WenFeb 5

Even now we are being misled about what was known about Mandelson - in this case the Developed Vetting (DV) process. I have been at both ends so to speak in the past (should not say that but it is irrelevant now). If the ‘reporter’ believe that detail uncovered are not shared with people making the Y/N decision are not shared then I have 3 (not 1, 3 folks) bridges to sell you over the Forth.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/04/how-was-mandelson-vetted-role-ambassador-what-did-starmer-know-epstein-explainer

#Vetting #Media #Mandelson #Misleading #Starmer #Guardian #Excuses

How much did Starmer really know about Mandelson’s ties to Epstein?

No 10 is intense huge pressure to reveal exactly how the former peer was vetted for his job as US ambassador

The Guardian
Show threadDave Robinson
@Wen totally agree. For the benefit of those who don't know, the DV process establishes (amongst other things) whether you are susceptible to blackmail or bribery with respect to sexual or financial improprieties. You have to account for everyone you've ever lived with or had a relationship with. The SC process is pretty scary to go through, and DVs are much worse. The process will have established exactly the nature of the noble lord, and it must surely be the case that Starmer, the right honourable chief memberm, chose to ignore it.
Feb 5 at 2:38pmWeb
Show threadJuneSim63 💚Feb 5
@Wen @dave
Spot on, from one who knows.
Show threadFerryoonsFeb 6
@dave @Wen I recall that, at the time, though no details were given, it was very widely reported that there were “security concerns” which Starmer obviously ignored.