By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The view is Braverman threw in her lot in return for her getting her job back as Home Secretary - it certainly wasn't for any competence
That this was triggered by revelations from the former Tory Party chairman, Jake Berry, who questioned was an obvious security risk re-appointed.
But more telling is that this 'whistle blowing' shows that the internal feuding within the Tory Party is still ongoing and bitter. The ferrets in the sack are still biting each other, with the result that ..........
"Fck the poor/the country. we've got to get those right/far right b'stards' - and that will be their focus.
Jake Berry MP
" Berry said there had been “multiple breaches of the ministerial code” after Braverman had sent the document to her confidante and fellow MP Sir John Hayes.
“It was sent from a private email address to another member of parliament,” “She then sought to copy in that individual’s wife and accidentally sent it to a staffer in parliament. To me, that seems a really serious breach, especially when it was documents relating to cyber security, as I believe. That seems a really serious breach."
"The leak related to a story about the Government's plan to apply for an injunction against the BBC to stop it from identifying a spy who was accused of using his position to terrorise his former partner."
If the actions warranted a resignation 6 days ago, then why not now. No further evidence has been brought forward in her defence, in fact what has now been revealed is more damning evidence.
"Braverman was challenged by the cabinet secretary, Simon Case, about the leaking of a sensitive document, rather than coming forward herself about what had happened. "
"...claiming not to have had her government phone on her because she was taking part in a police operation. Sources said the timestamp on the email showed it was sent several hours after the police raid. They added that at no point did Braverman notify Case of her mistake. She only owned up to it when she was confronted with the evidence.”
The account appears to contradict what Sunak said had happened during his first prime minister’s questions on Wednesday. So who lied here
Sunak....Braverman ?
The evidence clearly points to Braverman lying, with the question then arising did Subak know Braverman was lying, but was happy to cover up as he needed her support (other ERG MPs) ?
As with the bloater (and others) it is the attempt at a cover up which is the most damaging.
7.25 Braverman sends classified info to someone she is not permitted to
8:30 the recipient sent her a message saying that it had been sent in error
10:02 a message sent from the home secs personal Gmail account "Please can you delete the message and ignore"
At 9.00 the chief whip was informed and tried to contact Braverman.
A source close to Ms Braverman said around 12:00, she instructed officials to raise the breach with the cabinet secretary.
However a source told the BBC there was no evidence that Ms Braverman had raised the incident herself before she was confronted with the mistake later that afternoon, and subsequently had to resign. The reasons for her resignation have not changed, so why is she back in her job ?
"Ministers are not permitted to send government documents to personal accounts, or to share further."
So why the use of a personal email. Could it be as many suggest that Braverman was leaking classified information. In this case to a fellow far right MP, John Hayes.
"“There’s a dynamic around her leaking stuff. Civil servants had been raising concerns about her meetings with that backbencher [Hayes]; she was having them at Marsham Street,” a Home Office source said.
A separate Whitehall source said Hayes spoke openly to parliamentary colleagues about being sent sensitive material on immigration policy from Braverman."
This highlights that the deep split within the Tory Party is still being played out, with Braverman the willing dupe of the far right Policy Exchange group. And the thought stands that Sunak is making appointments on the basis of political leanings within the Tory Party rather than for any competence.
" The spokesperson claimed that when Rishi Sunak told MPs last week that Suella Braverman “raised the matter” of the mistake that led to her resignation herself, Sunak meant she raised it in her meeting with him — not that she was the first to alert No 10 of the error. (See 1.29pm.)
The spokesperson said the information “leaked” by Braverman was not market sensitive — even though at the time Downing Street sources claimed it was."
elsewhere
"Sir David Normington, a former permanent secretary at the Home Office, told the World at One on Radio 4 that, if Suella Braverman had deliberately decided not to book hotels to address overcrowding at Manston, that could be another breach of the ministerial code. He said:
If it was deliberate, it’s a very serious matter. It’s potentially another breach of the ministerial code because home secretaries, ministers, have to obey the law. They mustn’t knowingly disobey or break the law. "
" The spokesperson claimed that when Rishi Sunak told MPs last week that Suella Braverman “raised the matter” of the mistake that led to her resignation herself, Sunak meant she raised it in her meeting with him — not that she was the first to alert No 10 of the error. (See 1.29pm.)
The spokesperson said the information “leaked” by Braverman was not market sensitive — even though at the time Downing Street sources claimed it was."
elsewhere
"Sir David Normington, a former permanent secretary at the Home Office, told the World at One on Radio 4 that, if Suella Braverman had deliberately decided not to book hotels to address overcrowding at Manston, that could be another breach of the ministerial code. He said:
If it was deliberate, it’s a very serious matter. It’s potentially another breach of the ministerial code because home secretaries, ministers, have to obey the law. They mustn’t knowingly disobey or break the law. "
Independent contacted Patels office and it seems she signed the hotel payments off because it's the law but not because she wanted to. She signed with gritted teeth - but still signed. Grant Shapps - The Home sec between Bravermans 2 stints - re-started the hotel placements as he knew it was the law. If a guy who's as dim as Shapps and has only been in the job 24 hours can work it out then why can't she. Braverman sacked the civil servant who had advised her that it was unlawful. This is all about her ideology and nothing to do with policy.
