Connect with us

முக்கியச் செய்திகள்

What is Developed Vetting security clearance at centre of Mandelson row?

Published

on

It has emerged that Peter Mandelson was granted a security clearance by the Foreign Office against the recommendation of the government's vetting agency when he was made US ambassador.

The government is under intense pressure to explain how Mandelson came to be granted Developed Vetting (DV) status, which is needed to view top secret government material, despite concerns flagged during his screening process.

Mandelson was appointed as the UK's ambassador to Washington in December 2024, before being removed last September when further information about his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein came to light.

Mandelson, as with any official whose work is likely to involve having access to top secret material, underwent a process called Developed Vetting during his appointment process.

It is the most intrusive process employed by the government for those required to access sensitive material and be granted the highest level of security clearance.

It is carried out by United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV), a specialist agency within the Cabinet Office, and applies to thousands of relatively junior officials working in government departments and overseas, as well as senior figures like Mandelson.

The process is designed to identify whether people applying for government jobs pose a security risk, either because they might seek to abuse their position, or because their personal lives make them a potential blackmail target – for example, if they are in high levels of debt or are having an affair.

In practice, it means candidates have to fill out various questionnaires, including being asked to provide detailed information about their finances, internet use and medical conditions.

Official records are also checked, including a candidate's credit history and any criminal offences. Records held by the Security Service are also reviewed.

Those being vetted then have to undergo an interview with a specially trained vetting officer, which is designed to be intrusive.

Candidates are asked about very personal areas like friendships, family, health and sex life, sometimes over several hours.

A higher level of clearance, known as Enhanced Developed Vetting, also exists for a small number of positions, though Mandelson did not need to undergo this for the ambassador role.

Downing Street says it learned this week that the Foreign Office, which oversaw Mandelson's DV process, granted him clearance "against the recommendation" of the vetting agency.

We do not know the specifics of the recommendations Foreign Office officials were presented with, or why they decided to press ahead with awarding the clearance despite the findings of the vetting agency.

Sir Olly Robbins, the Foreign Office's top civil servant who was sacked on Thursday over the awarding of clearance to Mandelson, told MPs in November that clearance decisions are usually signed off by low-ranking officials based on the findings of the vetting report, though decisions can be escalated to senior leaders in specific cases.

There are several outcomes which the vetting process can result in beyond a straightforward awarding or refusal of clearance, according to the government's own guidance. They are:

We do not know if any of the above applied to Mandelson, nor do we know what issues led the vetting agency to recommend that he be refused clearance.

Downing Street has said the decision to override the advice on Mandelson was taken by Foreign Office officials, with neither the prime minister or foreign secretary made aware at the time.

Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper previously said the vetting process is "independent of ministers who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome".

Mandelson's vetting only began after the prime minister had announced he would appoint him to the ambassador's role, though other checks (more below) had been carried out by that stage, and senior civil servants told a parliamentary committee in November that carrying out vetting post-appointment is standard practice.

A due diligence check was carried out by a team at the Cabinet Office on behalf of Downing Street, as the prime minister was responsible for the appointment, prior to Mandelson's appointment.

The point was to identify reputational risks or potential conflicts of interests that may have needed to be considered in Mandelson's case.

Sir Chris Wormald, the UK's top civil servant, has previously confirmed to MPs that this was largely based on public information, such as media reports.

At the time, it was public knowledge that the peer had maintained his relationship with Epstein after his conviction for soliciting sex from a minor in 2008.

In 2023, the Financial Times reported about emails suggesting he stayed at Epstein's Manhattan mansion in 2009, while the financier was in jail.

The only non-public information that featured, Sir Chris added, were records of a meeting Lord Mandelson facilitated between Epstein and Sir Tony Blair that have since been disclosed by the National Archives.

This appears to be a reference to a meeting in Downing Street in 2002, six years before Epstein's conviction.

Lord Mandelson's file included information about his previous roles inside and outside government, and his "professional and financial relationships".

