Can someone clarify whether (1) she asked for advice on whether a 1-2-1 course was possible or (2) she asked civil servants to help facilitate one? I’m getting both from the comments on here
Given that it's unlikely her request/enquiry was transcribed or recorded, we're unlikely to get that clarification. All we know is that it didn't happen.
Unless she emailed it of course. Stupid but...
Emails can get you in trouble but they can also cover your arse.
Indeed, and if Braverman is able to produce an email that asks 'do they offer private 1-2-1 courses?' I'd accept that there's no case to answer (although surely you'd ask that of the course provider or get one of your political aides to check it?).
If, however, there's an email where she asks a civil servant to arrange a private course, she's toast.
Most likely there's no email but one or more civil servants who will attest what she asked them.
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
Can someone clarify whether (1) she asked for advice on whether a 1-2-1 course was possible or (2) she asked civil servants to help facilitate one? I’m getting both from the comments on here
Given that it's unlikely her request/enquiry was transcribed or recorded, we're unlikely to get that clarification. All we know is that it didn't happen.
Unless she emailed it of course. Stupid but...
Emails can get you in trouble but they can also cover your arse.
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
If she tried to 'cover it up' but was advised she could not do so and so she then took the punishment properly then I trust she will be thanking officials and police for pushing back against a Minister's wishes to ensure she did not do something really stupid and inappropriate.
How fast was Braverman going when she was caught speeding? I don't know the exact proportions, but I am reasonably sure that more than 99 percent of American drivers have driven over our speed limits*.
(*Including me, and years ago I picked up two speeding tickets to prove it. In both instances, I think I was driving safely, perhaps 10 miles over the speed limit on an uncrowded highway.)
The speeding is not the issue; the issue is trying to influence, and asking civil servants to influence, the way her speeding offence was dealt with.
Why didn't she just take the points to begin with? Does she have points already, is the question...
Even if she has, so what. I raised this on the last thread. This is Chris Huhne all over again. Even if banned due to points accumulated both can/could afford alternative transportation. The evasion just digs a bigger hole, if and when it goes pear-shaped. Stupid. Take the points and if necessary a ban and suck it up.
Chris Huhne lied about who was driving, thereby perverting the course of justice. He went to prison
Braverman asked if she could have her punishment course in private rather than public. On being told no she took the alternative (points).
How fast was Braverman going when she was caught speeding? I don't know the exact proportions, but I am reasonably sure that more than 99 percent of American drivers have driven over our speed limits*.
(*Including me, and years ago I picked up two speeding tickets to prove it. In both instances, I think I was driving safely, perhaps 10 miles over the speed limit on an uncrowded highway.)
The speeding is not the issue; the issue is trying to influence, and asking civil servants to influence, the way her speeding offence was dealt with.
Why didn't she just take the points to begin with? Does she have points already, is the question...
Even if she has, so what. I raised this on the last thread. This is Chris Huhne all over again. Even if banned due to points accumulated both can/could afford alternative transportation. The evasion just digs a bigger hole, if and when it goes pear-shaped. Stupid. Take the points and if necessary a ban and suck it up.
If you read the tweet you'll see that her problem was this: she would have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible to other participants
Why was that a problem? Just a baffling view to have formed in the first place - why would she even think it would or should be anonymous?
I honestly don't see this story as seeing her gone, but equally I don't understand her thought process in the first place - her 'concern' here seems to have been entirely unwarranted.
How fast was Braverman going when she was caught speeding? I don't know the exact proportions, but I am reasonably sure that more than 99 percent of American drivers have driven over our speed limits*.
(*Including me, and years ago I picked up two speeding tickets to prove it. In both instances, I think I was driving safely, perhaps 10 miles over the speed limit on an uncrowded highway.)
The speeding is not the issue; the issue is trying to influence, and asking civil servants to influence, the way her speeding offence was dealt with.
Why didn't she just take the points to begin with? Does she have points already, is the question...
Even if she has, so what. I raised this on the last thread. This is Chris Huhne all over again. Even if banned due to points accumulated both can/could afford alternative transportation. The evasion just digs a bigger hole, if and when it goes pear-shaped. Stupid. Take the points and if necessary a ban and suck it up.
Chris Huhne lied about who was driving, thereby perverting the course of justice. He went to prison
Braverman asked if she could have her punishment course in private rather than public. On being told no she took the alternative (points).
There really is no comparison
Of course there's a comparison: you just made it yourself.
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
If you don't think that's a story...
"The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her" Not so. She was prosecuted and found guilty, and was then faced with a choice of punishment. The "story" is that she asked whether it was possible to modify the exact form of one of the punishment options, and was told no, so she took the other one.
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Makes no sense to me at all. Getting a speeding ticket is no big scandal. Why on earth try and cover it up?
It’s a heady blend of arrogance, entitlement and stupidity.
Looks like she toast - it's obviously coordinated from No 10:
Someone in central office has decided to press the button this evening. They had the speeding story for weeks I reckon. Suella was getting too big for her boots.
It was probably that Nazi conference she spoke at in that case. OK for fringe Tories, not for cabinet members supposedly following a party line.
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Makes no sense to me at all. Getting a speeding ticket is no big scandal. Why on earth try and cover it up?
It’s a heady blend of arrogance, entitlement and stupidity.
It's ludicrous to use Huhne who perverted the course of justice as a comparator
I agree Huhne is in a completely different league.
I am baffled you can't see that asking a civil servant to try to get her special treatment is plain wrong.
It may not be 'should be sacked' wrong, but it's a complete own goal due to display of a sense of entitlement over something that doesn't seem to have been a big deal.
Despite the Mail getting huffy she'll probably be fine, but odds are good before the story is over she puts her foot in it by getting conspiracist about the reports.
Looks like she toast - it's obviously coordinated from No 10:
Someone in central office has decided to press the button this evening. They had the speeding story for weeks I reckon. Suella was getting too big for her boots.
It was probably that Nazi conference she spoke at in that case. OK for fringe Tories, not for cabinet members supposedly following a party line.
NatC conference, please.
Didn't Gove go?
Let's not forget that bunch will probably be the ones running the party in a little over a year - they are the ones going for a 'We told you to change' defence for why they will lose and not be their fault, so will play better than the 'We did our best but failed' clique running things at the moment.
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
If you don't think that's a story...
"The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her" Not so. She was prosecuted and found guilty, and was then faced with a choice of punishment. The "story" is that she asked whether it was possible to modify the exact form of one of the punishment options, and was told no, so she took the other one.
Yes, she wanted a different form of punishment than everyone else gets. One that would benefit her. Abusing her position as AG. Or so the allegation goes. If this is true it's completely and obviously corrupt.
At least two clear breaches of the Ministerial Code:
5.1 Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code...
7.1 Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.
I disagree
5.1 is arguable. Perhaps a scheduling or security issue? Yes there were personal political benefits but we don’t know if she stated those as a reason. All she asked for was the civil service to look into it. They declined so she asked a spad. That happens all the time.
7.1 where’s the conflict? She was convicted and given a choice of punishment like everyone else. She asked if it was possible to do it privately (perhaps marginally favourable treatment but not a conflict). It was not possible so she took the points instead.
Again, according to the Times tweet:
"Suella Braverman asked Home Office civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course"
5.1 You say 'all she asked was for the civil service to look into it'. The Times' Harry Yorke says she asked them to arrange it. I'm assuming he's right unless you have better information?
