249. ⁠Epstein, Mandelson & the system that failed survivors

It's horrendous that for years this went on, the scandal of our time. The many problems for Keir Starman over why he appointed Mandelson to that hugely important job. Yeah. So many people knew about it, didn't they? Mandelson had no boundaries. No boundaries whatsoever. So in terms of what happens next, we know that there's now in a criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. But do you think there's gonna be more that comes out? Dharma's misjudged.

But the ramifications of this into every part of society. This episode is brought to you by Octopus Energy. Now you know we love talking to entrepreneurs on this show. So with us is the founder of Octopus Energy, Greg Jackson. Uh right, I'm gonna start with it.

If you could change one thing to help Britain's economy grow, what would it be? I'd love to see pension funds putting more money into British businesses. Uh over the last twenty-five years, they've fallen from forty percent of their investments going to British businesses to four percent.

That's bad for business here. It's bad for our stock market. But it's also bad for pensioners. In fact, a Canadian pensioner will get almost double the pension from the same amount invested as a British pensioner. We need to sort that. Nice one, Greg. Well, thanks to Octobus Energy for powering this episode of the Rest is Money.

As a chef, I know flavor doesn't begin in the kitchen. It begins on the land. And Westholm's nature led Australian Wagyu is a story written in the landscape of Northern Australia. Cooking is storytelling, and West Home Wagyu carries a story of Northern Australia itself. raw, powerful, and deeply authentic. It's a testament to the passion and care raised in the rhythm of Northern Australia.

I'm Chef Maylin from ADA Club in Los Angeles, and I invite you to visit Westhome dot com slash Maylin to learn more. And taste a story only West Home Nature led Australian Wagyu can tell. That's W E S T H O L M E dot com slash M E I L I N.

Welcome to the rest is money with me, Robert Peston. And with me, Steph McGovern. Now today we are talking about what we would say is the scandal of our time. And at the heart of this. is the young women, the girls, the children who were abused by Epstein and others. The ramifications of this extend into every part of society. the financial implications, the political ramifications, there's huge questions now over so many things in our lives.

And Robert, that's why we want to talk about this today, isn't it? Yes, that's right. I mean, you and I were uh at the heart of reporting on the financial crisis and You know, one of the things that we will attempt to do today is explain why the confidential information that Peter Mandelson passed on to Epstein was not just such a breach of trust within government and a betrayal of his colleagues, but also absolutely jaw-dropping uh in terms of quite how precious and valuable this information

was to anybody in finance outside of government. And the fact that he in a almost casual way was communicating this stuff to Epstein is is, you know, almost beyond belief. You know, we we should be clear. young girls and in some cases children, paedophilia, these are the worst kind of paedophile. sex crimes. And now when you look at the sheer number of people in power.

positions of power who associated with him and were happy to call him a friend, i this stuff is you know, beyond words appalling. I just want to start by saying you cannot forget the victims and all of this. Like those women who were trafficked Abuse, God knows what else. It's horrendous that for years this went on. You know, now all of this information is coming out. But so many people knew about it, didn't they?

And that's what really just gets me in all of this, i is these women at the core of it who were totally treated like meat. Yes, and there are sort of two phases. I mean, one is the first phase before Epstein is imprisoned, uh, four Sex crimes, right? Um, where everybody knew nonetheless. Surrounded by these young girls. And you know, even if you didn't know that he was involved in the trafficking of underage women and was a sex criminal, even if you didn't know that, um, before Uh

he was imprisoned. It is still astonishing the number of powerful men who just thought it was okay. to behave in the way that he behaved. And then there is the second phase where, you know, he goes to prison. Um and yet you know, astonishing numbers of people, including Peter Mandelson, um, basically somehow persuade themselves That it's okay to continue to have

