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

Maremia

Thing is. If all of these 'disclosures' are meant to be kept private, then PM may have a legal case to sue.

Good point.

Thing is. If all of these 'disclosures' are meant to be kept private, then PM may have a legal case to sue.

Spot on Luckygirl👍

The Foreign Office made the decision to pass Mandelson, despite security services advice to ‘fail’ him. - that certainly does sound like a basic flaw in the system!

Luckygirl this is from today’s Observer:

“Robbins was sacked by Keir Starmer on Thursday night after the Guardian revealed that he had approved Mandelson’s appointment, even though the former minister and EU commissioner had failed high-level security vetting, known as DV.

Robbins was not in the country at the time and is understood to have been blindsided by his rapid defenestration, which was followed by the publication of a template used by UK Security Vetting (UKSV) to show a “RAG” grading (red, amber or green) according to the vetters’ level of concern. “Where vetting officers felt there was a significant concern over the granting of vetting to an individual, they would mark the ‘high concern’ and ‘clearance denied or withdrawn’ boxes,” the document said.

An attached summary of a meeting revealed that Starmer was told last Tuesday that “the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson”. The summary adds that there is “some discretion for departments to proceed with clearance and the FCDO had exercised it in this case… contrary to the recommendation”.

Why the FCDO (Robbins) employed this discretion we don’t know. We may find out on Tuesday when he gives evidence … but based on his appearance at a previous committee, I’m not holding my breath.

The King and Foreign Secretary appoint ambassadors.

Luckgirl Robbins / The Foreign Office made the decision to pass Maddleson, despite security services advice to ‘fail’ him.

The DV process has a Red/Amber/Green system. It was up to a very small group of civil servants, led by Robbins, to decide on the outcome of the vetting. They decided on Green = pass!

The PM is only told the final outcome of the DV process which, in this case, was PASS. So, as far as the PM is concerned … the appointment is good to go.

It’s arguable that the DV system, as it stands, is not fit for purpose. But that’s the system🤷‍♀️

The rules state that the PM does not have to know why.

Not being told the reasons is fine. I get that.

Not being told he had failed the vetting makes no sense at all since the vetting was undertaken for the purpose of advising KS whether the appointment can go ahead.

The analogy with a head teacher is again pertinent. Head asks for DBS checks, these are done, candidate fails so doesn't get job.

Apparently there will be questions asked in Parliament this Monday.

None of us know for sure what the truth is and there have been some good posts by Graphite and others to show how the vetting procedure works.
Those who condemn Starmer, some because of political bias, should wait for concrete evidence and think what this could mean for the country in the present crisis.

There is a lot of excellent reporting on the DM site regarding KS. Andrew Neil who is a great journalist and very sharp indeed has written a piece as has Kemi Badendoch who is, again, asking for his resignation

Well she will won't she?

“The former head of the Foreign Office will argue this week that Peter Mandelson’s “red flag” vetting rating did not constitute an automatic fail, as he looks to defend his decision to approve Mandelson as US ambassador” Source: The Observer

Robbins’ defence apparently is that he did nothing wrong in approving Maddleson. It is now being spun as Robbins is the ‘victim’ because he has been ‘unfairly’ dismissed by KS.

Gradually, as the actuality of the DV process is becoming clear to the public (cos we’re not stupid) the media narrative is shifting from ‘Starmer’s a liar’ to ‘Starmer wrongly dismissed poor Ollie Robbins’.

Luckygirl3

Help me here ... I get the confidentiality around the vetting procedure, but presumably if he failed this then the prime minister would have to be informed as this is the whole point of doing it.

The rules state that the PM does not have to know why.
The massive problem the grey suits have is how to word an explanation that somehow covers up the fact that unelected civil servants have so much power in decision making.
Difficult, but tgey are past masters at the dark arts.

“Look - there are two possible explanations: either he’s trashing the ministerial code or he’s claiming he was repeatedly lied to by his own advisers and didn’t know what was going on in his own house and his own office. Come off it!”

This is what Starmer said of Boris. Those words will come back to bite him.

It’s beginning to appear that KS wasn’t informed of the concerns identified in the enhanced vetting procedure. I’ve been persuaded by posters with knowledge of the level of confidentiality involved in their former recruitment working lives.

Starmer has made strategic mistakes in miss management of some domestic policies. Despite this, his government is doing some good work. His work internationally is excellent. Thank goodness he’s stood firm on Trump’s illegal war.

Unless he’s found to have deliberately lied, I believe he should remain. PM and Labour leader.

I remains absolutely unimpressed by Kemi Badenoch

Luckygirl3

Help me here ... I get the confidentiality around the vetting procedure, but presumably if he failed this then the prime minister would have to be informed as this is the whole point of doing it.

