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”.
'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?
A reminder that Suella was AG at the time, not Home Sec. Your argument is still valid. The AG is the overseer of the CPS. There must be no perception of ministers getting favourable treatment in any matters of justice because it sets the tone for the way any agency, including the CPS, deals with future prosecutions that might involve people in similar senior positions.
The concept of rule of law requires extra vigilance when it comes to how those who oversee agents of justice behave. It is completely improper for the AG to approach those who work for her to do do this.
I think a few of you are still labouring under the impression that this is the same as a (hypothetical*) Philip Schofield getting a speeding ticket and asking a gopher at the production company to try to work out a way of keeping it quiet. It's not just that one-rule-for-celebrities angle at play here, although that in itself is a troubling aspect for me. It's the corrosive affect it can have on future prosecutions of senior politicians.
*I'm not suggesting any wrongdoing by Schofield, just a random celeb without political power used as an example.
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.
There have been several Braverman detesters on here (myself included) who have backed her up over this issue, so although we may be Socialist, Remainer, wokerati scum, we are giving her the benefit of the doubt on this issue.
Don't forget on these pages and in the Daily Mail, Starmer was as guilty as hell until he was cleared of drinking beer and eating curry
'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.
Asking shouldn’t be a sackable offence
The civil service said no.
If she had forced them to do it, then that would be a different matter
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.
Yeah, no they won't. People trust the civil service more than they trust ministers.
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.
Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy.
Your response is predictable old bollocks. It's the fault of Civil Servants. Sack the Civil Service and replace them with loyal political appointees like Lee Cain and Dominic Cummings.
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.
As a law abiding citizen I have never been on such a course. Interesting to learn of it from all the law breakers on PB.
Just catching up, interesting discussion on Kissinger. I’m no fan. He, like many of the American right wing villains of the past, looks like a grown up compared to Trump and acolytes tweeting about ww3.
I am loath to defend Suella Braverman of all people but I do think this is a bit weak sauce and distracts from her actual failures as a politician and Home Secretary.
I don’t really have a problem with prominent figures taking private courses for security reasons if the option is open to them, or to ask the question about whether it is available or not. In any event the answer seems to have been that it wasn’t in which case she paid her fine, accepted the points and that was that. I can accept perhaps that this was undue pressure on the civil service, or that it wasn’t the correct process, or whatever, but in the general scheme of things it doesn’t feel particularly egregious or abusive, IMHO. Just my two penneth.
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
Yep, keep Braverman in position to avoid a tilt at Sunak by the Emperor (with his new clothes) over the water.
Just catching up, interesting discussion on Kissinger. I’m no fan. He, like many of the American right wing villains of the past, looks like a grown up compared to Trump and acolytes tweeting about ww3.
Kissinger was of course a Rockefeller Republican originally at a time when people often forget Hillary Clinton was briefly a Goldwater Girl. A former Harvard History professor and expert on 19th century European diplomacy he is a titan whatever you think of him compared to some in today's GOP. Nixon too, see this interview of him on Russia and China and the risk of a Putin just before he died which was spot on even in mid 1990s as many celebrated the end of the Cold War https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og0X3-lDQts
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.
In both cases they were trying to avoid getting 3 points.
The difference being that Huhne then committed a crime to do so, whereas she didn't, but she did misuse her position to try and do so.
Both failed.
They were/are being judged on what they did to try and avoid the points.
Both were idiots to try and do so.
There are lots of comparisons, if not identical
Really???
She was offered a course because her speeding offence was very minor, she asked if she could have a private course, when she was told she couldn't she paid the fine and took the points.
You think this is the same as Chris Huhnes wife filling out the offence form stating that she was the driver of the vehicle when she wasn't?
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.
As a law abiding citizen I have never been on such a course. Interesting to learn of it from all the law breakers on PB.
I've never been on one. It's the softcock way out. Plead not guilty and if you don't get away with it; wear your points with pride.
Just catching up, interesting discussion on Kissinger. I’m no fan. He, like many of the American right wing villains of the past, looks like a grown up compared to Trump and acolytes tweeting about ww3.
Kissinger was of course a Rockefeller Republican originally at a time when people often forget Hillary Clinton was briefly a Goldwater Girl. A former Harvard History professor and expert on 19th century European diplomacy he is a titan whatever you think of him compared to some in today's GOP. Nixon too, see this interview of him on Russia and China and the risk of a Putin which was spot on even in mid 1990s as many celebrated the end of the Cold War https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og0X3-lDQts
And he's got nicer legs than Hitler and bigger tits than Cher
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 a total non-scandal. As I understand it Ministers routinely get staff to pop out to Pret at lunchtime to get them some sandwiches, etc. Should this also be regarded as a scandal and outrageous abuse of public resources?
You could make the case that she was doing the right thing by asking her officials for advice about this situation, given her position. There would probably be howls of outrage and accusations of negligence were she to do the opposite and try to deal with the matter herself without consulting her office.
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.
In both cases they were trying to avoid getting 3 points.
The difference being that Huhne then committed a crime to do so, whereas she didn't, but she did misuse her position to try and do so.
Both failed.
They were/are being judged on what they did to try and avoid the points.
Both were idiots to try and do so.
There are lots of comparisons, if not identical
Really???
She was offered a course because her speeding offence was very minor, she asked if she could have a private course, when she was told she couldn't she paid the fine and took the points.
You think this is the same as Chris Huhnes wife filling out the offence form stating that she was the driver of the vehicle when she wasn't?
I don't disagree ( unusually) with you. The optics however look bad. It APPEARS she tried to get preferential treatment. It is not a sackable offence, but it is another nasty notch on the bedpost for entitled Suella.
Is it the middle of August already? This seems like the silliest of silly season stories, put out there by someone with a vendetta and lapped up by an eager media.
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 a total non-scandal. As I understand it Ministers routinely get staff to pop out to Pret at lunchtime to get them some sandwiches, etc. Should this also be regarded as a scandal and outrageous abuse of public resources?
You could make the case that she was doing the right thing by asking her officials for advice about this situation, given her position. There would probably be howls of outrage and accusations of negligence were she to do the opposite and try to deal with the matter herself without consulting her office.
No, because ministers don't oversee Pret in the same way that they do the criminal justice system.
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.
Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy.
Your response is predictable old bollocks. It's the fault of Civil Servants. Sack the Civil Service and replace them with loyal political appointees like Lee Cain and Dominic Cummings.
Its the fault of whoever leaked it. I would not jump to the conclusion that it was the civil service. Most likely someone out to get Braverman. My comment is on the people who allow themselves to get whipped up by it, it seems to me that they are basically getting played. They think that by jumping on to this it will be one step forward to ridding the world of Braverman and her terrible ideas about stopping the boats and abolishing the civil service. By contrast, over the long run, it is more likely to embolden her and the others that peddle this agenda.
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.