7.1 It's clearly to her personal political advantage to arrange a private course that no one else knows about. As it happens I have a course coming up in a couple of weeks, I don't think I am likely to be offered the option of a private course.
5.1 our difference is just wording. terminology. She asked them to do it. They said it would be inappropriate. She didn’t try to force them. May be she should have known better, but asking someone to do something is not an offence.
7.1 yes it was to her advantage but not a conflict.
Were I to be appointed Attorney-General, or Home Secretary for that matter, I think I'd have a word with myself and say "oh bugger, I'd better pack in law-breaking - including keeping to the speed limit. It would be a bit embarrassing to be a law breaker - I need to set a good example".
But maybe I'm wrong, as nobody else seems to be bothered about Suella actually speeding.
Looks like she toast - it's obviously coordinated from No 10:
Someone in central office has decided to press the button this evening. They had the speeding story for weeks I reckon. Suella was getting too big for her boots.
It was probably that Nazi conference she spoke at in that case. OK for fringe Tories, not for cabinet members supposedly following a party line.
NatC conference, please.
Didn't Gove go?
Sorry you're right. National Conservatives, not National Socialists. Easy mistake to make.
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
If you don't think that's a story...
"The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her" Not so. She was prosecuted and found guilty, and was then faced with a choice of punishment. The "story" is that she asked whether it was possible to modify the exact form of one of the punishment options, and was told no, so she took the other one.
Yes, she wanted a different form of punishment than everyone else gets. One that would benefit her. Abusing her position as AG. Or so the allegation goes. If this is true it's completely and obviously corrupt.
So, her wanting a different form of punishment is an abuse of her position and "obviously corrupt". You should join the thought police
Can someone clarify whether (1) she asked for advice on whether a 1-2-1 course was possible or (2) she asked civil servants to help facilitate one? I’m getting both from the comments on here
Given that it's unlikely her request/enquiry was transcribed or recorded, we're unlikely to get that clarification. All we know is that it didn't happen.
Unless she emailed it of course. Stupid but...
Emails can get you in trouble but they can also cover your arse.
Indeed, and if Braverman is able to produce an email that asks 'do they offer private 1-2-1 courses?' I'd accept that there's no case to answer (although surely you'd ask that of the course provider or get one of your political aides to check it?).
If, however, there's an email where she asks a civil servant to arrange a private course, she's toast.
Most likely there's no email but one or more civil servants who will attest what she asked them.
I think you'd have had to have taken the 'course' option before being put in direct contact with the organisers. Your second point is a good one though.
Were I to be appointed Attorney-General, or Home Secretary for that matter, I think I'd have a word with myself and say "oh bugger, I'd better pack in law-breaking - including keeping to the speed limit. It would be a bit embarrassing to be a law breaker - I need to set a good example".
But maybe I'm wrong, as nobody else seems to be bothered about Suella actually speeding.
Sure, you, and she, should try. We all should anyway. But other than a truly egregious example of speeding I think people can forgive these things much more than other politician errors, because they can see themselves doing it - whereas we are less likely to believe we would claim for a trouser press on expenses (even if we might if permitted to).
At least two clear breaches of the Ministerial Code:
5.1 Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code...
7.1 Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.
I disagree
5.1 is arguable. Perhaps a scheduling or security issue? Yes there were personal political benefits but we don’t know if she stated those as a reason. All she asked for was the civil service to look into it. They declined so she asked a spad. That happens all the time.
7.1 where’s the conflict? She was convicted and given a choice of punishment like everyone else. She asked if it was possible to do it privately (perhaps marginally favourable treatment but not a conflict). It was not possible so she took the points instead.
There's no security issue with an online course.
You don't think there's a potential conflict of interest between asking for special treatment in a prosecution and superintending the CPS? You can't think of any adverse circumstances that might flow from that?
I was thinking about an in-person course when I mentioned security as a possible excuse. None of us know what excuse she gave to the civil service though obviously the actual reason was political.
It’s not special treatment in a prosecution. Prosecution is over, judgement has been rendered. This is like asking the prison governor if you can work in the library instead of the laundry.
Looks like she toast - it's obviously coordinated from No 10:
Someone in central office has decided to press the button this evening. They had the speeding story for weeks I reckon. Suella was getting too big for her boots.
It was probably that Nazi conference she spoke at in that case. OK for fringe Tories, not for cabinet members supposedly following a party line.
NatC conference, please.
Didn't Gove go?
Let's not forget that bunch will probably be the ones running the party in a little over a year - they are the ones going for a 'We told you to change' defence for why they will lose and not be their fault, so will play better than the 'We did our best but failed' clique running things at the moment.
Gove is genuinely one of the strangest British politicians in my lifetime. Flirting with the alt-right, demolishing education yet eminently reasonable at environment and justice. A compulsive schemer and definitely not stupid. And yet blind to his own limits and failings.
At this point it's not a question of whether she broke the rules. We all know she will have done.
Keir Starmer really has got to clean up public life, it's an all time low.
Chris Huhne gives Starmer a perfect basis to press this one home. I know the cases aren’t exactly comparable, but it creates some sort of precedent.
Chris Huhne committed perjury.
They are in no way comparable
They are because the motives are exactly the same. Where they do differ is the actions taken were different and perjury is far more serious, but nobody is asking that she be sent to prison. However there are consequences in abusing your position.
The motives were not the same
Huhne tried to evade his punishment by blaming someone else.
Braverman asked if she could be punished privately rather than in public
It's ludicrous to use Huhne who perverted the course of justice as a comparator
Yes the issue here is different imo. The impression given is of someone who thinks she's too important to be treated in the normal way after being caught speeding. Whether it's a resigning offence depends on whether she resigns. And if she doesn't whether it's a sacking offence depends on whether Sunak sacks her. I'd need more info before venturing a prediction. I do hope it's either a resigning or sacking offence though. In fact I hope it's terminal for her political career. She is not an asset to public life.
It's ludicrous to use Huhne who perverted the course of justice as a comparator
I agree Huhne is in a completely different league.
I am baffled you can't see that asking a civil servant to try to get her special treatment is plain wrong.
It may not be 'should be sacked' wrong, but it's a complete own goal due to display of a sense of entitlement over something that doesn't seem to have been a big deal.
Despite the Mail getting huffy she'll probably be fine, but odds are good before the story is over she puts her foot in it by getting conspiracist about the reports.
Suella: Haven't the woke police got better things to do than harassing innocent golliwog collectors or innocent Attorney-Generals who go a bit too fast? They should be going after the real criminals, and stopping the boats".
She initially opted for the course, which sources close to her say was because she was concerned that points on her licence would increase her car insurance premium.
As home secretary, she earns more than £150,000 a year and is driven in a ministerial car.
Looks like she toast - it's obviously coordinated from No 10:
Someone in central office has decided to press the button this evening. They had the speeding story for weeks I reckon. Suella was getting too big for her boots.
It was probably that Nazi conference she spoke at in that case. OK for fringe Tories, not for cabinet members supposedly following a party line.
NatC conference, please.
Didn't Gove go?
Sorry you're right. National Conservatives, not National Socialists. Easy mistake to make.
I don't think Gove is government any more.
Yup, still there as SoS for Levelling Up. Because whatever else you think of him, he is indespensably competent.
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
If you don't think that's a story...
"The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her" Not so. She was prosecuted and found guilty, and was then faced with a choice of punishment. The "story" is that she asked whether it was possible to modify the exact form of one of the punishment options, and was told no, so she took the other one.