Uh both a close friendship and a business relationship with him. So look, obviously you know, this goes actually to the heart of the probity of the financial establishment. I mean, you know, one of the things that uh i is is coming back is a focus on a banker called Jez Staley who worked for JP Morgan, he became chief executive of of Barclays. He was forced to quit

or s he was sacked as as chief executive of of Barclays um because the regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, found that he had not been honest about his relationship with uh Epstein. He underplayed uh the depth of the relationship and how long he remained a close associate of uh Epstein. And uh an and and so the ramifications of this go I mean well beyond politics, although the ramifications for

are i w highly significant. The thing that really um blows my mind Is how many people Epstein had in his pocket? It it it it goes into every single sector. You know, you've just mentioned banking, we've there's politics obviously, but then there's also the likes of Bill Gates in pictures with him. There's the you know, the various

presidents, former presidents and and the like. W one of the striking things is just the sheer number of people who are mentioned in the Epstein files. I mean, you know, obviously I'm searching all any number of names as as I've been looking into it. But of course, just because you are mentioned doesn't mean that you yourself are guilty of of wrongdoing. What did he have that everyone wanted and wanted to be around? It's it's

I I just don't get it. And why didn't anyone call it out? Why didn't any of these men who've got wives, who've got sisters, who've got daughters, who've got mothers, call any of this out during any of that time? Was it i you know, fear? Because they thought that it would bring them into disrepute. I don't understand why this hasn't come out sooner and why it's it's these emails that I and and the emails just as well, to add to this. are so flippant in their tone, aren't they, their

They're talking about women in such a degrading way. Did they never think when they were writing these emails that one day someone would see them? Literally every time I write an email, I think this could be in the Daily Mail, make sure I don't ever say anything I don't want publicly known. Like I just don't get how It went on for so long. I mean, it is unbelievably uh uh upsetting, and maybe you and I have sort of slightly forgotten how much.

particularly young women were objectified. You know, earlier in our Careers. But when you read it back, it is, you know, as you say, it's sort of heartbreaking to see the way the you know, his Uh yeah, appalling treatment of women was just taken for granted. Because when you look at these pictures with these redacted things, it's like it's just a chair in the corner. You know, it's the way these women were treated.

Indescribable. I mean this is not gonna be the I I think the m sort of meat of what we talk about today, but we might as well get on to

the Starmer question straight away. Um, you know, among the many problems for Keir Starmer now over why he appointed Mandelson So that hugely important job of our ambassador in in Washington. Um, you know, at the end of two thousand and twenty four is by that point Everybody knew the way that Epstein had uh would not only a sex criminal, but had over many years

objectified and maltreated young women. The question therefore is, if you know, which again everybody knew, that Mandelson had at best um turned a blind eye to um Epstein's uh appalling uh treatment of women, but in many ways had lent him credibility. Right? Despite the fact he'd been in prison. Uh but as I say, wider than that, even before that, you'd have said Epstein is not the kind of person any decent person should be associating with. The you know, the question

many people ask is why wasn't that in and of itself a red line for for Starmer? Starmer says, oh, well there's all sorts of stuff about Mandelson's misbehaviour that I didn't know. Fine, right? W you th of course there was lots of stuff he didn't know. But'cause there's so much of it by the looks of things. But but that but nonetheless you've got to you know, people will continue to ask why was it not a red line? um, the he was employing somebody Mandelson, giving him a big job.

who had As I say, given respectability to this terrible and so so and and Mandelson I don't think Samuel will ever be able to answer that satisfactorily. Because also what had happened by that point when Mandelson was appointed as US US ambassador is we'd already had the whole Big interview with Andrew, which with Emily Maitless. Like that had all happened. It was in the public sphere that being mates with Epstein was. te not a good thing, was terrible, was and yes.

Still, knowing that he was mates with him, or you know, however he wanted to refer it to their relationship, but still connected to him, having seen the public outcry about Andrew, you would surely go, it is not worth the risk.

