Suella Braverman - sacked as Home Secretary (p394)

[blueish swede]

Isn't it cazy that files like these aren't encripted nowadays? The civil service must be able to produce it's own encription software.

 

[El_george]

I know I am out of step with most people on this one (and a few other things) but I am not a bot or after 'clicks' I am genuinely interested in these things. Plus, last night when I was a bit tired and emotional I was moaning about my own personal circumstances and many people have given me kind advice today, even when I have annoyed with some controversial stuff. I thank them.

I have just been reading (in The Sunday Times) that they are going after her about something else today, namely that she tried to downscale the procurement of Hotels for migrants to save money. Its lead to people staying in over-crowded Manston for 4 weeks not 24 hours, in bad conditions. Now the government could be on the receiving end of a class action suit costing millions: "A senior Whitehall source added: 'The law has been broken . . . It is an entirely illegal situation. You can’t just detain people.'"

But it just seems strange to me that people who have committed an illegal act - by crossing the channel - then find they have the law on their side and ultimately (if the class action succeeds) may benefit. Illegal activity should not be rewarded. Plus this could act as an incentive to other people, to make more risky boat journeys.

I realise that if a criminal is caught and suspected of something the Police can only hold them for questioning for a limited period of time, but to apply the same law to the migrant issue just seems wrong - it is a quite different situation.

 

[Fred_Quimby]

I know I am out of step with most people on this one (and a few other things) but I am not a bot or after 'clicks' I am genuinely interested in these things. Plus, last night when I was a bit tired and emotional I was moaning about my own personal circumstances and many people have given me kind advice today, even when I have annoyed with some controversial stuff. I thank them.

I have just been reading (in The Sunday Times) that they are going after her about something else today, namely that she tried to downscale the procurement of Hotels for migrants to save money. Its lead to people staying in over-crowded Manston for 4 weeks not 24 hours, in bad conditions. Now the government could be on the receiving end of a class action suit costing millions: "A senior Whitehall source added: 'The law has been broken . . . It is an entirely illegal situation. You can’t just detain people.'"

But it just seems strange to me that people who have committed an illegal act - by crossing the channel - then find they have the law on their side and ultimately (if the class action succeeds) may benefit. Illegal activity should not be rewarded. Plus this could act as an incentive to other people, to make more risky boat journeys.

I realise that if a criminal is caught and suspected of something the Police can only hold them for questioning for a limited period of time, but to apply the same law to the migrant issue just seems wrong - it is a quite different situation.

You fail to realise that crossing the channel is not illegal and therefore these people are not criminals.

 

[mayo31]

I know I am out of step with most people on this one (and a few other things) but I am not a bot or after 'clicks' I am genuinely interested in these things. Plus, last night when I was a bit tired and emotional I was moaning about my own personal circumstances and many people have given me kind advice today, even when I have annoyed with some controversial stuff. I thank them.

I have just been reading (in The Sunday Times) that they are going after her about something else today, namely that she tried to downscale the procurement of Hotels for migrants to save money. Its lead to people staying in over-crowded Manston for 4 weeks not 24 hours, in bad conditions. Now the government could be on the receiving end of a class action suit costing millions: "A senior Whitehall source added: 'The law has been broken . . . It is an entirely illegal situation. You can’t just detain people.'"

But it just seems strange to me that people who have committed an illegal act - by crossing the channel - then find they have the law on their side and ultimately (if the class action succeeds) may benefit. Illegal activity should not be rewarded. Plus this could act as an incentive to other people, to make more risky boat journeys.

I realise that if a criminal is caught and suspected of something the Police can only hold them for questioning for a limited period of time, but to apply the same law to the migrant issue just seems wrong - it is a quite different situation.

There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker, and it is not illegal to enter the UK to claim asylum.

People smuggling is the illegal part

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

This whole thing reminds me of the Dominic Cummings Barnard Castle affair and indeed Boris Johnsons 'partygate'. Some people are like a dog with a bone and just wont ever let it go. What unites Cummings/Johnson/Braverman....? well it's Brexit.

It always goes back to Brexit because it still annoys some people that the Brexit referendum took place: some Labour people, some Tory people, & I reckon a large swathe of the Civil Service. To see Cummings go, to see Johnson go and now to see Braverman under pressure, it's a form of revenge for Brexit.

With me it is partly to do with the incongruity of her stated beliefs with the basic Buddhist morality and meditative practice that - as a Mitra in Triratna - she should be expressing in her daily life. Compassion for and non-injury to living beings are absolutely foregrounded in her particular faith.

It is also to do with her unimprovable stupidity. In an article she wrote for the Telegraph, she implied that the use of torture may sometimes be justified.
Would have thought that a Home Secretary would be aware that torture does not produce actionable intelligence, as the person being tortured simply ends up stating what they think the torturer wants to hear. This has been known about for years, ever since waterboarding was deployed to interrogate suspected Salafi-jihadists and their associates.

Thirdly, neoliberal economic policies of the type favoured by Sunak, Braverman and the rest of the cabinet have been proven beyond doubt to exacerbate economic inequality and inhibit social mobility. Those policies are also corrosive of the family life and values that Conservatives are meant to be supportive of.

