Suella Braverman
- Thread starter Ebor
- Start date
Keelo
Well-known member
Overuse of the word fascist when describing a 100% Fascist ? Get a grip you silly boy
BoroMart
Well-known member
got any facts to back that claim up?
BoroFur
Well-known member
Could you provde a link to that?
Can you prove otherwise? You need to get out of your echo chamber and talk to people.
WeeGord
Well-known member
I suppose those of us that have a pop at Farage, Johnson, Aaron Banks etc do so because they are persons of colour?
Don't be an idiot, it's people like you using a made up race card that are part of the problem.
BoroFur
Well-known member
Have you ever met a key board warrior?
BoroMart
Well-known member
I didn't make the claim you did, so show some intellectual honesty in this discussion and back it up...I'll wait
Can you prove I'm in an echo chamber and don't talk to people....I'll wait for evidence of that one as well
h_m_boro
Well-known member
Unless she has to sign something.......seen exactly the same thing happen in Blazing Saddles.......
Keelo
Well-known member
You don't know me, you don't know who I've met or haven't met with your wide ranging assumptions.....I do believe your a bit of a clown though
American_Mary
Well-known member
If that's the case why aren't the Conservative's pushing for a GE to give Sunak and Co the mandate to carry on with these policies.
The veracity and accuracy of your statement is questionable as well as unmeasurable, so I'll ask you a quantifiable two part question.
1. Should a person who was forced to resign from the position of Home Secretary for a serious breach of security be allowed back as Home Secretary a week later having been found guilty of said offence ?
2. Is it right that a civil servant committing a similar or less serious breach with less sensitive information would be given instant dismissal without notice and have their security clearance removed for life ?
Allowing and defending exceptions like these erode all integrity from Government and are incompatible with any concept of fairness or what is right, someone who has proven through their actions to be a Security risk should not be in charge of UK Security.
American_Mary
Well-known member
I've met and spoken to self confessed Fascist's and neo-Nazi's, I don't think Braverman is one of those, I do however believe in her choice of language, some of her political beliefs and in several of her statements she is trying to appeal to the core values of that sub-culture, which I and others, including some of her own front bench colleagues, find distasteful and damaging to our reputation as a country.
indeedido
Well-known member
I struggle to understand some things about Braverman:
1. How she resigned over breaking the code, then the new PM says "no worries, take this second chance" and she says "great I'm happy to be back", all inside a week.
2. How she can subsequently admit to multiple other breaches of the kind that she felt she was compelled to resign over, and yet still be in position.
3. How her language and policies (since being appointed Home Secretary) can be supported by the PM and her party.
1. How she resigned over breaking the code, then the new PM says "no worries, take this second chance" and she says "great I'm happy to be back", all inside a week.
2. How she can subsequently admit to multiple other breaches of the kind that she felt she was compelled to resign over, and yet still be in position.
3. How her language and policies (since being appointed Home Secretary) can be supported by the PM and her party.
festa5
Well-known member
Easy
1. She was forced to resign only when she was caught, she certainly doesn't think the rules apply to her.
2. See (1) and the fact she is the price for the ERG and the like not backing Johnson.
3. They are now a proper "UKIP lite" right wing government, with a right wing PM and a lot of right wing MPs.
Also, they simply do not give a **** about their conduct, honesty, decency, professionalism and certainly not the ministerial code.
Last edited:
Cardiffdaffs
Well-known member
And here is that article
BRAVO BRAVERMAN
AMID demands for a full inquiry into the extent of the home secretary's "multiple and serious" security breaches and criticism over squalid conditions at Manston asylum processing centre, it has emerged that Suella Braverman has yet another major problem, as the Bar Standards Board (BSB) is quietly looking into a separate matter.
One of her learned friends has complained to the barristers' regulator that she made a
"dishonest statement out of self-interest to promote her career". It relates to revelations first made in the Eye in 2020 after the arch-Brexiteer MP for Fareham rose from relative legal obscurity to be Boris Johnson's attorney general.
Eye 1516 showed how she had puffed up her credentials to make the world believe she had a stellar legal CV. That included claiming on her No 5 Chambers website she had "contributed" to Philip Kolvin KC's arcane but authoritative text book, Gambling for Local Authorities, Licensing, Planning and Regeneration. In reality she was his gofer. Her claim has since been removed but remains available on the Wayback web archive.
The tale surfaced again in Big Issue magazine last month following Braverman's promotion to home secretary by Liz Truss in September. Kolvin was quoted saying
Braverman had made no written or editorial contribution. He added: "However, on one occasion I asked her to do some photocopying for the book, which she did."
That triggered the complaint to the BSB. But the regulator might also consider earlier self-publicity. Her MP's website previously asserted that as part of the Treasury counsel panel between 2010 and 2015, Braverman was involved "in the lengthy Guantanamo Bay Inquiry into the treatment of detainees by US and UK forces". Her name does not appear in Sir Peter Gibson's report, nor in the index of government players or lawyers. But perhaps she was one of the "80 lawyers and officials" reported by the BBC to have been asked to wade through 500,000 documents. The Westlaw legal research service's list of cases merely recorded Braverman fighting planning, customs and immigration actions between 2009 and 2014.
Cardiffdaffs
Well-known member
The pathologizing is ugly. Braverman isn't displaying the opinions they want her to. The prejudice displayed to somebody from an ethnic background present could be mistaken for racism.
SmallTown
Well-known member
No, I’m correct in that usage. If you knew what happened in the 1930s in Germany you’d see the parallels. Please educate yourself
And it’s the women you are defending, that uses language as a weapon. Describing asylum seekers as invaders demonises them, stirs up hatred and could threaten lives.