Fisking Peter Mandelson

In a hastily arranged, self-serving interview just a day before the axe fell on Mandelson, he delivered what I called the other day his masterclass in the communication arts for which he is famed.  Too late, obviously: but look at the clever ways his mind was working, in the attempt to restore the rapidly worsening position.  Recall the context: he had already answered once on the subject, on that occasion simply saying he regretted having ever met Epstein.  Early last week, however, he knew he'd shortly be confronted with a good deal more to answer for, see below.  He just had to attempt to get ahead of it, to prime the audience with a pre-emptive range of exculpatory framings designed to head off what he knew was coming, and give Starmer a few handy words to use / lines-to-take (which Sir Kier duly did at PMQs).

The analysis is in 'fisk' format: the bold text is the transcript of Mandy's answers to some fairly obvious interview questions.  I make only the slightest reference to his body-language: an expert on that could have a field day.  Watch it for yourself.

"It was over 20 years ago …         ... much, much too long ago to count for anything now.

"I find [my words from back then] very embarrassing to see and to read, but as you say, they were written before he was indicted.          … and you obviously agree with me, it was simply ages ago.

"But I just feel two things now.  One is, I feel a profound sense of tremendous sense, a profound sense of sympathy for those people, those women, who suffered, as a result of his behaviour and his illegal, criminal activities;      Clearly - see below, several times - M has selected ‘tremendous’ and ‘profound’ from the BS lexicon.  And sympathy for women, oh yes, he’s on the side of the angels alright.  ... He was a criminal, you know – we’re plainly all victims here.  Sympathy for the women!  

"… and secondly, I regret very very deeply indeed carrying on that association with him for far longer than I should have done … oh, I don’t know, it was a matter of years after I met him …     M knows – see towards the end of the interview – that this can’t be contained to “20 years ago”, so he’s making a big, upfront thing of “regrettably continuing the association”.  Association?  A conveniently abstract, thin, technical way of framing their relationship.  Actually, we know it was “best pal in all the world”, to whom M was giving advice even after E had been convicted.      

"… and I regret very much that I fell for his lies; I fell, and accepted assurances that he had given me about his indictment, his original, criminal case in Florida, like very many people I took at face value what he said.    ... Oh yes, I’m a victim alright – and just one among a big crowd, too.  We all believed him.  None of us rumbled him.  Nobody could have known.  None of us.  It’s all of us in the same boat.  

"With hindsight, with fresh information, years later we realized that we had been wrong to believe him – he’s a charismatic, criminal liar, we now see, and I regret very much indeed;      ... Yes, it was wholly impossible for us – us, I tell you, plural, lots of us - to have known or even have suspected at the time.  Oh, how our wrongdoing haunts us, our wrongly believing!

"I felt it like a – like an albatross around my neck since his death in 2018 or 2019, whenever it was.     ... see, I don’t even follow these things very closely.  And it’s been awful for me, awful, I tell you.

"I feel, I feel a tremendous sense of regret, not only that I met him in the first place...     Regret at ever meeting him was what M had already placed on record some while ago.  So now he has to go even further, in order to be seen recognizing clearly that he needs to confess to even more, errr, regrets!

"… but that I continued the association, and I took at face value the lies that he fed me and many others.    ... yes, I regret “continuing the association”, that thin and technical matter.  Oh, and I regret believing that stuff, as any reasonable person would have done, and indeed did.

[M now shaking off a suggestion of ‘informal, back-scratching, introducing people’]  "It was not a business relationship … He operated in a financial and business way, way, way above my level.    ... way, way above.  He was essentially out of sight, beyond my ken.  Nobody at my humble level was ever in the know about, well, anything, really.

"He actually was always saying, “would you like to see so-and-so, I’ve got this friend, I’m having this dinner, would you like to come, alright, he was a prolific social networker and a political networker, that is true;     ... just such a helpful chap, he could arrange whatever you wanted … oh no, I didn’t mean it like that. Errr, just such a helpful chap: how could I not believe him, or think anything bad of him?

