the Labour prime minister. It's Labour MPs who can do that. They will have to look in their own hearts and decide whether they want to be complicit in this cover up.
This is no longer just a political spat. This is a full-blown credibility crisis at the very top of British government. The prime minister is now facing explosive accusations of dishonesty, national security negligence, and a potential breach of the ministerial code all over the deeply controversial appointment of Peter Mandlesson.
And he said yes, if he had not received any security vetting, why did he say that? So there's some he actually said something on the floor of the house to me directly which cannot possibly be true. Not with the explanation which he's given.
Okay. So, so basically, so you're saying he admitted to seeing security vetting information, which he is now denying, blaming Ollie Robbins for not showing him the security vetting. In February, in February, he said that.
But there are other things. And now Kem Badnock isn't just asking questions, she's demanding accountability and even resignation. But here's the real question.
Is this incompetence or something far worse? And Ollie Robbins will tomorrow say that was true because Ollie Robbins passed him which was his right even if you doing a great job being Ktor's lawyer here. But I will tell you now that I asked him about things which were in the vetting.
Stay with me because what's about to unfold raises serious questions about truth power and who's really in control behind the scenes. And if you care about politics that the mainstream won't fully break down, hit subscribe now because this is just the beginning. that the prime minister is preparing to address the House of Commons today after it emerged Peter Mandlesson failed his security vetting but was still cleared by the foreign office to take up the role of ambassador to the US to which he had already been appointed before the vetting began.
The Conservative Party says Sakama must take responsibility. Kami Bednot joins us now. just you know to start off because you're going to be putting all the questions to K star this afternoon in the House of Commons before Ollie Robbins comes to parliament tomorrow who is the sacked or resigned foreign office civil servant so um you have said that you believe Karmama has been dishonest as far as I can see the one thing that the prime minister and Ollie Robbins both agree on is the prime minister says I wasn't told and Ollie Robbins says I didn't tell you because it wasn't your right to know.
So the dishonesty, the accusation that Kisama lied, is that the heart of the case you're put to the prime minister this afternoon? Yes, I do believe that he has been dishonest. Uh the first reason is because at prime minister's questions, I asked him, did the security vetting information you received contain a particular piece of information?
And he said yes. If he had not received any security vetting, why did he say that? So there's some he actually said something on the floor of the house to me directly which cannot possibly be true, not with the explanation which he's given.
Okay. So So you're saying he admitted to seeing security vetting information which he is now denying, blaming Ollie Robbins for not showing him the security. In February, in February he said that.
But there are other things he will say that that he was told by Ollie Robbins he had passed the vetting and Ollie Robbins will tomorrow say that was true because Ollie Robbins passed him which was his right even if you're doing a great job being Kstarma's lawyer here but I will tell you now that I asked him about things which were in the vetting not about passing or failing but there are other things which I did ask him um so but why did he say that I also asked him uh about details of Um, sorry, I'm I'm now mixing the two things that we're talking about together. There are other things which he said which have shown not to be true. He said nobody in number 10 had heard about this allegation that he had failed the vetting.
It was on the front page of a newspaper. I asked him if he knew the full extent to which uh Peter Mandlesson had the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. He said um that no he did not.
The humble address documents have now shown that he did know the detail. So there there are so many things now which are clearly not true. I no longer believe him.
Uh it is my job to hold into account. This isn't just about a failed vetting. It's about what the prime minister knew and when.
Pay very close attention to how the questions are framed here because this is where the narrative starts to crack. His MPs may try and find an escape route for him, but I have to say what I really think. I can't try and cover up for the prime minister.
That's not my job. Isn't the most shocking thing that he announced the appointment of Peter Manderson in December 24 to the most sensitive overseas post in the whole of the British government weeks before the security of vetting was even complete. Yes, exactly.
And I think you know for people I' I've been trying to explain this to to my friends who are not that political. Many of them think this is the same story we're talking about from before and I tell them that no this is a different thing. The first time it was about propriety uh and ethics.
Now it's about security. This is an issue of national security. That somebody who was a national security risk and this had been flagged was put into the most senior and sensitive diplomatic footpost where all sorts of information intelligence which I would not have seen as a secretary of state would have cut across uh his desk.
