You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The fact that the “governments top lawyer” at the time didn’t know this speaks volumes.
I really wouldn't expect the "governments top lawyer" to be intimately familiar with such a minor detail of one aspect of the huge machinery of the British government.
I really wouldn’t expect the “governments top lawyer” to be intimately familiar with such a minor detail of one aspect of the huge machinery of the British government
I would expect her to know who she could speak to without breaking tne ministerial code to find out what could be done.
As for the warning for the Home Office speeder - it is a huge issue for CS staff that we seem to be held to a higher standard than ministers and MPs.
I really wouldn’t expect the “governments top lawyer” to be intimately familiar with such a minor detail of one aspect of the huge machinery of the British government.
I wouldn't describe the rules concerning speed awareness courses as being part of the huge machinery of the British government.
And I would definitely expect a qualified barrister to have the capability to do her own legal research into a personal legal issue.
I would also expect her to have a greater understanding of the ministerial code - the rules that relate to a minister's private interests and their public duties aren't complicated.
If you have even a vague understanding of the mindbogglingly complex British immigration and nationality laws, which you would expect a Home Secretary to have, you should be able to get your head round something as simple a the ministerial code.
If you have even a vague understanding of the mindbogglingly complex British immigration and nationality laws, which you would expect a Home Secretary to have, you should be able to get your head round something as simple a the ministerial code.
If I am interpreting this paragraph correctly...
👏
Because what I think you are implying is that Braverman doesn't actually understand the legal framework around her favourite topic because she doesn't care - her game is not detailed reviewing and amending, but blowing a dog whistle for her supporters. And that she regards the Ministerial Code as an annoyance to be circumvented wherever possible.
I don't think SB thought that much about it. It's clearly been alighted upon as a weapon that can be used to attack her, probably by Sunak (or supporters of, with tacit agreement) as I understand he was unhappy that he was "encouraged" to include her in his cabinet in a prominent position by segments of his own party under the guise of unity, and given the shite that routinely falls out of her open mouth, I'm not surprised. If she survives this - probably IMO, there will something else in a couple of weeks, likely before the summer recess
Why is the Guardian getting exclusive briefings against Braverman from a ‘Tory insider’?
Are the knives out for Braverman?
Seems pretty obvious to me that this whole story has originated from Sunak's people in response to her shameless grandstanding last week. They've probably had this in their back pocket for a while and were just waiting for an excuse to deploy it to finally get rid of her and amazingly she gave them the perfect excuse.
She's the ultimate living embodiment of the hollowing out of the Tory party by Johnson and the promotion of people who are completely unfit to hold high office, and who's only qualification for the job is unquestioning loyalty or factional political expediency
There have been some truly dreadful appointments over the last few years which frankly make this country a laughing stock, but someone like Braverman as Home Secretary is absolutely ludicrous and just shows what an absolute banana republic Brexit Britain is
She’s the ultimate living embodiment of the hollowing out of the Tory party by Johnson and the promotion of people who are completely unfit to hold high office, and who’s only qualification for the job is unquestioning loyalty or factional political expediency
There have been some truly dreadful appointments over the last few years which frankly make this country a laughing stock, but someone like Braverman as Home Secretary is absolutely ludicrous and just shows what an absolute banana republic Brexit Britain is
100%
We have fallen so far in such a short period and it was the Brexit vote and its associated trashing of accepted political norms that pulled the brick out from the bottom of the wall.
Sad, sad times.
Sad, sad times.
Odd comment given that it's destroyed the tory party and any chances they had of winning the next election. Or would you prefer a sensible tory govt in the EU than a labour govt out of it?
I'm no tory apologist, but the current state of our politics/government is pretty sad from my POV.
You're no match for Ernie at this stuff. The word 'sensible' is so open to interpretation that it makes your question pointless.
Here's Peter Oborne (no ones bleeding heart liberal) cataloguing the destruction of the UK's political respectability by actually stating the lies of Sunak and Johnson.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/23/boris-johnson-rishi-sunak-truth-integrity
If you honestly believe that Johnson would have gotten to be PM without Brexit, you need to have a good look in the mirror.
