To not believe Keir Starmer

[Viviennemary]

I'm sick of Keir Starmer's dodging over Peter Mandelson. He said he wasn't aware PM hadn't passed security vetting. He's been asked again and again about this. The knives are definitely out for him and I would be glad to see the back of him.

No Olly Robbins wouldn’t have lied. Mandelson was already in place and Olly wasn’t even working in that job yet.

Due process was not followed.

Any job that requires any level of security vetting is carried out by the same agency. My job is included in that and it isnt like secret agent stuff by any means

😁
Alright Judge Judy

Because the Labour Party is the worst boys club ever,and Starmer is the worst of the worst - "hush women, you mustn't say men can't have uteruses,us men can say and do anything we like because women don't matter in Labour world. Never have, never will" Better a cheating lying traitorous toady male than any woman hey?

Unfortunately yes.

er... are you serious?

He appointed Mandleson before security vetting even took place. Then he found out he had failed security. What was he to do? Sack Mandleson because of security failure showing his own poor judgement and impatience or try to cover it up, or act shocked and fire others? He was already advised not to hire Mandleson who had already been forced to resign twice over dodgy dealings. Either way Starmer is utterly useless and by far theost incompetent PM in living history. He is so put of his depth as PM he has had to make 8 major turns already. He should have stuck to law and dreaming up excuses why illegal immigrants who have criminal records should not be deported.

He didn’t. He hadn’t even started the job yet when Starmer pushed Mandelson through without vetting.

In this case Starmer is choosing a scapegoat who wasn’t even in place at the time of the appointment.

He also didn’t wait for vetting.

That’s what I’m saying. It just wouldn’t ever happen.

Your original post makes it seem like it would happen though when you write ‘I find it as plausible that a civil servant just decided to lie to the PM about the vetting process, knowing this unnecessarily would result in him being sacked…’ I’m not sure what you’re comparing the plausibility to in that post.

Also, what do you think happened to MM’s phone?

He had to have known about
a) the vetting process
b) the fact PM failed the vetting process.
So the question is why.
As you post, correctly imho, @Beesandhoney123 it will all come out eventually.

Tbh it may never really come out. There may be some sort of retention rule attached so it only comes out fully in 70 years or something, to protect the reputation of everyone involved (lol).

Stolen from X

I'm saying I don't believe what we're being told.

I don't believe McSweeney's phone was conveniently stolen.

I don't believe that a civil servant took it upon himself to risk his career and the PM's job for no obvious reward.

Haha very good

Ahh I see. I agree that the Civil Service aren’t responsible for this. What do you think happened to MM’s phone - that it was destroyed somehow?

I really don't know what happened, and don't have any theories, but nothing seems to add up in all of this. The only thing that seems obvious to me is that we're being lied to.

I would love to know why so many powerful people seemingly risked so much to ensure Mandelson became US ambassador

I don’t believe he didn’t know before this week. And yes, ordinarily I would want him to resign. But who the heck is there to replace him? Rayner would have been the obvious choice previously, but the tax affairs would just be brought up constantly and she would probably be forced out.

Pity Andy Burnham was blocked from standing as an MP and we all know why. (Although admittedly we don’t know that he would have won considering the anger with the Labour government.)

Emily Thornberry, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, was incandescent that answers to the Committee’s questions put to the Foreign Office were so fudged and disingenuous, such that they could be considered misleading. You can’t really think that those in high office can ever possibly personally oversee every appointment? Of course Starmer would rely on protocols being followed and information from people who are assumed to be trustworthy and transparent.
It was stated several times by the Foreign Office that appropriate vetting was carried out. I think the normal reaction of anyone would be to assume that nothing untoward had been uncovered, in view of the fact that Mandelson was then appointed. Few would think it necessary to probe further as to whether he had actually passed the vetting process!
Unless Starmer himself is discovered to have put pressure on the FO to appoint Mandelson, despite him failing the vetting process (not saying it couldn’t have happened, but why?), then I think it’s entirely possible he didn’t know.

Kier Starmer and his crew did know it was even in the paper, when David Maddox reporter got wind of it and approached them with a message he saved and then published in the paper.

@Tikitaka20 I'm a swing voter but was sad to see rishi go.
However I did feel small optimism that fresh eyes and a fresh team would help us.
I also thought his speech was good.
However since then I've just had one disappointment after an another in many ways.

The main reason I can think of is because they thought PM was the only person fully capable of handling Trump. He was capable of handling Trump, but it’s come at too high a price.

Either he didn't know, which means he's incompetent because it's his job to know. Or he did know and is now lying about it. Both are equally unacceptable from a PM. Keir Starmer needs to go.

So much bs flying around the Government atm. Yvette Cooper has just claimed that she only found out from the press yesterday. Which means that if Starmer found out on Tuesday like he claims, he didn't think to mention it to the Foreign Secretary........

If they're not lying, they are totally incompetent.

It was stated several times by the Foreign Office that appropriate vetting was carried out.
I think that we need to be wary with Starmer as he tends to employ a lawyer's weasel words. He implies things which encourages people to write their own narrative.
The above statement simply says that vetting was carried out. It carefully avoids mention of the outcome of that vetting.