In this case the guy reckoned Robins approved because the things that probably caused the red flags in the assessment where things in the public domain, so Starmer aleady knew and had put him up for selection anyway.
The real truth starmer can't say, Mandleson was given the job because of his dodgy past not in spite of it. 
Previous Message
black and white decision - "no".
It's perfectly normal for the results of a vetting process not to be shared with the people who commissioned it?
If it's a risk assessment then that's even worse, the details would have been given, and they would have screamed "this man is a wrong 'un". So we're saying the risk assessment failed, or that it wasn't seen as important enough to bother sharing, or what?
Previous Message
on the radio earlier, he said Robins has been thrown under the bs because not only did he do nothing wrong not telling Starmer, he is expressly not to disclose any details. He also couldnt understand the way it was being reported, he said you dont pass or fail these things, its a risk assessment. No ide how true all that is, but this was guy with experience of the system, he wasnt defending Starmer, he was accusing him of making a scapegoat of Robins, but he was saying it was perfectly normal and indeed by design that Starmer wouldnt know. Previous Message
this is the man that rightly told us that Johnson was insulting people's intelligence by saying he didn't know about COVID parties at number 10.
His version of events is that the Foreign Office lied to him. Why would they do that?
Bullshit, and it's no wonder people are turning to Reform, as much as I think it's stupid and misguided to do so.
Responses
on April 18, 2026, 12:25 am, in reply to "