Mandy

[Shortfall]

If i scroll back will I find a post saying this?

It's mentioned in many of the news articles and reportage. I also said it in this post:


"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."

 

[Pblakeney]

Fine. Do you have a gut feeling on it?

My feeling?
If he's lied then he is gone. If he hasn't then it is a storm in a teacup not worthy of spending my time on.

 

[Shortfall]

It was also in the original Guardian article here:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...vetting-but-foreign-office-overruled-decision


"According to multiple sources, Mandelson was initially denied clearance in late January 2025 after a developed vetting process, a highly confidential background check by security officials.
Keir Starmer had by then announced he would be making Mandelson the UK’s chief diplomat in Washington, posing a dilemma for officials at the Foreign Office,"

 

[bobzmyunkle]

It really says something about NCAAP that there are people willing to make excuses for Starmer on this.

You're welcome to leave.

 

[Pross]

I'll restate my belief. He knew. And if he didn't know he should have.
Actually scrub the last bit, he's lying.

I'm not sure I agree. I think it's reasonable that if you know someone has had to go through a rigorous vetting process and they subsequently get that vetting then they passed. When you are in a senior roll in any job you have to delegate and trust in those below you, it's impossible to micro manage every element (although I've worked with plenty of people who try!). The process was followed but the process is ridiculous if it allows the results of vetting to be overruled so easily and even more ridiculous that no-one in Government seemed aware of this.

However, the question I haven't heard asked that I think is quite important is why the FO decided to overrule the vetting process and grant DV anyway? Was it implied by the PM (or others in Government) that the vetting had to be granted no matter what but that the PM was not to be informed of any issues raised to provide plausible deniability? I suspect that a decision along those lines was made by someone but probably without Starmer being aware.

 

[Shortfall]

You're welcome to leave.

Love you too x

 

[secretsqirrel]

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'.

And that my friends is why Mandlestein was the perfect ambassador

 

[TailWindHome]

It's mentioned in many of the news articles and reportage.

Being mentioned in the articles isn't the same as being discussed here.
Articles may I add you spent several hours claiming said that 'Starmer knew'

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

So no one mentioned it had been 'announced' then

 

[TailWindHome]

However, the question I haven't heard asked that I think is quite important is why the FO decided to overrule the vetting process and grant DV anyway?

Who knew what, and when.

The only facts we have are this

- Mandy failed vetting
- Those who did the vetting knew
- Olly Robbins knew

The next question is

What did Lammy know?

 

[Psamathe]

I regard all these revelations as a bit irrelevant. Starmer might be clear on the technicality the FCDO can overide developed vetting, that Ministers are not allowed to see the security reports, etc.

What always has beggars belief and highlight's Starmer's stupidity and deisastrous judgement is that even on Mandleson's past record (in the public domain) it was a blindingly obvious stupid decision.

Starmer won't step down or be challenged (the coming May elections will give those wanting to challenge a far stronger case and they can support their bid in May by showing technical "loyalty" today).

 

[Pinno718]

You're welcome to leave.

Resign I say

 

[Shortfall]

Being mentioned in the articles isn't the same as being discussed here.
Articles may I add you spent several hours claiming said that 'Starmer knew'



So no one mentioned it had been 'announced' then

He wasn't just mentioned in passing, the Guardian article categorically states that Starmer had appointed Mandelson before the security vetting was completed. This fact was all over the news and social media yesterday which is why I said above that they 'd already decided to appoint him anyway. Just because you missed it doesn't mean that it wasn't out there.

 

[Shortfall]

Resign I say

I sort of did that on BR which rather bizarrely seemed to really annoy some of the people who already hated me. Hey ho.

 

[First Aspect]

There are plenty of facts to support the accusation that the PM is lying, all that there is to decide is whether he didn't actually see what everyone else can and did see or whether he's just a bumbling fool who wasn't across the details of this highly sensitive and controversial appointment. Either way it's not a good look. I don't remember you extending the same benefit of the doubt to Boris Johnson btw.

There are plenty of shouted accusations that the PM is lying. Not the same thing.

A healthy dose of scepticism is fine in my view. But if you are being absolutely definitive at this point it's like saying you knew all along it was going to be tails.

Personally looks to me that he's trapped between dishonesty, wilful ignorance and incompetence. The technical distinction between the first two and the last two is not politically relevant.

I think he'll settle for incompetence as the least worst option, and the decision for each of us is whether that's sufficiently incompetent in the current geopolitical climate (which frankly has more impact domestically than most domestic policy making) to induce resignation. Given the parlous alternatives, my view is probably not.

 

[Shortfall]

There are plenty of shouted accusations that the PM is lying. Not the same thing.

A healthy dose of scepticism is fine in my view. But if you are being absolutely definitive at this point it's like saying you knew all along it was going to be tails.

Personally looks to me that he's trapped between dishonesty, wilful ignorance and incompetence. The technical distinction between the first two and the last two is not politically relevant.

I think he'll settle for incompetence as the least worst option, and the decision for each of us is whether that's sufficiently incompetent in the current geopolitical climate (which frankly has more impact domestically than most domestic policy making) to induce resignation. Given the parlous alternatives, my view is probably not.

Based on the available evidence I think there's little doubt that he's lying (there's lots of other evidence that has been conveniently lost/stolen/ not made available despite the humble address). If people want to give him the benefit of the doubt then that's up to them but I would say they are being wilfully blind, naiive, or both and I don't think they'd extend the same leniency to someone at the different end of the political spectrum to them.

Cue someone turning up to tell me that Starmer is actually a right winger.