Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

The HomeSec saga is now a test of Sunak’s authority – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,794
edited May 2023 in General
imageThe HomeSec saga is now a test of Sunak’s authority – politicalbetting.com

It is becoming harder to see how the Home Secretary survives in her position following the revelations about her efforts to avoid a speeding ticket.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,794
    Sunak is weak and there are no obvious replacements
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,022
    We know from the way in which she was reappointed that Suella is not without political skills, so it will be interesting to see how she handles Sunak now.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 16,128
    "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up." - Herodutus
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,003
    I am minded of the Lyndon Johnson "urination" quotation.

    Does Richie Rich dare get rid of Cruella DeVil?
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 28,218
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,595
    FPT: In recent years, "faithless electors" have more often been publicity stunts than actual attempts to change election results. As they were, for example, here in Washington state, in 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiafalo_v._Washington

    Important point: "faithless electors have never changed the outcome of an election, . . " And states have tightened up their laws to make that even less likely.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,653
    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,653
    rcs1000 said:

    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


    Basically, Epstein learned of (enabled?) an affair between Gates and a 20-something Russian bridge player, and then used it as leverage.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,408

    I am minded of the Lyndon Johnson "urination" quotation.

    Does Richie Rich dare get rid of Cruella DeVil?

    Lyndon Johnson orders new pants:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR_myjOr0OU
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 28,218
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,339
    @PippaCrerar
    One Tory insider said: “The chief [whip] is at his wit’s end with Suella. She just thinks she can do what she wants."

    @mrjamesob
    She can, though. Events have proved that. Speaking at an event where Douglas Murray trivialises the Holocaust; expecting special treatment after being caught speeding; 'dreaming' of deporting genuine refugees; breaking the ministerial code & getting her job back 6 days later...
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,460
    Chris Huhne perverted the course of justice. If Suella coughed up the fine and took the points, I don't think you should be mentioning her in the same breath as the convicted criminal Huhne.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,370
    If Suella stays, there will only be more Homesecual scandals.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,877
    edited May 2023

    On the news last night (I think Sky), it was reported that it is quite routine for the company running speeding courses to arrange one-to-one special courses for prominent public figures. Braverman is being hauled over the coals because she tried to make some sort of enquiry towards arranging that using a civil servant aide, whereas as it's personal matter she should have done so herself. And then she decided to pay the fine anyway. The substance of the matter itself is trivial, as far as I'm concerned.

    What was not trivia was a Lib Dem Secretary of State being convicted of committing criminal perjury back in the days of coalition, and also persuading his wife to do so to protect him, so the thread header for me smacks of false equivalence.

    There is this morning’s news that, allegedly, her officials four times denied (in response to direct enquiries) that the HS had been caught speeding.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,370

    On the news last night (I think Sky), it was reported that it is quite routine for the company running speeding courses to arrange one-to-one special courses for prominent public figures.

    Wow. Sounds as though this one will run and run!
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,653

    On the news last night (I think Sky), it was reported that it is quite routine for the company running speeding courses to arrange one-to-one special courses for prominent public figures. Braverman is being hauled over the coals because she tried to make some sort of enquiry towards arranging that using a civil servant aide, whereas as it's personal matter she should have done so herself. And then she decided to pay the fine anyway. The substance of the matter itself is trivial, as far as I'm concerned.

    What was not trivia was a Lib Dem Secretary of State being convicted of committing criminal perjury back in the days of coalition, and also persuading his wife to do so to protect him, so the thread header for me smacks of false equivalence.

    Point of order: his wife was convicted of perjury. He was convicted of perverting the course of justice. He was also not Secretary of State either when convicted, nor when the offence was committed.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,339
    ...
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,945
    rcs1000 said:

    On the news last night (I think Sky), it was reported that it is quite routine for the company running speeding courses to arrange one-to-one special courses for prominent public figures. Braverman is being hauled over the coals because she tried to make some sort of enquiry towards arranging that using a civil servant aide, whereas as it's personal matter she should have done so herself. And then she decided to pay the fine anyway. The substance of the matter itself is trivial, as far as I'm concerned.

    What was not trivia was a Lib Dem Secretary of State being convicted of committing criminal perjury back in the days of coalition, and also persuading his wife to do so to protect him, so the thread header for me smacks of false equivalence.

    Point of order: his wife was convicted of perjury. He was convicted of perverting the course of justice. He was also not Secretary of State either when convicted, nor when the offence was committed.
    Yeah but he was a Lib Dem.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,003

    On the news last night (I think Sky), it was reported that it is quite routine for the company running speeding courses to arrange one-to-one special courses for prominent public figures. Braverman is being hauled over the coals because she tried to make some sort of enquiry towards arranging that using a civil servant aide, whereas as it's personal matter she should have done so herself. And then she decided to pay the fine anyway. The substance of the matter itself is trivial, as far as I'm concerned.

    What was not trivia was a Lib Dem Secretary of State being convicted of committing criminal perjury back in the days of coalition, and also persuading his wife to do so to protect him, so the thread header for me smacks of false equivalence.

    Yes this is all confected nonsense. Clearly someone wants her gone

    For all her toxicity I hope Sunak is smart enough not to sack Suella over this affair, that would allow her to wear her martyr label with pride.

    He should have sacked her after her attendance and shameful racial dog-whistle speech at last week's Nuremberg Rally.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,834
    Isn't it kind of difficult to sack someone he should never have appointed in the first place?

    She'll stay, which will suit Starmer just fine. He really is a lucky General.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,339
    edited May 2023
    tlg86 said:

    Chris Huhne perverted the course of justice. If Suella coughed up the fine and took the points, I don't think you should be mentioning her in the same breath as the convicted criminal Huhne.

    It was Starmer that prosecuted Huhne, he’ll prosecute Braverman in the court of public opinion.

    A friend informs me today at 2.30pm is Home Office questions, the timing couldn’t be worse for Suella.

    I expect Labour will be putting down and being granted an urgent question straight after Home Office questions.

    Suella will have to defend herself and not flee.

    She better get her story straight.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


    Basically, Epstein learned of (enabled?) an affair between Gates and a 20-something Russian bridge player, and then used it as leverage.
    The WSJ have been running a series of exposes surrounding the Epstein affair for several weeks now. Interesting question as to where they are leading up to with all this.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,339

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


    Basically, Epstein learned of (enabled?) an affair between Gates and a 20-something Russian bridge player, and then used it as leverage.
    The WSJ have been running a series of exposes surrounding the Epstein affair for several weeks now. Interesting question as to where they are leading up to with all this.
    Obvious isn’t it.


  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,343
    rcs1000 said:

    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


    You wouldn't have thought Gates would fall for the old "I have a bridge to sell you" line.....
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 56,932
    I see Henry Kissinger is 100 this week.

    Remarkable that he's still going.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,396
    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,339
    Voters back Sir Keir Starmer over Rishi Sunak on housing after a clear divide opened up between Labour and the Conservatives over the issue of homebuilding.

    Just one in ten under-50s think the Conservatives have a better plan after the prime minister scrapped targets for new homes and ruled out building on the green belt.

    Last week Starmer told The Times he would give councils new powers to build in the green belt in order to boost the supply of new housing, accusing the government of killing “the aspiration of homeowning for a whole generation”.

    Voters back Sir Keir Starmer over Rishi Sunak on housing after a clear divide opened up between Labour and the Conservatives over the issue of homebuilding.

    Just one in ten under-50s think the Conservatives have a better plan after the prime minister scrapped targets for new homes and ruled out building on the green belt.

    Last week Starmer told The Times he would give councils new powers to build in the green belt in order to boost the supply of new housing, accusing the government of killing “the aspiration of homeowning for a whole generation”.




    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/voters-back-starmer-to-build-homes-after-sunak-scraps-targets-kfrhhvbcn
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,343

    On the news last night (I think Sky), it was reported that it is quite routine for the company running speeding courses to arrange one-to-one special courses for prominent public figures. Braverman is being hauled over the coals because she tried to make some sort of enquiry towards arranging that using a civil servant aide, whereas as it's personal matter she should have done so herself. And then she decided to pay the fine anyway. The substance of the matter itself is trivial, as far as I'm concerned.

    What was not trivia was a Lib Dem Secretary of State being convicted of committing criminal perjury back in the days of coalition, and also persuading his wife to do so to protect him, so the thread header for me smacks of false equivalence.

    Is it crime of the century? Of course not
    Is it indicative of an attitude held by most of the Tory elite of being above rules and due process? Yes
    Is it damaging electorally? Yes
    Is it a relevant story on pb? Yes
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,834

    rcs1000 said:

    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


    You wouldn't have thought Gates would fall for the old "I have a bridge to sell you" line.....
    A bridge too far for him?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,877

    tlg86 said:

    Chris Huhne perverted the course of justice. If Suella coughed up the fine and took the points, I don't think you should be mentioning her in the same breath as the convicted criminal Huhne.

    It was Starmer that prosecuted Huhne, he’ll prosecute Braverman in the court of public opinion.

    A friend informs me today at 2.30pm is Home Office questions, the timing couldn’t be worse for Suella.

    I expect Labour will be putting down and being granted an urgent question straight after Home Office questions.

    Suella will have to defend herself and not flee.

    She better get her story straight.
    If - as the Daily Mirror says - her SPAD denied four times that she had been caught speeding, then she's in trouble, I suggest.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,073

    I see Henry Kissinger is 100 this week.

    Remarkable that he's still going.

    What we would give to have him rather than Trump, who was ‘tweeting’ about ww3.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,653
    Jonathan said:

    I see Henry Kissinger is 100 this week.

    Remarkable that he's still going.

    What we would give to have him rather than Trump, who was ‘tweeting’ about ww3.
    Kissinger is scum.

    Trust me, you wouldn't want him as President.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280
    On topic:

    What authority?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280

    rcs1000 said:

    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


    You wouldn't have thought Gates would fall for the old "I have a bridge to sell you" line.....
    A bridge too far for him?
    Well, he sounds whistful on the subject.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,653

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


    Basically, Epstein learned of (enabled?) an affair between Gates and a 20-something Russian bridge player, and then used it as leverage.
    The WSJ have been running a series of exposes surrounding the Epstein affair for several weeks now. Interesting question as to where they are leading up to with all this.
    I don't know if you saw the story, but it's alleged that Elon vouched for Epstein with JPMorgan.

    He managed to get his hooks into a lot of people: Dershowitz, Musk, Gates, etc.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015
    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    I see Henry Kissinger is 100 this week.

    Remarkable that he's still going.

    What we would give to have him rather than Trump, who was ‘tweeting’ about ww3.
    Kissinger is scum.

    Trust me, you wouldn't want him as President.
    Is he scum. Surprised to see you use such a term. You’re usually very polite.

