FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Suella Braverman speeding course claims prompt inquiry calls
Suella Braverman speeding course claims prompt inquiry calls
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is there to investigate? She tried to use her position to influence something and got told no. Civil servants done their job" I thought we were leaving each other alone? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is there to investigate? She tried to use her position to influence something and got told no. Civil servants done their job I thought we were leaving each other alone?" Am I never allowed to reply to you, ever? Is that how it works? Wow  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Caught speeding, asked minsters to arrange a private driving course, was advised they do not get involved in such matters, then asked a special adviser to arrange a course, they couldn't. Then when made HS she paid the fine and took the points as she was very busy and didn't have time to do the course. Should there be another investigation in to these matters or nothing to see here? source BBC" I feel sorry for Braverman, she is being used by the ERG and the Nat Ca to do their ‘dirty work ‘ , she will never accepted by them or the right wing voters she is so desperate to impress. Regarding the driving course, it doesn’t appear that she has done anything wrong ,as the civil servants have given her the correct advice and prevented a scandal  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Caught speeding, asked minsters to arrange a private driving course, was advised they do not get involved in such matters, then asked a special adviser to arrange a course, they couldn't. Then when made HS she paid the fine and took the points as she was very busy and didn't have time to do the course. Should there be another investigation in to these matters or nothing to see here? source BBC I feel sorry for Braverman, she is being used by the ERG and the Nat Ca to do their ‘dirty work ‘ , she will never accepted by them or the right wing voters she is so desperate to impress. Regarding the driving course, it doesn’t appear that she has done anything wrong ,as the civil servants have given her the correct advice and prevented a scandal "Nat C’s | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is there to investigate? She tried to use her position to influence something and got told no. Civil servants done their job" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She hardly leads by example Another example the conservatives laughing in your face What is there to investigate? She tried to use her position to influence something and got told no. Civil servants done their job" What is there to investigate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She hardly leads by example Another example the conservatives laughing in your face What is there to investigate? She tried to use her position to influence something and got told no. Civil servants done their job What is there to investigate?" possibly if this was broken by asking them "5.1 Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code and the requirements of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Ministers should be professional in their working relationships with the Civil Service and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She hardly leads by example Another example the conservatives laughing in your face What is there to investigate? She tried to use her position to influence something and got told no. Civil servants done their job What is there to investigate?possibly if this was broken by asking them "5.1 Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code and the requirements of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Ministers should be professional in their working relationships with the Civil Service and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect."" She asked a question it would seem. Didn't get what she wanted and ultimately accepted that. I'm not sure that warrants an investigation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The blob tries to strike again." The civil servants advised her to do the right thing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She hardly leads by example Another example the conservatives laughing in your face What is there to investigate? She tried to use her position to influence something and got told no. Civil servants done their job What is there to investigate?possibly if this was broken by asking them "5.1 Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code and the requirements of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Ministers should be professional in their working relationships with the Civil Service and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect." She asked a question it would seem. Didn't get what she wanted and ultimately accepted that. I'm not sure that warrants an investigation." IMO the AG should not be asking such questions. Whether it needs to be investigated, I'm not sure. We have no details about how she asked the question, how often, what pressure (if any) she applied etc. It appears she continued to pursue the special treatment approach privately. While that is her right, I'd still expect law makers to stand by their laws and punishments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She hardly leads by example Another example the conservatives laughing in your face What is there to investigate? She tried to use her position to influence something and got told no. Civil servants done their job What is there to investigate?possibly if this was broken by asking them "5.1 Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code and the requirements of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Ministers should be professional in their working relationships with the Civil Service and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect." She asked a question it would seem. Didn't get what she wanted and ultimately accepted that. I'm not sure that warrants an investigation.IMO the AG should not be asking such questions. Whether it needs to be investigated, I'm not sure. We have no details about how she asked the question, how often, what pressure (if any) she applied etc. It appears she continued to pursue the special treatment approach privately. While that is her right, I'd still expect law makers to stand by their laws and punishments. " To that extent I'd agree, she should know the law and shouldn't have asked. However, I just don't see what an investigation would bring up. Seems pointless. If she did get preferential treatment then I'd be for an investigation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The blob tries to strike again. The civil servants advised her to do the right thing "Yes, it is the leaking of the information now that I was referring to. Failed to get rid of her by other means so find some old non-story to try and undermine her. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Didn't she ask if she could put through driving fines as expenses? In assuming this was done as HS not AG? I'm confused as it seems to be "when she became HS" she became too busy. My issues: 1) trying to use tax payers resources for a personal matter. 2) as part of our law making system, one should be held to exactly the same standards of law. If you can't do the time etc etc. " Just read the BBC article and do not see any mention of putting the fine on her expenses. If it turns out to be true then to me that's the worst part of this whole thing. The rest does not look good at all on her and maybe she should have gone on the group course publicly to show she is treated the same as others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The blob tries to strike again. The civil servants advised her to do the right thing
Yes, it is the leaking of the information now that I was referring to. Failed to get rid of her by other means so find some old non-story to try and undermine her."Do you have proof that it was the civil service that made the leak? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The blob tries to strike again. The civil servants advised her to do the right thing
Yes, it is the leaking of the information now that I was referring to. Failed to get rid of her by other means so find some old non-story to try and undermine her.
Do you have proof that it was the civil service that made the leak? "it's "government sources" and "home office sources" so noone knows if guess. We also are told she made enquiries via her own staff... Would the CS know this ? Feels more like a tory leal to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Didn't she ask if she could put through driving fines as expenses? In assuming this was done as HS not AG? I'm confused as it seems to be "when she became HS" she became too busy. My issues: 1) trying to use tax payers resources for a personal matter. 2) as part of our law making system, one should be held to exactly the same standards of law. If you can't do the time etc etc. Just read the BBC article and do not see any mention of putting the fine on her expenses. If it turns out to be true then to me that's the worst part of this whole thing. The rest does not look good at all on her and maybe she should have gone on the group course publicly to show she is treated the same as others. " https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-asked-whether-could-29782674# Wragg: “Her question to IPSA concerned whether a speeding ticket incurred during the course of parliamentary duties could be claimed on expenses. “Rather embarrassed, the representatives from IPSA said no.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The rest does not look good at all on her and maybe she should have gone on the group course publicly to show she is treated the same as others. " She is being treated the same as everyone else. First time offenders get the choice of a course, or a fine and points. She chose the hard option, officially recording the offence, paying the fine, and getting points added to her licence. I'm fairly sure that if she'd taken the course there would be a whole bunch of people saying that ministers shouldn't be allowed to 'get away with breaking the law'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The rest does not look good at all on her and maybe she should have gone on the group course publicly to show she is treated the same as others. She is being treated the same as everyone else. First time offenders get the choice of a course, or a fine and points. She chose the hard option, officially recording the offence, paying the fine, and getting points added to her licence. I'm fairly sure that if she'd taken the course there would be a whole bunch of people saying that ministers shouldn't be allowed to 'get away with breaking the law'." she is being treated the same. The issue is she believed she could take the third of the two options given to her. And then thought it was okay to use taxpayers money to explore this option. Which isn't great as any minister, let alone AG. My opinion any way. V poor judgement. Do you believe her actions were acceptable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She hardly leads by example Another example the conservatives laughing in your face What is there to investigate? She tried to use her position to influence something and got told no. Civil servants done their job What is there to investigate?possibly if this was broken by asking them "5.1 Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code and the requirements of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Ministers should be professional in their working relationships with the Civil Service and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect."" Perfect, now let's see where the leak came from, if it was the civil service who is holding them to their political impartiality and there should be repercussions for this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you believe her actions were acceptable? " We'll, we don't really know what her actions were, since all we have is the word of an anonymous source, but... The way I read it, she asked if she could have a speed awareness course to herself. Given the press interest in the story, that seems a reasonable request. If she really did ask a serious question about whether the fine could be claimed as expenses, that shows a poor level of judgement from her. Even then, she hasn't broken any rules, and at least she asked before filing a dodgy expenses claim. I would class this as foolish behaviour. I would not see this as behaviour worthy of disciplinary action. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Didn't she ask if she could put through driving fines as expenses? In assuming this was done as HS not AG? I'm confused as it seems to be "when she became HS" she became too busy. My issues: 1) trying to use tax payers resources for a personal matter. 2) as part of our law making system, one should be held to exactly the same standards of law. If you can't do the time etc etc. Just read the BBC article and do not see any mention of putting the fine on her expenses. If it turns out to be true then to me that's the worst part of this whole thing. The rest does not look good at all on her and maybe she should have gone on the group course publicly to show she is treated the same as others. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-asked-whether-could-29782674# Wragg: “Her question to IPSA concerned whether a speeding ticket incurred during the course of parliamentary duties could be claimed on expenses. “Rather embarrassed, the representatives from IPSA said no.”" As I say, if true that looks worse than the rest of it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The rest does not look good at all on her and maybe she should have gone on the group course publicly to show she is treated the same as others. She is being treated the same as everyone else. First time offenders get the choice of a course, or a fine and points. She chose the hard option, officially recording the offence, paying the fine, and getting points added to her licence. I'm fairly sure that if she'd taken the course there would be a whole bunch of people saying that ministers shouldn't be allowed to 'get away with breaking the law'." Yes I agree the law is being applied correctly. What I was referring to was her request for a one to one course. I'm not sure that's an option for anyone. Anyway the one to one was denied so no problem, just bad publicity. Bit torn on an inquiry to find out how the information was leaked. On the one hand no one should be leaking but on the other how would the public ever get to hear of these things | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Clamping down on leaks is a slippery slope. The world needs whistleblowers, at all levels of society. " If it was a civil servant who leaked this information I would argue that whistleblowing and following internal processes is the correct route, not leaking information to the press or opposition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Clamping down on leaks is a slippery slope. The world needs whistleblowers, at all levels of society. If it was a civil servant who leaked this information I would argue that whistleblowing and following internal processes is the correct route, not leaking information to the press or opposition." You’re assuming a Civil Servant(s). Could be a disgruntled SpAd or even someone within the Conservative party. It’s not exactly unheard of for the Tories to be briefing against each other. Especially with the recent Nat-C conference and the criticisms throwing shade over Sunak! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Clamping down on leaks is a slippery slope. The world needs whistleblowers, at all levels of society. If it was a civil servant who leaked this information I would argue that whistleblowing and following internal processes is the correct route, not leaking information to the press or opposition. You’re assuming a Civil Servant(s). Could be a disgruntled SpAd or even someone within the Conservative party. It’s not exactly unheard of for the Tories to be briefing against each other. Especially with the recent Nat-C conference and the criticisms throwing shade over Sunak!" I agree it could be a number of sources but I suspect it more likely the CS, Ihope it comes out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Clamping down on leaks is a slippery slope. The world needs whistleblowers, at all levels of society. If it was a civil servant who leaked this information I would argue that whistleblowing and following internal processes is the correct route, not leaking information to the press or opposition. You’re assuming a Civil Servant(s). Could be a disgruntled SpAd or even someone within the Conservative party. It’s not exactly unheard of for the Tories to be briefing against each other. Especially with the recent Nat-C conference and the criticisms throwing shade over Sunak! I agree it could be a number of sources but I suspect it more likely the CS, Ihope it comes out " Why do you suspect CS? On what grounds? Based on what evidence? I actually think it far more likely it is Tories briefing against Tories for infighting reasons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Clamping down on leaks is a slippery slope. The world needs whistleblowers, at all levels of society. If it was a civil servant who leaked this information I would argue that whistleblowing and following internal processes is the correct route, not leaking information to the press or opposition. You’re assuming a Civil Servant(s). Could be a disgruntled SpAd or even someone within the Conservative party. It’s not exactly unheard of for the Tories to be briefing against each other. Especially with the recent Nat-C conference and the criticisms throwing shade over Sunak! I agree it could be a number of sources but I suspect it more likely the CS, Ihope it comes out Why do you suspect CS? On what grounds? Based on what evidence? I actually think it far more likely it is Tories briefing against Tories for infighting reasons." The detail is over several interactions and that would suggest one source who would be the point of contact for such things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak to consult independent ethics adviser about Braverman's speeding fine - SkyNews This is revenge. Tories briefing against Tories." Could very well be, I did say we would see ore of this on a previous thread about Mogg. Mmmm if it is I was taken in for sure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak to consult independent ethics adviser about Braverman's speeding fine - SkyNews This is revenge. Tories briefing against Tories." it feels that the knives are out on all sides. See also: news braverman tried to get out of voting for her own bill Also: braverman denied being done for speeding and claimed she wa being brief against. In 3D chess news, some are claiamkng she is trying to find a way out of cabinet so she can launch a leadership bid. Another blue on blue season coming up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak to consult independent ethics adviser about Braverman's speeding fine - SkyNews This is revenge. Tories briefing against Tories. Could very well be, I did say we would see ore of this on a previous thread about Mogg. Mmmm if it is I was taken in for sure. " I think many people are too quick to point the finger at the Civil Service. They have been taken in by the Tories (particularly the ERG and Tufton mafia) briefing against the CS and the creation of “the blob”. Generally this has happened because the executive since Dec 2019 has been full of entitled feet stampers who want their way no matter what. The CS job is to advise, undertake due diligence, but ultimately to action the decisions taken by the executive and ratified by Parliament. This they do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This story came up on the radio today and a lawyer who specialises in motoring offences said 1-2-1 course are available if the person who is attending the course could be a distraction due to who they are. A person who runs the driver awareness course confirmed this too. The bottom line is she asked how she could book one, asking the civl service was mistake, but can anyone say this is something that merits this much attention." Whatever it takes to undermine her and allow Sunak’s supporters to brief against her in case she decides to put herself forward as a leadership rival in future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This story came up on the radio today and a lawyer who specialises in motoring offences said 1-2-1 course are available if the person who is attending the course could be a distraction due to who they are. A person who runs the driver awareness course confirmed this too. The bottom line is she asked how she could book one, asking the civl service was mistake, but can anyone say this is something that merits this much attention. Whatever it takes to undermine her and allow Sunak’s supporters to brief against her in case she decides to put herself forward as a leadership rival in future." That ship set sail under Truss, I'm surprised at her resilience to be fair | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Caught speeding, asked minsters to arrange a private driving course, was advised they do not get involved in such matters, then asked a special adviser to arrange a course, they couldn't. Then when made HS she paid the fine and took the points as she was very busy and didn't have time to do the course. Should there be another investigation in to these matters or nothing to see here? source BBC" She asked civil servants rather than Ministers. I'm sure that's what you meant. She shouldn't be asking civil servants to advise her on a private matter. Is it a "big deal"? Perhaps not on its own, but as a Minister already removed and reinstated after breaking the Ministerial code it becomes more newsworthy. If the Civil Service were not being continually briefed against by their own Ministers, it may have passed unnoticed in previous years. I imagine that they are far more unforgiving now. Of you treat people badly, don't expect any favours. Just as likely to be Sunak's team briefing against her. She has not made herself popular effectively undermining the Prime Minister's authority and starting another leadership bid post-election at the National Conservative conference. Ultimately up to the Prime Minister to decide if there is an investigation. The process is set up to allow him to do whatever is politically expedient, although this is supposed to be a Government of “integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level”. Does this look like that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This story came up on the radio today and a lawyer who specialises in motoring offences said 1-2-1 course are available if the person who is attending the course could be a distraction due to who they are. A person who runs the driver awareness course confirmed this too. The bottom line is she asked how she could book one, asking the civl service was mistake, but can anyone say this is something that merits this much attention. Whatever it takes to undermine her and allow Sunak’s supporters to brief against her in case she decides to put herself forward as a leadership rival in future. That ship set sail under Truss, I'm surprised at her resilience to be fair " She probably has dirt on a few people so the question will be if Sunak (or his people) have more dirt on Sue Ellen? Either way it is clear Team Sunak aren’t too happy with the Nat-Cs! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This story came up on the radio today and a lawyer who specialises in motoring offences said 1-2-1 course are available if the person who is attending the course could be a distraction due to who they are. A person who runs the driver awareness course confirmed this too. The bottom line is she asked how she could book one, asking the civl service was mistake, but can anyone say this is something that merits this much attention." Thanks for the info. I did not know one to one courses existed so I was wrong to say she asked for something that was not available to others | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A big story being made out of nothing. I think she was right to try and arrange a private course. She is a very prominant politician. If she was attending a standard public course she would have been swamped with the media and other people with an agenda. She attempted to do the right thing and in the end had to take the points and fine." I was going to post what I thought but you did it for me. Fully agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A big story being made out of nothing. I think she was right to try and arrange a private course. She is a very prominant politician. If she was attending a standard public course she would have been swamped with the media and other people with an agenda. She attempted to do the right thing and in the end had to take the points and fine." The course can be done online, however, on the face of it she hasn’t done anything wrong, she is terrible home secretary though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Person who's an mp asks if they can take a 1 to 1 course. Instead of in public Oh the horror." the story is more she asked the civil service. While the AG. Spin offs are: her team claimed that runours of her being caught was a campaig against her. She asked if fines could be expensed. Had done this privately + it's a legitimate approach +not denied it there would be little story. As ever, how she's handled it is bigger than the offence itself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Person who's an mp asks if they can take a 1 to 1 course. Instead of in public Oh the horror." Yeah but Sunak’s team are weaponising it for all it’s worth! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Person who's an mp asks if they can take a 1 to 1 course. Instead of in public Oh the horror. Yeah but Sunak’s team are weaponising it for all it’s worth!" He is too weak to sack her, so he is going for the ‘breaking of the ministerial code ‘ route. Sack her or not he is fucked | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A big story being made out of nothing. I think she was right to try and arrange a private course. She is a very prominant politician. If she was attending a standard public course she would have been swamped with the media and other people with an agenda. She attempted to do the right thing and in the end had to take the points and fine." No, she didn't try to "do the right thing". She wanted a private course, which is fine so as not to distract other attendees. She tried to use the Civil Service to deal with a private matter for her which is not fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Person who's an mp asks if they can take a 1 to 1 course. Instead of in public Oh the horror." What she wanted to do was fine. That she tried to use the Civil Service to deal with a private matter for her is not fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Person who's an mp asks if they can take a 1 to 1 course. Instead of in public Oh the horror. What she wanted to do was fine. That she tried to use the Civil Service to deal with a private matter for her is not fine." She is a senior MP and cabinet member, she is surrounded by the civil service including her own secretaries. Of course its one of them that shes going to ask to look into it. She doesnt have the time to go on google and sort it out for herself. the very fact that private sessions are available is just an indication that she is being stiched up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Person who's an mp asks if they can take a 1 to 1 course. Instead of in public Oh the horror. What she wanted to do was fine. That she tried to use the Civil Service to deal with a private matter for her is not fine. She is a senior MP and cabinet member, she is surrounded by the civil service including her own secretaries. Of course its one of them that shes going to ask to look into it. She doesnt have the time to go on google and sort it out for herself. the very fact that private sessions are available is just an indication that she is being stiched up." She is being ‘stitched up ‘ up by her own party, great to watch | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" She is being ‘stitched up ‘ up by her own party, great to watch "Yes, I think your right it is by her own party which is just a symptom of how disfunctional our government is, sadly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" She is being ‘stitched up ‘ up by her own party, great to watch
Yes, I think your right it is by her own party which is just a symptom of how disfunctional our government is, sadly."Yep, I kind of feel sorry for Sunak, half decent PM who is surrounded by morons | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Person who's an mp asks if they can take a 1 to 1 course. Instead of in public Oh the horror. What she wanted to do was fine. That she tried to use the Civil Service to deal with a private matter for her is not fine. She is a senior MP and cabinet member, she is surrounded by the civil service including her own secretaries. Of course its one of them that shes going to ask to look into it. She doesnt have the time to go on google and sort it out for herself. the very fact that private sessions are available is just an indication that she is being stiched up." Ministers do not use Civil service staff for private matters. That is how it worked even before Google. She has her own personal staff and assistants. She is not "being stitched up". She is misusing her position. Neither she nor you seem to be able to distinguish between public and private matters and who is responsible for what. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us." Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us?" The request for a “private” speed awareness class. Like she doesn’t want to do those courses with the “common” people. She is so up her own ass, she can see her tonsils. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? The request for a “private” speed awareness class. Like she doesn’t want to do those courses with the “common” people. She is so up her own ass, she can see her tonsils." As has already been stated above that "rule" is available to certain people  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us?" A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret." Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course 
There's really nothing to see here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak’s people have gone up a gear. Sue Ellen has more briefing against her, this time her undeclared links to the Rwandan Govt (via a scheme she set up with Cherie Blair). Also the timing of fresh Covid regulation breaches by Johnson cannot be coincidence. Team Sunak undermining any potential leadership challenge me thinks!" This had crossed my mind, how all very convenient and Sunak seems to be a silent assassin | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak’s people have gone up a gear. Sue Ellen has more briefing against her, this time her undeclared links to the Rwandan Govt (via a scheme she set up with Cherie Blair). Also the timing of fresh Covid regulation breaches by Johnson cannot be coincidence. Team Sunak undermining any potential leadership challenge me thinks! This had crossed my mind, how all very convenient and Sunak seems to be a silent assassin " She's hardly been a helpful ally for him. I guess you reap what you sow... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here."You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?"No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it. Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak’s people have gone up a gear. Sue Ellen has more briefing against her, this time her undeclared links to the Rwandan Govt (via a scheme she set up with Cherie Blair). Also the timing of fresh Covid regulation breaches by Johnson cannot be coincidence. Team Sunak undermining any potential leadership challenge me thinks! This had crossed my mind, how all very convenient and Sunak seems to be a silent assassin " As I said/we discussed further up, people are quick to point the finger at the Civil Service but the vast majority of the time it is actually Team [insert Minister/MP name] briefing against opponents. Most of the time the CS are scapegoats. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak’s people have gone up a gear. Sue Ellen has more briefing against her, this time her undeclared links to the Rwandan Govt (via a scheme she set up with Cherie Blair). Also the timing of fresh Covid regulation breaches by Johnson cannot be coincidence. Team Sunak undermining any potential leadership challenge me thinks!" Are we sure it's Sunaks people. We're constantly told he is weak | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak’s people have gone up a gear. Sue Ellen has more briefing against her, this time her undeclared links to the Rwandan Govt (via a scheme she set up with Cherie Blair). Also the timing of fresh Covid regulation breaches by Johnson cannot be coincidence. Team Sunak undermining any potential leadership challenge me thinks! Are we sure it's Sunaks people. We're constantly told he is weak "Not by me. Sunak is devious and will play the long game. I reckon over the coming months Sue Ellen is toast. She is a darling of the Nat-Cs and a possible threat to Sunak’s leadership. There will be more dirt to come. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak’s people have gone up a gear. Sue Ellen has more briefing against her, this time her undeclared links to the Rwandan Govt (via a scheme she set up with Cherie Blair). Also the timing of fresh Covid regulation breaches by Johnson cannot be coincidence. Team Sunak undermining any potential leadership challenge me thinks! Are we sure it's Sunaks people. We're constantly told he is weak
Not by me. Sunak is devious and will play the long game. I reckon over the coming months Sue Ellen is toast. She is a darling of the Nat-Cs and a possible threat to Sunak’s leadership. There will be more dirt to come."Not by you tbf, by our resident leftie. I agree with you, Sunak is a fox. A very good one at that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak’s people have gone up a gear. Sue Ellen has more briefing against her, this time her undeclared links to the Rwandan Govt (via a scheme she set up with Cherie Blair). Also the timing of fresh Covid regulation breaches by Johnson cannot be coincidence. Team Sunak undermining any potential leadership challenge me thinks! Are we sure it's Sunaks people. We're constantly told he is weak
Not by me. Sunak is devious and will play the long game. I reckon over the coming months Sue Ellen is toast. She is a darling of the Nat-Cs and a possible threat to Sunak’s leadership. There will be more dirt to come."I do rather like the Johnson take down, class move and warning shot across the bows. I wonder if they have anything Priti, that would be interesting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak’s people have gone up a gear. Sue Ellen has more briefing against her, this time her undeclared links to the Rwandan Govt (via a scheme she set up with Cherie Blair). Also the timing of fresh Covid regulation breaches by Johnson cannot be coincidence. Team Sunak undermining any potential leadership challenge me thinks! Are we sure it's Sunaks people. We're constantly told he is weak
Not by me. Sunak is devious and will play the long game. I reckon over the coming months Sue Ellen is toast. She is a darling of the Nat-Cs and a possible threat to Sunak’s leadership. There will be more dirt to come.
I do rather like the Johnson take down, class move and warning shot across the bows. I wonder if they have anything Priti, that would be interesting."There will be “something” on everyone because they are such a bunch of arrogant narcissists that they truly believe rules do not apply to them. Team [insert name] will collect dirt and file away for future use. Some of the time any possible disloyalty will be handled behind closed doors to shut them up. Other times (if there is a perceived threat) the briefing against them will begin such as now. All the revelations about Sunak (eg Green Card, wife’s Non-Dom etc) will have come from Team Johnson. It’s a dirty business. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided."She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years. She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them. If that's not okay then there is something to see. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see."Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money. Nothing to see. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is the civil service asked a question? Is it always formal or can it be in passing?" Here's the situation under discussion: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-is-the-suella-braverman-speeding-row-about-and-what-could-happen-next https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/politics-explained/suella-braverman-speeding-fine-civil-service-b2343004.html I guess you're own question explains why an investigation is being requested. If her team also denied that she had a speeding ticket, then she hasn't helped herself either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak’s people have gone up a gear. Sue Ellen has more briefing against her, this time her undeclared links to the Rwandan Govt (via a scheme she set up with Cherie Blair). Also the timing of fresh Covid regulation breaches by Johnson cannot be coincidence. Team Sunak undermining any potential leadership challenge me thinks!" How many of his cabinet have been forced to resign or been sacked? The opposition will be rubbing their hands at his incompetence, let’s not forget, he brought Braverman back after her last dismissal for breaching the ministerial code | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak’s people have gone up a gear. Sue Ellen has more briefing against her, this time her undeclared links to the Rwandan Govt (via a scheme she set up with Cherie Blair). Also the timing of fresh Covid regulation breaches by Johnson cannot be coincidence. Team Sunak undermining any potential leadership challenge me thinks! How many of his cabinet have been forced to resign or been sacked? The opposition will be rubbing their hands at his incompetence, let’s not forget, he brought Braverman back after her last dismissal for breaching the ministerial code " No fan of Sunak (jury still out for me) but not sure re incompetence. Bringing Sue Ellen back in was a mistake but must have been to assuage the right wingers which indicates his position was not that secure. Maybe now he feels more confident? Then again for Ministers they are fishing in an ever shallower pond! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see."These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is the civil service asked a question? Is it always formal or can it be in passing? Here's the situation under discussion: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-is-the-suella-braverman-speeding-row-about-and-what-could-happen-next https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/politics-explained/suella-braverman-speeding-fine-civil-service-b2343004.html I guess you're own question explains why an investigation is being requested. If her team also denied that she had a speeding ticket, then she hasn't helped herself either." I know that asking the civil service a question of a personal matter is not allowed. I want to know how a question is asked of the civil service, will an MP send an email to a civil servant, can it be a verbal question while having a cup of tea? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is the civil service asked a question? Is it always formal or can it be in passing? Here's the situation under discussion: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-is-the-suella-braverman-speeding-row-about-and-what-could-happen-next https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/politics-explained/suella-braverman-speeding-fine-civil-service-b2343004.html I guess you're own question explains why an investigation is being requested. If her team also denied that she had a speeding ticket, then she hasn't helped herself either. I know that asking the civil service a question of a personal matter is not allowed. I want to know how a question is asked of the civil service, will an MP send an email to a civil servant, can it be a verbal question while having a cup of tea?" You find out by asking. That is an investigation, either formal or informal. Considering her public position on the Civil service, I cannot imagine that she has a cost relationship with them. The problem is that as a Minister already sacked for breaking the code once, she's cannot really expect the benefit of the doubt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here? "Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here?
Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking?"I'm asking how many breaches of code can one minister let's be generous and say " be accused of" before a flippant nothing to see here good old Rishi will make it go away becomes unacceptable?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those wishing for Braverman to go remember Kemi is waiting in the wings. Be careful what you wish for "Fair point. Someone mentioned fishing in a shallow ministerial pool... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Those wishing for Braverman to go remember Kemi is waiting in the wings. Be careful what you wish for "True but she really is arrogant she would last a fortnight at best i reckon lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here?
Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking?
I'm asking how many breaches of code can one minister let's be generous and say " be accused of" before a flippant nothing to see here good old Rishi will make it go away becomes unacceptable?? "I didn't say he'll make it go away. I said he will deal with it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak’s people have gone up a gear. Sue Ellen has more briefing against her, this time her undeclared links to the Rwandan Govt (via a scheme she set up with Cherie Blair). Also the timing of fresh Covid regulation breaches by Johnson cannot be coincidence. Team Sunak undermining any potential leadership challenge me thinks! How many of his cabinet have been forced to resign or been sacked? The opposition will be rubbing their hands at his incompetence, let’s not forget, he brought Braverman back after her last dismissal for breaching the ministerial code No fan of Sunak (jury still out for me) but not sure re incompetence. Bringing Sue Ellen back in was a mistake but must have been to assuage the right wingers which indicates his position was not that secure. Maybe now he feels more confident? Then again for Ministers they are fishing in an ever shallower pond!" losing 4 to 5 ministers in a short space of time doesn’t look good, but I agree, he is surrounded by morons. He is 100 times better than both Alexander Johnson and Truss but he will always be hampered and weakened by his cabinet and the large number of people (within the party) who don’t want him as PM | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here?
Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking?
I'm asking how many breaches of code can one minister let's be generous and say " be accused of" before a flippant nothing to see here good old Rishi will make it go away becomes unacceptable??
I didn't say he'll make it go away. I said he will deal with it."And then said nothing "to see" inferring that it's just a non issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here?
Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking?
I'm asking how many breaches of code can one minister let's be generous and say " be accused of" before a flippant nothing to see here good old Rishi will make it go away becomes unacceptable??
I didn't say he'll make it go away. I said he will deal with it.
And then said nothing "to see" inferring that it's just a non issue.
"This particular instance is a non issue. She asked a question and got told no. There is no inference that she tried to assert pressure or use her influence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here?
Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking?
I'm asking how many breaches of code can one minister let's be generous and say " be accused of" before a flippant nothing to see here good old Rishi will make it go away becomes unacceptable??
I didn't say he'll make it go away. I said he will deal with it.
And then said nothing "to see" inferring that it's just a non issue.
This particular instance is a non issue.
She asked a question and got told no. There is no inference that she tried to assert pressure or use her influence."I've never met anyone that's had a private individual speed awareness course have you? And she shouldn't of asked that's the whole problem in a nutshell. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Caught speeding, asked minsters to arrange a private driving course, was advised they do not get involved in such matters, then asked a special adviser to arrange a course, they couldn't. Then when made HS she paid the fine and took the points as she was very busy and didn't have time to do the course. Should there be another investigation in to these matters or nothing to see here? source BBC" total non story. As far as I am aware, she only asked a question, which was reasonable. She was given the answer and duly paid her fine/took points. This is just another pathetic attempt by the media/Labour Party to try to remove her from her job because they don’t like her politics. Desperate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here?
Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking?
I'm asking how many breaches of code can one minister let's be generous and say " be accused of" before a flippant nothing to see here good old Rishi will make it go away becomes unacceptable??
I didn't say he'll make it go away. I said he will deal with it.
And then said nothing "to see" inferring that it's just a non issue.
This particular instance is a non issue.
She asked a question and got told no. There is no inference that she tried to assert pressure or use her influence.
I've never met anyone that's had a private individual speed awareness course have you? And she shouldn't of asked that's the whole problem in a nutshell. "I think I now understand your problem. You don't know anyone personally who has had a private course. Private courses exist as explained above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here?
Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking?
I'm asking how many breaches of code can one minister let's be generous and say " be accused of" before a flippant nothing to see here good old Rishi will make it go away becomes unacceptable??
I didn't say he'll make it go away. I said he will deal with it.
And then said nothing "to see" inferring that it's just a non issue.
This particular instance is a non issue.
She asked a question and got told no. There is no inference that she tried to assert pressure or use her influence.
I've never met anyone that's had a private individual speed awareness course have you? And she shouldn't of asked that's the whole problem in a nutshell. "it is highly unlikely you will know someone who has had a 1-2-1 driver awareness course, unless you know someone who is famous and has committed a speeding offence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here?
Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking?
I'm asking how many breaches of code can one minister let's be generous and say " be accused of" before a flippant nothing to see here good old Rishi will make it go away becomes unacceptable??
I didn't say he'll make it go away. I said he will deal with it.
And then said nothing "to see" inferring that it's just a non issue.
This particular instance is a non issue.
She asked a question and got told no. There is no inference that she tried to assert pressure or use her influence.
I've never met anyone that's had a private individual speed awareness course have you? And she shouldn't of asked that's the whole problem in a nutshell.
