And and he's saying if he'd been told a second time by more junior vetting staff he now wouldn't have appointed him after all? Or is he saying officials have now broken the law and told him some juicy, worse, details from the vetting which he wasn't told first time round?
I just don't understand his story. He does due diligence and is warned M should not be appointed because of relationships with perverts, China and Russia. He overrules it and appoints him. PC plod then vets M and says he shouldn't be cleared because of perverts, China and Russia!? contd.
How can Starmer know even now that he wouldn’t have appointed him when Ministers are not shown the details? Or have they shown him? Or has Romeo told him the vetting turned up worse stuff than the due diligence advice?
How can Starmer know even now that he wouldn’t have appointed him when Ministers are not shown the details? Or have they shown him? Or has Romeo told him the vetting turned up worse stuff than the due diligence advice?
He’s placing huge reliance on the argument that he wouldn’t have appointed if he’d known about the vetting recommendation. That only holds water if there was a difference between the due diligence advice and what vetting turned up. And yet he supposedly doesn’t know the detail of what turned up!
Yes. It is so poorly drafted it could be read as saying steps will be put in place to acquire clearance, not to decide whether clearance should be given. Once it had been decided (against the due diligence advice) to appoint him, obviously he had to be given clearance to do the job.
That's the bit you throw away to get to the reviews section.
My working assumption is the retired policemen who do the dvs came up with all the stuff that had already been paraded before Starmer and dismissed by their betters. Another question. How come if the dv team work for the Cabinet Office, as we are told, Cat Little knew nothing about their findings?
The original prosecution was in 2023? The more you read about the dozy Joe days the more you realise Trump is just given it all on a plate by the opposition.
This makes it even more complicated, suggesting there was yet another, third, clearance required which we haven't even heard about before. Also it doesn't tell us why he failed dv. It might well be for the same or similar stuff Starmer had already been warned about.
Question 5 is the main one and it could even be that the vetting team just came up with the same worries Starmer had been told about earlier by the ethics unit. Why would it make sense to say "I told you so" at that point?
The only way he can get out of this one is if the vetting report showed truly new or more extreme problems which Starmer hadn't already been warned about. My guess is the FCO believed they'd already had the discussion about his penchants and been told to shut up.
Obviously he's just living hand to mouth now with these made up "deals" and the only question is whether he's man enough to tell Netanyahu his supply of munitions stops if he carries on terrorising Lebanon.
Why don't they just go along with his crap for a bit of peace? Send him a few samples, he'll be gone anyway before you know it.
Unless the vetting team came up with some new stinkers, their advice was irrelevant. If they just came up with all the horrors Starmer had already been warned about. Starmer had ruled his vile past should not bar his pet from office. So there was nothing to tell him?
"Don't fly here"
If they didn't have their heads up their own arses they'd be better advised to shut up and then do nothing to implement these "deals" when Donald forgets.
How does this make Trump money?
It always made sense just to make him some unbelievable promises, eg, not to make any nukes for 50 years. All the leaders except Netanyahu will have changed in three years and then they'll do whatever.
This one’s maybe typed by an assistant as a correction to his earlier shorter one. It has no obvious mistakes and includes an unusual grammatical usage “in that”.
It would have been weird to refuse an ambassador clearance to see secret documents unless something even worse had been discovered (which we don’t know yet). If the vetting team was just repeating the bad stuff Starmer already knew how could he be denied clearance?
It’s now been pointed out there wasn’t a “decision” that was overruled. Sounds like the advice from the team was to refuse. Starmer had already been warned about some of the bad stuff before appointing him.
So basically he’s staggered the vetting came to the expected conclusion which he’d already dismissed as reason not to appoint?
But what if the main reason he was appointed and the reason for the adverse vetting are very similar?
It'll be ironic if the reason he failed the vetting and the reason he was appointed are identical - that he and Trump had a long friendship in common.
Next week "Starmer staggered not to be told that crossing the road with eyes closed can be dangerous."
The latest assertion seems to be that the vetting came after the appointment, so the "anyway" would be wrong. But if the vetting result was so awkward officials had decided to keep it hidden from Ministers, this reporting in itself would have led to questions.
🚨
this is from last September
