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

All views have an equal opportunity to be voiced, on Gransnet. (Within the rules)
It is up to each reader to decide which to believe/agree with/accept.

Allira

twaddle

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.

Of course, in real life, in Parliament. but this is a chat forum and none of our views and logic or lack of it make a jot of difference to the situation except when we place our X.

It matters when hype, passion and misinformation dictate where people put their X.

Allira

It is a very serious and worrying matter but posters are still entitled to express their views even if they differ from others, are they not?

Of course! But I don't agree that all views are equal. The truth is always more important than views (opinions).

I don't agree that it's horrible and tragic, in the context of everything else which is happening in the world at the moment.

If you're following the details, there is no way you could claim it's Starmer's fault entirely.

It is a very serious and worrying matter but posters are still entitled to express their views even if they differ from others, are they not?

This is not the Chat sub forum.

Gransnet is an online community and chat forum.

twaddle

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.

Of course, in real life, in Parliament. but this is a chat forum and none of our views and logic or lack of it make a jot of difference to the situation except when we place our X.

Prejudice is an unjustified, typically negative, attitude or opinion toward an individual based solely on their membership of a specific group. When people on this board have been openly hostile to the Labour government since 5 July 2024, before it had a chance to start governing, I call that prejudice.

This is not the Chat sub forum. This is News & Politics. One might hope that people make use of open source material that others take the time to find and share in order to acquire facts about what is a very serious matter.

The November FAC proceedings were and are crucial in this as chair Emily Thornberry referenced today in the HoC - as tomorrow’s proceedings will be.

I make no apologies for regarding this as as serious matter and not chat.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well said sixandahalf.

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.

Why would anybody be relishing this mess is beyond me.

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.

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

He’s on and apologising for appointing Mandelson.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

For Boz.