Was Braverman’s support for accused policeman enabled by Russell Brand furore?

Suella Braverman: this law-maker is also a law-breaker. She seems to think she is above the rules. Is she?

Suella Braverman has spoken up in support of a police marksman who has been charged with murder after an unarmed man was shot and died in London last year.

Strangely, the Met police firearms officer who appeared in the dock on Thursday, charged with killing Chris Kaba, 24, in south London last year, has not been named. Why should this person have his identity protected?

According to the BBC, Braverman said

people “depend on our brave firearms officers to protect us”.

“In the interest of public safety they have to make split-second decisions under extraordinary pressures.”

She said that officers have her “full backing”.

“I will do everything in my power to support them,” she added.

Now, it has been said that the circumstances of the Kaba shooting are important…

… although you are advised to check this ‘X’ user’s identification information and make your own decision about his reliability.

But this really is what the following user describes:

The Kaba case is sub judice. Braverman should not be saying anything that might prejudice its outcome. In doing so – if she were not a member of a Tory government – she might face contempt of court charges

But then, look at the controversy around Russell Brand at the moment – in the opposite sense.

Brand has been accused of very different crimes and, unlike the unnamed police officer in this case, has been much-discussed by the mass media, who have almost unanimously condemned him.

Again, it is inappropriate to discuss innocence or guilt until after a trial has taken place.

By all means, lay out the evidence – but the law is clear that everybody in the UK is innocent of any crime, according to the law, until they have been proven guilty. When a trial is ongoing, nobody should be making assumptions about its outcome – least of all a senior Cabinet member.

So Braverman should be facing a contempt charge – but I don’t think she will, simply because she is a Cabinet member.

Do you really think that’s fair on anyone?

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here: