Err, as much as I dislike everything she stands for, this doesn't seem so bad.
Ministerial figure gets speeding ticket, so asks civil service (who, let's be clear, don't much care for her because she's an arsehole) then asks SpAds to further investigate, whether there is any chance of a private awareness course. Then just took the points?
The course is a speed awareness thing. Not a townsquare shaming. I'm entirely surprised there's not a celebrity version with a NDA in place. Give a fook, tbh
On the one hand, you're probably right.
On the other, she's a horror and we should never miss an opportunity to stick the knife in and twist. Lock her on a barge.
wot Royalty said
what RR said
WHY ON EARTH SHOULDN’T THE HOME SECRETARY GET HELP FROM CIVIL SERVANTS TO AVOID SPEEDING PENALTIES AND FINES?!?
SHE IS THE HOME SECRETARY OF THIS GREAT NATION AND THEY ARE HER SERVANTS!!
QUITE FRANKLY THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO LOOK BAD IN ALL OF THIS ARE THE INEPT CIVIL SERVANTS WHO - ALL TOO PREDICTABLY - FAILED TO MAKE THE SPEEDING PENALTIES AND FINES GO AWAY AS ASKED!!
The sooner she’s consigned to the dustbin of history with the rest of her placeholder colleagues the better.
Burn her, obvs.
At least twice.
I think there is something rather beautiful in that, by seeking to avoid publicity for something that wouldn't have been much more than a byline she has got herself in the front page.
OP is spot on.
There's a danger that briefing against her on petty stuff like this also dilutes the impact of the really corrosive culture war stoking Nazional Conservatism stuff.
"briefing against her"
Whi do you think this story came from???
Trying to evade proper justice isn't "petty".
I’m with Jelly and Eeyore on this. There is sooooo much she can be properly vilified for it seems stupid to focus on this.
If she had been trying to evade justice I’d agree completely with Dux but I haven’t seen that suggested anywhere.
Someone who briefed against her ?
Jim, after tomato-gate they know that something as petty as this is enough now to dethrone a secretary of state.
Good luck to Labour working with this for the next ten years now that Pandoras box is open.
There was a warning.
I agree this is trivial but the problem is one of political optics. It just reinforces the one rule for us mentality.
Rishi seemed a bit miffed that this was the main question he got on the G7 summit presser.
Given she was at the CDO event it may be the opportunity Rishi needs to tidy up his cabinet a bit.
‘There was a warning’
lol @ the yOu’LL aLL bE sOrRy!!!! stuff
we’ve moved on from tHeY arE aLL aS bAd As EaCh oThEr I see
Rishi must be relishing this opportunity for payback, or at least making her sweat it a bit.
IF A CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT CAN’T OPERATE WITHOUT USING CIVIL SERVANTS TO EVADE FINES AND PENALTIES THEN I DON’T SEE HOW IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT TO DO SO!
Most roffers hand themselves in at the local police station if they catch themselves going over 70.
This woman is trying to send refugees to a concentration camp in Africa. Who gives a shit about her wondering if she can get off a speeding fine.
could someone remind me what “tomato-gate” is? it’s not ringing a bell
I would also like to know what the tomato-gate reference is.
Ahhh - I think it was Raab’s alleged tomato-hurling incident.
Not the same thing at all in my view. That was an assault which, as far as I am aware has never been proven/punished whereas this was a speeding crime, she was caught and looked to see if she could complete the punishment offered individually. When she couldn’t, she accepted the ticket instead.
As Spurius noted, I think there are far worse things she is doing/has done(/will do in the future) and can’t see the fuss about this one really. Feels like a slow news day.
Totally agree with the OP.
Suella is awful in every respect. The content of what she says is horrific, and her delivery lacks any confidence or apparent belief in what she says, like a bad actor - she is clearly just saying the most horrible stuff to appeal to the rump of nasty people that make up the remaining conservative membership.
But the speed awareness course thing is really trivial. It would have been a story in the press, she asked whether she could do a private version, was told she couldn’t, so took the points. I don’t think that’s really that unreasonable.
Rwanda, appearing at a National Socialism/Conservatism event, and openly campaigning against the current leadership of her party are things that should make her a big target for criticism, but not the speed awareness thing.
Raab resigned because he was found to be a bully by a Tory inquiry. Sewerella has tried to use civil servants to manipulate a private criminal matter. Worth noting she has already had to resign once for breaking the ministerial code.
well clearly that’s not going to become a rubicon of ministerial responsibility given that nobody can even remember it happened
@RR - she wasn’t trying to get civil servants to manipulate a criminal matter.
I did an online speed awareness course last year, having chosen to do that instead of take points. I was able to identify the other participants really easily. For someone in the public eye, asking to do an online version where other people couldn’t see that it was her is not outrageous IMHO.
She was told she couldn’t do so and then took the points.
Can’t believe I’m defending Suella, but there you go. By trying to make a big thing out of this, the opposition make themselves look trivial, and reduce the impact of criticism of the more heinous things the govt do.
It's a private matter so using civil servants to do anything about it at all is misconduct, let alone as home sec asking civil servants to get her a private course. Worth noting that she also tried to put the fine on expenses. Are you ok with that too?