His prior relationship with Epstein was listed as a reputational risk, Sir Chris added, alongside his previous two resignations as a minister during the last Labour government.

Sir Chris Wormald, who was Cabinet Secretary at the time, has previously told MPs that "mitigations" were put in place regarding potential conflicts of interest arising from Mandelson's business career which were identified during this pre-vetting process.

After reviewing the due dilligence findings, No 10 sources said Sir Keir Starmer asked Lord Mandelson to address three specific questions, which were sent to him via email by the prime minister's then chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney.

These questions were: why has he continued contact with Epstein after he was convicted? Why was he reported to have stayed in one of Epstein's homes while the financier was in prison? And was he associated with a charity founded by Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell that the financier had backed?

At the time, his answers were considered sufficient for him to be appointed to the role, for it to be announced publicly, and for the vetting process to begin prior to him formally taking up the position.

The BBC understands Mandelson's view is that he answered questions about his relationship with Epstein in the vetting process accurately.

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0n5700nrpo?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss

முக்கியச் செய்திகள்

Facing a seismic by-election, the people of Makerfield tell us what matters to them

Published

on

In a handful of former mining towns and villages in north-west England, there is a lot of frustration with the state of the UK.

It is common to hear people say "Britain is broken", "we are forgotten", and calls for "change".

This is the Makerfield constituency, where locals are being heard louder than ever before in the most consequential by-election in decades.

A constituency that made up 0.1% of voters at the last general election is not only picking a new MP on 18 June.

Voters here are also potentially choosing the next prime minister.

That is because Labour's candidate, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, has said that if elected, he would seek to enter any Labour leadership contest to replace Sir Keir Starmer in Downing Street.

First, Burnham must defeat his main rival in Makerfield, local plumber Robert Kenyon, who is standing for Reform UK, an insurgent party that is also aiming to win power in Westminster.

Britain is "broken", Reform UK claims, while Burnham says the country has been on "the wrong path for 40 years".

But in the dozens of conversations I had with voters, residents, business owners and political campaigners in Makerfield, the mood was more nuanced than the rhetoric suggests.

So what exactly do they want to change – and what are the candidates promising to deliver?

At Rose's Cafe, in Ashton-in-Makerfield, the largest town in the constituency, regulars are munching on their breakfast barms.

In 2023, Yasmin Ratcliffe jumped at the chance to open the cafe here, rather than where she lives, in nearby Leigh.

With the local council spending £6.6m on regenerating the town, Ratcliffe feels it is a good time to expand her business.

"I feel like it's a much better town in Ashton," she tells me. "It's a lot busier than we thought, so the team's growing."

On some indicators Makerfield seems to be doing well, with wages above the national average and high levels of home ownership.

The Greater Manchester region in which Makerfield sits has also been growing, generating a genuine buzz around Manchester as a city. A boom in developments, service industry start-ups and university graduates, among other factors, has driven economic growth.

While Manchester's lure has pulled in many entrepreneurs, Chris Ratcliffe saw potential in Ashton.

In 2019, having worked as an engineer near Manchester for 10 years, he founded Langen, a motorcycle manufacturer, in the town. The company's first line of 100 motorbikes sold out.

"There's an element of me that wants to prove a point that we can do it here," he says.

But Manchester's rising tide has not lifted all boats in Makerfield.

In some ways, the constituency is divided between the better-off neighbourhoods of Ashton, Orrell, and Winstanley in the west, and the more deprived areas of Platt Bridge, Abram and Hindley in the east.

In these latter areas, perceptions of "broken Britain" are easier to find. The problems residents complain about feel more acute and intractable.

Take the notorious illegal dump that has been piling up in the village of Bickershaw since late 2024. Despite several complaints, a fire at the site last summer, and a criminal investigation, the towering mountain of waste remains.

Even at a distance – about a quarter of a mile away – the acrid smell torments my nostrils.

Nicha Rowson, who lives near the tip with her husband and two children, has had to put up with it for almost two years now.

