he only spent 10 minutes doing due diligence he’d have said No way
And
2. He didn’t have to rush out and support yesterday with his full confidence, so now he’s stuck out on a limb of ridiculousness
Starmer is utterly crap at this stuff. He’s really quite dim and has zero political judgment. None
Given the furore that still surrounds every aspect of the Epstein case in the US on both sides of the aisle you really have to wonder whether it is in the interests of UK plc to be represented by someone who is compromised by it. Mandelson himself has been very clear that he expects more material showing contact and friendship with Epstein to be produced so this risks being a dripping sore.
A bizarre decision by Starmer, one of many. He's really not very good at this.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
Poland are in NATO and have come under attack from Russia and in these circumstances it is de facto a NATO issue
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
Putin also has more nuclear missiles than anyone else on earth. Putin's ally Belarus have now said the drones were sent in error into Poland, the drones have been shot down by the Poles in response, I would leave it there.
You really are a Putin apologist
And you believe Belarus
Maybe you should listen to Europe allies
None of them unlike you seem to want WW3, the drones have been shot down, leave it there
Okay. Let's start by assuming that no-one (*) on this board wants WW3. That line
As you seem to be one of the most fervent "Putin has nukes!!!!" screechers, I'll ask you the usual questions. Where is your red line? What would Putin have to do, how much of Europe would Putin have to seize, before you think that the risk of WW3 (**) is lower than the risk of letting his ambitions go unchecked?
I don't expect much of an answer from you.
(*) Except perhaps @Dura_Ace ... (**) Which would be much greater by this stage.
Invade a NATO nation with troops and tanks
So you're happy with his malign influence spreading politically through countries like Hungary, without an invasion? Because that's Putin's first route to gain power over somewhere, and he's doing it throughout Europe.
Orban was elected in Hungary whether you like him or not
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 33m It’s not possible to overstate how much trouble Starmer’s now in on Mandelson, having backed him in the House.
Hodges is wrong yet again, of course it is possible. How about "Starmer will not just have to resign, but will be found guilty of treason, hung, drawn and quartered, sent to hell for eternity, and be forced to become a Man United fan". I suspect that overstates it quite substantially.
It's not Starmer resignation but Mandelson that is on the line but Starmer prevarication is not helping him at all
Sure Mandelson will probably have to go. It makes almost no long term difference to Starmer. His fate rests on ending asylum hotels, a big reduction in the boats combined with the fluctuations of the global economy, not this.
It all adds to his problems and becomes a narrative
I wonder if some Labour types are regretting ploughing into Prince Andrew quite so much.
Was it particularly a Labour thing? Istr pretty much everyone (justifiably) putting the boot into non sweaty Andrew.
I think most people think Andrew was an idiot but I did have a tiny bit of sympathy for him in that he was being kicked for remaining friends with Epstein. I don't know how bad someone has to be for them not allowed to talk to other people.
Epstein does seem to have something about him that made people like him. And I don't think it's just for what he could procure for people.
No, I think it was because of the things he could do for these wealthy, powerful paedophiles. Whatever "charm" they're talking about is just cover for them trying to excuse a decades long relationship with someone who helped them rape and sexually abuse children and then covered it up for them.
I'm not certain that's true in all cases (though we'll probably never know for sure). Epstein seems to have had had a much larger circle than just sexual predators.
But by the time of his first sentence, it must have been pretty clear to anyone paying attention just what he was.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 33m It’s not possible to overstate how much trouble Starmer’s now in on Mandelson, having backed him in the House.
Hodges is wrong yet again, of course it is possible. How about "Starmer will not just have to resign, but will be found guilty of treason, hung, drawn and quartered, sent to hell for eternity, and be forced to become a Man United fan". I suspect that overstates it quite substantially.
It's not Starmer resignation but Mandelson that is on the line but Starmer prevarication is not helping him at all
Sure Mandelson will probably have to go. It makes almost no long term difference to Starmer. His fate rests on ending asylum hotels, a big reduction in the boats combined with the fluctuations of the global economy, not this.
