James O'Brien Daily Keir Starmer apologises to Epstein victims - but is it enough?
Feb 5, 2026
Natasha Clark, political editor and on-air reporter, gives on-the-ground context and tough questions. She describes the tense atmosphere of Keir Starmer’s apology and probes why Mandelson was trusted. The conversation covers timing, political fallout, and whether the speech eases pressure. Listeners’ reactions and demands for accountability are also explored.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Starmer's Unqualified Apology And Accountability Pledge
- Keir Starmer gave a full, unqualified apology to Epstein's victims and accepted responsibility for believing Mandelson's claims.
- He framed accountability and protecting victims as central to public service and refused politically tempting disclosures that might prejudice investigations.
Defer Public Disclosure If It Risks Investigations
- Starmer chose not to release certain documents because police warned it could prejudice future investigations.
- Avoid releasing sensitive material when it risks justice; follow law enforcement advice to protect prosecutions.
Apology Strengthens Emotion But Raises Questions
- James O'Brien and Natasha Clark judged the apology sincere and without the usual political 'buts', which strengthened its emotional impact.
- But journalists pressed Starmer on Russia links and why, as a former prosecutor, he believed Mandelson, exposing ongoing credibility questions.