"... but I would just want to say this to you, er, Harry,    ... you don’t mind me letting the whole world that you and I are friends, do you Harry?   And that I’m a down-to-earth, easy-going, ordinary, relatable, pleasant chap?

"… during all the time I was an associate of his, I never saw the wrongdoing; I never saw any evidence of criminal activity.  I never sought, and he didn’t offer any introductions to women in the way that allegedly he did for others – perhaps it's because I am a gay man, you know.    ... see how open and upfront I am?  And very naïve.  And very trusting and innocent, like all gays.  And never even looking at any of the dozens of nubile young women that always seemed to be fluttering around.  Allegedly.  Never even noticed them, myself.

"… perhaps when I knew him, perhaps when I was associating with him those years ago with my then partner and now husband Renaldo, we never, ever saw evidence or sign of this activity which has since come to light.   ... definitely.  How would we, when we only had eyes for each other?

"That’s why I feel so profoundly upset, er, by what has now been revealed about what he did to women, and why I feel profoundly upset [looking very wronged] that I was taken in by him and continued my association with him for far longer than I should have done.    Here we ago again.  We have all registered the point about the new regrets, haven’t we?  And the association thing?

[Conned?]  "I lived in London; I’m a Brit; he lived in New York; he was an American.  Perhaps if I had been in closer proximity … [But you stayed with him!]   I did in the early years, yes, that’s certainly true.  And now I regret it. Now I regret it.    ... oh yes.  Did I mention regrets?  You know, if you regret something, it’s the same as being absolved from it?

I regret being taken in by him, as many other people do.  But it was 10 years later, when he was Federally prosecuted, that people suddenly learned what he had been up to for all those years.  ... a full decade later!  I’d like you to take away the idea I let 10 years go by between my “association-of-too-long” and the time when anyone knew anything about anything.  And did I mention there were lots of us?

"The Epstein files?  That’s not a matter for me.  I don’t believe I am named in Epstein files.  I have no doubt at all that there’s a lot of um, er, a lot of traffic, correspondence, exchanges between us, absolutely.  And we know those are going to erm, er, surface, we know they’re going to come out, we know they’re going to be very embarrassing,     Here’s the meat of the whole thing, and what M has been working up to, why he wanted to be interviewed: he knows a shedload of shit is coming along shortly, and he needs to get ahead of it.  Because it’s going to be “embarrassing” – but we can all see, he’s embarrassed enough already: as embarrassed as anyone ever needs to be, so this next stuff won’t really add anything we need to dwell on, ... because look, I’ve already admitted before anyone’s said anything, that I’m embarrassed!  We all are!  And being embarrassed is like regretting – it absolves you of your wholly understandable and really quite minor sins.

"… and they [sic] know that I’m going profoundly to regret ...    Here we go again.  BUT - at least he avoids splitting his infinitives, even at this moment of peril.  Good man! 

"… ever having met him and been introduced to him in the first place.     Yes!

"But I can’t re-write history.    ... so it’s deeply unfair of anyone to ask me to do so: really, very unfair indeed.  I’m the victim here, not just of Epstein, but of those demanding I re-write history.  Listen, I’m confessing to everything I ever did – meeting, associating, believing, trusting, the lot.  Yes, that's the charge sheet against me: believing and trusting.  That kind of thing.

"What I can do, what I can do, is express my profound sympathy for those who have were badly treated by him; and secondly, I can accept, yes, I can accept …  ... you see, I really am able to be totally honest and self-critical !

"… that I continued my association with him for too long.   Yawn.  Yeah, we got it.  Peter, we know you are very contrite and very absolved.

"I haven’t discussed it with either the President or the Prime Minister, and I hope I’m doing a good enough job as Ambassador here in the United States to continue to warrant his confidence.    Errr …

"… All the information we have about that dreadful, dreadful man, I wish I could remove that blot [screws up face] he’s like, he’s like a sort of piece of muck attached to my, er, shoes, which I find very difficult to kick away.  But I will do it, I will do it.  But I can only do it by first acknowledging how much I regret having met him in the first place …     Drones on ...

Muck on my shoes, eh?  There's gratitude for you!

ND