Like what I don't understand in this, when you look at Mandelson's history, you know, he was an MP for a region uh, you know, uh the Hartlepool, which is basically where I grew up, it's Teesside. Just he lived in a dark cloud, you know, he was called the Prince of Darkness. He lived in this dark cloud of scandal. So wouldn't your spidey senses say to you

it's not worth the risk with Mandelson. What are we gonna get from him that's worth the risk of potentially another scandal? And his mates with Epstein. You know, when it comes again to the Starmer appointment of him, as I say, there is the sort of the sort of probity

question around uh Epstein and and and Manson's association with him. And actually one of the things that's sort of interesting to me in terms of how this has an impact on Starmer and his ability to govern g uh fr from now on is I was talking to the senior city figure today who was telling me that there are women who work for him who uh had been involved in working for accounts for you know, an institution that have connections with

Epstein and these women are saying we're just not gonna do this anymore, right? We are not gonna work on this account. And and and uh you know, th th there must be I would assume women in government who will be thinking about Starmer's appointment of Mandelson and just thinking Can I really work with this guy, right? Um, given that he turned a blind eye in this appointment. Um so th this is these will this you know, there's gonna there's gonna be ramifications.

Here. But then as you say, I mean, one of the things I, you know, in the run-up, because obviously there were lots of rumors that Starmer was going to appoint Malcolm. Yeah one of the things I said I probably said it here, but I definitely said it, you know, on the news or on ITV. You know, I said this is gonna end in tears because whenever you employ Mandelson, it ends in tears for the employer, right? Because he always crosses a line.

Uh uh so th there is both the sort of probity issue in terms of appointing Mandelson, but there's also just the practical politics thing. Why would you take that risk? Exactly. Given as you say that Mandelson had to resign uh over financial scandals. In the first c place it was this um a hidden home loan from uh a f a fellow minister bloke called Jeffrey Robinson.

Um and then the second time i i you know, was the relationship with the Hindujas. It actually in the end, although he had to resign, he was cleared um Madison of wrongdoing in that case, even though the sort of smell lingered um around it. I th why do people uh uh c you know, continue to employ him, it is because he is uh you know, both a brilliant political Tactician and s and strategist. He has g Because he's in bed with loads of billionaires.

Like even when he was trade commissioner, there was all this scrutiny around, you know, these free yacht holidays, private jets that he borrowed. There was uh holidays on a Russian oligarch's yacht and corfu. And there was uh there's so many things. It's not just like it was only those two things. It's like

There's just it's so murky his background in it. I mean we keep coming back to the same point. Why would you bother? How what he gave this very he gave this very odd just on that, he gave this very odd interview uh to the Times. Only a couple of days. I go. It wasn't about the money. It was sudden he didn't quite explain why he continued to have his relationship with Epstein, but he insisted it wasn't about the money. But, you know, if you just look at the track record.

You know, he is just somebody. And we I you know, we've seen our you know, we've seen many other politicians over the years behave like this. He w he he he apparently wanted to have the billionaire lifestyle without being the billionaire. So he's you know, he's taking the holidays, he's going on the Yeah, I mean... i hi he he he would argue that gives him access to y information that is useful, you know, not only to himself personally, but to his role as a as a as as as

As a minister, but that's sort of ridiculous, right? I mean, you know, w w one of the things you know you know, one of the things that is is you want from ministers is an ability to be impartial, to stand back from interests. And the problem and you know, one of the one of the you know, the most damaging things about these emails, this ema these em th you know, this these email conversations that he had with Epstein is the extent to which he plainly feels beholden to

Epstein. Yeah. Um and you know that undermines any, you know, sense that he could be making impartial decisions as business secretary in the public. interest.

The author so th th th these emails, um you know, there's one by uh actually a former BP executive who went to work for Gordon Brown in Downing Street called Nick Butler, there's another one from um a very close advisor to the Prime Minister, uh, woman called Shruiti Vadira, or sorry, the former Prime Minister, very close advisor Gordon Brown, um, uh, you know, when he was both Chancellor and and and Prime Minister, who then went on to have some big roles in the

City. She uh was chairman of Santander in the UK. She's chairman uh of the Pru. She's chairman of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Very impressive person. You know, spoke to Butler um after his analysis. of the s sort of state of the uh economy.

the state of the financial sector after the financial crisis. That was all passed on to Epstein and it included in it some really quite sensitive policy recommendations like yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw. Um the the public finances were under control. It it ha it had recommendations

about how you should go into the general election trying to offset fears about future tax rises. This is all not only sensitive political information, but but information of enormous use if you're an investor, right? And to the banks themselves. um as it were. This was all forwarded by Mandelson to uh Epstein. Um As I spoke to to to to Butler, he's deeply upset. He feels totally betrayed. on. Sri Davidira conducted a highly detailed survey of whether banks were providing