It all adds to his problems and becomes a narrative
Starmer is now expending his last political capital defending an indefensible Ambassador to Washington that
1. he didn’t have to appoint in the first place, if he only spent 10 minutes doing due diligence he’d have said No way
And
2. He didn’t have to rush out and support yesterday with his full confidence, so now he’s stuck out on a limb of ridiculousness
Starmer is utterly crap at this stuff. He’s really quite dim and has zero political judgment. None
Given the furore that still surrounds every aspect of the Epstein case in the US on both sides of the aisle you really have to wonder whether it is in the interests of UK plc to be represented by someone who is compromised by it.
Starmer is now expending his last political capital defending an indefensible Ambassador to Washington that
1. he didn’t have to appoint in the first place, if he only spent 10 minutes doing due diligence he’d have said No way
And
2. He didn’t have to rush out and support yesterday with his full confidence, so now he’s stuck out on a limb of ridiculousness
Starmer is utterly crap at this stuff. He’s really quite dim and has zero political judgment. None
Given the furore that still surrounds every aspect of the Epstein case in the US on both sides of the aisle you really have to wonder whether it is in the interests of UK plc to be represented by someone who is compromised by it. Mandelson himself has been very clear that he expects more material showing contact and friendship with Epstein to be produced so this risks being a dripping sore.
A bizarre decision by Starmer, one of many. He's really not very good at this.
Curiously and ironically, the fact of Mandelson's association with Epstein, probably helps his lobbying on behalf of UKGov with Trump who is similarly implicated. They are both in it together.
A feature of Trump's own appointments is that, Mafia-style, he likes people who owe everything to him, and are similarly compromised. From that POV who better than Mandy to front up at the White House?
Comments
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
11m
Kemi Badenoch blew it last week. She didn’t this week. Starmer in serious trouble on Mandelson now.
But can he afford another high profile departure right now
...Modern hybrid war bears little resemblance to blockbusters. It looks more like those few drones that crossed into the borders of Poland – our neighbor and ally – and NATO last night.
Something unclear, but threatening. First – meetings and condemnations. Then, debates over whether these are russian drones or “strays.” Can we even officially call them russian? And if we can, what else can be said besides condemning?
Next – arguments about whether to shoot them down, but no talk of Article 5 and “every inch of NATO territory.”
These isolated drones have already entered Romania and Poland over the past year. Now they have “accidentally” reached the area of logistics hubs. And do you know what might come next?
No tank fists, no breakthroughs. “Accidental, unknown” drones appear more frequently. Another communications cable gets cut. A few ammunition trucks explode “by accident” – probably because of faulty wiring.
Strange armed groups take control of towns along the border of an EU country. Will anyone invoke Article 5? And then – suddenly – you are no longer in control of a piece of territory. 2, 3, 5 percent.
Endless meetings – the strength of democracy, and at the same time its weakness when facing dictatorships. How would Article 5 work against a nuclear state? Maybe these are your “internal separatists.” Send in the army or the national guard.
The troops move into the troubled area. Then, from the forests around them, unidentified FPVs swarm out. Article 5? We are not sure. Suddenly, this is presented as a “people’s republic” defending its interests and right to self-determination.
Behind territorial issues, behind the minor cuts on the bodies of small countries, come political destabilizations. russia is very skilled at this. First – cracks between EU and NATO members, then cracks within the states themselves.
This is creeping, hybrid aggression – corrosion of security that eats away at states through small cuts, provocations, and humiliations on the international stage. When people no longer trust their government and stop believing it can protect them.
The russian doctrine of “liminal war” involves testing the opponent with operations “below the threshold” – actions where it’s unclear how or whether to respond. The threshold gradually rises until the opponent finally reacts, but by then, the operation is already finished and its goals have been met.
We Ukrainians know how to handle such situations. Are you sure you’ll have enough time to learn before the corrosion reaches you?
https://x.com/414magyarbirds/status/1965683187226378599
https://x.com/trussliz/status/1965719308027457701
EXC: First Labour MP goes public and calls for Lord Mandelson to resign as UK Ambassador to Washington if he has broken rules
Asked if Mandelson should remain in post as ambassador, Bell Ribeiro-Addy told @theipaper : “No… I think that’s going to disturb quite a few people.”