Don't believe a word I say. I'm only kidding. Or am I?
" The spokesperson claimed that when Rishi Sunak told MPs last week that Suella Braverman “raised the matter” of the mistake that led to her resignation herself, Sunak meant she raised it in her meeting with him — not that she was the first to alert No 10 of the error. (See 1.29pm.)
The spokesperson said the information “leaked” by Braverman was not market sensitive — even though at the time Downing Street sources claimed it was."
elsewhere
"Sir David Normington, a former permanent secretary at the Home Office, told the World at One on Radio 4 that, if Suella Braverman had deliberately decided not to book hotels to address overcrowding at Manston, that could be another breach of the ministerial code. He said:
If it was deliberate, it’s a very serious matter. It’s potentially another breach of the ministerial code because home secretaries, ministers, have to obey the law. They mustn’t knowingly disobey or break the law. "
Your first two paragraphs are peak-Johnson which suggests Sunak isn't really any different when it comes to lying apart from less bluster and snappy suits.
Your first two paragraphs are peak-Johnson which suggests Sunak isn't really any different when it comes to lying apart from less bluster and snappy suits.
With Johnson you never knew if his constant failures were due to him being a knave or joker.
I think in this case it is not so much her ideology as of those pulling the strings. She has regularly been in contact with a shadowy far right group (see above). To the point of leaking classified information.
The supposed cabinet of all talents is only valid when there are talents to include.
Braverman is merely following instructions so as to advance their cause. Don't book accommodation so as to make it an even bigger story. Fire up the bigots. A competent immigration service would have had this sorted a long while back. It suits this far right group to have this 'running sore'.
It highlights that this is not a government for the country, but an inward looking government concerned only with tearing lumps out of each other - hence the constant briefings and the almost daily change of policy/mind.
As the old days of a pub, these two sides should be told, take your argument outside'
She has been up on her hind legs stating the immigration system is broken, which it appears .......................... is the fault of opposition parties !
She has been up on her hind legs stating the immigration system is broken, which it appears .......................... is the fault of opposition parties !
I guess it must be. I wonder how many more decades of making it worse this lot need before it is sorted.
That dreadful woman came out all guns blazing in the commons yesterday. Took no responsibilty whatsoever and doubled down on her rhetoric. Her vile "invasion" comments were almost drowned out by the deafening sound of dog whistles. I'm firmly with Ange now.
That dreadful woman came out all guns blazing in the commons yesterday. Took no responsibilty whatsoever and doubled down on her rhetoric. Her vile "invasion" comments were almost drowned out by the deafening sound of dog whistles. I'm firmly with Ange now.
"Suella Braverman has been accused by a Conservative MP of deliberately causing the overcrowding of a migrant processing centre amid growing questions around her strategy for dealing with people crossing the Channel in small boats."
So why would the right want, a serial incompetent and a bigot, running things ? Could it be that irrespective of the damage caused to these people or any cost to the country what is happening helps to distract from rightie (Brexit) failures.
Though there IS the added irony that when in the EU there were a fraction of the numbers crossing. Thats because when the UK was in the EU it was part of an agreement that allowed people to be returned 'to whence they came from'. Rather like advocating that all the turnstiles at PR are locked, then bleating because you cannot get in.
It should also be noted that as pointed out way back. The bollox about controlling the borders does not apply to importing goods. There are no controls. But almost laughable that since brexit it is the EU who are controlling UK borders and determining how we export to the EU - no checks before.
So it doesn't look like 'they need us more than we need them'. In fact as far as immigration goes we need them far more than before. To take back these people - something they did as a matter of routine before brexit.
"Suella Braverman has been accused by a Conservative MP of deliberately causing the overcrowding of a migrant processing centre amid growing questions around her strategy for dealing with people crossing the Channel in small boats."
So why would the right want, a serial incompetent and a bigot, running things ? Could it be that irrespective of the damage caused to these people or any cost to the country what is happening helps to distract from rightie (Brexit) failures.
Though there IS the added irony that when in the EU there were a fraction of the numbers crossing. Thats because when the UK was in the EU it was part of an agreement that allowed people to be returned 'to whence they came from'. Rather like advocating that all the turnstiles at PR are locked, then bleating because you cannot get in.
It should also be noted that as pointed out way back. The bollox about controlling the borders does not apply to importing goods. There are no controls. But almost laughable that since brexit it is the EU who are controlling UK borders and determining how we export to the EU - no checks before.
So it doesn't look like 'they need us more than we need them'. In fact as far as immigration goes we need them far more than before. To take back these people - something they did as a matter of routine before brexit.