Credit after the for in the aftermath of the financial crisis. This is something that you and I, when we were at the BBC, were absolutely immersed in the so-called credit crunch and how serious that was for the uh for the economy. She does this detailed analysis. uh of whether or not the problem is the supply of credit or demand for credit. Um and again comes up with really very sensitive c conclusions. of h of direct relevance if you're a bank

to what you think the government is then gonna do in terms of pressure on you or future policy, right? Hugely confidential information. This again, all forwarded by Mandelson. to Epstein and you know, talking to uh those close to Vadira, she's absolutely yeah I mean shocked beyond belief, partly because she'd worked, you know, she was in Mandelson's department at the time this stuff was forwarded. So she feels again, um, I understand.

Utterly let down and utterly betrayed. And just to on that point, you know, about us working together in that in that time, everything.

every piece of information which you got, which you delivered on the news, it had impact in terms of of, you know, market reaction. And so dangerous it is to have leaked information because I remember times, you know, we were sitting there talking about what could go out on the news that wouldn't cause a run on the banks, but equally trying to be transparent about everything going on and And so to think he was just forwarded on these emails and then who wishes. Yes, to the financial sector.

quite got to the bottom of where Epstein's absolutely enormous wealth came from. You know, but most people believe s a lot of it came from sex trafficking. But but it but you know, there's a lot that is still To be uh uncovered about that. And you know, one of the things that's come out of the Epstein files when you look at the bank accounts is that sh enormous. Flows of money in the

you know, s something like a billion dollars in and out of his account over uh uh uh just one account over a period of time. And, you know, uh you know, one of the reasons this scandal is gonna run for years is because you know, obviously unpicking where all that money when where it came from is going to be hugely

um hugely important. There's that other uh uh astonishing uh disclosure. I mean you'll remember when we were reporting on all of this at the BBC, but you know, during the financial crisis and afterwards, you know, the contentious issue of bankers' bonuses. Yes. Right. And you know, the the uh suggestion, not the suggestion actually, the the the reality was that one of the reasons why the banks took such crazy lending risk.

And investment risks was to generate short-term profits that inflated the value of bonuses and share options. And so one of the most important reforms after the financial crisis was. To restrict the amount that bankers could make from these short term gains. To provide a disincentive for them to use effectively taxpayers' money, because taxpayers effectively underwrite banks always.

you know, e you know, effectively to dissuade banks from taking these short term risks. So, you know, putting a b a much higher tax on bankers' bonuses was not just a way for the government to get some Money because in the end it doesn't raise that much money. It's actually more about saying to the banks, right? It's fine to make money if you're taking sustainable in you know, investments over the long term, but you mustn't mustn't within your remuneration structures.

have incentives for people to take crazy risks. That's why those, you know, that that tax was was introduced. And here you have Epstein on behalf of the banking community complaining about this tax on bankers bonuses. And then Mandelson actually saying to Epstein, you know, you should tell your friends, and in particular your friends at JP Morgan, to mildly threaten uh the Chancellor

um, who at the time was Alistair Darling for of you know, for various negative consequences for the UK if they don't reform in and and soften the tax on bonuses. And in particular they wanted to be you know, the tax to be reduced. And quite interestingly, you know, an old friend of mine, Faisal Islam, uh, who actually's now got a job that I used to have at the BBC economics editor, wrote this very interesting blog two days ago.

Saying that he had a conversation uh years ago with the late Alistair Darling, um uh where Alistair Darling, you know, r said to him he was really shocked.

That he had a conversation with you know, Jamie Diamond, the boss of JP Morgan, where you know Jamie Diamond said how angry he was about the banker's bonuses and and Faisal says, you know, when he read that email from uh Mandelson telling Ms Epstein to tell the bankers and JP Morgan to mile you know, i he he said, my God, you know, this this was like a you know, I read the script. for what actually h then got passed on. Uh two you know to darling himself and obviously darling felt

bruised and uh because he was still talking about it a year or so later. So uh it it is it is honestly it's sort of jaw dropping yeah uh this br this again this breach of trust and the idea That as business secretary, because this is the point, right? It's not just that he's passing on completely improper advice.