I think I now understand your problem. You don't know anyone personally who has had a private course. Private courses exist as explained above."The problem is as you well know she contacted the people directly her lawyer should of. whats that mean oh yes another breach? duh oh. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here?
Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking?
I'm asking how many breaches of code can one minister let's be generous and say " be accused of" before a flippant nothing to see here good old Rishi will make it go away becomes unacceptable??
I didn't say he'll make it go away. I said he will deal with it.
And then said nothing "to see" inferring that it's just a non issue.
This particular instance is a non issue.
She asked a question and got told no. There is no inference that she tried to assert pressure or use her influence.
I've never met anyone that's had a private individual speed awareness course have you? And she shouldn't of asked that's the whole problem in a nutshell.
I think I now understand your problem. You don't know anyone personally who has had a private course. Private courses exist as explained above.
The problem is as you well know she contacted the people directly her lawyer should of. whats that mean oh yes another breach? duh oh. "Getting a lawyer for a speed awareness course? Come on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here?
Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking?
I'm asking how many breaches of code can one minister let's be generous and say " be accused of" before a flippant nothing to see here good old Rishi will make it go away becomes unacceptable??
I didn't say he'll make it go away. I said he will deal with it.
And then said nothing "to see" inferring that it's just a non issue.
This particular instance is a non issue.
She asked a question and got told no. There is no inference that she tried to assert pressure or use her influence.
I've never met anyone that's had a private individual speed awareness course have you? And she shouldn't of asked that's the whole problem in a nutshell.
I think I now understand your problem. You don't know anyone personally who has had a private course. Private courses exist as explained above.
The problem is as you well know she contacted the people directly her lawyer should of. whats that mean oh yes another breach? duh oh.
Getting a lawyer for a speed awareness course? Come on "How else do you think the Rich and famous arrange them? Their twenty year old P.A just rings up lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Caught speeding, asked minsters to arrange a private driving course, was advised they do not get involved in such matters, then asked a special adviser to arrange a course, they couldn't. Then when made HS she paid the fine and took the points as she was very busy and didn't have time to do the course. Should there be another investigation in to these matters or nothing to see here? source BBC total non story. As far as I am aware, she only asked a question, which was reasonable. She was given the answer and duly paid her fine/took points. This is just another pathetic attempt by the media/Labour Party to try to remove her from her job because they don’t like her politics. Desperate." You’ve not read the thread have you? Nothing to do with Labour or the Civil Service. This is Tory briefing against Tory. This is infighting. This is Sunak knee capping any potential threat to his leadership. Braverman brought this on herself by throwing her lot in with the Nat-Cs. There is also the story doing the rounds now about undeclared work with the Rwanda Govt. She will be toast before too long just as Sunak wants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here?
Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking?
I'm asking how many breaches of code can one minister let's be generous and say " be accused of" before a flippant nothing to see here good old Rishi will make it go away becomes unacceptable??
I didn't say he'll make it go away. I said he will deal with it.
And then said nothing "to see" inferring that it's just a non issue.
This particular instance is a non issue.
She asked a question and got told no. There is no inference that she tried to assert pressure or use her influence.
I've never met anyone that's had a private individual speed awareness course have you? And she shouldn't of asked that's the whole problem in a nutshell.
I think I now understand your problem. You don't know anyone personally who has had a private course. Private courses exist as explained above.
The problem is as you well know she contacted the people directly her lawyer should of. whats that mean oh yes another breach? duh oh.
Getting a lawyer for a speed awareness course? Come on
How else do you think the Rich and famous arrange them? Their twenty year old P.A just rings up lol"Actually yes. There is no need for a lawyer to be involved. Lawyers are usually there to argue technicalities within the law and 'get people off', not to arrange a course for an offence that's been admitted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here?
Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking?
I'm asking how many breaches of code can one minister let's be generous and say " be accused of" before a flippant nothing to see here good old Rishi will make it go away becomes unacceptable??
I didn't say he'll make it go away. I said he will deal with it.
And then said nothing "to see" inferring that it's just a non issue.
This particular instance is a non issue.
She asked a question and got told no. There is no inference that she tried to assert pressure or use her influence.
I've never met anyone that's had a private individual speed awareness course have you? And she shouldn't of asked that's the whole problem in a nutshell.
I think I now understand your problem. You don't know anyone personally who has had a private course. Private courses exist as explained above.
The problem is as you well know she contacted the people directly her lawyer should of. whats that mean oh yes another breach? duh oh.
Getting a lawyer for a speed awareness course? Come on
How else do you think the Rich and famous arrange them? Their twenty year old P.A just rings up lol"It seems that they are offered by the courses. You cannot request them. You apply like anyone else. It is not to keep the matter private,it is to prevent distraction to other members of the course. You will probably hear far more about who has had these in the future... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here?
Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking?
I'm asking how many breaches of code can one minister let's be generous and say " be accused of" before a flippant nothing to see here good old Rishi will make it go away becomes unacceptable??
I didn't say he'll make it go away. I said he will deal with it.
And then said nothing "to see" inferring that it's just a non issue.
This particular instance is a non issue.
She asked a question and got told no. There is no inference that she tried to assert pressure or use her influence.
I've never met anyone that's had a private individual speed awareness course have you? And she shouldn't of asked that's the whole problem in a nutshell.
I think I now understand your problem. You don't know anyone personally who has had a private course. Private courses exist as explained above.
The problem is as you well know she contacted the people directly her lawyer should of. whats that mean oh yes another breach? duh oh.
Getting a lawyer for a speed awareness course? Come on
How else do you think the Rich and famous arrange them? Their twenty year old P.A just rings up lol
Actually yes. There is no need for a lawyer to be involved. Lawyers are usually there to argue technicalities within the law and 'get people off', not to arrange a course for an offence that's been admitted."Please you sunshine lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People on this thread from all sides of the argument discussing technicalities and whether it is that serious she asked a civil servant etc etc are missing the point. It is the collective stench being associated to and stuck to her that matters. It is the combined impact of multiple issues that bring into question her suitability to be a Minister, the third most important Minister, and specifically a future Leader of the Conservative Party and potential PM. The speeding ticket etc is small beer. It is everything added together that matters. The Rwanda story is bigger! There may be more dirt to come." Exactly my point. You have put it so much more eloquently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People on this thread from all sides of the argument discussing technicalities and whether it is that serious she asked a civil servant etc etc are missing the point. It is the collective stench being associated to and stuck to her that matters. It is the combined impact of multiple issues that bring into question her suitability to be a Minister, the third most important Minister, and specifically a future Leader of the Conservative Party and potential PM. The speeding ticket etc is small beer. It is everything added together that matters. The Rwanda story is bigger! There may be more dirt to come." Whilst I don't disagree with what you've said, the OP asked 'should there be an investigation', obviously its now been turned into 'Braverman and her wrongdoings'. I don't think we have 'missed the point' of the actual question in the OP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here?
Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking?
I'm asking how many breaches of code can one minister let's be generous and say " be accused of" before a flippant nothing to see here good old Rishi will make it go away becomes unacceptable??
I didn't say he'll make it go away. I said he will deal with it.
And then said nothing "to see" inferring that it's just a non issue.
This particular instance is a non issue.
She asked a question and got told no. There is no inference that she tried to assert pressure or use her influence.
I've never met anyone that's had a private individual speed awareness course have you? And she shouldn't of asked that's the whole problem in a nutshell.
I think I now understand your problem. You don't know anyone personally who has had a private course. Private courses exist as explained above.
The problem is as you well know she contacted the people directly her lawyer should of. whats that mean oh yes another breach? duh oh.
Getting a lawyer for a speed awareness course? Come on
How else do you think the Rich and famous arrange them? Their twenty year old P.A just rings up lol
Actually yes. There is no need for a lawyer to be involved. Lawyers are usually there to argue technicalities within the law and 'get people off', not to arrange a course for an offence that's been admitted.
Please you sunshine lol. "And to think you complained about me being insulting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Caught speeding, asked minsters to arrange a private driving course, was advised they do not get involved in such matters, then asked a special adviser to arrange a course, they couldn't. Then when made HS she paid the fine and took the points as she was very busy and didn't have time to do the course. Should there be another investigation in to these matters or nothing to see here? source BBC total non story. As far as I am aware, she only asked a question, which was reasonable. She was given the answer and duly paid her fine/took points. This is just another pathetic attempt by the media/Labour Party to try to remove her from her job because they don’t like her politics. Desperate." O dear, it is the Tories that are trying to remove her, keep up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People on this thread from all sides of the argument discussing technicalities and whether it is that serious she asked a civil servant etc etc are missing the point. It is the collective stench being associated to and stuck to her that matters. It is the combined impact of multiple issues that bring into question her suitability to be a Minister, the third most important Minister, and specifically a future Leader of the Conservative Party and potential PM. The speeding ticket etc is small beer. It is everything added together that matters. The Rwanda story is bigger! There may be more dirt to come. Whilst I don't disagree with what you've said, the OP asked 'should there be an investigation', obviously its now been turned into 'Braverman and her wrongdoings'. I don't think we have 'missed the point' of the actual question in the OP." You are being pedantic though and implying that the only valid discussion is one directly responding to the OP. Also feisty I love how you always say “I don’t disagree” a double negative. Why can’t you just say “I agree” because let’s face it, my point is true. We need to lift our heads out of the rabbit hole to see the landscape. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here?
Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking?
I'm asking how many breaches of code can one minister let's be generous and say " be accused of" before a flippant nothing to see here good old Rishi will make it go away becomes unacceptable??
I didn't say he'll make it go away. I said he will deal with it.
And then said nothing "to see" inferring that it's just a non issue.
This particular instance is a non issue.
She asked a question and got told no. There is no inference that she tried to assert pressure or use her influence.
I've never met anyone that's had a private individual speed awareness course have you? And she shouldn't of asked that's the whole problem in a nutshell.
I think I now understand your problem. You don't know anyone personally who has had a private course. Private courses exist as explained above.
The problem is as you well know she contacted the people directly her lawyer should of. whats that mean oh yes another breach? duh oh.
Getting a lawyer for a speed awareness course? Come on
How else do you think the Rich and famous arrange them? Their twenty year old P.A just rings up lol
Actually yes. There is no need for a lawyer to be involved. Lawyers are usually there to argue technicalities within the law and 'get people off', not to arrange a course for an offence that's been admitted.
Please you sunshine lol.
