[Oboogie]

I think the problem she has made for herself is that with her general attitude, on top of previous breaches and multiple demonstrations of ignorance and stupidity, I now have absolutely no faith that she wasn’t trying to get out of it - or at the very least trying to use public resources to get preferential treatment.

I also suspect she has half an eye on this as an opportunity to be ‘forced out’ for a matter no one on the Tory benches will really care about, so she can then lie in wait to take over when Sunak is ousted post election. Or possibly pre election, if the lions have their way.

'Forced out' or 'resign on a matter of principle' thus gaining herself some moral high ground...a commodity of which she is desperately short.

[Youngian]

As far as I can gather she asked an aide (who is a sort-of civil servant. ie paid by public money but not with civil service rank and responsibility) if they could sort this private course thing.
They said "Hang on, I'll check."
They were told by the Ethics Squad that they couldn't. They told her so.
She didn't push the matter* and paid up, took the points rather than go on a course.

I can't see much wrongdoing there. Lots of other things of note, but not badness.


*According to her account.

Lawyers have confirmed they arrange private confidential one to one courses for high profile speedy drivers. Braverman’s a cheapskate like her old boss trying to stick the cost of this private matter on the public slate. Bet she’s never bought a round, especially for her staff.

[davidjay]

My worry is she challenges Sunak and wins she is dangerous.

That's only a problem if it happens before the next election. I think that's unlikely. If she wins the leadership election whilst the Tories are in opposition it will just make it easier for Starmer to win his second term.

The way things are going, please God, there's no way the next leader will be Prime Minister so they'll get some no-hoper to fill the gap until after the election after that

[Oboogie]

My worry is she challenges Sunak and wins she is dangerous.

That's only a problem if it happens before the next election. I think that's unlikely. If she wins the leadership election whilst the Tories are in opposition it will just make it easier for Starmer to win his second term.

The way things are going, please God, there's no way the next leader will be Prime Minister so they'll get some no-hoper to fill the gap until after the election after that

The only way the next Tory leader will be PM is if Braverman challenges Sunak before the election.

[mattomac]

That’s my concern.

Don’t have any issue once they lose power, in fact it’s almost predictable they will go that way.

[Youngian]

The headbangers have a lot riding on Swellin’s survival. A strategy so desperate you write this

[Andy McDandy]

That's funny. Both the Mirror and the I, neither what you'd call right wing, had big picture splashes of Rigby junior at a memorial for his dad in their Saturday editions.

Also, the Rigby family have been quite vocal about not wanting his death or memory hijacked for political purposes.

[RedSparrows]

What are the lessons of his murder?

That Islamist violence is moronic, cruel, savage and wrong? Got it, chief.

[Abernathy]

My worry is she challenges Sunak and wins she is dangerous.

That's only a problem if it happens before the next election. I think that's unlikely. If she wins the leadership election whilst the Tories are in opposition it will just make it easier for Starmer to win his second term.

True dat. One of the main reasons that the Blair government was able to get elected 3 times between 1997 and 2010 was that the Tories were busy ripping themselves to shreds over the EU (Major’s “bastards”). A post-election Braverman leadership that took the Tories down basically the same “bastards” route would, hopefully, see them scraping around for gammon scraps in the electoral wilderness for,with any luck, a couple of decades.

[Crabcakes]

Also, the ‘nightmare scenario’ of her getting in before a GE has some significant plus points:
1. She would have less than a year to put any policies in place - so anything abhorrent could easily be stalled
2. She would completely shatter any remaining vestiges of Tory unity
3. She’d no longer be able to pick and choose what bits of policy or the job she fancies doing with any cover - as the PM, the buck would stop with her. And she’d be absolute dogshit.
4. The electorate tolerate Sunak because he’s better than Truss and Johnson (admittedly a bar so low, it could be unearthed on Time Team). Another switcheroo for someone awful would probably prove too much.
5. If (when) the Tories were annihilated at the GE, she’d either be ousted herself in disgrace in short order, or left in charge of a bitter, infighting rump unable to regroup for probably decades.

[davidjay]

What are the lessons of his murder?

That Islamist violence is moronic, cruel, savage and wrong? Got it, chief.

It's rather like the inevitable cries of "Justice for Heysel" every Hillsborough anniversary. There was an inquiry, the causes were established, culprits jailed and efforts made to ensure there couldn't be a repeat. That seems a comprehensive example of justice to anyone, unless they want to score points.

[davidjay]

And well, well, well. Another nothing story dredged up by the lefty media:

Suella and Rwanda - the early years

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 43646.html

[RedSparrows]

Cherie Blair also involved, ergo it was all Labour's fault anyway.

[Yug]

No depths left unplumbed

Suella Braverman is facing fresh allegations that she broke the ministerial code over her failure to formally disclose years of previous work with the Rwandan government.

The home secretary is already facing accusations that she broke the ministerial code after the Sunday Times revealed Ms Braverman asked her staff to help her dodge a speeding fine.

Now Ms Braverman is facing further pressure after she failed to disclose that she co-founded a charity called the Africa Justice Foundation which worked with several key members of President Paul Kagame’s government who are involved in the UK’s £140m deal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Ms Braverman did not officially disclose her previous links to the country when appointed home secretary in 2022, despite ongoing legal challenges alleging politically-driven human rights violations including torture, murder and kidnappings...


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 43967.html

I'm getting a picture of an extremely foul example of humanity. How the fuck this creature is allowed to stay on as Home Secretary is totally beyond me.

[Andy McDandy]

The irony. She's responsible for training up some of them yooman rites lawyers we hear so much about.

[Andy McDandy]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... CMP=fb_cif

Marina Hyde has fun at Braverman's expense. Chortle.

[Bones McCoy]

Gary Lineker said her rhetoric was reminiscent of the '30s.

Speed Camera said her driving wasn't.

[kreuzberger]

You get the feeling it takes her 18 goes at a reCaptcha before she can prove to the Karen Millen website that she’s sentient.

And that's before I even scroll. SCREENWIPE!!!

[mattomac]

Also, the ‘nightmare scenario’ of her getting in before a GE has some significant plus points:
1. She would have less than a year to put any policies in place - so anything abhorrent could easily be stalled
2. She would completely shatter any remaining vestiges of Tory unity
3. She’d no longer be able to pick and choose what bits of policy or the job she fancies doing with any cover - as the PM, the buck would stop with her. And she’d be absolute dogshit.
4. The electorate tolerate Sunak because he’s better than Truss and Johnson (admittedly a bar so low, it could be unearthed on Time Team). Another switcheroo for someone awful would probably prove too much.
5. If (when) the Tories we’re annihilated at the GE, she’d either be ousted herself in disgrace in short order, or left in charge of a bitter, infighting rump unable to regroup for probably decades.

Good points I just don’t want to risk it.

[Yug]

Suella Braverman is facing fresh controversy after it was claimed civil servants in her department were forced to “fact-check” the home secretary’s statements to cabinet on up to six occasions.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... to-cabinet

Government sources told the Guardian Braverman has repeatedly got things wrong, including during cabinet talks about King Charles’s coronation in March and in meetings held this week on migration, in which she overstated the number of Ukrainians and Hongkongers who had come to the UK by tens of thousands.

One insider said she made “basic errors”, while another said she “keeps getting facts wrong”. After meetings with other senior ministers, the Cabinet Office was said to have had to contact officials from the Home Office, who were asked to “factcheck” her claims.

Who could have guessed that such a stupid ignorant person would be a complete stranger to the truth?