To Epstein, it is that he's also betraying a close colleague, the then Chancellor, Alistair Darling. Can you imagine if Alistair Darling was still alive, what he would feel that his colleague in cabinet Right. Yeah. Is basically telling, you know, a you know, a banker to have a go at him. It's incredible. But also he's not just letting down his colleagues, he's letting down the country. He is there as a representative of the taxpayers and he was advising

bank executives on how to bully our Chancellor. Like and and all of that, it isn't just about the rich men at the top. This is about this this impacts everybody's lives in terms of what happened next.

With banking and and that's what I don't get is d I mean, Mandelson must have got into the job for power, never to to, you know, help The UK. I don't know if he his lack of personal loyalty is literally off the charts. I mean, um it i i I was just thinking about what it must be like to be Gordon Brown in these circumstances'cause, you know H here is Gordon Brown who brings in Mandelson. You know, Ban Mandelson is, as you say, redeemed many times, and you know, one of the big jobs.

that he ends up with is a is a commission uh uh is a uh is as a commissioner for the you know the European Union, right? And, you know, so he's he's got this big European Union commissioner job. And then uh Gordon Brown, who had very difficult, always difficult relations with Mandelson, nonetheless. thinks okay, this guy does know about commerce and about

you know, encourage on entrepreneurialism. So he brings him it back into when when Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister, he brings Mandelson back into the government. He s effectively makes him his deputy um and and and uh he he makes him business secretary. Um but as I say he's effectively the number two in the in in in the government. And then you see towards the end of his time in office.

That Mandelson is basically scheming with Epstein about how to get, you know, Gordon Brown out. And there's this again, I mean, there are a whole series of jaw-dropping emails, but on the day. Uh the that Gordon Brown uh actually resigns in public, right? This is after that uh you know, election uh where you know, he uh uh you know, w where where the Tories become the biggest party but they don't have an overall majority. And there are days of uncertainty

about whether or not Cameron will be able to put together a coalition to actually govern. And we have a d you know, we we have tremendous instability in markets over this period. pound is going up and down i in in a very volatile way because it's just very unclear whether or not, you know, we're gonna get a stable government after all of this. And Gordon Brown, you know, wants to stay in office um and

You know, the Lib Dems do do well, and there is this theoretical possibility that actually Brown could do a deal with the Lib Dems to stay in office, right? So M'Mandelson is trying to persuade um Brown To give up the reins of power, right? And this is all there in black and white. You know, he's basically leaking to Epstein how much he wants.

you know, he you know, he's a minister in a Labour government and he's leaking to Epstein how much he wants Brown out. And then on the day, finally, Brown has decided he's gonna go. So at nine o'clock that morning, there's his there's his email. from uh Mandelson to Epstein saying I've put basically I can't remember the exact words, but he basically says I've persuaded Gordon Brown to go, right? So Epstein knows

that that Brown is going. This is market sensitive information, which which Brown does not confirm publicly until five o'clock that afternoon. So he's not only scheming to get Brown out. But he's also, as I say, p you know, passing on. Hugely price sensitive. You know, you know, who knows whether Epstein either personally traded on it or passed it on to other people who might have traded on the information. Mandelson had no boundaries, no boundaries whatsoever.

who had given him respectability again in British politics by bringing him back and giving him I mean, just amaz imagine betraying somebody who brings you back in those circumstances. Uh, it to that extent. And then as I say, passing on this hugely price sensitive information. Okay, we're gonna take a quick break now. Uh loads more to talk about. We'll do that in a couple of minutes.

This episode is brought to you by IG. Now let's talk about commission fees because some investment platforms charge between£6 and£12 per trade. Pretty standard, right? Wrong. With IG, you pay 0% commission on all stocks and shares. Yep, you heard that right. IG is a commission-free investing platform.

