radiofree.asia

BBC won’t answer why they failed to question Mandelson on Epstein links

Keir Starmer’s Labour government suffered it’s greatest scandal yet last week (at least based on media interest anyway – denying the genocide is still worse).

The scandal in question was the revelation that Peter Mandelson – a man we all knew was friends with Jeffrey Epstein – was friends with Jeffrey Epstein.

While independent media has been making noise about this for years, it barely received a mention in the mainstream press. This is a snippet of what news feeds look like now when you search ‘Peter Mandelson’:

Various news articles covering Mandelson, Epstein, and Keir Starmer

On Sunday 14 September, Labour business secretary Peter Kyle had an interesting response to a question about Starmer hiring Mandelson. We’re not sure who advised him to do this, but Kyle performed an ‘uno reverso’ by asking BBC interviewer Laura Kuenssberg why the media hadn’t pressed the point on Mandelson themselves:


While Labour are the absolute worst people to ask this question, it does need to be asked.

With that in mind, we put the question to the BBC ourselves.

Any comment?

We explained we were covering Labour’s accusation that the BBC failed to hold Peter Mandelson accountable for his links to Jeffrey Epstein. We then asked the following:

  • Does the BBC have any comment on why it hosted Mandelson on multiple occasions since he became ambassador without questioning him on his connections to Epstein?
  • Does the BBC have any comment on why it did not question Keir Starmer or members of his cabinet on why Peter Mandelson was appointed ambassador despite his connections to Epstein?
  • Does the BBC have any comment on why it did not raise the Mandelson-Epstein relationship prior to the 2024 election when Mandelson served as a close adviser to Keir Starmer?
  • Has the BBC launched an investigation into why these questions were not asked given that they were obviously of interest to the public given the events of the past several days?

The BBC let us know that they wouldn’t be commenting, but they did draw our attention to an article they wrote in February which referenced Mandelson’s links to Epstein. While this doesn’t answer our key question (‘why did you not question these people’), it is a great example of how the media handled Mandelson before it was decided his Epstein links had changed from ‘interesting tidbit’ to ‘career-ending scandal’.

This is the title and image they went with in the article:

An image of Mandelson smiling and the article title, which is 'What is Mandelson's strategy for charming Trumpworld?'

Here are some of the passages in the piece describing Mandelson and his political prowess:

“It’s a whirlwind,” admits a member of his new team in Washington. “Because he’s a whirlwind kind of guy.”

This next bit seems to accidentally describe the same hunger which led to Mandelson writing “yum yum” in Jeffrey Epstein’s birthday book:

But why did Sir Keir Starmer recruit him, what explains Mandelson’s hunger for the job, and how does he plan to charm Team Trump?

“Peter is supremely political,” explains a Downing Street source. “And this is a very political White House. He is a brilliant operator.”

This section mirrors what Labour are now saying to defend hiring Mandelson – that hiring him was worth the risk because he’s a uniquely capable political operator:

“The PM will be asking Peter: ‘How on earth do I handle this crazy guy?’,” says a former colleague.

“As an ambassador in the court of Donald Trump you need someone who can tickle him under his chin. Peter will be the absolute fixer and bridge builder.”

Can you imagine publishing an article today which began like this before getting to the Epstein connection? This was only published seven months ago!

‘Big beast’

A Spongebob meme which reads 'several paragraphs later'

Eventually we get to the Epstein stuff (emphasis added):

A name Mandelson will likely not drop in Trump’s company is that of their late former friend Jeffrey Epstein.

Both knew the billionaire paedophile who died by suicide in 2019. Mandelson maintained a relationship with him even after Epstein signed a plea deal in 2008 and served an 18-month jail term for soliciting sex from girls as young as 14.

Epstein is said to have referred to Mandelson as “Petie”. Photographs released in court documents show Mandelson trying on a belt alongside Epstein in a clothing shop, and the pair blowing out candles on a birthday cake.

Lord Mandelson has said he “deeply regrets” both ever meeting Epstein and the hurt caused to his many victims, and has also said that he never had any kind of professional or business relationship with him. But in an interview with the Financial Times, external this week, the diplomat also added: “I’m not going to go into this”, and swore explosively at the interviewer.

That undiplomatic language was a rare media misstep and contrasts with No 10’s expectation that Mandelson will be a far safer pair of hands with journalists than his predecessor, outgoing ambassador Dame Karen Pierce.

This is pretty weird, no?

If you got caught being friends with the 21st century’s most notorious paedophile, do you think that information would be slotted into the middle of a standard political profile, or do you think that would be all anyone had to say about you?

Not everything on Mandelson in the article is glowing, but even the negative bits paint him as a powerful ‘big beast’ – the sort of man whose personal demons drive results:

Another ally characterises Lord Mandelson’s ambition in simpler terms: he has an insatiable thirst for power.

“Peter’s great mission in life”, they say, “is to stay relevant.”

This section is a bit more worrying, and it gives you an idea as to why Mandelson was attracted to the wealthy paedophile Jeffrey Epstein:

Yet Mandelson’s expertise in charming these elites (former President George W. Bush nicknamed him ‘Silvertongue’), and his penchant for luxury have also led to problems throughout his career.

“He has weaknesses,” says one longtime friend. “He likes the high life. A lifestyle he can’t afford.”

We recommend that you read the BBC article and then compare it to this January 2025 profile of Mandelson from Declassified UK. You’ll note the Declassified UK piece treats Mandelson like other outlets are treating him today. The difference is that the Canary and Declassified UK won’t miraculously forget all this if Mandelson launches another political comeback.

To be fair to the BBC (kind of)

To be clear, we are aware the Mandelson issue came to a head because of new information. We also know that nothing which came out in the past few months is worse than what we already knew – that Mandelson continued his relationship with Epstein after he was a convicted sex offender.

The problem BBC employees have is that at some point it was decided ‘impartiality’ means they have to take politicians’ word for it, even if they’re obviously up to no good. This ticked along until the Starmer government hit the rocks and suddenly the media didn’t care about losing access to him, so now everything is coming out – Mandelson last week and Paul Ovenden this week:


You might ask why we weren’t putting these questions to Starmer ourselves, and the answer is simple; we don’t get access to these people, because that’s the sort of thing we would ask.

Journalistic premonition

We’ve reached a point where the media is treating Mandelson and his unseemly links to Epstein in a way that most people would consider normal. Still, there are plenty of topics the media continues to give undue respect to.

On Tuesday 16 September, the UN declared its verdict that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. On that same day, the BBC had a politician on from the country which is committing said genocide, allowing them to lash out at everyone who believes the evidence of their own eyes:


A few years from now, people won’t believe this interview took place.

If you want to stay up to date with what will be considered normal in future, be sure to follow outlets like the Canary and Declassified UK.

Featured image via YouTube screenshot/BBC

By Willem Moore

This post was originally published on Canary.