Graphite has posted a useful analysis 19.22

Help me here ... I get the confidentiality around the vetting procedure, but presumably if he failed this then the prime minister would have to be informed as this is the whole point of doing it.

petra

GrannyGravy13

Rachel Gilmour in the House of Commons 16th September, 2025

a source from MI6 has reportedly claimed they failed to clear Mandelson

I cannot see how the PM can continue to deny any knowledge before 14th April 2026…

The full debate is on YouTube.

A piece in the DM today claims that several journalists knew last September.

There is a lot of excellent reporting on the DM site regarding KS. Andrew Neil who is a great journalist and very sharp indeed has written a piece as has Kemi Badendoch who is, again, asking for his resignation.

Casdon

petra

GrannyGravy13

Rachel Gilmour in the House of Commons 16th September, 2025

a source from MI6 has reportedly claimed they failed to clear Mandelson

I cannot see how the PM can continue to deny any knowledge before 14th April 2026…

The full debate is on YouTube.

A piece in the DM today claims that several journalists knew last September.

What I don’t understand if that is the case, why wasn’t it in the media months ago, when Mandelson was first outed regarding Epstein. I just can’t see why journalists weren’t all over it then, it doesn’t ring true?

They didn't know. The alleged claim about MI6 can't be true because MI6 wasn't responsible for the vetting. It wasn't only No 10 which didn't understand the vetting system, but journalists too.

Thank you for posting all that, Graphite.

I'm not going to go into details, but I spent much of my career working in recruitment. This is consistent with what I know. If somebody fails an enhanced vetting like this, nobody is allowed to know why, which is why the public will probably never be told. It could very well be something embarrassing (but not illegal) which could be the subject of blackmail. Unless it's illegal, it's absolutely right that nobody knows. Robbins will have to explain why he overruled the decision, but the explanation doesn't need to be in the public domain.

As I wrote before, it is possible that Starmer wasn't told.

I keep pointing people to the FAC proceeding where the two people who do understand the system, Robbins and Wormald were questioned by the committee.

This analysis from Alex Wickham from Bloomberg is closest to what Robbins and Wormald said:

BREAKING: Olly Robbins felt bound by the rules of the security vetting process NOT to tell the PM, No10 or the foreign secretary about the concerns raised about Mandelson That means it appears No10 WERE in fact unaware he had issues with his vetting … in fact Mandelson DID NOT simply fail his vetting. Instead issues were raised and the FCDO security team and ultimately Robbins had to make a decision on whether to grant him DV clearance. It was their decision and there was no “overturning,” … Robbins was prohibited from sharing information about what happened with anyone outside the FCDO security team … the point of the vetting process is that it is extremely invasive and people who go through it must be confident they can tell the whole truth and not have highly embarrassing information about their personal lives leak or be spread around colleagues That means the circle of people allowed to know about what happens in each vetting case is very small and the information is highly privileged The decision on whether to approve Mandelson’s clearance, according to the vetting rules, is taken by a small team of FCDO security officials and ultimately Robbins. Under no circumstance is Robbins or that team able to share the details of the vetting case with No10 or anyone else. Robbins felt he could not share it with any minister or private office, sources say It appears the PM and No10 were unaware of how these rules were perceived by Robbins and FCDO, and think he should have told them. Allies of Robbins think it is unfair he was sacked But crucially it appears right now that Robbins did not tell No10 and they were actually in the dark about all this until Tuesday. What an unbelievable mess.

If this is what has happened and it does accord with the evidence given to the FAC then it was unfair to dismiss Robbins as he has done nothing wrong.

The issue seems to be with No 10 who don't seem to understand how the system works ... and how it doesn't work when the person under scrutiny is someone with Mandelson's known history who was nevertheless considered the right person for the job (something even Starmer's most fervent critics agreed with at the time).

What we still don't know and probably never will is is what Mandelson failed vetting on and whether it was something that would not have compromised his role in the USA.

One issue that concerns me is why No 10 seems aware of the FAC proceedings in November or how the CRAG Act works.

Underlying all of this is the constant and repeated media frenzy over new stories which seem to force politicans into making rushed stattements and rash decisions.

petra

GrannyGravy13

Rachel Gilmour in the House of Commons 16th September, 2025

a source from MI6 has reportedly claimed they failed to clear Mandelson

I cannot see how the PM can continue to deny any knowledge before 14th April 2026…

The full debate is on YouTube.

A piece in the DM today claims that several journalists knew last September.

What I don’t understand if that is the case, why wasn’t it in the media months ago, when Mandelson was first outed regarding Epstein. I just can’t see why journalists weren’t all over it then, it doesn’t ring true?

GrannyGravy13

Doodledog but at least we are engaged with politics, which a fair few people are not.

True. It's a sad state of affairs though, isn't it?

GrannyGravy13

Rachel Gilmour in the House of Commons 16th September, 2025

a source from MI6 has reportedly claimed they failed to clear Mandelson

I cannot see how the PM can continue to deny any knowledge before 14th April 2026…

The full debate is on YouTube.

A piece in the DM today claims that several journalists knew last September.

FGT2 I just do not know anymore 🤦‍♀️