🚨 SECURITY WARNED. NO.10 IGNORED. STARMER OWNED THIS. 🚨 This is no longer speculation. This is confirmed reporting. According to Sky News, UK security services explicitly raised concerns about appointing Peter Mandelson as U.S. Ambassador. Those concerns were formally flagged. They were escalated. They were known. And yet Downing... Street pressed ahead anyway. This is the moment **Keir Starmer’s premiership becomes untenable. Let’s be absolutely clear about what this means: • Security services warned about Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein • They insist they did their job and “ran it up the flagpole” • Number 10 overrode the warnings for political reasons • The appointment then collapsed in public disgrace • Mandelson was fired only after the exposure became impossible to contain This wasn’t an intelligence failure. It was a political decision. Sky’s reporting raises devastating questions: Who in No.10 made the final call? Why were security warnings dismissed? Did Starmer know — or was he shielded by his own Chief of Staff? If he did know, why did he proceed? If he didn’t, why is he not in control of his own government? Either scenario is catastrophic. The security services are now openly dismayed — not because they failed, but because they’re being blamed after being ignored. Meanwhile, MPs are described as “slack-jawed” at a Downing Street operation that has lost two senior figures in a week and defended Mandelson even after Epstein links were public — only to reverse course hours later. This is not a minor scandal. This is judgment failure at the very top of government. A Prime Minister who ignores security advice on sensitive diplomatic appointments —or who allows his inner circle to do so— cannot be trusted with the national interest. Starmer now owns this decision. He owns the override. He owns the consequences. And Britain is entitled to ask: If security warnings can be brushed aside this easily, who is really running the country?show more

Jim Ferguson

430,303 subscribers

Paylaş İndir