A national security issue. And what I find um really shocking is how so many people's careers are being ended over over this. But the prime minister is not taking responsibility.
He's throwing everybody under a bus. It's not just um Ollie Robbins, the uh permsek of the foreign office. The cabinet secretary who was supposed to be investigating all this got sacked for reasons the prime minister still hasn't told us.
The chief of staff has been sacked. The director of communications also also left. How many people is Karma going to blame for something that at the end of the day was his responsibility, his fault?
The only point I was making a moment ago was he doesn't, the prime minister doesn't need to have been dishonest or to have lied to have made a catastrophic failure of judgment, not just in appointing Peter Madison, but doing so before the security betting was complete. So, so yes, uh I believe that he has been dishonest, but let's even take this highly improbable, inconceivable situation that the prime minister was on telly telling everyone that Peter Mandlesson had passed the vetting. Not a single person in the civil service told him, "No, this is not the case.
Stop saying that, Prime Minister. It's inconceivable. " Let's even accept that for a moment.
That means that this man is incompetent. It meant that he did not ask any questions. Even in the middle of a scandal, he wasn't saying, "Bring me everything.
I want to know everything that has gone on. " He didn't do that. If that's how he was running an appointment, then how is he running the economy?
How is he managing defense? If he's not asking questions about this, then what? He's not asking questions about our borders, about immigration, about our army.
That's what worries me. That's what it matters to um to your viewers. Um you mention of course the fact that there was a reporter at the Independent, his name is uh David Maddox who had asked number 10 specifically about a report he had that Lord Mandelson had failed the vetting with MI6 and that was a number of months ago.
I think that's about seven months ago. Now if that reporter tells number 10 he has a story that uh Lord Mandlesson has failed the vetting. Is it conceivable that the prime minister didn't know that Lord Mandles had failed MI6 vetting?
It's I I don't see how how that that is possible or even likely. Is it possible that number 10 uh knew but didn't tell Kharma or is it possible they just didn't believe this? What happens um in government even as leader of the opposition every time the press come with questions you as the leader get asked well this is what they're asking what do we say unless the press officer already knows the answer that is how it works so you get you get asked all sorts of things that the the press officers should not be answering just based on what's in their head so I would answer as a secretary of state well this is what we say if they're asking this who has this information let's make sure that's put out there the only kinds of things that that a press officer would would answer or routine things like you know what time are you guys coming out today or very basic questions so I do not understand how the director of communications in number 10 the most senior comm's person in the whole of government heard this and didn't tell anybody but I do know why that happened um because number 10 went to Ollie Robbins at the foreign office and Ollie Robinson Robins said no he passed the betting the proper process was followed and the accusation is that that's what Ollie Robbins told them.
Ollie Robbins believed that to be the case. Ollie Robbins is now saying it was his right to clear him and it was his duty not to tell anybody about the detail of the That doesn't make any sense. What is the point of carrying out security checks if you don't tell anybody what's in the security checks?
I think Ollie Robinson Ollie Robbins will speak for himself tomorrow. You think Robins is not being accurate in what he's saying? No.
No. What what I think uh is happening is that Ollie Robbins did what he Ktormer asked him to do. That's that's that's the bottom line.
Ktorma had appointed this man says, "I want this guy. Uh I've seen some things but I don't care. I want him in there.
" And then uh the appointment blows up and he's looking for a full guy. He sacks his cabinet secretary. He sacks his chief of staff.
Now he's sacking Ollie Robinson, the head of the uh the Ollie Robbins, the head of the foreign office. It doesn't stack up. This thing is so messy.
Every time the prime minister gives us new information, something else falls apart, which he's said before. It doesn't add up. And I'm going to be asking him a lot of questions this afternoon.
Um, it's incumbent on me to say party gate, Boris Johnson, breaches of lockdown, Matt Hancock, social distancing can't possibly be adhered to during an affair. Owen Patterson, you know, paid lobbying. Johnson lost his job.
Matt Hancock lost his job. Owen Patterson, yes, they all cash for questions expenses scandal. The Conservative party is not immune.