Yes, she wanted a different form of punishment than everyone else gets. One that would benefit her. Abusing her position as AG. Or so the allegation goes. If this is true it's completely and obviously corrupt.
So, her wanting a different form of punishment is an abuse of her position and "obviously corrupt". You should join the thought police
Using her power to get a different form of punishment would have been corrupt in the sense it would have been an abuse of power. She, sensibly, does not appear to have done that. Wanting special treatment (and I still don't understand why she felt the need to even ask) and being apparently on record about that is more just bad politics and optics, and raises questions about her judgement (though not likely enough to see her sacked).
Looks like she toast - it's obviously coordinated from No 10:
Someone in central office has decided to press the button this evening. They had the speeding story for weeks I reckon. Suella was getting too big for her boots.
It was probably that Nazi conference she spoke at in that case. OK for fringe Tories, not for cabinet members supposedly following a party line.
NatC conference, please.
Didn't Gove go?
Sorry you're right. National Conservatives, not National Socialists. Easy mistake to make.
I don't think Gove is government any more.
Yup, still there as SoS for Levelling Up. Because whatever else you think of him, he is indespensably competent.
I used to think so, but he seems to have just given up at this stage of his career and nothing of interest seems to be coming out of DLUHC.
What annoys the pubic are people wanting special treatment and the cheek of seeing whether she could claim expenses for the speeding fine. Given the amount of money she earns that really is grating .
Looks like she toast - it's obviously coordinated from No 10:
Someone in central office has decided to press the button this evening. They had the speeding story for weeks I reckon. Suella was getting too big for her boots.
It was probably that Nazi conference she spoke at in that case. OK for fringe Tories, not for cabinet members supposedly following a party line.
Calling it a Nazi conference may express your personal feelings, but I think it's fairly rude to the site owners, given that politicians have been known to read the site, and possibly wouldn't care to be described thus.
She initially opted for the course, which sources close to her say was because she was concerned that points on her licence would increase her car insurance premium.
As home secretary, she earns more than £150,000 a year and is driven in a ministerial car.
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
What annoys the pubic are people wanting special treatment and the cheek of seeing whether she could claim expenses for the speeding fine. Given the amount of money she earns that really is grating .
THAT to me is way more damaging, but apparently was already known?
Can someone clarify whether (1) she asked for advice on whether a 1-2-1 course was possible or (2) she asked civil servants to help facilitate one? I’m getting both from the comments on here
Given that it's unlikely her request/enquiry was transcribed or recorded, we're unlikely to get that clarification. All we know is that it didn't happen.
Unless she emailed it of course. Stupid but...
Emails can get you in trouble but they can also cover your arse.
Indeed, and if Braverman is able to produce an email that asks 'do they offer private 1-2-1 courses?' I'd accept that there's no case to answer (although surely you'd ask that of the course provider or get one of your political aides to check it?).
If, however, there's an email where she asks a civil servant to arrange a private course, she's toast.
Most likely there's no email but one or more civil servants who will attest what she asked them.
No doubt the enquiry will sort it out to everyone's satisfaction
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
To take that logic to it's ridiculous conclusion you might as well say it is ok to murder someone as long as you get punished. It is a daft thing to say and it isn't. She only took the points because two civil servants didn't buckle. She did wrong and should have known better. Eventually taking the points doesn't make it right.
Poor Truss, her Cabinet Members' time in post is now just worthy of footnoting, and otherwise acting as though other Ministers were in post continuously.
How fast was Braverman going when she was caught speeding? I don't know the exact proportions, but I am reasonably sure that more than 99 percent of American drivers have driven over our speed limits*.
(*Including me, and years ago I picked up two speeding tickets to prove it. In both instances, I think I was driving safely, perhaps 10 miles over the speed limit on an uncrowded highway.)
The speeding is not the issue; the issue is trying to influence, and asking civil servants to influence, the way her speeding offence was dealt with.
Why didn't she just take the points to begin with? Does she have points already, is the question...
Even if she has, so what. I raised this on the last thread. This is Chris Huhne all over again. Even if banned due to points accumulated both can/could afford alternative transportation. The evasion just digs a bigger hole, if and when it goes pear-shaped. Stupid. Take the points and if necessary a ban and suck it up.
Chris Huhne lied about who was driving, thereby perverting the course of justice. He went to prison
Braverman asked if she could have her punishment course in private rather than public. On being told no she took the alternative (points).
There really is no comparison
Of course there's a comparison: you just made it yourself.
There is a difference, in English, between “no comparison” and “a comparison”. The former is functionally equivalent to “not comparable”.
Can someone clarify whether (1) she asked for advice on whether a 1-2-1 course was possible or (2) she asked civil servants to help facilitate one? I’m getting both from the comments on here
Given that it's unlikely her request/enquiry was transcribed or recorded, we're unlikely to get that clarification. All we know is that it didn't happen.
Unless she emailed it of course. Stupid but...
Emails can get you in trouble but they can also cover your arse.
Indeed, and if Braverman is able to produce an email that asks 'do they offer private 1-2-1 courses?' I'd accept that there's no case to answer (although surely you'd ask that of the course provider or get one of your political aides to check it?).
If, however, there's an email where she asks a civil servant to arrange a private course, she's toast.
Most likely there's no email but one or more civil servants who will attest what she asked them.
No doubt the enquiry will sort it out to everyone's satisfaction
At least two clear breaches of the Ministerial Code:
5.1 Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code...
7.1 Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.
I disagree
5.1 is arguable. Perhaps a scheduling or security issue? Yes there were personal political benefits but we don’t know if she stated those as a reason. All she asked for was the civil service to look into it. They declined so she asked a spad. That happens all the time.
7.1 where’s the conflict? She was convicted and given a choice of punishment like everyone else. She asked if it was possible to do it privately (perhaps marginally favourable treatment but not a conflict). It was not possible so she took the points instead.
There's no security issue with an online course.
You don't think there's a potential conflict of interest between asking for special treatment in a prosecution and superintending the CPS? You can't think of any adverse circumstances that might flow from that?
I was thinking about an in-person course when I mentioned security as a possible excuse. None of us know what excuse she gave to the civil service though obviously the actual reason was political.
It’s not special treatment in a prosecution. Prosecution is over, judgement has been rendered. This is like asking the prison governor if you can work in the library instead of the laundry.
Look, I was using "prosecution" in a broad sense for the overall process. Perhaps I should have said "sentencing". That's besides the point. The AG superintends the CPS. If the message from the minister is that politicians should be treated differently than the little people then it could have an undue influence on CPS decisions when deciding on what charges to bring against politicians, on whether charges should be brought at all, on their ability to support victims where a politician may be accused of wrongdoing.
If any politician did what Suella was alleged to have done it would be extremely worrying. The fact that it was Attorney General is doubly bad. This is really serious stuff. Undue political interference in matters of justice is corrosive to the rule of law. It must not be tolerated. She has to go.
She initially opted for the course, which sources close to her say was because she was concerned that points on her licence would increase her car insurance premium.
As home secretary, she earns more than £150,000 a year and is driven in a ministerial car.
Surely the answer is Suella is a very important person. Rules are for nasty, horrible, smelly little people and not for very important Home Secretary sorts of people.
RIP Martin Amis. A relative of mine was a primary school teacher in Swansea when Kingsley was a Lecturer at Swansea University, so Martin was one of her pupils. She was thus very keen to read one of Martin's earlier books. She was disappointed and her analysis was (the book) "it was disgusting, dirty boy!"