My use of the term 'sad times' was referring to how far the UK has sunk in the view of the rest of the world - not in relation to any damage done to the Tory brand. As well you know.
Ministerial competence has been on an almost vertical downward trajectory for a long time.
It went into freefall in 2016 (hmmm... I wonder why?) with the appointment of Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary, then we've hurtled past a series of grimly ****-witted benchmarks... Chris Graylings Ferries, David Davis's freestyling Brexit, Matt Hancock as Health Secretary during a pandemic, Dominic Rabb rewriting our bill of rights (probably in his own blood) after realising our ports are quite important, Theresa Coffey as Secretary of State for Environment, credulous simpering halfwit Helen Whately in the cabinet, the callous cruelty of Priti Patel, the Truss and Kwatang, Laurel and Hardy show. But surely Bravermans appointment as Home Secretary, twice, is right up there as the very personification of how standards in government has declined to such a terrifying degree under this shower of blithering incompetents?
Though Ceverley's present 'Air Miles' globetrotting as Foreign Secretary is surely its equal
My use of the term ‘sad times’ was referring to how far the UK has sunk in the view of the rest of the world
Another odd comment. Do you actually care what people around the world think about the british state? Why? Do you judge people from other countries by the competence of their government? Given the abject failure of all governments around the world to address the single biggest issue facing us I don't see the difference between ourselves and others.
I couldn't give monkeys what the rest of the world think of us (even though we're now worse than Berlesconi's Italy). What I care about is having a succession of cabinet ministers who you wouldn't trust to run a ****ing bath, let alone a government department. You wonder if the likes of Helen Whately manage to get themselves dressed and tie their own shoelaces in the morning without assistance
nickc
Full Member
I don’t think SB thought that much about it.
Yup quite possibly, which is what I find particularly astonishing. It should have been extremely obvious to her that approaching a civil servant in relation to a personal and private matter was likely to have ministerial code issues.
So it is hard to understand why she went ahead anyway when she had already previously been forced to resign for breaking the ministerial code, you would expect her to be double careful.
The previous occasion was also for mixing private stuff with her role as a government minister.
So it is hard to understand why she went ahead anyway when she had already previously been forced to resign for breaking the ministerial code, you would expect her to be double careful.
There are only really 3 possible answers...
1. Stupidity
2. Arrogance
3. Both of the above
Do you actually care what people around the world think about the british state? Why?
Very much so. It governs how other, supposedly grownup, countries interact with us.
Presumably the biggest issue you refer to is climate change(?)
Countries will need to trust each other in order to get anything useful done. No one is going to trust a government that will renege on deals just because 'x' CEO kicks off about environmental targets hitting his bottom line (and thus bonus) or 'y' bunch of gammons in the Home Counties regard driving themselves to the golf club in a 4 seater Lexus as a fundamental human right.
And what about all the pissing around threatening to break existing international law because we can't get what we (supposedly) want?
How about wanting locals to trust us should we end up militarily involved in peacekeeping somewhere? Now we treat Afghans who have helped us like shit because it doesn't play well to racists to help brown people out?
If you honestly think (again), that the past seven years has not damaged the credibility of the UK as a potential partner, it is mirror time again.
And on a personal level you are right - it does matter to me. I've had many conversations with continental europeans who are amused that a country that holds its own political system in such high regard was conned by people like Farage into voting against its own best interests.
The UK, as a post-industrial, supposedly educated, service and tech based economy, has no future if not in close collaboration with other states at a similar point in their development.
I think that covers it, TBH.
More on her somewhat flexible attitude to the Ministerial Code:
https://twitter.com/lizziedearden/status/1660960831184543744
No one is going to trust a government that will renege on deals just because ‘x’ CEO kicks off about environmental targets hitting his bottom line (and thus bonus) or ‘y’ bunch of gammons in the Home Counties regard driving themselves to the golf club in a 4 seater Lexus as a fundamental human right.
