Jonathan Freedland

True.

And it concluded in him getting developed vetting.

Also true.

He missed out the bit in between, which was he was denied it and I overruled it in order to give him that vetting.

So technically, he can say the process was followed and based on what Ollie Robbins said, but Ollie Robbins' account was not complete.

So I think what we're going to see over the next 24, 48 hours is...

is a battle between who really is at fault for this misleading account.

And Starmer wants us to believe it was this very well-regarded civil servant who was economical with the truth to that parliamentary committee and perhaps to Downing Street and Keir Starmer himself.

It seems as if, you know, and he's marshaled in quite an effective PR campaign for his own defence.

He's bringing out former officials who've stepped forward to talk about his great integrity and so on.

The argument that's being made by friends of Ollie Robbins is that he could not say what the developed vetting security process had found, that that was against the rules.

You've had Jack Straw, a former foreign secretary who's seen as the author of the legislation that covers all this, has said there is nothing in the rules that blocks him.

And I think what it turns on is this difference between the final verdict, that red light or green light,

That, it seems, you are allowed to share.

And then the actual grounds for the decision, you're not allowed to share.

And so probably, my guess, Robbins could have said to Downing Street, look, he's been denied this.

I can't tell you why.

Now you have to make a decision.

Why did he not do that is a really interesting question.

And it could be, you know, I heard this from a Tory backbencher today, but I've actually thought it myself a little bit.