Starmer's vision quest

[secretsqirrel]

Because we clearly cannot trust him to act in tbe best interests of the UK. Whilst a in Government passing privileged information to 3rd parties whilst receiving money from those 3rd parties. That's acting for personal gain to the detriment of the UK.

hindsight.

 

[Psamathe]

Because we clearly cannot trust him to act in tbe best interests of the UK. Whilst a in Government passing privileged information to 3rd parties whilst receiving money from those 3rd parties. That's acting for personal gain to the detriment of the UK.

hindsight.

But then who could have imagined that appointing somebody who was at the time of appointment known to have maintained a close friendship with a high profile sex offender convicted for procuring a child for prostitution ... who could have ever guess that might less than ideal.

Ms Thorberry on TV yesterday saying how the "Due Diligence" done was a complete joke.

The question is not only about what Mandleson did but also those who after all that appointed him to such a major post.

 

[briantrumpet]

But then who could have imagined that appointing somebody who was at the time of appointment known to have maintained a close friendship with a high profile sex offender convicted for procuring a child for prostitution ... who could have ever guess that might less than ideal.

Ms Thorberry on TV yesterday saying how the "Due Diligence" done was a complete joke.

The question is not only about what Mandleson did but also those who after all that appointed him to such a major post.

My assumption is that there are some pretty 'dark arts' and sneaky stuff going on in diplomacy in general (including info from spying), and specifically in this case the calculation that Mandelson, despite his many and deep flaws, could get some advantage with Trump and his regime to the UK's advantage.

I'd suspect that Starmer realises in retrospect, especially in light of fresh information appearing, that ignoring the 'dodgy stuff' they must have been aware of was a gross miscalculation, and the hoped-for advantage did not justify overlooking the red flags.

 

[BoldonLad]

Why? It was an ideal appointment if you stop and think about it. You need an ambassador that has moved in the same circles, that can schmooze and stroke egos, that knows where the bodies are buried.

If Starmers had had any balls, he'd have ignored the naysayers and pointed out that Mandy was the perfect choice.

Ambassadors are not there to win purity prizes they are there to represent our interests and further our goals in whatever way that takes.

True, the world cannot function, without a bit of duplicity and corruption.

Rolls Royce, BAE, etc should step up and begin paying "introduction fees" (assuming they have stopped doing so), that will get a bit of "growth" for Rachel.

 

[secretsqirrel]

My assumption is that there are some pretty 'dark arts' and sneaky stuff going on in diplomacy in general (including info from spying), and specifically in this case the calculation that Mandelson, despite his many and deep flaws, could get some advantage with Trump and his regime to the UK's advantage.

I'd suspect that Starmer realises in retrospect, especially in light of fresh information appearing, that ignoring the 'dodgy stuff' they must have been aware of was a gross miscalculation, and the hoped-for advantage did not justify overlooking the red flags.

At the time he was appointed he was known as an oily creep ideal for the job.

For a bit of research I looked at the Normal Island thread from post #1494. Nobody here thought about breaching government security at that time.

 

[briantrumpet]

At the time he was appointed he was known as an oily creep ideal for the job.

For a bit of research I looked at the Normal Island thread from post #1494. Nobody here thought about breaching government security at that time.

Hence your 'hindsight' comment, indeed. I can't imagine for one minute that Starmer would have appointed him had he known about the selling out the UK stuff from the emails, as that would have suggested he was the opposite of what Starmer needed out of him, and even though Starmer isn't perfect, I'd doubt if he's that much of an idiot.

I might, of course, be wrong.

 

[icowden]

True, the world cannot function, without a bit of duplicity and corruption.
Rolls Royce, BAE, etc should step up and begin paying "introduction fees" (assuming they have stopped doing so), that will get a bit of "growth" for Rachel.

It's a bit of a balancing act. If you are dealing with a corrupt regime where sweeteners are expected, then to stick to your guns and say "no bribes" isn't going to get you a good deal. Instead, you offer the sweetener but also a bit of push back "we can't keep doing this old chap - not the done thing you see. "

 

[BoldonLad]

It's a bit of a balancing act. If you are dealing with a corrupt regime where sweeteners are expected, then to stick to your guns and say "no bribes" isn't going to get you a good deal. Instead, you offer the sweetener but also a bit of push back "we can't keep doing this old chap - not the done thing you see. "

Well I never, is that how it is done?

 

[Pblakeney]

It's a bit of a balancing act. If you are dealing with a corrupt regime where sweeteners are expected, then to stick to your guns and say "no bribes" isn't going to get you a good deal. Instead, you offer the sweetener but also a bit of push back "we can't keep doing this old chap - not the done thing you see. "

I have worked for military projects at BAE and Babcock. I can confirm that they both have a strict no bribery policy.
Of course, that might only be "official policy".

 

[PurplePenguin]

I think the bribery act killed a lot of bribes.

 

[briantrumpet]

I have worked for military projects at BAE and Babcock. I can confirm that they both have a strict no bribery policy.
Of course, that might only be "official policy".

Did they bribe you with £s to go into work?

 

[Pblakeney]

Did they bribe you with £s to go into work?

Tbh, they weren’t getting value for money towards the end. 🤣

 

[briantrumpet]

Do we actually have to go through the whole 'cutting off of our nose' bit again, like Brexit, before we accept that immigration is not only essential but actually has a large economic benefit?

 

[Pblakeney]

Do we actually have to go through the whole 'cutting off of our nose' bit again, like Brexit, before we accept that immigration is not only essential but actually has a large economic benefit?

View attachment 12858

Too soon to tell.

 

[secretsqirrel]

Too soon to tell.

Careful what you wish for.