Rivelato: Mandelson non ha superato il controllo ma il Ministero degli Esteri ha annullato la decisione
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/16/revealed-mandelson-failed-vetting-but-foreign-office-overruled-decision?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
di topotaul
13 commenti
They gambled on a friend of a criminal being the best person to negotiate with another friend of the criminal, and they lost.
When we look back at the Starmer Premiership, I think this will be the defining moment that utterly confuses everyone as to why they made such as obvious, cock-up.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, well you’re just an idiot.
>Keir Starmer had by then announced he would be making Mandelson the UK’s chief diplomat in Washington, posing a dilemma for officials at the Foreign Office, who decided to use a rarely used authority to override the recommendation from security officials.
Appointing someone like Mandelson is dodgy enough, to appoint him _before_ any background checks are done is next level of incompetence.
>Starmer will also be pressed over whether he misled the public in remarks about the security vetting process, which he said had given Mandelson “clearance for the role”.
Let’s see if the Labour backbenchers will hold Starmer to account the same way they did with Boris Johnson over Partygate
Wait but I thought Starmer had no idea, then wasn’t it he slipped through vetting? And now like everyone knew, he knew he was dodgy but appointed him away. Probably did more work on the concocting of excuses in case they were caught then they have in anything else of their two and half year premiership
The thing that really pisses me off about this is that:
[1] He’s still walking free
[2] All of the people he got into positions of power at Labour are still in those positions and Palantir is still in the NHS.
>Starmer will also be pressed over whether he misled the public in remarks about the security vetting process, which he said had given Mandelson “clearance for the role”.
That’s not actually the important question. Obviously, misleading the public is pretty bad, but it’s not the big problem for Starmer. What did he say in the Commons? Because if he said that Mandelson passed the vetting process and the problem was that Mandelson lied, then he has mislead the House.
And traditionally, misleading the House is a resignation matter.
I’m one of the few who like Starmer – I think he is steadily bringing the country back on track after years of self destructive chaos.
If this is true though, and Starmer was aware, and Mandelson subsequently leaked state secrets to Epstein probable Mossad asset…then in that phrase I hate – he’s got to go.
This whole saga is basically low stakes real politik. It’s cynical and devoid of any moral framework. As with real politik more generally, this sort of calculus always blows up in your face.
Keith lied in the commons? Even Boris didn’t survive that
If this is true Starmer is done for. Starmer not only lied about what he knew, but now it turns out he (i assume he had the final say) allowed Mandelson to go on despite failing vetting! Labour MPs are already upset at Starmer over Mandelson, but now it is clear he didn’t even tell the full story during the scandle in february. If they had any decency they would force him out today, though they might wait till the locals.
Is Starmer was aware that this had happened, and Mandelson failed initial vetting, then I think he is a goner, as that seems to contradict directly statements he has made to the House.
I just imagine Kier, his team & colleagues beforehand going round in circles trying to risk assess this move of putting Mandelson in Trumps lap. They must have been hoping and praying the Epstein stuff would never get out, or at very least, not during their government. What a monumental fail that was.
So much misinformation or distraction in the comments every time this crops up. Mandelsohn and trump were not friends. They possibly met once. The trump team were literally opposed to his appointment as they had a good relationship with the former ambassadot. And even thinking it was a good idea because they were both involved in a criminal endeavour is absolutely insane. This whole thing rests on the heads of one or two individuals