But that pretty much describes all western developed countries. So none of them are to be trusted? There is not a single developed western country which is properly addressing climate change. All other issues are insignificant, so your continental friends who look down on us are deluding themselves as to their supposed superiority. You should remind them of that next time you speak and stop worrying about it.
We have fallen so far in such a short period and it was the Brexit vote and its associated trashing of accepted political norms that pulled the brick out from the bottom of the wall.
Yeah, but look at the sunlit uplands...
My use of the term ‘sad times’ was referring to how far the UK has sunk in the view of the rest of the world
I care about how we are viewed. Our criticism of other regimes regarding the immorality of their actions - should mean that we maintain high-standards and are not hypocritical.
Historically, as a nation we have committed significant acts of repression in the name of colonialism, religion, racial supremacy etc. and needed to correct the centuries of injustice we as a nation imposed.
Instead, we have acted illegally to wage war in the Middle East, continued and escalated the removal of controls which should prevent the exploitation of our own and other countries populations and economies.
The 21st century Conservative government is just the latest batch of incompetent, self-serving charlatans that represent the country.
Blairs, Majors and Thatchers cabinet did not stoop to the same low-level - despite acting hugely despicably and immorally.
More than ever and openly in fact,the government acts in bad faith, ignores international law and openly lies.
This government in common with many others, exists in a post-fact world, empty of facts and expert knowledge. The only value the government seems to have is exploiting the 99% to increase the wealth and influence of the 1%.
Turns out she had her dirty fingerprints all over training of Rwandan lawyers that she's now dealing with to export poor desperate defenceless refugees there.
Talk about corrupter and corrupterer
I would expect her to know who she could speak to without breaking tne ministerial code to find out what could be done.
Oh, I completely agree. I just don't think not knowing exactly how exceptions to speed awareness courses work (or the opening times of the loading dock of the Crown Court at Guildford for that matter) somehow proves you're incompetent as Homw Secretary. Especially when there are so many other, more compelling, reasons...
Much as I can't stand Braverman, the Rwanda thing is an absolute non-story. What exactly are the two conflicting interests or duties that she had?
we have acted illegally to wage war in the Middle East...Blairs, Majors and Thatchers cabinet did not stoop to the same low-level...
🤔
I just don’t think not knowing exactly how exceptions to speed awareness courses work (or the opening times of the loading dock of the Crown Court at Guildford for that matter) somehow proves you’re incompetent as Homw Secretary
Her incompetence was already beyond doubt. This was just further evidence of her self centered incompetence.
What exactly are the two conflicting interests or duties that she had?
As I understand it, she failed to disclose her involvement, which is (yet another) breach of the parliamentary/ministerial code.
It may be she hasn't abused or taken advantage of her role in Rwanda. But if you don't disclose it we'd never know. It's why the rules exist.
But that pretty much describes all western developed countries. So none of them are to be trusted?
The US and EU seem to be cooperating in good faith without too many problems when it comes to shaping the future of low carbon, greener technologies. 🤷♂️
Why hasn't the UK got a seat at this table? We asked to be excluded. Why did we ask to be excluded?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/08/rishi-sunak-reshuffle-conservatives-brexit
Blairs, Majors and Thatchers cabinet did not stoop to the same low-level – despite acting hugely despicably and immorally.
I assume that you are not making a comparison between asking a civil servant if it is possible to arrange a private speed awareness course and an illegal war in which hundreds of thousands have died or deliberately pursuing policies which you know will cause 3 million unemployed?
So what has Rishi Sunak's government done to warrant the claim that it has stooped lower than Blair, Major, and Thatcher?
Btw John Major's government was utterly sleaze ridden, in fact it was precisely because of all the scandals which occurred during John Major's government that the Ministerial Code was introduced in the first place.
I intensely dislike Tory governments but some people have a surprisingly rose-tinted view of history and past Tory governments.
