Speaker 1: The Prime Minister was made to look utterly hopeless and
Speaker 1: foolish at the dispatch box. I was watching what Kemy
Speaker 1: did to him, and eventually, after three hard questions, he
Speaker 1: had to admit that actually that he did know some
Speaker 1: of these things. It's going to come even further. I
Speaker 1: cannot believe that in the vetting of Peter Manilson, with
Speaker 1: his track record for having lied previously to governments, that
Speaker 1: m I five and the Security services generally would not
Speaker 1: have uncovered a whole series of issues about his relationship
Speaker 1: with Epstein, and that alone should have been enough to
Speaker 1: stop him being the ambassador because that relationship was toxic.
Speaker 2: And I had a good morning, hits Andy. It's a
Speaker 2: fifth of February and as you see by the background,
Speaker 2: stop politicians lying and these five minutes run. I've not
Speaker 2: done anything for few days because I've been busy, but
Speaker 2: I couldn't help but stepping in trying to like, share,
Speaker 2: comment and subscribe if you can, that would be absolutely wonderful.
Speaker 2: But you're what I'm going to talk about, don't you? Yeah?
Speaker 2: The Prime Minister. Wow, what I show? That was eh yesterday?
Speaker 2: It's all about this guy, Peter Manderson. So Peter Bough
Speaker 2: Peter Benjamin Mandersson born in October fifty three as a
Speaker 2: British former politician, lobbyist and diplomat. They sent the figure
Speaker 2: in the Labor Party. He served as Member of Parliament
Speaker 2: for Horlepool from ninety two to two o four and
Speaker 2: helped senior post under Tony Blair Gordon Brown. Yeah, that's
Speaker 2: where the problem is, I think as well, including Secretary
Speaker 2: Safe of Northern Irelands, Secretary for Business and First Sectory
Speaker 2: of State and the British Ambassador to the US in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five. He's been prominent in the nineteen eighties
Speaker 2: as the Labor director of communications with the Blair New
Speaker 2: Labor ideas, and of course he's currently in trouble for
Speaker 2: lying about his association with the convicted pedophowl Epstein.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: What's really does it for me is the Prime Minister
Speaker 2: all the time secure starmer knew about Mandelssinh's involvement with
Speaker 2: Epstein because of a press briefing a couple of years ago,
Speaker 2: maybe twenty three, I think it was. So what happened
Speaker 2: then my five, the security services whoever they are, and
Speaker 2: the vetting process to become a minister a Member Parliament etc.
Speaker 2: Didn't find that Manderson and Epstein was connected in any way.
Speaker 2: That's very strange, isn't it. But the Prime Minister and
Speaker 2: it's on the public record that they did know about it, well,
Speaker 2: at least Arma did. But the Veting poscess still appointed
Speaker 2: him in one of the big jobs in Great Britain.
Speaker 2: The Ambassador to the USA wires Starmer's sort of level
Speaker 2: you know digit to ID well. He dropped plans to
Speaker 2: make a new digit ID app compulsory for right to
Speaker 2: work checks. Family Farms Tax late twenty five watered down
Speaker 2: the imposition of inheritance tax on family farms worker rates
Speaker 2: Late twenty five backtracked and plan to introduced day one
Speaker 2: and fair dismissal rates. Benefits Dune twenty five reversed the
Speaker 2: plan to taking eligibility for the disabled benefits system after
Speaker 2: major backlash the winter field payments are twenty five. He
Speaker 2: scaled back that the planned university universally winter fuel payments
Speaker 2: for pensioners. The International Aid in February twenty five reduced
Speaker 2: the development budget despite previous pledges to restore it. Green
Speaker 2: spending February twenty four, a pre election promise dropped the
Speaker 2: flagship twenty eight billion a year green prosperity plan. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and as a Febuy twenty sixth Labor when Peter are
Speaker 2: urging the government to abandon further proposals, including plans to
Speaker 2: be strict protests overhaul jury trials. You know, so there's
Speaker 2: no jury trials in certain offenses and council local elections
Speaker 2: because they're not ready for them. Over twenty local elections
Speaker 2: could be canceled until they sort out the mess. Additionally,
Speaker 2: Scottish Labor Leader and so back tracked on support for
Speaker 2: Peter Manson following new relevations in the Epstein files. Well
Speaker 2: you can make this one up, could you really?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 2: I want to drain your attention. Then everybody else is
Speaker 2: attention to the Nolan principles and there's seven ethical standards
Speaker 2: for public life. Selfishness, selflessness orders. A public office should
Speaker 2: act solely in terms of the public interest, although any
Speaker 2: interest in tecretory. Avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people,
Speaker 2: yeah or organizations that may try inappropriately to influence them
Speaker 2: in their work. Objectability act and take decisions impartially failure
Speaker 2: and unmerit using the best evidence available. Accountability orders a
Speaker 2: public office is accountable to the public for their decisions
Speaker 2: and actions. Yeah, hopenness, it can here, Starmer. You can
Speaker 2: learn to think decisions that should be taken in an
Speaker 2: open and transparent manner, with the information restricted only when necessary.
