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

ronib

Let’s wait and see what Olly Robbins says on Monday???

And you will believe him?

GrannyGravy13

OK Basgetti why was the PM or the Home Secretary at the time (Lammy) not informed immediately that Mandelson had failed the UKSV?

Surely the most prestigious Ambassadorial position failing vetting procedures should have been bought to their attention?

Or does it come back to my original question pages back, who is running the country and has the final say, the PM and our elected politicians or the faceless suits in Whitehall?

If as I suspect it’s the second, I find it extremely worrying…

Not necessarily, if the Foreign Office (civil service) is the employer.

Rosie51

twaddle Firstly, vetting checks can't be carried out until somebody is appointed

Really? So the 4 months of security checking my relative underwent before he could be offered the post in counter terrorism was a figment of his imagination? They might have wanted Mandelson but no announcement of his appointment needed to be made until he had passed vetting. That his previous well documented transgressions hadn't already ruled him out is astounding.

No idea, but presumably the relative was told he/she had the job - subject to successful vetting. I have a very close friend who works in a high level security job. He was told he had the job, then literally sat around for months until he and his family gained clearance.

Nobody can request security clearance for somebody else, unless there's a very good reason such as a firm job offer.

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.

ronib

It would appear that Starmer wanted Mandy as ambassador regardless.

No, not necessarily. As I tried to explain, it is very possible that Starmer wasn't told that Mandelson had failed the vetting. He might very well have thought it was a formality.

Let’s wait and see what Olly Robbins says on Monday???

In this particular circumstance, it’s pretty obvious it isn’t.

It seems to me that nothing is ever KS fault. He always blames somebody else or says he was badly advised. Mind you, Angela Rayner said the same when she was caught out over her dodgy tax dealings.

GrannyGravy13

OK Basgetti why was the PM or the Home Secretary at the time (Lammy) not informed immediately that Mandelson had failed the UKSV?

Surely the most prestigious Ambassadorial position failing vetting procedures should have been bought to their attention?

Or does it come back to my original question pages back, who is running the country and has the final say, the PM and our elected politicians or the faceless suits in Whitehall?

If as I suspect it’s the second, I find it extremely worrying…

I suspect t’was ever thus, GrannyGravy. Yes, Minister?

Yes, they obviously ought to have been informed, as should the PM. They can hardly be held responsible that they were not, can they? As I said, I believe the CS whose responsibility to do that but failed to has resigned.

fancythat

And what about the Iran war situation?
Not to forget Ukraine?

He was in Paris yesterday to co- host a meeting with macron discussing opening the strait of Hormuz.
As for Ukraine talks are going very well with them and Germany.

brought not bought 🤦‍♀️

OK Basgetti why was the PM or the Home Secretary at the time (Lammy) not informed immediately that Mandelson had failed the UKSV?

Surely the most prestigious Ambassadorial position failing vetting procedures should have been bought to their attention?

Or does it come back to my original question pages back, who is running the country and has the final say, the PM and our elected politicians or the faceless suits in Whitehall?

If as I suspect it’s the second, I find it extremely worrying…

Completely agree GrannyGravy. Ridiculous appointment.

That’s not what the thread is about, though? It’s about whether or not KS knew that PM had failed the security vetting in this instance. I believe him when he says that the personnel responsible for that procedure had failed to inform him, as they failed to inform the Foreign Affairs Committee and various ministers.

That’s is no KS’s failing. The person responsible whose remit it was to pass on that information resigned this morning, I think? Rightly so.

There is no basis for calling for KS’s resignation. The head of a corporation/public sector entity cannot be constantly second guessing those appointed to carry out a specific task. Simply unrealistic given their already onerous brief.

Basgetti

ronib

It would appear that Starmer wanted Mandy as ambassador regardless.

What evidence do you base that statement on?

“Regardless” suggests KS was aware of the security failure. He has categorically stated that he was not informed, as have several ministers.

He definitely knew that Mandelson had been sacked from government positions twice before.

He definitely knew that Mandelson was an associate of Epstein as did we all, but not the extent of the friendship

I have seen nothing on this thread or in the media which has changed my mind on the fact that giving `Mandelson the Ambassador’s position was a good idea.

A favourite proverb of mine :-

If you lay down with dogs, you get fleas

twaddle Firstly, vetting checks can't be carried out until somebody is appointed

Really? So the 4 months of security checking my relative underwent before he could be offered the post in counter terrorism was a figment of his imagination? They might have wanted Mandelson but no announcement of his appointment needed to be made until he had passed vetting. That his previous well documented transgressions hadn't already ruled him out is astounding.

I used the same source as you did for your statement …. It would appear Basgetti

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.

ronib

It would appear that Starmer wanted Mandy as ambassador regardless.

What evidence do you base that statement on?

“Regardless” suggests KS was aware of the security failure. He has categorically stated that he was not informed, as have several ministers.

It would appear that Starmer wanted Mandy as ambassador regardless.

Basgetti

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

Oh for goodness’ sake. Johnson’s behaviour was far, far worse than eating a bit of birthday cake! As everyone knows.

Yes, it is someone else’s job. My boss, Director of a merchant bank, interviewed. HR did the vetting and it was their responsibility to bring such failures to his attention. As in Government and the civil service.

Indeed! Olly Robbins would have been informed and was the only person who had a right to the information. It would appear he made the decision to withhold the reason for the failed vetting.

Firstly, I admit that I have never been involved with recruitment at the very highest levels, which could be subject to different rules, but my guess is that the principles are the same. I have, however, been involved in recruitment and checks.

Firstly, vetting checks can't be carried out until somebody is appointed. That means that appointments are made conditional to security checks. People sometimes sit around at home and can't start work until the checks have been completed. That would explain why Mandelson was appointed before the security checks were completed, although it was a mistake to announce his recruitment until it was confirmed.

The public doesn't know why Mandelson failed the check and, as far as I know, doesn't have any right to know. Even employers are only told the outcome. For all anybody knows, it could be for something quite minor and Robbins took on the responsibility of overruling the check because, in his opinion, it was trivial. He evidently made a serious mistake.

It is conceivable that Starmer knew nothing of all this. Data protection laws protected Mandelson. That doesn't mean to say that (in my opinion) Mandelson was a good choice. I can understand the reasoning, but it was a gamble which failed.

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

Oh for goodness’ sake. Johnson’s behaviour was far, far worse than eating a bit of birthday cake! As everyone knows.

Yes, it is someone else’s job. My boss, Director of a merchant bank, interviewed. HR did the vetting and it was their responsibility to bring such failures to his attention. As in Government and the civil service.

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

Galaxy

I would have expected him to have better judgement/ standards than to appoint mandelsson, I was wrong.

Oh I agree. It was a ridiculously stupid appointment. But I believe KS when he says he wasn’t informed about Mandelson failing the vetting process. I think if most people were not informed, they would naturally assume that he had.

I also think it’s very wrong for KB to call for his resignation. The last thing the nation needs right now is more political upheaval.

I would have expected him to have better judgement/ standards than to appoint mandelsson, I was wrong.