If you ignore the little things, which I disagree this is, then these corrupt nobs will expect to get away with bigger and bigger things.
So no, it's not ok. Gaol for the lot of them.
Remember that’s amithemeatshield’s summary -Boris got sacked for eating cake, raaab got sacked for throwing a tomato and so on and so on.
And he can’t possibly imagine a world in which a politician could possibly not behave in the way this current mob have
No, she is treating civil servants as if they were here domestic servants. Gaol o' clock for stinky Su!
Did she really try and expense the fine?
I can’t see anything about that online. There are some stories from April this year about her reportedly asking at time of becoming an MP whether fines can be expensed in general, but I didn’t see anything saying that actually did try to expense a fine.
"It's a private matter so using civil servants to do anything about it at all is misconduct, let alone as home sec asking civil servants to get her a private course. Worth noting that she also tried to put the fine on expenses. Are you ok with that too?"
Christ you're slippery sometimes.
1. The objection is to your use of "manipulate", which carries the suggestion of trying to reduce the sanction.
2. "The" fine she tried to put on expenses is an old story related by William Wragge about her asking if a speeding fine could be put on expenses on her first day as an MP.
It now comes out that when asked whether she had received a speeding fine several weeks ago her spokesperson flat out denied it when that is not the case.
Layer upon layer of dishonesty.
The fact she thought this was a question that was reasonable to ask tells you all you need to know.
i’ll let royalty fight his own battles but that’s not the case at all
on its face she tried to use the civil service to manipulate the sanction (that’s the whole scandal) - that she was unsuccessful is neither here not there
“manipulate” doesn’t imply “reduce”
Unless it aides in your meatshielding of one of the nastiest politicians to ever hold high office.
To be fair if my work made me drive somewhere and I got a speeding fine in the process I’d ask if I could expense it.
It’s all about keeping up the pressure to remind the populace these people are unrepresentative- one rule for them another for us.
“The fact she thought this was a reasonable question to ask tells you all you need to know.”
Not really. It tells me that what you stated above re: her trying to expense the fine was incorrect, but that you are pivoting to avoid recognising this, which is quite JRM-esque.
she didn’t try to manipulate the sanction. People who get caught speeding but by a small margin, who don’t already have points, get offered a speed awareness course as an alternative to taking points, and they then get to choose between the 2 options. AFAIK, there is no suggestion she tried to get anyone to avoid those consequences.
She’s an awful human being who panders to the worst of the old Tory right. And she uses real people’s lives to do that. That behaviour rightly deserves a lot of criticism.
But when you get caught up in ‘tribe’ mentality, you lose objectivity. You’ve fallen into that trap here.
This is a non-story. You’ve had to make sh1t up and misrepresent what she actually did in order to try to defend your initial level of outrage.
There are so many big things that SB should be getting raked over the coals about. This story takes up the space that those issues should be getting.
Yes really, she wanted to be able to expense a speeding fine. Unbelievable.
Now you're being a JRM. I never said that. Better luck next time. This is extra hilarious given the pompous penultimate paragraph of your failblog above.
Doesn't mean we should ignore the small things honey
This is the internet dear, it's pretty much unlimited. Me commenting on sewerella hasn't prevented any other coverage.
Keep tying yourself in knots though. I'm here for it.
You said she tried to expense the fine. She didn’t. Your statement above was untrue.
Chill used the phrase ‘manipulate the sanction. You used the phrase ‘manipulate a criminal matter’. Neither happened here.
My objections are not about you commenting on it. My objections are to the wider media coverage this is getting. Newspapers and news websites only have so much space to push stories in a way that will get attention. Choosing what makes it on to the front page makes a big difference to public recognition. Public attention span is not unlimited.
Focusing on a trivial story like this, which most people will also regard as trivial, pushes more important stuff off the agenda.
eh? she did - that’s the story
except she didn’t choose between the 2 options, she asked the civil service to get her a third option - a private awareness course which wasn’t offered to anyone else
not “avoid”, manipulate
it’s like some people haven’t actually read the story on this thread tbh
That's a hilarious pivot after you've spent your Sunday evening arguing with little old me about my views on the matter at hand.
I totally disagree with your point anyway. We need to focus on everything these corrupt w**kers are doing. You'd be there in 1929 saying "ooh ooh we shouldn't look into Al Capone's tax affairs because he does a load of murder and smuggling which is way worserer". Simper simper.
You're Al Capone's meatshield sun.
terry - you can of course argue “asking for special treatment isn’t a big deal because she’s home secretary / it’s a trivial matter to most people” but you can’t argue “she didn’t ask for special treatment”
the point is that she did
She was actually attorney general at the time she was breaking the law and the ministerial code. You couldn't make it up.
Last post from me on this:
@RR - of course my arguments have been with you, but my 17:01 and 18:02 object to the space this takes up in the media coverage. My objections were not the to amount of your personal bandwidth they take up. Similarly, I am not running a news platform with a multimillion global readership, so it doesn’t matter how much of my time this takes up.