    Can’t say I know a great deal about him aside from seeing some conspiracy theories on Twitter.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,339
    So Suella is a Brit who is going to lose her job because migrants coming over here.

    Allies of Suella Braverman fear she is the victim of a smear campaign amid an increasingly acrimonious battle over her efforts to crack down on net migration.

    The Home Secretary has been accused of asking civil servants to help organise a private driving awareness course as she sought to avoid incurring points on her licence after being caught speeding.

    She is expected to face questions in the House of Commons about the matter on Monday.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/05/21/suella-braverman-smear-campaign-claims-speeding-fine/
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,339
    ydoethur said:

    On topic:

    What authority?

    Political authority is a lot like a balloon or virginity.

    One prick and it is gone forever.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280
    Taz said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    I see Henry Kissinger is 100 this week.

    Remarkable that he's still going.

    What we would give to have him rather than Trump, who was ‘tweeting’ about ww3.
    Kissinger is scum.

    Trust me, you wouldn't want him as President.
    Is he scum. Surprised to see you use such a term. You’re usually very polite.

    Can’t say I know a great deal about him aside from seeing some conspiracy theories on Twitter.
    Favourite Kissinger quote:

    'I am frank about myself in this book. I detail all my mistakes, the first on page 850.'
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280

    ydoethur said:

    On topic:

    What authority?

    Political authority is a lot like a balloon or virginity.

    One prick and it is gone forever.
    Sunak's had lots of pricks recently.

    And he appointed them all himself...
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,228
    O/T but interesting

    Pretty conflicted on this - on one hand it has been approved by the voters in a referendum; on the other it seems straightforward tyranny of the majority & I don’t like there concept of banning people from standing in an election

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/us/oregon-legislators-boycott.html
  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,066
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


    Basically, Epstein learned of (enabled?) an affair between Gates and a 20-something Russian bridge player, and then used it as leverage.
    Seems strange to read the phrase “Russian bridge” outside the context of the Ukrainians blowing one up.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,003
    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Chris Huhne perverted the course of justice. If Suella coughed up the fine and took the points, I don't think you should be mentioning her in the same breath as the convicted criminal Huhne.

    It was Starmer that prosecuted Huhne, he’ll prosecute Braverman in the court of public opinion.

    A friend informs me today at 2.30pm is Home Office questions, the timing couldn’t be worse for Suella.

    I expect Labour will be putting down and being granted an urgent question straight after Home Office questions.

    Suella will have to defend herself and not flee.

    She better get her story straight.
    If - as the Daily Mirror says - her SPAD denied four times that she had been caught speeding, then she's in trouble, I suggest.
    Easy, throw the SPAD under a speeding bus!
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 56,932
    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    I see Henry Kissinger is 100 this week.

    Remarkable that he's still going.

    What we would give to have him rather than Trump, who was ‘tweeting’ about ww3.
    Kissinger is scum.

    Trust me, you wouldn't want him as President.
    Scum?
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,339
    @iainjwatson
    And on @BBCBreakfast @Keir_Starmer calls for the PM to launch an investigation in to allegations that Suella Braverman asked civil servants to arrange a private speed awareness course. He says there are suggestions that her actions were 'inappropriate'
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280
    edited May 2023

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


    Basically, Epstein learned of (enabled?) an affair between Gates and a 20-something Russian bridge player, and then used it as leverage.
    Seems strange to read the phrase “Russian bridge” outside the context of the Ukrainians blowing one up.
    Or alternatively one that doesn't involve the Russians playing a Trump.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,963

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    This. The offence isn't the issue. The politics is. She is in charge of the police. She can't then be seen to be using officials to manipulate the system to her benefit to avoid the consequences of her actions as done by the police.

    If she didn't fancy doing a speed awareness course, take the fine and the points. She can afford the small fine, and unless she was already on 9 points can afford 3 points on her license.

    We all speed, even inadvertently. She got caught. Take the hit, quietly, no political issue. But no. Suella is more important than the little people. Why can't my civil servants make this go away? Don't they know who I am?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280
    Scott_xP said:

    @iainjwatson
    And on @BBCBreakfast @Keir_Starmer calls for the PM to launch an investigation in to allegations that Suella Braverman asked civil servants to arrange a private speed awareness course. He says there are suggestions that her actions were 'inappropriate'

    With Braverman surely the bigger surprise is if she does something appropriate?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,517
    A
    Taz said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    I see Henry Kissinger is 100 this week.

    Remarkable that he's still going.

    What we would give to have him rather than Trump, who was ‘tweeting’ about ww3.
    Kissinger is scum.

    Trust me, you wouldn't want him as President.
    Is he scum. Surprised to see you use such a term. You’re usually very polite.

    Can’t say I know a great deal about him aside from seeing some conspiracy theories on Twitter.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger

    Is an interesting place to start.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015

    A

    Taz said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    I see Henry Kissinger is 100 this week.

    Remarkable that he's still going.

    What we would give to have him rather than Trump, who was ‘tweeting’ about ww3.
    Kissinger is scum.

    Trust me, you wouldn't want him as President.
    Is he scum. Surprised to see you use such a term. You’re usually very polite.

    Can’t say I know a great deal about him aside from seeing some conspiracy theories on Twitter.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger

    Is an interesting place to start.
    Thanks
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,370

    So Suella is a Brit who is going to lose her job because migrants coming over here.