Were I to be appointed Attorney-General, or Home Secretary for that matter, I think I'd have a word with myself and say "oh bugger, I'd better pack in law-breaking - including keeping to the speed limit. It would be a bit embarrassing to be a law breaker - I need to set a good example".
But maybe I'm wrong, as nobody else seems to be bothered about Suella actually speeding.
Because if she was offered the course it was borderline. None of us are innocent of not breaking the speed limit by small amounts.
Can someone clarify whether (1) she asked for advice on whether a 1-2-1 course was possible or (2) she asked civil servants to help facilitate one? I’m getting both from the comments on here
Given that it's unlikely her request/enquiry was transcribed or recorded, we're unlikely to get that clarification. All we know is that it didn't happen.
Unless she emailed it of course. Stupid but...
Emails can get you in trouble but they can also cover your arse.
Indeed, and if Braverman is able to produce an email that asks 'do they offer private 1-2-1 courses?' I'd accept that there's no case to answer (although surely you'd ask that of the course provider or get one of your political aides to check it?).
If, however, there's an email where she asks a civil servant to arrange a private course, she's toast.
Most likely there's no email but one or more civil servants who will attest what she asked them.
No doubt the enquiry will sort it out to everyone's satisfaction
It's ludicrous to use Huhne who perverted the course of justice as a comparator
Yes the issue here is different imo. The impression given is of someone who thinks she's too important to be treated in the normal way after being caught speeding. Whether it's a resigning offence depends on whether she resigns. And if she doesn't whether it's a sacking offence depends on whether Sunak sacks her. I'd need more info before venturing a prediction. I do hope it's either a resigning or sacking offence though. In fact I hope it's terminal for her political career. She is not an asset to public life.
Congratulations on your last sentence. You are the master of understatement.
At this point it's not a question of whether she broke the rules. We all know she will have done.
Keir Starmer really has got to clean up public life, it's an all time low.
Chris Huhne gives Starmer a perfect basis to press this one home. I know the cases aren’t exactly comparable, but it creates some sort of precedent.
Chris Huhne committed perjury.
They are in no way comparable
They are because the motives are exactly the same. Where they do differ is the actions taken were different and perjury is far more serious, but nobody is asking that she be sent to prison. However there are consequences in abusing your position.
The motives were not the same
Huhne tried to evade his punishment by blaming someone else.
Braverman asked if she could be punished privately rather than in public
"Punished privately"? - I thought she just wanted to go on a speed awareness course.
The Booker Prizes @TheBookerPrizes · 2h We are saddened to hear that Martin Amis, one of the most acclaimed and discussed novelists of the past 50 years, has died. Our thoughts are with his family and friends
Note Epshteyn was unable to get security clearance to work in the Trump White House.
It's such a weird case that one. It's clear lots of top people are not brilliant at storing documents or returning ones in a timely fashion, but Trump and some of his attorneys seem to have contrived to have made it far more than it should have been simply because Trump thinks everything belongs to him, even classified (or non-classified) government materials.
She initially opted for the course, which sources close to her say was because she was concerned that points on her licence would increase her car insurance premium.
As home secretary, she earns more than £150,000 a year and is driven in a ministerial car.
Of course it is. The idea that the AG can't do a remedial driving course without the logistics outwitting the security services is one that could only really convince the congenitally baffled.
At this point it's not a question of whether she broke the rules. We all know she will have done.
Keir Starmer really has got to clean up public life, it's an all time low.
Chris Huhne gives Starmer a perfect basis to press this one home. I know the cases aren’t exactly comparable, but it creates some sort of precedent.
Chris Huhne committed perjury.
They are in no way comparable
They are because the motives are exactly the same. Where they do differ is the actions taken were different and perjury is far more serious, but nobody is asking that she be sent to prison. However there are consequences in abusing your position.
The motives were not the same
Huhne tried to evade his punishment by blaming someone else.
Braverman asked if she could be punished privately rather than in public
"Punished privately"? - I thought she just wanted to go on a speed awareness course.
Wouldn't that have been a Liz Truss request?
However @StillWaters wants to paint this, it is an abuse of power. Fortunately for Cruella, post Johnson, abuse of power no longer counts as a scandal.
At this point it's not a question of whether she broke the rules. We all know she will have done.
Keir Starmer really has got to clean up public life, it's an all time low.
Chris Huhne gives Starmer a perfect basis to press this one home. I know the cases aren’t exactly comparable, but it creates some sort of precedent.
Chris Huhne committed perjury.
They are in no way comparable
They are because the motives are exactly the same. Where they do differ is the actions taken were different and perjury is far more serious, but nobody is asking that she be sent to prison. However there are consequences in abusing your position.
The motives were not the same
Huhne tried to evade his punishment by blaming someone else.
Braverman asked if she could be punished privately rather than in public
"Punished privately"? - I thought she just wanted to go on a speed awareness course.
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
If you don't think that's a story...
"The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her" Not so. She was prosecuted and found guilty, and was then faced with a choice of punishment. The "story" is that she asked whether it was possible to modify the exact form of one of the punishment options, and was told no, so she took the other one.
Yes, she wanted a different form of punishment than everyone else gets. One that would benefit her. Abusing her position as AG. Or so the allegation goes. If this is true it's completely and obviously corrupt.
So, her wanting a different form of punishment is an abuse of her position and "obviously corrupt". You should join the thought police
Using her power to get a different form of punishment would have been corrupt in the sense it would have been an abuse of power. She, sensibly, does not appear to have done that. Wanting special treatment (and I still don't understand why she felt the need to even ask) and being apparently on record about that is more just bad politics and optics, and raises questions about her judgement (though not likely enough to see her sacked).
She did though seek 'to get a different form of punishment' - she wanted her course to be 1-2-1 (thus more expensive to the taxpayer) and private. No one else gets that option.
Were I to be appointed Attorney-General, or Home Secretary for that matter, I think I'd have a word with myself and say "oh bugger, I'd better pack in law-breaking - including keeping to the speed limit. It would be a bit embarrassing to be a law breaker - I need to set a good example".
But maybe I'm wrong, as nobody else seems to be bothered about Suella actually speeding.
Because if she was offered the course it was borderline. None of us are innocent of not breaking the speed limit by small amounts.
I mean, it's not like she flew to Israel at break-neck speed like a predecessor. And even that barely needed a slap on the wrist.
Give her a break. She didn't actually run over a child or escalate a war in the middle east.
At this point it's not a question of whether she broke the rules. We all know she will have done.
Keir Starmer really has got to clean up public life, it's an all time low.
Chris Huhne gives Starmer a perfect basis to press this one home. I know the cases aren’t exactly comparable, but it creates some sort of precedent.
Chris Huhne committed perjury.
They are in no way comparable
They are because the motives are exactly the same. Where they do differ is the actions taken were different and perjury is far more serious, but nobody is asking that she be sent to prison. However there are consequences in abusing your position.
The motives were not the same
Huhne tried to evade his punishment by blaming someone else.
Braverman asked if she could be punished privately rather than in public
The motives are the same. They both wanted to avoid getting points on their licence.
You are confusing motives with the actions they took. Huhne's actions were more serious hence prison. Nobody is suggesting she be sent to prison, but what she did is inconsistent with being Home Secretary.
At least two clear breaches of the Ministerial Code:
5.1 Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code...
