Trevor that the prime minister has rightly in my view said that the appointment was a mistake and he's apologized for that. No, no, no, no, no, no. This is not the point I'm making.
You're just saying anybody who had any sense cared about this, thought about the women involved, I'm just saying would have taken a different decision. The prime minister had all the information at his disposal at that point. He still made the decision.
So, is he one of the people who ignored the women? Yesterday, Labour's media operation suffers another brutal live television moment. A senior Labour MP is sent out to defend Kia Starmmer over the Mandlesson fiasco.
And within seconds, the whole argument starts to collapse. Not to tell the prime minister that Peter Mandlesson was not given the go-ahead by UK security vetting. That was wrong.
That was a mistake. And that is why he's lost their confidence. So when the prime minister makes a mistake knowing what everybody in the country knew he can come along and say oh I'm sorry I made a mistake and we go okay fine I don't yet yet everybody else who makes a mistake Robins Mcrini Gray lose their job why isn't he losing his job the defense simply doesn't survive contact with basic facts.
If StarMA truly cared so deeply about judgment, accountability, and safeguarding, then why was this appointment made in the first place? That is the question they still cannot answer. Why did the prime minister appoint somebody who he knew at the time of appointment had been a friend of Epstein, who he could have known if he had just read the paper or somebody told him had stayed in Epstein's home.
And what follows is painful political viewing, evasions, contradictions, and a government line that sounds less convincing every time it is repeated. CDO have a different view about who should be recommended for the posting. By the uh time we're describing, it was clear that the prime minister wanted to make this appointment himself.
Stay with me because the most revealing part is not the shouting, not the interruption, but the moment the defense completely falls apart. If you value straight political analysis without the Westminster varnish, like the video, subscribe, and let's get into it. Is is Ollie Robbins a year ago, he was good enough to get the number two job running the country, and suddenly he's become a liability.
Yes, I think it was a real serious mistake not to tell the prime minister or the foreign secretary that the foreign office took a different view from UK security vetting. Not just at the start. I I get that point.
I think that that is I think that that was wrong. Let us bear in mind you've just he just said Peter Manson was the problem. The person who chose both Peter Mandlesson and Ollie Robbins actually was the prime minister.
Peter Mandelson withheld information at the start of this whole thing then repeatedly lied and he is who I am angry with because there's been no that there's been there has been in recent days no no you say that he withheld information everybody in the country who could read a newspaper knew all the things that the prime minister then said was wrong with Peter Mandlesson. Everybody knew it. Let let me just say this and I will answer that question.
But throughout all recent days there's been barely any mention of who has really suffered from this which is the women who were trafficked and abused by Jeffrey Epstein and a man a man who at the heart of this covered up the information about his relationship here. But the prime minister I think is right to say and the foreign secretary that as uh it was wrong it was wrong not to tell them that he had not passed the UK security vetting and he would not have been he would not have been appointed if the prime minister had known that. If your case now is that everybody should have had the women concerned the women who were exploited who were trafficked by Epstein.
Everybody should have had that those women at the front of their minds and I agree with you. Good. Why did the prime minister appoint somebody who he knew at the time of appointment had been a friend of Epstein who he could have known if he had just read the paper or somebody told him had stayed in Epstein's home and who was still in contact with Epstein and would have had to say so if the prime minister had actually asked him.
You will you will know Trevor that the prime minister has rightly in my view said that the appointment was a mistake and he's apologized for that. No no no no no no this is not the point I'm making. You're just saying anybody who had any sense cared about this thought about the women involved would have taken a different decision.
The prime minister had all the information at his disposal at that point. He still made the decision. So is he one of the people who ignored the women?
Absolutely not. What he must have done is by your logic. Let me tell you, let me tell you.
Why did he appoint Peter Anderson? Let me tell you this. I have never had a prime minister in my lifetime who has cared as much or has done as much about violence against women and girls.
You're still answering my question. If if he cared so much and this was such a big deal, why did he appoint somebody who he he knew was an associate of a convicted pedophile? Well, you will know that he withheld information about it that he lied about the extent of his relationship.
Everybody and that is why the prime minister, everybody in the country knew that that is why prime minister the prime minister said that that appointment was a mistake and has apologized about it. And where we started on all of this, Trevor, rightly so, is you want to know why uh Siri Robbins lost the confidence of the prime minister and the foreign secretary. And the truth of it is, I think it was wrong not on such a serious and important and high-profile appointment not to tell the prime minister that Peter Mandelson was not given the go-ahad by UK security vetting.
That was wrong. That was a mistake and that is why he's lost their confidence. So when the prime minister makes a mistake knowing what everybody in the country knew he can come along and say oh I'm sorry I made a mistake and we go okay fine I don't yet yet everybody else who makes a mistake Robins Mcrini Gray lose their job why isn't he losing his job because the prime minister on the big cause facing this country has made the right calls.
Whether that is on the war and saying that we will not get involved with a war with no clear objective and no clear exit plan, whether it is on the crucial issues of investing in the defense of this country. You you asked me a question. You just told me you got it wrong.
because on the fundamental judgments facing this country, whether it's on international issues, rebuilding our relationship with the EU, saying we won't get involved in the war, investing in our defense, or whether it's on domestic issues, lifting children out of poverty, tackling violence against women and girls, all of the big fundamental issues facing this country. Honestly, you can you can list has made the right choice. Well, that's how I look at you ask me.
You can you can list all of those things, but we are discussing can and I'm very proud to the appointment to the most important diplomatic post that the country can offer in a situation where we are dealing with uh what your colleagues have said to me and is a capricious and unreliable ally. somebody who sees the s the most sensitive documents, knows all the secrets, knows who our spies are and all of that. You're just telling me this is actually not that important.
made a mistake and frank frankly all he has to do is come to the dispatch box say you know what sorry mate I made a mistake can we get on with some other stuff because I think he is an honest man and sack everybody else and a man of integrity who says it was a mistake to appoint him and he removed Peter Mandolson and and I think that he is a man of honesty and integrity and you know what uh Trevor tomorrow in the House of Commons he will face all of these issues and questions and he will lay all the facts before Parliament. All right. He's been out uh and he's had some things to say himself.
I just want to check some of them. Um is it correct that Peter Manson agreed that the conditions of his appointment uh should be varied in a way that meant, for example, he wasn't permitted to meet former clients? Uh uh and if so, why would uh Oliver Robinson uh Robbins raise a red flag over that?
They'd made an arrangement. It it was a done deal. CDO have a different view about who should be recommended for the posting.
Well, in the uh time we're describing, it was clear that the prime minister wanted to make this appointment himself and had uh therefore I understand that um the FCDO was informed of his decision and acted upon it and uh via the foreign secretary uh sought and obtained the king's approval for the appointment. Um but we were um in this in this particular case uh as Chris has explained the prime minister uh uh took advice and then formed a view himself and we then acted on that view. If you are tired of watching the political class say one thing, deny the obvious and hope the clip disappears by tomorrow, then support the channel.
Like this video, subscribe, and share it with someone who still believes the public cannot see through these lines.
