Mandy and Andy: Britain’s Double Standard on Epstein Connections
When it comes to Jeffrey Epstein’s British connections, Prince Andrew has dominated headlines—the disgraced royal whose fall was as spectacular as it was deserved. Yet another figure in this sordid saga has not only escaped similar scrutiny but continues to ascend the corridors of power: Lord Peter Mandelson.
While Prince Andrew has been rightfully cast into the wilderness for his association with Jeffrey Epstein, Lord Peter Mandelson, architect of New Labour, Trilateral Commission member and now appointed British Ambassador to the United States, continues to fail upward with remarkable resilience. His rise demonstrates how differently the globalist elite treats its own.
The evidence, laid bare in emails recently submitted to a London court, reveals Mandelson’s sustained contact with Epstein long after his 2008 conviction for child sex offences. Most remarkably, while Epstein was still serving his jail sentence in 2009, Mandelson reportedly spent weekends at the convicted paedophile’s Manhattan townhouse. Yet somehow, this revelation barely ripples the surface of British political life let alone mainstream media.

The contrast is striking. Prince Andrew’s fumbling BBC interview about his Epstein connections led to his effective exile from public life. His email hoping to “play soon” with Epstein in February 2011—months after he claimed to have, in his words: “honourably” ended their friendship—now seals his fate.
Keep in close touch and we’ll play some more soon.
– Prince Andrew’s email to Epstein 2011
But Mandelson’s documented contact with Epstein until at least 2012, including stays at the infamous Manhattan townhouse, seems to merit little more than a footnote in his glittering career.
The “new emails” reveal that Mandelson maintained contact with Epstein until at least 2012—four years after Epstein’s conviction for procuring an underage girl. More disturbing still, Mandelson reportedly spent a weekend at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse in 2009 while the convicted sex offender was still serving his jail sentence. He would return to stay again in May 2012.
This isn’t about defending Andrew—his behaviour deserves every criticism it has received. Rather, it’s about questioning why Mandelson, whose contact with Epstein was equally prolonged and arguably more deliberate given his political acumen, continues to receive prestigious appointments and establishment protection.
The grotesque irony emerges in JP Morgan’s internal report which noted Epstein’s “particularly close” relationships with both men. Yet while one faces permanent exile, the other ascends to represent Britain in Washington—after merely apologizing for calling the former president “little short of a white nationalist.” In today’s establishment circles, it seems insulting Donald Trump requires more contrition than maintaining a friendship with a convicted sex offender.
The full scope of Epstein’s influence over British power brokers remains obscured, locked away in documents and sealed testimonies. As promises of transparency echo through Washington’s corridors, one truth remains clear: in British public life, consequences depend not on what you’ve done, but on who you serve.

It seems for now Mandelson’s or “Mandy” to his friend’s trademark ability to emerge unscathed from scandal—a trait that earned him the nickname “The Prince of Darkness” during his New Labour years—appears intact. His regret at being “introduced” to Epstein rings hollow given the years of continued contact revealed in these emails.
This double standard reveals much about power in Britain today. A disgraced royal can be sacrificed to public opinion, but a keeper of establishment secrets remains untouchable. Mandelson’s appointment as Ambassador, despite these revelations, speaks volumes about the protected status of certain establishment figures. That he, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, and Jeffrey Epstein himself all held membership in the Trilateral Commission—that secretive forum where global financial and political elites shape policy with no accountability and far from public scrutiny—is more than just coincidence.

It illuminates the interconnected networks of power that bind these figures together. Indeed, this shared membership in one of the world’s most exclusive policy-making circles helps explain why this globelist maker and shaker, despite maintaining troubling associations long after they became indefensible, faces no real consequences. The fact that Epstein moved in these same elite policy-making circles, raises disturbing questions about who knew what, and when. It’s a stark reminder of how Britain’s power structure really works: some figures, no matter how compromised, remain too deeply embedded in the machinery of influence to face meaningful accountability.

The Times reporting on these emails deserves credit, but the broader media’s muted response to Mandelson’s Epstein connections compared to their relentless (and justified) pursuit of Andrew speaks volumes. It seems some scandals are more scandalous than others, depending on who’s involved.
It seems princes may fall, but those who guard the establishment’s secrets and open the nations doors to the globalist onslaught tend to land on their feet. It also seems membership in the Trilateral Commission provides not just elite access, but a peculiar form of immunity—a protective shield that even royal blood cannot match.
As Mandelson prepares to represent Britain in Washington, we must ask: why does continued association with a convicted sex offender disqualify a prince but not a lord? The answer reveals uncomfortable truths about power, privilege, and the selective application of moral standards in British public life.
The saga of “Andy and Mandy” isn’t just about two men’s poor judgment in their choice of friends. It’s about an establishment that condemns the expendable while protecting—and promoting—the politically useful, regardless of their associations.
Support Independent Journalism Today
Our unwavering dedication is to provide you with unbiased news, diverse perspectives, and insightful opinions. We're on a mission to ensure that those in positions of power are held accountable for their actions, but we can't do it alone. Labour Heartlands is primarily funded by me, Paul Knaggs, and by the generous contributions of readers like you. Your donations keep us going and help us uphold the principles of independent journalism. Join us in our quest for truth, transparency, and accountability – donate today and be a part of our mission!
Like everyone else, we're facing challenges, and we need your help to stay online and continue providing crucial journalism. Every contribution, no matter how small, goes a long way in helping us thrive. By becoming one of our donors, you become a vital part of our mission to uncover the truth and uphold the values of democracy.
While we maintain our independence from political affiliations, we stand united against corruption, injustice, and the erosion of free speech, truth, and democracy. We believe in the power of accurate information in a democracy, and we consider facts non-negotiable.
Your support, no matter the amount, can make a significant impact. Together, we can make a difference and continue our journey toward a more informed and just society.
Thank you for supporting Labour Heartlands