    Allies of Suella Braverman fear she is the victim of a smear campaign amid an increasingly acrimonious battle over her efforts to crack down on net migration.

    The Home Secretary has been accused of asking civil servants to help organise a private driving awareness course as she sought to avoid incurring points on her licence after being caught speeding.

    She is expected to face questions in the House of Commons about the matter on Monday.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/05/21/suella-braverman-smear-campaign-claims-speeding-fine/

    So she's Enoch Powell now?
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    This. The offence isn't the issue. The politics is. She is in charge of the police. She can't then be seen to be using officials to manipulate the system to her benefit to avoid the consequences of her actions as done by the police.

    If she didn't fancy doing a speed awareness course, take the fine and the points. She can afford the small fine, and unless she was already on 9 points can afford 3 points on her license.

    We all speed, even inadvertently. She got caught. Take the hit, quietly, no political issue. But no. Suella is more important than the little people. Why can't my civil servants make this go away? Don't they know who I am?
    She asked if they could arrange a one to one speed awareness course. Apparently these can be facilitated. I just cannot see the issue here. She was not trying to avoid punishment for her offence.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,974

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    Sunak does sometimes come across as a proper sitzpinkler
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113

    I am minded of the Lyndon Johnson "urination" quotation.

    Does Richie Rich dare get rid of Cruella DeVil?

    LBJ was about as unlike Sunak as it's possible to imagine.
    Everyone always assumes that advice is of universal application. I'm unconvinced.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,020
    Taz said:

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    This. The offence isn't the issue. The politics is. She is in charge of the police. She can't then be seen to be using officials to manipulate the system to her benefit to avoid the consequences of her actions as done by the police.

    If she didn't fancy doing a speed awareness course, take the fine and the points. She can afford the small fine, and unless she was already on 9 points can afford 3 points on her license.

    We all speed, even inadvertently. She got caught. Take the hit, quietly, no political issue. But no. Suella is more important than the little people. Why can't my civil servants make this go away? Don't they know who I am?
    She asked if they could arrange a one to one speed awareness course. Apparently these can be facilitated. I just cannot see the issue here. She was not trying to avoid punishment for her offence.
    Given that it now appears that such courses are available, it seems a bit mean that her civil servants didn't point her in the right direction. She'd have had as good a reason as any to be granted one.

    To me this is a story of ruling by nasty leaks, which seems to be a hallmark of the Sunak administration, and possibly one of (once again) civil servants trying to pick off a politician they don't like.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,228

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    If Sky is right (I didn’t see it - as reported by @Wulfrun_Phil ) then all she did was ask for an accommodation that is offered to others in a prominent position.

    She asked the civil service and they said no. So she asked a spad
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,963
    Taz said:

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    This. The offence isn't the issue. The politics is. She is in charge of the police. She can't then be seen to be using officials to manipulate the system to her benefit to avoid the consequences of her actions as done by the police.

    If she didn't fancy doing a speed awareness course, take the fine and the points. She can afford the small fine, and unless she was already on 9 points can afford 3 points on her license.

    We all speed, even inadvertently. She got caught. Take the hit, quietly, no political issue. But no. Suella is more important than the little people. Why can't my civil servants make this go away? Don't they know who I am?
    She asked if they could arrange a one to one speed awareness course. Apparently these can be facilitated. I just cannot see the issue here. She was not trying to avoid punishment for her offence.
    Incorrect. Had she asked the speed awareness people to arrange one, that would be one thing. But that isn't what happened. She asked *her civil servants* to ask the speed awareness people to arrange a private one.

    The idea that the beautiful people can have a private one is bad enough - you do the crime, you do the time and all that. But Braverman runs the police. She can't be seen to be abusing the system to get something the rest of us cannot. By which I mean you get done for speeding and see if you or me can have a private course.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,218
    OT. Quite an interesting critique on why Brexit has been such a disaster by Ash Sarkar and Nigel Farage (separately)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QL-4trWWa0
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,855
    Taz said:

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    This. The offence isn't the issue. The politics is. She is in charge of the police. She can't then be seen to be using officials to manipulate the system to her benefit to avoid the consequences of her actions as done by the police.

    If she didn't fancy doing a speed awareness course, take the fine and the points. She can afford the small fine, and unless she was already on 9 points can afford 3 points on her license.

    We all speed, even inadvertently. She got caught. Take the hit, quietly, no political issue. But no. Suella is more important than the little people. Why can't my civil servants make this go away? Don't they know who I am?
    She asked if they could arrange a one to one speed awareness course. Apparently these can be facilitated. I just cannot see the issue here. She was not trying to avoid punishment for her offence.
    Can they? That would cost more so seems unlikely unless you have to pay. Punishment isn't usually given at the convenience of those that commit offences and rightly so. Seem rather arrogant for her to expect so. I certainly never had that option.

    Maybe we should allow others to attend prison or pay fines at their convenience.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,641
    Taz said:

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    This. The offence isn't the issue. The politics is. She is in charge of the police. She can't then be seen to be using officials to manipulate the system to her benefit to avoid the consequences of her actions as done by the police.

    If she didn't fancy doing a speed awareness course, take the fine and the points. She can afford the small fine, and unless she was already on 9 points can afford 3 points on her license.

