Iain Herd

@HCH_Hill Makes you wonder how MI5 tell Ministers anything about terrorists …GDPR guv!!

The idea that the confidentiality of the vetting process means that you can't communicate the *result* is obviously laughable. What would the point of DV even *be* in that case?

@KemiBadenoch @andywigmore And he told you at PMQs that he’d read the report!!

The Prime Minister is taking us for fools. He said today that no one in Number 10 knew. On the 12 of September, the FRONT PAGE of the Independent clearly states that “MI6 failed to clear” Mandelson. He wants us to believe no one thought to check? It’s utterly absurd.

lolz from civil service POV... GDPR... I can’t tell you that the Ambassador you want to appoint is a paedo fanboy 🤷‍♂️... but “I can show you intel footage of Macron being beaten by his wife”... Brexit benefit 👍... I mean, get serious, it’s the PM - who else has the right to see this stuff and make decisions if not him.

As usual, Ciaran Martin is busy spreading bullshit to hacks. The PM is *often* told by officials details from vetting, leak inquiries, investigations by intel agencies etc. This is because the PM in our constitution is often the only constitutional authority deemed able to make a political judgement about things including risk assessments of appointments. Martin's bullshit that details are never shared is factually untrue. Often officials run through a list - sorry PM, sex pest. Sorry, being investigated by NCA for fraud but we shd keep this quiet as he isn't charged yet. Sorry, he was asked about leaking X and he lied to the investigators, a breach of the ministerial code... I've watched discussions about each of these things with the PM and officials. Martin is asking you to believe that officials can just say 'sorry PM you can't appoint X he's failed vetting' and *the PM* isn't allowed to know any details. Absurd for many reasons. I know I say ministers have become NPCs but it isn't quite that bad yet - though the likes of Martin would *like* officials to control absolutely everything. When the penetration of Whitehall by PRC intel became a huge story, Martin spread disinfo to hacks trying to make the disaster look less disastrous. He is a Remainiac Heywood stooge who pipes up for elements of Whitehall & shd not be treated as any sort of 'impartial official'. Mandelson was a political appointment. All sides agree that the PM made this appointment and made clear he was pushing it through before various checks were done and regardless of various checks already done. If the vetting people came back with concerns, *the proper action was UNQUESTIONABLY for officials to take this to the PM* for him to make a judgement about the pros/cons and risks of his own political appointment, including the 'details' which Martin is pretending junior vetting officials are allowed to know but not *the PM*. This is the only proper way for such a problem to be resolved. Ollie Robbins and Ciaran are talking crap. And so is Starmer. All systems are working as intended. Also hacks shd be asking: Who officially authorised Mandelson for STRAP clearance? You don't get to read very sensitive material, like transcripts of intercepted calls between important people, just because you've got DV - you *also* need STRAP. Either a) an official cleared Mandy for STRAP or else b) the requirement / 3+ month delay was waived by the PM, or c) we're supposed to believe Mandy wasn't shown STRAP material? So which official authorised it or did the PM waive it? When? (It's already in the published paper trail that he was told it would take over 3 months)

No10: There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV before the document was shared with CO to comply with the Humble Address. iPaper and the world: 😂😂😂

This morning Starmer was on television saying "No one in Downing Street knew Mandelson failed his vetting". It's now becoming clear literally everyone in Downing Street knew except Keir Starmer himself.

But then in PMQs Starmer said he had read the vetting report - or at least the claims relating to Epstein. So he’s either lying or someone did access the file and provide him the extracts - the fact NO ONE at that point asked about the vetting officers recommendation is a mystery 🤷‍♂️ ..if that was me, I’d ask to speak to actual vetting officer personally.

@iainherd @alexwickham yes i read that earlier & if you believe ex Nat Cyber Head Martin it fits with what he said earlier today ( see screenshots) So, perhaps Epstein extent wasn't revealed in vetting but old stuff on dodgy Mandy & his other foreign interests/' Global Counsel' did. ' Handle plan'

EXCLUSIVE: A team of Cabinet Office officials accessed a highly secure portal last Friday to review UK Security Vetting conclusions on Peter Mandelson as part of the Humble Address motion. What they found was conclusions of a top secret report showing security officials had raised objections about Mandelson’s appointment. On making further enquiries it then became clear to them that Olly Robbins had been presented with the conclusions of the UKSV process by a senior Foreign Office security official who Bloomberg has agreed not to name. It appeared Robbins had not necessarily seen the full details of Mandelson’s vetting, only the conclusions and what are internally called “residual issues”, sources say. Nonetheless, Robbins and the senior FCDO security official had agreed that despite the negative conclusions they would go ahead and grant him DV clearance, sources say. The senior FCDO security official has since left the Foreign Office. It means the government was left in an extraordinary situation this week where not a single member of staff still in post at FCDO had seen Mandelson’s full vetting report. When Starmer found out on Tuesday he was furious and then on Thursday sacked Robbins. A source described the situation as so opaque it was Kafkaesque. However an ally of Robbins points to the 2010 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act which states that ministers do not have powers over national security vetting. People familiar with the matter who spoke to Bloomberg today described an internal mess bordering on farce. The crux of the problem, some sources argue, is that Starmer had made clear he wanted Mandelson to be appointed and that he was relaxed about the publicly available information about his links to Epstein, Russia and China. That created a climate in which Robbins felt he was doing the PM’s bidding by clearing Mandelson. Ironically, Robbins’ defence against Starmer’s decision to sack him also appears to help the PM because it tallies with Starmer’s position that he was unaware of Mandelson’s vetting issues and therefore could not have intervened. Cabinet ministers are tonight reserving judgment on whether Starmer can survive this. First he needs to get through next week, then the locals. Most political sources we spoke to think Starmer can tough it out to the locals, but think it will factor into ministers’ and MPs’ calculations afterwards. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

@DPJHodges He wasn’t told to provide plausible deniability in this very moment

OK, hang on. This is getting utterly insane. The Guardian is now reporting Antonia Romeo knew in March Mandelson had failed vetting. But again, inexplicably, refused to tell Starmer. What the hell is going on in there. theguardian.com/politics/2026/…

This in the #10 letter released this evening “There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV before the document was shared with CO to comply with the Humble Address.” ..seems there is some evidence, not least the Independent article 🤷‍♂️

@iainherd @alexwickham TLDR Maddox claimed his sources were MI6 but.... see Matt's point and then consider that Maddox's sources admit that they found nothing of concern on Epstein. Wild!

How does this fit with the Independent article (Sep’25), claiming Mandelson did pass UKSV vetting 🤷‍♂️ - seems there is evidence in print “There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV before the document was shared with CO to comply with the Humble Address.”

BREAKING: Number 10 has published a summary of the meeting on Tuesday evening when Sir Keir Starmer was told that Mandelson was appointed despite failing to clear security vetting It states that Cat Little, the permanent secretary of the foreign office, reviewed files confirming that 'the recommendatoin from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson' 'The PM was not aware of any of this before the meeting, including that it was possible to grant DV against the advice of UKV' It will also publish the template summarising the recommendation not to give Mandelson clearance. It will be published - filled in - with the next tranche of documents. It includes a box for ''clearance denied or withdrawn', which presumably applies to Mandelson

@SamCoatesSky If true - how come the Guardian knew of UKSV concerns by September. Are you suggesting the Robbins or UKSV leaked this? (unlikely) ...more likely the political side was made aware even if verbally.

This is what the war between No10 and Robbins comes down to The PM is saying he should have been told about the UKSV recommendation. But UKSV is one part of a bigger process that leads to a decision Friends of Olly Robbins say that would have broken protocol if he’d passed on the UKSV judgement or any other element of the FCDO information gathering - he was banned from doing that and can only inform ministers of his / the FCDOs pass/fail recommendation Robbins was only able to tell ministers he had passed Mandelson - nothing else

Missing from your timeline: 20 Dec 2024 Mandelson announced to be next US Ambassador to the United States 6 Jan 2025 Mandelson given developed vetting clearance, although process was not complete 8 Jan 2025 Robbins was appointed Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the FCDO for a five-year term, succeeding Sir Philip Barton 28 Jan 2025 UKSV formally recommended DV denial 30 Jan 2025 DV clearance confirmed, UKSV recommendation overruled by the FCDO 10 Feb 2025 Mandelson takes up the Ambassdor post Number 10: the normal process was followed

STARMER AND MANDELSON: THE TIMELINE DOES NOT ADD UP 6 Jan 2025 - Mandelson was given developed vetting (even though it now emerges he had failed). He was pictured in the street with a DV level pass with that issue date. 11 September 2025 - The Independent’s Political Editor asked Downing Street to comment on claims Mandelson had failed DV. The answer: “vetting done by FCDO in the normal way” 4 February 2026 - Starmer appeared at PMQs. Asked whether Mandelson’s “security vetting” contained Esptein allegations, he answered “yes it did” 5 February 2026 - Starmer gave a speech in Hastings where he said: “there was then… security vetting… which gave him clearance for the role”. 14 April 2026 (Tuesday just gone) - No10 maintains Starmer only found out Mandelson had failed DV. No10 claims Starmer ordered an investigation into the issue that day. 16 April 2026 (yesterday) - Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper’s team maintains she wasn’t told until The Guardian newspaper ran the story yesterday The long and the short of this timeline is that it simply doesn’t add up. Starmer repeatedly commented in public and in the Commons about Mandelson’s DV.  His then Director of Comms failed to deny that Mandelson had in fact failed his DV. The question of Mandelson’s vetting was clearly a live issue in government months prior to this week. It is simply implausible that Starmer did not know or at least suspect Mandelson’s DV was a problem.

@grok @TweetForTheMany @KathrynDW59 @grok to the best of your ability, can you confirm if this image has been manipulated or altered in anyway, and that it was captured in the timeframe stated in the thread. Please verify and validate with evidence /sources.

Yes, verified. iNews (Feb 2026) reports four UK government security vetting sources examined the photo and confirmed the green stripe on the lanyard specifically signals DV clearance—the highest level for unsupervised top-secret access. Dominic Cummings wore a yellow pass (lower clearance) for months before upgrading to green. Official pass-color details aren't public, but this matches consistent insider accounts across coverage.

This photo of Peter Mandelson arriving at Downing Street (with the green-striped DV pass visible) is dated 14 January 2025. That's roughly two weeks before the 30 January 2025 Foreign Office letter confirming his clearance. Starmer is clearly lying.

@grok @TweetForTheMany @KathrynDW59 @grok Please verify and validate your claim providing evidence and sources, that a green stripe on a UK government security pass signifies that the holder has DV security clearance.

Yes, the green stripe on that UK government pass (visible on Mandelson's lanyard in the photo) indicates Developed Vetting (DV) security clearance. DV is the highest level of national security vetting. It allows frequent, unsupervised access to top secret material. Sources analyzing the image confirm the stripe specifically signals DV status for highly classified access.

@TweetForTheMany @KathrynDW59 @grok can you confirm the meaning of a green stripe on a UK government pass, as shown in the post?

BUT Sir Olly Robbins (full name: Sir Oliver Robbins) joined the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) as Permanent Under-Secretary (the most senior civil servant role, also Head of the Diplomatic Service) on 8th January 2025. Mandelson's pass says 6th January!

@andywigmore So a minister can see intelligence concerning an EU politician having an affair or dealing in industrial espionage - but not their own staff even for the highest security level…lolz

Read this carefully “The process is also independent of Ministers who are not informed of any findings other than the FINAL OUTCOME” so No10 was fully aware as was the Foreign Secretary etc.

@techdevnotes Provide a better subscription than codex and a ton of inference - unlimited use of good model, is better than a little use of an excellent model ..imho 👍

What's our plan if Grok Build model sucks?

@benjitaylor How do I get the beta 😂💪🙏

Have been really enjoying using the Grok Build beta the last few weeks (or as I like to call it, deskgrok)

@KevinASchofield So he’s either a liar or incompetent - is there a third option? Either way the buck stops at the top.

This is very very bad for the PM

@DanNeidle If NatWest made the early redemption fee and an arbitrary number, would they be entitled to reclaim?

A real gotcha: Someone withdrew money early from a NatWest fixed-term savings account. NatWest applied an early closure charge of 90 days interest. So they didn't receive 90 days-worth of interest. But they were still taxed on it! Whose fault? And how can we fix this?

@DPJHodges @steve_hawkes Unless of course you use and experience the health service, to get a touch of reality 😂

Whisper it. But Wes Streeting is doing a good job as Health Secretary, and Labour MPs are starting to notice. Was a narrative that his proximity to Mandelson had killed his leadership chances. I'm not so sure.