As a law abiding citizen I have never been on such a course. Interesting to learn of it from all the law breakers on PB.
I've never been on one. It's the softcock way out. Plead not guilty and if you don't get away with it; wear your points with pride.
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.
As a law abiding citizen I have never been on such a course. Interesting to learn of it from all the law breakers on PB.
I've never been on one. It's the softcock way out. Plead not guilty and if you don't get away with it; wear your points with pride.
It was interesting and I learned a few things, such as why there are often miles of restrictions on motorways when no-one working. Apparently the new surface takes a while to finally settle down. However it’s a very long time since the course and a long time …..over a year ….since I’ve even driven. Sadly.
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.
As a law abiding citizen I have never been on such a course. Interesting to learn of it from all the law breakers on PB.
I've never been on one. It's the softcock way out. Plead not guilty and if you don't get away with it; wear your points with pride.
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.
As a law abiding citizen I have never been on such a course. Interesting to learn of it from all the law breakers on PB.
I've never been on one. It's the softcock way out. Plead not guilty and if you don't get away with it; wear your points with pride.
It was interesting and I learned a few things, such as why there are often miles of restrictions on motorways when no-one working. Apparently the new surface takes a while to finally settle down. However it’s a very long time since the course and a long time …..over a year ….since I’ve even driven. Sadly.
I agree, I learnt some useful things on the course I attended - such as what defines a dual-carriageway and thus the 70mph versus 60mph speed limit.
However, it was also a long time ago I attended mine. Fortunately, Surrey police have recently invited me to a refresher. ;-)
Just catching up, interesting discussion on Kissinger. I’m no fan. He, like many of the American right wing villains of the past, looks like a grown up compared to Trump and acolytes tweeting about ww3.
Kissinger was of course a Rockefeller Republican originally at a time when people often forget Hillary Clinton was briefly a Goldwater Girl. A former Harvard History professor and expert on 19th century European diplomacy he is a titan whatever you think of him compared to some in today's GOP. Nixon too, see this interview of him on Russia and China and the risk of a Putin which was spot on even in mid 1990s as many celebrated the end of the Cold War https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og0X3-lDQts
And he's got nicer legs than Hitler and bigger tits than Cher
This discussion reminds me of one of the best lines from Monty Python: just heard that Kissinger’s had an arsehole transplant; but the arsehole’s rejected him.
'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.
Asking shouldn’t be a sackable offence
The civil service said no.
If she had forced them to do it, then that would be a different matter
But she didn’t
You Braverman fans keep repeating the same old rubbish, and in general we agree with you. She has technically done nothing wrong. Nonetheless the whole affair has an unpleasant aroma surrounding it, which is no more or no less than she deserves.
@OliverStuenkel 'Lula says Ukraine's peace proposal, which includes a demand for Moscow to withdraw all its troops and for Ukraine’s full territorial integrity to be restored, amounts to "Russia's surrender".
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.
Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy.
Your response is predictable old bollocks. It's the fault of Civil Servants. Sack the Civil Service and replace them with loyal political appointees like Lee Cain and Dominic Cummings.
Its the fault of whoever leaked it. I would not jump to the conclusion that it was the civil service. Most likely someone out to get Braverman. My comment is on the people who allow themselves to get whipped up by it, it seems to me that they are basically getting played. They think that by jumping on to this it will be one step forward to ridding the world of Braverman and her terrible ideas about stopping the boats and abolishing the civil service. By contrast, over the long run, it is more likely to embolden her and the others that peddle this agenda.
That being true, who wouldn't put it past her to have leaked the news herself?
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.
Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy.
Your response is predictable old bollocks. It's the fault of Civil Servants. Sack the Civil Service and replace them with loyal political appointees like Lee Cain and Dominic Cummings.
Its the fault of whoever leaked it. I would not jump to the conclusion that it was the civil service. Most likely someone out to get Braverman. My comment is on the people who allow themselves to get whipped up by it, it seems to me that they are basically getting played. They think that by jumping on to this it will be one step forward to ridding the world of Braverman and her terrible ideas about stopping the boats and abolishing the civil service. By contrast, over the long run, it is more likely to embolden her and the others that peddle this agenda.
If you asked someone to do a contract killing and that somebody instead went to the police, would it be their fault or yours that you ended up in court?
@OliverStuenkel 'Lula says Ukraine's peace proposal, which includes a demand for Moscow to withdraw all its troops and for Ukraine’s full territorial integrity to be restored, amounts to "Russia's surrender".
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.
"...the entire civil service needs to be scrapped" just shows how deranged you are.
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.
I've been on one too, and found it less interesting. My crime was 27 in a 30 in anti-car Bath. The section of road at 20 comes after sections at 60, then 30, then 40 then 30 in the space of about a mile. Since my 'offence' huge areas of Bath have become 20 limits (all the hills from the South side at least are now 20).
Many on my course had been driving far faster than me in areas with much higher limits. After the course I still felt wrongfully 'convicted' and only came away with a sense that this country likes to go after easy offences rather than hard ones. Middle class 'speeders' are the easy target.
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.
In both cases they were trying to avoid getting 3 points.
The difference being that Huhne then committed a crime to do so, whereas she didn't, but she did misuse her position to try and do so.
Both failed.
They were/are being judged on what they did to try and avoid the points.
Both were idiots to try and do so.
There are lots of comparisons, if not identical
Really???
She was offered a course because her speeding offence was very minor, she asked if she could have a private course, when she was told she couldn't she paid the fine and took the points.
You think this is the same as Chris Huhnes wife filling out the offence form stating that she was the driver of the vehicle when she wasn't?
What? Did you actually read my post? Where on earth did I say it was the same? Are you an idiot? I specifically said the difference being Huhne committed a crime and she didn't.
What I said was there are a lot of comparisons most importantly they both used inappropriate means to avoid the points. One more seriously than the other, but then the more serious one involved an actual penalty of prison time. Nobody is suggesting she committed a crime or should go to prison.
I bulleted my email so it was easy to see the bits that were the same and the bits that were different in each case, and yet you couldn't comprehend that!
@OliverStuenkel 'Lula says Ukraine's peace proposal, which includes a demand for Moscow to withdraw all its troops and for Ukraine’s full territorial integrity to be restored, amounts to "Russia's surrender".
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.
In both cases they were trying to avoid getting 3 points.
The difference being that Huhne then committed a crime to do so, whereas she didn't, but she did misuse her position to try and do so.
Both failed.
They were/are being judged on what they did to try and avoid the points.
Both were idiots to try and do so.
There are lots of comparisons, if not identical.
Huhne's offence was clearly more serious.
I particularly enjoy the "but she accepted the points and fine in the end" argument. So did Huhne.
Yes I made this argument the other day to someone who said that with the obvious ridiculous exaggeration that it is ok to murder someone provided you accept the penalty of going to prison for life.
'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.
Asking shouldn’t be a sackable offence
The civil service said no.
