Continuation General UK Politics V Suella Strikes Back

[Andy_Ross]

It turns out that contrary to the headlines in the papers and GB News, the Poppy seller in Edinburgh wasn't attacked or abused at all, according to the police.
Nobody was chanting about Jews, according to the police.
Also, the Poppy seller who wasn't attacked or abused, isn't a veteran, either. He's a known Walter Mitty fraud, a laughing stock in real military circles.
And has a string of convictions for sex offences.
The plot thickens...

Right Wing disinfo, again

[GlennB]

It's being touted that Braverman is actively seeking to be fired. This, supposedly, sets her up as a prime anti-Sunak candidate, or something.

Anyway, it strikes me she's succeeded unless Sunak calls her bluff and keeps her on.

[KDLarsen]

Originally Posted by Andy_Ross

It turns out that contrary to the headlines in the papers and GB News, the Poppy seller in Edinburgh wasn't attacked or abused at all, according to the police.
Nobody was chanting about Jews, according to the police.
Also, the Poppy seller who wasn't attacked or abused, isn't a veteran, either. He's a known Walter Mitty fraud, a laughing stock in real military circles.
And has a string of convictions for sex offences.
The plot thickens...

Right Wing disinfo, again

Where are you seeing this? I see him getting some flak online for wearing a maroon (ie. Para) beret, while telling various papers he was in 32 Signal Regiment, but other pictures shows him wearing a different coloured beret on other occasions.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by KDLarsen

Where are you seeing this? I see him getting some flak online for wearing a maroon (ie. Para) beret, while telling various papers he was in 32 Signal Regiment, but other pictures shows him wearing a different coloured beret on other occasions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...-fife-67363648

[KDLarsen]

Originally Posted by Darat

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...-fife-67363648

I saw that, but it makes no mention of him being a Walter Mitty type and/or having convictions for sexual offenses? The only thing Google brings up is an anonymous, leftist news/satire Xitter account, which base the former allegation on him wearing a maroon beret.

[Vixen]

In any case, someone aged 78-years-old hardly qualifies as a 'veteran' in the context of WWII. The youngest conscripts then would now be well into their late 90's and early 100's.

There is something about the word 'veteran' that stirs people's emotions but just because poppy sellers cos-play in military gear and berets doesn't mean they are exempt from life's vicissitudes such as people being rude to you and walking past your poppies without buying. How did he get so much news coverage? Oh of course, the usual tabloid suspects, 'Protect our Poppy Sellers'. _Doh.


The same rag that helps Suella stir up trouble with the click bait headline, 'Suella to jail Cenotaph protestors' (yes, I was baited and I clicked) but just as I suspected, it transpired Suella does not have the power to do any such thing.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Vixen

In any case, someone aged 78-years-old hardly qualifies as a 'veteran' in the context of WWII. The youngest conscripts then would now be well into their late 90's and early 100's.

...snip...

Military "veteran" has never meant either just WW2 or even only the world wars. Which morons think that?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by KDLarsen

I saw that, but it makes no mention of him being a Walter Mitty type and/or having convictions for sexual offenses? The only thing Google brings up is an anonymous, leftist news/satire Xitter account, which base the former allegation on him wearing a maroon beret.

Sorry - I had my CT filters on and didn't think about the rest of the stuff.

[KDLarsen]

Originally Posted by Darat

Sorry - I had my CT filters on and didn't think about the rest of the stuff.

No worries, I get the same occasionally.

[KDLarsen]

Labour's Pat McFadden has pointed out that Braverman breached the ministerial code, by not clearing her article attacking the police with the government's press office.

[Andy_Ross]

Originally Posted by KDLarsen

Where are you seeing this? I see him getting some flak online for wearing a maroon (ie. Para) beret, while telling various papers he was in 32 Signal Regiment, but other pictures shows him wearing a different coloured beret on other occasions.

He's a walter, play acting.

[KDLarsen]

Originally Posted by Andy_Ross

He's a walter, play acting.

So you say, but without anything to substantiate it I'm going to remain skeptical

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Darat

Military "veteran" has never meant either just WW2 or even only the world wars. Which morons think that?

Here, it refers only to those who fought in the war. I know in the USA it means anyone who served in the armed forces. My post did say 'within the context of WWII', otherwise, all ex-armed forces personnel will be featured in SUN newspaper headlines as being precious hothouse flowers who should be accorded special privileged treatment like the 78-year-old fellow in his beret. Not nice to be dissed but it is hardly headline news, was the point being made.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Here, it refers only to those who fought in the war. I know in the USA it means anyone who served in the armed forces. My post did say 'within the context of WWII', otherwise, all ex-armed forces personnel will be featured in SUN newspaper headlines as being precious hothouse flowers who should be accorded special privileged treatment like the 78-year-old fellow in his beret. Not nice to be dissed but it is hardly headline news, was the point being made.

UK servicemen and women have served in armed conflicts since WWII. The Falklands and Afghanistan spring to mind.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Here, it refers only to those who fought in the war. I know in the USA it means anyone who served in the armed forces. My post did say 'within the context of WWII', otherwise, all ex-armed forces personnel will be featured in SUN newspaper headlines as being precious hothouse flowers who should be accorded special privileged treatment like the 78-year-old fellow in his beret. Not nice to be dissed but it is hardly headline news, was the point being made.

What are you wittering about this time?

Where do you mean by 'here'? You're apparently in Finland.

Yes, your post did say "in the context of WWII", but that's the first mention of WWII in the thread, so you're the one implying that veterans must be from that war to qualify for the name. Given that there can only be handful of people who were in the forces in WWII still alive today, who do you think Poppy Day is in aid of now?

As GlennB says, British service personnel have been serving since WWII, and many of them have seen active service around the world.

Do you think veterans don't deserve any respect for what they've done?

[Andy_Ross]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Here, it refers only to those who fought in the war. I know in the USA it means anyone who served in the armed forces. My post did say 'within the context of WWII', otherwise, all ex-armed forces personnel will be featured in SUN newspaper headlines as being precious hothouse flowers who should be accorded special privileged treatment like the 78-year-old fellow in his beret. Not nice to be dissed but it is hardly headline news, was the point being made.

Anyone that served is a veteran.

I'm a veteran. I was in the navy.

I could claim to be a Falklands veteran or a cold war veteran but there's no need, serving is enough.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Andy_Ross

Anyone that served is a veteran.

I'm a veteran. I was in the navy.

I could claim to be a Falklands veteran or a cold war veteran but there's no need, serving is enough.

This. Vixen doesn't get to define terms for the UK.

(Thinking of a good friend I used to do the Ride to the Wall with at this time of year. RIP Jimmy the One)

[Garrison]

So in summary:
The organizers of the protest have said they aren't going anywhere near the Cenotaph
The organizers of the ceremony at the Cenotaph on Saturday say the protestors should be allowed to march.
The police say there is no reason to ban the march.

The only person who seems to be inciting violence here is the Home Secretary, who is doing so without a required approval from the PM and using the Tory's pet media to get whip up some morons to start trouble which she will blame on everyone else, Donald Trump would be proud.

And anyone who thinks Braverman being the next Tory leader guarantees keeping them out of power should remember 2016 when everyone 'knew' Trump couldn't win. The only thing that will probably keep Braverman from the leadership is that she's too dark skinned for most of the membership.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Garrison

So in summary:
The organizers of the protest have said they aren't going anywhere near the Cenotaph
The organizers of the ceremony at the Cenotaph on Saturday say the protestors should be allowed to march.
The police say there is no reason to ban the march.

The only person who seems to be inciting violence here is the Home Secretary, who is doing so without a required approval from the PM and using the Tory's pet media to get whip up some morons to start trouble which she will blame on everyone else, Donald Trump would be proud.

And anyone who thinks Braverman being the next Tory leader guarantees keeping them out of power should remember 2016 when everyone 'knew' Trump couldn't win. The only thing that will probably keep Braverman from the leadership is that she's too dark skinned for most of the membership.

I've never seen anyone so blatantly try to get sacked and fail for so long.

Sunak's heading for overtaking Truss as the worst PM. He's already the worst Tory leader.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by Andy_Ross

I think there's going to be trouble. A lot of right wingers and gammons are promising to turn up and defend our sacred monuments from the jihadist take over of the country.

Some are openly calling for a war to take back the streets.

At least your right-wingers are not so heavily armed as ours.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by jimbob

I've never seen anyone so blatantly try to get sacked and fail for so long.

I'm not surprised. Braverman is deeply stupid. She’s too incompetent even to get herself fired.

Quote:

Sunak's heading for overtaking Truss as the worst PM. He's already the worst Tory leader.

That’s a stretch.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Andy_Ross

He's a walter, play acting.

Citation please.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by jimbob

I've never seen anyone so blatantly try to get sacked and fail for so long.

Sunak's heading for overtaking Truss as the worst PM. He's already the worst Tory leader.

I don't think he dares fire her. If he sacks her for breaking the ministerial code then he looks stupid for appointing her in the first place just after she was sacked for breaking the ministerial code. She also represents the views of the party faithful so any attempt to constrain her risks alienating the core of the party (and puts the kibosh on attempting to recover support lost to Reform/UKIP).

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Jonathan Pie on Suella Braverman

Not as many jokes as usual but very accurate

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I think todays cartoon in the Grauniad is perfect. It has SueAdolf outside the centoaph kicking down the tent of a homeless ex-soldier calling his "lifestyle choice" a disgrace to veterans.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by The Don

I don't think he dares fire her. If he sacks her for breaking the ministerial code then he looks stupid for appointing her in the first place just after she was sacked for breaking the ministerial code. She also represents the views of the party faithful so any attempt to constrain her risks alienating the core of the party (and puts the kibosh on attempting to recover support lost to Reform/UKIP).

Regardless of that. She's just going to keep turning the dial up. She is already close to open defiance. And the lack of consequences is going to embolden her.

Eventually he will have to sack her. And if he waits too long, you might see some other MPs crossing the floor. He was an idiot to reappoint her after she had already had to resign once.

Sunak seems incapable* of realising that sometimes a short term pain is better than leaving something to fester. And sometimes a short term benefit (appointing her in the first place to get the headbangers' support) is obviously going to blow up in his face.


As I said before, the Tory party has had its share of damaging leaders, although arguably fewer than Labour... But Sunak might be the worst leader of a mainstream party in my lifetime. And I include Corbyn, who scored own goals from a penalty at the other end of the pitch.



*Could have stopped here.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Garrison

So in summary:
The organizers of the protest have said they aren't going anywhere near the Cenotaph
The organizers of the ceremony at the Cenotaph on Saturday say the protestors should be allowed to march.
The police say there is no reason to ban the march.

The only person who seems to be inciting violence here is the Home Secretary, who is doing so without a required approval from the PM and using the Tory's pet media to get whip up some morons to start trouble which she will blame on everyone else, Donald Trump would be proud.

And anyone who thinks Braverman being the next Tory leader guarantees keeping them out of power should remember 2016 when everyone 'knew' Trump couldn't win. The only thing that will probably keep Braverman from the leadership is that she's too dark skinned for most of the membership.

The best route for tories regaining power after the next election is for Labour to give Starmer free reign and him indulging in his worst Nu-Labor instincts.

SueAdolf is too narrowly focused on tory party members. She's more likely to be the next Michael Howard.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by The Don

I don't think he dares fire her. If he sacks her for breaking the ministerial code then he looks stupid for appointing her in the first place just after she was sacked for breaking the ministerial code. She also represents the views of the party faithful so any attempt to constrain her risks alienating the core of the party (and puts the kibosh on attempting to recover support lost to Reform/UKIP).