Btw John Major’s government was utterly sleaze ridden, in fact it was precisely because of all the scandals which occurred during John Major’s government that the Ministerial Code was introduced in the first place.
Yes, and like Sunak's rickety shitshow he also made a rod for his own back with Back To Basics.
Johnson was elected precisely because he is a liar and the mood at the time was very much that he would toss the EU off in negotiations and pull off a 'victory'. Idiotic, but there you go. The lack of a credible alternative was also a huge contributing factor.
Also worth noting that a number of sleaze scandals revealed is not always a reliable barometer of what is going on. Major, despite a miraculous election win, was weak in a Westminster numbers sense and in hock to the Ulster Unionists. The whiff of death was all around.
The US and EU seem to be cooperating in good faith without too many problems when it comes to shaping the future of low carbon, greener technologies. 🤷♂️
You mean collaborating to achieve sweet F.A. The US has just licensed oil exploration in Alaska. Germany have turned their coal power plants back on. The UK is developing new coal and oil sites. No country is coming anywhere near where they need to be to meet the 1.5deg Paris target. In fact if you listen to some eminent climate scientists, a lot more that 1.5 degrees warming is already baked in.
https://twitter.com/postcarbonsteve/status/1659653566154285076?s=20
As I understand it, she failed to disclose her involvement, which is (yet another) breach of the parliamentary/ministerial code
Which part of the Ministerial Code did her non-disclosure breach? 7.1?
General principle
7.1 Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise
What is the reasonably perceived conflict between her being involved some years before in some degree in a charity that trained African lawyers, which (possibly?) included some Rwandan civil servants and her negotiating the Rwandan offshore processing deal? I don't even see the relevance let alone the conflict.
It's a total misunderstanding of what a conflict of interests is and what the Ministerial Code requires. Stirring in irrelevant nonsense just gives harrumphing Tories encouragement that it's a woke witchhunt.
In fact if you listen to some eminent climate scientists, a lot more that 1.5 degrees warming is already baked in.
What are the predictions around desertification and its impact on ostriches re rising sand levels?
It’s a total misunderstanding of what a conflict of interests is and what the Ministerial Code requires
An awful lot of people who know what they are talking about disagree with your opinion.
A rather good summary from Marina Hyde
Make way for Westminster’s biggest celebrity: Suella ‘three points’ Braverman
Co-founder of a charity which trained lawyers in Rwanda.
Lawyers are now members of the Rwandan Gov.
UK Gov paying 100's of millions to Rwandan Gov for the migrant resettlement programme.
Nothing in and of itself wrong with that.
Failure to mention it at all - starts to make me scratch my head a bit. May still be nothing but why not? I mean, all are supposing it's bent deals (can't imagine why!) but it could just be ineptitude. Questions as to which therefore are appropriate.
Neither are a particularly good look for a minister of state though.
Am I not the only person whose second thought (after the sheer revulsion at the Rwanda Policy) was "who has got mates or relatives in Rwanda?"
The problem is that Braverman has a serial history of making mistakes, saying daft things and generally being wrong about stuff that as a lawyer she should know better
Coming off the back of May/Johnson/Truss the public just want some competency in government, but Sunak needed to keep the rw culture warriors happy and thats why he picked her
Coming off the back of May/Johnson/Truss the public just want some competency in government, but Sunak needed to keep the rw culture warriors happy and thats why he picked her
Yup.
All other issues are insignificant, so your continental friends who look down on us are deluding themselves as to their supposed superiority. You should remind them of that next time you speak and stop worrying about it.
FWIW that is cobblers. All other issues are insignificant? Tell that to previously pretty well off working couples who now can't afford to pay their mortgage due to Truss's ****tery. Or the Scottish shellfishermen who can't sell their produce into the EU. Or the food exporters who can't attend trade fairs because exporting anything less than a tonne of cheese is now economically unviable.
Many of the continental Europeans I was referring to were work colleagues, by the way. I'm certainly not making myself look a fool by defending the indefensible on behalf of thick racists. You can, if you like. 👍
An awful lot of people who know what they are talking about disagree with your opinion.