If she had forced them to do it, then that would be a different matter
But she didn’t
To me it depends on how the conversation went.
"Is it possible for me to have an individual speed awareness course? Could you look into that of me please?" "No, I'm sorry minister but thats a breach of the ministerial code and you should not ask me to do this" "Fair enough, I apologise and won't do it again"
Thats fine.
"You need to get on the phone and get me one of those individual speed awareness courses" "No, I'm sorry minister but thats a breach of the ministerial code and you should not ask me to do this" "Just f*ckin' do it" "No, I'm sorry minister but thats a breach of the ministerial code and you should not ask me to do this" "F*cks sake = you f*cking work for me you _____"
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.
Yeah, no they won't. People trust the civil service more than they trust ministers.
Hmm - maybe, maybe not. I am no fan of Dominic Rabb but there is enough evidence that the civil service is not 100% trustworthy too.
On topic, as with Huhne, it's the cover-up that gets you.
Getting three points on your licence for speeding is mildly embarrassing for a politician, but no more than that - loads of voters have had points on their licence, and plenty of opponents.
To try to get a private speed awareness course to avoid that coming out, to involve civil servants in that, and to have SPADs lie about it to the press, is just bizarre and terrible judgment.
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.
Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy.
Your response is predictable old bollocks. It's the fault of Civil Servants. Sack the Civil Service and replace them with loyal political appointees like Lee Cain and Dominic Cummings.
Its the fault of whoever leaked it. I would not jump to the conclusion that it was the civil service. Most likely someone out to get Braverman. My comment is on the people who allow themselves to get whipped up by it, it seems to me that they are basically getting played. They think that by jumping on to this it will be one step forward to ridding the world of Braverman and her terrible ideas about stopping the boats and abolishing the civil service. By contrast, over the long run, it is more likely to embolden her and the others that peddle this agenda.
That being true, who wouldn't put it past her to have leaked the news herself?
I wouldn't rule that out - it seems like the job she covets the most is leader of the opposition. But I think the left - and 'centrists' like myself - have a lot to fear, should that scenario come about.
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.
As a law abiding citizen I have never been on such a course. Interesting to learn of it from all the law breakers on PB.
I've never been on one. It's the softcock way out. Plead not guilty and if you don't get away with it; wear your points with pride.
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.
As a law abiding citizen I have never been on such a course. Interesting to learn of it from all the law breakers on PB.
I've never been on one. It's the softcock way out. Plead not guilty and if you don't get away with it; wear your points with pride.
It was interesting and I learned a few things, such as why there are often miles of restrictions on motorways when no-one working. Apparently the new surface takes a while to finally settle down. However it’s a very long time since the course and a long time …..over a year ….since I’ve even driven. Sadly.
I agree, I learnt some useful things on the course I attended - such as what defines a dual-carriageway and thus the 70mph versus 60mph speed limit.
However, it was also a long time ago I attended mine. Fortunately, Surrey police have recently invited me to a refresher. ;-)
This won't bring Braverman down; and if Labour pursue it, it will make her stronger.
But, rather crucially, if that is the outcome it will make Sunak weaker.
Labour don't give a damn if this reinforces Braverman's appeal among Tory members etc. Indeed, they would be pleased to see her as opposition leader in due course. It's the impression of chaos and of Sunak as not being in control of events that is the aim.
Is it the middle of August already? This seems like the silliest of silly season stories, put out there by someone with a vendetta and lapped up by an eager media.
It's Britain and we have a fag-end government. The main interest of the governing party is working out who will be the next Leader of the Opposition.
It's going to be silly season and backstabbing for the next year and a bit.
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.
In both cases they were trying to avoid getting 3 points.
The difference being that Huhne then committed a crime to do so, whereas she didn't, but she did misuse her position to try and do so.
Both failed.
They were/are being judged on what they did to try and avoid the points.
Both were idiots to try and do so.
There are lots of comparisons, if not identical
Really???
She was offered a course because her speeding offence was very minor, she asked if she could have a private course, when she was told she couldn't she paid the fine and took the points.
You think this is the same as Chris Huhnes wife filling out the offence form stating that she was the driver of the vehicle when she wasn't?
What? Did you actually read my post? Where on earth did I say it was the same? Are you an idiot? I specifically said the difference being Huhne committed a crime and she didn't.
What I said was there are a lot of comparisons most importantly they both used inappropriate means to avoid the points. One more seriously than the other, but then the more serious one involved an actual penalty of prison time. Nobody is suggesting she committed a crime or should go to prison.
I bulleted my email so it was easy to see the bits that were the same and the bits that were different in each case, and yet you couldn't comprehend that!
I can comprehend that you (and OGH) compared the Huhne affair with this one. You said
"They were/are being judged on what they did to try and avoid the points.
Both were idiots to try and do so.
There are lots of comparisons, if not identical "
She was offered a course, she just asked if she could have a private one, when the answer came back no. she decided to take the points and paid the fine.
Huhne was not offered a course, he got his wife to pretend she was driving.
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.
In both cases they were trying to avoid getting 3 points.
The difference being that Huhne then committed a crime to do so, whereas she didn't, but she did misuse her position to try and do so.
Both failed.
They were/are being judged on what they did to try and avoid the points.
Both were idiots to try and do so.
There are lots of comparisons, if not identical.
Huhne's offence was clearly more serious.
I particularly enjoy the "but she accepted the points and fine in the end" argument. So did Huhne.
Did he? I thought he went to prison?
He did in that - ultimately and very late - he pleaded guilty so accepted he'd been behind the wheel and took the points (albeit that's rather minor compared to the prison time).
'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.
Asking shouldn’t be a sackable offence
The civil service said no.
If she had forced them to do it, then that would be a different matter
But she didn’t
She asked the regular civil service, who said no. She then got a SpAd to do it, who is still a taxpayer-funded civil servant, albeit one with a particular political role.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
'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.
Asking shouldn’t be a sackable offence
The civil service said no.
If she had forced them to do it, then that would be a different matter
But she didn’t
To me it depends on how the conversation went.
"Is it possible for me to have an individual speed awareness course? Could you look into that of me please?" "No, I'm sorry minister but thats a breach of the ministerial code and you should not ask me to do this" "Fair enough, I apologise and won't do it again"
Thats fine.
But according to yesterday's "source close" to Braverman, it's not what happened, because she requested that the Cabinet Office be consulted about it!
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.
Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy.
Your response is predictable old bollocks. It's the fault of Civil Servants. Sack the Civil Service and replace them with loyal political appointees like Lee Cain and Dominic Cummings.
Its the fault of whoever leaked it. I would not jump to the conclusion that it was the civil service. Most likely someone out to get Braverman. My comment is on the people who allow themselves to get whipped up by it, it seems to me that they are basically getting played. They think that by jumping on to this it will be one step forward to ridding the world of Braverman and her terrible ideas about stopping the boats and abolishing the civil service. By contrast, over the long run, it is more likely to embolden her and the others that peddle this agenda.