What also surprises me is the naivety of Conservatives who want Braverman to be tough on crime but seem unaware that a lack of social cohesiveness and increased poverty that lead to higher crime and incarceration rates are actually a product of neoliberalism.

Note that all of the above claims are empirically well-grounded and/or derived from reputable academic sources, none of which are left-wing. I can provide a list if necessary.

 

[El_george]

You fail to realise that crossing the channel is not illegal and therefore these people are not criminals.

If I turned up at Dover and tried to get a ferry to France and they asked for my passport, I would have to say "Sorry, I don't have one" (it went out of date during covid time and I need a new one).

Would they still let me buyt a ticket and go? I assume not.

If I used a fake passport and did manage to make it across, but on the French side they spotted the counterfeit document would I be welcomed in with open arms? Or locked up and then sent back?

So I don't understand it when you say "crossing the channel is not illegal", surely it must be if you don't have a valid passport.

 

[blueparrot]

See

If I turned up at Dover and tried to get a ferry to France and they asked for my passport, I would have to say "Sorry, I don't have one" (it went out of date during covid time and I need a new one).

Would they still let me buyt a ticket and go? I assume not.

If I used a fake passport and did manage to make it across, but on the French side they spotted the counterfeit document would I be welcomed in with open arms? Or locked up and then sent back?

So I don't understand it when you say "crossing the channel is not illegal", surely it must be if you don't have a valid passport.

king asylum and isnt illegal , being a refugee isn't illegal. Every case every story deserves to be listened to and given fair treatment. Everybody deserves to be well treated until a decision made.
If you turn up in France and claim asylum it wouldn't be illegal, you get short shrift and sent back but not imprisoned or sent to an country in Africa,that would be immoral

 

[west didsblue]

I've got a government device and I couldn't load anything onto a memory stick. Can't even print to my home printers. I'd have to email it to my personal account and I would get a warning that I'm sending it to an external email address if I did that. I've done that occasionally for things like job applications, which might only be advertised on our internal network, and which I wanted to print and/or sort out over an evening or weekend on my personal device.

In our organisation, a few people are given privileges to be able to transfer files to encrypted external memory for various reasons. Our email system would also prevent documents marked as classified above a certain level from being emailed to a private email. Assuming government systems are similar she must have gone to some effort to get the classified document on to her private email in the first place.

 

[Mr Fraser]

I know I am out of step with most people on this one (and a few other things) but I am not a bot or after 'clicks' I am genuinely interested in these things. Plus, last night when I was a bit tired and emotional I was moaning about my own personal circumstances and many people have given me kind advice today, even when I have annoyed with some controversial stuff. I thank them.

I have just been reading (in The Sunday Times) that they are going after her about something else today, namely that she tried to downscale the procurement of Hotels for migrants to save money. Its lead to people staying in over-crowded Manston for 4 weeks not 24 hours, in bad conditions. Now the government could be on the receiving end of a class action suit costing millions: "A senior Whitehall source added: 'The law has been broken . . . It is an entirely illegal situation. You can’t just detain people.'"

But it just seems strange to me that people who have committed an illegal act - by crossing the channel - then find they have the law on their side and ultimately (if the class action succeeds) may benefit. Illegal activity should not be rewarded. Plus this could act as an incentive to other people, to make more risky boat journeys.

I realise that if a criminal is caught and suspected of something the Police can only hold them for questioning for a limited period of time, but to apply the same law to the migrant issue just seems wrong - it is a quite different situation.

I know I am out of step with most people on this one (and a few other things) but I am not a bot or after 'clicks' I am genuinely interested in these things. Plus, last night when I was a bit tired and emotional I was moaning about my own personal circumstances and many people have given me kind advice today, even when I have annoyed with some controversial stuff. I thank them.

I have just been reading (in The Sunday Times) that they are going after her about something else today, namely that she tried to downscale the procurement of Hotels for migrants to save money. Its lead to people staying in over-crowded Manston for 4 weeks not 24 hours, in bad conditions. Now the government could be on the receiving end of a class action suit costing millions: "A senior Whitehall source added: 'The law has been broken . . . It is an entirely illegal situation. You can’t just detain people.'"

But it just seems strange to me that people who have committed an illegal act - by crossing the channel - then find they have the law on their side and ultimately (if the class action succeeds) may benefit. Illegal activity should not be rewarded. Plus this could act as an incentive to other people, to make more risky boat journeys.

I realise that if a criminal is caught and suspected of something the Police can only hold them for questioning for a limited period of time, but to apply the same law to the migrant issue just seems wrong - it is a quite different situation.

Is that you chippy boy?

 

[Mr Fraser]

In our organisation, a few people are given privileges to be able to transfer files to encrypted external memory for various reasons. Our email system would also prevent documents marked as classified above a certain level from being emailed to a private email. Assuming government systems are similar she must have gone to some effort to get the classified document on to her private email in the first place.

I work for a large govt dept and we cannot send or receive emails outwith the department for data protection reasons