

I have been following British media a bit and unless I am mistaken, this Mandelson chap ran afoul of his Epstein conduct back in September, which was before the DOJ even started releasing the Epstein files as part of the Epstein act, which hadn’t passed at the time. The subsequent release and redactions seem to have exposed even more, but his goose was cooked before that.
Current allegations are that Mandelson handed Epstein extremely sensitive government information. I forget what Brits call it, but we’d say it was classified.
And it currently seems like PM Kier Starmer is probably going to fall with him, since he apparently knew about Mendelson’s continuing association with post-conviction Epstein.
Anyways, that one particularly seems somewhat unrelated to the redaction choices.

It’s also important to have for its own merit. Sometimes, people have strong intuitions about “obvious” things, and they’re completely wrong. Without science studying things, it’s “obvious” that the sun goes around the Earth, for example.
Without those studies, you cannot know whether it’s bad for your health. You can assume it’s bad for your health. You can believe it’s bad for your health. But you cannot know. These aren’t bad assumptions or harmful beliefs, by the way. But the thing is, you simply cannot know without testing.