That being true, who wouldn't put it past her to have leaked the news herself?
I wouldn't rule that out - it seems like the job she covets the most is leader of the opposition. But I think the left - and 'centrists' like myself - have a lot to fear, should that scenario come about.
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.
In both cases they were trying to avoid getting 3 points.
The difference being that Huhne then committed a crime to do so, whereas she didn't, but she did misuse her position to try and do so.
Both failed.
They were/are being judged on what they did to try and avoid the points.
Both were idiots to try and do so.
There are lots of comparisons, if not identical
Really???
She was offered a course because her speeding offence was very minor, she asked if she could have a private course, when she was told she couldn't she paid the fine and took the points.
You think this is the same as Chris Huhnes wife filling out the offence form stating that she was the driver of the vehicle when she wasn't?
You write, "she asked if she could have a private course". However, what actually happened is that she directed the civil service to ask. These are different things.
One of the problems with Huhne and Braverman is that what they both did to start with was fairly trivial, but the consequences snowball out of their control. In Huhne's case spectacularly. A little lie to avoid getting the points and giving them to his wife so that he doesn't hit the number to get banned (which would probably have happened anyway sometime later if he knocks up points that regularly) ended up with a spell in jail. A bit like the old woman that swallowed a fly.
Until I retired I ran a business where I acted on behalf of a number of large businesses, charities and public bodies. I dealt with a lot of organisations who wanted to sell to those organisations so clearly a conflict of interest could arise. I was scrupulous to ensure not only did it not, but more importantly there could be no impression that it could.
Typically I would organise events for my customers and I would get prospective suppliers to pay for a stand, or the right to give presentations or a dinner or money behind the bar. To avoid any possible accusation of a 'backhander' I avoided any payment going through my books. In all my time doing that role I never once took a payment or gift from anyone other than my customers (the only exception being a bottle of champagne at a dinner that I wasn't expecting for doing the role for 10 years.). And I never asked for any favours nor told a lie. because these things snowball out of control.
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.
Yeah, no they won't. People trust the civil service more than they trust ministers.
Hmm - maybe, maybe not. I am no fan of Dominic Rabb but there is enough evidence that the civil service is not 100% trustworthy too.
'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...
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 a total non-scandal. As I understand it Ministers routinely get staff to pop out to Pret at lunchtime to get them some sandwiches, etc. Should this also be regarded as a scandal and outrageous abuse of public resources?
You could make the case that she was doing the right thing by asking her officials for advice about this situation, given her position. There would probably be howls of outrage and accusations of negligence were she to do the opposite and try to deal with the matter herself without consulting her office.
If a minister is working hard (which seems unlikely in Braverman's case given how badly performing her department is), then fair enough to get someone to get you some lunch.
However, would it be OK for a minister off work, on a Sunday, to get a civil servant to pop out to the takeaway to get them dinner?
Braverman's problem with speeding was not connected to her work. Why should civil servants be involved?
Also, Braverman has no special responsibility over Pret. A junior staff member coming to Pret to buy a sandwich, there's no abuse of ministerial power. But when you're AG (thanks, Farooq re timing), then there is a power relationship with a company running speed awareness courses and a danger that an approach through formal civil service channels will, intentionally or unintentionally, exert undue influence.
So, I'm not saying you have to consider this the greatest scandal of all time, but it's not the same as asking someone to get some sandwiches.
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.
In both cases they were trying to avoid getting 3 points.
The difference being that Huhne then committed a crime to do so, whereas she didn't, but she did misuse her position to try and do so.
Both failed.
They were/are being judged on what they did to try and avoid the points.
Both were idiots to try and do so.
There are lots of comparisons, if not identical
Really???
She was offered a course because her speeding offence was very minor, she asked if she could have a private course, when she was told she couldn't she paid the fine and took the points.
You think this is the same as Chris Huhnes wife filling out the offence form stating that she was the driver of the vehicle when she wasn't?
What? Did you actually read my post? Where on earth did I say it was the same? Are you an idiot? I specifically said the difference being Huhne committed a crime and she didn't.
What I said was there are a lot of comparisons most importantly they both used inappropriate means to avoid the points. One more seriously than the other, but then the more serious one involved an actual penalty of prison time. Nobody is suggesting she committed a crime or should go to prison.
I bulleted my email so it was easy to see the bits that were the same and the bits that were different in each case, and yet you couldn't comprehend that!
I can comprehend that you (and OGH) compared the Huhne affair with this one. You said
"They were/are being judged on what they did to try and avoid the points.
Both were idiots to try and do so.
There are lots of comparisons, if not identical "
She was offered a course, she just asked if she could have a private one, when the answer came back no. she decided to take the points and paid the fine.
Huhne was not offered a course, he got his wife to pretend she was driving.
How is this "identical"?
Good grief you really can't comprehend anything can you?
I said 'There are lots of comparisons, if not identical'
You said 'How is it identical?'
I mean you even put both of those lines in your post and can't see it. Really, you can't see what you said I said, is not what I said at all.
Obviously Braverman's offence is far too trivial to justify sacking. However, she is possibly the most odious leading politician I have come across, and her rhetoric on 'illegals' is beyond the pale.
So, I think Sunak should sack her, and I really couldn't care less if the specific reason doesn't justify it.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
Bargain at twice the price.
Have you seen the sort of people who travel standard class?
Although I prefer flying on a Learjet.
Pure equality there with no standard or first class.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
Bargain at twice the price.
Have you seen the sort of people who travel standard class?
Although I prefer flying on a Learjet.
Pure equality there with no standard or first class.
Learjet? That's like driving a Ford Fiesta. You want a Gulfstream. Where's your self respect?
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
Bargain at twice the price.
Have you seen the sort of people who travel standard class?
Although I prefer flying on a Learjet.
Pure equality there with no standard or first class.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
I would imagine it's more likely to be a free upgrade from business class.
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.
In both cases they were trying to avoid getting 3 points.
The difference being that Huhne then committed a crime to do so, whereas she didn't, but she did misuse her position to try and do so.
Both failed.
They were/are being judged on what they did to try and avoid the points.
Both were idiots to try and do so.
There are lots of comparisons, if not identical
Really???
She was offered a course because her speeding offence was very minor, she asked if she could have a private course, when she was told she couldn't she paid the fine and took the points.
You think this is the same as Chris Huhnes wife filling out the offence form stating that she was the driver of the vehicle when she wasn't?
What? Did you actually read my post? Where on earth did I say it was the same? Are you an idiot? I specifically said the difference being Huhne committed a crime and she didn't.
What I said was there are a lot of comparisons most importantly they both used inappropriate means to avoid the points. One more seriously than the other, but then the more serious one involved an actual penalty of prison time. Nobody is suggesting she committed a crime or should go to prison.