7.1 Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.
I disagree
5.1 is arguable. Perhaps a scheduling or security issue? Yes there were personal political benefits but we don’t know if she stated those as a reason. All she asked for was the civil service to look into it. They declined so she asked a spad. That happens all the time.
7.1 where’s the conflict? She was convicted and given a choice of punishment like everyone else. She asked if it was possible to do it privately (perhaps marginally favourable treatment but not a conflict). It was not possible so she took the points instead.
Again, according to the Times tweet:
"Suella Braverman asked Home Office civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course"
5.1 You say 'all she asked was for the civil service to look into it'. The Times' Harry Yorke says she asked them to arrange it. I'm assuming he's right unless you have better information?
7.1 It's clearly to her personal political advantage to arrange a private course that no one else knows about. As it happens I have a course coming up in a couple of weeks, I don't think I am likely to be offered the option of a private course.
5.1 our difference is just wording. terminology. She asked them to do it. They said it would be inappropriate. She didn’t try to force them. May be she should have known better, but asking someone to do something is not an offence.
So if I ask you to murder someone I'm not committing an offence?
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
If you don't think that's a story...
"The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her" Not so. She was prosecuted and found guilty, and was then faced with a choice of punishment. The "story" is that she asked whether it was possible to modify the exact form of one of the punishment options, and was told no, so she took the other one.
Yes, she wanted a different form of punishment than everyone else gets. One that would benefit her. Abusing her position as AG. Or so the allegation goes. If this is true it's completely and obviously corrupt.
So, her wanting a different form of punishment is an abuse of her position and "obviously corrupt". You should join the thought police
Yes. Obviously corrupt.
This is nothing to do with freedom to think what you like. This is about rule of law extending to people in high office. I just want the law to apply evenly to people no matter what their station. And anyone who seeks to get special treatment by virtue of their position should be removed from their position.
I think that's perfectly sensible. I've no idea where this "thought police" bollocks is coming from.
Thing is, ministers tend to get treated like Great Panjandrums; coddled and indulged, privately viewed with a mixture of contempt and fear by their close civil servants (there are plenty of exceptions, of course; Gove - him again! - is renowned for his unfailing pleasantness with civil servants).
This does not help their sense of exceptionality; I’ll bet Braverman didn’t even really think much about asking.
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
If you don't think that's a story...
"The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her" Not so. She was prosecuted and found guilty, and was then faced with a choice of punishment. The "story" is that she asked whether it was possible to modify the exact form of one of the punishment options, and was told no, so she took the other one.
Yes, she wanted a different form of punishment than everyone else gets. One that would benefit her. Abusing her position as AG. Or so the allegation goes. If this is true it's completely and obviously corrupt.
So, her wanting a different form of punishment is an abuse of her position and "obviously corrupt". You should join the thought police
Yes. Obviously corrupt.
This is nothing to do with freedom to think what you like. This is about rule of law extending to people in high office. I just want the law to apply evenly to people no matter what their station. And anyone who seeks to get special treatment by virtue of their position should be removed from their position.
I think that's perfectly sensible. I've no idea where this "thought police" bollocks is coming from.
Suella's defence is clear and obvious. Only tofu eating traitorous members of the Remainer wokerati would find her alternative speeding penalty request to be corrupt.
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
If you don't think that's a story...
"The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her" Not so. She was prosecuted and found guilty, and was then faced with a choice of punishment. The "story" is that she asked whether it was possible to modify the exact form of one of the punishment options, and was told no, so she took the other one.
Yes, she wanted a different form of punishment than everyone else gets. One that would benefit her. Abusing her position as AG. Or so the allegation goes. If this is true it's completely and obviously corrupt.
So, her wanting a different form of punishment is an abuse of her position and "obviously corrupt". You should join the thought police
Yes. Obviously corrupt.
This is nothing to do with freedom to think what you like. This is about rule of law extending to people in high office. I just want the law to apply evenly to people no matter what their station. And anyone who seeks to get special treatment by virtue of their position should be removed from their position.
I think that's perfectly sensible. I've no idea where this "thought police" bollocks is coming from.
Suella's defence is you have complained about her behaviour only because you are a 'tofu eating member of the traitorous wokerati "
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
If you don't think that's a story...
"The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her" Not so. She was prosecuted and found guilty, and was then faced with a choice of punishment. The "story" is that she asked whether it was possible to modify the exact form of one of the punishment options, and was told no, so she took the other one.
Yes, she wanted a different form of punishment than everyone else gets. One that would benefit her. Abusing her position as AG. Or so the allegation goes. If this is true it's completely and obviously corrupt.
So, her wanting a different form of punishment is an abuse of her position and "obviously corrupt". You should join the thought police
Yes. Obviously corrupt.
This is nothing to do with freedom to think what you like. This is about rule of law extending to people in high office. I just want the law to apply evenly to people no matter what their station. And anyone who seeks to get special treatment by virtue of their position should be removed from their position.
I think that's perfectly sensible. I've no idea where this "thought police" bollocks is coming from.
Suella's defence is clear and obvious. Only tofu eating traitorous members of the Remainer wokerati would find her alternative speeding penalty request to be corrupt.
I think I've eaten tofu once this year. Unsure on whether that confers the status of ideological purity or not. Is there a threshold?
At least two clear breaches of the Ministerial Code:
5.1 Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code...
7.1 Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.
I disagree
5.1 is arguable. Perhaps a scheduling or security issue? Yes there were personal political benefits but we don’t know if she stated those as a reason. All she asked for was the civil service to look into it. They declined so she asked a spad. That happens all the time.
7.1 where’s the conflict? She was convicted and given a choice of punishment like everyone else. She asked if it was possible to do it privately (perhaps marginally favourable treatment but not a conflict). It was not possible so she took the points instead.
Again, according to the Times tweet:
"Suella Braverman asked Home Office civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course"
5.1 You say 'all she asked was for the civil service to look into it'. The Times' Harry Yorke says she asked them to arrange it. I'm assuming he's right unless you have better information?
7.1 It's clearly to her personal political advantage to arrange a private course that no one else knows about. As it happens I have a course coming up in a couple of weeks, I don't think I am likely to be offered the option of a private course.
5.1 our difference is just wording. terminology. She asked them to do it. They said it would be inappropriate. She didn’t try to force them. May be she should have known better, but asking someone to do something is not an offence.
So if I ask you to murder someone I'm not committing an offence?
Depends whether you can help me get a National Insurance Card or not
A few bedtime thoughts on this. -Team Sunak has done well to get this on the front page of the DM. It's usually just the Times. -I don't know enough about how the papers work to know whether the leaker actually offered 'an exclusive' to the DM (it's tagged as such in the byline), in which case they very much failed to deliver, or whether this is just something they always put in the byline. -It seems from the BBC story that Suella 'asked civil servants about arranging a private course, citing security concerns about doing one as part of a group' - that would appear to be clarification that she asked about the possibility rather than made a request. -Sunak is frequently cited as a Majoresque 'all round nice guy' on this board and elsewhere, but his Government has become renowned for nasty leaking, even about its own Ministers. We can't really say that Sunak's hands are clean either, given that he has publicly slated other Tory leaders in an unprecedented way. Let's be kind and put it down to inexperience. -This feels like it's not enough to get a scalp, but is enough to provoke. -Why does anyone doing these courses have to reveal their identity? It seems completely unnecessary.
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
If you don't think that's a story...
