Reply With QuoteSomeone, and I quote, wroteOriginally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish
in another thread earlier. I really think this is a bit of a rant.Absolutely disgusting woman.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
It was the early renaissance. She made it into the later editions.
Botticelli must have missed her off.
She's certainly just to the right of shooting homeless for sport.
Someone, and I quote, wrotein another thread earlier. I really think this is a bit of a rant.Absolutely disgusting woman.
No doubt heironymous bosch has a work just for her
Good to see people on CCMB calling out this kind of language.
So within hours the first feck up. 😂😂😂
Well done Rishi.
He should have more sense to know that buying votes will catch you out in the end.
I wonder if you can criticise both for separate reasons? Hmmmm. Food for thought.
Wonder if this has the potential to develop into something genuinely embarrassing for the Government or will it just fizzle out after a few days? I suspect the latter.
A couple of minor points about the matter, what does it say about Braverman that she sends her breaches of security to an official (who then reported it) in error? Second, how can Sunak claim in all seriousness that his Cabinet has "experience and stability" when it has a loose cannon like Braverman in one of it's most senior positions?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...james-cleverly
Back in the news again regarding security issues. All part of Rishi's cunning plan. He agrees to her to get the right on his side. He gets elected and then somebody leaks all these other findings to the journalists and she gets fired. Initial uproar but Rishi sticks by "but I believe in doing things the right way" so gains the moral high ground while looking down on his ex Minister.
I'd say that the problem with that scenario is that Braverman is now high profile enough to register with many of the public who will have some knowledge of the circumstances of her original sacking as Home Secretary - they'll struggle to believe that Sunak was just an innocent in the whole process.
Strikes me that some people are angling for a bit of chaos again tbh.
Although I would like to think that the PM knows about any indiscretions and considered them minor. If that is so, then I think giving people a second chance is perfectly reasonable.
I'm getting the popcorn out again
The experience is 6 weeks in the post previously. Its certainly experience, but not the levels we've become accustomed to.
what?
Given the range of incredibly important things she has to deal with, I'd just like to see her get on with the job tbh but there we go.
I know Rishi has had a bit of a holiday but I'm sure he was aware she resigned over her incompetence. Surely a poor decision like that is allowed to be scrutinised, given the fault of appointing her lies at his door.
What's striking, is that he felt there was nobody else more capable of doing the job in the whole of the elected party
Or maybe you don't condemn someones career to be over in light of a minor indescretion.
The motivation here is not some honourable scrutiny of the government, it's a desire for chaos to bring them down to result in an early election.
That election will come in due course, but stability is welcome now I think.
I don't think that it's just her "minor indiscretion". By the way, that reminds me of the minor fiscal policy that we shouldn't have got worked up about (but then apparently were right to have done).
It puts immediate question marks over Rishi's decision-making and his integrity.
It's quite a glaring mistake. The fact that he likely had no choice but to make the mistake, doesn't make it less of a mistake.
And just because the government has caused all of the chaos of the last few years, doesn't mean that decisions don't come with the same levels of scrutiny now, just because they've appointed someone vaguely representing an adult.
Jake Berry insists there have been multiple breaches of the ministerial code therefore we may not be talking about "a minor indiscretion".
The Home Secretary position is far too important to allow the office holder any leeway on possible security breaches. Anything which compromises the integrity of the office and office holder could have disastrous consequences.
This woman is ideologically not suited to such an important role and it seems she hasn't the personal discipline required of the position either. I think this is a major mistake on Sunak's part which will need to be rectified very quickly.
You lot will never be happy!
That’s debatable
I do recall several posters on here last week suggesting that Braverman's email was most likely sent not out of incompetence, but more a deliberate action to enable her to extricate herself from the Truss shit show.
The same posters are now claiming it was incompetence. It would appear positions change based on how to maximise benefit.
I wonder how Feedback and James would be responding if this was a Labour home secretary?
It's a rhetorical question chaps as we know the answer
So just to clarify do you think:
A) the Home Secretary should be still in post despite breaching national security through incompetence
B) the home Secretary should still be in post despite breaching security deliberately
C) the Home Secretary shouldn’t be still in post
D) Leo fortune west
If you are hoping for feedback to answer a question rather than just snipe at people you will be waiting a long time.
Posting Permissions