So, the expenses scandal was even before the Conservatives uh came into government. I'm not here to say that uh my party or any party is perfect, but I'm not a hypocrite. K Starmmer stood up there, said he would be whiter than white.
All I am doing is holding him to the standards that he set for everybody else. Let's remember what he was accusing Boris Johnson of was not adhering to social distancing rules during co rules which the prime minister then had created himself. People like me resigned from uh Boris Johnson's government.
So we're not here to say that people don't make mistakes. Mistakes are made. It is how you handle yourself after the mistakes that shows what kind of prime minister you are.
And what we have seen so far has been a cover up and him sacking everybody else except himself. That's what makes this worse. This is a matter of national security.
It's not about party gates or whether people observe the COVID rules. National security is a significantly more serious issue. The former cabinet um secretary Gusa Donald says this is a serious crisis now in the relationship between um ministers and civil servants.
That's right, isn't it? Yes, I think he uh uh I think he he is right. Uh it's very strange because Ktormer is a former civil servant.
Technically, he's a former permanent secretary. I think this the civil service, we're looking forward to having one of them being prime minister and instead he's got there and he's been chucking all of them under a bus. We need to have a situation where civil servants can be honest with the ministers they're working for about what is going on.
Otherwise, the whole system falls apart. If you keep chucking people under a bus for doing what they you ask them to do, then things are just going to break down completely. You will call today for him to resign.
So, I've already said that he should resign. I don't think that he will resign. He's going to cling on.
He will throw everybody under a bus, including his own MPs who are, you know, some of them going out to defend him. Uh the sadly, the the uh public did not give enough Conservative MPs to bring down the uh the Labour prime minister. It's Labor MPs who can do that.
They will have to look in their own hearts and decide whether they want to be complicit in this cover up. Interesting. Chem Bednot, thank you very much indeed.
Thank you. If you want more breakdowns like this, unfiltered, direct, and to the point, make sure you like the video, subscribe to the channel, share this with someone who needs to see it, and comment your opinion because your voice matters in debates like this. The more engagement this gets, the harder it becomes to ignore stories like this.
the Labour prime minister. It's Labour MPs who can do that. They will have to look in their own hearts and decide whether they want to be complicit in this cover up.
This is no longer just a political spat. This is a full-blown credibility crisis at the very top of British government. The prime minister is now facing explosive accusations of dishonesty, national security negligence, and a potential breach of the ministerial code all over the deeply controversial appointment of Peter Mandlesson.
And he said yes, if he had not received any security vetting, why did he say that? So there's some he actually said something on the floor of the house to me directly which cannot possibly be true. Not with the explanation which he's given.
Okay. So, so basically, so you're saying he admitted to seeing security vetting information, which he is now denying, blaming Ollie Robbins for not showing him the security vetting. In February, in February, he said that.
But there are other things. And now Kem Badnock isn't just asking questions, she's demanding accountability and even resignation. But here's the real question.
Is this incompetence or something far worse? And Ollie Robbins will tomorrow say that was true because Ollie Robbins passed him which was his right even if you doing a great job being Ktor's lawyer here. But I will tell you now that I asked him about things which were in the vetting.
Stay with me because what's about to unfold raises serious questions about truth power and who's really in control behind the scenes. And if you care about politics that the mainstream won't fully break down, hit subscribe now because this is just the beginning. that the prime minister is preparing to address the House of Commons today after it emerged Peter Mandlesson failed his security vetting but was still cleared by the foreign office to take up the role of ambassador to the US to which he had already been appointed before the vetting began.
The Conservative Party says Sakama must take responsibility. Kami Bednot joins us now. just you know to start off because you're going to be putting all the questions to K star this afternoon in the House of Commons before Ollie Robbins comes to parliament tomorrow who is the sacked or resigned foreign office civil servant so um you have said that you believe Karmama has been dishonest as far as I can see the one thing that the prime minister and Ollie Robbins both agree on is the prime minister says I wasn't told and Ollie Robbins says I didn't tell you because it wasn't your right to know.
So the dishonesty, the accusation that Kisama lied, is that the heart of the case you're put to the prime minister this afternoon? Yes, I do believe that he has been dishonest. Uh the first reason is because at prime minister's questions, I asked him, did the security vetting information you received contain a particular piece of information?