"The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her" Not so. She was prosecuted and found guilty, and was then faced with a choice of punishment. The "story" is that she asked whether it was possible to modify the exact form of one of the punishment options, and was told no, so she took the other one.
Yes, she wanted a different form of punishment than everyone else gets. One that would benefit her. Abusing her position as AG. Or so the allegation goes. If this is true it's completely and obviously corrupt.
So, her wanting a different form of punishment is an abuse of her position and "obviously corrupt". You should join the thought police
Yes. Obviously corrupt.
This is nothing to do with freedom to think what you like. This is about rule of law extending to people in high office. I just want the law to apply evenly to people no matter what their station. And anyone who seeks to get special treatment by virtue of their position should be removed from their position.
I think that's perfectly sensible. I've no idea where this "thought police" bollocks is coming from.
Suella's defence is you have complained about her behaviour only because you are a 'tofu eating member of the traitorous wokerati "
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
If you don't think that's a story...
"The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her" Not so. She was prosecuted and found guilty, and was then faced with a choice of punishment. The "story" is that she asked whether it was possible to modify the exact form of one of the punishment options, and was told no, so she took the other one.
Yes, she wanted a different form of punishment than everyone else gets. One that would benefit her. Abusing her position as AG. Or so the allegation goes. If this is true it's completely and obviously corrupt.
So, her wanting a different form of punishment is an abuse of her position and "obviously corrupt". You should join the thought police
Yes. Obviously corrupt.
This is nothing to do with freedom to think what you like. This is about rule of law extending to people in high office. I just want the law to apply evenly to people no matter what their station. And anyone who seeks to get special treatment by virtue of their position should be removed from their position.
I think that's perfectly sensible. I've no idea where this "thought police" bollocks is coming from.
Suella's defence is you have complained about her behaviour only because you are a 'tofu eating member of the traitorous wokerati "
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
If you don't think that's a story...
"The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her" Not so. She was prosecuted and found guilty, and was then faced with a choice of punishment. The "story" is that she asked whether it was possible to modify the exact form of one of the punishment options, and was told no, so she took the other one.
Yes, she wanted a different form of punishment than everyone else gets. One that would benefit her. Abusing her position as AG. Or so the allegation goes. If this is true it's completely and obviously corrupt.
So, her wanting a different form of punishment is an abuse of her position and "obviously corrupt". You should join the thought police
Yes. Obviously corrupt.
This is nothing to do with freedom to think what you like. This is about rule of law extending to people in high office. I just want the law to apply evenly to people no matter what their station. And anyone who seeks to get special treatment by virtue of their position should be removed from their position.
I think that's perfectly sensible. I've no idea where this "thought police" bollocks is coming from.
Suella's defence is clear and obvious. Only tofu eating traitorous members of the Remainer wokerati would find her alternative speeding penalty request to be corrupt.
I think I've eaten tofu once this year. Unsure on whether that confers the status of ideological purity or not. Is there a threshold?
I don't think so. I suspect any criticism of Suella means you are "tofu eating wokerati", whether you have ever eaten tofu or not.
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
If you don't think that's a story...
"The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her" Not so. She was prosecuted and found guilty, and was then faced with a choice of punishment. The "story" is that she asked whether it was possible to modify the exact form of one of the punishment options, and was told no, so she took the other one.
Yes, she wanted a different form of punishment than everyone else gets. One that would benefit her. Abusing her position as AG. Or so the allegation goes. If this is true it's completely and obviously corrupt.
So, her wanting a different form of punishment is an abuse of her position and "obviously corrupt". You should join the thought police
Yes. Obviously corrupt.
This is nothing to do with freedom to think what you like. This is about rule of law extending to people in high office. I just want the law to apply evenly to people no matter what their station. And anyone who seeks to get special treatment by virtue of their position should be removed from their position.
I think that's perfectly sensible. I've no idea where this "thought police" bollocks is coming from.
Suella's defence is you have complained about her behaviour only because you are a 'tofu eating member of the traitorous wokerati "
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
If you don't think that's a story...
"The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her" Not so. She was prosecuted and found guilty, and was then faced with a choice of punishment. The "story" is that she asked whether it was possible to modify the exact form of one of the punishment options, and was told no, so she took the other one.
Yes, she wanted a different form of punishment than everyone else gets. One that would benefit her. Abusing her position as AG. Or so the allegation goes. If this is true it's completely and obviously corrupt.
So, her wanting a different form of punishment is an abuse of her position and "obviously corrupt". You should join the thought police
Yes. Obviously corrupt.
This is nothing to do with freedom to think what you like. This is about rule of law extending to people in high office. I just want the law to apply evenly to people no matter what their station. And anyone who seeks to get special treatment by virtue of their position should be removed from their position.
I think that's perfectly sensible. I've no idea where this "thought police" bollocks is coming from.
Suella's defence is clear and obvious. Only tofu eating traitorous members of the Remainer wokerati would find her alternative speeding penalty request to be corrupt.
I think I've eaten tofu once this year. Unsure on whether that confers the status of ideological purity or not. Is there a threshold?
If you're even tofu-curious I think you've become too contaminated.
She initially opted for the course, which sources close to her say was because she was concerned that points on her licence would increase her car insurance premium.
As home secretary, she earns more than £150,000 a year and is driven in a ministerial car.
There's only a security angle if she's trying to keep something she's done under wraps. Minister exceeds speeding limit and does speed awareness course to avoid points, press reports the above at the time - no security angle.
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
If you don't think that's a story...
"The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her" Not so. She was prosecuted and found guilty, and was then faced with a choice of punishment. The "story" is that she asked whether it was possible to modify the exact form of one of the punishment options, and was told no, so she took the other one.
Yes, she wanted a different form of punishment than everyone else gets. One that would benefit her. Abusing her position as AG. Or so the allegation goes. If this is true it's completely and obviously corrupt.
So, her wanting a different form of punishment is an abuse of her position and "obviously corrupt". You should join the thought police
Yes. Obviously corrupt.
This is nothing to do with freedom to think what you like. This is about rule of law extending to people in high office. I just want the law to apply evenly to people no matter what their station. And anyone who seeks to get special treatment by virtue of their position should be removed from their position.
I think that's perfectly sensible. I've no idea where this "thought police" bollocks is coming from.
Suella's defence is you have complained about her behaviour only because you are a 'tofu eating member of the traitorous wokerati "
So for all of those defending her why couldn't she:
a) Just take the points if she didn't want to attend the course
b) Just attend the course. She probably wouldn't be recognised anyway and if so, so what. If she got offered a course she was borderline anyway. Nobody cares. Rishi is collecting trivial offences like there is no tomorrow and nobody cares
Umm .. she did take the points when it was clear the alternative was unpalatable to her. I fail to see the story here
The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her, in a way would benefit her politically, using the access she had due to her position as Attorney General.
If you don't think that's a story...
"The story is that she allegedly tried to interfere with a prosecution against her" Not so. She was prosecuted and found guilty, and was then faced with a choice of punishment. The "story" is that she asked whether it was possible to modify the exact form of one of the punishment options, and was told no, so she took the other one.
Yes, she wanted a different form of punishment than everyone else gets. One that would benefit her. Abusing her position as AG. Or so the allegation goes. If this is true it's completely and obviously corrupt.
So, her wanting a different form of punishment is an abuse of her position and "obviously corrupt". You should join the thought police
Yes. Obviously corrupt.
