The Prime Minister was made to look utterly hopeless and foolish at the dispatch box. I was watching what Kemy did to him, and eventually, after three hard questions, he had to admit that actually that he did know some
of these things. It's going to come even further. I cannot believe that in the vetting of Peter Manilson, with his track record for having lied previously to governments, that m I five and the Security services generally would not have uncovered a whole series of issues about his relationship with Epstein, and that alone should have been enough to stop him being the ambassador because that relationship was toxic.
And I had a good morning, hits Andy. It's a fifth of February and as you see by the background, stop politicians lying and these five minutes run. I've not done anything for few days because I've been busy, but I couldn't help but stepping in trying to like, share, comment and subscribe if you can, that would be absolutely wonderful. But you're what I'm going to talk about, don't you? Yeah? The Prime Minister. Wow, what I show? That was eh yesterday?
It's all about this guy, Peter Manderson. So Peter Bough Peter Benjamin Mandersson born in October fifty three as a British former politician, lobbyist and diplomat. They sent the figure in the Labor Party. He served as Member of Parliament for Horlepool from ninety two to two o four and
helped senior post under Tony Blair Gordon Brown. Yeah, that's where the problem is, I think as well, including Secretary Safe of Northern Irelands, Secretary for Business and First Sectory of State and the British Ambassador to the US in twenty twenty five. He's been prominent in the nineteen eighties as the Labor director of communications with the Blair New Labor ideas, and of course he's currently in trouble for lying about his association with the convicted pedophowl Epstein.
Yeah.
What's really does it for me is the Prime Minister all the time secure starmer knew about Mandelssinh's involvement with Epstein because of a press briefing a couple of years ago, maybe twenty three, I think it was. So what happened then my five, the security services whoever they are, and the vetting process to become a minister a Member Parliament etc. Didn't find that Manderson and Epstein was connected in any way.
That's very strange, isn't it. But the Prime Minister and it's on the public record that they did know about it, well, at least Arma did. But the Veting poscess still appointed him in one of the big jobs in Great Britain. The Ambassador to the USA wires Starmer's sort of level you know digit to ID well. He dropped plans to make a new digit ID app compulsory for right to
work checks. Family Farms Tax late twenty five watered down the imposition of inheritance tax on family farms worker rates Late twenty five backtracked and plan to introduced day one and fair dismissal rates. Benefits Dune twenty five reversed the plan to taking eligibility for the disabled benefits system after major backlash the winter field payments are twenty five. He scaled back that the planned university universally winter fuel payments
for pensioners. The International Aid in February twenty five reduced the development budget despite previous pledges to restore it. Green spending February twenty four, a pre election promise dropped the flagship twenty eight billion a year green prosperity plan. Yeah, and as a Febuy twenty sixth Labor when Peter are urging the government to abandon further proposals, including plans to
be strict protests overhaul jury trials. You know, so there's no jury trials in certain offenses and council local elections because they're not ready for them. Over twenty local elections could be canceled until they sort out the mess. Additionally, Scottish Labor Leader and so back tracked on support for Peter Manson following new relevations in the Epstein files. Well you can make this one up, could you really?
Now?
I want to drain your attention. Then everybody else is attention to the Nolan principles and there's seven ethical standards for public life. Selfishness, selflessness orders. A public office should act solely in terms of the public interest, although any interest in tecretory. Avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people, yeah or organizations that may try inappropriately to influence them in their work. Objectability act and take decisions impartially failure
and unmerit using the best evidence available. Accountability orders a public office is accountable to the public for their decisions and actions. Yeah, hopenness, it can here, Starmer. You can learn to think decisions that should be taken in an open and transparent manner, with the information restricted only when necessary. Honest honesty. Holders of public office should be truthful and leadership.
Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behavior and actively promote them to others to do the same. So I suggest that kissed Armer, Labor government, the Conservative government, they all need to eat a bit of the known principles. I think, what do you think?
