Confused? Think how bad it must be for Suella Braverman, who can’t even do the simple arithmetic necessary to prove that there are proportionately fewer police now than in 2010 so they still have to prioritise their caseloads.
The woman known as Suella Braverman (not her real name – is it, Sue Ellen?) has been caught out in a monumental lie about police numbers.
Challenging police across the UK to treat all crimes as important and worthy of investigation, no matter how trivial, the Home Secretary falsely claimed that the government had recruited 20,000 police officers in England and Wales.
This is not true. Watch as Jayne Secker of Sky News skewers her, live on air:
Suella Braverman shares her "huge programme" on police reform that will help forces get "back to basics".
Sky's Jayne Secker challenges the Home Secretary on her statement that the government has gained 20,000 more officers.https://t.co/AVk5NZBEtw
As far as This Writer can work out, with help from The London Economic, there were 148,725 police officers in England and Wales in 2010, when the Conservatives came back to government for the first time since 1997. That’s one uniform for ever 422 people.
This number dwindled steadily over the next few years, with 20,000 officers lost. Then in 2019 came a manifesto commitment to recruit more.
Now, the best information I can find shows 149,566 police officers – an increase, but of not even 1,000, let alone the 3,000 suggested on Sky.
Worse, the UK’s population has risen by nearly five million, meaning there are now 453 people for every police officer.
So in fact there are still fewer police on the UK’s streets – per head of population – than in 2010.
And this makes a nonsense of Braverman’s challenge to the police forces. With lower numbers in comparison with the rest of the population, isn’t it unrealistic to expect them to give up prioritising the kinds of cases they decide to investigate?
In conclusion, Braverman’s statement about the police is a tissue of lies.
They can’t investigate every crime to its fullest extent because there are fewer of them now than when the Tories came to office – and they were overstretched then. Braverman is setting them up to fail – and criminals to get away with their crimes.
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:
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.
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!
Benefits Braverman: how the Mirror reported the way the Home Secretary has been fiddling the system.
Is this what you call value for money?
Suella Braverman – like the rest of the UK’s current Tory government – seems to be adapt at playing the system to secure what she wants for herself and her Home Office. Apparently the same rule seems to apply to both:
The cost to the public doesn’t matter.
So we see that at home, she has exploited a loophole allowing her to claim £25,000 that she doesn’t need:
A Mirror investigation found the Home Secretary claimed nearly £25,000 in household bills despite staying rent free in her parents home whilst the country faces sky high energy bills and a cost of living crisis https://t.co/1AUF2DyP6p
— Dick Mackintosh🌹#StopTheWar (@DickMackintosh) August 19, 2023
The Mirror article states:
She has claimed nearly £25,000 in five years for her London house, while living rent-free with her parents when not there.
Such handouts are designed to prevent MPs who live outside London from being out of pocket because they have to run two homes – but a Mirror investigation suggests Ms Braverman uses them to pay the household bills on her £1.2million family pad in Bushey, Herts.
It is within the rules but not “in the spirit” of them, one MP said.
Her expenses claims are all within the rules, but the hardline Tory, who earns £67,505 on top of her MP salary of £84,144, has been accused of exploiting a loophole in the system.
Ms Braverman, who recently railed against a “Benefits Street culture”, told watchdogs she “fully funds” the home she stays at in Fareham, Hants.
But she failed to mention it is her parents’ house and so costs her nothing in rent.
And at work, she has refused to roll out an accommodation scheme for people who have come to the UK to claim asylum that would cut costs in half – apparently because it is not cruel enough:
"Suella Braverman refusing to roll out asylum-support scheme deemed ‘more humane’"
We could more than halve the hotel bill, literally saving billions of pounds a year, but Braverman's blocking it because it's not cruel enough for her tastes. https://t.co/83BgaCRXkr
a Home Office-funded scheme in Bedfordshire … cut the cost of accommodating refugees and migrants by more than half when compared with placing them in detention. The savings came through housing people and giving legal and welfare support.
This week, the UNHCR (the [UN] refugee agency that helps the UK government improve its asylum system) will praise [the system].
The home secretary, however, is intent on overseeing a huge increase in the Home Office’s detention estate, which experts estimate will take billions to fund… The Home Office is also paying more than £5m a day to house asylum seekers in hotels.