And to think you complained about me being insulting "What's insulting about sunshine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People on this thread from all sides of the argument discussing technicalities and whether it is that serious she asked a civil servant etc etc are missing the point. It is the collective stench being associated to and stuck to her that matters. It is the combined impact of multiple issues that bring into question her suitability to be a Minister, the third most important Minister, and specifically a future Leader of the Conservative Party and potential PM. The speeding ticket etc is small beer. It is everything added together that matters. The Rwanda story is bigger! There may be more dirt to come. Whilst I don't disagree with what you've said, the OP asked 'should there be an investigation', obviously its now been turned into 'Braverman and her wrongdoings'. I don't think we have 'missed the point' of the actual question in the OP. You are being pedantic though and implying that the only valid discussion is one directly responding to the OP. Also feisty I love how you always say “I don’t disagree” a double negative. Why can’t you just say “I agree” because let’s face it, my point is true. We need to lift our heads out of the rabbit hole to see the landscape." I'm not implying the only thing worthy of discussion is the OP, I just don't feel were 'missing the point'. I say I don't disagree because if I said I agree then there would be no room for caveats. It's purposefully done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us. Really? Which 'rule for them' did she take advantage of that isn't available to us? A few issues here. First, she attempted to avoid taking the points on her license by doing a speed awareness course. Any of us 'ordinaries' can do that, no problem. However... She attempted to take the mandated road safety course privately, in a 1-to-1 setting, rather than in a public group, which is the standard procedure. Now we may have an issue there. The issue being that these courses are about acknowledging a mistake and showing a sincere desire to learn from it. That's why doing them allows drivers to avoid the points on the license. They are not generally private. Now again, there is noting necessarily wrong with a situation where you have a 1-to-1 course, but they are only offeted where the course giver feels it is needed; which is not determined by the applicant. Such reasons do not include 'because I want to make my speeding offence secret and keep it out of the public eye'. This is doubly important where elected officials and senior government officials are concerned. Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds". Now we come to the extra-problematic part. Asking civil servants to arrange it for her. These are taxpayer-funded workers she is asking to arrange her private affairs for her, in such a way as to hide the truth from the people whose taxes pay their wages. That's the part where she's attempted taking advantage of the 'one law for us, another for them' concept. Not in the course-taking, but in the attempted use of tax-payer-funded employees to keep secret something that should never have been kept secret. Do you think it's odd that you've automatically jumped to 'hide the truth' and 'something that should never have been kept secret'. It's a drivers awareness course
There's really nothing to see here.
You think that using the Civil service for dealing with a private matter is acceptable?
No I don't. As I said right at the beginning she asked a question and got an answer. That's the crux of it.
Although I'm not sure how that question comes from what I said in the quote you've provided.
She should not have asked the question. That is the point. She has been a Minister for years.
She "accidentally" asked Civil servants to do something for her in a private capacity that she new that she shouldn't ask them.
If that's not okay then there is something to see.
Rishi will deal with it. An investigation into this would be a complete waste of time and money.
Nothing to see.
These are strikes against her integrity and capability she has taken yet another knock.. Also not declaring the fact she worked in Rwanda for year's is highly dubious.. What something to see here?
Excuse me? I'm lost. What question are you asking?
I'm asking how many breaches of code can one minister let's be generous and say " be accused of" before a flippant nothing to see here good old Rishi will make it go away becomes unacceptable??
I didn't say he'll make it go away. I said he will deal with it.
And then said nothing "to see" inferring that it's just a non issue.
This particular instance is a non issue.
She asked a question and got told no. There is no inference that she tried to assert pressure or use her influence.
I've never met anyone that's had a private individual speed awareness course have you? And she shouldn't of asked that's the whole problem in a nutshell.
I think I now understand your problem. You don't know anyone personally who has had a private course. Private courses exist as explained above.
The problem is as you well know she contacted the people directly her lawyer should of. whats that mean oh yes another breach? duh oh.
Getting a lawyer for a speed awareness course? Come on
How else do you think the Rich and famous arrange them? Their twenty year old P.A just rings up lol
Actually yes. There is no need for a lawyer to be involved. Lawyers are usually there to argue technicalities within the law and 'get people off', not to arrange a course for an offence that's been admitted.
Please you sunshine lol.
And to think you complained about me being insulting
What's insulting about sunshine? "Said in a sarcastic tone (lol) it's definitely insulting, you should go seek a dictionary if you don't believe so. Anyway, I'm not insulted because I'm quite thick skinned but don't go round insulting people whilst feigning insult yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People on this thread from all sides of the argument discussing technicalities and whether it is that serious she asked a civil servant etc etc are missing the point. It is the collective stench being associated to and stuck to her that matters. It is the combined impact of multiple issues that bring into question her suitability to be a Minister, the third most important Minister, and specifically a future Leader of the Conservative Party and potential PM. The speeding ticket etc is small beer. It is everything added together that matters. The Rwanda story is bigger! There may be more dirt to come. Whilst I don't disagree with what you've said, the OP asked 'should there be an investigation', obviously its now been turned into 'Braverman and her wrongdoings'. I don't think we have 'missed the point' of the actual question in the OP. You are being pedantic though and implying that the only valid discussion is one directly responding to the OP. Also feisty I love how you always say “I don’t disagree” a double negative. Why can’t you just say “I agree” because let’s face it, my point is true. We need to lift our heads out of the rabbit hole to see the landscape. I'm not implying the only thing worthy of discussion is the OP, I just don't feel were 'missing the point'. I say I don't disagree because if I said I agree then there would be no room for caveats. It's purposefully done."  ok fair enough. Personally I would say “I agree for the most part but...” (ie positive affirmation with caveats rather than a double negative) but each their own and now I am being pedantic
So maybe not “missing the point” as distracting from the wider issues. The whole matters more than the parts, especially in this sort of circumstance. Team Sunak (for I am certain it is they) are building a gradual negative case against Sue Ellen to kneecap any future leadership bid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People on this thread from all sides of the argument discussing technicalities and whether it is that serious she asked a civil servant etc etc are missing the point. It is the collective stench being associated to and stuck to her that matters. It is the combined impact of multiple issues that bring into question her suitability to be a Minister, the third most important Minister, and specifically a future Leader of the Conservative Party and potential PM. The speeding ticket etc is small beer. It is everything added together that matters. The Rwanda story is bigger! There may be more dirt to come. Whilst I don't disagree with what you've said, the OP asked 'should there be an investigation', obviously its now been turned into 'Braverman and her wrongdoings'. I don't think we have 'missed the point' of the actual question in the OP. You are being pedantic though and implying that the only valid discussion is one directly responding to the OP. Also feisty I love how you always say “I don’t disagree” a double negative. Why can’t you just say “I agree” because let’s face it, my point is true. We need to lift our heads out of the rabbit hole to see the landscape. I'm not implying the only thing worthy of discussion is the OP, I just don't feel were 'missing the point'. I say I don't disagree because if I said I agree then there would be no room for caveats. It's purposefully done. ok fair enough. Personally I would say “I agree for the most part but...” (ie positive affirmation with caveats rather than a double negative) but each their own and now I am being pedantic
So maybe not “missing the point” as distracting from the wider issues. The whole matters more than the parts, especially in this sort of circumstance. Team Sunak (for I am certain it is they) are building a gradual negative case against Sue Ellen to kneecap any future leadership bid. "Maybe we're both being pedantic. Again, I disagree (single negative  ) that it's distracting from the wider point. The OP was clear, it's other who want to open it up to something larger. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People on this thread from all sides of the argument discussing technicalities and whether it is that serious she asked a civil servant etc etc are missing the point. It is the collective stench being associated to and stuck to her that matters. It is the combined impact of multiple issues that bring into question her suitability to be a Minister, the third most important Minister, and specifically a future Leader of the Conservative Party and potential PM. The speeding ticket etc is small beer. It is everything added together that matters. The Rwanda story is bigger! There may be more dirt to come. Whilst I don't disagree with what you've said, the OP asked 'should there be an investigation', obviously its now been turned into 'Braverman and her wrongdoings'. I don't think we have 'missed the point' of the actual question in the OP. You are being pedantic though and implying that the only valid discussion is one directly responding to the OP. Also feisty I love how you always say “I don’t disagree” a double negative. Why can’t you just say “I agree” because let’s face it, my point is true. We need to lift our heads out of the rabbit hole to see the landscape. I'm not implying the only thing worthy of discussion is the OP, I just don't feel were 'missing the point'. I say I don't disagree because if I said I agree then there would be no room for caveats. It's purposefully done. ok fair enough. Personally I would say “I agree for the most part but...” (ie positive affirmation with caveats rather than a double negative) but each their own and now I am being pedantic
So maybe not “missing the point” as distracting from the wider issues. The whole matters more than the parts, especially in this sort of circumstance. Team Sunak (for I am certain it is they) are building a gradual negative case against Sue Ellen to kneecap any future leadership bid.
Maybe we're both being pedantic. Again, I disagree (single negative ) that it's distracting from the wider point. The OP was clear, it's other who want to open it up to something larger."Aha. Well personally I see the interconnectedness of the issues and do not believe we should only consider each one in isolation. Doing so creates a myopic view of the world and fails to recognise that wider issues are at play. But then that’s me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People on this thread from all sides of the argument discussing technicalities and whether it is that serious she asked a civil servant etc etc are missing the point. It is the collective stench being associated to and stuck to her that matters. It is the combined impact of multiple issues that bring into question her suitability to be a Minister, the third most important Minister, and specifically a future Leader of the Conservative Party and potential PM. The speeding ticket etc is small beer. It is everything added together that matters. The Rwanda story is bigger! There may be more dirt to come. Whilst I don't disagree with what you've said, the OP asked 'should there be an investigation', obviously its now been turned into 'Braverman and her wrongdoings'. I don't think we have 'missed the point' of the actual question in the OP. You are being pedantic though and implying that the only valid discussion is one directly responding to the OP. Also feisty I love how you always say “I don’t disagree” a double negative. Why can’t you just say “I agree” because let’s face it, my point is true. We need to lift our heads out of the rabbit hole to see the landscape. I'm not implying the only thing worthy of discussion is the OP, I just don't feel were 'missing the point'. I say I don't disagree because if I said I agree then there would be no room for caveats. It's purposefully done. ok fair enough. Personally I would say “I agree for the most part but...” (ie positive affirmation with caveats rather than a double negative) but each their own and now I am being pedantic
So maybe not “missing the point” as distracting from the wider issues. The whole matters more than the parts, especially in this sort of circumstance. Team Sunak (for I am certain it is they) are building a gradual negative case against Sue Ellen to kneecap any future leadership bid.
Maybe we're both being pedantic. Again, I disagree (single negative ) that it's distracting from the wider point. The OP was clear, it's other who want to open it up to something larger.
Aha. Well personally I see the interconnectedness of the issues and do not believe we should only consider each one in isolation. Doing so creates a myopic view of the world and fails to recognise that wider issues are at play. But then that’s me "Is interconnectedness a real word? Bravo if it is, it's beyond my education level.
Anyway I agree (single negative again ) that we shouldn't just look at each issue in isolation. All I'm saying is I've stuck to the OP. If people want to take it off and run with wider issues then they should start a new topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman will be stay as Home Secretary, it took Sunak 3 days to make this decision, "Why do you use that passive aggressive emoji all the time? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People on this thread from all sides of the argument discussing technicalities and whether it is that serious she asked a civil servant etc etc are missing the point. It is the collective stench being associated to and stuck to her that matters. It is the combined impact of multiple issues that bring into question her suitability to be a Minister, the third most important Minister, and specifically a future Leader of the Conservative Party and potential PM. The speeding ticket etc is small beer. It is everything added together that matters. The Rwanda story is bigger! There may be more dirt to come. Whilst I don't disagree with what you've said, the OP asked 'should there be an investigation', obviously its now been turned into 'Braverman and her wrongdoings'. I don't think we have 'missed the point' of the actual question in the OP. You are being pedantic though and implying that the only valid discussion is one directly responding to the OP. Also feisty I love how you always say “I don’t disagree” a double negative. Why can’t you just say “I agree” because let’s face it, my point is true. We need to lift our heads out of the rabbit hole to see the landscape. I'm not implying the only thing worthy of discussion is the OP, I just don't feel were 'missing the point'. I say I don't disagree because if I said I agree then there would be no room for caveats. It's purposefully done. ok fair enough. Personally I would say “I agree for the most part but...” (ie positive affirmation with caveats rather than a double negative) but each their own and now I am being pedantic
So maybe not “missing the point” as distracting from the wider issues. The whole matters more than the parts, especially in this sort of circumstance. Team Sunak (for I am certain it is they) are building a gradual negative case against Sue Ellen to kneecap any future leadership bid.