Let me know, like, share, comment and subscribe. I'm going to play an ITV clip this morning where a minister was being grilled over this Starmer issue, the Mandelssohn Epstein issue, and it was quite a good interfood from Susannah Reid and the gentleman with a yeah, have a look and let me know what you think. But yeah, the sooner they start, these politicians stop lying and the quicker Starma resigns, the better for all of us. What do we have next? Well,
what do you think? Lima comment? Should it be before UK? Should it be Robert Lowe's political party? Should it be Britain first You let me know. But either way, one big question when they get into power, which party might let us down? Out of them three more? Or should we just stick to our traditional labor conservative demon Greens. Let me know. Anyway, you will take care and thanks for listening.
It's probably the biggest political scandal of his country in living memory, and secure Starmer is fighting for his political future after he admitted that he knew about Mandalson's friendship with Epstein when he picked him for the job, but claimed that he lied repeatedly about the true extent of that relationship.
This morning, the Housing Secretary Steve Reid, said that giving Mandelsshon the role was a rational appointment. Steve Reed joins us, now, very good morning to you. Either the Prime Minister was totally naive and believed a liar about the extent of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which was a matter of public record. We've just spoken to one of the journalists who reported on it. Or he didn't care about Jeffrey Epstein's victims and the survivors and thought it was worth
the risk to appoint Lord Mandlsson. Why are you shaking your head, mister Reid, because.
Neither of those two things you've just said other truth. Unfortunately, if people had known when Mandelsson was appointed what was really going on, he never would have been given He never would have been given that job. The victims, above all else, the victims of Epstein's crimes, have to be and should be at the front of all of our.
Mandelson did, I'm sorry, but they did know.
They didn't.
It was reported in them I'm so sorry times they didn't, and that information was also give to the Prime Minister at a press conference that Mandalsson had spent four had spent nights at Epstein's mansion in New York. Now, you don't spend time in someone's private house unless you're pretty close.
To them while they were serving their sentence, while Epstein was in prison, So of course you knew, and.
There are documents that will be released to explain exactly what Mandalson said about that. But what Mandelson did was he lied and pretended his relationship with Epstein had finished, and that even when the relationship had been ongoing, it was next to nothing. He barely knew him, they had very little contact. That is what Mandelson said. The vetting process didn't show up anything that contradicted that, and so the appointment was made. Deceiving and manipulating.
Are looking at photographs of Lord Mandelsson with Jeffrey Epstein. We know he spent time slept at his house. We know about his connection.
Photographs that came out after he had been appointed. None of this was known.
At the time.
As soon as the Prime Minister found out months ago that Mandelson had deceived him, was manipulative in the answers that he gave to the questions during the vetting process. As soon as the Prime Minister found out about it, he sacked Mandelson on the spot. Mandlsson was woken up at five am and told he was sacked as the UK's ambassador to the United States because the Prime Minister took decisive action the moment he found out that Peter
Mandelson had lied to him. Yes, this wasn't just yesterday, This was months ago when the Prime Minister found out what had really been going on.
And it wasn't just the Prime Minister in possession of that additional information, it was also in the public domains. Of course, he had to sack and he had to act because we all knew what had been going on. The key question that many people are asking this morning is this, setting aside Mandleson's undoubted lies during the vetting process, wasn't enough already known about his relationship with Epstein to comprehensively disbar him from such an important job.
It's easy, isn't it, with hindsight when you do know the truth to look back at a time when that was hindsight and Mason was appointed to this based on what you're asking, No, you're not actually letting me answer.
No, But because you've missed asking my question, sir, The question was this.
If I haven't even answered it, how do you know I've misinterela.
Because of your opening statement you talked about hindsight. What I was saying was that the information that was in possession of the government and of the Prime Minister, setting aside Mandleson's lies during the vetting process, wasn't that information sufficient to disbar him from being No, it's important.
No.
