@mauricebishop.bsky.social
He'll mash all the buttons before leaving office, made it clear that's going to be one of the first IMO.
February 16, 2026 at 9:50 PM
He'll mash all the buttons before leaving office, made it clear that's going to be one of the first IMO.
Involved at least by availing himself of Mandelson's connections within that network, inarguably.
February 16, 2026 at 6:05 PM
Involved at least by availing himself of Mandelson's connections within that network, inarguably.
I will enjoy my conspiracy theory of a secret network of paedophiles, spooks, billionaires and world leaders, yes. And thank you.
February 16, 2026 at 4:48 PM
I will enjoy my conspiracy theory of a secret network of paedophiles, spooks, billionaires and world leaders, yes. And thank you.
Anyway this is becoming a bad twitter thread.
All I really wanted to say is that Starmer can't dissociate himself from Epstein crony Mandelson so easily, because he's inarguably been a beneficiary of that network, if even only overtly via the latter's ambassadorship.
All I really wanted to say is that Starmer can't dissociate himself from Epstein crony Mandelson so easily, because he's inarguably been a beneficiary of that network, if even only overtly via the latter's ambassadorship.
February 16, 2026 at 11:53 AM
Anyway this is becoming a bad twitter thread.
All I really wanted to say is that Starmer can't dissociate himself from Epstein crony Mandelson so easily, because he's inarguably been a beneficiary of that network, if even only overtly via the latter's ambassadorship.
All I really wanted to say is that Starmer can't dissociate himself from Epstein crony Mandelson so easily, because he's inarguably been a beneficiary of that network, if even only overtly via the latter's ambassadorship.
Addressed above: it doesn't depend on which possible definition of "dodgy" you choose - either he's clueless or he's accepted the implications of employing this person.
February 16, 2026 at 11:14 AM
Addressed above: it doesn't depend on which possible definition of "dodgy" you choose - either he's clueless or he's accepted the implications of employing this person.
Yet he was. Whaddaya know?
February 16, 2026 at 11:01 AM
Yet he was. Whaddaya know?
The knowledge of Trump's circle *is* the "historic" relationship with Epstein.
February 16, 2026 at 10:48 AM
The knowledge of Trump's circle *is* the "historic" relationship with Epstein.
You agreed "exactly" with that comment.
The premise of your earlier question was false for any plausible answer you want to choose. Probably you were going for "knew he was dodgy but not DODGY dodgy" or even less straight an answer. Neither complicit or naive is good for Starmer.
The premise of your earlier question was false for any plausible answer you want to choose. Probably you were going for "knew he was dodgy but not DODGY dodgy" or even less straight an answer. Neither complicit or naive is good for Starmer.
February 16, 2026 at 10:37 AM
You agreed "exactly" with that comment.
The premise of your earlier question was false for any plausible answer you want to choose. Probably you were going for "knew he was dodgy but not DODGY dodgy" or even less straight an answer. Neither complicit or naive is good for Starmer.
The premise of your earlier question was false for any plausible answer you want to choose. Probably you were going for "knew he was dodgy but not DODGY dodgy" or even less straight an answer. Neither complicit or naive is good for Starmer.
"What is meant by snake" was the preceeding question, and a nice open one, which you can pick up if you want.
February 16, 2026 at 10:00 AM
"What is meant by snake" was the preceeding question, and a nice open one, which you can pick up if you want.
That's what I'm talking about, that's the sort of clandestine political operation he was engaged in with Epstein, as a kindred spirit, apparently Even leaving aside the trafficking or PM's knowledge thereof, Starmer needs to own PM's methods if he invokes them.
February 16, 2026 at 9:54 AM
That's what I'm talking about, that's the sort of clandestine political operation he was engaged in with Epstein, as a kindred spirit, apparently Even leaving aside the trafficking or PM's knowledge thereof, Starmer needs to own PM's methods if he invokes them.
You evaded the earlier question to ask it.
February 16, 2026 at 9:41 AM
You evaded the earlier question to ask it.
What was meant by "your own snake"?
February 16, 2026 at 9:30 AM
What was meant by "your own snake"?
"Your own snake" meaning specifically another associate of Jeffrey Epstein, in this case, as opposed to other characteristics?
