oneteaminglasgow Posted November 14, 2023 Share Posted November 14, 2023 “Asked to leave Government” In the same way that Lucy Letby was asked to go to jail for the rest of her life, presumably. That whole letter is (obviously) fucking unhinged. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted November 14, 2023 Share Posted November 14, 2023 (edited) Braverman pointing out that Hi-Risk Anus just might be a wee backstabbing, hypocritical liar. Dear prime minister. Thank you for your phone call yesterday morning in which you asked me to leave government. While disappointing, this is for the best. It has been my privilege to serve as home secretary and deliver on what the British people have sent us to Westminster to do. I want to thank all of those civil servants, police, Border Force officers and security professionals with whom I have worked and whose dedication to public safely is exemplary. I am proud of what we achieved together: delivering on our manifesto pledge to recruit 20,000 new police officers and enacting new laws such as the Public Order Act 2023 and the National SecurityAct 2023. I also led a programme of reform: on antisocial behaviour, police dismissals and standards, reasonable lines of enquiry; grooming gangs, knife crime, non-crime hate incidents and rape and serious sexual offences. And I am proud of the strategic changes that I was delivering to Prevent, Contest, serious organised crime and fraud. I am sure that this work will continue with the new ministerial team. As you know, I accepted your offer to serve as home secretary in October 2022 on certain conditions. Despite you having been rejected by a majority of party members during the summer leadership contest and thus having no personal mandate to be prime minister, I agreed to support you because of the firm assurances you gave me on key policy priorities. These were, among other things: 1. Reduce overall legal migration as set out in the 2019 manifesto through, inter alia, reforming the international students route and increasing salary thresholds on work visas; 2. Include specific notwithstanding clauses’ into new legislation to stop the boats, ie exclude the operation of the European convention on human rights, Human Rights Act and other international law that had thus far obstructed progress on this issue: 3. Deliver the Northern Ireland Protocol and Retained EU Law Bills in their then existing form and timetable: 4. Issue unequivocal statutory guidance to schools that protects biological sex, safeguards single sex spaces, and empowers parents to know what is being taught to their children. This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign. I trusted you. It is generally agreed that my support was a pivotal factor in winning the leadership contest and thus enabling you to become prime minister. For a year, as home secretary I have sent numerous letters to you on the key subjects contained in our agreement, made requests to discuss them with you and your team, and put forward proposals on how we might deliver these goals. I worked up the legal advice, policy detail and action to take on these issues. This was often met with equivocation, disregard and a lack of interest. You have manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver on every single one of these key policies. Either your distinctive style of government means you are incapable of doing so. Or, as I must surely conclude now, you never had any intention of keeping your promises. These are not just pet interests of mine. They are what we promised the British people in our 2019 manifesto which led to a landslide victory. They are what people voted for in the 2016 Brexit Referendum. Our deal was no mere promise over dinner, to be discarded when convenient and denied when challenged. I was clear from day one that if you did not wish to leave the ECHR, the way to securely and swiftly deliver our Rwanda partnership would be to block off t ECHR, the HRA and any other obligations which inhibit our ability to remove those with no right to be in the UK. Our deal expressly referenced ‘notwithstanding clauses’ to that effect. Notwithstanding clauses are clauses in bills saying, in effect, notwithstanding that fact that international law says the government should do X, Y and X, this bill allows the government to ignore those obligations. They would allow the government to circumvent the ECHR. But whether they would survive legal challenge is another matter. Your rejection of this path was not merely a betrayal of our agreement, but a betrayal of your promise to the nation that you would do ‘whatever it lakes’ to stop the boats. At every stage of litigation I cautioned you and your team against assuming we would win. I repeatedly urged you to take legislative measures that would better secure us against the possibility of defeat. You ignored these arguments. You opted instead for wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices. This irresponsibility has wasted time and left the country in an impossible position. If we lose in the supreme court, an outcome that 1 have consistently argued we must be prepared for, you will have wasted a year and an Act of Parliament, only to arrive back at square one. Worse than this, your magical thinking – believing that you can will your way through this without upsetting polite opinion – has meant you have failed to