A lot of this just works on selective ignorance. Ignorance of context, role, responsibility of a person in Starmer’s position. Ignorance of risk, regardless of legal investigation. Ignorance of politics.

Keir Starmer, is (or was by the time some people read this comment), the Prime Minister of The United Kingdom. He showed that he understood at least some of the risks of appointing someone like Peter Mandelson, a man who regardless of Epstein, had weirdly been brought back into power, twice.

Starmer had the Intelligence/security service at this disposal, with one of if not the highest levels of access. Starmer is/was in one of the most important roles in the United Kingdom, which specific responsibilities to protect the integrity of the Government, and his party.

Starmer failed to mitigate obvious risks to the standing of the UK government, to his party, Labour, and probably to those higher in the hierarchy (yes, they do exist, The Prime Minister is not the top). Worse, he brought the risk back in through the door, like inviting a vampire in.

An apology from Starmer over Mandelson, is really not enough, its lip service. Mitigating risk around who you put in important positions, and selecting the best person for the job, are absolutely fundamental responsibilities, and Starmer fucked up big time.

None of this even matters how actually bad a person Mandelson is. What matters are the risks of how a person such as that, might be perceived, based on risk of them getting involved with dodgy people like Epstein. That wasn’t even a risk, it was a known issue.