Mandy

[TailWindHome]

For the purpose of informing a third party and keeping personal details private.

To state a person has passed or failed vetting will be sufficient to make a decision in regard of appointment to a job

I can't make any sense of that reply.
How does it relate to my post

 

[BoldonLad]

Interesting on the Spectator podcast.
There is no pass or fail in vetting.
Security people presents their findings. Officials decide on appointing.

Consistent with Robbins making a decision and No10 saying the process was followed

In BBC News interview, this evening, Starmer using “failed” repeatedly.

 

[TailWindHome]

In BBC News interview, Starmer using “failed” repeatedly.

The Spectator podcast did the same too lol

 

[CXRAndy]

Only Robins to give evidence at select committee on Tuesday.

Fireworks will fly if he contradicts starmer

 

[TailWindHome]

Only Robins to give evidence at select committee on Tuesday.

Fireworks will fly if he contradicts starmer

You'll accept his testimony either way?

 

[CXRAndy]

I can't make any sense of that reply.
How does it relate to my post

A deeply intrusive investigation into a person's background and interviews, doesn't need to be disclosed in details to make a decision on whether someone should be approved or rejected for a job.

You'll accept his testimony either way?

Robins testimony will be crucial to starmers survival. If Robins took it on himself to override the vetting results will destroy whats is left of his political career.

If he turns up with receipts about telling others of the vetting, starmer is toast

Tuesday judgement day

 

[CXRAndy]

The Guardian readers aren't convinced by starmer, far from it.

 

[TailWindHome]

Robins testimony will be crucial to starmers survival. If Robins took it on himself to override the vetting results will destroy whats is left of his political career.

If he turns up with receipts about telling others of the vetting, starmer is toast

Tuesday judgement day

You'll accept his testimony either way?

 

[briantrumpet]

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.

There's quite a lot of difference as PM between just outsourcing everything to others' agendas (e.g. letting McSweeney making all the political and policy calls, based on spurious polling) and being a PM who doesn't listen to their cabinet and decides stuff without harnessing the combined aptitudes they have assembled.

Maybe Starmer is just a blank slate who is a manager without vision, who just lets things happen if he think he can manage them downstream – that might actually explain why there have been so many political missteps, as he's not really deeply invested in the important calls.

 

[TailWindHome]

A deeply intrusive investigation into a person's background and interviews, doesn't need to be disclosed in details to make a decision on whether someone should be approved or rejected for a job.

Ok
Now, how does that relate to my post?

 

[CXRAndy]

You'll accept his testimony either way?

If he brings receipts

Yes

 

[TailWindHome]

If he brings receipts

Yes

So you won't accept just 'his word' either way?

 

[CXRAndy]

So you won't accept just 'his word' either way?

Someone is telling lies over this, I need verification

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Latest Guardian report suggests Starmer is telling the truth.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...eter-mandelson-vetting-two-top-civil-servants

 

[C R]

Latest Guardian report suggests Starmer is telling the truth.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...eter-mandelson-vetting-two-top-civil-servants

The funniest/saddest part of al this is that guardian readers were aghast at Mandelson's appointment, whereas all the right wingers now whinging were defending the appointment.