FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Suella Braverman speeding course claims prompt inquiry calls

Suella Braverman speeding course claims prompt inquiry calls

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

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

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

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)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"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)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

How can I delete this thread

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

This story is interesting in terms of who actually leaked this information, I assume it was the civil service.

An investigation should be carried out to find out where the leak came from and lets understand why it was leaked

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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)

By *wisted999Man over a year ago

North Bucks

No inquiry needed. She enquired about a private course didn’t get one so took the L.

If she tried to get out the points themselves then perhaps.

With this government I think I would save the inquiries for the actual shit they pull.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

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.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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

Nat C’s

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *exy_HornyCouple over a year ago

Leigh

The blob tries to strike again.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illowendMan over a year ago

Southwold

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"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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

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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The blob tries to strike again."

The civil servants advised her to do the right thing

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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

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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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

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)

By *exy_HornyCouple over a year ago

Leigh

"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)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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.

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)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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.

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)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"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

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)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"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)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"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.

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)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"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.

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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Clamping down on leaks is a slippery slope. The world needs whistleblowers, at all levels of society.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"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)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"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)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"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.

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)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"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.

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)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"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.

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)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

Sunak to consult independent ethics adviser about Braverman's speeding fine - SkyNews

This is revenge. Tories briefing against Tories.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"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)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

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.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"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)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

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)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"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)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

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)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

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)

By *arakiss12TV/TS over a year ago

Bedford

On top of all this I don't think much of her dress sense.

She's crafty, I assume her advisors would have told her not to go down the dark alley becauseit would bite her on the bum.

I think this is all a distraction for some other dodgyness going on.

What strange bill being passed what big scandal is simmering away?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

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.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

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)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Person who's an mp asks if they can take a 1 to 1 course. Instead of in public

Oh the horror.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

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)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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.

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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

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)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"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.

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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Another fine example of how it is one rule for them and another for us.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *cottishVikingBearMan over a year ago

N. London

This is what happens when Voldemort hides a horcrux in a guinea pig.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rDiscretionXXXMan over a year ago

Gilfach

"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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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)

By *cottishVikingBearMan over a year ago

N. London

"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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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.

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)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

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!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"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)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"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)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"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.

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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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.

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)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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 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)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"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

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)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"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

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)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"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.

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)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

How is the civil service asked a question?

Is it always formal or can it be in passing?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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.

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)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"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!

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)

By *hitsbayMan over a year ago

Whitstable

"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.

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)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"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)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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.

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)

By *hitsbayMan over a year ago

Whitstable

"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.

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)

By *wisted999Man over a year ago

North Bucks

Those wishing for Braverman to go remember Kemi is waiting in the wings.

Be careful what you wish for

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"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)

By *hitsbayMan over a year ago

Whitstable

"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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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.

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)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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!

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)

By *hitsbayMan over a year ago

Whitstable

"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.

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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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.

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)

By *hitsbayMan over a year ago

Whitstable

"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.

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)

By *ill69888Couple over a year ago

cheltenham

"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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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.

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)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"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.

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)

By *hitsbayMan over a year ago

Whitstable

"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.

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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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.

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)

By *hitsbayMan over a year ago

Whitstable

"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.

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)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 24/05/23 09:25:42]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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.

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)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

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.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyukMan over a year ago

West London

"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.

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)

By *hitsbayMan over a year ago

Whitstable

"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.

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

Please you sunshine lol.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hitsbayMan over a year ago

Whitstable

"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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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.

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

Please you sunshine lol. "

And to think you complained about me being insulting

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"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?

Desperate."

O dear, it is the Tories that are trying to remove her, keep up

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

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)

By *hitsbayMan over a year ago

Whitstable

"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.

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

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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

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.

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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

"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.

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

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)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

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.

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)

By *astandFeistyCouple over a year ago

Bournemouth

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.

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

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)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

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.

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

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