Why so much fuss over Stella Braverman?

[lastminutepanicking]

I’m just wondering who on earth cares? Can’t understand why this is such big news.

Why didn't she make enquiries from the form she received, like the rest of us do? She asked civil servants for a course just for her, and asked a Special advisor to arrange one and was told it was not a matter for the civil service.

And why did her Adviser lie four times saying she hadn't received a speeding offence. I've read the transcript, yes, four times.

Because no private courses are offered and that poster is either mistaken or being disingenuous. Which is obvious considering the course provider refused to make such arrangements for Braverman stating that it was not possible in her circumstances.

They key thing is was that Spad instructed to lie on Braverman's behalf?

We've already been over this in the thread. Private courses are available and routinely used by high-profile individuals. Whether they should be is a different matter - I don't think courses should be available at all, automatic points and fine. Why her SPAD denied it is a something you'd need to ask them, speculation is useless but if we're doing that maybe that particular SPAD didn't know at the time or didn't want to release personal information, they're not supposed to deal with minister's personal stuff anyway which is something else gone over on here at length so 🤷🏻‍♀️

FFS, a SpAD who doesn't want to release personal information can say just that. Since when was it a sensible response to lie? And why on earth would they lie purely as a matter of their own initiative? Any fule kno that it would be insane for anyone in that position just to lie for shits and giggles, of course they would discuss it with their superior or the minister first.

@CabernetSauvignon - loving your Molesworth. Clearly accountability and standards in public life are just a massive chiz to the current government!

@CabernetSauvignon exactly. Surely any advisor worth employing would just say "That's a personal matter so I'm not involved and can't answer".

In the absence of the Home Secretary providing any evidence or the Prime Minister having an inquiry, all people can do is form their own conclusions.

If there was nothing to hide, why wouldn't she answer questions and the Prime Minister have an inquiry?

Except that the reports are that the course provider said this was not possible in this case therefore the private courses are not offered to high profile people like Suella Braverman at all are they or she would have gone on one instead of taking the time and the points? So your point about them being routine is either incorrect or irrelevant in this case.

Of course none of that changes the fact that Braverman asked civil servants to spend their time on a personal matter for her to avoid political embarrassment - breach of the ministerial code.

So she was told no in her case gor whatever reason, there's nothing wrong with asking. High profile people, slebs and so on do frequently use them so I'm not sure why she wasn't treated the same. If an advisor said it was a personal matter without knowing what had happened - which they shouldn't have known about anyway, it being a personal matter that ministers aren't allowed to discuss with civil servants - it would have implied guilt and imagine the embarrassing repercussions on them if it turned out Braverman hadn't been speeding.

And why on earth would there be an inquiry over a speeding fine? There never normally is, nor is there ever this much fuss. Braverman is subject to the same rules as everyone else. She isn't above them, which there is no evidence in this case that she tried to be, nor is she below them to be treated worse than everyone else which may disappoint the gleeful witch-hunting mob.

The enquiry wouldn't be over the speeding offence but the alleged misuse of Civil Servants.

Clavinova · Yesterday 19:48
MrsSkylerWhite
Fairly accurate description of someone watching porn in the chamber and whilst serving on a select committee, I’d say.

Angela Rayner called Tory MP Chris Clarkson 'scum' during a House of Commons debate in October 2020 - you are thinking of Neil Parish, a different MP.
Rayner later issued an apology to Mr Clarkson.”

No I’m not. I’m citing yet another example of behaviour by a Tory MO that definitely falls well within the bounds of scum.

Do you disagree? Watching pornography at work is acceptable behaviour?

MP

Are you genuinely missing the point @Alltheprettyseahorses? it’s been explained numerous times on this thread and elsewhere how she breached the ministerial code.

there's nothing wrong with asking

@Alltheprettyseahorses, yes there is, that’s exactly the point. It’s very clear the CS are there for the purpose of implementing and developing policy not as PA’s to ministers.

