AmyJ
2.4K posts



𝐋𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬. 𝟏. 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫’𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐂𝐄𝐒𝐒 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝. Starmer, Feb: “Clearly, both the due diligence and the security vetting need to be looked at again. I’ve already strengthened the due process, I think we need to look at the security vetting.” Starmer, Feb: Security vetting, carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him [Mandelson] clearance for the role. You have to go through that before you take up the post…Clearly both the due diligence and the security vetting need to be looked at again.” That is not true. 𝟐. 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐯𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠. Mandelson failed vetting (as anyone would) if he disclosed things that caused him to fail, or if he lied during vetting, or if the security services found sufficient cause for concern (staying at the home of an incarcerated paedophile while on official business as DPM representing our country per chance…). Whichever it was, this was known early doors. 𝟐. 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐮𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐝. Starmer, 10th Sept: "As the right hon. Lady and the House would expect, *full due process was followed during this appointment,* as it is with all ambassadors…He is now playing an important part in the US-UK relationship." This is a lie. The process was in part followed and then he or his Govt intervened. This is not how all ambassadors are vetted. 𝟑. 𝐂𝐨𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐬. Cooper in Letter 16 Sept: “As these security vetting procedures are independent of Ministers, I am writing to you jointly with the Permanent Under-Secretary for the FCDO.” “After Peter Mandelson’s appointment was announced on 20 December 2024, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process, including National Security Vetting. The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February.” “Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for Developed Vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy,” Evidently the process was not independent as Ministers or PM overrode the conclusion of the process. Nor did it conclude with him passing vetting - lie by omission. 𝟒. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐬: “the relevant process for a political appointee was followed”. Was it? 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 “𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝” (𝑇ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑛𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑦) 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐜𝐤 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐦.







If any other product on the market had killed one child, we would remove it immediately. We must stop looking for excuses & ban social media for u16s. We need a firebreak until companies can prove their product is safe. Labour’s consultation is just kicking the can down the road.


🚨 BREAKING: Speaker Lindsay Hoyle says it was him who told the Met Police that Peter Mandelson was planning to flee to the British Virgin Islands



Whether it's the job itself is structurally impossible, or just reflective of the extreme instability/volatility of British politics the average length of service of Downing Street Chief of Staff since Ed Llewellyn is both pretty bleak and sobering.





NEW: Previously unreported Epstein emails show Peter Mandelson discussing a Panama-linked tax avoidance structure for a £750k Rio apartment - with Epstein as his "chief life adviser". Exclusive Tax Policy Associates report:












