And 'a lot of political pressure' does not trump national security, particularly robbins implies national security is above all to him. If the fcdo process of being able to ignore a no from vetting leads to such liabilities as we see, then any key civil servant has to make clear the risk of pushing.
From a process point of view it does seem fcdo gets this unusual ability, so likely not all would know. I wonder if this system pays off overall, or if it means our acceptance we can make use of bad people make us blind to the fact bad people can be used against us. Ie
Is mandelson an anomoly?
Fair argument
I think the question is why/whether he only ended up hearing vetting was 'leaning' towards a no, and how often deoes it pay off that the fcdo overrules the vetting (since they get final say).
Clearly this time, the mine of someones past has gone off absent them delivering value.
France is very much always on the edge. But when we keep shifting leaders, its starts to become a question about the maturity or competence of the society as a whole to handle another team being in power.
I suppose it depends on whether its good an official sees new postees who end up being social-governmental bombs as 'interesting'. Id say its about whether learning to accept bad people can be necessary leads to ignoring that bad people can cause huge issues.
To have the fcdo ignore reports the vetting was a no. Probably happens if someone is considered useful enough to national security - which in this case didnt pan out. Then the question is how often their overrulling is more valuable than harmful to a competative state.
I felt I got it. Vetters see the file. Others see the pass/fail. In other departments its binding, in the FCDO its guidance. Robbins didnt see the contents nor outcome, but saw the fcdo had decided all is fine, and the vetting leant towards a no, but the fcdo gets to overrule. Depends how odd it is
I agree. She remains one of my faves of the left.
And two people were still booted it. Unsurprisingly a member of either side of the horseshoe ends.
Im assuming an absence of dealing with shady characters would shag the UK economy. Since we do indeed deal with gambling and drugs and offshore stuff I would assume passing a security vetting even after all that was known would mean the establishment believed it was a risk worth taking.
It is odd after 4 years aye.
I thought he did very well. Apologised where it was on him and he got in a tonne of questions. The attack seemed to rest on this idea that he needed to be psychic. I think he is right to assume our processes are working until they are proven not to, otherwise youd be investigating everything always.
Are we now in a situation where its so untraceable that it is essentially a fact of life?
Given the consequences and sums, its worth seeing how this games out (and I guess putting some money down on it).
Marriage etc.
No. Its possible. Cultures change.
This is where the neo nazis (who are using culture to imply race) are incorrect. Diversity is a strength, and nature is the proof. Monocultures are brittle.
But similarly the left needs to find a way towards a british islam that solves its taboos.
So it is that the preservation of diverse culture, and notion that some culture is bad comes to a head. A muddy issue that manages to get rational people on the same side as racists because the terms and concepts seem obvious.
Does the fact aisha was 12, a fact, mean islam can never forbid underage
Imagine the moral question:
Would you choose a £50 discount on your bill but it killed a family in an apartment?
And then some politicians saying 'yes'.
Its interesting that we dont all get the causal connection that you buy cheap russian oil at the price of civillian lives.
You can trace a 12 year old casualty back to a bank transfer, and logically to turning on a light or stove.
Parfait.
Glad to see I got a return on my investment.
Have to update my opinion, so, good for frigates, but dogs**t for my keys.
Where you allocate care, welfare, or education a percent of its budget to defence support such as defence training or dual use goods/assets.
And where manpower or realestate is too pricey, build in Ukraine where costs are much much lower and experience much much higher.
Its worth asking what the cost is of a failure of defence. If you have investments like infrastructure blowing up, or trade routes blocked, or trade allies turning inwards to their own defence.
If we are to do it in the cheap we need overlap and Ukraine www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlpN...
This is
This sort of thing has bugged me - this alpha wolf way of seeing success.
Sometimes its not all about being top dog and getting your own way, sometimes your way is stupid.
Oh I dunno, russias oil is booming.
Munitions factories are booming.
Its tanks are booming. Even their invaders go boom.
I wouldnt say botox is the sole swell news.
The sole swell news is russian botox.
Its 2027 and Amazon prime make the sequel.
Godot turns up, is an influencer.
wont do to other countries what it does to people in its own borders that it doesnt like.
If you want to see how you will be treated when china feels fully ready, just look within its own borders.
Given chinas leverage over russia, to assume its not inevitable will be obvious negligence.
When the power goes out in care and residential homes, and the benefits payments system goes down because of mysterious infrastructure attacks, we may look at starmer and healeys refusal to act like defence underpins finances, the same way we see appeasers - betting that china 1/2
Im just thinking of how my set had stick death, badger badger badger, and salad fingers. Its an odd phase of life.