All HELL BREAKS LOOSE in UK Parliament over TRUMP and EPSTEIN

What this episode is about

In UK Parliament, intense scrutiny has emerged over Prime Minister Kier Starmer's appointment of Lord Mandelson, a close associate of Jeffrey Epstein, following revelations of disturbing communications and behavior linked to Epstein. The opposition is pressing Starmer for accountability amidst concerns that the vetting process failed to address Mandelson's controversial ties, throwing the government into a turbulent crisis as public outrage grows over these connections.

Key takeaways

• In scandalous twists, Mandelson's history with Epstein leaves UK political integrity hanging by a thread.
• Starmer armed with denial; unlike Trump, UK Parliament demands accountability—who knew what and when?
• Mandelson's choice to stay in Epstein's flat screams negligence—political vetting or mere lip service?
• The shockwaves of Epstein's network continue to rattle global leaders—Britain's political landscape isn't immune.
• In a world where politicians squirm, Mandelson’s ‘friendly’ ties to Epstein redefine political judgment—unsettlingly so.

Who speaks in this episode?

• Kier Starmer (Guest) · 6 min speaking
• Peter Mandelson (Guest) · 4 min speaking
• Alysia KS (Guest) · 2 min speaking
• Host of MeidasTouch (Host) · 9 min speaking

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 5:00: Kier Starmer, Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Mandelson
2. 5:00 – 10:00: Jeffrey Epstein
3. 10:00 – 15:00: Kier Starmer, Jeffrey Epstein, Gordon Brown
4. 15:00 – 20:00: Peter Mandelson, Jeffrey Epstein

Notable quotes from "All HELL BREAKS LOOSE in UK Parliament over TRUMP and EPSTEIN"

• Opposition party pressed Prime Minister Kier Starmer and his government about Lord Mandelson. Peter Mandlesson, one of Jeffrey Epstein's closest friends, who was all throughout…

  about Peter Mandelson · at 0:04

• As the ambassador, and now this is like toppling the government in the UK right now. Prime Minister Kier Starmer did his best to try to defend the fact that he appointed Peter…

  about Kier Starmer · at 1:00

• The labor health secretary has warned about in number 10. And most shamefully of all, we had a former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown. Whatever you think of him, he tried to…

  about Gordon Brown · at 11:21

• What was happening in 2025 in Washington. And this as I say is relevant now. On the 27th of February 2025, the prime minister whilst in Washington visited the American data and…

  about Palantir · at 15:43

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• Kier Starmer — Person · Primary political decision-maker discussed (Prime Minister under scrutiny) · 8 mentions · first at 0:04
  Starmer is portrayed as facing a parliamentary crisis over his judgment in appointing Mandelson despite vetting that flagged an ongoing relationship with Epstein.
• Peter Mandelson — Person · Central referenced figure (subject of scandal/controversy) · 3 mentions · first at 0:10
  The episode centers on allegations about Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and the political fallout from his appointment as UK ambassador to the US.
• Jeffrey Epstein — Person · Referenced criminal figure (context for allegations) · 9 mentions · first at 0:13
  Epstein is cited as the convicted sex offender whose relationship with Mandelson is portrayed as disqualifying and politically explosive in the UK context.
  Fact that Donald Trump appeared 38,000 times in the United Kingdom. It's a big deal to have affiliations with the world's biggest pit in Jeffrey Epstein.
• Gordon Brown — Person · Referenced former Prime Minister (contrast/critique point) · 1 mention · first at 11:26
  Brown is invoked as a former Labour PM who allegedly sought documents about Mandelson and was rebuffed, used rhetorically to criticize Starmer’s choices.

Companies & orgs

• Palantir — Company · Business focus · 4 mentions
  Palantir is mentioned in the context of a controversial contract awarded by the UK government, linked to Peter Mandelson's company, Global Council.