I bulleted my email so it was easy to see the bits that were the same and the bits that were different in each case, and yet you couldn't comprehend that!
I can comprehend that you (and OGH) compared the Huhne affair with this one. You said
"They were/are being judged on what they did to try and avoid the points.
Both were idiots to try and do so.
There are lots of comparisons, if not identical "
She was offered a course, she just asked if she could have a private one, when the answer came back no. she decided to take the points and paid the fine.
Huhne was not offered a course, he got his wife to pretend she was driving.
How is this "identical"?
Good grief you really can't comprehend anything can you?
I said 'There are lots of comparisons, if not identical'
You said 'How is it identical?'
I mean you even put both of those lines in your post and can't see it. Really, you can't see what you said I said, is not what I said at all.
Sorry I am sitting here with my jaw open.
I think the misunderstanding is that the term "if not" is often used to mean "perhaps even" in modern use. Something like "but not" would perhaps have been clearer.
Having said that, I think the context of what you wrote as a whole, and your subsequent post, made it very clear you were NOT arguing the cases were identical, and Nerys has become fixated on the term to the exclusion of everything else.
As a general tip, I'd suggest not expecting perfect idiomatic English in swiftly typed posts on an internet forum.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
I would imagine it's more likely to be a free upgrade from business class.
I think the press have reported the seat was business class. People on Twitter, and Malcolm, have upgraded it to first class in their own heads as it sounds better.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
I would imagine it's more likely to be a free upgrade from business class.
Much more likely. Also - 11k for First is hideous. We used to pay about 6k pre-Covid.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
Bargain at twice the price.
Have you seen the sort of people who travel standard class?
Although I prefer flying on a Learjet.
Pure equality there with no standard or first class.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
Bargain at twice the price.
Have you seen the sort of people who travel standard class?
Although I prefer flying on a Learjet.
Pure equality there with no standard or first class.
Learjet? That's like driving a Ford Fiesta. You want a Gulfstream. Where's your self respect?
I was quoting King Lear in a work report I’m writing and had Lear on the brain.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
Bargain at twice the price.
Have you seen the sort of people who travel standard class?
Although I prefer flying on a Learjet.
Pure equality there with no standard or first class.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
That’s impressive, I wonder who picked up the bill? Can’t imagine that Labour routinely flies people long-haul in F class rather than biz class.
She’s presumably a guest of some think-tank, or making a speech to a Democrat organisation in the US?
No, Mr Eagles, you wouldn’t fly in a Learjet to the States, at least not on your own. It costs around $6,000 an hour to charter it, so you’re looking at $70-80k return from London to Washington.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
Bargain at twice the price.
Have you seen the sort of people who travel standard class?
Although I prefer flying on a Learjet.
Pure equality there with no standard or first class.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
I would imagine it's more likely to be a free upgrade from business class.
I think the press have reported the seat was business class. People on Twitter, and Malcolm, have upgraded it to first class in their own heads as it sounds better.
That makes more sense. It's a work trip so I don't really understand the outrage.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
Bargain at twice the price.
Have you seen the sort of people who travel standard class?
Although I prefer flying on a Learjet.
Pure equality there with no standard or first class.
I'm glad there's first class accommodation on planes and trains. It acts as a self-selecting Golgafrincham B-Ark, meaning al the w*nkers are kept away from me.
@OliverStuenkel 'Lula says Ukraine's peace proposal, which includes a demand for Moscow to withdraw all its troops and for Ukraine’s full territorial integrity to be restored, amounts to "Russia's surrender".
One of the problems with Huhne and Braverman is that what they both did to start with was fairly trivial, but the consequences snowball out of their control. In Huhne's case spectacularly. A little lie to avoid getting the points and giving them to his wife so that he doesn't hit the number to get banned (which would probably have happened anyway sometime later if he knocks up points that regularly) ended up with a spell in jail. A bit like the old woman that swallowed a fly.
Until I retired I ran a business where I acted on behalf of a number of large businesses, charities and public bodies. I dealt with a lot of organisations who wanted to sell to those organisations so clearly a conflict of interest could arise. I was scrupulous to ensure not only did it not, but more importantly there could be no impression that it could.
Typically I would organise events for my customers and I would get prospective suppliers to pay for a stand, or the right to give presentations or a dinner or money behind the bar. To avoid any possible accusation of a 'backhander' I avoided any payment going through my books. In all my time doing that role I never once took a payment or gift from anyone other than my customers (the only exception being a bottle of champagne at a dinner that I wasn't expecting for doing the role for 10 years.). And I never asked for any favours nor told a lie. because these things snowball out of control.
Sorry I just realised the way I wrote that sounds like I did take backhanders (not going through my books)
What I meant was I ensured any payment went from the potential supplier of my customers direct to any organisation providing services at an event.
So if I arranged for a seller to pay for a stand at an event I wouldn't bill him say £1000, but ask him to pay the venue £1000 so my customers say got free drinks for the night.
So not only was I not profiting from doing this, I could be seen not to be profiting.
The key point being I always ensured that I never received money from or owed favours to anyone who could have influence over me.
Politicians should act the same. They should always be thinking 'Can what I am about to do come back and bite me, even if I don't think I am doing anything wrong'.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
Bargain at twice the price.
Have you seen the sort of people who travel standard class?
Although I prefer flying on a Learjet.
Pure equality there with no standard or first class.
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
TBH I think your third point is wrong.
I dont believe any voter expects any politician of any rosette colour not to break laws at whim and assume the laws that apply to us apply to them. To much history of mp's on all sides doing it. Its really for most voters going to be a "shakes head and makes a comment about mp's and the law moment" than a party political one
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
I would imagine it's more likely to be a free upgrade from business class.
That is a Gatwick flight on the 777 "Beach Fleet" so no F Class on it. RR is still a loathsome champion of capital though.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
Bargain at twice the price.
Have you seen the sort of people who travel standard class?
Although I prefer flying on a Learjet.
Pure equality there with no standard or first class.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
I would imagine it's more likely to be a free upgrade from business class.
I think the press have reported the seat was business class. People on Twitter, and Malcolm, have upgraded it to first class in their own heads as it sounds better.
I merely reported the item, their speculation that it was expensive is at least as likely as your excuses are for the troughers. Even if it was an upgrade the trougher should not be using anything other than economy with public funds in the first place.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
I would imagine it's more likely to be a free upgrade from business class.
That is a Gatwick flight on the 777 "Beach Fleet" so no F Class on it. RR is still a loathsome champion of capital though.
Good spot. Yes that flight number is out of Gatwick so no F class 777-200ER. That’s boring.
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.
I've been on one too, and found it less interesting. My crime was 27 in a 30 in anti-car Bath. The section of road at 20 comes after sections at 60, then 30, then 40 then 30 in the space of about a mile. Since my 'offence' huge areas of Bath have become 20 limits (all the hills from the South side at least are now 20).
