Mandy

[TailWindHome]

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.

Because it's in the article doesn't mean it was being discussed here.
In fact, it being in the article and *not* being discussed in here was rather my point

 

[TailWindHome]

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).

What available evidence though?

 

[CXRAndy]

Nobody believes PM

Says Diane Abbott

 

[CXRAndy]

Starmer says he refuses to quit



Expect his resignation speech on an hour

 

[Shortfall]

Because it's in the article doesn't mean it was being discussed here.
In fact, it being in the article and *not* being discussed in here was rather my point

You said this in an earlier post:

I think we're missing a key point, that both supports Starmer's version of events but condemns him

The appointment seems to have been made *before* vetting was completed, and therefore before vetting was failed

In reply to this I said that this was already common knowledge and had been widely reported on. You asked "Will I find this if I scroll back up the thread?" and I supplied you with the original Guardian article which confirmed this as well as one of my own posts where I said that they already appointed him anyway before the vetting was completed. At this point I don't know what we're arguing about or am I missing the point?

 

[TailWindHome]

In reply to this I said that this was already common knowledge and had been widely reported on.

No, you didn't say that.

 

[Shortfall]

No, you didn't say that.

Who is the Royal We? Do you mean you? This is central to the debate.

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."

 

[CXRAndy]

Its all inferred

 

[TailWindHome]

You're quoting your own posts to prove you've said something even though those posts say something completely different.
You did the same yesterday with the initial reporting

Ngl. It's a waste of everyone's time.

 

[TailWindHome]

Its all inferred

It's good to learn new words

Next step is to understand what they mean

 

[CXRAndy]

Inference was the decision is on your part.

I knew perfectly 👌

 

[CXRAndy]

Starmer wanted mandleson as the ambassador, damned if anyone was going to disagree with starmer-his decision


View: https://x.com/i/status/2045056616236515434

 

[Shortfall]

You're quoting your own posts to prove you've said something even though those posts say something completely different.
You did the same yesterday with the initial reporting

Ngl. It's a waste of everyone's time.

Ok one last time. You said "The appointment seems to have been made *before* vetting was completed, and therefore before vetting was failed.". I said yes, and this is absolutely central to the debate and it was already out there and being widely reported on . I quoted the Guardian article where they said this when you asked me would you find it if you scrolled up the thread. This is now just verbal judo and frankly it got boring a long time ago. I believe Starmer is lying about what he knew about the vetting, you don't. Fine, we'll see what comes of it.

 

[Psamathe]

Maybe in this case (and given the involvement of politicians) "lying" is a slippery term. At what point is failing to inquire about the blindingly obvious to avoid having answers "lying"; at what point is true but misleading on a technicality "lying"; at what point answering a similar but different question "lying" (maybe as the asker doesn't appreciate the technicality so intent and technical detail are not the same).

 

[TailWindHome]

I said

I think we're missing a key point, that both supports Starmer's version of events but condemns him

The appointment seems to have been made *before* vetting was completed, and therefore before vetting was failed

You said

Who is the Royal We? Do you mean you? This is central to the debate.

You claim you said

In reply to this I said that this was already common knowledge and had been widely reported on.