    We all speed, even inadvertently. She got caught. Take the hit, quietly, no political issue. But no. Suella is more important than the little people. Why can't my civil servants make this go away? Don't they know who I am?
    She asked if they could arrange a one to one speed awareness course. Apparently these can be facilitated. I just cannot see the issue here. She was not trying to avoid punishment for her offence.
    She asked civil servants to arrange one. Civil servants are not there to attend to minister’s personal affairs. Something coming from a Home Office civil servant will seem different to something coming from a private individual.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,963
    Out of interest, what are these private celeb Speed Awareness Courses? And how do we get one?

    Piers Morgan wasn't offered one: https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1332052/Piers-Morgan-speeding-course-different-name-GMB-Good-Morning-Britain-news-latest-update

    Celeb dancer Anton Wotzit wasn't offered one:
    https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1437332/Anton-Du-Beke-Strictly-Come-Dancing-speed-awareness-course-packed-lunch-video-latest-news

    "Mr Loophole" claims celebs get a one on one course, but clearly not all of them. So Braverman hears about a loophole to avoid public scrutiny and asks her civil servants to exploit it for her.

    The way to avoid the political row wasn't "do you know who I am", it was take the points. If the news gets out then the politics was simple - "I was caught exceeding the speed limit, something I regret. I gladly accepted the punishment by the police". Story done. Move on.

    Oh no. Not Braverman. Lets have the minister in charge of the police have the civil servants who administer the police help said minister in charge of the police avoid criminal justice. Remember that justice must not only be done, but be *seen" to be done.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,871

    Taz said:

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    This. The offence isn't the issue. The politics is. She is in charge of the police. She can't then be seen to be using officials to manipulate the system to her benefit to avoid the consequences of her actions as done by the police.

    If she didn't fancy doing a speed awareness course, take the fine and the points. She can afford the small fine, and unless she was already on 9 points can afford 3 points on her license.

    We all speed, even inadvertently. She got caught. Take the hit, quietly, no political issue. But no. Suella is more important than the little people. Why can't my civil servants make this go away? Don't they know who I am?
    She asked if they could arrange a one to one speed awareness course. Apparently these can be facilitated. I just cannot see the issue here. She was not trying to avoid punishment for her offence.
    Given that it now appears that such courses are available, it seems a bit mean that her civil servants didn't point her in the right direction. She'd have had as good a reason as any to be granted one.

    To me this is a story of ruling by nasty leaks, which seems to be a hallmark of the Sunak administration, and possibly one of (once again) civil servants trying to pick off a politician they don't like.
    According to the chap who gets celebs off speeding tickets, on R5 this morning, the offence is asking the civil servant about a private matter and she should have used her legal representative.
    If this is a clear breach of the ministerial code, which it seems to be, then Sunak ought to sack her.
    He won’t, or if he does it will be as short as Holmes’s banishment in Sherlock.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113
    Fascinating Politico article about the roots of religion in US politics.
    Slavery and the Civil War still shape US culture to a remarkable extent.

    How Abraham Lincoln Broke the Barrier Between Church and State
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/05/21/how-abraham-lincoln-broke-the-barrier-between-church-and-state-00097707
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,871
    kjh said:

    Taz said:

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    This. The offence isn't the issue. The politics is. She is in charge of the police. She can't then be seen to be using officials to manipulate the system to her benefit to avoid the consequences of her actions as done by the police.

    If she didn't fancy doing a speed awareness course, take the fine and the points. She can afford the small fine, and unless she was already on 9 points can afford 3 points on her license.

    We all speed, even inadvertently. She got caught. Take the hit, quietly, no political issue. But no. Suella is more important than the little people. Why can't my civil servants make this go away? Don't they know who I am?
    She asked if they could arrange a one to one speed awareness course. Apparently these can be facilitated. I just cannot see the issue here. She was not trying to avoid punishment for her offence.
    Can they? That would cost more so seems unlikely unless you have to pay. Punishment isn't usually given at the convenience of those that commit offences and rightly so. Seem rather arrogant for her to expect so. I certainly never had that option.

    Maybe we should allow others to attend prison or pay fines at their convenience.
    There are circumstances where it happens.

    I think she was trying to avoid it getting out (someone may have recognised her, or the name and leaked to the press). Taking the points, as she did in the end, was a far better option to avoid the press.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,871
    Roger said:

    OT. Quite an interesting critique on why Brexit has been such a disaster by Ash Sarkar and Nigel Farage (separately)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QL-4trWWa0

    One would always have hated it, and the other thinks it’s not been hard enough?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,653

    O/T but interesting

    Pretty conflicted on this - on one hand it has been approved by the voters in a referendum; on the other it seems straightforward tyranny of the majority & I don’t like there concept of banning people from standing in an election

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/us/oregon-legislators-boycott.html

    I don't like it either.

    And it would seem to make more sense to change the required level of quorum to a smaller number, rather than to ban legistlators.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,370

    Given that it now appears that such courses are available ...

    What Wulfrun Phil said was that he'd heard on the news (he thought Sky) that "it is quite routine for the company running speeding courses to arrange one-to-one special courses for prominent public figures".

    If that's accurate, it's very strange that none of the news media seems to have picked up on it (including Sky in a fairly detailed report this morning). And even stranger that - if it's really the same company - they refused to do this for Braverman when her (taxpayer-funded) SPAD tried to arrange it with them.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,834
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


    You wouldn't have thought Gates would fall for the old "I have a bridge to sell you" line.....
    A bridge too far for him?
    Well, he sounds whistful on the subject.
    Do you think he had accomplices or was going solo?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,653

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    If Sky is right (I didn’t see it - as reported by @Wulfrun_Phil ) then all she did was ask for an accommodation that is offered to others in a prominent position.

