Begum was not deported.

The U.S. was shooting yesterday at Iranian shipping.

“We didn’t think they’d get hit” okay well then all appointed DoD & State leadership need to resign for being criminally incompetent

She doesn’t have the power to deport any of them.

The Moody Blues #whalesupergroups

No IRA member ever admitted to any crime in court. And this kid will have been advised by his lawyer than if the motive is perceived as racially aggravated he will be doing a much longer stretch in prison.

Nuking a couple of hundred Soviet military advisors would indeed have been a bold move.

The problem from Starmer’s POV is that one more “I didn’t know this was happening” will be fatal anyway.

2. The process defense is further obliterated by the revelation that the Cabinet Office originally argued that PM did not need DV!

For the process led defense, hoisted by your own petard does not come close.

1. In fact, it was OR who followed process, punctiliously and with integrity — he’s literally a subject matter expert on the DV process which he convincingly demonstrated.

This makes a mockery of his sacking which appears unjustified and process-less.

Mandelson was fired for purely political reasons that had nothing to do with the vetting process. He was appointed not despite his connections to Epstein but because of them, and he was fired because of them not despite them.

Well he would say that, wouldn't he?

If this isn't advice what is it then?

Weird how it's almost always people of colour who are "Low IQ", and white people are "sleepy", "cryin'", "little" etc.

No doubt.

Isn't it funny how many people Keir Starmer ends up sacking and who end up doing a "woe is me"?

It's almost as if there is something off about his judgement in the first place.

I was predisposed to believe Keir
Starmer was competent. The facts have disabused me of that.

Starmer is culpable of a) appointing Mandelson in the first place; and b) ignoring Case’s recommendation not to announce until DV had been approved.

Those are the core problems. Everything else is a sideshow.

No, UKSV concluded it was borderline.

To put in place mitigations you definitionally are not ignoring the recommendation that stands behind it.

That's not at all what he said. He said his security vetting team was in discussion w/ UKSV & had concluded mitigations could be put in place as UKSV had concluded it was borderline but they tilted towards a recommendation of deny; that decision and the mitigations were put to OR and he approved.

"Just fucking approve it."

I watched every minute of it.

We look at the facts and then we make judgements. That's our job as voters.

The fundamental problem in all of this is Keir Starmer's judgement, and yes as voters we are allowed, expected even, to judge that.

Well, we know the answer to that: Morgan McSweeney, because he was Mandelson's protégé.

Yeah, exactly. Starmer tried to blame process to save McSweeney, lost him anyway, and then this detail of the process emerged and he has jumped on it and thrown Robbins under the bus to try and save himself.

That's pretty much it. Robbins' position is that if he felt national security was at risk and mitigations couldn't be put in place he wouldn't have approved, but Downing Street had made clear they wanted him in place so anything short of that scenario and Mandelson was to be approved.

He overrode the advice not to announce the appointment Mandelson until after DV had been completed.

Robbins demolished a PM's excuses - just like Starmer used to The prime minister is in even deeper trouble after the civil servant he sacked took apart No 10’s latest tangled explanation of the indefensible

"Olly Robbins is not a shouty man. He did not thump the table, or launch into a tirade against Starmer for how he has been treated. Instead, he quietly and methodically demolished Number 10’s latest convoluted explanation of the indefensible."

www.thenewworld.co.uk/james-ball-o...