Full transcript with timestamps

0:00 All hell broke loose in the United Kingdom Parliament yesterday as the opposition party pressed Prime Minister Kier Starmer and his government about Lord Mandelson. Peter Mandlesson, one of Jeffrey Epstein's closest friends, who was all throughout these files, was in his underwear and photos with girls, engaged in some of the most disgusting communications with Epstein and likely some of the most grotesque behavior. And it turned out that the government under Prime Minister Kier Starmer when they were vetting Mandelen who became the UK ambassador to the United States, the vetting showed these relationships with Epstein. And apparently Mandlesen said, "Ah, what you're hearing is overblown and I didn't really have these extensive relationships." And the government brought in Mandelen and kept him as a lord, kept him, you know, in these positions, kept him as the appointed him as the ambassador, you know, and now

1:02 this is like toppling the government in the UK right now. Prime Minister Kier Starmer did his best to try to defend the fact that he appointed Peter Mandolen to be UK ambassador to the United States. But unlike in the United States where this Trump cabal just says whatever, you know, we don't care. You know, we're just going to ignore the fact that Donald Trump appeared 38,000 times in the United Kingdom. It's a big deal to have affiliations with the world's biggest pit in Jeffrey Epstein. And so we're seeing the domino effects of the Epstein files in every other country other than in the United States government under the Trump regime where they just deny that Donald Trump appears 38,000 times and Trump's at the center of the cabal. This is a very difficult time for Prime Minister Kier Starmer to try to survive this. Let me just show you what went down and you'll see the opposition in parliament. This is very,

1:59 you know, the parliament in general in the UK, it's very combative. It's very in yourrface. You have to stand up there and justify yourself, you know, on the floor of parliament. But I just want to share with you, you know, the types of questioning that Kier Starmer was given by the opposition. Let's watch this first clip right here.

2:17 It absolutely beggars belief. And if we want to clean up politics, then this sort of thing should not be being allowed to happen. Politics is a difficult place. We know that. But this this was down to judgment.

2:34 It was down to the judgment of one person or was it the judgment of others around that person? So I urge the honorable and right honorable members on the Labor benches opposite. Do the right thing this evening. Stand up for democracy. Stand up for parliament. And stand up for decency. Alysia KS speaker

3:02 liberation day. That is how Manderson described the day of Epstein's release for prison for procuring children to be trafficked and raped. Disgusting.

3:13 Manderson's next message was, "How is freedom feeling?" Epstein replied, "She feels fresh, firm, and creamy." Mandelson's next reply. Naughty boy.

3:26 Disgusting. Now, we hadn't seen this email, I'll admit, when the ambassador was appointed. But let's look at what we did know when he was appoint ambassador. We knew at that point that he had consoled this pedophile, consoled him on his being found guilty and convicted for just one of the many, many crimes he committed. We also knew that while he was deputy prime minister of this country and business and trade secretary carrying the flag of our great nation on an official visit to New York, he stayed in a convicted pedophile's flat. How dare he do that while representing this country?

4:12 But the idea that no one in the cabinet office, no one at the Department of Business or Trade, NO CIVIL SERVANT, NO political appointee knew that he'd said, "No, I don't need a hotel. Thank you ever so much. I'm going to stay at my friend Epstein's house." Oh, by the way, he happens to currently be in prison, incarcerated, but I'm going to stay at his house anyway. That to me raises serious questions about why he was not pursued for misconduct in public office back at that point. And no one can say that the Labor government did not know because having been a civil servant, I knew where my ministers were staying when they abroad. Not sure they always wanted me to know, but I knew. And none of them would have ever done that.

4:53 This is the heart of the issue with the judgment of the prime minister. Now on Monday, one of its ministers, the government's minister said nobody objected when Manderson was appointed. I would say look at Hansard. I remember objecting very very clearly and repeatedly

5:10 because it was very clear at that point that Mandolson had repeatedly said that Pepsi did not deserve to be in prison, that this was an awful time for him, how he was caring and thinking for his good friend. Why was there no investigation and why was the vetting not done right? Because there is no question that the vetting cannot have been conducted properly. I have been through vetting myself and I accept it was not as a minister but as a civil servant I've been sat in a room with a rather elderly gentleman for 2 hours asked about my every sexual proclivity asked about when I lost my virginity asked about whether I'd taken drugs or not asked about every single aspect of my life because civil servants where they be apolitical or politicians in this place should hold themselves accountable and be right to be appointed for these roles.