Maybe we're both being pedantic. Again, I disagree (single negative ) that it's distracting from the wider point. The OP was clear, it's other who want to open it up to something larger.
Aha. Well personally I see the interconnectedness of the issues and do not believe we should only consider each one in isolation. Doing so creates a myopic view of the world and fails to recognise that wider issues are at play. But then that’s me
Is interconnectedness a real word? Bravo if it is, it's beyond my education level.
Anyway I agree (single negative again ) that we shouldn't just look at each issue in isolation. All I'm saying is I've stuck to the OP. If people want to take it off and run with wider issues then they should start a new topic."It sure is a real word! Lolz I disagree. I do not think we need to stick to a single issue topic (re OP) if there are wider related ramifications. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman will be stay as Home Secretary, it took Sunak 3 days to make this decision, "She must have reminded Sunak about the dirt she has on him! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman will be stay as Home Secretary, it took Sunak 3 days to make this decision,
She must have reminded Sunak about the dirt she has on him!"Yep, like I keep saying , he is weak and in a weak position | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People on this thread from all sides of the argument discussing technicalities and whether it is that serious she asked a civil servant etc etc are missing the point. It is the collective stench being associated to and stuck to her that matters. It is the combined impact of multiple issues that bring into question her suitability to be a Minister, the third most important Minister, and specifically a future Leader of the Conservative Party and potential PM. The speeding ticket etc is small beer. It is everything added together that matters. The Rwanda story is bigger! There may be more dirt to come. Whilst I don't disagree with what you've said, the OP asked 'should there be an investigation', obviously its now been turned into 'Braverman and her wrongdoings'. I don't think we have 'missed the point' of the actual question in the OP. You are being pedantic though and implying that the only valid discussion is one directly responding to the OP. Also feisty I love how you always say “I don’t disagree” a double negative. Why can’t you just say “I agree” because let’s face it, my point is true. We need to lift our heads out of the rabbit hole to see the landscape. I'm not implying the only thing worthy of discussion is the OP, I just don't feel were 'missing the point'. I say I don't disagree because if I said I agree then there would be no room for caveats. It's purposefully done. ok fair enough. Personally I would say “I agree for the most part but...” (ie positive affirmation with caveats rather than a double negative) but each their own and now I am being pedantic
So maybe not “missing the point” as distracting from the wider issues. The whole matters more than the parts, especially in this sort of circumstance. Team Sunak (for I am certain it is they) are building a gradual negative case against Sue Ellen to kneecap any future leadership bid.
Maybe we're both being pedantic. Again, I disagree (single negative ) that it's distracting from the wider point. The OP was clear, it's other who want to open it up to something larger.
Aha. Well personally I see the interconnectedness of the issues and do not believe we should only consider each one in isolation. Doing so creates a myopic view of the world and fails to recognise that wider issues are at play. But then that’s me
Is interconnectedness a real word? Bravo if it is, it's beyond my education level.
Anyway I agree (single negative again ) that we shouldn't just look at each issue in isolation. All I'm saying is I've stuck to the OP. If people want to take it off and run with wider issues then they should start a new topic.
It sure is a real word!
Lolz I disagree. I do not think we need to stick to a single issue topic (re OP) if there are wider related ramifications. "I didn't say we need to stick to it, just that I did | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People on this thread from all sides of the argument discussing technicalities and whether it is that serious she asked a civil servant etc etc are missing the point. It is the collective stench being associated to and stuck to her that matters. It is the combined impact of multiple issues that bring into question her suitability to be a Minister, the third most important Minister, and specifically a future Leader of the Conservative Party and potential PM. The speeding ticket etc is small beer. It is everything added together that matters. The Rwanda story is bigger! There may be more dirt to come. Whilst I don't disagree with what you've said, the OP asked 'should there be an investigation', obviously its now been turned into 'Braverman and her wrongdoings'. I don't think we have 'missed the point' of the actual question in the OP. You are being pedantic though and implying that the only valid discussion is one directly responding to the OP. Also feisty I love how you always say “I don’t disagree” a double negative. Why can’t you just say “I agree” because let’s face it, my point is true. We need to lift our heads out of the rabbit hole to see the landscape. I'm not implying the only thing worthy of discussion is the OP, I just don't feel were 'missing the point'. I say I don't disagree because if I said I agree then there would be no room for caveats. It's purposefully done. ok fair enough. Personally I would say “I agree for the most part but...” (ie positive affirmation with caveats rather than a double negative) but each their own and now I am being pedantic
So maybe not “missing the point” as distracting from the wider issues. The whole matters more than the parts, especially in this sort of circumstance. Team Sunak (for I am certain it is they) are building a gradual negative case against Sue Ellen to kneecap any future leadership bid.
Maybe we're both being pedantic. Again, I disagree (single negative ) that it's distracting from the wider point. The OP was clear, it's other who want to open it up to something larger.
Aha. Well personally I see the interconnectedness of the issues and do not believe we should only consider each one in isolation. Doing so creates a myopic view of the world and fails to recognise that wider issues are at play. But then that’s me
Is interconnectedness a real word? Bravo if it is, it's beyond my education level.
Anyway I agree (single negative again ) that we shouldn't just look at each issue in isolation. All I'm saying is I've stuck to the OP. If people want to take it off and run with wider issues then they should start a new topic.
It sure is a real word!
Lolz I disagree. I do not think we need to stick to a single issue topic (re OP) if there are wider related ramifications.
I didn't say we need to stick to it, just that I did "Being pedantic you said... "If people want to take it off and run with wider issues then they should start a new topic." Which kinda sounds like you are saying we should stick to it in this thread? Anyway... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People on this thread from all sides of the argument discussing technicalities and whether it is that serious she asked a civil servant etc etc are missing the point. It is the collective stench being associated to and stuck to her that matters. It is the combined impact of multiple issues that bring into question her suitability to be a Minister, the third most important Minister, and specifically a future Leader of the Conservative Party and potential PM. The speeding ticket etc is small beer. It is everything added together that matters. The Rwanda story is bigger! There may be more dirt to come. Whilst I don't disagree with what you've said, the OP asked 'should there be an investigation', obviously its now been turned into 'Braverman and her wrongdoings'. I don't think we have 'missed the point' of the actual question in the OP. You are being pedantic though and implying that the only valid discussion is one directly responding to the OP. Also feisty I love how you always say “I don’t disagree” a double negative. Why can’t you just say “I agree” because let’s face it, my point is true. We need to lift our heads out of the rabbit hole to see the landscape. I'm not implying the only thing worthy of discussion is the OP, I just don't feel were 'missing the point'. I say I don't disagree because if I said I agree then there would be no room for caveats. It's purposefully done. ok fair enough. Personally I would say “I agree for the most part but...” (ie positive affirmation with caveats rather than a double negative) but each their own and now I am being pedantic
So maybe not “missing the point” as distracting from the wider issues. The whole matters more than the parts, especially in this sort of circumstance. Team Sunak (for I am certain it is they) are building a gradual negative case against Sue Ellen to kneecap any future leadership bid.
Maybe we're both being pedantic. Again, I disagree (single negative ) that it's distracting from the wider point. The OP was clear, it's other who want to open it up to something larger.
Aha. Well personally I see the interconnectedness of the issues and do not believe we should only consider each one in isolation. Doing so creates a myopic view of the world and fails to recognise that wider issues are at play. But then that’s me
Is interconnectedness a real word? Bravo if it is, it's beyond my education level.
Anyway I agree (single negative again ) that we shouldn't just look at each issue in isolation. All I'm saying is I've stuck to the OP. If people want to take it off and run with wider issues then they should start a new topic.
It sure is a real word!
Lolz I disagree. I do not think we need to stick to a single issue topic (re OP) if there are wider related ramifications.
I didn't say we need to stick to it, just that I did
Being pedantic you said...
If people want to take it off and run with wider issues then they should start a new topic.
Which kinda sounds like you are saying we should stick to it in this thread?
Anyway... "We should. Just an opinion though. One I make no secret of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman will be stay as Home Secretary, it took Sunak 3 days to make this decision,
She must have reminded Sunak about the dirt she has on him!
Yep, like I keep saying , he is weak and in a weak position "I've seen an interesting view that he can't sack her as that makes a leadership contest easier. If she ends up resigning after a string of issues, she is less likely to be backed. A Tory is like the knight from Python. They don't die even after four fatal wounds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman will be stay as Home Secretary, it took Sunak 3 days to make this decision,
She must have reminded Sunak about the dirt she has on him!
Yep, like I keep saying , he is weak and in a weak position I've seen an interesting view that he can't sack her as that makes a leadership contest easier. If she ends up resigning after a string of issues, she is less likely to be backed.
A Tory is like the knight from Python. They don't die even after four fatal wounds. "Yep, but Sunak put himself in this position | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Remember: "Honest people don't hide their deeds"." Sigh. Try going up to someone at work and asking them "when was the last time you masturbated?", and then reminding them that "honest people don't hide their deeds". There are plenty of reasons to not publicise your actions, with dishonesty being one of the less common reasons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Person who's an mp asks if they can take a 1 to 1 course. Instead of in public Oh the horror.the story is more she asked the civil service. While the AG. Spin offs are: her team claimed that runours of her being caught was a campaig against her. She asked if fines could be expensed. Had done this privately + it's a legitimate approach +not denied it there would be little story. As ever, how she's handled it is bigger than the offence itself. " I have seen no evidence of this. Only that she asked for a 1 to 1 course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Person who's an mp asks if they can take a 1 to 1 course. Instead of in public Oh the horror. Yeah but Sunak’s team are weaponising it for all it’s worth! He is too weak to sack her, so he is going for the ‘breaking of the ministerial code ‘ route. Sack her or not he is fucked " Why would he sack her. She did nothing wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Braverman will be stay as Home Secretary, it took Sunak 3 days to make this decision,
She must have reminded Sunak about the dirt she has on him!
Yep, like I keep saying , he is weak and in a weak position I've seen an interesting view that he can't sack her as that makes a leadership contest easier. If she ends up resigning after a string of issues, she is less likely to be backed.