Your last post emphasises the point about lack of objectivity and loss of perspective. It’s a trivial story, and the need to resort to exaggeration and false equivalence to ‘big it up’ only serve to support that view.
@Chill - when I read the headlines this morning about Braverman trying to use her position to get out of a speeding fine, I thought “great she’ll have to go now”. Then I read the details and thought “what? There’s nothing to this.”
She didn’t try to manipulate the sanction. IMHO to take that view in these circumstances involves a misunderstanding of what a speed awareness course actually is. The idea that she asked to attend a version of the online course where people couldn’t see who she was is trivial.
She’s given us a great example of the ‘Barbra Streisand effect’, but what she did was trivial.
heh @ “i initially misread the story so will now misrepresent it”
she did try to manipulate the sanction
you can think it’s not a big deal, but you can’t argue she didn’t try
well done terry this is good roffing
What an absolute nothingburger of a story this is.
If ever anything screamed "witch hunt" this sort of thing would be it.
How does asking to take the same sanction but in a slightly different manner equate to manipulating it? The much better argument would have been to just say she's need a personal course on security grounds.
Difficult to see security grounds applying to an online course.
she tried to hide the fact she'd been speeding, fairly simple really.
She broke the ministerial code by asking the civil servants to look into a private matter. Her motives are irrelevant really.
Does the code require people to resign / be sacked as a result of any breach of it?
Really sails? Why does doing something in a work context mean you can break the law with impunity? (or, if caught, your employer takes the rap) I don't get this.
You'd argue the security of people seeing her house or potentially seeing sensitive information in her office, etc. I was also thinking about the logistics of her going to the old school in person course in a provincial hotel on a Saturday afternoon.
Kimmy because I wouldn't have got fined if I hadn't been told to drive somewhere.
She could have had one of those fake backgrounds to hide details of her home.
a map of Rwanda, or one of those floating barges she's so fond of
The whole thing is a nothing story, though it couldn’t happen to a nicer person.
The coarse is not meant to a punishment it is meant to be educational . Surely it is in the interests of the other group members that they concentrate on the course rather than be distracted by the media circus and no doubt political grandstanding from Braverman.
You wouldn't have got fined if you'd stayed within the speed limit.
so she pays up and takes the points on day 1.
It's about time for me to do the course again. Last time I did one it was in a hotel on a Saturday afternoon and there was a wedding reception in the function room next door and I kept waiting for a drunk guest to wander into the wrong room.
It is VIP lanes for donors and ministers’ friends all over again.
If you’re rich or well connected the Home Secretary expects there to be a more convenient solution that isn’t available to the little person.
Strong LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!!! vibes from Legal Alien and co
Mr Loophole on the news v interesting
If this steaming turd said she was confident the grass was green and the sky blue I'd still have someone double-check it
I've just done yet another of these - my first online. I g'tee that, despite cameras being on, chances of anyone recognising / giving a.f. would be minimal - you get checked in individually, can wear whatever type of wig / disguise from that point and can choose the name by which you wish to be referred during the course. Course running person would have the best clue but they are the only ones in teh online room who have GDPR obligations.
Yeah but imagine the outrage from the frothers above if she'd been seen on the course wearing a disguise and using a pseudonym!
Ella in a baseball hat? to me that's just common sense (a bit like Megz and Harry who would've been far lower profile in NY without all the DONT LOOK AT ME security
Yeah but imagine the outrage from the frothers above if she'd been seen on the course wearing a disguise and using a pseudonym!‘
says the guy having a meltdown on the other thread about someone lying about which type of airline seat they were in
Shes toast, hopefully
It's a non story but large parts of the media are taking it seriously
In other stupid news, I only realised the other day that there is a 20 mph limit on the albert embankment when we were told about the archbishop's speeding offence.
welby is dreadful but it's absurd that there is a 20- mph limit on the albert embankment.
That outrider of Tory meatshielding, the Guardian, offering a take very similar to my own: https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/22/westminster-suell…
Heh. Simon Jenkins is hardly a tofu eating wokerati chap Terry darling. He's one of the token conservative writers they use for balance.
Bless you so much for your thinking that was a zinger though. I'd adopt you if I could.
Wtf. Jenkins is nailed on centre left tofu eater
When you look at him from the far right he might be. He's small c conservative and the graun pay him to write this sort of thing.
Isnt the issue - if the facts are as stated by the OP, that speeding is a thing committed in her own time in her personal capacity and she was using government resources to look into how she resolved that.
Its not a bad action for actually insisting on having a private course because she didnt - its because she used the resources of the state to look into it for her. Whether that crosses the line, i dont know - but in my view, i want my taxes paying for civil servants to improve society rather than looking into whether an MP can get better treatment than anyone else. She shoudl have googled it. Like anyone else woudl have had to
Or got a trainee to Google it as any Rof balla would have done.
For all those saying 'Oh, this is a storm in a teacup', I'd like to invite you to come back and tell us of your success - if at some future stage you are caught speeding - in finding some civil servants that you can ask to arrange a special option for you personally to minimise the effects on your future driving situation, insurance premiums, and so forth.
Join the discussion