I don't think you need to, as accountable leader of a democracy, need to send a corrupt ambassador to a corrupt state, no.
I don't think you need to, as accountable leader of a democracy, need to send a corrupt ambassador to a corrupt state, no.
February 16, 2026 at 9:21 AM
"Your own snake" meaning specifically another associate of Jeffrey Epstein, in this case, as opposed to other characteristics?
I don't think you need to, as accountable leader of a democracy, need to send a corrupt ambassador to a corrupt state, no.
I don't think you need to, as accountable leader of a democracy, need to send a corrupt ambassador to a corrupt state, no.
Make your mind up: did Starmer know that Mandelson was dodgy when he appointed him ambassador, or not?
February 16, 2026 at 8:46 AM
Make your mind up: did Starmer know that Mandelson was dodgy when he appointed him ambassador, or not?
We were not having a serious conversation, however all my responses have been serious.
February 15, 2026 at 11:09 PM
We were not having a serious conversation, however all my responses have been serious.
Even if you're struggling to follow, I reckon others can. Take home message is Mandelson isn't some marginal figure, he was deep in the Epstein network and Starmer's rise to power.
February 15, 2026 at 10:52 PM
Even if you're struggling to follow, I reckon others can. Take home message is Mandelson isn't some marginal figure, he was deep in the Epstein network and Starmer's rise to power.
Epstein's was and absolutely elite boy's club and power broking network, which Mandelson was in. You've justified 2 instances of Starmer employing Mandelson's "dark arts" to achieve major goals. Starmer represents the influence of that elite.
February 15, 2026 at 7:10 PM
Epstein's was and absolutely elite boy's club and power broking network, which Mandelson was in. You've justified 2 instances of Starmer employing Mandelson's "dark arts" to achieve major goals. Starmer represents the influence of that elite.
I'm saying Starmer represents the elitism and "gentlemens' agreements" more associated with the Tories, although possibly more egregious.
You're saying the ends justify the means, in the case of installing Starmer and Mandelson: it's power for power's sake; undemocratic.
You're saying the ends justify the means, in the case of installing Starmer and Mandelson: it's power for power's sake; undemocratic.
February 15, 2026 at 5:24 PM
I'm saying Starmer represents the elitism and "gentlemens' agreements" more associated with the Tories, although possibly more egregious.
You're saying the ends justify the means, in the case of installing Starmer and Mandelson: it's power for power's sake; undemocratic.
You're saying the ends justify the means, in the case of installing Starmer and Mandelson: it's power for power's sake; undemocratic.
Not like that. It goes to what the Starmer project has represented.
February 15, 2026 at 3:45 PM
Not like that. It goes to what the Starmer project has represented.
This LP needs to stay in though, to keep Reform out.
February 15, 2026 at 11:34 AM
This LP needs to stay in though, to keep Reform out.
Something is that they're connected to the worst people in the world by one or two degrees of seperation.
The bad apple defence is absurdly trying to insulate Starmer from rssponsibility, who thought Mandelson was especially well suited to being ambassador to Trump's U.S., for some reason.
The bad apple defence is absurdly trying to insulate Starmer from rssponsibility, who thought Mandelson was especially well suited to being ambassador to Trump's U.S., for some reason.
February 15, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Something is that they're connected to the worst people in the world by one or two degrees of seperation.
The bad apple defence is absurdly trying to insulate Starmer from rssponsibility, who thought Mandelson was especially well suited to being ambassador to Trump's U.S., for some reason.
The bad apple defence is absurdly trying to insulate Starmer from rssponsibility, who thought Mandelson was especially well suited to being ambassador to Trump's U.S., for some reason.
Claim is that something has been revealed about the millieu of senior figures of the Labour Right and the one bad apple defence is inaqequate.
February 15, 2026 at 10:29 AM
Claim is that something has been revealed about the millieu of senior figures of the Labour Right and the one bad apple defence is inaqequate.
Because we've credibly learnt where and how key figures in Labour's RW like Mandelson operated. Your assumptions there are a mixed bag btw.
February 15, 2026 at 10:13 AM
Because we've credibly learnt where and how key figures in Labour's RW like Mandelson operated. Your assumptions there are a mixed bag btw.