prepare any sort of credible ‘Plan B’. I wrote to you on multiple occasions setting out what a credible Plan B would entail, and making clear that unless you pursue these proposals, in the event of defeat, there is no hope of flights this side of an election. Ireceived no reply from you. I can only surmise that this is because you have no appetite lor doing what is necessary , and therefore no real intention of fulfilling your pledge to the British people. If, on the other hand, we win in the supreme court, because of the compromises that you insisted on the Illegal Migration Act, the government will struggle to deliver our Rwanda partnership in the way that the public expects. The Act is far from secure against legal challenge. People will not be removed as swiftly as I originally proposed. I The average claimant will be entitled to months of process, challenge, and appeal. Your insistence that rule 39 indications [injunctions imposed by the European court of human rights] are binding in international law – against the views of leading lawyers, as set out in the House of Lords – will leave us vulnerable to being thwarted yet again by the Strasbourg court. Another cause for disappointment – and the context for my recent article in The Times – has been your failure to rise to the challenge posed by the increasingly vicious antisemitism and extremism displayed on our streets since Hamas’s terrorist atrocities of 7 October. I have become hoarse urging you to consider legislation to ban the hate marches and help stem the rising tide of racism, intimidation and terrorist glorification threatening community cohesion. Britain is at a turning point in our history and faces a threat of radicalisation and extremism in a way not seen for 20 years. I regret to say that your response has been uncertain, weak, and lacking in the qualities of leadership that this country needs. Rather than fully acknowledge the severity of this threat, your team disagreed with me for weeks that the law needed changing. As on so many other issues, you sought to put off tough decisions in order to minimise political risk to yourself. In doing so you have increased the very real risk these marches present to everyone else. In October of last year you were given an opportunity to lead our country. It is a privilege to serve and one we should not lake for granted. Service requires bravery and thinking of the common good. It is not about occupying the office as an end in itself. Someone needs to be honest: your plan is not working, we have endured record election defeats, your resets have failed and we are running out of time. You need to change course urgently. I may not have always found the right words, but I have always striven to give voice to the quiet majority that supported us in 2019. I have endeavoured to be honest and true to the people who put us in these privileged positions. I will, of course, continue to support the government in pursuit of policies which align with an authentic conservative agenda. Sincerely, Rt Hon Suella Braverman KC MP Edited November 14, 2023 by Florentine_Pogen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eindhovendee Posted November 14, 2023 Share Posted November 14, 2023 Lord Snooty just tweeted. Got to love the Tories backstabbing each other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted November 14, 2023 Share Posted November 14, 2023 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted November 14, 2023 Share Posted November 14, 2023 56 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said: Braverman pointing out that Hi-Risk Anus just might be a wee backstabbing, hypocritical liar. Dear prime minister. Thank you for your phone call yesterday morning in which you asked me to leave government. While disappointing, this is for the best. It has been my privilege to serve as home secretary and deliver on what the British people have sent us to Westminster to do. I want to thank all of those civil servants, police, Border Force officers and security professionals with whom I have worked and whose dedication to public safely is exemplary. I am proud of what we achieved together: delivering on our manifesto pledge to recruit 20,000 new police officers and enacting new laws such as the Public Order Act 2023 and the National SecurityAct 2023. I also led a programme of reform: on antisocial behaviour, police dismissals and standards, reasonable lines of enquiry; grooming gangs, knife crime, non-crime hate incidents and rape and serious sexual offences. And I am proud of the strategic changes that I was delivering to Prevent, Contest, serious organised crime and fraud. I am sure that this work will continue with the new ministerial team. As you know, I accepted your offer to serve as home secretary in October 2022 on certain conditions. Despite you having been rejected by a majority of party members during the summer leadership contest and thus having no personal mandate to be prime minister, I agreed to support you because of the firm assurances you gave me on key policy priorities. These were, among other things: 1. Reduce overall legal migration as set out in the 2019 manifesto through, inter alia, reforming the international students route and increasing salary thresholds on work visas; 2. Include specific notwithstanding clauses’ into new legislation to stop the boats, ie exclude the operation