Steve Reed thinks reasonable doubt is against Epstein victims

In his interview with Laura Kuenssberg on the BBC, Labour cabinet minister Steve Reed appeared to shift the focus away from accountability, effectively casting doubt on Epstein’s victims rather than centring the seriousness of the allegations themselves.

Instead of clearly prioritising the need to protect and believe those reporting harm, Reed’s framing leaned toward cautioning against reputational damage and procedural concerns. Reed’s desperate avoidance tactics risk reinforcing a familiar and harmful pattern in UK politics: scrutinising victims more closely than the powerful figures actually accused of abuse.

Likely for many, this exchange will have underscored how instinctively the political establishment closes ranks, even when doing so undermines trust and deters victims from speaking out.

Burden of reasonable doubt misplaced by Steve Reed

Reasonable doubt has long functioned in UK society as a shield for the powerful, and our patriarchal system has inevitably led to a place where ‘compassionate’ British society would rather blame victims than hold powerful, abusive men to account. Reed’s behaviour reaffirms that misplaced priority by placing the burden of suspicion on tangible evidence released in the latest tranche of Epstein files in the US, instead of at the Labour peer.

Credible evidence has surfaced yet again showing very friendly ties between the Labour peer Peter Mandelson and disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. Nevertheless, it appears Labour are continuing to be the most amateur and corrupted people in the room as Reed refuses to entertain the possibility that they are protecting a powerful paedophile.

Pressed by Kuenssberg on what was known by Starmer of the long-running ties between ‘Petie’ and Epstein, Reed appeared desperate to deflect from the substance of the issue, leaning instead on claims of complexity to shut down scrutiny of Mandelson:

Laura Kuenssberg: Did your government have any knowledge of Peter Madison’s alleged financial links with Jeffrey Epstein?

Steve Reed: Of course not.

Kuenssberg: Of course not. Absolutely not.

Reed: I mean, you’re talking about things that happened 20 years and more than 20 years ago. Of course, there was no knowledge about what’s going on. I want to hear what happened just as much as you do, just as much as people watching this show.

Kuenssberg: But Lord Mandelson has said to us on the record a few weeks ago that he told Number 10 everything that there was to know when he was appointed as American ambassador. So is he not telling the truth?

Advertisement

Reed: Well, the reason he was removed as ambassador to the US is because there were things he had not disclosed. Now, I don’t know how far that lack of disclosure goes. I think he should answer questions about his own life, not me.

Kuenssberg: Should he be allowed back into the House of Lords?

Reed: Well, again, we need to know exactly what’s going on. It would be very easy for me to sit here and speculate. I think we’re far better to stick to what happened, find out what happened. I mean, above all else for me comes the interest of the victims. They deserve to have a light shone on what’s gone on so they can find closure.

Stop pretending you don’t know

Mandelson’s established ties should already be inexcusable in the eyes of the UK government. Yet the snail’s pace of accountability suggests it would take the most damning and deplorable evidence for those in power to show even minimal discomfort with him. As Skwawkbox wrote in September last year:

Despite Epstein’s 2008 conviction for paedophilia and the charges against him when he died in prison – with the US government claiming suicide and doctoring video evidence of the night of his death – Mandelson, who remains on the government payroll but may sue for wrongful dismissal, insists that Epstein was not a paedophile.

Now, an examination of court papers by a UK left-wing activist has confirmed that, according to evidence submitted in a 2023 court case, Mandelson remained close to Epstein three years after Epstein’s first paedophilia conviction – close enough that Epstein continued to ‘connect’ high-powered bankers, including JP Morgan, with Mandelson along with the likes of Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, wanted Israeli war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu and others

Steve Reed struck a similar tone in his interview with Lewis Goodall on LBC.

Pressed by Goodall, he appeared more irritated that Mandelson’s name kept resurfacing than genuinely disturbed by the serious possibility of traumatic sexual abuse against young girls. Rather than expressing concern for potential victims or genuinely acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, Reed’s retorts inferred frustration with the media scrutiny itself.

Remarkably, Reed even suggested that because Mandelson is on a leave of absence and not doing any actual work in the House of Lords, he effectively does not hold a peerage at all. Goodall quickly challenged the logic, cutting through the semantic dodge:

Absence isn’t sufficient accountability

Steve Reed’s lazy responses lay bare an instinct to protect Labour’s most powerful figures. His subsequent interviews make it clear meaningful action by Starmer will be painfully slow against those with ties to a known and convicted sexual predator, like Mandelson.

In contrast to Reed’s empty protestations and deflections, we at the Canary believe that victims’ interests must always take precedence.

Mandelson must be made to forfeit all privileges and titles until formally cleared.

Featured image via the Canary