    She asked the civil service and they said no. So she asked a spad
    And if that is correct, she is guilty of no more than asking a civil servant what should have been asked of a SPAD.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


    You wouldn't have thought Gates would fall for the old "I have a bridge to sell you" line.....
    A bridge too far for him?
    Well, he sounds whistful on the subject.
    Do you think he had accomplices or was going solo?
    I suspect it was all under contract.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,641
    Chris said:

    Given that it now appears that such courses are available ...

    What Wulfrun Phil said was that he'd heard on the news (he thought Sky) that "it is quite routine for the company running speeding courses to arrange one-to-one special courses for prominent public figures".

    If that's accurate, it's very strange that none of the news media seems to have picked up on it (including Sky in a fairly detailed report this morning). And even stranger that - if it's really the same company - they refused to do this for Braverman when her (taxpayer-funded) SPAD tried to arrange it with them.
    Lawyer Nick Freeman made this claim and it’s being reported in some local media: https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/national/23537337.braverman-nothing-untoward-allegedly-seeking-private-speeding-course/ It is, as you say, odd that major news media haven’t picked up on it.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280
    edited May 2023
    rcs1000 said:

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    If Sky is right (I didn’t see it - as reported by @Wulfrun_Phil ) then all she did was ask for an accommodation that is offered to others in a prominent position.

    She asked the civil service and they said no. So she asked a spad
    And if that is correct, she is guilty of no more than asking a civil servant what should have been asked of a SPAD.
    Or alternatively, showing shockingly poor judgement and a certain lack of intellect.

    Which should disqualify her from high office but (a) isn't news and (b) doesn't cause her to stand out from the crowd in the current state of government and politics.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,218

    Roger said:

    OT. Quite an interesting critique on why Brexit has been such a disaster by Ash Sarkar and Nigel Farage (separately)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QL-4trWWa0

    One would always have hated it, and the other thinks it’s not been hard enough?
    Not quite but in the right ballpark!
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,641
    rcs1000 said:

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    If Sky is right (I didn’t see it - as reported by @Wulfrun_Phil ) then all she did was ask for an accommodation that is offered to others in a prominent position.

    She asked the civil service and they said no. So she asked a spad
    And if that is correct, she is guilty of no more than asking a civil servant what should have been asked of a SPAD.
    Is it even appropriate to ask a SpAd, who is still a civil servant of sorts, to deal with a personal matter in this manner?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113
    .
    rcs1000 said:

    O/T but interesting

    Pretty conflicted on this - on one hand it has been approved by the voters in a referendum; on the other it seems straightforward tyranny of the majority & I don’t like there concept of banning people from standing in an election

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/us/oregon-legislators-boycott.html

    I don't like it either.

    And it would seem to make more sense to change the required level of quorum to a smaller number, rather than to ban legistlators.
    It's unclear that they are banned from elections.
    ...The Constitution now says missing 10 or more floor sessions “shall be deemed disorderly behavior and shall disqualify the member from holding office as a senator or representative for the term following the election after the member’s current term is completed.”

    But left unclear is whether they can run for office as candidates...
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,370
    edited May 2023
    rcs1000 said:

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    If Sky is right (I didn’t see it - as reported by @Wulfrun_Phil ) then all she did was ask for an accommodation that is offered to others in a prominent position.

    She asked the civil service and they said no. So she asked a spad
    And if that is correct, she is guilty of no more than asking a civil servant what should have been asked of a SPAD.
    You think it was proper for her personal speeding penalty to be dealt with by a publicly funded SPAD?

    Perhaps I'm hopelessly old-fashioned.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,855
    edited May 2023

    kjh said:

    Taz said:

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    This. The offence isn't the issue. The politics is. She is in charge of the police. She can't then be seen to be using officials to manipulate the system to her benefit to avoid the consequences of her actions as done by the police.

    If she didn't fancy doing a speed awareness course, take the fine and the points. She can afford the small fine, and unless she was already on 9 points can afford 3 points on her license.

    We all speed, even inadvertently. She got caught. Take the hit, quietly, no political issue. But no. Suella is more important than the little people. Why can't my civil servants make this go away? Don't they know who I am?
    She asked if they could arrange a one to one speed awareness course. Apparently these can be facilitated. I just cannot see the issue here. She was not trying to avoid punishment for her offence.
    Can they? That would cost more so seems unlikely unless you have to pay. Punishment isn't usually given at the convenience of those that commit offences and rightly so. Seem rather arrogant for her to expect so. I certainly never had that option.

    Maybe we should allow others to attend prison or pay fines at their convenience.
    There are circumstances where it happens.

    I think she was trying to avoid it getting out (someone may have recognised her, or the name and leaked to the press). Taking the points, as she did in the end, was a far better option to avoid the press.
    Cheers for that. I wonder how? Having done one of these courses, admittedly a very long time ago, I really enjoyed it and found it interesting. The cost was the same as a fine, but I avoided 3 points. My speed was borderline and identical to everyone else there that I spoke to. There wouldn't have been a choice if it had been higher.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


    You wouldn't have thought Gates would fall for the old "I have a bridge to sell you" line.....
    A bridge too far for him?
    Well, he sounds whistful on the subject.
    Do you think he had accomplices or was going solo?
    A partner was certainly involved.