of the European convention on human rights, Human Rights Act and other international law that had thus far obstructed progress on this issue: 3. Deliver the Northern Ireland Protocol and Retained EU Law Bills in their then existing form and timetable: 4. Issue unequivocal statutory guidance to schools that protects biological sex, safeguards single sex spaces, and empowers parents to know what is being taught to their children. This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign. I trusted you. It is generally agreed that my support was a pivotal factor in winning the leadership contest and thus enabling you to become prime minister. For a year, as home secretary I have sent numerous letters to you on the key subjects contained in our agreement, made requests to discuss them with you and your team, and put forward proposals on how we might deliver these goals. I worked up the legal advice, policy detail and action to take on these issues. This was often met with equivocation, disregard and a lack of interest. You have manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver on every single one of these key policies. Either your distinctive style of government means you are incapable of doing so. Or, as I must surely conclude now, you never had any intention of keeping your promises. These are not just pet interests of mine. They are what we promised the British people in our 2019 manifesto which led to a landslide victory. They are what people voted for in the 2016 Brexit Referendum. Our deal was no mere promise over dinner, to be discarded when convenient and denied when challenged. I was clear from day one that if you did not wish to leave the ECHR, the way to securely and swiftly deliver our Rwanda partnership would be to block off t ECHR, the HRA and any other obligations which inhibit our ability to remove those with no right to be in the UK. Our deal expressly referenced ‘notwithstanding clauses’ to that effect. Notwithstanding clauses are clauses in bills saying, in effect, notwithstanding that fact that international law says the government should do X, Y and X, this bill allows the government to ignore those obligations. They would allow the government to circumvent the ECHR. But whether they would survive legal challenge is another matter. Your rejection of this path was not merely a betrayal of our agreement, but a betrayal of your promise to the nation that you would do ‘whatever it lakes’ to stop the boats. At every stage of litigation I cautioned you and your team against assuming we would win. I repeatedly urged you to take legislative measures that would better secure us against the possibility of defeat. You ignored these arguments. You opted instead for wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices. This irresponsibility has wasted time and left the country in an impossible position. If we lose in the supreme court, an outcome that 1 have consistently argued we must be prepared for, you will have wasted a year and an Act of Parliament, only to arrive back at square one. Worse than this, your magical thinking – believing that you can will your way through this without upsetting polite opinion – has meant you have failed to prepare any sort of credible ‘Plan B’. I wrote to you on multiple occasions setting out what a credible Plan B would entail, and making clear that unless you pursue these proposals, in the event of defeat, there is no hope of flights this side of an election. Ireceived no reply from you. I can only surmise that this is because you have no appetite lor doing what is necessary , and therefore no real intention of fulfilling your pledge to the British people. If, on the other hand, we win in the supreme court, because of the compromises that you insisted on the Illegal Migration Act, the government will struggle to deliver our Rwanda partnership in the way that the public expects. The Act is far from secure against legal challenge. People will not be removed as swiftly as I originally proposed. I The average claimant will be entitled to months of process, challenge, and appeal. Your insistence that rule 39 indications [injunctions imposed by the European court of human rights] are binding in international law – against the views of leading lawyers, as set out in the House of Lords – will leave us vulnerable to being thwarted yet again by the Strasbourg court. Another cause for disappointment – and the context for my recent article in The Times – has been your failure to rise to the challenge posed by the increasingly vicious antisemitism and extremism displayed on our streets since Hamas’s terrorist atrocities of 7 October. I have become hoarse urging you to consider legislation to ban the hate marches and help stem the rising tide of racism, intimidation and terrorist glorification threatening community cohesion. Britain is at a turning point in our history and faces a threat of radicalisation and extremism in a way not seen for 20 years. I regret to say that your response has been uncertain, weak, and lacking in the qualities of leadership that this country needs. Rather than fully acknowledge the severity of this threat, your team disagreed with me for weeks that the law needed changing. As on so many other issues, you sought to put off tough decisions in order to minimise political risk to yourself. In doing so you have increased the very real risk these