Many on my course had been driving far faster than me in areas with much higher limits. After the course I still felt wrongfully 'convicted' and only came away with a sense that this country likes to go after easy offences rather than hard ones. Middle class 'speeders' are the easy target.
Isn't it swings and roundabouts though.
In 51 years of driving I have been caught on cameras twice. Once was points the other, the course. In both cases I thought they were unreasonable under the circumstances (for reasons I won't go into here). However it is only twice in 51 years and there must be dozens of times where I have been speeding slightly and it wasn't unreasonable to do me and I haven't been caught. So I take it on the chin.
I doubt a policeman would have booked me in either case taking into account the circumstance but cameras are cheaper than policeman.
On that front I have been stopped by the police 3 times and in all 3 cases let off and in all 3 cases I was in the wrong. In one case I had brain failure so a penalty would have been pointless, but in the other two I was banged to rights and they used their discretion. Two of the instances were quite funny stories, but too embarrassing to tell here.
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.
Yeah, no they won't. People trust the civil service more than they trust ministers.
Can you point to a poll that shows that. In my experience most people think that civil servants and council employees are in the least trustworthy. Council employees being the least trusted. Much like no one trusts the police
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
I would imagine it's more likely to be a free upgrade from business class.
That is a Gatwick flight on the 777 "Beach Fleet" so no F Class on it. RR is still a loathsome champion of capital though.
Good spot. Yes that flight number is out of Gatwick so no F class 777-200ER. That’s boring.
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.
I've been on one too, and found it less interesting. My crime was 27 in a 30 in anti-car Bath. The section of road at 20 comes after sections at 60, then 30, then 40 then 30 in the space of about a mile. Since my 'offence' huge areas of Bath have become 20 limits (all the hills from the South side at least are now 20).
Many on my course had been driving far faster than me in areas with much higher limits. After the course I still felt wrongfully 'convicted' and only came away with a sense that this country likes to go after easy offences rather than hard ones. Middle class 'speeders' are the easy target.
Isn't it swings and roundabouts though.
In 51 years of driving I have been caught on cameras twice. Once was points the other, the course. In both cases I thought they were unreasonable under the circumstances (for reasons I won't go into here). However it is only twice in 51 years and there must be dozens of times where I have been speed slightly and it wasn't unreasonable to do me and I haven't been caught. So I take it on the chin.
I doubt a policeman would have booked me in either case taking into account the circumstance but cameras are cheaper than policeman.
On that front I have been stopped by the police 3 times and in all 3 cases let off and in all 3 cases I was in the wrong. In one case I had brain failure so a penalty would have been pointless, but in the other two I was banged to rights and they used their discretion. Two of the instances were quite funny stories, but too embarrassing to tell here.
People have admitted to smashing whores, driving a Ford Galaxy and voting UKIP on here. What is left that is too embarrassing?
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
Bargain at twice the price.
Have you seen the sort of people who travel standard class?
Although I prefer flying on a Learjet.
Pure equality there with no standard or first class.
Reeves is a bit peasanty just flying first class. Rishi is so important he can scramble an RAF helicopter
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
I would imagine it's more likely to be a free upgrade from business class.
I think the press have reported the seat was business class. People on Twitter, and Malcolm, have upgraded it to first class in their own heads as it sounds better.
I merely reported the item, their speculation that it was expensive is at least as likely as your excuses are for the troughers. Even if it was an upgrade the trougher should not be using anything other than economy with public funds in the first place.
In companies, generally business class for journeys over 7 hours….
Some have made it 8 hours to remove trans-Atlantic, though.
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.
Yeah, no they won't. People trust the civil service more than they trust ministers.
Can you point to a poll that shows that. In my experience most people think that civil servants and council employees are in the least trustworthy. Council employees being the least trusted. Much like no one trusts the police
I see he did in a later comment....57% trusting civil servants is hardly a lot though
'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.
Perhaps she expected the Civil Servants in question to act like human beings and help her out.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
I would imagine it's more likely to be a free upgrade from business class.
I think the press have reported the seat was business class. People on Twitter, and Malcolm, have upgraded it to first class in their own heads as it sounds better.
I merely reported the item, their speculation that it was expensive is at least as likely as your excuses are for the troughers. Even if it was an upgrade the trougher should not be using anything other than economy with public funds in the first place.
In companies, generally business class for journeys over 7 hours….
Some have made it 8 hours to remove trans-Atlantic, though.
We're 8 hours, precisely to nobble regular NY-LON flyers.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
I would imagine it's more likely to be a free upgrade from business class.
I think the press have reported the seat was business class. People on Twitter, and Malcolm, have upgraded it to first class in their own heads as it sounds better.
I merely reported the item, their speculation that it was expensive is at least as likely as your excuses are for the troughers. Even if it was an upgrade the trougher should not be using anything other than economy with public funds in the first place.
In companies, generally business class for journeys over 7 hours….
Some have made it 8 hours to remove trans-Atlantic, though.
I hope subsidised upgrades will be part of the plan to restore economic dignity.
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
I would imagine it's more likely to be a free upgrade from business class.
I think the press have reported the seat was business class. People on Twitter, and Malcolm, have upgraded it to first class in their own heads as it sounds better.
I merely reported the item, their speculation that it was expensive is at least as likely as your excuses are for the troughers. Even if it was an upgrade the trougher should not be using anything other than economy with public funds in the first place.
In companies, generally business class for journeys over 7 hours….
Some have made it 8 hours to remove trans-Atlantic, though.
We're 8 hours, precisely to nobble regular NY-LON flyers.
There's a market opportunity for an airline that flies slowly but luxuriously.
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.
I've been on one too, and found it less interesting. My crime was 27 in a 30 in anti-car Bath. The section of road at 20 comes after sections at 60, then 30, then 40 then 30 in the space of about a mile. Since my 'offence' huge areas of Bath have become 20 limits (all the hills from the South side at least are now 20).
Many on my course had been driving far faster than me in areas with much higher limits. After the course I still felt wrongfully 'convicted' and only came away with a sense that this country likes to go after easy offences rather than hard ones. Middle class 'speeders' are the easy target.
Isn't it swings and roundabouts though.
In 51 years of driving I have been caught on cameras twice. Once was points the other, the course. In both cases I thought they were unreasonable under the circumstances (for reasons I won't go into here). However it is only twice in 51 years and there must be dozens of times where I have been speed slightly and it wasn't unreasonable to do me and I haven't been caught. So I take it on the chin.
I doubt a policeman would have booked me in either case taking into account the circumstance but cameras are cheaper than policeman.
On that front I have been stopped by the police 3 times and in all 3 cases let off and in all 3 cases I was in the wrong. In one case I had brain failure so a penalty would have been pointless, but in the other two I was banged to rights and they used their discretion. Two of the instances were quite funny stories, but too embarrassing to tell here.
People have admitted to smashing whores, driving a Ford Galaxy and voting UKIP on here. What is left that is too embarrassing?
