The UK’s Prime Minister has issued a public apology to the victims of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, admitting regret over his handling of the appointment of Lord Peter Mandelson and saying he was “sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies.”
Speaking at an event in East Sussex on Thursday, Sir Keir Starmer departed from his prepared remarks on the government’s Pride in Place strategy to address growing controversy surrounding Lord Mandelson’s past relationship with Epstein.
In his speech, the Prime Minister said neither he nor other officials were aware of what he described as the “depth and darkness” of Mandelson’s connection with Epstein at the time of his appointment as the UK’s ambassador to the United States in 2024.
He accused Mandelson of misleading authorities during the vetting process by downplaying the nature of the relationship.
“Lord Mandelson portrayed Epstein as someone he barely knew,” Starmer said, adding that this representation was later found to be inaccurate.
The remarks come a day after the Prime Minister told Parliament that he had been aware of Mandelson’s ongoing friendship with Epstein when the appointment was made, but said critical details were not disclosed.
Epstein, a convicted paedophile, died in a New York jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.
Starmer acknowledged that the revelation had caused significant public concern and said he felt a personal responsibility to address the issue directly.
He stressed that his apology was directed first and foremost at Epstein’s victims, many of whom have long criticised public figures who maintained ties with the disgraced financier.
Lord Mandelson has not publicly responded to the Prime Minister’s comments.
However, the BBC understands that Mandelson’s position is that he has not engaged in any criminal wrongdoing and that his association with Epstein was not motivated by financial benefit.
The controversy has intensified scrutiny of the government’s vetting procedures for senior diplomatic appointments and has prompted renewed debate over accountability, transparency, and the handling of past associations with individuals later convicted of serious crimes.
