Mandy
- Thread starter Ian H
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
midlandsgrimpeur
Senior Member
I do hold him to the same standard and have no issue with anyone else doing so. If he knew about the failed vetting and has now subsequently lied then he should go. If he is telling the truth and did not know then he has nothing to answer to.
bobzmyunkle
Veteran
Well, apart from not knowing. Should be not have known?
TailWindHome
Über Member
Has Ollie Robbins kept receipts?
I can believe Starmer didn't know
Entirely in keeping with his premiership (derogatory)
midlandsgrimpeur
Senior Member
According to Starmer he did know, Mandelson had cleared Developed Vetting. As Prime Minister I doubt there would be a single thought of his to ask if Mandelson had failed and it had been overruled by the FCDO. If it is proved Starmer is telling the truth we can't really throw the accusation at him that he should have known. As Prime Minister you put your trust in the fact that your Departments and Ministers have followed process, you don't have time to question everything if there is no apparent cause to do so.
Last edited:
secretsqirrel
Über Member
Christ, we really are in the era of ‘if you want to believe it, it must be true’. 
How very Trumpian.
How very Trumpian.
This is about giving someone the most important job in the foreign office. The man they appointed was a known serial liar who was booted out of government twice previously and maintained a close personal friendship with a convicted paedophile. If Starmer is saying "Oh well I didn't actually know that he'd failed vetting" then he bl00dy well should have! It's hardly a credible defence is it?
midlandsgrimpeur
Senior Member
He isn't saying he didn't know he failed the vetting. He is saying the FCDO overruled the secret service and passed Mandelson for DV, so as far as Starmer was concerned Mandelson had passed vetting. There is a big difference between being told Mandelson had passed and being told he had failed but they passed him anyway.
As per my answer to bobz, if the line is then "well he should have known". Why would he? As I outlined above, any PM is not going to question what a govt department tells them without cause to.
Beebo
Legendary Member
He’s been sacked or jumped. Either way he has gone.
Pinno718
Legendary Member
I post stuff about Donald Trump on the err... the Donald Trump thread which is about err... Donald Trump.
His decision to bomb Iran as Netanyahu's dutiful puppy dog has resulted in the blockade in the Hormuz Strait which is leading to global financial pain.
He's caused a rift in NATO.
He prefers Putin over Zelensky.
His inexplicable tariffs has caused huge headaches (not least in the US).
He is breaking long held alliances and in the process, handing over more power to China and India which is also isolating the US.
He supported Orban - the Trojan horse in the EU, Putin's mate and the man vetoing sanctions on Russia and loans to Ukraine.
He's pulled US funding for Ukraine (even though it was approved constitutionally by congress). Putin is a threat to Europe (although that threat is diminishing rapidly).
Under his administration, he's built detention centres where people are being treated inhumanly. US citizens have been murdered and he's deporting people without due process and sending them to prisons in foreign countries at both immense human and financial cost.
On top of that, he's grifting like no other on a scale that is often incomprehensible.
There is every indication that he is covering up for a cabal of billionaire paedophiles (and murderers).
He's pardoned innumerable criminals (iro 1600+).
He has given tax breaks for the super wealthy and whilst waging an illegal war on Iran costing $billions, has withdrawn food stamps (SNAP) affecting 42m children and health care costs have soared.
Never mind the stagnation in growth and rising unemployment - 'when the US sneezes, the world catches a cold'.
Never mind handing the baton to the insidious ambitions of the likes of Musk and Thiel and Zuckerberg who collectively (and sometimes openly) support the idea of a Technocracy over democracy.
But that's okay, you can dismiss my concerns as 'obsessive' and you can dismiss all of the above because my sources are questionable. Categorically and unequivocally refute any of the above. Be my guest.
And I am definitely not your 'mate'.
Last edited:
Because you're giving one of the most politically toxic people in British history the most important jobs in the Foreign Office, a known liar who has been been unceremoniously thrown out of office in disgrace twice previously and someone who maintained a close friendship with a convicted paedophile. Wouldn't you personally make absolutely sure that every process had been followed to the letter in those circumstances? Starmer is trying to maintain the fiction that he has some kind of plausible deniability because he trusted his Foreign Office officials, but the only half dozen people in the world who believe him happen to be on this forum (oh and Matthew Stadlen). The fact is that they wanted Mandy to have the job and they wilfully ignored all the evidence against him because they'd already decided. It really says something about NCAAP that there are people willing to make excuses for Starmer on this.
Okay mate 😘
TailWindHome
Über Member
By doing what?
By asking to see the documents relating to the vetting process? Or were they stored on Morgan McSweeney's "stolen" mobile? Do you believe Starmer or are you just willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise? Either way, knock yourself out, I happen to think he's a liar. Let's see what unfolds.
TailWindHome
Über Member
Worth reading what's actually beong reported by the source that broke the story
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...vetting-but-foreign-office-overruled-decision
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...vetting-but-foreign-office-overruled-decision