"The rats were a big thing," she says, sitting below what is left of her kitchen ceiling, which was largely removed to deal with the infestation.

It is yet to be fixed – and her neighbours are going through similar ordeals with rats.

She feels the seemingly immovable mess is a symbol of a country that is not working and where "human beings aren't a priority".

I found a similarly damning assessment in Platt Bridge, where residents have suffered severe flooding twice in a decade.

In 2015, Dawn Royds was assured it was a one-off – "an act of God". She believed that until New Year's Day last year, when she woke to blue flashing lights.

"The kids had been playing with some toys the night before and they were just floating about," she says. "That was what got me."

A minister was dispatched to survey the devastation. And since 2024, the government says it has invested £2.65bn in flood defences nationwide – in 2026-27, £329,000 has been allocated to Platt Bridge and nearby areas.

Yet, Dawn is convinced it will happen again. For her, it is one example of why "Britain isn't Great Britain anymore".

More evidence of this attitude can be seen in polls and research. In a report last year, More in Common said "broken" was the most common word Britons used to describe the country.

That has been true of focus groups the think tank organised in Makerfield, too. "They said Britain isn't working," says Luke Tryl, executive director of More in Common. "That the status quo isn't working."

The paradox, Tryl adds, is that people have very high trust in their neighbours and often describe their local area as "good".

Tryl says although it is clear Britain is "creaking at the top", his research on public opinion suggests the foundations of community still appear to be strong.

Even so, Reform UK tells me the "Britain is broken slogan has just cut through across the country".

"It's not something that we need to keep pushing to instil in people's minds," a Reform UK source adds. "Most people just know that Britain is broken."

Instead, the party's candidate, Kenyon, is focusing on hyper-local issues such as opposing new housing developments on green-belt land, pitching himself as a "normal" local lad.

Out on doorsteps, Reform UK is trying to contrast this with what it describes as Burnham using Makerfield as "a stepping stone" to No 10. This is echoed on Ashton High Street by Lewis Ash, who tells me: "I don't want it to be a stepping stone for Andy Burnham."

In the same shopping precinct, Daniel Jones says he is sceptical of every candidate's intentions, saying they have "all [have] got their own agenda… to advance their career".

On the campaign trail, Burnham has been having three simultaneous conversations – one with locals, one with the Labour MPs who could help make him prime minister, and one with the nation as a whole.

The Labour veteran is trying to keep it local in Makerfield, preferring to talk about his ideas to ease the cost of living and linking them to his record as mayor of Greater Manchester – pointing to cheaper bus fares.

Having claimed to have knocked on every door in the constituency several times, as Reform UK has, team Burnham's approach is to send their candidate to speak to undecided voters personally, often about local issues.

His team says he is embracing difficult conversations with voters who are looking for change in a constituency that has elected Labour MPs for 120 years under previous boundaries – but where Reform UK won every ward in May's local elections.

Although I saw mostly Reform UK and Burnham signs and posters adorning the streets I walked, other parties are vying for votes as well.

The Green candidate Sarah Wakefield says she wants to offer more "hope" and "better solutions" to voters in Makerfield.

A former mayor of Wigan, Conservative candidate Michael Winstanley is positioning himself as a community champion, while Jake Austin, who is standing for the Liberal Democrats, claims his party has the best plans for reducing household living costs.

Local campaigners believe the by-election is on a knife edge, not least thanks to Restore Britain, a relatively new party led by former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe.

In the few constituency opinion polls there have been, which should be treated with caution, Restore sits in third-place and has been buoyed to an extent by support on X from the richest man in the world, Elon Musk.

"People are fed up," says one Restore door-knocker, among a group of six activists wearing matching party-branded caps and T-

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg4dywykjeo?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss

Continue Reading

முக்கியச் செய்திகள்

Social media on trial: Four important cases to watch

Published

on

When social media started to take over the internet 20 years ago, it was widely hailed as a game-changing technology that would connect people across divides and make information more accessible.