This is nothing to do with freedom to think what you like. This is about rule of law extending to people in high office. I just want the law to apply evenly to people no matter what their station. And anyone who seeks to get special treatment by virtue of their position should be removed from their position.
I think that's perfectly sensible. I've no idea where this "thought police" bollocks is coming from.
Suella's defence is clear and obvious. Only tofu eating traitorous members of the Remainer wokerati would find her alternative speeding penalty request to be corrupt.
I think I've eaten tofu once this year. Unsure on whether that confers the status of ideological purity or not. Is there a threshold?
I’ve been eating it four or five times a week, recently.
Dull as it’s possible for a food to be, but high protein, next to no calories, and zero salt. Done wonders for my blood pressure. Way preferable to going on meds.
A few bedtime thoughts on this. -Team Sunak has done well to get this on the front page of the DM. It's usually just the Times. -I don't know enough about how the papers work to know whether the leaker actually offered 'an exclusive' to the DM (it's tagged as such in the byline), in which case they very much failed to deliver, or whether this is just something they always put in the byline. -It seems from the BBC story that Suella 'asked civil servants about arranging a private course, citing security concerns about doing one as part of a group' - that would appear to be clarification that she asked about the possibility rather than made a request. -Sunak is frequently cited as a Majoresque 'all round nice guy' on this board and elsewhere, but his Government has become renowned for nasty leaking, even about its own Ministers. We can't really say that Sunak's hands are clean either, given that he has publicly slated other Tory leaders in an unprecedented way. Let's be kind and put it down to inexperience. -This feels like it's not enough to get a scalp, but is enough to provoke. -Why does anyone doing these courses have to reveal their identity? It seems completely unnecessary.
a) ask the Civil Service if there was also a "1 to 1 option" for this
or
b) Try to ask them to arrange a "1 to 1 option" ?
If it's the second, she has to go.
And if it's the first too. If she wants legal advice on a personal matter, she should go to (and pay from her own pocket) a privately hired lawyer.
If she needed advice on this point, then she’s barely fit to be a lawyer, let alone AG and Home Secretary. It’s an utterly petty offence, and also utterly damning.
On topic. No this isn’t a sacking. Exploring if she could avoid appearing with the plebs like a common criminal herself is a fair ask and exploration, a lots being made of no big deal in my opinion, just like with Boris she’s marmite, means opponents big things up far too much.
In yes minister Jim gets away with drink driving by showing the police his ministerial pass or something, and later asks why the Home Secretary couldn’t have got away with it too, but it turned out the HomeSec was unfortunate to have crashed into a train carrying nuclear waste.
On topic. No this isn’t a sacking. Exploring if she could avoid appearing with the plebs like a common criminal herself is a fair ask and exploration, a lots being made of no big deal in my opinion, just like with Boris she’s marmite, means opponents big things up far too much.
In yes minister Jim gets away with drink driving by showing the police his ministerial pass or something, and later asks why the Home Secretary couldn’t have got away with it too, but it turned out the HomeSec was unfortunate to have crashed into a train carrying nuclear waste.
In today's shock news, Tory Rabbit defends a Tory
I’m merely standing on the side of fair play and justice, my sword of truth cutting through the spin from biased parties. If she did bully her way to a 1:1 I would call it wrong - but it’s merely enquiring if it’s possible due to her celebrity status, being told no it’s not, so going along with the reply and not getting it. She got no special treatment at all from this, and you call it a scandal. In fact this is a big win for Suella, coming across as a dogged and inventive barrister, fighting her corner by pushing to the limits - someone everyone would want on their side.
Jim Hacker says to Sir Humphrey and Bernard, can you get me a one to one session so I am not in with plebs and criminals? Absolutely not! Exclaims Sir Humphrey. Bernard chimes in, that would break the ministerial code in at least two places, if we did that for you minister. Ooo. Says Hacker.
And you are saying that exchange is a sacking matter?
Sky are being sensible about this with the headline “Labour calls for investigation after Suella Braverman accused of trying to shirk group speeding course”
Because the suspicion here is, Labour and other opposition parties are manufacturing this to get at Sunak, with a bigged up “Sunak must sack her for this crime and breaches otherwise he is frit and weak” whereas myself, HY and TSE and many others would like to see Leaky Sue sacking hoping this damaging Suella’s leadership hopes, so that a sane Tory Party can form more quickly without a Nat-C takeover.
Except I’m not, because I would like to post honest and credible and very fair stuff. If I big this one up more than it really is, it’s no different than bigging up beer gate, wallpaper gate, etc etc and losing all my credibility of trying to post the most balanced assessment. Which is what I’m trying to do, and think I’m managing very well thank you.
I’ll add a couple of relevant points, the first refers to TSE header, where he mentions William Wragg. It’s wrong the next Parliament won’t have the likes of Wragg or Dehenna Davison in it, they should be the future of the Conservative Party. Secondly, I’m not keen on tofu
Basically, that's just Collin's last seat to fill: It is between People Before Profit and SDLP
You would think the greenest country on earth would care about green issues, but they can’t get passed how massively nationalist politics is over there.
She initially opted for the course, which sources close to her say was because she was concerned that points on her licence would increase her car insurance premium.
As home secretary, she earns more than £150,000 a year and is driven in a ministerial car.
There's only a security angle if she's trying to keep something she's done under wraps. Minister exceeds speeding limit and does speed awareness course to avoid points, press reports the above at the time - no security angle.
The Press only got this when the Tory’s handed it to them in a blue on blue, that will do nothing for their poll ratings.
On topic. No this isn’t a sacking. Exploring if she could avoid appearing with the plebs like a common criminal herself is a fair ask and exploration, a lots being made of no big deal in my opinion, just like with Boris she’s marmite, means opponents big things up far too much.
In yes minister Jim gets away with drink driving by showing the police his ministerial pass or something, and later asks why the Home Secretary couldn’t have got away with it too, but it turned out the HomeSec was unfortunate to have crashed into a train carrying nuclear waste.
On topic. No this isn’t a sacking. Exploring if she could avoid appearing with the plebs like a common criminal herself is a fair ask and exploration, a lots being made of no big deal in my opinion, just like with Boris she’s marmite, means opponents big things up far too much.
In yes minister Jim gets away with drink driving by showing the police his ministerial pass or something, and later asks why the Home Secretary couldn’t have got away with it too, but it turned out the HomeSec was unfortunate to have crashed into a train carrying nuclear waste.
In today's shock news, Tory Rabbit defends a Tory
I’m merely standing on the side of fair play and justice, my sword of truth cutting through the spin from biased parties. If she did bully her way to a 1:1 I would call it wrong - but it’s merely enquiring if it’s possible due to her celebrity status, being told no it’s not, so going along with the reply and not getting it. She got no special treatment at all from this, and you call it a scandal. In fact this is a big win for Suella, coming across as a dogged and inventive barrister, fighting her corner by pushing to the limits - someone everyone would want on their side.
Comments
If, however, there's an email where she asks a civil servant to arrange a private course, she's toast.
Most likely there's no email but one or more civil servants who will attest what she asked them.
If you don't think that's a story...
Braverman asked if she could have her punishment course in private rather than public. On being told no she took the alternative (points).
There really is no comparison
I honestly don't see this story as seeing her gone, but equally I don't understand her thought process in the first place - her 'concern' here seems to have been entirely unwarranted.
RIP.
I am genuinely distressed tonight.
We're still at the Yeah but, no but, stage.
