Suella Braverman - sacked as Home Secretary (p394)

[Grassland Blue]

Braverman has coughed to 6 X downloads to her private e-mail account of secret documentation. Sunak needs to fire her or they are going down together

Going down together you say....

 

[Chris in London]

Just Chris, who has a basic understanding of human rights law and is a decent human being.

I wasn't intending to humiliate the guy, its just that in my experience when people say "the Human Rights Act should be rewritten," it generally all starts to come apart when you ask them which rights should be rewritten and what they should be rewritten to say.

The one that seemed to give George particular grief was a right that says everyone has a right to respect for their private and home life, their home and correspondence, and that the only interferences with this right should be "in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Which you can boil down to saying 'you have a right to family life etc which the government will not interfere with unless there's a really good reason.' As a general proposition not many people would disagree with that. The problem is that there are cases where people don't like the outcome of a particular case, which they don't usually know the full facts of, where the decision maker has made a decision that the Daily Mail says is wokeist lefty tofu eating nonsense for whatever reason they come up with, just as Theresa May did when she said the guy who asserted a right to respect for his family life wanted to spend more time with his cat. Cue a Daily Mail editorial saying "The Human Rights Act should be scrapped" and people like George agree without really knowing what the fuck they are agreeing to.

This isn't a go at George, who at least seemed to recognise that he was out of his depth when you started to drill down into the real issues. It's a complaint that organs like the Daily Mail, and Theresa May on that particular occasion, whip up hatred by presenting a misleading picture of the actual rights that are protected by the Human Rights Act.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Thanks.

Reading between the lines, she is probably referring to the government classification of "SECRET" that would be impossible to email to a private account because everything at that level is kept on a segregated system where data cannot be easily transferred, and any transfer would require a paper trail to show it's been done. If they were actually classified as SECRET a breach of the OSA would have taken place which would be a criminal offence.

My guess is that it will be documents classified as "OFFICIAL SENSITIVE" which are easier to transfer but would provide warnings on the system to the user that they shouldn't be transferred to non-secure email accounts. It can't be done by accident so she should resign.

Surely the main question here is "why send it to a personal phone?"

Surely she has a govt phone which would do just as well.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

From gov website. 2022 Diphtheria is a very rare infection in England due to the success of the routine immunisation programme that was introduced in 1942.

Turns out Swella has reinstated diphtheria as a disease into a
England via migrant camps and into hotels, which should chime well with the people wanting to go back to the future, I suppose!

I don't think that's true unless Roger Gale is openly lying to the BBC (and I don't think he would do so on this).
He said what's happened is that some of the migrants had it, so when they moved location, it went with them. If you can't tell that someone's ill, you can't do much about it.

That there isn't a sufficiently equipped process to deal with and assess arrivals is a clear failing.

 

[west didsblue]

Surely the main question here is "why send it to a personal phone?"

Surely she has a govt phone which would do just as well.

The answer to that question seems obvious to me and should be obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about how it all works. She wanted to pass it on to someone not authorised to see it. Can't be anything else.

You're absolutely right that a person in her position at the top of government would be issued with all the IT hardware necessary to do her job in the office, in the car or at home.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The answer to that question seems obvious to me and should be obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about how it all works. She wanted to pass it on to someone not authorised to see it. Can't be anything else.

You're absolutely right that a person in her position at the top of government would be issued with all the IT hardware necessary to do her job in the office, in the car or at home.

It's the only question, isn't it?
And it's very difficult to know what other answer there might be.

 

[blue for life]

Get your woke cliches bingo card out. She's making a statement to parliament this afternoon.

Got my tofu and Guardian at the ready!

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Braverman gives herself fresh anti-protest powers

Last-minute amendment to Public Order Bill lets home secretary slap injunctions on people ‘likely’ to protest

www.opendemocracy.net

"Look over there"

The home sec can effectively ban pickets under the banner of "serious disruption"


Last night an emotional Tim Vickery was on Talkshite, who is by no means a lefty said we should be careful we don't end up like Brazil.
The trade union movement was legally destroyed leading to the void filled by fascists.

I’m always amazed by the freedom loving, small-government not ‘interfering in people‘s lives‘ types who make up so much of our govt. and who seem very keen on heaps of legislation curtailing the rights and freedoms of those they disagree with.

 

[inbetween]

That document was already in the public domain on the Gov.com website - anyone with a printer could download it and print it off

This isn't true, I work with sensitive docs all the time and no government website would ever release an OFFICIAL SENSITIVE document because it has to be declassified first. The only way to declassify it is to redact the sensitive contents or remove the marking entirely if it actually isn't sensitive.

We send all of our classified documents by encrypted email networks so there's no chance that a document can just be uploaded to the government website!

If it had been declassified or redacted for release then the marking on the front would be crossed out or it wouldn't say OFFICIAL SENSITIVE, it'd say OFFICIAL or nothing at all. It also carried the UK eyes only marking so it'd be a bit stupid to upload that for the world to read...

 

[west didsblue]

This isn't true, I work with sensitive docs all the time and no government website would ever release an OFFICIAL SENSITIVE document because it has to be declassified first. The only way to declassify it is to redact the sensitive contents or remove the marking entirely if it actually isn't sensitive.

We send all of our classified documents by encrypted email networks so there's no chance that a document can just be uploaded to the government website!

If it had been declassified or redacted for release then the marking on the front would be crossed out or it wouldn't say OFFICIAL SENSITIVE, it'd say OFFICIAL or nothing at all. It also carried the UK eyes only marking so it'd be a bit stupid to upload that for the world to read...

Not sure why you're distracting the thread with Corbyn bollocks. He has not been LOTO for over two years, and waving an O-S document around in public (of which only the title page can be seen), whilst stupid, does not compare with the Home Secretary emailing classified documents to her mates. Even if it was comparable, he's gone never to return (hopefully).