Brexiteers stupidity is breath taking.
Here's an interesting angle from the Guardian on what she and Patel were trying to achieve on the hotels' front.
LBC reporter Charlotte Lynch has tweeted that a senior Home Office source said the home secretary refused to sign off on hotel bookings for migrants at Manston “because they were in Tory areas”.
The source, who Lynch says is close to Manston, claims Suella Braverman approved only three hotels last week, which were in Labour constituencies.
She notes that Braverman’s predecessor, Priti Patel, was accused of doing the same when she was home secretary
Here's an interesting angle from the Guardian on what she and Patel were trying to achieve on the hotels' front.
LBC reporter Charlotte Lynch has tweeted that a senior Home Office source said the home secretary refused to sign off on hotel bookings for migrants at Manston “because they were in Tory areas”.
The source, who Lynch says is close to Manston, claims Suella Braverman approved only three hotels last week, which were in Labour constituencies.
She notes that Braverman’s predecessor, Priti Patel, was accused of doing the same when she was home secretary
How comfortable are we with the fact that our local council are trying to block the use of the Novotel for asylum seekers?
How comfortable are we with the fact that our local council are trying to block the use of the Novotel for asylum seekers?
I do have misgivings but I think the problem is we should be addressing the issue in a much different way. Germany absorbed around a million refuguees but put the resources and infrastructure in place in order to deal with them. And 40,000 migrants with a strong desire to better themselves ought to be something we welcome, given, for example, 170,000 vacancies in the care sector.
I do have misgivings but I think the problem is we should be addressing the issue in a much different way. Germany absorbed around a million refuguees but put the resources and infrastructure in place in order to deal with them. And 40,000 migrants with a strong desire to better themselves ought to be something we welcome, given, for example, 170,000 vacancies in the care sector.
Spot on. Obviously the crooks and gangsters, if there are any, have to be identified, but in the main these are people who are motivated, often comparatively well educated and young.
Much like the EU born immigrants they may end up replacing.
Braverman etc talking about the "mess". Let us remember that Patel was the "darling" of the right until recently - a person who raged against incompetence, hopefully when she was looking in the mirror.
Here's an interesting angle from the Guardian on what she and Patel were trying to achieve on the hotels' front.
LBC reporter Charlotte Lynch has tweeted that a senior Home Office source said the home secretary refused to sign off on hotel bookings for migrants at Manston “because they were in Tory areas”.
The source, who Lynch says is close to Manston, claims Suella Braverman approved only three hotels last week, which were in Labour constituencies.
She notes that Braverman’s predecessor, Priti Patel, was accused of doing the same when she was home secretary
Twenty years ago old, empty, boarded up hotels in seaside towns that had "seen better days" were "opened", stuffed with beds and little else before housing asylum seekers / refugees.
The Mail portrayed them as being "plush hotels in salubrious locations."
Twenty years ago old, empty, boarded up hotels in seaside towns that had "seen better days" were "opened", stuffed with beds and little else before housing asylum seekers / refugees.
The Mail portrayed them as being "plush hotels in salubrious locations."
Sue Ellen has whipped the commenters on the Mail website into a frenzy. It's the only issue I am aware of in recent months which has done the same because these days they are generally very hostile to the Tories, in comparison to the toadying of the paper.
Here's an interesting angle from the Guardian on what she and Patel were trying to achieve on the hotels' front.
LBC reporter Charlotte Lynch has tweeted that a senior Home Office source said the home secretary refused to sign off on hotel bookings for migrants at Manston “because they were in Tory areas”.
The source, who Lynch says is close to Manston, claims Suella Braverman approved only three hotels last week, which were in Labour constituencies.
She notes that Braverman’s predecessor, Priti Patel, was accused of doing the same when she was home secretary
Genius if so.
That will also keep asylum seekers/refugees and their “threat” in the heads of Tory voters, rather than seeing them first and foremost as living, breathing human beings who clearly need our help and deserve our respect and compassion.
Interesting to see that yesterday Sue Ellen told Parliament that the police were not treating the attack in Dover as a terrorist incident. This appears to have allowed her to use her invasion rhetoric without being called out for inflaming things. But did she tell the full truth, given that counter-terrorism police are now involved and have said the incident appeared to hate-related? Indeed, the following article indicates the man was a racist.
Interesting to see that yesterday Sue Ellen told Parliament that the police were not treating the attack in Dover as a terrorist incident. This appears to have allowed her to use her invasion rhetoric without being called out for inflaming things. But did she tell the full truth, given that counter-terrorism police are now involved and have said the incident appeared to hate-related? Indeed, the following article indicates the man was a racist.
It is odd that it is "likely to be driven by some form of hate-filled grievance, though this may not necessarily meet the threshold of terrorism." One might ask, what exactly is the threshold of terrorism? Would it have been looked at as suspected terror until proven otherwise had it been a non-white individual attacking somewhere in central London instead?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