That is just the point. It was the triviality of what I did that is embarrassing, not something serious like voting UKIP.
At one point when a policeman said 'What if someone had been on the Pelican Crossing?' I did have to restrain myself from saying 'What Pelican Crossing?'
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.
I've been on one too, and found it less interesting. My crime was 27 in a 30 in anti-car Bath. The section of road at 20 comes after sections at 60, then 30, then 40 then 30 in the space of about a mile. Since my 'offence' huge areas of Bath have become 20 limits (all the hills from the South side at least are now 20).
Many on my course had been driving far faster than me in areas with much higher limits. After the course I still felt wrongfully 'convicted' and only came away with a sense that this country likes to go after easy offences rather than hard ones. Middle class 'speeders' are the easy target.
Isn't it swings and roundabouts though.
In 51 years of driving I have been caught on cameras twice. Once was points the other, the course. In both cases I thought they were unreasonable under the circumstances (for reasons I won't go into here). However it is only twice in 51 years and there must be dozens of times where I have been speed slightly and it wasn't unreasonable to do me and I haven't been caught. So I take it on the chin.
I doubt a policeman would have booked me in either case taking into account the circumstance but cameras are cheaper than policeman.
On that front I have been stopped by the police 3 times and in all 3 cases let off and in all 3 cases I was in the wrong. In one case I had brain failure so a penalty would have been pointless, but in the other two I was banged to rights and they used their discretion. Two of the instances were quite funny stories, but too embarrassing to tell here.
People have admitted to smashing whores, driving a Ford Galaxy and voting UKIP on here. What is left that is too embarrassing?
Statisically speaking and assuming a number of people posting here is about 500 though most are irregular posters then there is about a 5% chance one of us is a serial killer and hasn't bared their soul here
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
I would imagine it's more likely to be a free upgrade from business class.
I think the press have reported the seat was business class. People on Twitter, and Malcolm, have upgraded it to first class in their own heads as it sounds better.
I merely reported the item, their speculation that it was expensive is at least as likely as your excuses are for the troughers. Even if it was an upgrade the trougher should not be using anything other than economy with public funds in the first place.
In companies, generally business class for journeys over 7 hours….
Some have made it 8 hours to remove trans-Atlantic, though.
We're 8 hours, precisely to nobble regular NY-LON flyers.
There's a market opportunity for an airline that flies slowly but luxuriously.
Back in the day, we used to send computer tapes across the Atlantic by courier... by Concorde!
Labour Tory's just more hypocrites Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
I would imagine it's more likely to be a free upgrade from business class.
I think the press have reported the seat was business class. People on Twitter, and Malcolm, have upgraded it to first class in their own heads as it sounds better.
I merely reported the item, their speculation that it was expensive is at least as likely as your excuses are for the troughers. Even if it was an upgrade the trougher should not be using anything other than economy with public funds in the first place.
In companies, generally business class for journeys over 7 hours….
Some have made it 8 hours to remove trans-Atlantic, though.
When I worked for myself, my rule was that you either flew me biz class overnight, or paid my day rate and expenses for a travel day beforehand. The latter usually worked out cheaper, but there was a fair amount of both options taken. People are sensible enough to know that a consultant who got no sleep the night before, is not going to be at 100% all day.
I don’t begrudge government ministers travelling in biz class - we surely expect them to be either working or sleeping when on the plane, rather than watching movies for most of the day?
'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.
Perhaps she expected the Civil Servants in question to act like human beings and help her out.
The allegation is that she expected them to act like personal retainers.
As for acting like a human being and helping people out, that has seldom appeared to be uppermost in her thoughts.
Comments
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
Indeed the biggest share on that poll is for Neither which could even be for the ultra NIMBY Liberal Democrats and Greens or Independents
Your argument is still valid. The AG is the overseer of the CPS. There must be no perception of ministers getting favourable treatment in any matters of justice because it sets the tone for the way any agency, including the CPS, deals with future prosecutions that might involve people in similar senior positions.
The concept of rule of law requires extra vigilance when it comes to how those who oversee agents of justice behave. It is completely improper for the AG to approach those who work for her to do do this.
I think a few of you are still labouring under the impression that this is the same as a (hypothetical*) Philip Schofield getting a speeding ticket and asking a gopher at the production company to try to work out a way of keeping it quiet. It's not just that one-rule-for-celebrities angle at play here, although that in itself is a troubling aspect for me. It's the corrosive affect it can have on future prosecutions of senior politicians.
*I'm not suggesting any wrongdoing by Schofield, just a random celeb without political power used as an example.
Don't forget on these pages and in the Daily Mail, Starmer was as guilty as hell until he was cleared of drinking beer and eating curry
The civil service said no.
If she had forced them to do it, then that would be a different matter
But she didn’t
The difference being that Huhne then committed a crime to do so, whereas she didn't, but she did misuse her position to try and do so.
Both failed.
They were/are being judged on what they did to try and avoid the points.
Both were idiots to try and do so.
There are lots of comparisons, if not identical.
Huhne's offence was clearly more serious.
Your response is predictable old bollocks. It's the fault of Civil Servants. Sack the Civil Service and replace them with loyal political appointees like Lee Cain and Dominic Cummings.
I don’t really have a problem with prominent figures taking private courses for security reasons if the option is open to them, or to ask the question about whether it is available or not. In any event the answer seems to have been that it wasn’t in which case she paid her fine, accepted the points and that was that. I can accept perhaps that this was undue pressure on the civil service, or that it wasn’t the correct process, or whatever, but in the general scheme of things it doesn’t feel particularly egregious or abusive, IMHO. Just my two penneth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og0X3-lDQts
She was offered a course because her speeding offence was very minor, she asked if she could have a private course, when she was told she couldn't she paid the fine and took the points.
You think this is the same as Chris Huhnes wife filling out the offence form stating that she was the driver of the vehicle when she wasn't?
You could make the case that she was doing the right thing by asking her officials for advice about this situation, given her position. There would probably be howls of outrage and accusations of negligence were she to do the opposite and try to deal with the matter herself without consulting her office.
See Cyclefree's header on judge-only rape trials from some days ago, when she touches on a similar topic about judicial independence: https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/10/sentence-first-verdict-afterwards/
However it’s a very long time since the course and a long time …..over a year ….since I’ve even driven. Sadly.
Football: surprised to see Borussia Dortmund now 2 points ahead of Bayern Munich. So that'll be decided on the 27th.
However, it was also a long time ago I attended mine. Fortunately, Surrey police have recently invited me to a refresher. ;-)
'Lula says Ukraine's peace proposal, which includes a demand for Moscow to withdraw all its troops and for Ukraine’s full territorial integrity to be restored, amounts to "Russia's surrender".
https://twitter.com/OliverStuenkel/status/1660465247851872256?s=20
Almost enough to miss Bolsonaro!