Meanwhile, the illegal migration act will, says the Refugee Council, lead to “tens of thousands”’ of refugees being detained, with internal government projections indicating costs could top £3bn over the next two years. A report this week by IPPR thinktank is expected to warn that the law will only worsen the chaos.
The UNHCR’s evaluation of the Home Office-funded pilot is expected to praise the Bedfordshire scheme because it was “more humane” and treated refugees and migrants with civility. Critics say it is this aspect that has seen the scheme effectively abandoned by the Home Office, whose bill gives the home secretary a legal duty to detain and remove anyone deemed to be entering the UK illegally.
Sources with knowledge of the scheme said: “The findings fly in the face of the illegal migration act. They certainly contradict the Home Office narrative and rhetoric of ‘invasion’ and ‘scary migrants.’” Shortly after she was reappointed as home secretary by Rishi Sunak, Braverman told the Commons last October that refugees and migrants crossing the Channel in small boats were “the invasion on our southern coast”.
The report stated that “The King’s Arm Project, based in Bedford, has since August 2020 supported 75 vulnerable migrants of 23 nationalities, offering them legal advice, clothing, mental health support, English language learning and GP registration while in the community.
“The pilot was more cost-effective than detention and led to better outcomes, such as settled status. Fewer than half of those held in immigration detention centres are deported.”
The demands of the new Act of Parliament should not have been relevant to the pilot scheme in Bedford, as its findings were made available to the Home Office last summer. It is not even the only “alternative to detention” scheme to be wound up by the home office – one in Newcastle was ended in 2021.
Instead, her latest development is a plan to spend £306 million creating three new “migrant detention centres” to house a total of 1,020 people.
The logical conclusion is clear: Braverman wants to inflict as much unnecessary cruelty on people seeking asylum here as she possibly can, and she doesn’t care how much the country has to pay for it.
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:
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.
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!
Face of evil? Suella Braverman’s dossier attacking immigration lawyer Jacqueline McKenzie seems to be not only dishonest and illegal, but also racist.
Let’s see if I’ve got this right: the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom has deliberately released a dossier filled with lies in order to get the media to harass an immigration lawyer, thereby putting her in danger. Is that correct?
I refer to a four-page document created by Suella Braverman (or ordered by her), and sent to right wing papers the Telegraph, Mail, Sun and Express.
It contained a series of falsehoods about Jacqueline McKenzie, head of immigration and asylum at the law firm Leigh Day, which she herself described as follows, in an article for The Guardian:
Someone had drawn a diagram linking Keir Starmer to anyone who challenged the Conservatives’ Rwanda plan. There was mention of a case in which I represented a Jamaican man who had lived in the UK from the age of nine and was facing deportation. It said that I was a hired adviser on race to Starmer, when in fact I am an unpaid volunteer on a working group set up by Labour to look at race disparities across a number of indicators, just as the Conservatives did with the Sewell report.
It also “outed” me as a trustee of Detention Action, a well-respected NGO supporting people in immigration detention centres, presumably because the organisation challenged the Rwanda scheme in the courts. The dossier did not mention that I had become a trustee after that challenge. I did represent a man who was one of seven shackled on the tarmac waiting to be flown to Rwanda before the flight was grounded by the courts. I feel no shame: a doctor in the immigration detention centre confirmed that my client displayed signs of being a victim of torture.
A statement in support of Ms McKenzie by her colleagues at Leigh Day points out:
Omitted from the briefing was Jacqueline’s involvement on another group chaired by Priti Patel MP on the Windrush Scandal and the 90% of her work which is focused on legal support for victims of the Windrush Scandal.
Another Guardianreport quoted the actual Tory document:
The party’s document, which had the heading, “Revealed: senior Labour advisor is lefty lawyer blocking Rwanda deportations”, sought to highlight McKenzie’s links to the party and her work on immigration cases, she said.
The Tory dossier said: “Just last year, she [McKenzie] helped a Jamaican criminal lodge last-minute appeal to deportation because of his high blood pressure. The foreign-born crook had just served an eight-year prison sentence for kidnapping.
“[Labour leader Keir] Starmer has been keen to distance himself from previous remarks and convince voters that he can be trusted on immigration.
“But his decision to hire lefty lawyer Jacqueline McKenzie is further proof that ‘Sir Softie’ can’t be trusted.”