This is an appeal to (unnamed) authority. I notice you seem to think it's obvious but can't actually articulate what the actual or perceived conflict would be.
Am I not the only person whose second thought (after the sheer revulsion at the Rwanda Policy) was “who has got mates or relatives in Rwanda?”
Maybe not. But Kagame has long been an authoritarian ally of the UK. He and Blair are close friends. He loves Arsenal and he - I mean, the tourism board - sponsors them.
This is an appeal to (unnamed) authority. I notice you seem to think it’s obvious but can’t actually articulate what the actual or perceived conflict would be.
You quoted 7.1, which seemed to cover it nicely. She has failed to disclose a connection to a country that has unexpectedly become the recipient of UK taxpayers money. As plenty of people on here have perceived there could be a conflict of interest, she is in breach of the code.
Again.
You might like to articulate why you disagree.
ernielynch
Full Member
Blairs, Majors and Thatchers cabinet did not stoop to the same low-level – despite acting hugely despicably and immorally.I assume that you are not making a comparison between asking a civil servant if it is possible to arrange a private speed awareness course and an illegal war in which hundreds of thousands have died or deliberately pursuing policies which you know will cause 3 million unemployed?
The only comparison I am making is that Blairs government acted illegally as has every Conservative government in the 21st century.
Majors government and MP’s from across all parties acted immorally in exploiting g the ability to claim expenses and lobby parliament.
Thatchers government and policies have formed the foundation for the ‘leadership’ we have today.
I won't link to the obvious clickbait article in todays Daily Heil, but the delightful Sarah Vine has written an article about poor, brave Suella being hounded and persecuted by the 'Woke Mafia' who are apparently running, and ruining, the country
If the poundshop Katie Hopkins says anything like that then my first reaction is to check what her ex-husband has said recently. Yep, he's taken a gentle swipe at Cruella:
Gove came out before Christmas saying that she's a top politician, so the football equivalent of publicly backing the manager.
Gove came out before Christmas saying that she’s a top politician, so the football equivalent of publicly backing the manager.
She's a politician in a top job. That is a very different thing. And we all know what seminal event put people like Braverman in the ascendancy.
Aye, back stabbers. Point being that it's all a game.
Well, colour me surprised!
Who'd have thunk it, eh?
Thats my bet with TJ won 😀
Looks like Rishi really is just the continuity Johnson candidate and the ministerial code is just pointless as there is no sanction for breaking it repeatedly
https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1661293884641624066?s=20
Thats official now then. There is to be no investigation into Cruella
You owe me some pies Uncle Jezza 😀
Shouldn't you give TJ a 'cooling down period' of a few days to allow for the usual pathetic, crumbling, u-turn?
Apparently Rishi Sunak took the independent advice of an Eton-educated former investment banker.
In his letter to the home secretary, the prime minister said he had consulted with his independent ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, who advised that "on this occasion further investigation is not necessary and I have accepted that advice".
No doubt Little Rishi thinks he has got what he wanted - Cruella's wings apparently clipped for now.
Of course, the nutters will have given him a non-committal nod which he will interpret one way.
They will renege on that as soon as Sunak does something non-crazy.
You quoted 7.1, which seemed to cover it nicely. She has failed to disclose a connection to a country that has unexpectedly become the recipient of UK taxpayers money. As plenty of people on here have perceived there could be a conflict of interest, she is in breach of the code.
Again.
You might like to articulate why you disagree.
You are still not articulating a conflict of interests. You are skipping across the important middle bit and going straight from "Braverman has a (somewhat historic, personal, and tangential imo) connection to Rwanda" to "she faced a conflict in in her negotiations with the Rwandan government".
But what exactly are the two interests that are in conflict?
Interest #1: duty to obtain best deal for the UK in shipping migrants over to Rwanda.
Interest #2: ???
Is the suggestion that she betrayed her duty to the UK and was more favourable to the Rwandan government because she was some years ago involved in some way with a charity that trained some Rwandan government lawyers...? That's weaksauce, if so.
