Mandelson failed security vetting. Starmer says he didn’t know

eazybee

The information would go to the Chairman of Governors I imagine. The school secretary knows most things but has no authority.

No, it would not! Nobody except the designated person has any right to know why a person has failed a DBS check. It's doubtful whether a school secretary would be the designated person, but a member of senior management in a big comprehensive school might be.

TakeThat7

So something comes up in a police check and it can just be brushed off really I think that's strange What's the point of the police check And didn't Mandelson get appointed before his check was completed that's not making sense to me

Firstly, this kind of check isn't done until an appointment is made. The appointment letter will have a clause in it, stating that it is conditional on a satisfactory security check.

Secondly, this isn't a police check like a DBS. It's much more intrusive. The questioning and answers are strictly confidential. The public will never know why Mandelson was borderline.

Allira above says it all One rule for one but not Starmer When Mandelson was given the job Starmer was grinning as though he was really happy the darkness guy had the job

The information would go to the Chairman of Governors I imagine. The school secretary knows most things but has no authority.

The Bottom line was very interesting this afternoon.
The Guardian journalist who broke the story was being interviewed.
He used the words cover up several times.
These were not his words but the words of the person who contacted him.
From hearing that interview there are no doubts whatsoever in my mind.

So something comes up in a police check and it can just be brushed off really I think that's strange What's the point of the police check And didn't Mandelson get appointed before his check was completed that's not making sense to me

ronib

My DH explained that the publication of the Epstein files scuppered Mandy and all associated with his appointment.

This has nothing to do with the Epstein files.

"Would a headteacher keep their job if they had a secratary who hadn't told them a teacher failed the police check ?"

A few years ago a young colleague, had his Police check come back that highlights an event in his past. As one of the managers I had to take him to one side to explain.
It was irrelevant to this post, so as it was my decision I let him carry on.
HR told me it was my call, as senior line manager. I was not not Head of Dept but trusted enough to make the right call.

DaisyAnneReturns

MartavTaurus

TakeThat7

Would a headteacher keep their job if they had a secratary who hadn't told them a teacher failed the police check ?Why is Mandelson still being called Lord is there no way of taking that title from people who are a security risk and have even been arrested The Lords are not even voted in by the public

NO. The governors would have grounds to dismiss the Headteacher on grounds of gross negligence. Absolutely. It is the Headteacher's job to monitor. It would be a regulatory compliance failure. I used to sign the document, and so did the safe guarding governor every time.

Of course the school might choose not to do this. Ultimately, culpability lies with the Head.

You appear to be trying to make appointment about accountability, but I’m not sure the comparison fits. A headteacher’s responsibilities and a political appointment or peerage operate under very different rules and systems, so it’s not really a like-for-like situation.

The question was clearly asked, Would a Headteacher keep their job if they had a secretary who hadn't told them a teacher failed the DBS check? I answered clearly.

Make your own mind on the other issue.

DAR are you asking me? And …. Obviously all Mandy’s emails and contacts ended up being public therefore no doubt about financial interests! There for the world to see?

What was the question KS should have asked, other than has PM passed the vetting?
If KS was told 'yes', which appears to be the case, what was the other question?

MartavTaurus

TakeThat7

Would a headteacher keep their job if they had a secratary who hadn't told them a teacher failed the police check ?Why is Mandelson still being called Lord is there no way of taking that title from people who are a security risk and have even been arrested The Lords are not even voted in by the public

NO. The governors would have grounds to dismiss the Headteacher on grounds of gross negligence. Absolutely. It is the Headteacher's job to monitor. It would be a regulatory compliance failure. I used to sign the document, and so did the safe guarding governor every time.

Of course the school might choose not to do this. Ultimately, culpability lies with the Head.

You appear to be trying to make appointment about accountability, but I’m not sure the comparison fits. A headteacher’s responsibilities and a political appointment or peerage operate under very different rules and systems, so it’s not really a like-for-like situation.

ronib

My DH explained that the publication of the Epstein files scuppered Mandy and all associated with his appointment.

... and?

TakeThat7

Would a headteacher keep their job if they had a secratary who hadn't told them a teacher failed the police check ?Why is Mandelson still being called Lord is there no way of taking that title from people who are a security risk and have even been arrested The Lords are not even voted in by the public

NO. The governors would have grounds to dismiss the Headteacher on grounds of gross negligence. Absolutely. It is the Headteacher's job to monitor. It would be a regulatory compliance failure. I used to sign the document, and so did the safe guarding governor every time.

Of course the school might choose not to do this. Ultimately, culpability lies with the Head.

Would a headteacher keep their job if they had a secratary who hadn't told them a teacher failed the police check ?Why is Mandelson still being called Lord is there no way of taking that title from people who are a security risk and have even been arrested The Lords are not even voted in by the public

My DH explained that the publication of the Epstein files scuppered Mandy and all associated with his appointment.

Mandelson didn’t fail vetting; rather, there were issues noted during the DV process that didn’t ultimately prevent clearance.

This was a system that worked as it was supposed to work. It may now be outdated and need reviewing but we rarely come to that conclusion until something goes wrong - from today's perspective - with said system.

Starmer didn’t know Mandelson well. Pushing for Mandelson would have come from McSweeney, probably from Mandelson himself who was also after the Chancellorship of Oxford.

Had Kamala Harris won the Presidential election, would Karen Pierce have been left in place?