His skin colour has already done that. It amazes me that she thinks she can get around that obstacle with the faithful.

[jimbob]

From elsewhere via Scrutable.

Quote:

As seen elsewhere...

"Even cluster-**** Liz Truss who only served 49 days as PM managed to sack Braverman".

[Andy_Ross]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Citation please.

He keeps wearing a parachute regiment cap badge and parachute maroon beret. He was in the Royal Corps of Signals and is only entitled to their badge and a dark blue beret.

Even if he was in a unit that was part of the Air Assault Brigade he only got to wear a maroon beret while part of the brigade.

Wearing a parachute regiment badge and beret is the most Walter thing you can do.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Darat

Yet speak to folk and you'd think the police were the most woke organisation around, given all the recent inquiries and reports it is a most persistent case of cognitive dissonance.

The police get called woke by people who want to see them being heavy handed against protests they disagree with.

[SteveAitch]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Regardless of that. She's just going to keep turning the dial up. She is already close to open defiance. And the lack of consequences is going to embolden her.

Eventually he will have to sack her. And if he waits too long, you might see some other MPs crossing the floor. He was an idiot to reappoint her after she had already had to resign once.

...

But she apparently wants him to sack her, she doesn't want to resign.

So maybe he shouldn't sack her. Just have a mini cabinet re-shuffle and move her to a really low level post. Then she either has to resign, which she doesn't want to do, or take up the new position and be ever-so-slightly humiliated.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by SteveAitch

But she apparently wants him to sack her, she doesn't want to resign.

So maybe he shouldn't sack her. Just have a mini cabinet re-shuffle and move her to a really low level post. Then she either has to resign, which she doesn't want to do, or take up the new position and be ever-so-slightly humiliated.

Give her a new ministry - Minister for diversity and multiculturalism!

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by SteveAitch

But she apparently wants him to sack her, she doesn't want to resign.

So maybe he shouldn't sack her. Just have a mini cabinet re-shuffle and move her to a really low level post. Then she either has to resign, which she doesn't want to do, or take up the new position and be ever-so-slightly humiliated.

Is there a Secretary of State for Rockall (take that one how you will)? A post which requires the incumbent to spend a whole lot of time inspecting Rockall...That would be a great use for Suella's "talents".

If not, then it is high time Rish! recognised this glaring absence and rectified it!

[Andy_Ross]

First they came for Boris and I said nothing.

Then they came for Suella and I said she's just over there, hiding behind the shed.
Because I didn’t want to make the same mistake twice.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Andy_Ross

First they came for Boris and I said nothing.

Then they came for Suella and I said she's just over, there, hiding behind the shed.
Because I didn’t want to make the same mistake twice.

That last line

[Garrison]

So the Police are imposing a cordon around the Cenotaph to prevent any extremists getting near it, but I suspect Braverman will still be able to get to through...

[Andy_Ross]

The march isn't going near the cenotaph tomorrow.
Only the gammons travelling in to London to protect it will be there.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by SteveAitch

But she apparently wants him to sack her, she doesn't want to resign.

So maybe he shouldn't sack her. Just have a mini cabinet re-shuffle and move her to a really low level post. Then she either has to resign, which she doesn't want to do, or take up the new position and be ever-so-slightly humiliated.

I would recommend Sunak try that. Because I wish him a speedy political demise.

Braverman would still be able to claim constructive dismissal. Sunak would also confirm that he is too weak to get rid of her.

It would give Starmer a massive amount of ammunition. Not that he's short of it.

[Andy_Ross]

The British Legion says it backs the rights of the pro Palestinian demonstrators' right to protest and march.

That sound you heard was GB News and the Daily Mail spontaneously combusting in rage.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Andy_Ross

The British Legion says it backs the rights of the pro Palestinian demonstrators' right to protest and march.

That sound you heard was GB News and the Daily Mail spontaneously combusting in rage.

Another one that needs to go on the list like the RNLB.