A spokesperson for the Conservative Party intensified the attack in a comment for the same article, stating:
“It’s no secret that an activist blob of leftwing lawyers, dubious campaign groups and the Labour party are trying to frustrate our efforts to stop the boats and deport more foreign criminals.”
Ms McKenzie has made her opinion on the reasons for the Tory attack on her abundantly clear:
There is no doubt this story was timed to accompany the moving of asylum seekers, many traumatised, on to the Bibby Stockholm. The government attacks vulnerable people and those like myself, who represent them in order to distract from issues that the electorate prioritise: the cost-of-living crisis, the environment and the NHS.
This flagrant attack on me and my work, built on misinformation and mischaracterisation and underpinned by racism and misogyny, is a dark day for our political sphere. It represents a serious slur on the integrity and independence of thousands of hardworking and upstanding lawyers.
I’ve saved the worst for last: The attack on Ms McKenzie has put her in danger, along with those around her:
The hit job on me was vile and self-serving, and put me and those close to me at considerable risk of physical harm. I’m having to take security advice and precautions, such is the seriousness I place on ominous emails I have received.
The Tory dossier was not only full of lies; it deliberately and falsely alleged that Ms McKenzie was politically biased – a claim that has outraged members of the legal profession, not just at Leigh Day but across the UK.
According to the Leigh Day statement,
Lawyers should not be criticised for doing their jobs. People are entitled to have legal representation when faced with removal from the country, or indeed being moved to accommodation which may be unsuitable. Many of the clients represented by Jacqueline’s team have been through trauma, torture or incredible hardship. In a civilised society they should be treated with compassion and understanding as well as having the law applied accurately and fairly to the individual circumstances of their case.
While the work we do as a firm is not always popular we strive to provide access to justice to all whether that is bereaved families who need help finding answers through the inquest process, those who have been seriously injured on our roads, employees who have been discriminated against by their employers and international communities who bear the brunt of multinational corporations wreaking havoc on their local environments. This commitment to access to justice for all extends to those seeking asylum in this country or who need support with their immigration status.
We are proud of the work we do and will not be cowed by a government whose strategy appears to be to attack and demonise lawyers, and the judiciary, merely for working to ensure the laws of this country are upheld.
It is a position that the Law Society, which represents and supports solicitors across England and Wales, and the Bar Council, its counterpart organisation for barristers, fully supports:
“No lawyer should be criticised, or made the subject of a targeted campaign, for doing their job."
Our full joint statement with @thebarcouncil, sharing our support for immigration lawyer Jacqueline McKenzie:
"Everyone is entitled to legal representation, and it is a United…
“Everyone is entitled to legal representation, and it is a United Nations basic principle that lawyers should not be identified with the causes of their clients as a result of representing them.
“The legal community is gravely concerned by the experience of immigration solicitor Jacqueline McKenzie.
“That is why – as we have said repeatedly – it is wrong to describe lawyers as ‘lefty’ or ‘activist’ simply on the basis of the causes they advocate on behalf of their clients.
“Lawyers who represent their clients are not only doing nothing wrong, they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do in playing their part in ensuring that the rule of law is upheld. Ms McKenzie has been doing exactly what she is supposed to do as an immigration solicitor, acting in the best interests of her clients within the constraints of the law.
“Political leaders know that lawyers represent their clients within the legal framework that parliament creates and CCHQ should seriously reflect on what has happened in this case.
“Language and actions that unfairly undermine confidence in the independence of the legal professions, and potentially risk the safety of lawyers, will ultimately undermine confidence in our entire justice system and the rule of law.”
It seems clear to This Writer that the dossier of lies about Ms McKenzie is part of the “crackdown” on “rogue lawyers” that the Tory government announced earlier this month.
At the time, Justice Secretary Alex Chalk claimed that the aim was to stop a minority of lawyers who were making false claims in order to allow people who should be deported to stay in the UK.
Jon Kay: You've announced a crackdown on rogue lawyers.. but this is a distraction… you should be tackling the backlog?
Alex Chalk: "A small minority are doing terrible damage.. coming up with false claims… & this illegality, dishonesty is extremely serious" #BBCBreakfastpic.twitter.com/nDM49V4w57
He seemed to be having trouble getting his words out and, if the attack on Ms McKenzie is representative of the Tory plan, this should be unsurprising. It can be hard to present a pack of lies as factual information.