Many on my course had been driving far faster than me in areas with much higher limits. After the course I still felt wrongfully 'convicted' and only came away with a sense that this country likes to go after easy offences rather than hard ones. Middle class 'speeders' are the easy target.
What I said was there are a lot of comparisons most importantly they both used inappropriate means to avoid the points. One more seriously than the other, but then the more serious one involved an actual penalty of prison time. Nobody is suggesting she committed a crime or should go to prison.
I bulleted my email so it was easy to see the bits that were the same and the bits that were different in each case, and yet you couldn't comprehend that!
Russia's surrender, just as they did in Afghanistan and the US did in Vietnam, is what we all want.
No it isn't.
"Is it possible for me to have an individual speed awareness course? Could you look into that of me please?"
"No, I'm sorry minister but thats a breach of the ministerial code and you should not ask me to do this"
"Fair enough, I apologise and won't do it again"
Thats fine.
"You need to get on the phone and get me one of those individual speed awareness courses"
"No, I'm sorry minister but thats a breach of the ministerial code and you should not ask me to do this"
"Just f*ckin' do it"
"No, I'm sorry minister but thats a breach of the ministerial code and you should not ask me to do this"
"F*cks sake = you f*cking work for me you _____"
Getting three points on your licence for speeding is mildly embarrassing for a politician, but no more than that - loads of voters have had points on their licence, and plenty of opponents.
To try to get a private speed awareness course to avoid that coming out, to involve civil servants in that, and to have SPADs lie about it to the press, is just bizarre and terrible judgment.
Labour don't give a damn if this reinforces Braverman's appeal among Tory members etc. Indeed, they would be pleased to see her as opposition leader in due course. It's the impression of chaos and of Sunak as not being in control of events that is the aim.
It's going to be silly season and backstabbing for the next year and a bit.
"They were/are being judged on what they did to try and avoid the points.
Both were idiots to try and do so.
There are lots of comparisons, if not identical "
She was offered a course, she just asked if she could have a private one, when the answer came back no. she decided to take the points and paid the fine.
Huhne was not offered a course, he got his wife to pretend she was driving.
How is this "identical"?
Looks like Rachel Reeves deleted her tweet after realising you could see her seat is 3K and therefore in first class 🫢
Which costs around £11,000…!
Until I retired I ran a business where I acted on behalf of a number of large businesses, charities and public bodies. I dealt with a lot of organisations who wanted to sell to those organisations so clearly a conflict of interest could arise. I was scrupulous to ensure not only did it not, but more importantly there could be no impression that it could.
Typically I would organise events for my customers and I would get prospective suppliers to pay for a stand, or the right to give presentations or a dinner or money behind the bar. To avoid any possible accusation of a 'backhander' I avoided any payment going through my books. In all my time doing that role I never once took a payment or gift from anyone other than my customers (the only exception being a bottle of champagne at a dinner that I wasn't expecting for doing the role for 10 years.). And I never asked for any favours nor told a lie. because these things snowball out of control.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-veracity-index-trust-police-drops-second-year-row
However, would it be OK for a minister off work, on a Sunday, to get a civil servant to pop out to the takeaway to get them dinner?
Braverman's problem with speeding was not connected to her work. Why should civil servants be involved?
Also, Braverman has no special responsibility over Pret. A junior staff member coming to Pret to buy a sandwich, there's no abuse of ministerial power. But when you're AG (thanks, Farooq re timing), then there is a power relationship with a company running speed awareness courses and a danger that an approach through formal civil service channels will, intentionally or unintentionally, exert undue influence.
So, I'm not saying you have to consider this the greatest scandal of all time, but it's not the same as asking someone to get some sandwiches.
I said 'There are lots of comparisons, if not identical'
You said 'How is it identical?'
I mean you even put both of those lines in your post and can't see it. Really, you can't see what you said I said, is not what I said at all.
Sorry I am sitting here with my jaw open.
So, I think Sunak should sack her, and I really couldn't care less if the specific reason doesn't justify it.
Have you seen the sort of people who travel standard class?
Although I prefer flying on a Learjet.
Pure equality there with no standard or first class.
You want a Gulfstream. Where's your self respect?
Having said that, I think the context of what you wrote as a whole, and your subsequent post, made it very clear you were NOT arguing the cases were identical, and Nerys has become fixated on the term to the exclusion of everything else.
As a general tip, I'd suggest not expecting perfect idiomatic English in swiftly typed posts on an internet forum.
She’s presumably a guest of some think-tank, or making a speech to a Democrat organisation in the US?
No, Mr Eagles, you wouldn’t fly in a Learjet to the States, at least not on your own. It costs around $6,000 an hour to charter it, so you’re looking at $70-80k return from London to Washington.
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-and-the-hms-enchantress/
The Russian and US efforts in those wars were defeated - but neither surrendered, or anything even close to that.
Lula is engaging in absurd hyperbole.
What we want is Russia's acceptance of their failure, not their 'surrender'.
What I meant was I ensured any payment went from the potential supplier of my customers direct to any organisation providing services at an event.
So if I arranged for a seller to pay for a stand at an event I wouldn't bill him say £1000, but ask him to pay the venue £1000 so my customers say got free drinks for the night.
So not only was I not profiting from doing this, I could be seen not to be profiting.
The key point being I always ensured that I never received money from or owed favours to anyone who could have influence over me.
Politicians should act the same. They should always be thinking 'Can what I am about to do come back and bite me, even if I don't think I am doing anything wrong'.
I dont believe any voter expects any politician of any rosette colour not to break laws at whim and assume the laws that apply to us apply to them. To much history of mp's on all sides doing it. Its really for most voters going to be a "shakes head and makes a comment about mp's and the law moment" than a party political one
http://www.airreview.com/Seatmap/BA/777-200-48J/index.htm
In 51 years of driving I have been caught on cameras twice. Once was points the other, the course. In both cases I thought they were unreasonable under the circumstances (for reasons I won't go into here). However it is only twice in 51 years and there must be dozens of times where I have been speeding slightly and it wasn't unreasonable to do me and I haven't been caught. So I take it on the chin.
I doubt a policeman would have booked me in either case taking into account the circumstance but cameras are cheaper than policeman.
On that front I have been stopped by the police 3 times and in all 3 cases let off and in all 3 cases I was in the wrong. In one case I had brain failure so a penalty would have been pointless, but in the other two I was banged to rights and they used their discretion. Two of the instances were quite funny stories, but too embarrassing to tell here.
Some have made it 8 hours to remove trans-Atlantic, though.
At one point when a policeman said 'What if someone had been on the Pelican Crossing?' I did have to restrain myself from saying 'What Pelican Crossing?'
I don’t begrudge government ministers travelling in biz class - we surely expect them to be either working or sleeping when on the plane, rather than watching movies for most of the day?
As for acting like a human being and helping people out, that has seldom appeared to be uppermost in her thoughts.