Starmer Defended Mandelson After Officials Knew of Epstein Emails, BBC Reveals

Starmer Defended Mandelson, Then Sacked Him: What Really Happened?

This week, Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced a big problem. The problem was Peter Mandelson. He is a well-known politician. Starmer made him the UK ambassador to the United States. Some people did not like this choice.

The problem got worse when it came out that Mandelson had a close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein was a criminal who hurt children. This caused a big political crisis.

At first, Starmer said he trusted Mandelson. He said this in Parliament during Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs). But less than one day later, Mandelson lost his job. This article tells what happened, step by step.

The Eye of the Storm

The Damning Discovery

The news started when BBC and The Guardian said that some officials in Number 10 and the Foreign Office already knew about bad emails from Mandelson before Starmer said he trusted him.

The BBC said a media report with the emails went to the Foreign Office on Tuesday. It was then sent to Number 10. Starmer says he did not see the full emails until Wednesday night. But many people said the government made a mistake.

Also Read: Tommy Robinson Protesters Attack Police During Violent Clashes

A Friendship on the Rocks

The emails showed that Mandelson stayed friends with Epstein even after 2008. In 2008, Epstein was convicted for crimes against a child.

The emails showed Mandelson calling Epstein “my best pal.” He also told Epstein to “fight for early release.” These messages showed he still supported Epstein.

This new information made it impossible for Starmer to keep defending him. The emails made Mandelson’s job impossible.

The ‘Best Pal’ Betrayal

Mandelson tried to explain himself. He gave an interview to The Sun. He said he was “sorry” for knowing Epstein. He called Epstein a “charismatic criminal liar.”

But the private emails showed he had a much closer friendship. The difference made people think Mandelson was not honest. This was why he lost his job.

One email was from 2003, in Epstein’s birthday book. Mandelson called Epstein “my best pal.”

Even though this was before Epstein’s crimes were known, it showed that Mandelson was very close to him. Later, when Mandelson said they were not close, it did not look true.

A Day of Confidence

The Gatekeepers

During PMQs, Starmer was asked many questions by the opposition, including Tory leader Kemi Badenoch.

Starmer said Mandelson was “important for UK-US relations” and that he trusted him. At that time, Starmer did not know the full emails. Later, the emails made him remove Mandelson.

Officials at Number 10 and the Foreign Office had the emails before Starmer acted. This raised questions:

When did they see the emails?
Why did they not tell the Prime Minister?
Was it a mistake or a plan to hide the news?

Critics said Starmer might not know, but his top staff, especially chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, pushed for Mandelson’s appointment.

Also Read: Man Charged With Sexually Assaulting Woman on Popular U.K. Beach

A Question of Judgment

Choosing Mandelson as ambassador was always risky. The government said Mandelson had full checks. But the emails showed the checks were not enough. Officials knew Mandelson and Epstein were friends, but they did not know the full story. This showed problems in judgment.

From Ambassador to Outcast

The day after Starmer defended Mandelson, he lost his job. The Foreign Office announced he would no longer be ambassador. Mandelson’s job ended very fast, after less than a year.

The Domino Effect

Reactions from the Ranks

This crisis came soon after Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner resigned over taxes. Losing two senior people made the government look weak.

The Conservatives said Starmer was indecisive. The scandals made the government look chaotic.

Some Labour MPs were unhappy. They said the government waited too long to act. The quick defense and sudden removal of Mandelson showed the party was not fully in control.

The Opposition’s Barrage

The Conservatives, led by Kemi Badenoch, used the scandal to attack Starmer. They said he lied about what he knew. They said he was weak and could not make hard decisions.

A Crisis of Leadership

The main problem is not just losing Mandelson. People now question Starmer’s skill and judgment. His team might not give him important information quickly. Defending Mandelson before knowing the emails will hurt him.

Past Scars

The High-Stakes Appointment

Mandelson had scandals before. He resigned twice from Tony Blair’s government—once over a loan and once over a passport. His past made this new problem worse.

Mandelson was chosen because he had many contacts. He could manage the UK-US relationship. It was a risky choice, but it did not work out.

Victims at the Forefront

The real problem is Epstein’s crimes and the people he hurt. Politics is important, but the victims’ suffering must be remembered. Being close to someone like Epstein feels like a betrayal.

The Pre-Epstein Past

Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein was known. He admitted it before. But the emails showed the friendship was closer than he said.

The Post-Conviction Correspondence

The emails after 2008 showed Mandelson still supported Epstein. This made it impossible for Mandelson to stay. Starmer had to act quickly.

Also Read: Keir Starmer Human Rights Manual Revealed: Impact on U.K. Migrant Deportations

The Echoes of a Problem

The crisis showed Starmer’s team may not handle information well. Officials had emails but did not tell the Prime Minister quickly. This happened before during Angela Rayner’s tax issue.

Looking Forward

The Transparency Test

The scandal hurt public trust and helped the opposition. The government must act clearly and decisively. President Donald Trump’s visit makes it harder.

People want honesty. They want to know who knew what and when. The government must improve and show this will not happen again.

FAQ

Also Read:BBC ITV BT and IMG Case Study: U.K. Watchdog Exposes $5.7M Freelancer Pay Collusion

Final Thoughts

The story shows two sides: Starmer defending Mandelson and then removing him. It shows how loyalty, trust, and judgment mix in politics. Hidden information will come out, and it can expose serious problems.

Author Bio

By Shoaib Khan – Shoaib Khan is a political journalist. He writes about UK politics and explains news in a simple and clear way.