Again.
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Thats official now then. There is to be no investigation into Cruella
You owe me some pies Uncle Jezza 😀
</div>
Still time for her to go yet but its not looking likely 🙁
Still time for her to go yet.....
Well no time soon as Sunak has now clearly ruled it out.
Which is great news for opposition parties as Suella Braverman is deeply unpopular with voters:
And that was last week after Suella Braverman's rousing speech to a right-wing rabble.
She isn't even popular with Conservative voters :
Only 14 per cent of Britons have a favourable view of Ms Braverman, with 52 per cent having an unfavourable opinion. She has a -14 net favourability score from those who voted for the Conservatives in the 2019 general election, YouGov said.
So Sunak has decided to hang on to a discredited Home Secretary who voters don't like, and many Tory politicians, plus apparently right-wing newspapers, feel it's time for her to go.
You would have thought with so much stacked against him with regards to the next general election that he would have jumped at the chance of jettisoning unnecessary and useless baggage.
@politecameraaction
They were procuring a service, under public sector procurement rules you must declare any potential conflicts of interest, which includes have been a training provider for the other party. She didn't declare it, so that's where the potential for disrepute comes in. It's not that there was a conflict, it's that due diligence was not undertaken to determine if there was a conflict or not. I work public sector and i'm a budget holder, i have to declare that one sibling works for a major bank and another is an accountant at a major firm. Not that i would be involved in the procurement of either the bank or accountancy services, you still have to be transparent.
Personal opinion - she's bent as a nine-bob note.
Professional opinion - she's circumvented multiple rules to prevent conflicts of interest
You would have thought with so much stacked against him with regards to the next general election that he would have jumped at the chance of jettisoning unnecessary and useless baggage.
He's in a bit of a dilemma though. He got rid of both Zahawi and Raab after both of those were exposed by the media, and Sunak was more or less forced into agreeing that if the accusations proved true, he'd get shot of them. Regardless of Braverman's behaviour there's must be a point at which as PM you've got to stop doing it every time the media dig up some dirt about the behaviour of your cabinet because otherwise it makes the media want to go after all the cabinet and it makes you look both weak and foolish for appointing them in the first place. On the other hand, I think Sunak was forced into accepting Braverman into his cabinet by sections of his own party (whom he clearly feels he's got to keep onside) and I don't think he'd be massively unhappy if she went, I think what he wants is for her to resign, I don't think he wants to have to sack her.
I'll bet money there's another story waiting in the wings.
I’ll bet money there’s another story waiting in the wings.
To a lesser degree She's got that sense of self-entitlement Johnson possesses, that means more scandals are sure to follow
This feels like a great outcome. As Ernie says she is a proper vote loser beyond a bubble of a particularly nasty group of individuals that were never going to switch alliance to anything other than an even further right party. Add to that the damage her hanging around like a bad smell does to Sunak's credentials and it's happy days for the opposition.
Long term, probably the worst outcome for her too - if she stays as HS right up to the election she'll be tainted with failure and worse placed for a party leadership contest in 2024.
I’ll bet money there’s another story waiting in the wings.
Another socialist woke leftie conspiracy against the poor beleaguered hard-working Home Secretary who only made a small error of judgement while doing something she genuinely thought was the best thing at the time...?
That's what you meant to write surely?! 😉
They were procuring a service, under public sector procurement rules you must declare any potential conflicts of interest, which includes have been a training provider for the other party.
You think the interest that actually or apparently conflicted with Braverman's role was that she was a training provider for Rwanda?
But she wasn't. Not at the time of the negotiations. And not before. And even if she had been - where is the actual or apparent conflict? What exactly are the two duties or interests that were pulling her in different directions at the time of the negotiation?
Conflict of interests (in corporate life and in public procurement) is an area of such misunderstanding and wafflebollocks because people don't work through the steps. And this is leaving aside the fact that the Rwanda deal was cynical and transactional, but was not procurement. It's not buying traffic cones for the council from your brother's company.