Even then, the Law Society was pointing out the errors in the Tory claims:
Today, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office announced that they have launched a Professional Enablers Taskforce to crackdown on lawyers.
Responding, deputy vice president of the Law Society Richard Atkinson said: (1/5)
“The overwhelming majority of immigration lawyers continue to support the #RuleOfLaw through their adherence to the law and professional standards set by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. (3/5)
The Tories’ claim to be cracking down on a small number of lawyers who are dishonestly and illegally playing the system on behalf of foreigners who should not be in the UK seems to be a cover for an attack on entirely respectable lawyers that is itself dishonest and illegal.
But then, what can we expect from a Home Secretary whose own word cannot be trusted?
Suella Braverman wants to crackdown on crooked lawyers. Braverman was accused of lying on her CV by saying she made a contribution to a seminal law textbook. The author, Philip Colvin QC denied her claim “I asked her to do some photocopying for the book, which she did”.
One final point that I haven’t mentioned before: Ms McKenzie is black. This Tory “crackdown” on asylum-seekers and those who represent them is not only dishonest and illegal; it is also racist.
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:
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.
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!
Channel migrants: this photo is obviously not of anything that happened today (August 12, 2023) – but Tory policies are putting people like this in danger every day.
Another day, another Tory tragedy. Six people have died in the Channel – and it could be argued that the Conservative government caused the deaths.
Here’s the story:
Six people die and dozens rescued after boat carrying migrants sinks in Channel https://t.co/dZD07ynsFh
There’s a lot of right-wing lunacy circulating on the social media. Never mind that. There’s only one question to be asked and it is this:
How many people would have died today if there was a safe, legal route for people to claim asylum in the United Kingdom?
I think you know the answer is none.
Not only that, but there would be no criminal gangs making money from suffering like we’ve seen today, because there would be no demand for them to help people get across the water.
So these words by Suella Braverman…
My thoughts and prayers are with those affected by the tragic loss of life in the Channel today.
This morning I spoke with our Border Force teams who have been supporting the French authorities in response to this incident.
As another 6 human beings die trying to cross the Channel, here’s a reminder that:
In 2021, France offered to host a UK asylum processing facility in Calais so we could process applications there & ensure people didn’t make the perilous crossing.
It is Conservative policy for the crossings to continue, for the criminal gangs to make money from the people on the boats, and for some of them to die.
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:
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.
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!
Suella Braverman considers a kinder, ‘compassionate Conservative’ response to asylum-seekers.
Isn’t it good to know the Tories are taking their responsibilities seriously?
Oh, wait…
Once they have detained people they believe have come to the UK illegally, they have a legal responsibility to ensure the well-being of those people until their future can be decided.
So, do they house these people in safe and secure accommodation? No!
They say: “We’ll put them up in a floating firetrap with no means of escape if it burns; that’s good enough for ’em!”
Or at least, that’s what This Writer gets from the following:
The Bibby Stockholm barge, intended to house 550 refugees in 220 bedrooms, has been described as a ‘potential deathtrap’.
There are no lifejackets, narrow corridors and inadequate access to fire exits.
They deserve so much better than this.
We need safe routes NOW 🧡
— Breakthrough Party 🟠🌤️ (@BThroughParty) August 2, 2023
Here’s the supporting information:
This government is so incompetent it can’t even do basic risk assessments before forking out vast numbers of millions. They really are hopeless beyond words. https://t.co/x2no0ptOVv
Bizarrely, if I recall correctly, the Tory government could have put the same number of people into luxury hotel rooms for less money than it has cost to hire this floating incinerator.
The Fire Brigades Union has now written to the Home Office, and you can read the letter here:
🚨 NEW | We have written to Home Secretary Suella Braverman to ask for a meeting about our safety concerns on the Bibby Stockholm.
As the union representing the overwhelming majority of firefighters, we are driven by the need to prevent loss of life and protect public safety. pic.twitter.com/Y1g0QYZpOY
It says: “Firefighting operations on vessels such as the Bibby Stockholm provide significant challenges and require specialist training and safe systems of work.”
Then it describes safety provisions on the Bibby Stockholm as “diminished” and warns that the nature of those provisions “exacerbate our operational concerns”.
The letter also states that “The FBU believes fire safety standards are universal and apply to everyone… Fire does not discriminate and therefore neither should safety regulations.”
The implication is clear: the boat is unsafe and the FBU believes it has been deliberately made unsafe on Home Office orders.
This Writer looks forward to hearing Suella Braverman’s excuse for housing asylum-seekers in a deathtrap.
I’m willing to bet it will include a lot of bullying talk and probably a bit of racism as well.
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:
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.
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!
Suella Braverman and Rishi Sunak: by refusing to accept the Court of Appeal’s judgment on Rwanda deportations, they are denying the Rule of Law. Right?
Once again, for the Tory government: this is awkward.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful, because that country’s assurances that it would not return them to countries where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment are not “sufficient”.
The decision follows a ruling by the High Court that the government’s policy of deporting some asylum-seekers to Rwanda was permissible. An appeal had been launched against the decision by a group of 10 asylum-seekers and the charity Asylum Aid.
Normally, that should be that.
But the Tory government is not accepting this legal ruling and is demanding that it should be taken to the Supreme Court.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman has claimed that the “system is rigged against the British people”.
And Rishi Sunak published a statement online as follows:
It is this country – and your government – who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs.
Your government should decide who comes here, not “criminal gangs”? Is he suggesting the Court of Appeal is a “criminal gang”? It’s one interpretation of his words!
(In fact, if he disobeys the court’s order, it is Sunak and his government who will be the criminals.)
“Rwanda is a safe country,” he said. This is not true, according to the law.
And his claim that it is this country that should decide who comes here is easily countered. This decision is not about who comes here, but about whether anybody should go to Rwanda. And the answer is nobody.
And now the public purse will have to stump up the exorbitant cost of another court hearing, because this spoilt, petulant man-child and his demonic lieutenant are determined to have their own way. How contemptible.
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:
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.
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!
Suella Braverman: it seems she’ll be bringing that glower to a judge in the High Court, sometime in the near future.
The organisation Liberty, that challenges injustice, defends freedom and campaigns to make sure everyone in the UK is treated fairly, is taking Home Secretary Suella Braverman to court.
The action comes after Braverman overrode Parliament to change the Public Order Act in order to give police a free hand to arrest anybody carrying out an act of protest, depending on how disruptive officers think it is.
Here’s what Liberty has to say about it:
Human rights organisation Liberty has started legal action against the Home Secretary Suella Braverman over new anti-protest legislation which it says that she is unlawfully bringing in by the back door despite not having been given the powers to do so by Parliament.
In a pre-action letter sent to the Home Secretary, Liberty said that plans to give the police more powers to impose restrictions on protests that cause ‘more than minor’ disruption are unlawful.
The move – which uses secondary legislation to bring the powers into force – violates the constitutional principle of the separation of powers because the measures have already been rejected by Parliament.
By bringing in these powers, the Government has been accused of breaking the law to give the police ‘almost unlimited’ powers to shut down protests due to the vagueness of the new language.
The Government’s plans to lower the threshold of what constitutes ‘serious disruption’ at a protest were previously voted out of the Public Order Act by Parliament earlier this year (30 January).
Liberty says the Home Secretary has now changed the law entirely in a way that is an overreach of her power – defining ‘serious disruption’ as anything that causes ‘more than minor’ disruption.
A cross party parliamentary group committee has recently said this is the first time the Government has sought to makes changes to the law through secondary legislation that have already been rejected by Parliament when introduced in primary legislation.
Liberty’s letter to the Home Secretary says:
The Secretary of State is seeking to amend the threshold on protest powers set by Parliament by the back door in ways that expand the powers of the police to restrict protest activity.
Parliament only gave powers to clarify the law, and not change it entirely. Therefore, Parliament cannot have intended to give the Secretary of State power to amend primary legislation in a way which circumvents the will of Parliament because this would incur on the constitutional principle of the separation of powers.
The making of the Serious Disruption Regulations would be unlawful for being an unjustified interference with the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.
The new legislation was not consulted on fairly, as is required by law. The Government only invited in parties it knew would agree with the proposals, such as the police, but did not ask groups who might have had reasonable concerns.
