Whitehall Whitewash

 In respect of the placement of, arguably, our most important diplomatic position abroad, the Daily Telegraph opined, “since this was a political appointment made at the direct instruction of the Prime Minister, the usual Foreign Office procedures for testing suitability for diplomatic posts were not followed.”

Our Embassy in Washington, I assume, routinely deals with our biggest secrets and, most importantly, vital secrets shared with our allies.

Those of us who have been entrusted with such confidences in the past know the stringent vetting procedures and careful indoctrinations that would normally take place before such appointments – the owners of the secrets, particularly in the US, would have insisted.  The vetting process would, amongst other things, take account of the subject’s character, past action, and susceptibility to influence in the future.  At the highest level, the subject would emerge from the process having been declared, "OMO" clean or “whiter than white.”

 

Given the publicly available detail of Mandelsons past dealings and the personal weaknesses exposed, it seems to me inconceivable that the relevant departments of our security services, who would have known a lot more than had been reported in the press, did not raise show- stopping objections at the time. It appears these objections must have been overruled or ignored by the political appointment procedure to which the Telegraph referred. It follows that it is not just Mandelson who has betrayed his country.

We continue to be mislead. Despite Starmer's anger and Epstein victim mea culpa, this was not just a ghastly error of political judgement, it was a critical breach of security, potentially on the Philby scale.