By johnrobertson834,Liz S

Copyright talkingupscotlandtwo

“Do you ever get fed up with me reporting how after 18 years without LabCons just about every public service in Scotland has been protected by the SNP”?

No. Why would we ?

However I , and I am sure also others, do get extremely “fed up with” much of the media in Scotland and also Labour UK and too their branch office in Scotland promoting how they regard the SNP as being very secretive and also scandal ridden while their leader at Labour HQ is now, yet again, under deserved scrutiny for his making , as in him “personally selecting” (against advice) a very dubious individual as the UK’s new US Ambassador…..as in Peter Mandelson………aka “Best Pal” of a known paedophile !

A non compromised Journalist (yes they do exist within the UK…though rare) Andrew Fisher who writes for the ‘I’ newspaper was interviewed on SKY News….he said this….

“Well I think he (Starmer) is under a lot of pressure and a lot more pressure on this particular one because he appointer Peter Mandelson, it was his (Starmer’s) personal choice to appoint him as US Ambassador. He was advised not to by people right across the political spectrum within the Labour party. You had Lord Glassman , whose very much on the right of the Labour party, blue Labour figure , saying he (Starmer) shouldn’t have appointed him. The Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell at the time , or former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell at the time was sating don’t appoint Peter Mandelson he’s a liability. Look it was known that Peter Mandelson had stayed in the house of Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction and was still in touch with him and phoning him and corresponding with him after his conviction for child sex crimes. Now that in itself should have prohibited any appointment. When you are appointed to a senior position , like an Ambassador, you go through some sort of vetting process , I don’t know the particulars for what it is for an Ambassador, but you will go through that process. There’s a series of questions asked, normally candidates are asked to disclose anything that might embarrass them. What was disclosed by Peter Mandelson ? What was known at the time ? Because Keir Starmer cannot say that he did not know about his (Mandelson’s) ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction , after his first conviction, and now we’ve learned that , obviously in a bit more detail of that, that’s certainly , I’m sure. some of the detail of that is new but it was known at the time and Journalists have tried to ask questions of Keir Starmer of this , tried to ask questions of this of Peter Mandelson on this and they have shut it down and now it has come back to bite them. So I think this is a much bigger case than the Angela Rayner case , which is a very complex personal situation which is quite unique I think most people would have struggled to get it right. This (Mandelson case) is a lot more serious and I think , you know the questions will be asked about what Keir Starmer knew, what advice he was given , why he appointed him in the first place and the details of that process that I think could rebound much more deeply on Keir Starmer than anything to do with Angela Rayner or any of the previous cases”.

Jackie Baillie once said in relation to the SNP that they were……….

“treating the public with contempt and attempting to stifle scrutiny” also that the SNP “presided over a culture of secrecy and cover up” and then also “the SNP the most scandal struck party in Scottish history”……….

Well after a succession of Labour scandals (where Labour HQ have only held office as the UK government for …..14 months….) now the latest Labour party scandal exposes the (very bad) judgement and the insanity in who was chosen , by the Labour PM, to be the new UK Ambassador to the US……while facts were known on who he, this new UK Ambassador to the US, had associated with………..as in he, Mandelson, maintained a relationship with …..as in he , Mandelson, continued associating with a man, Jeffrey Epstein, post that man’s convictions for sexual crimes against children.

It does not get any #Badder than that…..surely ?

Jackie and Anas now see that their constantly passing judgement upon others that they declare to be #BAD is now, as judgement, currently visiting their own political party….a succession of times….and unfortunately for them it is judging things to not just be #BAD but be very very very much a case of #LabourBad.

( I would disagree with Andrew Fisher on Angela Rayner though…..as someone in her position would have had access to excellent legal advise that you and I would have probably been unable to access….and someone in her elevated position should really have checked this out…..or suffer the consequences she has now suffered due to her failing to undertake due diligence…..and she too has also passed judgement upon the SNP…..hypocrisy seems a essential requirement for Labour politicians….based upon the evidence of the double standards that they seem to often apply to themselves compared to how judgemental they are towards ‘others’ aka in Scotland as being the SNP).

…………I do agree with Andrew Fisher though when he was asked “whether Starmer would lead the party into the next UK GE” and he said “No”.

(Pity more people last year in Scotland had also not said “No to Labour” in the 2024 UK GE………but they did not….so now look at what they got for their (wasted) vote).

Vote Labour and get………

“Catastrophe” , “fiascos” and “Scandals” and of course also extremely “controversial” decisions …….or at least that’s the political ‘take’ that we hear (too often) and read about from the BBC in Scotland……but usually reserved for the SNP alone…..