A Tory is like the knight from Python. They don't die even after four fatal wounds. "There was nothing to sack her over. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Person who's an mp asks if they can take a 1 to 1 course. Instead of in public Oh the horror.the story is more she asked the civil service. While the AG. Spin offs are: her team claimed that runours of her being caught was a campaig against her. She asked if fines could be expensed. Had done this privately + it's a legitimate approach +not denied it there would be little story. As ever, how she's handled it is bigger than the offence itself. I have seen no evidence of this. Only that she asked for a 1 to 1 course." Not my most trusted source of information, but The Mirror had the conversation and it mainly tells us that verbal communication is not what it is once was: "Mirror reporter: "So it’s completely untrue? She’s not been done for speeding, it’s completely wrong? Or it’s just the bit about the speed awareness course that is wrong?" Braverman aide: "So what are you asking sorry?" MR: "So she’s not been done for speeding?" BA: "When has she been done for speeding? There’s nothing like that." MR: "Pardon?" BA: "When has she been done for speeding? It’s nothing like that." MR: "There’s nothing like that?" BA: "When has she been done for speeding?" MR: "I don’t know the exact date." BA: "Oh mate, this is just nonsense, honestly." MR: "So you’re saying there’s absolutely nothing here at all?" BA: "No." Telephone conversation on April 4." https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-told-come-clean-30048838?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People on this thread from all sides of the argument discussing technicalities and whether it is that serious she asked a civil servant etc etc are missing the point. It is the collective stench being associated to and stuck to her that matters. It is the combined impact of multiple issues that bring into question her suitability to be a Minister, the third most important Minister, and specifically a future Leader of the Conservative Party and potential PM. The speeding ticket etc is small beer. It is everything added together that matters. The Rwanda story is bigger! There may be more dirt to come. Whilst I don't disagree with what you've said, the OP asked 'should there be an investigation', obviously its now been turned into 'Braverman and her wrongdoings'. I don't think we have 'missed the point' of the actual question in the OP. You are being pedantic though and implying that the only valid discussion is one directly responding to the OP. Also feisty I love how you always say “I don’t disagree” a double negative. Why can’t you just say “I agree” because let’s face it, my point is true. We need to lift our heads out of the rabbit hole to see the landscape. I'm not implying the only thing worthy of discussion is the OP, I just don't feel were 'missing the point'. I say I don't disagree because if I said I agree then there would be no room for caveats. It's purposefully done. ok fair enough. Personally I would say “I agree for the most part but...” (ie positive affirmation with caveats rather than a double negative) but each their own and now I am being pedantic
So maybe not “missing the point” as distracting from the wider issues. The whole matters more than the parts, especially in this sort of circumstance. Team Sunak (for I am certain it is they) are building a gradual negative case against Sue Ellen to kneecap any future leadership bid.
Maybe we're both being pedantic. Again, I disagree (single negative ) that it's distracting from the wider point. The OP was clear, it's other who want to open it up to something larger.
Aha. Well personally I see the interconnectedness of the issues and do not believe we should only consider each one in isolation. Doing so creates a myopic view of the world and fails to recognise that wider issues are at play. But then that’s me
Is interconnectedness a real word? Bravo if it is, it's beyond my education level.
Anyway I agree (single negative again ) that we shouldn't just look at each issue in isolation. All I'm saying is I've stuck to the OP. If people want to take it off and run with wider issues then they should start a new topic.
It sure is a real word!
Lolz I disagree. I do not think we need to stick to a single issue topic (re OP) if there are wider related ramifications.
I didn't say we need to stick to it, just that I did
Being pedantic you said...
If people want to take it off and run with wider issues then they should start a new topic.
Which kinda sounds like you are saying we should stick to it in this thread?
Anyway...
We should. Just an opinion though. One I make no secret of."Still trying to tell people what they should and should not write I see. Although you can change the topic as you see fit. Carry on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well that answers that then. No investigation necessary." According to the Prime Minister who is hardly impartial | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Person who's an mp asks if they can take a 1 to 1 course. Instead of in public Oh the horror.the story is more she asked the civil service. While the AG. Spin offs are: her team claimed that runours of her being caught was a campaig against her. She asked if fines could be expensed. Had done this privately + it's a legitimate approach +not denied it there would be little story. As ever, how she's handled it is bigger than the offence itself. I have seen no evidence of this. Only that she asked for a 1 to 1 course. Not my most trusted source of information, but The Mirror had the conversation and it mainly tells us that verbal communication is not what it is once was: "Mirror reporter: "So it’s completely untrue? She’s not been done for speeding, it’s completely wrong? Or it’s just the bit about the speed awareness course that is wrong?" Braverman aide: "So what are you asking sorry?" MR: "So she’s not been done for speeding?" BA: "When has she been done for speeding? There’s nothing like that." MR: "Pardon?" BA: "When has she been done for speeding? It’s nothing like that." MR: "There’s nothing like that?" BA: "When has she been done for speeding?" MR: "I don’t know the exact date." BA: "Oh mate, this is just nonsense, honestly." MR: "So you’re saying there’s absolutely nothing here at all?" BA: "No." Telephone conversation on April 4." https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-told-come-clean-30048838?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target" I can make out that conversation (just) but what are you showing us? That even professionals don't know how to communicate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People on this thread from all sides of the argument discussing technicalities and whether it is that serious she asked a civil servant etc etc are missing the point. It is the collective stench being associated to and stuck to her that matters. It is the combined impact of multiple issues that bring into question her suitability to be a Minister, the third most important Minister, and specifically a future Leader of the Conservative Party and potential PM. The speeding ticket etc is small beer. It is everything added together that matters. The Rwanda story is bigger! There may be more dirt to come. Whilst I don't disagree with what you've said, the OP asked 'should there be an investigation', obviously its now been turned into 'Braverman and her wrongdoings'. I don't think we have 'missed the point' of the actual question in the OP. You are being pedantic though and implying that the only valid discussion is one directly responding to the OP. Also feisty I love how you always say “I don’t disagree” a double negative. Why can’t you just say “I agree” because let’s face it, my point is true. We need to lift our heads out of the rabbit hole to see the landscape. I'm not implying the only thing worthy of discussion is the OP, I just don't feel were 'missing the point'. I say I don't disagree because if I said I agree then there would be no room for caveats. It's purposefully done. ok fair enough. Personally I would say “I agree for the most part but...” (ie positive affirmation with caveats rather than a double negative) but each their own and now I am being pedantic
So maybe not “missing the point” as distracting from the wider issues. The whole matters more than the parts, especially in this sort of circumstance. Team Sunak (for I am certain it is they) are building a gradual negative case against Sue Ellen to kneecap any future leadership bid.
Maybe we're both being pedantic. Again, I disagree (single negative ) that it's distracting from the wider point. The OP was clear, it's other who want to open it up to something larger.
Aha. Well personally I see the interconnectedness of the issues and do not believe we should only consider each one in isolation. Doing so creates a myopic view of the world and fails to recognise that wider issues are at play. But then that’s me
Is interconnectedness a real word? Bravo if it is, it's beyond my education level.
Anyway I agree (single negative again ) that we shouldn't just look at each issue in isolation. All I'm saying is I've stuck to the OP. If people want to take it off and run with wider issues then they should start a new topic.
It sure is a real word!
Lolz I disagree. I do not think we need to stick to a single issue topic (re OP) if there are wider related ramifications.
I didn't say we need to stick to it, just that I did
Being pedantic you said...
If people want to take it off and run with wider issues then they should start a new topic.
Which kinda sounds like you are saying we should stick to it in this thread?
Anyway...
We should. Just an opinion though. One I make no secret of.
Still trying to tell people what they should and should not write I see. Although you can change the topic as you see fit.
Carry on "You obviously can't read | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Person who's an mp asks if they can take a 1 to 1 course. Instead of in public Oh the horror.the story is more she asked the civil service. While the AG. Spin offs are: her team claimed that runours of her being caught was a campaig against her. She asked if fines could be expensed. Had done this privately + it's a legitimate approach +not denied it there would be little story. As ever, how she's handled it is bigger than the offence itself. I have seen no evidence of this. Only that she asked for a 1 to 1 course. Not my most trusted source of information, but The Mirror had the conversation and it mainly tells us that verbal communication is not what it is once was: "Mirror reporter: "So it’s completely untrue? She’s not been done for speeding, it’s completely wrong? Or it’s just the bit about the speed awareness course that is wrong?" Braverman aide: "So what are you asking sorry?" MR: "So she’s not been done for speeding?" BA: "When has she been done for speeding? There’s nothing like that." MR: "Pardon?" BA: "When has she been done for speeding? It’s nothing like that." MR: "There’s nothing like that?" BA: "When has she been done for speeding?" MR: "I don’t know the exact date." BA: "Oh mate, this is just nonsense, honestly." MR: "So you’re saying there’s absolutely nothing here at all?" BA: "No." Telephone conversation on April 4." https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-told-come-clean-30048838?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target I can make out that conversation (just) but what are you showing us? That even professionals don't know how to communicate?" No, that Braverman's said that she hasn't been "done" for speeding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Person who's an mp asks if they can take a 1 to 1 course. Instead of in public Oh the horror.the story is more she asked the civil service. While the AG. Spin offs are: her team claimed that runours of her being caught was a campaig against her. She asked if fines could be expensed. Had done this privately + it's a legitimate approach +not denied it there would be little story. As ever, how she's handled it is bigger than the offence itself. I have seen no evidence of this. Only that she asked for a 1 to 1 course. Not my most trusted source of information, but The Mirror had the conversation and it mainly tells us that verbal communication is not what it is once was: "Mirror reporter: "So it’s completely untrue? She’s not been done for speeding, it’s completely wrong? Or it’s just the bit about the speed awareness course that is wrong?" Braverman aide: "So what are you asking sorry?" MR: "So she’s not been done for speeding?" BA: "When has she been done for speeding? There’s nothing like that." MR: "Pardon?" BA: "When has she been done for speeding? It’s nothing like that." MR: "There’s nothing like that?" BA: "When has she been done for speeding?" MR: "I don’t know the exact date." BA: "Oh mate, this is just nonsense, honestly." MR: "So you’re saying there’s absolutely nothing here at all?" BA: "No." Telephone conversation on April 4." https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-told-come-clean-30048838?