6:00 Here's another clip right here. Let's play it. This has been an absolutely extraordinary day in British politics.

6:07 It is not often that there is an audible intake of breath in this chamber. But we all heard it earlier on. that gasp when the prime minister admitted that yes, he had known that Peter Manderson had an ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein at the point where he appointed him our ambassador to Washington. It is a truly extraordinary admission and the argument that the prime minister is making now and it is quite incredible is that he did know but he didn't know the depth and extent

6:46 and this implies that there is some reasonable extent to which you can be in a long-term relationship with the world's most famous pedophile and still be appointed to our ambassador in Washington that you can be to a certain reasonable in depth involved with the world's most corrupt man and still be appointed his majesty's ambassador. And now the prime minister is asking to be taken on trust. Well, after this whole sorded affair, I'm afraid that's just not good enough anymore. The prime minister knew he knew that Mandlesson had stayed in Epstein's house while he was in jail for child prostitution.

7:33 Did that not set some alarm bells ringing in the mind of the prime minister? Or is that not deep enough a relationship to worried the prime minister? The member for Skipton earlier on told the House that the British government was warned by one of our closest international allies about their deep concerns before his appointment. Did that not set some alarm bells ringing in the mind of the prime minister? No. Instead, he appointed a man who had twice had to resign over corruption. And now, and now, unbelievably, his argument is, if only there had been some sign that Peter Mandelon was like this. Unbelievable, Madame Deputy Speaker. And this may just be the beginning. We really need to hear an answer now from the minister on a specific point which ministers ducked and refused to address earlier on. The whole house will hear if he does not answer. Will the government agree to a full investigations into Mandlesson's

8:34 behavior while he was our ambassador in Washington? Because on 27th of February last year, Mandlesson arranged for the prime minister to meet Palanteer, a client of Mandlesson's company, Global Council. That meeting was not recorded in the PM's register of meeting. It only emerged later. Palanteer were then awarded a 240 million pound contract by the government on a direct award rather than a competition. We need the cabinet secretary to examine the circumstances of that contract. Will a minister agree? Yes or no? And I asked the minister, why wasn't that prime ministerial meeting recorded in the normal way? How many more such lobbyist meetings were there?

9:17 What other inside information was shared with Mandlesson's quietness? And will he now agree to a full inquiry into Mandolson's time as our ambassador? Yes or no? Can furthermore the minister reassure the house that the proper process been followed for all number 10's other appointments recently. Can he say that very clearly to the house and give us that reassurance? Now before I come to the manuscript amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say something positive about some of the contributions we've heard today from the Labour back benches. The member for the forest of Dean gave a genuinely superb speech in which he said he would not be able to look victims in the eye if he voted for the government's amendment. He was alone. It was a brave speech. He was not completely alone because we also heard uh sensible comments from the Labour backbenches including uh from Olden West Ashton under lime witness Middles and

10:09 Thornby uh pointing out that the government's cover up amendment was simply not going to fly. I think the member for Liverpool wavery actually said that she would be ashamed to vote for it and she was totally totally right. All those Labour backbenches have shown their character today. But what a contrast. What a contrast with the behavior of the prime minister who isn't here. He still hasn't apologized for appointing Mandlesson. And a few hours ago he was telling this house that these documents couldn't be published. He was saying at PMQs that the leader of the opposition was outrageous and silly for even asking. And here we are just a few hours later and the government has had to a total U-turn because they know that they can't get their own people to vote for this shameful proposed cover up.

10:51 The prime minister has not been decisive. He only sacked Peter Mandlesson because we forced him to do. He said again and again that he had full confidence in him. And I think many voters will be thinking why on earth was the prime minister so deeply in hawk to this man? The truth is he was not out on a limb over in Washington. He was a deeply embedded part of the prime minister's operation. He was involved in the selection of some of the MPs here today. He was involved in the prime minister's reshuffle. He was part of the toxic culture that the health secretary, the labor health secretary has warned about in number 10. And most shamefully of all, we had a former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown. Whatever you think of him, he tried to get a document about some of the things that Peter Mandlesson had done. He was rebuffed.

11:32 Funnily enough, the documents couldn't be found. Madam Speaker, whatever you think of Gordon Brown, when you choose Peter Mandlesson over Gordon Brown, you are making the wrong decision.

11:44 And here is another clip of what went down. Let's play it directly. Could he tell us, did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandlesson's ongoing relationship with the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein? Yes.

12:00 And he replied, "Yes, it did." Now, the point is that when the minister says he lied to the prime minister, but the prime minister knew that the relationship was ongoing. So even if he lied about some other aspects of the relationship, cannot the minister see that the fact there was any ongoing relationship at all with a man who'd been imprisoned for pedophilia and prostitution. Can he not see that that was an impossible position to defend and no subsequent lies or revelations alter the fact that the prime minister appointed him when he knew that he

12:51 now here's the exchange involving prime minister Kier Starmer of course lab for those who aren't in the UK labor party that's the the the governing party right now um and you'll see Kier Starmer get questioned about what did you know when did you know it does this you know what what kind of judgment is this that you brought in Mandelson and what does this say about your judgment in other areas and you know and and look here's Starmer and lots of people who support Starmer are like you know he he's a well-intentioned you know and decent decent human being so he's trying to address it honestly and uh it's it's a very difficult situation for him to weather I'm not sure he's going to be able to survive this. Watch what happens when he's questioned. Um, and you'll see this exchange right here.

13:38 Can the prime minister tell us, did the official security vetting he received mention Mandlesson's ongoing relationship with the pedophile Jeffrey Epste?

13:49 So, Prime Minister, yes, it did. A as a as a result, various questions were put to him. I intend to disclose to this house all of the the national security prejudice to international relations on one side. I want to make sure that I want to make sure this house sees the full documentation so it will see for itself the extent to which the extent to which time and time again Mandlesson completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship and lied throughout the process including in response to the due diligence.

14:34 Then there was another uh line of questioning about Kier Starmer meeting with Palunteer in the United States. Peter Teal Teal's in the you know is in a lot of instances in the files um as well. Um and uh Mandelen Peter Mandlesson his company you know has a lot of links with Palunteer as well as pointed as pointed out here. And so it's like you met with Palunteer and Mandlesson has the Palunteer connection with Peter Teal and and they're all they were all speaking with Epstein in the files here. Play this clip right here briefly, Mr. Speaker, before I I hand over to um other members of uh the House uh to the conduct of Lord Mandelson whilst he was our ambassador in Washington. And I think that this is very relevant for our debate today because it exposes again the prime minister's lack of judgment in appointing Peter Mandlesson as our ambassador.

15:29 Uh there is obviously now very strong evidence to suggest that Mandlesson uh behaved entirely inappropriately when he was a secretary of state in the last Labor government. But there are now equally big questions outstanding about what was happening in 2025 in Washington. And this um as I say is is relevant now. On the 27th of February 2025, the prime minister whilst in Washington visited the American data and AI company Palunteer at its headquarters. The meeting did not appear in the prime minister's register of visits. It only came to light later.

16:08 Now, Palanteer, we should remember or remind ourselves, was a client of Global Council, the company in which Peter Mandlesson had a commanding share. Later that year, Palanteer received from this government a 240 million pound deal.

16:29 British companies couldn't compete. That deal was granted by direct award. Given the allegations now coming to light about Madison's contact conduct, can the minister assure the House that the cabinet secretary will review the circumstances around the award of that contract

16:47 and assure himself that there are no other such contracts, no other undisclosed meetings, that the government is going to go through all of the communications that Mandelen sent out whilst he was ambassador. messages we must assume some of which were sent to old business contacts, potential few business contacts and so on.

