Forum List | Politics Forum
| Topic: Mandelson |
|---|
| 1. Author: wee eck Date: Fri 17th Apr 2026. 13:59 It looks like we never got round to discussing the `Mandelson affair` on here but just when you think it`s run its course it`s in the news again. If anything like this happened at any of the devolved governments they`d probably be shut down right away but Westminster survives all sorts of cover-up, obfuscation and evasion. Reply |
| 2. Author: McCaig`s Tower Date: Fri 17th Apr 2026. 21:37 There was a short thread on Mandelson last year. More recently there was some chat on the Epstein thread. There are still many unanswered questions. It seems to be the view that Mandelson was a "Trump Whisperer" and so would be valuable as the UK Ambassador in DC. But failing his vetting would mean presumably that he could not receive full security clearance. Thus the UK mission would be inhibited in its operations, but conceivably this could be a price worth paying. Maybe. But this would be known about at high levels. Is it credible that the vetting failure was kept a secret from the Cabinet, from No 10 or the PM? That seems to be the way of "plausible deniability" rather than effective governance. I would have expected a decision of this magnitude to be made at PM level or certainly with PM approval. It`s not like ordering paperclips, or dare I say, awarding Infosys a minor contract. This seems more like it being announced that Mandelson would get the gig, and having got it, they couldn`t change their mind. I never got why Mandelson was so revered - he seemed (seems) like trouble and best avoided. I`m not sure you could realistically shut down Westminster any time there was a scandal. Has anyone serious suggested shutting down Holyrood? There have been plenty of scandals there. Reply |
| 3. Author: wee eck Date: Wed 22nd Apr 2026. 10:36 If you cut through all the politics here the fundamental flaw seems to be that, under the system that existed at the time of Mandelson`s appointment, it was perfectly possible for it to be made and announced before all vetting procedures were complete. That`s astonishing. It`s like giving someone a job before you`ve checked their references. Post Edited (Wed 22 Apr 10:36) Reply |
| 4. Author: Playup_Pompey Date: Wed 22nd Apr 2026. 10:59 Bojo failed to get security clearance under Teresa May`s govt, he was in role however some accesses limited as he was not trusted. not that that is being mentioned anywhere  Reply |
| 5. Author: The One Who Knocks Date: Wed 22nd Apr 2026. 16:27 My understanding, going by yesterday`s testimony, is that Mandelson didn`t fail the vetting process because the process isn`t a pass/fail situation. And although my eyes were open They just might as well be closed Reply |
| 6. Author: Tenruh Date: Wed 22nd Apr 2026. 17:55 I wonder what Mandys qualifications were that got him the gig...? Reply |
| 7. Author: Tad Allagash Date: Wed 22nd Apr 2026. 20:01 Playup_Pompey, Wed 22 Apr 10:59 Elected politicians don’t need security vetting. Reply |
| 8. Author: red-star-par Date: Wed 22nd Apr 2026. 22:04 I`d imagine with Mandelson`s friendship and loyalty to Epstein and the favour that would carry with Trunp, the Labour Friends of Israel lobby wanted him in that role as soon as possible with no questions asked Reply |
| 9. Author: Wotsit Date: Thu 23rd Apr 2026. 18:56 He can`t be allowed to use the "I didn`t know" excuse. He is responsible for the government`s decisions and if we let himn get away with saying "but the civil servant didn`t tell me" then we are setting an incredibly dangerous precedent. He is responsible for the government`s decisions, that`s his job. “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” Reply |
| 10. Author: LochgellyAlbert Date: Sat 9th May 2026. 21:12 So his old pal Brown being brought out the closet to help Starmer!🤔🤣🤣🤣 Reply |
| 11. Author: sadindiefreak Date: Sun 10th May 2026. 04:02 LochgellyAlbert, Sat 9 May 21:12 You would think Gordon Brown would want to stay out of the limelight given that he is accused of being a paedophile in the Epstein files. Reply |
| 12. Author: ipswichpar Date: Sun 10th May 2026. 08:21 sadindiefreak, Sun 10 May 04:02 Any proof or just a slur? Reply |
| 13. Author: Wotsit Date: Sun 10th May 2026. 13:36 Kier Starmer has to go. His fake "shocked pikachu" response to Mandelson and his absolute capitultaion to Reform in the English council elections should be more than enough for his party to fire him into the sun. His appeasment of Reform hasn`t worked. Labour, and the country, need a proper leader who will stand up to Reform, maybe even someone who is prepared to fight dirty. UK Labour need to go on the attack, and they need to learn how to use "modern methods" to win the argument on social media. “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” Reply |
| 14. Author: sadindiefreak Date: Sun 10th May 2026. 18:07 ipswichpar, Sun 10 May 08:21 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/dataset%209/efta00103831.pdf Gordon Brown mentioned in this document from The Epstein files. Norman Lamont allegedly outed Brown as a Paedophile. Reply |
| 15. Author: Dandy Warhol Date: Sun 10th May 2026. 18:21 All the Epstein files has achieved is showing the world the so called "elite" can rape children and no one can do a thing about it. I don`t wanna go down like disco. Post Edited (Sun 10 May 18:28) Reply |
| 16. Author: red-star-par Date: Sun 10th May 2026. 19:30 Norman Lamont saying it though...I`d take that with a pinch of salt. I`d imagine he`d be keen to try and smear someone else with that sort of label to keep attention off himself, but wouldn`t be surprised if Lamont himself was no stranger to a Children`s Home. As much as I dislike Gordon Brown, he`s strikes me as being a man of good moral fibre Reply |
| 17. Author: ipswichpar Date: Sun 10th May 2026. 21:38 That`s a lot of names that weren`t redacted...... makes you wonder which names were redacted to the extent they were! Reply |
Your Message:
By using your account you have implicitly accepted the DAFC.net Forum Rules and agree to be bound by them. You also agree that you will take sole responsibility for your post and indemnify dafc.net on all matters and costs. Refrain from making any potentially libelous comments about anyone
- - -