The Labour Government

The Future’s Blue! said:
I was just about to post on this, what has he lied about?
Click to expand...

The vetting of Mandelson, stating that all proper procedures were followed, which they weren’t.

He’s also lied about when he was made aware of the new emails which led to Mandelson’s sacking.

I’m sure you will recall that back in 2022 the MP for Holborn and St Pancras tabled a motion calling for Boris Johnson’s statements to the House (in relation to the adherence to Covid guidance) to be investigated by the Committee of Privileges.

One of the statements highlighted by said MP was made by Johnson in December 2021, claiming that all guidance was followed in No.10, something which was later found to be false and Johnson was subsequently and correctly found to have misled the House.

So it’s only right that the same standards should apply when people make misleading statements around the vetting of Mandelson.
 
west didsblue said:
Starting a post with GB News reports about a Sunday newspaper (probably the Mail) means it’s probably pointless reading the rest of the post because it’s more than likely a made up story.
Click to expand...
Actually the Express which even less credible than the Mail if that’s possible.
 
Brewster's millions said:
The vetting of Mandelson, stating that all proper procedures were followed, which they weren’t.

He’s also lied about when he was made aware of the new emails which led to Mandelson’s sacking.

I’m sure you will recall that back in 2022 the MP for Holborn and St Pancras tabled a motion calling for Boris Johnson’s statements to the House (in relation to the adherence to Covid guidance) to be investigated by the Committee of Privileges.

One of the statements highlighted by said MP was made by Johnson in December 2021, claiming that all guidance was followed in No.10, something which was later found to be false and Johnson was subsequently and correctly found to have misled the House.

So it’s only right that the same standards should apply when people make misleading statements around the vetting of Mandelson.
Click to expand...
Sorry, what procedures weren’t followed WRT vetting and what was the detail behind when he was made aware of the e-mails?
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
Sorry, what procedures weren’t followed WRT vetting and what was the detail behind when he was made aware of the e-mails?
Click to expand...
Various reports across a variety of papers have outlined the shambolic nature of the vetting around the appointment, and how issues raised by the security services were ignored by No.10.

The new emails were provided to the government on the Tuesday, or even earlier, and so the idea that Starmer was unaware of them on the Wednesday is complete and utter nonsense.
 
Brewster's millions said:
Various reports across a variety of papers have outlined the shambolic nature of the vetting around the appointment, and how issues raised by the security services were ignored by No.10.

The new emails were provided to the government on the Tuesday, or even earlier, and so the idea that Starmer was unaware of them on the Wednesday is complete and utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
Various reports from the press, must be true then.

Yes, the emails containing the additional info was received prior to PMQs and, as there are various reports confirming Starmer wasn’t made aware before PMQs, this must be true also eh?
 
Brewster's millions said:
Various reports across a variety of papers have outlined the shambolic nature of the vetting around the appointment, and how issues raised by the security services were ignored by No.10.

The new emails were provided to the government on the Tuesday, or even earlier, and so the idea that Starmer was unaware of them on the Wednesday is complete and utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
Not read any of the first part, I take it a person within government and the security services have verified this and put their name to it?

As for the second part, has this been verified or is it conjecture?

I only ask as I have intimate knowledge of the vetting process and looking at the timescale of the release of ‘excerpts’, and the actual detail in them (released by the Sun at approx 1700 hrs Wednesday evening), I, like most, would be interested to know the exact detail, not the reported detail.
 
mosssideblue said:
Various reports from the press, must be true then.

Yes, the emails containing the additional info was received prior to PMQs and, as there are various reports confirming Starmer wasn’t made aware before PMQs, this must be true also eh?
Click to expand...
The timeframe is the key. Mandelson received the letter on Monday, who then forwarded to the FCO. The Head there then went back to Mandelson, probably to confirm if the excerpts were true but didn’t reply until Wednesday.

The question, did the PM have the full detail? I’d question that he did as nobody in their right mind would say that they had ‘confidence’ if they knew what was in the e-mails, only to have to do a 180 less than 24 hrs later.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
The timeframe is the key. Mandelson received the letter on Monday, who then forwarded to the FCO. The Head there then went back to Mandelson, probably to confirm if the excerpts were true but didn’t reply until Wednesday.

The question, did the PM have the full detail? I’d question that he did as nobody in their right mind would say that they had ‘confidence’ if they knew what was in the e-mails, only to have to do a 180 less than 24 hrs later.
Click to expand...
My point was more that if the poster believed the reports that info was received prior, then he must surely believe similar reports that Starmer wasn’t made aware not aware prior to PMQs
 
mosssideblue said:
Various reports from the press, must be true then.

Yes, the emails containing the additional info was received prior to PMQs and, as there are various reports confirming Starmer wasn’t made aware before PMQs, this must be true also eh?
Click to expand...
You’re well within your rights to believe that Starmer wouldn’t have been aware of the emails by midday on Wednesday last week. Several senior figures were aware of them, questions around them were put directly to Mandelson, but the prime minister didn’t know about it?