marches present to everyone else. In October of last year you were given an opportunity to lead our country. It is a privilege to serve and one we should not lake for granted. Service requires bravery and thinking of the common good. It is not about occupying the office as an end in itself. Someone needs to be honest: your plan is not working, we have endured record election defeats, your resets have failed and we are running out of time. You need to change course urgently. I may not have always found the right words, but I have always striven to give voice to the quiet majority that supported us in 2019. I have endeavoured to be honest and true to the people who put us in these privileged positions. I will, of course, continue to support the government in pursuit of policies which align with an authentic conservative agenda. Sincerely, Rt Hon Suella Braverman KC MP ^^ Word salad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirkieRR Posted November 14, 2023 Share Posted November 14, 2023 Stop looking at that Cameron Dude! Look at mememememe! Notice memememe! In a world with Trump, Johnson, Truss, Patel and Mad Moggo, she is still quite possibly the most unpleasant politician in the West. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted November 14, 2023 Share Posted November 14, 2023 Hak_a_dalan 4 hours ago Guardian Pick 486 “The prime minister had not kept any of his promises to her. He had owed his leadership success to her and he had betrayed her.” In her resignation letter Braverman accuses Sunak of reneging on promises he made to her on four keys issues. • Reducing overall legal migration • Passing legislation to stop the boats • Delivering the Northern Ireland Protocol • Providing statutory guidance to schools that protects biological sex “These are not just pet interests of mine”, Braverman intones. “They are what we promised the British people in our 2019 manifesto which led to a landslide victory.” I have searched the 2019 Conservative manifesto. It is 64 pages long. It has lots of photos and blank spaces. Over 10% of it is devoted to pictures of Johnson in a variety of gurning poses. Obviously, the manifesto hasn’t aged well. But within the little text that there is, there does not appear to be a mention of anything that Braverman claims. I must be wrong, for it is inconceivable that someone of Suella Braverman’s demonstrated integrity could be lying. Perhaps, I should go back and read it again more carefully. Perhaps Suella should too. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 I think Braverman has some serious mental health problems that need addressed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 7 hours ago, Empty It said: I think Braverman has some serious mental health problems that need addressed. Is being a vile c**t of a human being a mental health problem? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 The only thing I can recall about the Conservatives 2019 General Election campaign was "oven ready deal", and that predictably turned out to be a pack of lies, so it's no surprise to find out some of them are still talking complete and utter shite about that particular manifesto. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 Michael Howard was just on the radio there comparing the current Tories with Thatchers govt. In a nice bit of revisionism, he said that "although Thatcher had a lot of very good ideas, she was incredibly cautious about implementing them..............." w****r. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 26 minutes ago, Leith Green said: Michael Howard was just on the radio there comparing the current Tories with Thatchers govt. In a nice bit of revisionism, he said that "although Thatcher had a lot of very good ideas, she was incredibly cautious about implementing them..............." w****r. To be fair, the ideas she wanted to implement included forced labour for benefits, gassing trade unions and privatising the atmosphere. It's all relative. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 20 minutes ago, coprolite said: To be fair, the ideas she wanted to implement included forced labour for benefits, gassing trade unions and privatising the atmosphere. It's all relative. Had to wait until Cameron's government for that one, until the EU put the kybosh on it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilScotsman Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 SO how much money have we wasted on this unlawful and unworkable scheme? Including legal fees. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soapy FFC Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 2 minutes ago, Suspect Device said: SO how much money have we wasted on this unlawful and unworkable scheme? Including legal fees. According to the Mirror Quote How much has it cost (so far)? We don't know the full picture as yet - but what we do know is that it's been very, very expensive. So far the UK Government has handed over £140million to Rwanda. The Mirror has requested a full breakdown of all other costs associated with the project, such as airline fees and spending on court battles, but has been rebuffed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 Rwandan officials today. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 Hilarious, and utterly clownshoes at the same time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.