    Whether a contract was agreed is quite another matter.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,218
    Scott_xP said:
    A sneak preview of the next Private Eye cover?
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,834
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


    You wouldn't have thought Gates would fall for the old "I have a bridge to sell you" line.....
    A bridge too far for him?
    Well, he sounds whistful on the subject.
    Do you think he had accomplices or was going solo?
    I suspect it was all under contract.
    Which he deals with in abundance.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


    You wouldn't have thought Gates would fall for the old "I have a bridge to sell you" line.....
    A bridge too far for him?
    Well, he sounds whistful on the subject.
    Do you think he had accomplices or was going solo?
    I suspect it was all under contract.
    Which he deals with in abundance.
    He slammed it down.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,462

    rcs1000 said:

    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


    You wouldn't have thought Gates would fall for the old "I have a bridge to sell you" line.....
    A bridge too far for him?
    His wife as well
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,370

    Chris said:

    Given that it now appears that such courses are available ...

    What Wulfrun Phil said was that he'd heard on the news (he thought Sky) that "it is quite routine for the company running speeding courses to arrange one-to-one special courses for prominent public figures".

    If that's accurate, it's very strange that none of the news media seems to have picked up on it (including Sky in a fairly detailed report this morning). And even stranger that - if it's really the same company - they refused to do this for Braverman when her (taxpayer-funded) SPAD tried to arrange it with them.
    Lawyer Nick Freeman made this claim and it’s being reported in some local media: https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/national/23537337.braverman-nothing-untoward-allegedly-seeking-private-speeding-course/ It is, as you say, odd that major news media haven’t picked up on it.
    Thanks. That also partly explains the other strangeness, because he is talking about the providers of these courses in general, not necessarily the provider that refused Braverman's request.

    Interesting also that Freeman comments:
    “My own view is that if you commit an offence of speeding or any offence, it’s a private matter and you should deal with it on a private basis and you shouldn’t be using tax-funded employees to help you out with that private problem."

  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,462

    Taz said:

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    This. The offence isn't the issue. The politics is. She is in charge of the police. She can't then be seen to be using officials to manipulate the system to her benefit to avoid the consequences of her actions as done by the police.

    If she didn't fancy doing a speed awareness course, take the fine and the points. She can afford the small fine, and unless she was already on 9 points can afford 3 points on her license.

    We all speed, even inadvertently. She got caught. Take the hit, quietly, no political issue. But no. Suella is more important than the little people. Why can't my civil servants make this go away? Don't they know who I am?
    She asked if they could arrange a one to one speed awareness course. Apparently these can be facilitated. I just cannot see the issue here. She was not trying to avoid punishment for her offence.
    Given that it now appears that such courses are available, it seems a bit mean that her civil servants didn't point her in the right direction. She'd have had as good a reason as any to be granted one.

    To me this is a story of ruling by nasty leaks, which seems to be a hallmark of the Sunak administration, and possibly one of (once again) civil servants trying to pick off a politician they don't like.
    All poetic justice just teh same, off with her head.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015

    Taz said:

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    This. The offence isn't the issue. The politics is. She is in charge of the police. She can't then be seen to be using officials to manipulate the system to her benefit to avoid the consequences of her actions as done by the police.

    If she didn't fancy doing a speed awareness course, take the fine and the points. She can afford the small fine, and unless she was already on 9 points can afford 3 points on her license.

    We all speed, even inadvertently. She got caught. Take the hit, quietly, no political issue. But no. Suella is more important than the little people. Why can't my civil servants make this go away? Don't they know who I am?
    She asked if they could arrange a one to one speed awareness course. Apparently these can be facilitated. I just cannot see the issue here. She was not trying to avoid punishment for her offence.
    Incorrect. Had she asked the speed awareness people to arrange one, that would be one thing. But that isn't what happened. She asked *her civil servants* to ask the speed awareness people to arrange a private one.

    The idea that the beautiful people can have a private one is bad enough - you do the crime, you do the time and all that. But Braverman runs the police. She can't be seen to be abusing the system to get something the rest of us cannot. By which I mean you get done for speeding and see if you or me can have a private course.
    Pure pedantry. Okay, she didn’t ask but she asked someone to ask for her. She was not trying to avoid punishment and asked someone to arrange a one on one SAC. Really, so what. I didn’t see anything in it and still don’t.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,962
    edited May 2023
    Good morning

    Braverman is an accident waiting to happen and in an ideal world Sunak should not have appointed her to the cabinet, but ironically it was her backing for him that enabled his premiership

    This present incident is frankly a nonsense being built upon by the media and her opponents and out of all proportion, but she is the architect of her own problems due to her very public failures culminating in a speech widely perceived as a leadership attempt and as such created even more issues for her

    I support stopping the boats, not least as a way to prevent loss of lives at sea, but her language is provocative and acts negatively on her and the governments legitimate objective

    Later this week the immigration figures are to be released and likely to be near 1 million, and if these numbers represent overseas students, Ukrainians, Afghanistan and Hong Kong immigrants, together with those on the government's visa schemes then I welcome it as should sensible conservatives including Hunt and others in the cabinet

    If I was Sunak I would refer Braverman to his ethics advisor and hope that events unfold to ensures she will soon become an ex Home Secretary
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,641
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    This. The offence isn't the issue. The politics is. She is in charge of the police. She can't then be seen to be using officials to manipulate the system to her benefit to avoid the consequences of her actions as done by the police.

    If she didn't fancy doing a speed awareness course, take the fine and the points. She can afford the small fine, and unless she was already on 9 points can afford 3 points on her license.