And he said yes. If he had not received any security vetting, why did he say that? So there's some he actually said something on the floor of the house to me directly which cannot possibly be true, not with the explanation which he's given.
Okay. So So you're saying he admitted to seeing security vetting information which he is now denying, blaming Ollie Robbins for not showing him the security. In February, in February he said that.
But there are other things he will say that that he was told by Ollie Robbins he had passed the vetting and Ollie Robbins will tomorrow say that was true because Ollie Robbins passed him which was his right even if you're doing a great job being Kstarma's lawyer here but I will tell you now that I asked him about things which were in the vetting not about passing or failing but there are other things which I did ask him um so but why did he say that I also asked him uh about details of Um, sorry, I'm I'm now mixing the two things that we're talking about together. There are other things which he said which have shown not to be true. He said nobody in number 10 had heard about this allegation that he had failed the vetting.
It was on the front page of a newspaper. I asked him if he knew the full extent to which uh Peter Mandlesson had the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. He said um that no he did not.
The humble address documents have now shown that he did know the detail. So there there are so many things now which are clearly not true. I no longer believe him.
Uh it is my job to hold into account. This isn't just about a failed vetting. It's about what the prime minister knew and when.
Pay very close attention to how the questions are framed here because this is where the narrative starts to crack. His MPs may try and find an escape route for him, but I have to say what I really think. I can't try and cover up for the prime minister.
That's not my job. Isn't the most shocking thing that he announced the appointment of Peter Manderson in December 24 to the most sensitive overseas post in the whole of the British government weeks before the security of vetting was even complete. Yes, exactly.
And I think you know for people I' I've been trying to explain this to to my friends who are not that political. Many of them think this is the same story we're talking about from before and I tell them that no this is a different thing. The first time it was about propriety uh and ethics.
Now it's about security. This is an issue of national security. That somebody who was a national security risk and this had been flagged was put into the most senior and sensitive diplomatic footpost where all sorts of information intelligence which I would not have seen as a secretary of state would have cut across uh his desk.
A national security issue. And what I find um really shocking is how so many people's careers are being ended over over this. But the prime minister is not taking responsibility.
He's throwing everybody under a bus. It's not just um Ollie Robbins, the uh permsek of the foreign office. The cabinet secretary who was supposed to be investigating all this got sacked for reasons the prime minister still hasn't told us.
The chief of staff has been sacked. The director of communications also also left. How many people is Karma going to blame for something that at the end of the day was his responsibility, his fault?
The only point I was making a moment ago was he doesn't, the prime minister doesn't need to have been dishonest or to have lied to have made a catastrophic failure of judgment, not just in appointing Peter Madison, but doing so before the security betting was complete. So, so yes, uh I believe that he has been dishonest, but let's even take this highly improbable, inconceivable situation that the prime minister was on telly telling everyone that Peter Mandlesson had passed the vetting. Not a single person in the civil service told him, "No, this is not the case.
Stop saying that, Prime Minister. It's inconceivable. " Let's even accept that for a moment.
That means that this man is incompetent. It meant that he did not ask any questions. Even in the middle of a scandal, he wasn't saying, "Bring me everything.
I want to know everything that has gone on. " He didn't do that. If that's how he was running an appointment, then how is he running the economy?
How is he managing defense? If he's not asking questions about this, then what? He's not asking questions about our borders, about immigration, about our army.
That's what worries me. That's what it matters to um to your viewers. Um you mention of course the fact that there was a reporter at the Independent, his name is uh David Maddox who had asked number 10 specifically about a report he had that Lord Mandelson had failed the vetting with MI6 and that was a number of months ago.
I think that's about seven months ago. Now if that reporter tells number 10 he has a story that uh Lord Mandlesson has failed the vetting. Is it conceivable that the prime minister didn't know that Lord Mandles had failed MI6 vetting?
