Mandy

[CXRAndy]

Let's be kind to starmers position

We'll go along with he didn't know mandleson failed vetting until after starner announced his role.

Why didn't starmer just rescind the role for mandleson-make up some excuse and appoint a person who could pass vetting.

None of which is plausible btw

 

[TailWindHome]

I believe Starmer is lying about what he knew about the vetting, you don't.

What would change your mind?

 

[TailWindHome]

We'll go along with he didn't know mandleson failed vetting until after starner announced his role.

That's not "being kind', you're not 'going along' with anything

He couldn't have known before the announcement as the vetting wasn't failed until after the announcement

Please try to get a basic grasp on what's being reported

 

[Psamathe]

Disappointing how Starmer is now trying to make out he's a victim in this. He made a beyond stupid decision irrespective of the Developed Vetting.
Keir Starmer says it is unforgivable he was not told Mandelson failed vetting

Seems (apparently) Starmer compounded disastrous poor judgement by announcing Mandleson's appointment before the outcome of the Developed Vetting had completed so what would he have done? Developed Vetting can involve a fair detail of personal lives and circumstances so to announce one day Mandleson has been appointed then a few days later "we've changed our minds following investigations" would have unfairly damaged Mandleson's reputation ie announcing their investigations had identified hidden bad things, encouraging every investagtive journalist to target Mandleson.

Starmer dug his hole with poor judgement announcing the appointment too soon. He is not the victim he's trying to make out he is. His decision, his responsibility.

 

[briantrumpet]

Prediction: Starmer's playing the "I was furious nt to be told" card, and I suspect he'd not do that if there were any documentation that he'd been told, so will slither out of the clutches of the press.

Let's not forget what the RW press said at the time:

 

[Bromptonaut]

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

I think that's key.

Once Mandelson was, as it were, selected the fact can't be kept under HMG's while due diligence including but not limited to DV is done.

I was in the Civil Service for 35 years. Never in a post that required more than basic checks but one of my staff was offered a post a GCHQ which required DV, or whatever it was called at the time. She was offered the job conditionally upon passing vetting. I was interviewed by some security guy and asked stuff like whether I knew of any money troubles, did I know where she took holidays and was she flight or excessively flirty with colleagues - she was married.

I wonder whether Mandelson was subject to extensive checks and failed one part, perhaps to do with Epstein or his sex life. Robbins decided to let that pass, perhaps with mitigations. Might that be normal process?

It will be interesting to see what emerges.

 

[BoldonLad]

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.

How would we know?

 

[Pross]

The thing with security clearance is that they are usually looking for skeletons that might make you prone to blackmail or bribery so spending your weekends getting spanked whilst dressed in a tutu or having extensive 'quirky' but legal porn collection might not be a problem but if it is something you lie about being involved with that suggests you don't want people to know and are therefore exposed to potential blackmail. Given how much known sleaze there is around Mandelson it makes you cringe to think what they may have uncovered that he was hiding! Alternatively, and highly likely from what we know of him, he lied about something they knew about.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Do you believe Starmer's version of events?

Whether anyone of the uninformed, or only partially informed, people on this forum believed it or not is totally irrelevant to the facts and adds nothing substantial to the evidence. As usual beliefs are led by political prejudice rather than facts. And I am probably as guilty of this as anyone.

 

[Pinno718]

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

I don't hate you but in almost all cases (when you get on your soap box), there's a tangible underlying cynicism.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

How would we know?

The same way we know, there will be evidence or testimony to the contrary. If there is none then we accept he is telling the truth or you go down the path of conspiracy and cover up.

 

[CXRAndy]

The top civil servant who has become the fall guy for the appointment of Lord Mandelson insisted he was acting on Sir Keir Starmer’s orders.

Prime Minister wanted to make this appointment himself

 

[CXRAndy]

Independent are headlining

Starmer knew 7 months ago about failed vetting

No 10 knew Mandelson failed security vetting seven months ago
The Independent put revelations that Peter Mandelson had failed MI6 vetting for the US ambassador role to Downing Street in September – but a ‘furious’ Sir Keir insists he did not know until

 

[briantrumpet]

I suspect that the fact that a speedy enquiry has already been set up under a retired judge means that Starmer knows they won't be able to pin anything specific on him.

I think it's more likely to underline why he's been such a disappointing PM, outsourcing all the chewy stuff to others (e.g. McSweeney) rather than following his instincts/convictions and taking personal control.

 

[Pinno718]

I think it's more likely to underline why he's been such a disappointing PM, outsourcing all the chewy stuff to others (e.g. McSweeney) rather than following his instincts/convictions and taking personal control.

Err, that's what you have a Cabinet for surely?
Unless you want to give me specific examples where you think he should have taken the reins.