Are you happy for your taxes to be funding a pool of PA’s to run personal errands for ministers?

'It’s very clear the CS are there for the purpose of implementing and developing policy not as PA’s to ministers.'

All they had to do was put on their big girl pants and say sorry that's not really my job instead of the usual excitable civil servants leaks.

So you are content that anyone who gets a speeding ticket can pop into the Home Office and ask if they can have special treatment then?

Braverman wasn't getting special treatment though so I have no idea why we keep returning to that silly idea. She was considering the option of a speeding course (over 1.5 million taken every year in the UK) if a 121 was available (yes and taken by an unspecified number of high profile people every year) but was told no, the reasoning behind that would be interesting, so she paid the fine. At no point is there any intimation she tried to escape the standard consequences of incurring a speeding fine. People have made plenty of great points against her competence on this thread but making up false reasons to be offended really undermines their arguments. After all, if she was that bad why would anyone have to pretend she's done anything out of the ordinary here?

As for whether I want my taxes spent on PAs doing a personal errand for a minister, I genuinely couldn't care less if they do and I'd be very surprised I they didn't for minister from all political parties. That's definitely not the only complaint people have though as shown by other replies.

Why are you assuming it was a woman? And why do you think civil servants shouldn’t expose breaches of the ministerial code?

I'd be very surprised I they didn't for minister from all political parties.

I would because all ministers currently are Tories.

Wow there is some nutty stuff on here. You don't want civil servants doing political work or personal work for Ministers. Think of the next governments to come. There is good reason why this is not allowed.

All of this is separated for good reason so that public money is not used for the whims of Ministers. MPs are bad enough with their expenses. Giving ministers the ability to get their personal stuff handled on the public purse is just throwing money on the fire. It would never stop.

That's what they did. And one of them tried to cover it up four times. Hardly 'excitable civil servants leaks'.

She was considering the option of a speeding course (over 1.5 million taken every year in the UK) if a 121 was available (yes and taken by an unspecified number of high profile people every year) but was told no, the reasoning behind that would be interesting, so she paid the fine. At no point is there any intimation she tried to escape the standard consequences of incurring a speeding fine

How do you know that. How do you know that by asking civil servants (who it was nothing to do with, as it's a private matter) she wasn't sounding out the idea of getting off? I don't know. You don't know.

Why did her aide (a civil servant) deny she had a speeding offence four times?

After all, if she was that bad why would anyone have to pretend she's done anything out of the ordinary here?

If that's the case, everyone can approach the civil service about a 1 to 1 course, can't they?

Yes this with knobs on. There is a very good reason political matters are kept seperate from private matters.

Approach someone in the right department about a speeding fine, say you cannot be seen on a 121 and want it kept quiet.
Civil servant knows the top bod in charge of this department and says he will have a word and see what he 'can do' in inverted commas

I am not saying this has happened or will happen, but it's a slippery slope.

It's bad enough with the back handers, fast lane covid contracts, conflict of interests with outside work, not declaring interests and so on

'Why are you assuming it was a woman? '

I said they/their not she or her. Putting big girl pants on is a phrase one uses for any gender, it means get a grip.

Why are we making up wild scenarios? Again, there is absolutely no indication that Braverman was trying to evade a speeding fine outside the fevered, wildly overactive imaginations of some posters on here because they dislike her so much they lose all reason. It really is getting ridiculous.

I'll also point out that we haven't always had a Tory government - we've had a coalition and Labour governments in the past so yes, ministers from all political parties. We may have a Labour government next year - would there be as much professional outrage if eg Angela Rayner asks a civil servant something, or even a leak? No there wouldn't and ot being a hypocrite I'd care as much about that as I do about this. I am definitely thinking there's a problem with the civil service though because surely briefing against ministers they don't like is against their code of conduct, as was catering around Whitehall with suitcases full of ale for lockdown parties.