That has been supporting UK investors for over 50 years. They have over 15,000 markets to trade or invest in, and they've won a ton of awards for their service. While many investment platforms take a cut. I.G. allows more money to go where it belongs. No brainer. Millions of UK investors are paying unnecessary fees, which can add up to hundreds and maybe even thousands of pounds annually. Could switch into IG as your long-term investment platform, save you money this year?

Check them out at IG.com. Your capital is at risk, other fees may apply. Trading at Schwab is now powered by Ameritra. even more specialized support than ever before. Like access to the trade desk. Of passionate traders ready to tackle anything from the most complex trading questions to a simple strategy gut check.

Need assistance? No problem. Get 24-7 professional answers and live help and access support by phone, email, and in-platform chat. That's how Schwab is here for you to help you trade brilliantly. Learn more at schwab.com slash trading. It's tax season, and at LifeLock, we know you're tired of numbers. But here's a big one you need to hear. Billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud.

Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points Lifelock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit Lifelock.com/slash podcast for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.

What's gonna happen next, do you think? There is just another point that brings us back to to Starmer. um and the stability of this this government that I think is is important. So we talked earlier about why Starmer would appoint somebody like Mandelson to that hugely important job. of ambassador in Washington when it was known that he had a very unhealthy relationship with a sex criminal.

um Epstein and when we know that Mandelson's own history is, you know, one of being forced to resign um because of scandalous things. That he had done. Right? Yeah. Um the justification that they give, they believed, and they they say there's also evidence that this judgment of theirs was correct. that because of his business connections

um and his negotiating skills, he was likely to be a very effective negotiator with the water. Negotiating skills. Negotiating skills. Let's call this out. It's not negotiating skills. He was just giving infin people information. But let's but but let's just

though go to the w w what I would regard as the the really f deep um and possibly for this government lethal flaw in in all of this, right? So Um, you know, and they would say, for example, you know, we got this these better tra tariff arrangements with um

uh the you know the US, you know, arguably uh partly because of of you know w whether you know m you know Mandelson's ability to sort of woo the Trump administration. But the other side of it which is the bit that I think shows that this is a sort of um a policy sort of essentially not on solid foundations but on sand is I I I do think that the the the back of the judgment that Starmer and his people will have made is oh well it it's sort of okay.

to appoint somebody like Mandelson who's got this apparently sleazy you know relationship with Epstein, because of course there is so much evidence that Trump had a relationship with Epstein and therefore, you know, it certainly in the in terms of this relationship with the most powerful man in in the world.

The Epstein connection is not a bar on appointing him to high office. And this is the biggest problem, I think, for Starmer is It shows to an extent th the way that his relationship, his so called pragmatic relationship with the Trump administration. is based on turning a blind eye to normal moral and ethical

considerations. And, you know, you would argue that so much else of our relationship with America at the moment, given the c you know, the the extraordinarily um upsetting, you know, policies that the Trump administration has. push through, whether it's their approach to immigration, whether it is the many would say the murders committed by his ICE um you know, enforcement.

Officers. You know, the the th th we don't comment on all of that. We don't regard any of that behavior as a bar to having close relations. uh with America. We don't regard, you know, many would say that there've been a number of occasions where Trump has breached international law. Again, we don't regard that as a bar to having close and friendly relationship with America. And, you know, you know, you would argue that the same, you know, lack of Cảm ơn các bạn đã theo dõi và hẹn gặp lại.

m moral um th the s the same lack of any ethical basis. Also, you know, is behind the decision to appoint Mandelson. And ultimately, if you see that the way that the Mandelson appointment has backfired and damaged Starmer, you I do I think you can read across from that that simply saying, you know, the national interest means ignoring ethical considerations, you know, may at some point.

really cause serious damage to him and this government. And and so I think that you can't you know I I just you know, I just think that the that the the the the Mandelson Episode and the way that it is damaging Starmer should give all of them pause for thought about whether, in effect.