17:13 In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the prime minister knew that Peter Mandlesen had maintained an unhealthy relationship with a man who was a convicted pedophile

17:23 and he appointed him to the role of ambassador. Anyway, everybody in this house should be shocked by it. It must be concluded that had the prime minister been pressed on that point at the time, the appointment would not have been made. But the prime minister knew, his aids knew, and the appointment was made anyway.

17:45 What else did he know? Only after this humble address, only if the government treats with it in good faith, will we know that. I very much hope that it is not the case that we find that there are gaps in our security and vetting process. If there are, the government will be able to fix them. But I think it's also likely that we'll see that there were reports that consistently raised concerns that were swept away. And it will then be the duty of the government to disclose who swept them away and why. Ultimate responsibility must rest with the prime minister. it is time for him to take responsibility,

18:28 you know. And finally, where this kind of netted out is uh Prime Minister Starmer's forced to give the files relating to Mandelen's appointment as the UK ambassador to the United States to Parliament's intelligence committee. Um, and you know, you'll see that there's a rebellion not just by the opposition, I want to be clear as well, from from Labor Party members of parliament as well. the Labor Party doesn't support, you know, the Labor Party doesn't know what to do because they they clearly um don't support this.

19:00 They don't support Mandelen and it puts him in a difficult situation. Here's what went down. Let's play this clip at the very end. Uh when that final order was made, the question is that amendment A be made since when an amendment to the amendment has been proposed as follows. That amendment at the end of the amendment A and which shall instead be referred to the intelligence and security committee parliament. The question is the amendment be made and proposed amendment be made. As many of that opinion say I

19:31 I GOT TO READ all I think the eyes have it. The eyes have it. Right. The question is that amendment A as amended be made. As many of that OPINION SAY I. I

19:46 OF the country. No, I think the eyes have it. The eyes have it. The question is that the motion as amended to be agreed to as many of that opinion say I

19:56 I of the country. No, I think the eyes have it. They have it. Right. Complete. Are you ready, Caroline?

20:07 Right. Sorry. A point for order to Simon Horn. Speaker, it's it's in relation to the point that the minister made with regards to the Metropolitan Police asking that certain documents are not released um in case they prejudiced a trial or an investigation. You know as well as I do, sir, the importance of privilege to this place. Will you be will your office and councel be working with the cabinet office to ensure that the rights and privileges of members of this house are protected? can just say we're not going to continue the debate but just a summer the question with the Metropolitan Police the Metropolitan Police have no jurisdiction on what this house may wish to do. It will be whether the government provides or not but just to let you know they cannot dictate to this house. There you have it. Let me know what you think everybody. That's why I want to show you what's going on in the UK parliament so

21:05 you see you see what's happening you know outside of the United States. Let me know what you think. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 6 million. And thanks for watching.

21:12 Thanks for watching. Be sure to add the Midas Touch podcast on Apple Podcast, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast for new updates every single day.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "All HELL BREAKS LOOSE in UK Parliament over TRUMP and EPSTEIN"?

Kier Starmer (Guest), Peter Mandelson (Guest), Alysia KS (Guest), Host of MeidasTouch (Host).

What is "All HELL BREAKS LOOSE in UK Parliament over TRUMP and EPSTEIN" about?

In UK Parliament, intense scrutiny has emerged over Prime Minister Kier Starmer's appointment of Lord Mandelson, a close associate of Jeffrey Epstein, following revelations of disturbing communications and behavior linked to Epstein. The opposition is pressing Starmer for accountability amidst concerns that the vetting process failed to address Mandelson's controversial ties, throwing the…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

5 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Kier Starmer, Peter Mandelson, Jeffrey Epstein, Palantir, Gordon Brown. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "All HELL BREAKS LOOSE in UK Parliament over TRUMP and EPSTEIN"?

The episode runs 21 min; the transcript is about 3,431 words in 41 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

• All analyzed episodes
• Books mentioned on MeidasTouch
• People mentioned on MeidasTouch
• Sponsors mentioned on MeidasTouch
• Topics mentioned on MeidasTouch