Speaker 2: Honest honesty. Holders of public office should be truthful and leadership.
Speaker 2: Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their
Speaker 2: own behavior and actively promote them to others to do
Speaker 2: the same. So I suggest that kissed Armer, Labor government,
Speaker 2: the Conservative government, they all need to eat a bit
Speaker 2: of the known principles. I think, what do you think?
Speaker 2: Let me know, like, share, comment and subscribe. I'm going
Speaker 2: to play an ITV clip this morning where a minister
Speaker 2: was being grilled over this Starmer issue, the Mandelssohn Epstein issue,
Speaker 2: and it was quite a good interfood from Susannah Reid
Speaker 2: and the gentleman with a yeah, have a look and
Speaker 2: let me know what you think. But yeah, the sooner
Speaker 2: they start, these politicians stop lying and the quicker Starma resigns,
Speaker 2: the better for all of us. What do we have next? Well,
Speaker 2: what do you think? Lima comment? Should it be before UK?
Speaker 2: Should it be Robert Lowe's political party? Should it be
Speaker 2: Britain first You let me know. But either way, one
Speaker 2: big question when they get into power, which party might
Speaker 2: let us down? Out of them three more? Or should
Speaker 2: we just stick to our traditional labor conservative demon Greens.
Speaker 2: Let me know. Anyway, you will take care and thanks
Speaker 2: for listening.
Speaker 4: It's probably the biggest political scandal of his country in
Speaker 4: living memory, and secure Starmer is fighting for his political
Speaker 4: future after he admitted that he knew about Mandalson's friendship
Speaker 4: with Epstein when he picked him for the job, but
Speaker 4: claimed that he lied repeatedly about the true extent of
Speaker 4: that relationship.
Speaker 5: This morning, the Housing Secretary Steve Reid, said that giving
Speaker 5: Mandelsshon the role was a rational appointment. Steve Reed joins us, now,
Speaker 5: very good morning to you. Either the Prime Minister was
Speaker 5: totally naive and believed a liar about the extent of
Speaker 5: his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which was a matter of
Speaker 5: public record. We've just spoken to one of the journalists
Speaker 5: who reported on it. Or he didn't care about Jeffrey
Speaker 5: Epstein's victims and the survivors and thought it was worth
Speaker 5: the risk to appoint Lord Mandlsson. Why are you shaking
Speaker 5: your head, mister Reid, because.
Speaker 6: Neither of those two things you've just said other truth. Unfortunately,
Speaker 6: if people had known when Mandelsson was appointed what was
Speaker 6: really going on, he never would have been given He
Speaker 6: never would have been given that job. The victims, above
Speaker 6: all else, the victims of Epstein's crimes, have to be
Speaker 6: and should be at the front of all of our.
Speaker 4: Mandelson did, I'm sorry, but they did know.
Speaker 6: They didn't.
Speaker 4: It was reported in them I'm so sorry times they didn't,
Speaker 4: and that information was also give to the Prime Minister
Speaker 4: at a press conference that Mandalsson had spent four had
Speaker 4: spent nights at Epstein's mansion in New York. Now, you
Speaker 4: don't spend time in someone's private house unless you're pretty close.
Speaker 5: To them while they were serving their sentence, while Epstein
Speaker 5: was in prison, So of course you knew, and.
Speaker 6: There are documents that will be released to explain exactly
Speaker 6: what Mandalson said about that. But what Mandelson did was
Speaker 6: he lied and pretended his relationship with Epstein had finished,
Speaker 6: and that even when the relationship had been ongoing, it
Speaker 6: was next to nothing. He barely knew him, they had
Speaker 6: very little contact. That is what Mandelson said. The vetting
Speaker 6: process didn't show up anything that contradicted that, and so
Speaker 6: the appointment was made. Deceiving and manipulating.