Today, companies like Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, Google, owner of Youtube, and Snapchat, along with relatively newer platforms like TikTok, Discord and social gaming platform Roblox, are facing thousands of lawsuits in the US over claims that they have instead harmed users, children in particular.

Taken together, the outcome of the lawsuits, whether they ultimately settle out of court or end up with jury verdicts against companies, could change the way social platforms operate forever.

"It's created a stage that not only legal observers are watching, but regulators and lawmakers are watching closely as well," Eric Talley, a lawyer and professor at Columbia Law School, said.

Talley noted that the way this growing wave of lawsuits against platforms is feeding into broader public perception is likely to influence political elections for the next several years, impacting new and revised laws and regulations.

Many of the cases are going through courts in California, where all of the major social platforms are headquartered. Known as the "California effect", legal and policy changes enacted in the state tend to lead to nationwide changes.

"There's no denying anymore that there is an issue with child safety on the platforms," Alexis Shore Ingber, a communications law expert and a professor at Syracuse University, said. "We are seeing an inflection point. These cases are significant."

Already this year, Meta and YouTube notched an unprecedented loss in a case brought by a young woman who claimed she was addicted as a child to social media, contributing to her mental and emotional health struggles. The companies were ordered by a jury to pay her a combined $6m (£4.5m) in damages. Both firms said they disagreed with the verdict and intended to appeal.

Meta also lost a bigger case in New Mexico, brought by that state's attorney general accusing the company of essentially misleading the public that its platforms were safe for children despite known issues with young people being sexually exploited on them. Meta said it also plans to appeal against this verdict.

During the years these cases were brought and resolved, Meta has released changes to its platforms aimed at making them safer for young users.

But broader change to the platforms, how they are designed and function and even accessed, is likely to take years more, and more court rulings against them.

Between this year and next, Meta and the other major social platforms are poised to fight their way through more trials where juries could consider a host of claims by young users, their parents, school districts, and state attorneys who allege an array of ill effects from the way social media platforms are designed and operate.

Even a billionaire is prepared to take Meta to trial over its hosting of advertisements that scam people out of money.

The BBC looked through scores of cases in the US to find the handful of lawsuits against social media and social gaming companies that are on track for trial in the next year or so and could have a significant impact on the platforms' businesses and operations.

According to Adam J. Schwartz, a lawyer who also founded an online document review tool, the following lawsuits "are the bellwether cases that will set the tone and tenor for shaping the law in the future".

This sprawling multidistrict litigation (MDL) in California includes allegations from more than 1,000 school districts across the US.

Broadly, the schools accuse Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok of being intentionally designed to be addictive, which has allegedly harmed children mentally and emotionally through their excessive use of platforms.

The schools claim that dealing with the ill effects of social media has cost them money and resources, and that the platforms should be deemed a "public nuisance" and held liable for impacting children's well-being.

Although a jury trial for certain of the school districts' claims is now set to begin in February, as the platforms recently settled with a school district that was to be the first trial, all of the cases could take a couple more years to resolve completely.

Should court outcomes go against the platforms, everything from the way platforms display user engagement to who they allow on the platforms could change.

A spokesman for YouTube said: "The allegations in these complaints are simply not true."

A spokeswoman for Snapchat said: "We fundamentally disagree with the allegations – we do not target schools."

Meta declined to comment and TikTok did not respond to a request for comment.

Attorneys for California and Colorado led a group of 29 states in filing in 2023 a lawsuit against Meta and Instagram. It is set to go to trial in August.

While it is also before the same judge as the MDL in California, the states are accusing Meta alone of violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, a federal law known as COPPA. The law was intended to protect children under 13 years old from being targeted by businesses operating online but was enacted in 2000.

Meta has already provided more than 2 million documents in the case, according to court records.

Should the states prevail in their claims, it is demanding that Meta better prevent users under 13 years old from using its platforms and remove data it has previously collected from underage users, along with a host of other changes.

