Is Kier Starmer a liar?

[catspyjamas1]

Is Kier Starmer a liar - yes or no?

It's a simple question. I can't see this on the trending threads, so asking the question.

YABU: He reliant on civil servants to share information and is in the clear, he didn't know what he didn't know.
YANBU: He's the Prime Minister. Who happens to get briefings and knew.

Yes and initially, if you could get over what an odious man PM is, it seems to be a good move. The UK did do much better than almost anyone else in the trade war negotiations.

Even in the house MPs brought up the credibility and decency of Olly Robbins, after the committee they’ll see Starmer was wrong.

Yes that was the reason for taking the risk - he was thought to have the connections and relationships, not just with Trump but with Trump’s circle. All that was true. Not sure it was sufficient to remove a successful ambassador to drop in Mandy but its certainly true he has the business relationships.

I’m surprised anyone still thinks it was a good move. The PM was warned and advised to wait for vetting, he didn’t and pushed it through.

When he was appointed it was already common knowledge (although the scandal had not fully hit) that there was a friendship between Mandelson and Epstein. Starmer would have had to be living under a rock to not know this, or that Mandelson had previously been fired twice already for improper behavior (fraud).

Kier chose to turn a blind eye and IS 100% a liar. He’s now gaslighting us all.

Olly Robbins stated that giving Mandelson that clearance was the right call.

I wonder if he did, or whether Morgan McSweeney did? I really wouldn't be surprised to find out that Starmer pretty much outsourced the whole process and is now having to take responsibility because he can't own up to this.

Remember there are plenty of reports that Starmer hardly knew Mandelson and didn't speak to him personally about his appointment as ambassador.

No one thinks it was a good move now, but I'm prepared to accept it might have been a risk worth taking, to protect the UK from Trump's hysterical trade tarifs, at the time.

I think Starmer should (and would) have known Mandelson was a wrong 'un. I don't think he knew he was revealing national secrets.

He might not be a liar, but he has shown to be very naive (or not bother to check) but he does have deniability if he doesn’t ask.
He must have had his head in the sand!

I'm actually more shocked that Starmer asked Olly Robbins to find Matthew Doyle a job as an ambassador and told him not to tell the Foreign Sec.

Poor old Olly Robbins even admitted it made him uncomfortable.

I wouldn’t agree they “must have known” but its evident that either the Number 10 operation had a poor understanding of process or some were cavalier enough to think it didn’t matter.

I would have expected the political team to have started ferreting hard in the wake of the Doyle scandal - there is a lack of political nouse or grasp of process and procedures which I found surprising.

well it would have given many people a good laugh.

It does seem to very wrapped up in internal understanding of process in the Foreign Office. The vetting system gave two ticks in the red box but Olly Robbins didn't let that stop his decision.

Why are people pushing this narrative?

The white house made several degogatory comments about Madelsons appointment and there were headline complaining about losing the woman in post.

Is it oh it must be Trumps fault - because I agree Trumps a dick causing endless problmes but this wasn't him.

No-one but Labour people wanted Mandelson in the post - and many of them seemed concerned at the time.

I suspect a lot of the ground work with any benefits we got with a not so bad trade deal - came off back of work previous woman and her team did in post and a long history of backing the US up. It was a disasterous appointment from the off with little evidence it did anything but compromise the UK interests. It was heavily questioned at the time in US and here in media and yet it's all a surprise to number 10.

Even the claims it all right wing media - it was the Guardian that broke this story.

This was a poltical fuck up - they happen - but they way this one been dealt with is hardly inspiring confidence. I don't think it will topple Starmer - think May elections may well do that depends how bad they are.

Starmer is a lawyer though, A barrister who was head of CPS. It's in his professional DNA to have an understanding of process. So it doesn't wash to me that he didn't understand.

Did you watch the committee? He explains well the process and gets it right when he states Starmer dangerously misunderstands it.

Yes, Olly Robbins does not say what you have said. He stands by his own decision and confirms that no one in No. 10 was advised of vetting concerns around the appointment.

What have I said? You misrepresent OR here with the ticks part. He was very clear multiple times. The committee struggled too to understand the process.

Olly Robbins said he saw no red tick boxes - that is possible where information is taken from department X and summarised for department Y in different forms.

Its also not a denial of vetting, its an indicator that an area needs further consideration/mitigation. The decision to grant DV with or without limitations is a much more broad based decision than the tick box form suggests.

Its also worth noting that the press (and SM) talk about “the” process. The processes vary widely, partly due to differing security needs. The process and questions for the FO differ from HO, No10, MoD etc. Processes also vary within departments.
Making assumptions about eg the FO process based on user knowledge of the No10 process could lead to mistakes being made. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was more of a factor in this case.

Also worth noting that the reasons Mandy was sacked was lying about ongoing relationship with Epstein. Subsequently it was discovered he had leaked cabinet information to Epstein (the police enquiry ongoing).

The latter would have been raised as a police matter by the vetting team if known. The lying about Epstein couldn’t have been known but its possible the “red tick” was his general relationship with Epstein which could well have been considered already known and therefore not a reason to withhold DV for that person in that role.

It's almost as though they weren't living through the tory travesty that was Truss.

Lettuce anyone?

Yes it seems that even the results of a box ticking form was relayed with a different emphasis - so instead of two red lights we somehow get leaning towards approval!

The opposition then leaned in on the 'he must have known' theme very strongly which has shown they had no idea of how the process works. And, as has been stated above, even the specialist committee did not understand it either.

At this point the vetting process appears to have been someone hissing ‘just fucking approve it’ and Lo! ‘‘Twas approved.

Starmer has no idea how the process works, and sacked someone due to that dangerous misunderstanding.

He should hold himself accountable but probably won’t, OR should still have his job which he was good at.

but someone (even ultra honest reliable moi) saying stuff on the internet isn't even circumstantial evidence.