Civil servants in the UK have a fundamental duty to provide ministers with all relevant information & evidence, to make informed decisions, as outlined in the Civil Service Code.
9. Be truthful and open: Act with honesty, ensuring you do not mislead ministers, Parliament, or the public.
Poor argument
Ed Llewelyn hardly makes a standard procedure, esp when 1 out of the 2 failed SV!
No one on the face of the planet, is calling for pol interference in SV! Just for the people we elect to be informed when someone fails SV!
Nothing on our security, with a secret misleading process?
So you're deferential to illogical arguments, & I need to be deferential to your fact free position
1. Tell me the last pol appointee that went thru this process
2. One Perm Sec, in secrecy, misleads parlia (Philby, Burgess, Blunt). Good for Nat Security
Civil servants advise, politicians decide
Think you mean, I'm not gullible enough to believe a perm sec, lying to the committe, covering his mistake in not putting the UKSV fail to his boses!
And I'm definitely not deferential enough to buy the data protection bullshit, now he's trying to cover his arse, bc he overreached in confirming!
Ripping off football fans by increasing prices 10 times, isnt a good thing, even if you hate Trump!
Mandelson was red & red, but Robbins overuled
Ministers are excluded from the process, which is right & proper, but it dosent impy that you can lie to them about the outcome
So if Perm Sec's can overrule a UKSV, and tell no one, where is our parliamentary democracy & where is our national security
I spent 14 years in the civil service, with spells in the DH Ministerial Briefing Unit, & has a locum in an Health Ministers private office
I have have worked in civil service vetting, & know better than most the relation between civil servants & politicians, & know that lying to them is untenable!
Life is risk based, everything is risk based, but the form below is very clear!
As an ex civil servant, I have filled in hundreds of similar risk assessments, and Mandelson's was red "high concern", & red "clearance denied"
Robbins overruled the UKSV, & why he choose to tell no one is the issue!
Do you do physical gymnastics along with your mental gymnastics?
Robbins duty has a civil servant is to recommend to politicians, who make the decisions in running the country! That's why we have elections.
If Robbins can clear and confirm, no matter, then what is the point of UKSV?
That's ducking the issue, which is did Mandelson fail UKSV, and the answer is yes, he failed!
Ps. Civil servants recommend and politicians decide!
In addition, it is now speculated that Mandelson leaked his own appointment, to bounce Starmer into the announcement!
Only my speculation, but what if Mandelson had a idea that he had failed security vetting, and tried to bounce starmer by leaking his appointment?
Dont quote me, but I heard he didnt start until after clearance, & conversely the Gaurdian says it was 4 days after he started the role, that he was cleared by Robbins!
But I think the huge elephant in the room, is appointing a prince of darkness, who also failed security vetting, & yet not told!
My use of the word "failed" in respect of SV is accurate & factual
So if security vetting was a fail from UKSV, & Robbins gave clearance, but told no one, & lied about the true procedure to a select committe, & did not inform our elected representatives, where exactly is our national security?
He should face the sack for overreach, into a political decision, after Mandelson failed the security vetting. Then face contempt of parliament charges for lying to PM & a cross party select committe
It is totally untenable in a democracy if civil servants withold info, or lie to elected officials
BBC Politics is just an extension of the Reform party press office.
@bbcnews-uk-rss.bsky.social
Why are all these privately educated, oxbridge, individuals so hopeless?
A senior civil servant that dosent know that a failed security vetting, is a political decision, that he should pass onto the Foreign Secretary and the PM, to confirm or deny appointment!
That's what a good clever civil servant would do, with an hot potato political decision!
But Robbins sounds like he overreached, making a bad decision, and is now trying to cover his arse with utter nonsense about data protection.
From jim, someone whose really well educated!
Dork: According to common slang definitions and discussions, a dork is a socially awkward, uncool, or silly person
And a grammar wanker, to boot.
Bingo!
Desparate, like the dorks that send more than one email????????????????
Deflection isnt a good argument.
The point of security vetting to to ensure individuals deemed a security risk are not put in positions of power.
Its a very simply concept!
Ps. Out of interest, do you know what security concerns made him fail the vetting?
Can you get anything right?
Did I mention your education, or your comprehension, your ken?
And the fake outrage, about something your lying about, dosent impress!
Another fucking genius, who supports more hate!
I'm 66 years old and educated beyond your ken, and do you really think I need your help with my responses, to sooneone who is desparate to see someone cry?
The only one tiny little snag, is that he didnt pass the security vetting!
Robbins oked his appointment, on vague information.
His job has a civil servant (I am retired civil servant), was to inform his political bosses, & let them appoint or not, and let them take the responsibility!
Based on a dreadful strategic error of trying to Trump whisper, rather than building a coalition to stand up to Trump!
Anyone now can see that Trump wispering makes Trump bolder & worse!
A good politician's job is to know the best strategy, before the majority of the public figure it out!
It has nothing to do with the process!
It's a useless weak permanent secretary, making pathetic excuses for his mistakes
The idea that he couldnt tell the Foreign Secretary & PM, that Mandelson failed is security vetting, bc of Data Protection is laughable
On that basis, there is no nat security
I hate grammer wankers, & nit picking tossers that pretend not to know the difference between substance & bullshit.
Mandelson had been "appointed subject to security clearance".
The question is why Robins oked the appointment, when Mandelson failed the security vetting!
Now I can block you!
