Election 2024
- Thread starter brb
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Funny how the Epstein files might indirectly cause the downfall of the UK Prime Minister, yet the the President of the USA, who is mentioned in them a hundred times, is apparently unscathed.
Agree with you here. I also believe it’s hypocritical of the Reform supporters to be getting their knickers in a twist when Farage is licking Trump’s arse.
I’m a Tory so I have every right to be angry and demand change.
Realise that is what you would like - but it's not going that way IMO ...
Most significant point alluded to by Robbins so far, is that the vetting failure had nothing to do with Epstein concerns - and that the vetting fail was borderline and considered 'manageable' - hence the FO 'override' ...
Further, that the communication channel was primarily between the No 10 and FO Private Secretaries / Offices - the No 10 one would have been Morgan McSweeney who was always 'the champion' (and also close buddy) of Mandelson...
Given that Starmer's critics are all citing the further Epstein revelations as the basis for culpability ... and that it now seems that the UKVS apparently didn't identify any of those, in terms of coming to the final decision ... can't see how Starmer can be held responsible for any of that.
Just my take.
This is about what Starmer knew about the vetting process and if he has misled parliament.
It’s quite clear he knew exactly what was going on. He had to have done with everything that is coming out now.
That’s one out of the left-field. Robbins has just claimed that in March 2025 he was asked by No 10 to “potentially” find a job as an ambassador for Matthew Doyle.
At the time Doyle was the prime minister’s director of communications.
He was subsequently given a peerage, an appointment which itself descended into scandal over Doyle’s relationship with a convicted sex offender.
This is going to go down very badly with Labour MPs.
Doyle, like Mandelson, has a long history has an influential figure on the right of the Labour Party. He first worked in government under Tony Blair.
Note, too, that Robbins claims to have been told by No 10 not to discuss the prospect of a diplomatic appointment for Doyle with David Lammy, then the foreign secretary.
At the time Doyle was the prime minister’s director of communications.
He was subsequently given a peerage, an appointment which itself descended into scandal over Doyle’s relationship with a convicted sex offender.
This is going to go down very badly with Labour MPs.
Doyle, like Mandelson, has a long history has an influential figure on the right of the Labour Party. He first worked in government under Tony Blair.
Note, too, that Robbins claims to have been told by No 10 not to discuss the prospect of a diplomatic appointment for Doyle with David Lammy, then the foreign secretary.
Robbins directly criticises prime minister's judgement for the first time
We've spoken a lot about the vetting process which happened after Peter Mandelson was announced as the ambassador.
But there was also a due diligence process that happened before the prime minister picked Mandelson.
Documents related to that due diligence process have already been made public.
We know that it threw up various reputational risks - including Mandelson's links to China and Jeffrey Epstein.
Robbins says: "I regret that the due diligence process which threw up, as I understand it, serious reputational risks didn't colour the prime minister's judgement."
That's a clear indication that he believes the prime minister should have decided against giving Mandelson the job before the vetting process even began.
We've spoken a lot about the vetting process which happened after Peter Mandelson was announced as the ambassador.
But there was also a due diligence process that happened before the prime minister picked Mandelson.
Documents related to that due diligence process have already been made public.
We know that it threw up various reputational risks - including Mandelson's links to China and Jeffrey Epstein.
Robbins says: "I regret that the due diligence process which threw up, as I understand it, serious reputational risks didn't colour the prime minister's judgement."
That's a clear indication that he believes the prime minister should have decided against giving Mandelson the job before the vetting process even began.
It’s unbelievable at this point to even consider that Starmer didn’t know what was going on. He would have done so needs to resign for misleading parliament.
If he didn’t know, why not? Why wasn’t he asking the questions, why wasn’t he keeping on top of it and demanding answers. Were No.10 keeping stuff from Starmer? Whatever way you look at it, it’s pathetically weak leadership and if he can’t lead and control his own team, then how can he lead a nation. He needs to go.