But it is.
I am baffled you can't see that asking a civil servant to try to get her special treatment is plain wrong.
‘The whole thing stinks’: UK water firms to pay £15bn to shareholders as customers foot sewage bill
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/may/20/the-whole-thing-stinks-uk-water-firms-to-pay-15bn-to-shareholders-as-customers-foot-sewage-bill
(It's hard to keep track.)
Major Tory donor investigated over fraud and money laundering allegations
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/20/major-tory-donor-investigated-over-and-money-laundering-allegations
Despite the Mail getting huffy she'll probably be fine, but odds are good before the story is over she puts her foot in it by getting conspiracist about the reports.
Didn't Gove go?
Let's not forget that bunch will probably be the ones running the party in a little over a year - they are the ones going for a 'We told you to change' defence for why they will lose and not be their fault, so will play better than the 'We did our best but failed' clique running things at the moment.
If this is true it's completely and obviously corrupt.
7.1 yes it was to her advantage but not a conflict.
But maybe I'm wrong, as nobody else seems to be bothered about Suella actually speeding.
I don't think Gove is government any more.
You should join the thought police
It’s not special treatment in a prosecution. Prosecution is over, judgement has been rendered. This is like asking the prison governor if you can work in the library instead of the laundry.
Huhne tried to evade his punishment by blaming someone else.
Braverman asked if she could be punished privately rather than in public
She initially opted for the course, which sources close to her say was because she was concerned that points on her licence would increase her car insurance premium.
As home secretary, she earns more than £150,000 a year and is driven in a ministerial car.
It all depends on what she asked the civil servants.
b) because she’s a self obsessed idiot
Suella Braverman speeding course claims prompt inquiry calls
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65659053
You’ve been in California too long…
Recently resigned Trump attorney-Timothy Parlatore- dishes hard on Trump attorney-Boris Epshteyn-as THE reason Parlatore left.
Says Epshteyn, among other things, tried to interfere with searches for classified documents including of Bedminister.
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1660021082105999365
Note Epshteyn was unable to get security clearance to work in the Trump White House.
The AG superintends the CPS. If the message from the minister is that politicians should be treated differently than the little people then it could have an undue influence on CPS decisions when deciding on what charges to bring against politicians, on whether charges should be brought at all, on their ability to support victims where a politician may be accused of wrongdoing.
If any politician did what Suella was alleged to have done it would be extremely worrying. The fact that it was Attorney General is doubly bad. This is really serious stuff. Undue political interference in matters of justice is corrosive to the rule of law. It must not be tolerated. She has to go.
RIP Martin Amis. A relative of mine was a primary school teacher in Swansea when Kingsley was a Lecturer at Swansea University, so Martin was one of her pupils. She was thus very keen to read one of Martin's earlier books. She was disappointed and her analysis was (the book) "it was disgusting, dirty boy!"
Should've taken Sturgeon's example and simply not learned to drive. The Tyre Extinguishers now have a No. 1 target.
@TheBookerPrizes
·
2h
We are saddened to hear that Martin Amis, one of the most acclaimed and discussed novelists of the past 50 years, has died. Our thoughts are with his family and friends
===
More front than Blackpool.
Botanic: 1 Alliance, 1 SF, 1 Green
Oldpark: last seat to Sinn Fein
Ormiston: 1 Green and 1 UUP
The moment Greens held their Botanic seat
https://twitter.com/brendanhughes64/status/1660041150768529410?s=20
Yes, I just wanted to say Green hold Botanic
Basically, that's just Collin's last seat to fill: It is between People Before Profit and SDLP
@Guido, please credit PB if you steal this one too
However @StillWaters wants to paint this, it is an abuse of power. Fortunately for Cruella, post Johnson, abuse of power no longer counts as a scandal.
Give her a break. She didn't actually run over a child or escalate a war in the middle east.
#justice4suella
You are confusing motives with the actions they took. Huhne's actions were more serious hence prison. Nobody is suggesting she be sent to prison, but what she did is inconsistent with being Home Secretary.
This is nothing to do with freedom to think what you like. This is about rule of law extending to people in high office. I just want the law to apply evenly to people no matter what their station. And anyone who seeks to get special treatment by virtue of their position should be removed from their position.
I think that's perfectly sensible. I've no idea where this "thought police" bollocks is coming from.
a) ask the Civil Service if there was also a "1 to 1 option" for this
or
b) Try to ask them to arrange a "1 to 1 option" ?
If it's the second, she has to go.
This does not help their sense of exceptionality; I’ll bet Braverman didn’t even really think much about asking.
-Team Sunak has done well to get this on the front page of the DM. It's usually just the Times.
-I don't know enough about how the papers work to know whether the leaker actually offered 'an exclusive' to the DM (it's tagged as such in the byline), in which case they very much failed to deliver, or whether this is just something they always put in the byline.
-It seems from the BBC story that Suella 'asked civil servants about arranging a private course, citing security concerns about doing one as part of a group' - that would appear to be clarification that she asked about the possibility rather than made a request.
-Sunak is frequently cited as a Majoresque 'all round nice guy' on this board and elsewhere, but his Government has become renowned for nasty leaking, even about its own Ministers. We can't really say that Sunak's hands are clean either, given that he has publicly slated other Tory leaders in an unprecedented way. Let's be kind and put it down to inexperience.
-This feels like it's not enough to get a scalp, but is enough to provoke.
-Why does anyone doing these courses have to reveal their identity? It seems completely unnecessary.
DUP, UUP and TUV have 185 councillors combined, SF and SDLP 183 combined
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2023/northern-ireland/results
Minister exceeds speeding limit and does speed awareness course to avoid points, press reports the above at the time - no security angle.
Dull as it’s possible for a food to be, but high protein, next to no calories, and zero salt. Done wonders for my blood pressure.
Way preferable to going on meds.
It’s an utterly petty offence, and also utterly damning.
You are wrong on this.
Jim Hacker says to Sir Humphrey and Bernard, can you get me a one to one session so I am not in with plebs and criminals? Absolutely not! Exclaims Sir Humphrey. Bernard chimes in, that would break the ministerial code in at least two places, if we did that for you minister.
Ooo. Says Hacker.
And you are saying that exchange is a sacking matter?
Sky are being sensible about this with the headline “Labour calls for investigation after Suella Braverman accused of trying to shirk group speeding course”
Because the suspicion here is, Labour and other opposition parties are manufacturing this to get at Sunak, with a bigged up “Sunak must sack her for this crime and breaches otherwise he is frit and weak” whereas myself, HY and TSE and many others would like to see Leaky Sue sacking hoping this damaging Suella’s leadership hopes, so that a sane Tory Party can form more quickly without a Nat-C takeover.
Except I’m not, because I would like to post honest and credible and very fair stuff. If I big this one up more than it really is, it’s no different than bigging up beer gate, wallpaper gate, etc etc and losing all my credibility of trying to post the most balanced assessment. Which is what I’m trying to do, and think I’m managing very well thank you.
I’ll add a couple of relevant points, the first refers to TSE header, where he mentions William Wragg. It’s wrong the next Parliament won’t have the likes of Wragg or Dehenna Davison in it, they should be the future of the Conservative Party. Secondly, I’m not keen on tofu
PBP 1581,67
SDLP 1181,96
Alliance 647,41
Now redistributing Alliance's transfers...and then it is finished....for everyone
In her - or the way it’s been reported ?
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming it was all deadpan satire.