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

I don't think KS remaining as PM is untenable. It seems obvious that the fault lay with Robbins and staff.

A PM has to be able to trust that what he is told by his staff is correct and not lose his position because of incompetencey by others.
Do people believe the PM should double check everything that crosses his desk. He would have no time for his own work.

Primrose53

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2r15151xgo

Well, well, well.

You must be delighted!

It was a great failure and ultimately the buck lands with Starmer.

But given what’s going on in the world, where we risk global economic instability at best and the fallout of war at worst, I’d have thought you’d be a little less smug. After all it’s not actually Starmer linked with Epstein, then you’d really have something to feel smug about and celebrate.

Olly Robbins resigning is the tip of the iceberg as far as I am concerned.

I am damn sure that he wasn’t the only person involved

LizzieDrip

GG Starmer received the *final outcome*; he acknowledges he received the *final outcome*; that being … DV clearance has been granted.

What Starmer did not receive, and the above extract corroborates, is the detail of the vetting process eg. that the security element had been denied, and subsequently ignored by Robbins’ office.

That doesn’t make it right though.

The fact that a civil servant thinks he can carry on regardless, making decisions about what to tell elected ministers, is just not on.

If anything good can come out of this fiasco, I do hope it’s a change in policy regarding the civil service’s over reaching powers…

GG in answer to your question above - yes! That’s why Oliver Robbins, quite rightly IMO, has lost his job!

I am not at all gleeful at the position our PM finds himself in.

In fact it is out and out embarrassing.

I agree with other posters that this is not an ideal time to change the PM, but I also have a feeling of doom over this situation and fear that his position is becoming untenable.

GG Starmer received the *final outcome*; he acknowledges he received the *final outcome*; that being … DV clearance has been granted.

What Starmer did not receive, and the above extract corroborates, is the detail of the vetting process eg. that the security element had been denied, and subsequently ignored by Robbins’ office.

twaddle

GrannyGravy13

LizzieDrip taking note of your final paragraph, according to our PM and Lammy they were not informed of the final outcome

Which has caused this entire debacle…

They wouldn't have needed to be informed. I don't know the laws for this particular kind of vetting, but for an enhanced DBS check, it would have been illegal.

Are you actually saying that the highest ranking UK Ambassador failing the UKSV should have carte blanche to continue in his position.

Did nobody think shouldn’t we tell the PM ?

They had a duty to inform the PM of the vetting failure, of not the reason.

This is beginning to look like a farcical play, not top level government…

GrannyGravy13

The more pieces of information being dribbled to the public through various media outlets it’s becoming apparent that the left hand had no idea what the right hand was doing.

Everyone is blaming each other!

^Something rotten in the state of Denmark^

Unfortunately, I would take some of the "dribbling" with a pinch of salt. Journalists are desperate for a scoop.

Thanks LizzieDrip and others. It seems entirely possible that Starmer had not been told of the true outcome of the vetting procedure.

People are very quick to condemn particularly when it enhances their own party by the resignation of Keir Starmer.
We are living in dangerous times and Keir Starmer is taking the best route through them. It would not be a good thing for our country to start changing prime ministers especially over the despicable Mandelson.

But he isn't clever, his 'career' demonstrates that. He usnt even good at being dodgy, he is always caught.
His re appointments only demonstrates the stupidity of thise who appo8nt him.

Allira it’s normal to wait and hear until a statement of fact is made before deciding whether it’s truthful or not. Next week will be interesting.

LizzieDrip

But they were informed of the final outcome, which was that DV clearance was granted!

Do we actually know what they were told?

It could have been lying by omission because nobody asked the question "Did Mandelson pass the security check?"

The more pieces of information being dribbled to the public through various media outlets it’s becoming apparent that the left hand had no idea what the right hand was doing.

Everyone is blaming each other!

Something rotten in the state of Denmark

"I thought because Mandelon is wily,devious and far cleverer than Trump."

Exactly that!

GrannyGravy13

LizzieDrip taking note of your final paragraph, according to our PM and Lammy they were not informed of the final outcome

Which has caused this entire debacle…

They wouldn't have needed to be informed. I don't know the laws for this particular kind of vetting, but for an enhanced DBS check, it would have been illegal.

