Braverman's behaviour in parliament today proves nothing has changed.

Urmstongran

You cannot have a welfare state and open borders, £5 mil/a day on hotels tells me current immigration policy is lacking.

I wish somebody would do something. The UK needs that huge amount of money, now more than ever.

So process newly arrived asylum seekers more quickly and efficiently and get those with a legitimate claim working and contributing.

PS. Rachel Reeves was slammed for suggesting it.

GrannyGravy13

Casdon

MerylStreep

Casdon
All I can see is that number 10 is backing Suella Braverman.
There is the story about her trying to block a story that the bbc wanted to air but due to the sensitivity of the case couldn’t
.Am I missing something? Quiet possibly ?

Yes you have Meryl Streep, the article is about a different leak of information. Reports have emerged suggesting that, as attorney general, she was investigated over the leak of a story involving MI5, and it’s that which is adding to concerns about her being given any highly sensitive information. More detail will no doubt emerge over the next few days.

She was investigated but not charged/found guilty of anything.

If she is found guilty she should go simples

It doesn’t exactly say that, the implication I think being that there’s more to it than we currently know. It says:

‘ The High Court permits publication of the fact there was a leak inquiry, but the government has so far refused to comment.
The Cabinet Office has not responded to the BBC's questions about the leak inquiry including whether or not Ms Braverman was questioned, if the police were involved, or if anyone was arrested or questioned under caution. The attorney general's office also did not respond to queries.’.

It will no doubt be clarified!

Don’t forget Johnson was PM. The rules didn’t apply then - Johnson proved to be a security risk himself.

It will no doubt be clarified!

Oh yes? You're more trusting than I!

Whitewavemark2

Don’t forget Johnson was PM. The rules didn’t apply then - Johnson proved to be a security risk himself.

With Russian oligarchs and dirty Russian money too!

Fleurpepper

Whitewavemark2

Don’t forget Johnson was PM. The rules didn’t apply then - Johnson proved to be a security risk himself.

With Russian oligarchs and dirty Russian money too!

Yes

A friend has come up with this theory, could he be right? Was it all done to ensure the Tory members didn't get a vote?

''My theory is that it was all part of a plan to get rid of Liz Truss and put Rishi Sunak in her place. They came up with a reason for her to resign, saying that anyone who makes mistakes must resign. This puts more pressure on Liz Truss to resign and the 1922 committee to take action. They knew that it was a done deal to get Sunak in then. Johnson was never going to get back in. That was just a smokescreen. Any other candidate such as Penny Mordaunt had virtually no chance of reaching 100 nominations. That kept the tory membership from having a vote. Perfect 'democracy'. More like a script for Yes Minister,,

Yes, Fleurpepper, I suspect that your friend could be right (not saying that he is).

Fleurpepper

A friend has come up with this theory, could he be right? Was it all done to ensure the Tory members didn't get a vote?

''My theory is that it was all part of a plan to get rid of Liz Truss and put Rishi Sunak in her place. They came up with a reason for her to resign, saying that anyone who makes mistakes must resign. This puts more pressure on Liz Truss to resign and the 1922 committee to take action. They knew that it was a done deal to get Sunak in then. Johnson was never going to get back in. That was just a smokescreen. Any other candidate such as Penny Mordaunt had virtually no chance of reaching 100 nominations. That kept the tory membership from having a vote. Perfect 'democracy'. More like a script for Yes Minister,,

Sounds about right to me. It always sounded like a put-up job. Interesting to know who is pulling the strings. Probably the people who put Hunt into Number 11. Not the batshit rightwingers I suspect.

What will the 'average' Tory member think when they realise they have been 'played' by their own- to stop them voting?

Mamie

Fleurpepper

A friend has come up with this theory, could he be right? Was it all done to ensure the Tory members didn't get a vote?

''My theory is that it was all part of a plan to get rid of Liz Truss and put Rishi Sunak in her place. They came up with a reason for her to resign, saying that anyone who makes mistakes must resign. This puts more pressure on Liz Truss to resign and the 1922 committee to take action. They knew that it was a done deal to get Sunak in then. Johnson was never going to get back in. That was just a smokescreen. Any other candidate such as Penny Mordaunt had virtually no chance of reaching 100 nominations. That kept the tory membership from having a vote. Perfect 'democracy'. More like a script for Yes Minister,,

Sounds about right to me. It always sounded like a put-up job. Interesting to know who is pulling the strings. Probably the people who put Hunt into Number 11. Not the batshit rightwingers I suspect.