the sort of carni approach is more s of of standing up to Trump is broadly more sustainable for a country with our values and our history than the one of we're never gonna comment on Uh you know, essentially when we think Trump has crossed a moral line, we're just gonna ignore it. uh you know, coming back to that appointment of him to US ambassador. The person who was doing it before him, Karen Pierce, was doing a good job, wasn't it? It wasn't like we needed to

replace her'cause she was doing all right. She wa and so that again, why take that risk? Well, one of the things I meant one of things I talked about very very much at the r in the run up to uh appointment of of Madison was precisely that. I mean Karen Pierce, everybody, uh, both on this side of the pond in the Foreign Office, but also within the Trump team, they all said, you know, Pierce had done an amazing job of building a relationship. with Trump and his

his team. She was at the end of her term, but it was A live possibility that she would have been asked, she could have been asked to stay on another year. She would have stayed on another year. um uh if asked to do so. And again, you know, Sarma's misjudgment in not doing that, um, looks very serious.

So in terms of what happens next, we know that there's now in a criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. But do you think there's gonna be more that comes out? Well there's a ton of stuff that's gonna happen. I mean, w we haven't talked about the Financial Conduct Authority, which is the city regulator uh the Looks at market abuse. Um, there's something called the Market Abuse Directive, and there's the Financial Services and Markets Act, both of which are

uh important bits of legislation that are intended to prevent market manipulation. And so one of the things that almost certainly Will happen alongside the Metropolitan Police investigation is an investigation by the FCA about essentially whether any of the information that was passed to Epstein by Mandelson Council. as you know, breaches of that legislation. Whether we w whether we've got market manipulation and market abuse um uh breaches.

here. Um and and then, you know, th there are uh ramifications for so many senior business people. I mean there's an absolutely gripping piece in the telegraph um about uh Arguably one of the UK's Most successful tech investors. He's a bloke called Ian Osborne, was in public relations, then set up a uh uh an investment vehicle. So he is the co-founder and chief executive of an investment fund called.

Hedosophia, I'm never quite sure whether I'm saying it um uh properly. It's it's it I mean I'm assuming it means something like, you know. Love of pleasure, you know, hedonism and knowledge and all that kind of stuff. But anyway, it's a highly successful investment fund. Um, the Telegraph has done this uh written this absolutely gripping.

piece about the back and forth emails between Osborne and Epstein um in which uh you know, Osborne is helping um Epstein uh with you know or or or or all sorts of sort of basically financial campaigns. Um and there's also sort of jaw dropping uh there are jaw dropping emails um from uh Epstein to there's to to a woman that, you know, allegedly seems to have set up with um

Osborne. Um and uh it i it it's it's a it's a uh an email about whether or not this woman had sex with Osborne or I think sorry, and and and Osb whether he had sex with Osborne or you know, Osborne has subsequently put out a statement saying he had no idea that this woman, you know was was not just a friend. I mean the whole i the whole it's as I say it's an absolutely gripping read. you know, whether or not Osborne can continue to run this

Uh business. Well we'll see, won't we? Uh he he's certainly got questions to answer about his relationship with Epstein. Ian Osborne says that he had absolutely no knowledge of Epstein's sex crime. You know, just in the case of Mandelson, when you put in Mandelson's name, there are six thousand different document entries uh you know relating to Mandelson's relationship with Epstein.

of powerful people uh in finance, in business, unbelievably anxious now about what more is gonna come out about their relationship with Epstein. So this is by no means over. This i you know, this will continue. I mean this is I I do think this is the financial scandal.

of our time. It's almost certainly in the British context the political scandal of our time. As and when, you know, more detail emerges, if it ever does, about Trump relationship with Epstein, it you know, c may well turn into the defining scandal of Trump's term in office. I uh you know, i y th th th the magnitude of you know, the Epstein Epstein's relationship with the rich and powerful. And and not just a scandal in terms of

finance and politics and everything else. Let's not forget this is about women as well and how some of the most powerful people in society, viewed women, you know, women, young women who came from, you know, a lot of them from poor backgrounds, broken homes, who were treated. But that's that's one of the reasons why this is

The worst such scandal of our lifetimes. Of course it is. Right, we should probably wrap things up. They no doubt we will be talking about this again and as we say the ramifications of it are still unfolding. But thank you very much for listening to us. That's it from us. Bye bye. Goodbye.