Suella Braverman - sacked as Home Secretary (p394)

The police should be apolitical shouldn't they? Focused on just work not joining in with a movement or being against it.

Definitely if they are perceived as being a Tory tool. Well according to most threads on here they should be apolitical.

My guess is being politicised is fine so long as you agree with it.

Suppose we are all guilty of holding and showing such bias though.
 
She’s a **** , just like her apologists

I think she should be given a chance - she is right on this:


"Suella Braverman is planning an urgent overhaul of the Government’s counter-extremism programme after an official inquiry concluded Prevent was treating potential terrorists as “victims”."

I have had 'prevent training' in my work and it vexed me. The speaker would talk about something involving a certain religion, but then immediately bring up something like the Thomas Mair/Jo Cox murder, to make the scales balance. They do not.


Is important too, but how come PP who seemed to be so divisive has left a "....lengthy list of demands"?

Could it be the left-leaning (& pro-remain) civil servants in the Westminister bubble, dragged their feet deliberately - and what is to stop them doing the same again for this new woman?

This bit puzzles me though: "Suella Braverman takes her post as the legality of the government’s agreement to forcibly send asylum seekers to Rwanda is examined by the High Court." I thought the Rwanda scheme had passed successfully through every court in the land and its enactment only stopped by the ECHR, so why are the High court examining its 'legality'?

She is also right on this Police issue too. My dad is retired Manchester Police person, he was raging when the police stood by as vandals toppled an Edward Colston statue into Bristol harbour. Don't get me started on what he said when the culprits were tracked down later (well they were all over social media) charged, put up in court and then found 'not guilty' of criminal damage! The country made to look foolish, by lefty lawyers, yet again.
 
Last edited:
Coppers can be both if funded and staffed properly.

Of course we need the police to be responders to any crime and not just a crime number over the phone and you fobbed off as not a serious crime, but they can also be actively part of the community and and get invioved in events around the diverse communities and cultures.
 
Last edited:
I think she should be given a chance - she is right on this:


"Suella Braverman is planning an urgent overhaul of the Government’s counter-extremism programme after an official inquiry concluded Prevent was treating potential terrorists as “victims”."

I have had 'prevent training' in my work and it vexed me. The speaker would talk about something involving a certain religion, but then immediately bring up something like the Thomas Mair/Jo Cox murder, to make the scales balance. They do not.


Is important too, but how come PP who seemed to be so divisive has left a "....lengthy list of demands"?

Could it be the left-leaning (& pro-remain) civil servants in the Westminister bubble, dragged their feet deliberately - and what is to stop them doing the same again for this new woman?

This bit puzzles me though: "Suella Braverman takes her post as the legality of the government’s agreement to forcibly send asylum seekers to Rwanda is examined by the High Court." I thought the Rwanda scheme had passed successfully through every court in the land and its enactment only stopped by the ECHR, so why are the High court examining its 'legality'?

She is also right on this Police issue too. My dad is retired Manchester Police person, he was raging when the police stood by as vandals toppled an Edward Colston statue into Bristol harbour. Don't get me started on what he said when the culprits were tracked down later (well they were all over social media) charged, put up in court and then found 'not guilty' of criminal damage! The country made to look foolish, by lefty lawyers, yet again.
Pollock.
Juries decided, not lawyers.
 
I think she should be given a chance - she is right on this:


"Suella Braverman is planning an urgent overhaul of the Government’s counter-extremism programme after an official inquiry concluded Prevent was treating potential terrorists as “victims”."

I have had 'prevent training' in my work and it vexed me. The speaker would talk about something involving a certain religion, but then immediately bring up something like the Thomas Mair/Jo Cox murder, to make the scales balance. They do not.


Is important too, but how come PP who seemed to be so divisive has left a "....lengthy list of demands"?

Could it be the left-leaning (& pro-remain) civil servants in the Westminister bubble, dragged their feet deliberately - and what is to stop them doing the same again for this new woman?

This bit puzzles me though: "Suella Braverman takes her post as the legality of the government’s agreement to forcibly send asylum seekers to Rwanda is examined by the High Court." I thought the Rwanda scheme had passed successfully through every court in the land and its enactment only stopped by the ECHR, so why are the High court examining its 'legality'?

She is also right on this Police issue too. My dad is retired Manchester Police person, he was raging when the police stood by as vandals toppled an Edward Colston statue into Bristol harbour. Don't get me started on what he said when the culprits were tracked down later (well they were all over social media) charged, put up in court and then found 'not guilty' of criminal damage! The country made to look enlightened, by a jury who understood the bigger picture, yet again.
Fixed the last sentence.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.