Speaker 5: Are looking at photographs of Lord Mandelsson with Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 5: We know he spent time slept at his house. We
Speaker 5: know about his connection.
Speaker 6: Photographs that came out after he had been appointed. None
Speaker 6: of this was known.
Speaker 2: At the time.
Speaker 6: As soon as the Prime Minister found out months ago
Speaker 6: that Mandelson had deceived him, was manipulative in the answers
Speaker 6: that he gave to the questions during the vetting process.
Speaker 6: As soon as the Prime Minister found out about it,
Speaker 6: he sacked Mandelson on the spot. Mandlsson was woken up
Speaker 6: at five am and told he was sacked as the
Speaker 6: UK's ambassador to the United States because the Prime Minister
Speaker 6: took decisive action the moment he found out that Peter
Speaker 6: Mandelson had lied to him. Yes, this wasn't just yesterday,
Speaker 6: This was months ago when the Prime Minister found out
Speaker 6: what had really been going on.
Speaker 4: And it wasn't just the Prime Minister in possession of
Speaker 4: that additional information, it was also in the public domains.
Speaker 4: Of course, he had to sack and he had to
Speaker 4: act because we all knew what had been going on.
Speaker 4: The key question that many people are asking this morning
Speaker 4: is this, setting aside Mandleson's undoubted lies during the vetting process,
Speaker 4: wasn't enough already known about his relationship with Epstein to
Speaker 4: comprehensively disbar him from such an important job.
Speaker 6: It's easy, isn't it, with hindsight when you do know
Speaker 6: the truth to look back at a time when that
Speaker 6: was hindsight and Mason was appointed to this based on
Speaker 6: what you're asking, No, you're not actually letting me answer.
Speaker 4: No, But because you've missed asking my question, sir, The
Speaker 4: question was this.
Speaker 6: If I haven't even answered it, how do you know
Speaker 6: I've misinterela.
Speaker 4: Because of your opening statement you talked about hindsight. What
Speaker 4: I was saying was that the information that was in
Speaker 4: possession of the government and of the Prime Minister, setting
Speaker 4: aside Mandleson's lies during the vetting process, wasn't that information
Speaker 4: sufficient to disbar him from being No, it's important.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 6: I know you're saying that because you've got the benefit
Speaker 6: of hindsight, But at the time, No, it wasn't. There
Speaker 6: was a process that was gone through Mandelsson lied. The
Speaker 6: process includes the security forces nothing additional was thrown up
Speaker 6: at the time to make make it clear that Mandelson
Speaker 6: was lying, and so he was appointed. Everyone regrets that now,
Speaker 6: of course, But as soon as the truth came to
Speaker 6: light with that first release of files from the United
Speaker 6: States months ago, the Prime Minister took immediate and decisive action.
Speaker 6: He phoned him up at five am in the morning
Speaker 6: and sacked him on the spot as the UK's ambassador
Speaker 6: to the United States. Now further information has come to
Speaker 6: light over recent days and the Prime Minister has taken
Speaker 6: further action to spoken to the King to remove Peter
Speaker 6: Mandelsson from the Privy Council and has announced that we
Speaker 6: are going to change the law to strip him of
Speaker 6: his title of a lord. Every time a new information
Speaker 6: has come to light, the Prime Minister has acted, but
Speaker 6: he regrets. We all regret that Mandelson was ever appointed,
Speaker 6: but that happened because the vetting process did not demonstrate
Speaker 6: what was really going on.
Speaker 5: I am really confused by what you're saying. I know
Speaker 5: you're confused by our questions, but I am confused about
Speaker 5: what you're telling us. Because the Financial Times had reported
Speaker 5: in twenty twenty three about the relationship between Lord Mandelsshon
Speaker 5: and Jeffrey Epstein, and that reporter told Sekir Starmer that
Speaker 5: at a press conference in twenty twenty four. But you're
Speaker 5: saying it was new information, It wasn't.
Speaker 6: It was in the public saying. What I'm saying, Susannah
Speaker 6: is the vetting process. Peter Mandelsson lied and said that
Speaker 6: his relationship with Epstein had ended long ago and had
Speaker 6: been next to nothing. In any case, the vetting process
Speaker 6: did not show that that was a lie, and so
Speaker 6: Mandelson was appointed.