In the roles I have worked in (particularly over the lastt 20 years) I have tended to run teams of mixed specialists that report into me and I then report upwards, in turn, usually to a CFO or perhaps a Group Finance Director ...
Throughout those flows the detail behind the work and any recommendations are not redone by the more senior person in the chain each time... that would be inefficient and cost prohibitive - sometimes clarification on conclusions and rationale may be discussed - but you don't employ specialists in the field to then do everything again yourself.
The conclusion/ findings should never reach your desk unless the person signing off is happy with it and can back it up in discussions.
Last edited:
Pretty sure Ollie Robbins has confirmed that Starmer didn’t know Mandy had failed vetting, and that’s what’s at stake here.
Obviously appointing Mandy was a mistake in hindsight, but that’s not the issue. Appointing one of the country’s biggest narcissists to schmooze the world’s biggest narcissist looked like smart business at the time.
So you would have made the wrong appointments then? That’s not a good look either.
If you’re at the top of the organisation and can’t manage the people and what’s going on below you, effectively, then you aren’t suited to the role. The person at the top always carries the can and in this case, his lack of leadership is astounding.
A friend of mine was the manager of a Royal Mail depot in a very affluent area of London, lots of rich people’s houses. He had a new employee, an exemplary postman; never late, always finished his round, never any complaints. Eventually it turned out he’d done time for house breaking, and it didn’t get picked up until he’d been in the job nearly a year. My mate was sorry to see him go.
Starmer will be gone after the May elections, if Labour nose dive in them. The local elections are only just over two weeks away, so they will let the media play with the current distraction, then chop him once the results come in.
Robbins got sacked because Starmer needed to in his mind show a human sacrifice, hence why he was so quick at doing it - and taking actions which were breaking the rules in not notifying Parliament at the earliest opportunity.
Did Starmer know about Mandelson and Epstein before the appointment of course he did. Lee Anderson and Sultana were right, he's a bare face liar. Mandelson just proved the system is still as corrupt as it ever was.
In 2009, while Starmer was DPP, the CPS decided not to prosecute Savile, a decision later found to have been a failure, though investigation reports indicated Starmer was not personally involved in the decision.
He of all people should have foresight from past events, sadly he has learned nothing. Those alarm bells should have been ringing loud and clear, appointing such a controversial sacked twice individual.
Robbins has said there was a dismissive approach, and once again we are blasé about the predatory behaviours of those that walk the corriders of power, especially those of a person who went by the nickname of Princess of Darkness.
'Now then, now then,' 'guys and gals,' thank you for your attention to this matter...
Robbins got sacked because Starmer needed to in his mind show a human sacrifice, hence why he was so quick at doing it - and taking actions which were breaking the rules in not notifying Parliament at the earliest opportunity.
Did Starmer know about Mandelson and Epstein before the appointment of course he did. Lee Anderson and Sultana were right, he's a bare face liar. Mandelson just proved the system is still as corrupt as it ever was.
In 2009, while Starmer was DPP, the CPS decided not to prosecute Savile, a decision later found to have been a failure, though investigation reports indicated Starmer was not personally involved in the decision.
He of all people should have foresight from past events, sadly he has learned nothing. Those alarm bells should have been ringing loud and clear, appointing such a controversial sacked twice individual.
Robbins has said there was a dismissive approach, and once again we are blasé about the predatory behaviours of those that walk the corriders of power, especially those of a person who went by the nickname of Princess of Darkness.
'Now then, now then,' 'guys and gals,' thank you for your attention to this matter...
You must log in or register to see images
Last edited:
In different news...
www.bbc.co.uk
Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed
The "landmark" legislation aims to stop anyone born after 1 January 2009 from taking up smoking to create a smoke-free generation.
www.bbc.co.uk
Just commented about smoking on the dickhead thread, before seeing this.In different news...
Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed
The "landmark" legislation aims to stop anyone born after 1 January 2009 from taking up smoking to create a smoke-free generation.