    We all speed, even inadvertently. She got caught. Take the hit, quietly, no political issue. But no. Suella is more important than the little people. Why can't my civil servants make this go away? Don't they know who I am?
    She asked if they could arrange a one to one speed awareness course. Apparently these can be facilitated. I just cannot see the issue here. She was not trying to avoid punishment for her offence.
    Incorrect. Had she asked the speed awareness people to arrange one, that would be one thing. But that isn't what happened. She asked *her civil servants* to ask the speed awareness people to arrange a private one.

    The idea that the beautiful people can have a private one is bad enough - you do the crime, you do the time and all that. But Braverman runs the police. She can't be seen to be abusing the system to get something the rest of us cannot. By which I mean you get done for speeding and see if you or me can have a private course.
    Pure pedantry. Okay, she didn’t ask but she asked someone to ask for her. She was not trying to avoid punishment and asked someone to arrange a one on one SAC. Really, so what. I didn’t see anything in it and still don’t.
    (a) Your taxes paid the wages of the person Braverman got to do this. Should your taxes be paying for someone to sort Braverman’s personal problems?

    (b) If you work in a branch of law enforcement and a Home Office official asks you to do something, are you going to treat that request equally to anyone else’s request?
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,462

    rcs1000 said:

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    If Sky is right (I didn’t see it - as reported by @Wulfrun_Phil ) then all she did was ask for an accommodation that is offered to others in a prominent position.

    She asked the civil service and they said no. So she asked a spad
    And if that is correct, she is guilty of no more than asking a civil servant what should have been asked of a SPAD.
    Is it even appropriate to ask a SpAd, who is still a civil servant of sorts, to deal with a personal matter in this manner?
    These clowns think they are royalty and teh public servants are there to do their bidding not to work for the public.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,834
    edited May 2023
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The Epstein revelations are coming thick and fast.

    This is from the WSJ:


    You wouldn't have thought Gates would fall for the old "I have a bridge to sell you" line.....
    A bridge too far for him?
    Well, he sounds whistful on the subject.
    Do you think he had accomplices or was going solo?
    I suspect it was all under contract.
    Which he deals with in abundance.
    He slammed it down.
    Yes, he's not looking so grand now. Wouldn't be surprised if he had his licence revoked.

    [Edit: Am I winning? If so, I think I'll quit whi(l)st ahead and go and do some work. Laters.}
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,362
    Morning All.
    Like kjh i’ve been on one of these courses, and like him found it interesting. I suspect that if Braverman had gone on the course it would’ve been a nine days wonder, but a lot of people here would’ve said ‘good on her’ for doing it.
    I think that she’s now got the worst of all possible worlds, as has Sunak.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,877

    Taz said:

    'no appetite to make an overt move'? The PM needs to grow a pair. She's acted as if she is above the law. It's utterly toxic for the govt and he needs to sack her already. Unbelievable.

    This. The offence isn't the issue. The politics is. She is in charge of the police. She can't then be seen to be using officials to manipulate the system to her benefit to avoid the consequences of her actions as done by the police.

    If she didn't fancy doing a speed awareness course, take the fine and the points. She can afford the small fine, and unless she was already on 9 points can afford 3 points on her license.

    We all speed, even inadvertently. She got caught. Take the hit, quietly, no political issue. But no. Suella is more important than the little people. Why can't my civil servants make this go away? Don't they know who I am?
    She asked if they could arrange a one to one speed awareness course. Apparently these can be facilitated. I just cannot see the issue here. She was not trying to avoid punishment for her offence.
    Incorrect. Had she asked the speed awareness people to arrange one, that would be one thing. But that isn't what happened. She asked *her civil servants* to ask the speed awareness people to arrange a private one.

    The idea that the beautiful people can have a private one is bad enough - you do the crime, you do the time and all that. But Braverman runs the police. She can't be seen to be abusing the system to get something the rest of us cannot. By which I mean you get done for speeding and see if you or me can have a private course.
    Are they still doing them all by Zoom?
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,423
    edited May 2023
    Bravermwn hasn't done anything wrong but she is loathed by the media so the truth is ignored in an attempt to stitch her up.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,286

    O/T but interesting

    Pretty conflicted on this - on one hand it has been approved by the voters in a referendum; on the other it seems straightforward tyranny of the majority & I don’t like there concept of banning people from standing in an election

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/us/oregon-legislators-boycott.html

    As the NYT is paywalled, maybe give a small hint as to what you are talking about?
  • Options
    NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375

    Bravermwn hasn't done anything wrong but she is loathed by the media so the truth is ignored in an attempt to stitch her up.

    The idea in the tread header that this is similar to the Chris Huhne offence is just daft, she was not trying to avoid the speeding offence.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    The problem Rishi has is that it was Braveman's support that was crucial in ensuring he succeeded Truss as PM last autumn and that Boris did not return. He may have to sack Braverman ultimately but the risk he takes is she then goes back to team Boris who remains the King across the Water for many on the Tory right and will do so until the next general election
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,900
    edited May 2023
    This Braverman story is depressingly predictable. The people who peddle the 'she's got to go' narrative are largely the same people that hate her anyway. She will argue with some justification that she is being sabotaged by the civil service and the establishment, similar to what happened in the Dominic Raab episode, because her policies are 'beyond the pale'. This won't lead to Braverman and Raab sulking off and going away over the long term. They will return insisting that the entire civil service needs to be scrapped. And people will look at the facts and agree with them.
This discussion has been closed.