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

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…

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.

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

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…

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

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.

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.

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

I don’t think anyone is saying ‘it’s right’ - it’s the system, as it stands.

We will have to see what is said on Monday.

My personal view FWIW is:

*Keir Starmer is telling the truth.

*His ‘mistake’ was to put too much trust in ‘the system’ and his civil servants.

*Is it a resigning matter for KS - no.

*If KS were proven to be lying i.e. he knew all along that Maddleson had ‘failed’ the security element of the vetting process, then he should resign.

A headteacher would be told that a person had failed the vetting, but would not be entitled to know the reason.

I'm not sure that that is necessarily so, unless I misunderstand you. In my experience, a Headteacher usually receives a disclosure result detailing the conviction and its date. I have seen notifications come back disclosing convictions, and it was up to me as a Head to decide whether they were relevant. ie. the buck stopped with me who was in receipt of all the information.
I have seen two cases of assault on the DBS checks of potential staff in my time. (One had a fight with a taxi driver, one had a fight in a school).

The more I think about this the more I wonder why anyone would have expected Mandelson to pass the security vetting in the first place. After all, it wouldn’t have needed official vetting to point out his vulnerabilities and unsuitability. I think the Foreign Office may have just decided to forge ahead regardless.

The appointment was a gamble that didn’t pay off. Made amid the unpredictability of Trump’s election. I don’t know who else was considered for the post - or indeed who is in it now if anybody. And I don’t think it worth destabilising the Govt over.

I really don't know what to think - I'm sure we'll hear ad nauseam about this in the next few days & things may become clearer.
I have approved of KS up till now (& we're a small business) but if it turns out to be highly likely that he did know that Mandelson didn't pass vetting outright, then he has breached the Ministerial Code by reassuring parliament and he should go.
Maybe not overnight, but he should name a date to handover.

Starmer wanted Mandelson, we acted on his decision

These are Olly Robbins words as printed in The Telegraph online today…

What a dreadful mess, one we could do without at this time of worldwide uncertainty and wars.

twaddle

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.

No, he couldn't be offered the position, a transfer from his current policing role, until full security checks had been carried out, including the checks on his brother who permanently resides overseas. So I'm afraid as far as the police at least are concerned nobody can request security clearance for somebody else, unless there's a very good reason such as a firm job offer. is incorrect. Just applying for the role triggers the security checks if you pass initial application. They will have security checked other applicants who didn't get the position even though they had passed those checks.

GrannyGravy13

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…

I believe you're an employer and must surely be aware of employment law, which was my field. I don't know the exact circumstances of the vetting failure, but I am saying that even the PM didn't have the right to know the reason for the failure. It would have been Robbins' responsibility and it would appear that he chose to override any advice he was given. Giving even the PM information which he had no right to know would have been illegal.

Too many people seem to be making facts fit the narrative they would like.

GrannyGravy13

^Starmer wanted Mandelson, we acted on his decision^

These are Olly Robbins words as printed in The Telegraph online today…

What exactly does that mean?

twaddle I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make.

The PM should have been told of the vetting failure, not the reasons for the failure.

Not to do so, makes a mockery of vetting. Why vet someone and then when they fail let them continue in their job?

Allira

GrannyGravy13

Starmer wanted Mandelson, we acted on his decision

These are Olly Robbins words as printed in The Telegraph online today…

What exactly does that mean?

I imagine only Mr Robbins and the PM know that answer…

Rosie51

twaddle

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.

No, he couldn't be offered the position, a transfer from his current policing role, until full security checks had been carried out, including the checks on his brother who permanently resides overseas. So I'm afraid as far as the police at least are concerned nobody can request security clearance for somebody else, unless there's a very good reason such as a firm job offer. is incorrect. Just applying for the role triggers the security checks if you pass initial application. They will have security checked other applicants who didn't get the position even though they had passed those checks.

But he knew the position was his, if he passed the checks. Sorry, but you're wrong. Applying for the role doesn't trigger the check - I do know how it worked. You contradicted yourself by mentioning passing initial application.

The PM sacked Peter Mandelson due to what was released in the Epstein files, not to do with his UKSV failure…

Galaxy

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.

He usnt even good at being dodgy, he is always caught.
Galaxy 😁

GrannyGravy13

^Starmer wanted Mandelson, we acted on his decision^

These are Olly Robbins words as printed in The Telegraph online today…

I’m interested in this GG but don’t have access to the Telegraph.

Could you put a bit more ‘meat on the bones’ for me?

Is Robbins saying that he told Starmer directly that PM had failed the security element of the vetting?

His letter to Emily Thornbury states that the final outcome of the vetting process granted clearance to PM. Does Robbins still stand by this?

GrannyGravy13
Starmer wanted Mandelson, we acted on his decision

These are Olly Robbins words as printed in The Telegraph online today

Allira
What exactly does that mean?

It’s the government game of passing the buck again.

Seems strange.
If someone you were keen to appoint, failed the vetting, wouldn’t that raise queries in your mind about the suitability of your preferred candidate , even without being told the reason for the failure?
(KS was keen to appoint Mandelson,)

Why on earth would we be told confidential government information?