It's I I don't see how how that that is possible or even likely. Is it possible that number 10 uh knew but didn't tell Kharma or is it possible they just didn't believe this? What happens um in government even as leader of the opposition every time the press come with questions you as the leader get asked well this is what they're asking what do we say unless the press officer already knows the answer that is how it works so you get you get asked all sorts of things that the the press officers should not be answering just based on what's in their head so I would answer as a secretary of state well this is what we say if they're asking this who has this information let's make sure that's put out there the only kinds of things that that a press officer would would answer or routine things like you know what time are you guys coming out today or very basic questions so I do not understand how the director of communications in number 10 the most senior comm's person in the whole of government heard this and didn't tell anybody but I do know why that happened um because number 10 went to Ollie Robbins at the foreign office and Ollie Robinson Robins said no he passed the betting the proper process was followed and the accusation is that that's what Ollie Robbins told them.
Ollie Robbins believed that to be the case. Ollie Robbins is now saying it was his right to clear him and it was his duty not to tell anybody about the detail of the That doesn't make any sense. What is the point of carrying out security checks if you don't tell anybody what's in the security checks?
I think Ollie Robinson Ollie Robbins will speak for himself tomorrow. You think Robins is not being accurate in what he's saying? No.
No. What what I think uh is happening is that Ollie Robbins did what he Ktormer asked him to do. That's that's that's the bottom line.
Ktorma had appointed this man says, "I want this guy. Uh I've seen some things but I don't care. I want him in there.
" And then uh the appointment blows up and he's looking for a full guy. He sacks his cabinet secretary. He sacks his chief of staff.
Now he's sacking Ollie Robinson, the head of the uh the Ollie Robbins, the head of the foreign office. It doesn't stack up. This thing is so messy.
Every time the prime minister gives us new information, something else falls apart, which he's said before. It doesn't add up. And I'm going to be asking him a lot of questions this afternoon.
Um, it's incumbent on me to say party gate, Boris Johnson, breaches of lockdown, Matt Hancock, social distancing can't possibly be adhered to during an affair. Owen Patterson, you know, paid lobbying. Johnson lost his job.
Matt Hancock lost his job. Owen Patterson, yes, they all cash for questions expenses scandal. The Conservative party is not immune.
So, the expenses scandal was even before the Conservatives uh came into government. I'm not here to say that uh my party or any party is perfect, but I'm not a hypocrite. K Starmmer stood up there, said he would be whiter than white.
All I am doing is holding him to the standards that he set for everybody else. Let's remember what he was accusing Boris Johnson of was not adhering to social distancing rules during co rules which the prime minister then had created himself. People like me resigned from uh Boris Johnson's government.
So we're not here to say that people don't make mistakes. Mistakes are made. It is how you handle yourself after the mistakes that shows what kind of prime minister you are.
And what we have seen so far has been a cover up and him sacking everybody else except himself. That's what makes this worse. This is a matter of national security.
It's not about party gates or whether people observe the COVID rules. National security is a significantly more serious issue. The former cabinet um secretary Gusa Donald says this is a serious crisis now in the relationship between um ministers and civil servants.
That's right, isn't it? Yes, I think he uh uh I think he he is right. Uh it's very strange because Ktormer is a former civil servant.
Technically, he's a former permanent secretary. I think this the civil service, we're looking forward to having one of them being prime minister and instead he's got there and he's been chucking all of them under a bus. We need to have a situation where civil servants can be honest with the ministers they're working for about what is going on.
Otherwise, the whole system falls apart. If you keep chucking people under a bus for doing what they you ask them to do, then things are just going to break down completely. You will call today for him to resign.
So, I've already said that he should resign. I don't think that he will resign. He's going to cling on.
He will throw everybody under a bus, including his own MPs who are, you know, some of them going out to defend him. Uh the sadly, the the uh public did not give enough Conservative MPs to bring down the uh the Labour prime minister. It's Labor MPs who can do that.
They will have to look in their own hearts and decide whether they want to be complicit in this cover up. Interesting. Chem Bednot, thank you very much indeed.
Thank you. If you want more breakdowns like this, unfiltered, direct, and to the point, make sure you like the video, subscribe to the channel, share this with someone who needs to see it, and comment your opinion because your voice matters in debates like this. The more engagement this gets, the harder it becomes to ignore stories like this.