Watching TRIP, Campbell said three names were under consideration, Mandelson, George Osborne and David Miliband.

I haven’t caught up with the latest news but I did see that Thornberry wants to call more witnesses to appear before the FAC. McSweeney needs to appear. I think she should also call Case and Barton. Much of what happened did so before Robbins’ and Wormald’s appointments. In a Civil Service where things aren’t recorded in writing (but should be) she needs to talk to the people who were in post when most of this was going on.

twaddle

AGAA4

It seems that Keir Starmer was not told about the failed vetting and Robbins has done nothing wrong but has been dismissed.
The problem arising from this is the civil service losing confidence in Starmer. "A chill wind is blowing through the civil service". The feeling that even if they follow procedure they can be sacked.
I don't want Starmer to go but I think he needs to work to mend fences with the civil service as he needs them.

He certainly does. One of his biggest mistakes was to appoint Morgan McSweeney as Chief of Staff. He needs a loyal and trustworthy Chief of Staff, who can kick backsides but also charm opponents, somebody who understands the national "Zeitgeist".

Starmer has relatively little political experience and it shows. He has some good ideas, but he doesn't seem to understand all the intricacies of Whitehall, in order to get things done and to take the public with him.

Agree completely.

What an almighty mess and some enjoying it all.

twaddle

Smileless2012

Olly Robbins did not know red boxes had been ticked twaddle. He didn't know and had never seen that particular document showing the red boxes. All he was told that there was a leaning toward not giving Mandelson clearance.

That's what I thought. In that case, he had no reason to tell Starmer anything and Robbins behaved professionally. Goodness knows what form the "leaning toward" took, but he was correct not to pass on tittle tattle. Not only that, but the original story is wrong! Mandelson didn't fail the vetting and this has been the biggest red herring ever!

It's all a bit weird. Everybody knew of Mandelson's reputation when he was appointed. His two sackings from the cabinet were in the public domain. As far as I can remember, the extent of his dealings with Epstein weren't fully known and I'm not even sure that the public was aware just how many friendships with powerful people Epstein had cultivated. Why has the story hit the headlines now?

It seems that the DV has been badly handled and there seem to have been misunderstandings, but nothing illegal has taken place.

Robbins appears to have acted professionally; without clear, substantiated concerns, there was no basis to brief Keir Starmer. Claims that Peter Mandelson was “leaning toward” something are too vague to justify passing on.

The vetting issue also seems mischaracterised. Mandelson didn’t fail DV clearance, so that framing is misleading.

His past was already public at the time of appointment, and while his links to Jeffrey Epstein are now under greater scrutiny, it’s unclear they were fully understood then.

Overall, this looks more like confusion and hindsight than evidence of wrongdoing.

Casdon's post may be clear, concise and accurate, as far as it goes.
What is missing is the answer to the question everyone was asking about Mandelson's vetting, put so succinctly by Diane Abbott,
"Why didn't the Prime Minister ask?"

I can’t work out why Mandy returned to the UK when he did. He served quite some time in the US as ambassador so what exactly triggered his recall? Did the security services know that risks could not be mitigated at this stage? If so, on what grounds did the security service make its decision? And so on … and on.

AGAA4

It seems that Keir Starmer was not told about the failed vetting and Robbins has done nothing wrong but has been dismissed.
The problem arising from this is the civil service losing confidence in Starmer. "A chill wind is blowing through the civil service". The feeling that even if they follow procedure they can be sacked.
I don't want Starmer to go but I think he needs to work to mend fences with the civil service as he needs them.

He certainly does. One of his biggest mistakes was to appoint Morgan McSweeney as Chief of Staff. He needs a loyal and trustworthy Chief of Staff, who can kick backsides but also charm opponents, somebody who understands the national "Zeitgeist".

Starmer has relatively little political experience and it shows. He has some good ideas, but he doesn't seem to understand all the intricacies of Whitehall, in order to get things done and to take the public with him.

Sarnia

Primrose53

It seems to me that people have lost confidence in KS - even many in his own party.

As I said yesterday only 25 parliamentarians out of 403 turned up to support him yesterday. During his questioning on Monday I only saw two MPs speaking out in his support.

I think the May election results will be make or break for KS.

That's very possible, but would have been the case without all this. All it has done has distracted Starmer from the real business of government and international issues.

Ironically, if there has been briefing against Starmer (which I think is very possible) it has come from people whom most Starmer-detractors would never vote for.

Smileless2012

Olly Robbins did not know red boxes had been ticked twaddle. He didn't know and had never seen that particular document showing the red boxes. All he was told that there was a leaning toward not giving Mandelson clearance.

That's what I thought. In that case, he had no reason to tell Starmer anything and Robbins behaved professionally. Goodness knows what form the "leaning toward" took, but he was correct not to pass on tittle tattle. Not only that, but the original story is wrong! Mandelson didn't fail the vetting and this has been the biggest red herring ever!

It's all a bit weird. Everybody knew of Mandelson's reputation when he was appointed. His two sackings from the cabinet were in the public domain. As far as I can remember, the extent of his dealings with Epstein weren't fully known and I'm not even sure that the public was aware just how many friendships with powerful people Epstein had cultivated. Why has the story hit the headlines now?

It seems that the DV has been badly handled and there seem to have been misunderstandings, but nothing illegal has taken place.