Meta uses such data to do things like ad targeting and train its artificial intelligence (AI) models and tools.

A spokesman for the company declined to comment.

This case against Roblox and Discord was brought by a 13-year-old boy in state court in San Mateo, California. The boy claims he was recently groomed and solicited through both platforms by an adult sexual predator who was subsequently arrested for his crimes against more than two dozen children.

The lawsuit argues both platforms were defectively designed and engaged in false marketing about safety for young users and so should be held liable for the harm young John Doe came to.

Roblox, which is a gaming-focused platform with many social media features, and Discord tried to get the case into arbitration, which is a private legal process outside the court system. The court refused, but the case is currently on hold pending the companies' appeal against that decision.

Should Roblox and Discord lose their appeals, the case could go to trial later this year. A court verdict against the platforms may bring changes to age-gating and the ability of strangers to interact with young users through platform messages and chat spaces.

A spokeswoman for Discord declined to comment. A representative for Roblox did not respond to a request for comment.

Not all of the cases against social media platforms heading towards trial have to do with harms against children.

Dr Andrew Forrest, an Australian billionaire, sued Meta in California in 2022 over the company's alleged failure to combat scam advertisements tricking Australians into fake investments that allegedly proliferated on Facebook using his name and likeness.

With claims including misuse of his image and unjust enrichment, because Meta makes money from ads on its platform no matter their goal or outcome, Forrest's lawsuit could be one of the most significant.

He is asking the court to find that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act cannot be used as a defence by Meta in the case. Meta is arguing that it is protected from Forrest's claims by Section 230.

Enacted in 1996, Section 230, as it's usually referred, essentially gives legal immunity to platforms for anything that occurs on them.

If the court ultimately sides with Forrest, it could upend decades of defences by online platforms.

A spokesman for Meta declined to comme

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9q39l447l4o?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss

Continue Reading

முக்கியச் செய்திகள்

Knicks fans go wild as New York team makes biggest comeback in NBA Finals history

Published

on

A star-studded crowd saw the New York Knicks record the biggest comeback in NBA Finals history on Wednesday night, beating the San Antonio Spurs by one point in the last 1.2 seconds of the game, after trailing by 29 points.

It was game four of the feverish best-of-seven NBA Finals – the first finals the Knicks have hosted in 27 years.

The final score of 107-106 means the Knicks now enjoy a 3-1 lead and are just one win away from a famous series victory.

Famous and not so famous fans erupted in chants of "O-G! O-G!" for player OG Anunoby, who scored the winning three points. Taylor Swift, Timothee Chalamet and director Spike Lee were all watching in the Madison Square Garden stadium.

New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani posted on X in all caps, "SPEECHLESS", while Swift, who was wearing a T-shirt that said "Stevie Knicks" – a play on the name of the team and the Fleetwood Mac frontwoman – jumped for joy as she left the court, stopping to be twirled by one of the Knicks City Dancers.

Knicks coach Mike Brown OG Anunoby's move "has to be the most iconic shot in the history of New York basketball," Brown said. "It was just unbelievable."

This season has represented a stunning reversal of fortune for the Knicks who haven't been in the finals since 1999, when they lost to the Spurs. New Yorkers have been out in the streets celebrating each win.

"The city is electric," a fan told the BBC earlier in the week. New York has been decorated in a Knicks theme from the top of the Empire State Building to the paws of the marble lions outside the New York Public Library's Fifth Avenue branch.

"I can't say I've ever seen anything like this before because in 1999 I was 4 years old. I'm just trying to soak it all in," Resident Sol, 31, told the BBC earlier this week, saying he couldn't be more excited.

After Wednesday's result, the team need to win just one more game to win the national championship for the first time since 1973. Their first chance will come on Saturday night, when they will play Game five in San Antonio.

But comebacks can work both ways – San Antonio may be the new underdogs, but they could still win, if they take the next three matches.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr47lyzr4q9o?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 by 7Tamil Media, All rights reserved.