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target I can make out that conversation (just) but what are you showing us? That even professionals don't know how to communicate? No, that Braverman's said that she hasn't been "done" for speeding." Got you, I went to read it after I asked the question. I hope that conversation was recorded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Telephone conversation on April 4." https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-told-come-clean-30048838?" "I can make out that conversation (just) but what are you showing us? That even professionals don't know how to communicate?" "No, that Braverman's said that she hasn't been "done" for speeding." Assuming that story is accurate, all it shows is that an aide has said that she wasn't done for speeding. They didn't speak to Braverman herself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Telephone conversation on April 4." https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-told-come-clean-30048838? I can make out that conversation (just) but what are you showing us? That even professionals don't know how to communicate? No, that Braverman's said that she hasn't been "done" for speeding. Assuming that story is accurate, all it shows is that an aide has said that she wasn't done for speeding. They didn't speak to Braverman herself." It doesn't indicate that the aide did or did not speak to Braverman. The point of conduct in public office is that it should not give the appearance of corruption and self-serving behaviour to maintain public trust. There is now an impression that there was an attempt to hide Braverman's speeding offence and that prompted the request to the Civil service to intervene in a private matter. That's why you then carry out non-partisan investigations into these matters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Telephone conversation on April 4." https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-told-come-clean-30048838? I can make out that conversation (just) but what are you showing us? That even professionals don't know how to communicate? No, that Braverman's said that she hasn't been "done" for speeding. Assuming that story is accurate, all it shows is that an aide has said that she wasn't done for speeding. They didn't speak to Braverman herself. It doesn't indicate that the aide did or did not speak to Braverman. The point of conduct in public office is that it should not give the appearance of corruption and self-serving behaviour to maintain public trust. There is now an impression that there was an attempt to hide Braverman's speeding offence and that prompted the request to the Civil service to intervene in a private matter. That's why you then carry out non-partisan investigations into these matters. " got it! We need to sack the aide for not being clear | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Telephone conversation on April 4." https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-told-come-clean-30048838? I can make out that conversation (just) but what are you showing us? That even professionals don't know how to communicate? No, that Braverman's said that she hasn't been "done" for speeding. Assuming that story is accurate, all it shows is that an aide has said that she wasn't done for speeding. They didn't speak to Braverman herself. It doesn't indicate that the aide did or did not speak to Braverman. The point of conduct in public office is that it should not give the appearance of corruption and self-serving behaviour to maintain public trust. There is now an impression that there was an attempt to hide Braverman's speeding offence and that prompted the request to the Civil service to intervene in a private matter. That's why you then carry out non-partisan investigations into these matters. got it! We need to sack the aide for not being clear "You are probably making a point but it just looks like empty sarcasm. Should the aide really be sacked? Should we find out if he was asked to lie? You can just allow our elected leaders to use public funds for personal benefit and wonder why there is a lack of trust in them. The aide may have been acting without instruction or being told to lie. We don't know. If you are fine with Ministers asking Civil servants to help with personal matters and aides lying for them, then you have what you wish for, it seems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Telephone conversation on April 4." https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-told-come-clean-30048838? I can make out that conversation (just) but what are you showing us? That even professionals don't know how to communicate? No, that Braverman's said that she hasn't been "done" for speeding. Assuming that story is accurate, all it shows is that an aide has said that she wasn't done for speeding. They didn't speak to Braverman herself. It doesn't indicate that the aide did or did not speak to Braverman. The point of conduct in public office is that it should not give the appearance of corruption and self-serving behaviour to maintain public trust. There is now an impression that there was an attempt to hide Braverman's speeding offence and that prompted the request to the Civil service to intervene in a private matter. That's why you then carry out non-partisan investigations into these matters. got it! We need to sack the aide for not being clear "Based on that conversation the aide was foundering and at a loss of what to say. Better to have just said “we have no comment at this time” and killed it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Telephone conversation on April 4." https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-told-come-clean-30048838? I can make out that conversation (just) but what are you showing us? That even professionals don't know how to communicate? No, that Braverman's said that she hasn't been "done" for speeding. Assuming that story is accurate, all it shows is that an aide has said that she wasn't done for speeding. They didn't speak to Braverman herself. It doesn't indicate that the aide did or did not speak to Braverman. The point of conduct in public office is that it should not give the appearance of corruption and self-serving behaviour to maintain public trust. There is now an impression that there was an attempt to hide Braverman's speeding offence and that prompted the request to the Civil service to intervene in a private matter. That's why you then carry out non-partisan investigations into these matters. got it! We need to sack the aide for not being clear
Based on that conversation the aide was foundering and at a loss of what to say. Better to have just said “we have no comment at this time” and killed it."It was awful, it would set the spidey senses off straight away and here we are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon "If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay"You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced "I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating. If he wants rid/ press want rid. They need to uo their game. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced "Those figures play very nicely into the hands of the government. You will see a reduction in those figures next year and they will be a major part of the governments GE campaign of delivering on promises. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating.
If he wants rid/ press want rid.
They need to uo their game."I partially agree, he is too weak to sack her, so he is looking at ways to force her out , however, she is an awful Home Secretary | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
Those figures play very nicely into the hands of the government. You will see a reduction in those figures next year and they will be a major part of the governments GE campaign of delivering on promises. "No they won’t, people aren’t that stupid, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
Those figures play very nicely into the hands of the government. You will see a reduction in those figures next year and they will be a major part of the governments GE campaign of delivering on promises.
No they won’t, people aren’t that stupid, " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
Those figures play very nicely into the hands of the government. You will see a reduction in those figures next year and they will be a major part of the governments GE campaign of delivering on promises.
No they won’t, people aren’t that stupid,
"The reform party will be licking their lips | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating.
If he wants rid/ press want rid.
They need to uo their game.
I partially agree, he is too weak to sack her, so he is looking at ways to force her out , however, she is an awful Home Secretary "I think she's a great home sec | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating.
If he wants rid/ press want rid.
They need to uo their game.
I partially agree, he is too weak to sack her, so he is looking at ways to force her out , however, she is an awful Home Secretary
I think she's a great home sec
"She has done nothing, all talk , no action, she is awful | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating.
If he wants rid/ press want rid.
They need to uo their game.
I partially agree, he is too weak to sack her, so he is looking at ways to force her out , however, she is an awful Home Secretary
I think she's a great home sec
She has done nothing, all talk , no action, she is awful "Name one thing she hasn't done | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating.
If he wants rid/ press want rid.
They need to uo their game.
I partially agree, he is too weak to sack her, so he is looking at ways to force her out , however, she is an awful Home Secretary
I think she's a great home sec
She has done nothing, all talk , no action, she is awful
Name one thing she hasn't done"Rwanda blah blah blah.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating.
If he wants rid/ press want rid.
They need to uo their game.
I partially agree, he is too weak to sack her, so he is looking at ways to force her out , however, she is an awful Home Secretary
I think she's a great home sec
She has done nothing, all talk , no action, she is awful
Name one thing she hasn't done
Rwanda blah blah blah...." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating.
If he wants rid/ press want rid.
They need to uo their game.
I partially agree, he is too weak to sack her, so he is looking at ways to force her out , however, she is an awful Home Secretary
I think she's a great home sec
She has done nothing, all talk , no action, she is awful
Name one thing she hasn't done"Stopped the boats, her obsession | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating.
If he wants rid/ press want rid.
They need to uo their game.
I partially agree, he is too weak to sack her, so he is looking at ways to force her out , however, she is an awful Home Secretary
I think she's a great home sec
She has done nothing, all talk , no action, she is awful
Name one thing she hasn't done
Stopped the boats, her obsession "As she not done it or is doing it through legal means? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating.
If he wants rid/ press want rid.
They need to uo their game.
I partially agree, he is too weak to sack her, so he is looking at ways to force her out , however, she is an awful Home Secretary
I think she's a great home sec
She has done nothing, all talk , no action, she is awful
Name one thing she hasn't done
Stopped the boats, her obsession
As she not done it or is doing it through legal means?"Have the boats stopped? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating.
If he wants rid/ press want rid.
They need to uo their game.
I partially agree, he is too weak to sack her, so he is looking at ways to force her out , however, she is an awful Home Secretary
I think she's a great home sec
She has done nothing, all talk , no action, she is awful
Name one thing she hasn't done
Stopped the boats, her obsession
As she not done it or is doing it through legal means?
Have the boats stopped? "That wasn't the question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating.
If he wants rid/ press want rid.
They need to uo their game.
I partially agree, he is too weak to sack her, so he is looking at ways to force her out , however, she is an awful Home Secretary
I think she's a great home sec
She has done nothing, all talk , no action, she is awful
Name one thing she hasn't done
Stopped the boats, her obsession
As she not done it or is doing it through legal means?
Have the boats stopped?
That wasn't the question "You asked what she hasn’t done, she hasn’t stopped the boats, get back to me when A. They send anyone to Rwanda B She stops the boats | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating.
If he wants rid/ press want rid.
They need to uo their game.
I partially agree, he is too weak to sack her, so he is looking at ways to force her out , however, she is an awful Home Secretary
I think she's a great home sec
She has done nothing, all talk , no action, she is awful
Name one thing she hasn't done
Stopped the boats, her obsession
As she not done it or is doing it through legal means?
Have the boats stopped?
That wasn't the question
You asked what she hasn’t done, she hasn’t stopped the boats, get back to me when
A. They send anyone to Rwanda
B She stops the boats
"Yay, I got my first on the bingo card. Winning | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating.
If he wants rid/ press want rid.
They need to uo their game.
I partially agree, he is too weak to sack her, so he is looking at ways to force her out , however, she is an awful Home Secretary
I think she's a great home sec
She has done nothing, all talk , no action, she is awful
Name one thing she hasn't done
Stopped the boats, her obsession
As she not done it or is doing it through legal means?
Have the boats stopped?
That wasn't the question
You asked what she hasn’t done, she hasn’t stopped the boats, get back to me when
A. They send anyone to Rwanda
B She stops the boats
"You understand that she is doing things legally and that takes time? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating.
If he wants rid/ press want rid.
They need to uo their game.
I partially agree, he is too weak to sack her, so he is looking at ways to force her out , however, she is an awful Home Secretary
I think she's a great home sec
She has done nothing, all talk , no action, she is awful
Name one thing she hasn't done
Stopped the boats, her obsession
As she not done it or is doing it through legal means?
Have the boats stopped?
That wasn't the question
You asked what she hasn’t done, she hasn’t stopped the boats, get back to me when
A. They send anyone to Rwanda
B She stops the boats
You understand that she is doing things legally and that takes time? "She’s not going to do it through legal means. You know why that is? Because there’s no way of doing it through legal means. She knows that as well, but it plays to the xenophobes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating.
If he wants rid/ press want rid.
They need to uo their game.
I partially agree, he is too weak to sack her, so he is looking at ways to force her out , however, she is an awful Home Secretary
I think she's a great home sec
She has done nothing, all talk , no action, she is awful
Name one thing she hasn't done
Stopped the boats, her obsession
As she not done it or is doing it through legal means?
She’s not going to do it through legal means. You know why that is?
Because there’s no way of found it through legal means. She knows that as well, but it plays to the xenophobes."Give me one thing that is being done illegally? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is obvious that despite Braverman keeping her job (IMO rightly in this case) she is on borrowed time, the next leak/scandal will be happening soon
If its of the same ilk as this attempt. Then she will stay
You do realise it’s the Tories (Sunaks team) who wants her out , she won’t last much longer , especially with the new net migration figures that have been announced
I dont disagree. I think sunak is making a huge error. On a lot of frontshe's trying to go more left of centre. But all this is going to do is alienate him from voters. Its his own downfall he's creating.
If he wants rid/ press want rid.
They need to uo their game.
I partially agree, he is too weak to sack her, so he is looking at ways to force her out , however, she is an awful Home Secretary
I think she's a great home sec
She has done nothing, all talk , no action, she is awful
Name one thing she hasn't done
Stopped the boats, her obsession
As she not done it or is doing it through legal means?
Have the boats stopped?
That wasn't the question
You asked what she hasn’t done, she hasn’t stopped the boats, get back to me when
A. They send anyone to Rwanda
B She stops the boats
You understand that she is doing things legally and that takes time?
She’s not going to do it through legal means. You know why that is?
Because there’s no way of doing it through legal means. She knows that as well, but it plays to the xenophobes."On 19 December 2022, the High Court ruled that the plan is lawful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
