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

Boz

Starmer could say he wasn't given hard evidence - nothing in writing but,believe me, he would have been received whispered concerns into his ear.
Where does Lammy fit into all this?

I'm confused. Why should anybody believe you?

Mollygo

Boz

Starmer could say he wasn't given hard evidence - nothing in writing but,believe me, he would have been received whispered concerns into his ear.
Where does Lammy fit into all this?

I was not told is not the same as ^I didn’t know.^

It can be different, but how would he have known if he wasn't told? 😵‍💫

Graphite, I think you could possibly tell at a glance how many have followed tbe link.

Mollygo

Boz

Starmer could say he wasn't given hard evidence - nothing in writing but,believe me, he would have been received whispered concerns into his ear.
Where does Lammy fit into all this?

I was not told is not the same as ^I didn’t know.^

Could it be a case of "Don't tell me - I don't want to know",

DD I don’t know why I’m bothering …

I don't know why I do either.

The things that miffs me most of all is that I wasn’t given the precious gift of second sight that so many women on this thread seem to have. If all women were given inbuilt lie detectors we would avoid so much of the trouble in life which is caused by men.

Instead I was given a logical brain which considers facts - which can also be useful for catching men out!

Maremia. I sat and read the FAC report again last night just so the contents are fresh in my memory to compare to what Starmer says today and Robbins tomorrow.

Something isn't right but what is being covered up and by whom isn't clear, which is why Thornberry was and is exasperated by it all.

We shall soon see.

I do not share the idea that all will be clear. We will be told stories to cover "backs". That is all I expect but then I have a very jaundiced view of Politics and Politicians.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Sir Keir Starmer has been in Downing Street for almost two years, but the next 48 hours are expected to be the most crucial in determining the fate of his premiership.

The Prime Minister will face MPs this afternoon (pity I’m out and about so will miss the grilling he will get) to give a statement on the latest twists in the Mandelson scandal, and is unlikely to get an easy ride from either his own side or Opposition MPs

imo - This level of fuss is more about the upcoming elections and opposition parties trying to make their mark

Yes of course its important, but listening to the news around Iran and possible consequences for all of us on prices of everything:

never mind the human cost and moral issues around bombing thousands of innocents waived off as inconsequential.

Get a sense of proportion - it needs sorting, but really its about two things"

one - the upcoming election

two - the troubles Reform especially are facing in terms of recently damaging revelations, greed, and lack of coherent policies on key issues....not to mention Farage would have led us into war with Iran had he been in charge.

That’s just a way of saying ‘Even if I’m wrong based on the evidence presented, I will still believe I’m right’, isn’t it?

For Boz.

Doodledog, thanks for expressing your views - I’m in total agreement

twaddle

Boz

Starmer could say he wasn't given hard evidence - nothing in writing but,believe me, he would have been received whispered concerns into his ear.
Where does Lammy fit into all this?

I'm confused. Why should anybody believe you?

Why indeed twaddle. Presumably because it easier to accept agreeable (to the person concerned) lies than complicated truths.

I’m reminded of an episode of TRIP a few weeks back when Campbell and Stewart were discussing Mandelson and how the vast majority of the media thought it was a brilliant appointment.

They made the point that had Kamala Harris won the US Presidential Election, Mandelson would never have been the pick for Ambassador. It was always about someone to try to manage Trump.

Were the UK government to fall over this, it would be because of Trump, Epstein and Mandelson. Do people really want that?

At the height of the Brexit crisis. Epstein, Bannon, Johnson and Farage worked together to overthrow Theresa May.

Johnson denied it at the time but the Epstein files reveal the truth.

Starmer is now working to forge closer ties with Europe and polls show that more than 75% of the electorate want to rejoin the EU.

Whatever the outcome, the timing of these allegations is highly suspicious.

The Starmer haters are loving all this.

Fine, that’s their prerogative.

I’m keeping a (very long) list of all the things Farage et al are promising!

Graphite

I’m reminded of an episode of TRIP a few weeks back when Campbell and Stewart were discussing Mandelson and how the vast majority of the media thought it was a brilliant appointment.

They made the point that had Kamala Harris won the US Presidential Election, Mandelson would never have been the pick for Ambassador. It was always about someone to try to manage Trump.

Were the UK government to fall over this, it would be because of Trump, Epstein and Mandelson. Do people really want that?

At the height of the Brexit crisis. Epstein, Bannon, Johnson and Farage worked together to overthrow Theresa May.

Johnson denied it at the time but the Epstein files reveal the truth.

Starmer is now working to forge closer ties with Europe and polls show that more than 75% of the electorate want to rejoin the EU.

Whatever the outcome, the timing of these allegations is highly suspicious.

However it seems to me that the 25% of those who don’t want closer ties with Europe are supported by most of the news media including one that has its very own tv channel. And Starmer is a prime target given that he’s always worked towards repairing our broken relationship with Europe. So who is going to gain by having Starmer removed from office? If disgraced people were behind Brexit who is behind all this? And why should someone with no links to the Epstein files be thrown out of office when those that are in it remain to gloat over his demise including Trump.

He’s on and apologising for appointing Mandelson.

He’s nervous and speaking so fast that it’s difficult to take in what he’s actually saying.

Kemi is on fire! Starmer looking very sheepish.
KB wants him to answer 6 vital questions which she has given him in advance and which she is putting on line for the public.

Why would anybody be relishing this mess is beyond me.

Which he answered well. He spoke clearly not too fast. Obviously the cons will be relishing this after their own disastrous 14 years.
I'm a former conservative voter but this woman Kemi B would have to do a lot better to get my vote.

Well said sixandahalf.

Starmer's statement was calm, measured and crystal clear.

To anyone who is familar with what happened at the FAC in November, it accords with what was disclosed there.

Anybody who has bothered to read that (Has anybody? I have linked to it several times.) will know that due diligence is only a resume of what is already in the public domain. It is open source information. Wormald made that extremely clear to the FAC.

They key fact Starmer disclosed was that that on 28 January 2025 UKSV recommended that security clearance should not be given but on 29 January 2025 the FCDO gave clearance.

The responses from party leaders are prepared and not taking into account what Starmer said in his statement.

With Robbins set to reappear before the FAC tomorrow, what possible purpose could there be in Starmer not telling the truth now? All Robbins would have to say is that in a 24 hour window Starmer was told that Mandelson had failed vetting.

It would be refreshing if posters could see beyond their prejudice, look at the facts and apply some logic.

It would be refreshing if posters could see beyond their prejudice, look at the facts and apply some logic.

Various views are allowed; why is one person's view a prejudice and only yours the valid one? . Not everyone wishes to click on links even if you think think they ought to.

This is a chat forum.

Allira

^It would be refreshing if posters could see beyond their prejudice, look at the facts and apply some logic.^

Various views are allowed; why is one person's view a prejudice and only yours the valid one? . Not everyone wishes to click on links even if you think think they ought to.

*This is a chat forum.*

Of course, various views are "allowed", but in the end facts and logic matter more.

sixandahalf

Why would anybody be relishing this mess is beyond me.

Who said I am relishing this? I think it is a horrible, tragic matter and if KS was any kind of honourable man he would not be in this position. His fault entirely that he is where he is today with politicians from all parties questioning his honesty and integrity.

“I should have been told”. KS must have said that a hundred times this afternoon.