Goodness knows what prompted Starmer to want him as ambassador in the first place.

I thought because Mandelon is wily,devious and far cleverer than Trump.

However, he doesn't look so clever any more.
I wonder what his Grandfather would have thought?

That to GrannyGravy

But they were informed of the final outcome, which was that DV clearance was granted!

That's what I meant, Allira. Mandelson has been associated with all sorts of sleaze, but somehow has managed to squirm his way out of serious consequences. I know no more than anybody else and if something else is revealed, it could prove I'm completely wrong. However, I'm basing my judgment on what is known for a fact. Mandelson certainly knew Epstein, but as far as I know there is no suggestion that he was involved in anything illegal. It's possible that the vetting picked up on one of the reasons Mandelson was sacked previously. If that's the case, Robbins might have decided that the public already knew about his previous dodgy dealing and, therefore, he wasn't a blackmail risk.

Goodness knows what prompted Starmer to want him as ambassador in the first place. If my memory serves me correctly, Trump wanted Farage. It would be interesting to know whether he would have passed security vetting. I think people are correct when they claim that Trump's election has meant that all "normal" rules have been thrown out of the window. Starmer possibly thought (or was advised) that Mandelson would be able to beat Trump at his own game.

LizzieDrip taking note of your final paragraph, according to our PM and Lammy they were not informed of the final outcome

Which has caused this entire debacle…

The Indepedent is doing some good work on this I see. They approached downing street 7 months ago with the info that mandelsson had failed his MI6 security vetting ( China not Epstein related this time) . Imagine these people losing their career for mandelsson of all people, he is corrupt and useless, why would people throw their careers away for him.

GrannyGravy the vetting process is completely independent of ministers - that’s just how the system is. Here is an extract from an explanatory letter - Oliver Robbins to Emily Thornbury, Sept 2025:

“After Peter Mandelson’s appointment was announced on 20 December 2024, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process, including National Security Vetting.

The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February.

There is a long-standing formal process for National Security Vetting which is undertaken by UK Security Vetting (hosted by the Cabinet Office) on behalf of individual departments and reporting back to them. There are established processes within this to consider any security concerns raised and to manage risks appropriately.

As you will understand, we do not comment on the details of individual clearances or national security as a matter of course. The UK government’s national security vetting charter includes an undertaking to protect personal data and other information in the strictest confidence. The departments involved in national security vetting are required to process all personal data in accordance with the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018).

The process is also independent of Ministers who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. This remained the case in this instance.”

Please note the final paragraph

twaddle

Luckygirl3

TakeThat7

The case for Starmer staying is weak surely if a security check is done wasn't it up to him to check Mandelson had passed He was getting a very big job When ordinary people are police checked for working with children is a head teacher not meant to check a person has passed the check or is it someone else's job And Borriswas in a pickle because he had birthday cake with people he worked with in lockdown

But KS did ask for the equivalent of DBS. The person providing the DBS equivalent provided the wrong information.
Head teachers check that there is a DBS but they can't check whether the contents are accurate.

Thank you for writing that. You're correct about headteachers and enhanced DBSs. The rules about disclosure are very strict. A headteacher (or other boss) would be told that a person had failed the vetting, but would not be entitled to know the reason. I'm surmising that the ambassador's employer is actually the Foreign Office rather than than the Prime Minister. In which case, the Head of the Foreign Office (Robbins) would be entitled to know that Mandelson had failed the vetting. If it's anything like DBS, the employer then has some discretion to ignore the reason for the failure - if it's something trivial. The public doesn't know the reason - it's possible that it had nothing to do with Epstein.

The public doesn't know the reason - it's possible that it had nothing to do with Epstein.

Quite possible because Mandelson has been involved in a lot of sleaze but much of that was well-documented.
The latest was his third resignation due to scandal. He was not nicknamed "The Prince of Darkness" by Private Eye for nothing.

Since the election some people (aided by the Reform loving media) have been desperate for Keir Starmer to be made to stand down. Even members of his own party who were happy for him to make the party electable again with a hope that they could replace him with someone they prefer. I suspect that a lot of people aren’t happy about the way that he has been rebuilding our fractured relationship with Europe.