“Keir Starmer has said he removed Lord Mandelson once he was informed of the new evidence. But this does not answer why Mandelson was placed there in the first instance, particularly when his predecessor — a well-regarded female ambassador — had been doing well in the role. The perception remains that Mandelson’s placement was a political move, displacing her because she had been appointed under the Conservatives. Starmer’s explanation deflects the core issue: what leverage did Mandelson hold that secured him such a position, and why was his removal dependent on external revelations rather than internal due diligence? This still does not constitute an acceptable risk, given that Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein were a matter of public record as far back as 2008. Starmer cannot claim ignorance; the decision to appoint him in spite of those associations demonstrates either recklessness or complicity. If there was a ‘risk worth taking,’ then what did Peter Mandelson have that outweighed this risk? Was it something Mandelson carried from Epstein into the heart of the UK Government?”

We have already pressed Kemi BADENOCH MP o this point asking her to ask at Prime Ministers Questions

 Where is Emily and 430,000 other children believed to have been at the hands of Epstein’s reach in the UK.

“If there was a risk worth taking, what did Peter Mandelson have that outweighed this risk?”

This is not a personal suspicion, but a matter of public accountability where the record already contains troubling references. 

           These records have been entered into court as court documents by JP Morgan and others and are not in dispute

• Deripaska v. Treasury (D.D.C. 2019) — a case linking Mandelson to a Russian oligarch accused of ordering a banker’s murder.
• Doe 1 v. JPMorgan Chase (S.D.N.Y. 2022–23) — RICO litigation exposing Epstein’s financial networks and implicating political elites we have already named.

I ask you to confirm whether the government has examined these records in relation to Lord Mandelson and, if so, why this risk was considered acceptable.

Principally then where are the 430,000 children who had been signed up by their parents to receive children trusts funds who now appear missing from the UK, where is Emily who is amongst this cohort? Why can she not be located in Great Britain suggesting they are all somewhere else.

In the Deripaska v. Treasury (2019) case, the U.S. Treasury sanctions notices said Oleg Deripaska was “accused of ordering the murder of a businessman.”

• The victim most often associated with this allegation is Valentin Tsvetkov, the governor of Magadan, who was murdered in 2002.
• In some reporting, the same allegation has also been linked to the 1990s contract killing of a banker/businessman named Vadim Yafyasov (sometimes described in Western media as a “banker” and in Russian sources as an “entrepreneur”).
• Another frequently cited name in discussions of Deripaska’s alleged violent ties is German Gorbuntsov, a Russian banker who was shot in London in 2012 (he survived).

To be precise:

• The Treasury never named the victim in its official filings. It just said “businessman.”
• Russian and UK press have filled in different names over the years — Tsvetkov (a governor), Yafyasov (businessman/banker), and Gorbuntsov (banker).

So: the “oligarch banker” you’re all asking about is most likely a confusion of Yafyasov or Gorbuntsov, but the official U.S. document doesn’t give a name

• Criminal action on website. Is this the Government interference?
• What you need to Know about Mandelson and his arrests.
• ARREST BLAIR AND BROWN?
• THE STEALING OF EMILY
• When will the UK government realize crime does not pay!