A different subset of right wingers.

I agree with posters insisting Sunak must have known appointing Cruella would create dissent. It could be a smokescreen to cover even worse news.
The entire front bench privately educated. How does that reflect our country?

growstuff

DaisyAnne Surely you don't think that MI5 makes its concerns public!

I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about.

It seems she is now getting extra instruction on security protocols so at least she shouldn't accidently send highly confidential information to some random person's wife again.
What a relief for the nation, but I would have thought it would have been a better idea that she was briefed on security protocols before being given the job ....again.

Fleurpepper

What will the 'average' Tory member think when they realise they have been 'played' by their own- to stop them voting?

I would imagine that the average Tory member is just glad to have the mess created by Liz Truss reversed, and the money markets picking up again.

She is a barrister, and was chief legal officer to the Crown when she was attorney general. She would have been absolutely clear on what constituted a data breach. It doesn’t add up.

Prentice

Fleurpepper

What will the 'average' Tory member think when they realise they have been 'played' by their own- to stop them voting?

I would imagine that the average Tory member is just glad to have the mess created by Liz Truss reversed, and the money markets picking up again.

A lot of 'average tory members' were very upset at not getting a vote on the leader this time because they didn't want a brown PM. That's a large part of what Truss got it last time.

'Why' Truss got it....

Urmstongran

Braverman seriously wants to tackle the Channel migrants. So many Albanian thugs coming over. The rise is exponential - 800 last year, 12,000 this year according to the Home Office. She gets my vote but will be up against The Blob. She says when she gets trolled on Twitter she knows she’s doing what the majority of taxpayers want! Mind you Pritti Patel couldn’t get things done and maybe Braverman will be up against it too. We will have to wait and see.

Braverman fell out with Truss over immigration. Truss was watering down proposals. Braverman’s mild infringement using her personal email to amend an urgent document was ideal for her to ‘resign’ over. She said she certainly couldn’t go along with what Truss was capitulating on.

This will be an interesting time to see how Braverman deals with issues.

The foreign-born share of the population is unrelated to violent crime according to the most recent research findings. (The Migration Observatory, at the University of Oxford).

I'm not sure where you got your figures from.
Please post a link.

Re the use of personal emails - you say Braverman’s mild infringement - I think that sharing classified documents with a colleague's wife via an insecure email system is actually a sacking matter!

Casdon

She is a barrister, and was chief legal officer to the Crown when she was attorney general. She would have been absolutely clear on what constituted a data breach. It doesn’t add up.

I agree!

She has access to some of the most sensitive information in the land. There is no way that she wasn't aware.

I agree with Iam64 that it could be a smokescreen to divert from some of the other stuff she's come out with.

NotSpaghetti

Urmstongran

Braverman seriously wants to tackle the Channel migrants. So many Albanian thugs coming over. The rise is exponential - 800 last year, 12,000 this year according to the Home Office. She gets my vote but will be up against The Blob. She says when she gets trolled on Twitter she knows she’s doing what the majority of taxpayers want! Mind you Pritti Patel couldn’t get things done and maybe Braverman will be up against it too. We will have to wait and see.

Braverman fell out with Truss over immigration. Truss was watering down proposals. Braverman’s mild infringement using her personal email to amend an urgent document was ideal for her to ‘resign’ over. She said she certainly couldn’t go along with what Truss was capitulating on.

This will be an interesting time to see how Braverman deals with issues.

The foreign-born share of the population is unrelated to violent crime according to the most recent research findings. (The Migration Observatory, at the University of Oxford).

I'm not sure where you got your figures from.
Please post a link.

Re the use of personal emails - you say Braverman’s mild infringement - I think that sharing classified documents with a colleague's wife via an insecure email system is actually a sacking matter!

The Telegraph, no doubt. Albanians have become the latest scapegoats.

One side-effect of Suella Braverman’s failed attempt to become leader of the Conservative Party is that her tenure as attorney general will almost certainly come to an end once the new prime minister takes office. That may well be good news for her, since her showing could be enough to get her a senior cabinet position. But it is also good news for anyone who cares about the rule of law, given the damage that her tenure has done to her office.