Speaker 5: Now that vetting very sorry.
Speaker 6: Clearly need to look at that.
Speaker 5: So despite the fact it was reported, it was put
Speaker 5: to Kitts Darma it was a matter of public record.
Speaker 4: I'm not true, okay.
Speaker 5: So instead of instead of that all being a matter
Speaker 5: of public record, the vetting process was simply to ask
Speaker 5: Lord Mandelsson if it was true and rely on Lord
Speaker 5: mandals said saying it wasn't true.
Speaker 6: No, it wasn't that. Well, that's right what it was.
Speaker 5: So how else did you know this story was Well,
Speaker 5: I just I just said, didn't I did you hear
Speaker 5: me say?
Speaker 6: I said the security forces were involved in vetting as well,
Speaker 6: and that threw up nothing of additional concern. You've repeated
Speaker 6: people had known at the time, But you've repeated people
Speaker 6: known at the time, he wouldn't have been appointed. All
Speaker 6: of these documents will be published about you don't have
Speaker 6: successes like you're doing.
Speaker 5: Now Security services and the vetting process.
Speaker 6: Well, it shows that the vetting process wasn't good enough,
Speaker 6: and that's one of the things we need to look at.
Speaker 6: But it is a long established vetting process that long
Speaker 6: precedes this government coming into power. But clearly it failed
Speaker 6: on this occasion. Information that should have been made available
Speaker 6: to the Prime Minister that was not, and so he
Speaker 6: took a decision without knowing that Madelson was lying. As
Speaker 6: soon as he found out, he sacked him. Now, we
Speaker 6: can't legislate against liars lying. What you can judge somebody
Speaker 6: by is what do they do when the liar is exposed.
Speaker 6: And Keir Starmer could not have acted quick more, more quickly,
Speaker 6: or more decisively. He phoned him up at five am
Speaker 6: and sacked.
Speaker 4: Him on the sabots. But the fact of the matter,
Speaker 4: and you keep avoiding this point, do you keep invoking hindsights.
Speaker 6: Anything I finished single question?
Speaker 4: Could I finish my question, sir well?
Speaker 6: Or you're making up lies about me avoiding your questions
Speaker 6: and answering everything.
Speaker 4: Making up lies. And I think anybody watching this interview
Speaker 4: will observe that you have used the excuse of hindsights
Speaker 4: to defend the Prime Minister. What I'm putting to you,
Speaker 4: and I'll try it for the third time, is that
Speaker 4: what the Prime Minister was already aware of before the
Speaker 4: vetting process was undergone, the failed vetting process before that,
Speaker 4: so we can't talk about hindsight. He was aware that
Speaker 4: Manson had had a close relationship with a convicted pedophile.
Speaker 4: For he knew that. That wasn't hindsight. He knew that,
Speaker 4: and he just.
Speaker 6: True, that is not true.
Speaker 4: That is not true, category true.
Speaker 6: When Mandelssohn went through the vetting process, not everything in
Speaker 6: the papers is God's gospel truth. You know, there was
Speaker 6: a vetting process that was gone through. Mandelsson was asked questions,
Speaker 6: he provided answers that covered it up, and no other
Speaker 6: part of the vetting process exposed what was really going on.
Speaker 4: As soon as.
Speaker 6: We discovered what had really happened, Mandelssoh was sacked. It
Speaker 6: is hindsight. I know you don't like me using the term,
Speaker 6: but we have hindsight, now we see what he was
Speaker 6: up to. We see his deception and lies for what
Speaker 6: they truly were. Everyone regrets that he was ever appointed
Speaker 6: to this job, but had the information we now know,
Speaker 6: had that been available at the time, he would never
Speaker 6: have been appointed, and nor should he have been.
Speaker 3: Now I run the country with the bossy tone, barlem
Speaker 3: who knows best. I prefer the throne. Now it's a
Speaker 3: rule that just suits me. Do as you're told, and
Speaker 3: don't ask me. If you could see how things should
Speaker 3: be when I cancel actions, I pointed, say what you
Speaker 3: must do, what you think is wrong. I think for you,
Speaker 3: funny how your choices disappear when I cancel elections. In
Speaker 3: my profession, I come and love the body