I know you're saying that because you've got the benefit of hindsight, But at the time, No, it wasn't. There was a process that was gone through Mandelsson lied. The process includes the security forces nothing additional was thrown up at the time to make make it clear that Mandelson
was lying, and so he was appointed. Everyone regrets that now, of course, But as soon as the truth came to light with that first release of files from the United States months ago, the Prime Minister took immediate and decisive action. He phoned him up at five am in the morning and sacked him on the spot as the UK's ambassador
to the United States. Now further information has come to light over recent days and the Prime Minister has taken further action to spoken to the King to remove Peter Mandelsson from the Privy Council and has announced that we are going to change the law to strip him of his title of a lord. Every time a new information has come to light, the Prime Minister has acted, but
he regrets. We all regret that Mandelson was ever appointed, but that happened because the vetting process did not demonstrate what was really going on.
I am really confused by what you're saying. I know you're confused by our questions, but I am confused about what you're telling us. Because the Financial Times had reported in twenty twenty three about the relationship between Lord Mandelsshon and Jeffrey Epstein, and that reporter told Sekir Starmer that at a press conference in twenty twenty four. But you're saying it was new information, It wasn't.
It was in the public saying. What I'm saying, Susannah is the vetting process. Peter Mandelsson lied and said that his relationship with Epstein had ended long ago and had been next to nothing. In any case, the vetting process did not show that that was a lie, and so Mandelson was appointed.
Now that vetting very sorry.
Clearly need to look at that.
So despite the fact it was reported, it was put to Kitts Darma it was a matter of public record.
I'm not true, okay.
So instead of instead of that all being a matter of public record, the vetting process was simply to ask Lord Mandelsson if it was true and rely on Lord mandals said saying it wasn't true.
No, it wasn't that. Well, that's right what it was.
So how else did you know this story was Well, I just I just said, didn't I did you hear me say?
I said the security forces were involved in vetting as well, and that threw up nothing of additional concern. You've repeated people had known at the time, But you've repeated people known at the time, he wouldn't have been appointed. All of these documents will be published about you don't have successes like you're doing.
Now Security services and the vetting process.
Well, it shows that the vetting process wasn't good enough, and that's one of the things we need to look at. But it is a long established vetting process that long precedes this government coming into power. But clearly it failed on this occasion. Information that should have been made available to the Prime Minister that was not, and so he took a decision without knowing that Madelson was lying. As soon as he found out, he sacked him. Now, we
can't legislate against liars lying. What you can judge somebody by is what do they do when the liar is exposed. And Keir Starmer could not have acted quick more, more quickly, or more decisively. He phoned him up at five am and sacked.
Him on the sabots. But the fact of the matter, and you keep avoiding this point, do you keep invoking hindsights.
Anything I finished single question?
Could I finish my question, sir well?
Or you're making up lies about me avoiding your questions and answering everything.
Making up lies. And I think anybody watching this interview will observe that you have used the excuse of hindsights to defend the Prime Minister. What I'm putting to you, and I'll try it for the third time, is that what the Prime Minister was already aware of before the vetting process was undergone, the failed vetting process before that, so we can't talk about hindsight. He was aware that Manson had had a close relationship with a convicted pedophile.
For he knew that. That wasn't hindsight. He knew that, and he just.
True, that is not true.
That is not true, category true.
When Mandelssohn went through the vetting process, not everything in the papers is God's gospel truth. You know, there was a vetting process that was gone through. Mandelsson was asked questions, he provided answers that covered it up, and no other part of the vetting process exposed what was really going on.
As soon as.
We discovered what had really happened, Mandelssoh was sacked. It is hindsight. I know you don't like me using the term, but we have hindsight, now we see what he was up to. We see his deception and lies for what they truly were. Everyone regrets that he was ever appointed to this job, but had the information we now know, had that been available at the time, he would never have been appointed, and nor should he have been.
Now I run the country with the bossy tone, barlem who knows best. I prefer the throne. Now it's a rule that just suits me. Do as you're told, and don't ask me. If you could see how things should be when I cancel actions, I pointed, say what you must do, what you think is wrong. I think for you, funny how your choices disappear when I cancel elections. In my profession, I come and love the body