And in the FT Mandelson himself is quoted as saying “there is probably much more to come out”
For me the killer is, as you say, the fact he stayed in Epstein’s NYC house even as Epstein was in jail for underage sex and trafficking
There’s no way around that. You can’t say you didn’t know. You knew. And did it anyway
Surely toast
Starmer is defending the indefensible
As you seem to be one of the most fervent "Putin has nukes!!!!" screechers, I'll ask you the usual questions. Where is your red line? What would Putin have to do, how much of Europe would Putin have to seize, before you think that the risk of WW3 (**) is lower than the risk of letting his ambitions go unchecked?
I don't expect much of an answer from you.
(*) Except perhaps @Dura_Ace ...
(**) Which would be much greater by this stage.
Cruise missiles into the Russian Shahed drone factory sends an unambiguous message that we aren't taking any more of their shit.
If Russia is probing Western defences, then it must be met with a proportionate response. One can debate what is proportionate, not the need for a response.
It's like some think that as they're Labour, they can't do wrong. Actions they would excoriate if it was from their opponents, is fine if you're Labour. Because they're the good guys. And for the ones who started with little, whose story is one of working hard to reach the top, think that the story is some form of protection.
(*) Perhaps he was before, but could rely on the "We're not the Tories!!!!" defence.
While that doesn't make him any kind of accomplice in Epstein's crimes , it surely renders him utterly unacceptable as a representative of the UK government.
To allow him to carry on would be grotesque.
@DPJHodges
·
33m
It’s not possible to overstate how much trouble Starmer’s now in on Mandelson, having backed him in the House.
1. he didn’t have to appoint in the first place, if he only spent 10 minutes doing due diligence he’d have said No way
And
2. He didn’t have to rush out and support yesterday with his full confidence, so now he’s stuck out on a limb of ridiculousness
Starmer is utterly crap at this stuff. He’s really quite dim and has zero political judgment. None
As I said last night, he has also in the past had this incredibly lucky magical ability for really awkward things to have never crossed his desk or bothered to look into them. The problem with being PM is it tests such a magical power to the absolute limits all while the media and public follow along.
'I see she's finally catching up with the questions which she should have asked last week about the Deputy Prime Minister'
Labour maybe on a 3/10 in terms of integrity, however your team are still in negative figures, and lo and behold up comes Johnson in the Guardian to take your party even lower whilst out of Government.
The Conservative brand is so Johnsoned and yet even out of office he drags them down even further.
Starmer [coughing politely]: so, um, Peter. I have to ask you. Is there anything in this Epstein connection? Anything we should worry about?
Mandelson: no no no. Don’t worry. I only visited his underage sex island several times, wrote him a ten page birthday letter saying I loved him and adored his yummy secrets and interesting friends, and then I did a billion pound deal for him and stayed in his New York house after he was convicted for pedophile sex and trafficking. In fact the house was empty because Jeff was in jail
Starmer: phew that’s a relief! Job’s yours
Not sure he shouldn't go mind.
Epstein does seem to have something about him that made people like him. And I don't think it's just for what he could procure for people.
😶
President Trump appointed the guy who negotiated Epstein's ridiculously lenient plea bargain to his cabinet, so I'm sure it's all above board.
That's increasingly untenable.
I was thinking rather of those who still actively celebrate Trump (Farage, for example).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-15084301/Premier-League-ref-David-Coote-charged-making-indecent-video-child.html
What Epstein did was provide the sex these men wanted - underage or not - and for nearly all of them the attraction was indeed the sex. And maybe a chance to network once they were there
A bizarre decision by Starmer, one of many. He's really not very good at this.
Epstein seems to have had had a much larger circle than just sexual predators.
But by the time of his first sentence, it must have been pretty clear to anyone paying attention just what he was.
It clearly isn't.
A feature of Trump's own appointments is that, Mafia-style, he likes people who owe everything to him, and are similarly compromised. From that POV who better than Mandy to front up at the White House?
That said, I expect his departure before long.