It defies all logic, but like I said you can believe what you want.
 
Brewster's millions said:
You’re well within your rights to believe that Starmer wouldn’t have been aware of the emails by midday on Wednesday last week. Several senior figures were aware of them, questions around them were put directly to Mandelson, but the prime minister didn’t know about it?

It defies all logic, but like I said you can believe what you want.
Click to expand...
I just find it ironic of you to attack on one front because it was “ reported” and then don’t believe other reports saying he wasn’t made aware.

Bias does funny things to the brain I guess
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
The timeframe is the key. Mandelson received the letter on Monday, who then forwarded to the FCO. The Head there then went back to Mandelson, probably to confirm if the excerpts were true but didn’t reply until Wednesday.

The question, did the PM have the full detail? I’d question that he did as nobody in their right mind would say that they had ‘confidence’ if they knew what was in the e-mails, only to have to do a 180 less than 24 hrs later.
Click to expand...

A media enquiry was sent to the foreign office on Tuesday, and this included details and excerpts of the new emails between Mandelson and Epstein. This enquiry was passed onto No.10 on the Tuesday.

Mandelson’s response to the questions from Ollie Robbins wasn’t forthcoming until the Wednesday, but No.10 knew of the new emails and had the detail on the Tuesday.
 
Brewster's millions said:
You’re well within your rights to believe that Starmer wouldn’t have been aware of the emails by midday on Wednesday last week. Several senior figures were aware of them, questions around them were put directly to Mandelson, but the prime minister didn’t know about it?

It defies all logic, but like I said you can believe what you want.
Click to expand...
Either way you look at this, there’s an issue within government when the PM is having to state that he has confidence in the Ambassador and then do a u-turn 24 hrs later. Who’s supposed to be looking out for him, because it looks like his team are throwing him to the wolves.

I like to know the full facts and your insulation of him ‘lying’ were not facts, just your own personal opinion.
 
mosssideblue said:
I just find it ironic of you to attack on one front because it was “ reported” and then don’t believe other reports saying he wasn’t made aware.

Bias does funny things to the brain I guess
Click to expand...
A variety of sources have pointed to problems around the vetting of Mandelson, to the point where Emily Thornberry, as chair of the foreign affairs committee, has written to the Foreign Secretary to ask a number of questions around this.

Perhaps she’s biased against Labour as well?

Also, the basis of your argument could just have easily been applied to the reports surrounding Rayner a couple of weeks ago, and look how that turned out.
 
Brewster's millions said:
A variety of sources have pointed to problems around the vetting of Mandelson, to the point where Emily Thornberry, as chair of the foreign affairs committee, has written to the Foreign Secretary to ask a number of questions around this.

Perhaps she’s biased against Labour as well?

Also, the basis of your argument could just have easily been applied to the reports surrounding Rayner a couple of weeks ago, and look how that turned out.
Click to expand...
All you are confirming is you believe reports that suit your narrative and dismiss those that don’t
 
Brewster's millions said:
A media enquiry was sent to the foreign office on Tuesday, and this included details and excerpts of the new emails between Mandelson and Epstein. This enquiry was passed onto No.10 on the Tuesday.

Mandelson’s response to the questions from Ollie Robbins wasn’t forthcoming until the Wednesday, but No.10 knew of the new emails and had the detail on the Tuesday.
Click to expand...
And, as in everything, they had not been verified. I could right to the FCO tomorrow stating that I’m going to publish a story about a conversation I had with one of their ambassadors but it doesn’t mean it’s real.

To confirm, it was passed to No.10 on Tuesday, not to the PM? Yet you specifically stated that the PM was lying.

Let’s get to the truth before we decide the outcome and if he has lied, then there has to be consequences. If he hasn’t lied, there also has to be consequences as the team who are supposed to look after the interests of this country are clearly not up to it.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
And, as in everything, they had not been verified. I could right to the FCO tomorrow stating that I’m going to publish a story about a conversation I had with one of their ambassadors but it doesn’t mean it’s real.

To confirm, it was passed to No.10 on Tuesday, not to the PM? Yet you specifically stated that the PM was lying.

Let’s get to the truth before we decide the outcome and if he has lied, then there has to be consequences. If he hasn’t lied, there also has to be consequences as the team who are supposed to look after the interests of this country are clearly not up to it.
Click to expand...
Do you really believe that the PM wouldn’t have been made aware of the new emails until they were proven to be true, even if officials were aware that they were about to be published by a major UK newspaper? About an issue as sensitive as this?

Also, this idea that Starmer couldn’t be told about the new emails before Mandelson had confirmed or denied their authenticity is the least believable thing about the whole affair. If Mandelson had denied their authenticity, would Starmer had stood by him?

The whole story is a mess and lacks any credibility. The balance of probabilities very strongly points to Starmer lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top