Braverman is awful, but this is a non-issue.
Braverman is awful, but this is a non-issue.
is the issue not that she failed to declare it, shes not supposed to give the impression of corruption as well as not actually be corrupt
What exactly are the two duties or interests that were pulling her in different directions at the time of the negotiation?
I think you may be hanging your hat on a point that isn't being made - whether she was conflicted or not isn't clear, but she DID have an historic professional relationship with the other party and that should have been declared in order to determine whether she was conflicted or not. I think?
You are still not articulating a conflict of interests. You are skipping across the important middle bit and going straight from “Braverman has a (somewhat historic, personal, and tangential imo) connection to Rwanda” to “she faced a conflict in in her negotiations with the Rwandan government”.
It is not for Braverman to determine whether she has an actual conflict of interests, it is her duty to declare any potential conflicts of interest, or things which may create that impression, in order that civil servants the blob can determine whether those conflicts exist, or whether everything is OK, and advise accordingly.
This helps our Home Secretary retain at least the impression of propriety when it comes to her role in handing over 140 million of our money to a foreign government (for sweet fa so far, I note).
Any failure to declare could give rise to accusations of corrupt practices (even if there is no substance to them), and undermine British government policy. That's why the ministerial code tells ministers to do it.
The only thing I would say is it is a double failure, both on her part, and on the part of the Home Office/Cabinet Office team, who should have been aware of her Rwandan dealings ahead of her appointment, as they were hardly a state secret, and brought the issue up when they noticed it wasn't on her declaration.
Well, colour me surprised!
Who’d have thunk it, eh?
Thats my bet with TJ won 😀
Goshdarnit
Looks like you are right. With the rest of the psychodrama engulfing the tories the focus has been taken away from her and no more news stories?
Greggs is it sir? I have no more of the superlush pies
Boo, was hoping she had joined the resign with immediate effect bandwagon. 🙁
So was I
So was I
+1
Is disappoint.
It gives me no pleasure in being correct about this one but with this lot you just have to start with the lowest of expectations and you’re pretty much assured that that’s how it will end up playing out.
Boo, was hoping she had joined the resign with immediate effect bandwagon.
She can't resign until Jabba says so.
Meanwhile, back in Rwanda, Kagame has just purged his inner circle of intelligence and defence officers, presumably in fear of a coup, possibly assisted by the Democratic Republic of Congo (the government of which Kagame and Rwanda has long sought to depose through proxy forces).
Still, I'm sure the sportswashing highly efficient Arsenal shirt sponsorship will keep the tourist dollars rolling in...
"Gove came out before Christmas....."
Isn't this still the subject of a Court Superinjuction, that means you can't even refer to the super injuction, let alone the subject of it?
Hmmm Dame Or Lady Braverman wonder what just desserts she’ll get.
Cruella is going to go into meltdown!
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1674345558973071361?s=20
I await tomorrow mornings inevitable 'Enemies of the People' headlines
lefty lawyers and lefty judges enemies of the people headline coming to a facist rag in 5, 4, 3, 2.....
^^^^
The predictability of it is so boring now.
But, as has been shown many times in the last seven and a bit years, there is a large rump of racist halfwits out there willing to lap it up.
https://twitter.com/JohnJCrace/status/1674349341287362560?s=20
Add in the legal fees of christ-only-knows-what and I wonder how much this nonsense has cost the taxpayer so far?
They'll have known full well it would be deemed illegal. Its just all part of their culture war and them doing whatever the opposite of virtue signalling is
£200m in the bank for doing precisely nothing.
This is an aspect I don’t really get, though.
£200m is chump change for Kagame, or has he already spent the proceeds of looting eastern Congo's mineral riches?
Cruella is going to go into meltdown!
Illegal Illegal Migration Bill...
From the party of law and order. The party that really put the party into Downing Street. The party that has been party to tens of billions of pounds of fraud over Covid funds.
Who'd have thought it?!