Braverman’s stint as attorney general will doubtless be best remembered for her attempts to give threadbare legal cover to successive attempts by the Johnson government to break the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU—the treaty that it had campaigned for as a “great” and “oven-ready” deal. On the first attempt—Part 5 of the Internal Market Bill, introduced in September 2020—Braverman’s position was to admit the breach of international law but to suggest that there was no issue for the rule of law as a matter of principle, because parliament had power to pass domestic law in breach of treaty commitments.

On the second—the current Northern Ireland Protocol Bill—Braverman has distanced herself from the idea that the government may be breaching international law, arguing instead that the UK is entitled to breach the Withdrawal Agreement, in ways that go well beyond the limited exemptions provided for in Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol, because it is “necessary” to prevent an immediate and grave peril. It is reliably reported that she had to “shop around” to find any lawyer outside government who was prepared to give credence to that argument, which is universally regarded outside government as hopeless: and any impartial expert will be unpersuaded by her published “legal position,” which contains a series of implausible and unevidenced assertions dressed up as “assessments” and deals with the main reasons why the government’s position is hopeless by ignoring them.

In retrospect, Braverman’s willingness to advance implausible legal argument now looks like the reason why she was appointed in early 2020 in place of the equally pro-Brexit, but determinedly independent, Geoffrey Cox QC (whose speech in the debate on the Bill made it clear that he had the “gravest doubts” over the legality of the Bill and drew attention to the complete absence of evidence in Braverman’s published position).

But Braverman’s tenure will be remembered for other things too. In R v Long—where she personally appeared before the Court of Appeal to argue that the sentencing of teenagers convicted of the manslaughter of PC Andrew Harper was unduly lenient—the court broke with its usual politeness towards serving attorneys general by describing her submissions as “striking” and “unusual” (Court of Appeal code for “hopeless”). It was, the court said, “regrettable” that her submissions had not addressed the relevant guidelines. In that same case a “friend” of hers briefed the Sunday Express that if the Court of Appeal upheld the original sentence it would be an example of “wet, liberal judges being soft on criminals.”

Indeed, loose but politically motivated talk has been a general problem during her tenure. In the Barnard Castle affair, Braverman (ignoring her position as the minister with ultimate accountability for criminal prosecutions in England and Wales) leapt to Dominic Cummings’s defence before any police investigation had been completed. In breach of well-established convention that advice from the law officers (the collective term for the attorney general, the solicitor general and the advocate general for Scotland) is not made public, she conspicuously refused to deny that she had authorised the leak of her advice on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. In the run-up to the Conservative leadership, she made in the press and on television a number of politically convenient but legally dubious claims about EU law and the effect of the Northern Ireland Protocol. And during her campaign for the Conservative leadership, she managed to undermine the basis on which the government was defending the Rwanda deportation proposals in the courts—and the government’s own claim that those proposals were compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights—by claiming that “the Rwanda plan can work but we’ll have to leave the ECHR to do it.”

Against that background, it is hard not to regard with some suspicion Braverman’s emphasis on obtaining “innovative” legal advice from government lawyers (there has even been a new award established to recognise “creative thinking”). When read with her complaints about a “Remain bias” in the civil service, the message that government lawyers are likely to hear is that frank but inconvenient advice will be dismissed as biased.

It looks as if Braverman treated her time as attorney as little more than a step on the ladder to high office

This is part of an article written in Prospect. I must admit to not knowing much about the publication but it pretty much sums up my opinion of her as someone Johnson elevated to the position of Attorney General so he could ignore as many laws as possible.

Braverman not sacked yet?

Still a security risk though.

Maudi

Is Suella Braverman your new hate figure now Boris has gone par for the course I suppose with Labour they have no policies only hate.

Speaks someone who's under dillusional thought that Tories actually care a flying fig about anything but themselves! Oh dear someone's been playing " I'm better than you cos I vote for the greedy party," haven't we? Labour means Work. Done any? .....ever....proper work?.... Doesn't sound like it. Personally I don't believe that sink or swim politics is either kind , honourable or even human! It's positively elitist rubbish that the chattering classes are still falling for!!!