Katy Watts, Lawyer at Liberty, said:
“We all want to live in a society where our Government is open, transparent and respects the rules. But, as we’ve seen today, the Home Secretary has not abided by any of these.
“The Home Secretary has side-lined Parliament to sneak in new legislation via the back door, despite not having the powers to do so.
“This has been done deliberately in a way which enables the Government to circumvent Parliament – who voted these same proposals down just a few months ago – and is a flagrant breach of the separation of powers that exist in our constitution.
“This is yet another power grab from the Government, as well as the latest in a long line of attacks on our right to protest, making it harder for the public to stand up for what they believe in.
“The wording of the Government’s new law is so vague that anything deemed ‘more than a minor’ disturbance could have restrictions imposed upon it.
“In essence, this gives the police almost unlimited powers to stop any protest the Government doesn’t agree with.
“This not only violates our rights, but the way it’s been done is simply unlawful. This same rule was democratically rejected earlier this year, yet the Home Secretary has gone ahead and introduced it through other means regardless.
“We’ve launched this legal action to ensure this overreach is checked and that the Government is not allowed to put itself above the law to do whatever it wants. It’s really important that the Government respects the law and that today’s decision is reversed immediately.”
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:
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.
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!
Suella Braverman: we don’t have an image showing her expression when she was challenged to correct the record but you can bet it was close to this.
This is yet another shocking display of contempt for Parliament by Suella Braverman.
The Home Secretary gave a statement to MPs yesterday (June 5, 2023) on the number of people awaiting an initial decision on whether they would be granted asylum in the UK – and it was inaccurate, according to the official figures.
Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper pointed this out in a point of order but the Deputy Speaker, Eleanor Laing, did not demand a correction, as you can see below:
#SuellaBraverman brazenly lied at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons (again), but refused to correct the record.
Dep. Speaker cared more about how the liar was called out than that she had lied.
The figures show that the total number of cases has indeed increased, as Cooper said:
Here’s the table showing total backlog of asylum decisions awaiting an initial decision up from Dec 2022 when pledge was made. It does show “legacy backlog” down – which is cases lodged before June 2022. But newer cases is sharply up so the total is up too. https://t.co/bAnO4NLVHopic.twitter.com/HauV8iGd41
This Writer can’t actually see the numbers that either politician mentioned in the figures provided; the total number of people waiting for a decision seems to have been more or less static for months.
But that’s not a fall, so Braverman should have corrected the record either way.
Not only has she not done so, but she has actively refused.
That’s contempt of Parliament, as far as I can tell. It is a serious breach of the Ministerial Code and she should be brought to book for it.
But will that happen?
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:
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.
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!
Suella Braverman: don’t you think she looks worried?
Migration from foreign countries to the UK has soared, with new figures showing 1.2 million people coming to live in the country during the last year.
Net migration – the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants (either UK citizens or non-citizens) stands at 606,000, according to the statistics released today (May 25, 2023).
It’s a 24 per cent increase on the previous high of 488,000. Embarrassingly for Brexiters Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman, the rise was fuelled by people from outside the EU entering the UK to study, work or escape conflict or oppression.
At the time of writing, Braverman has not commented on the figures – instead, she ran like a rabbit from an urgent question in the House of Commons, leading Shadow Home Secretary to accuse her of going to ground. “What is the point of her?” she asked
Some might say that this was better than the comedy response from Rishi Sunak who, while agreeing the numbers were too high, actually said, “I’m bringing them down.”
Clearly he isn’t!
His government has announced a few new measures, like making it harder for international students to come to the UK by banning them from bringing “dependents”.
This seems to have confused some MPs, who mentioned students’ parents and grandparents in Commons debate. In fact, it means students will be banned from bringing their partners (spouse, husband, wife, civil partner, relationship partner) and children.
Amazingly, this has been welcomed by the Labour Party:
Labour's Stephen Kinnock welcomes the Tories' ban on the dependents of international students, stating 'we want and expect net migration to fall' pic.twitter.com/L1r2hz8Dq4
The result will be that foreign students will be discouraged from coming to the UK.
Readers of This Site will be aware that Yr Obdt Servt (that’s me) has been re-watching the old BBC sitcom Yes, Minister lately, and one episode refers to attempts to stop foreign students attending UK universities.
In it, the university authorities squealed like pigs in the mating season, because foreign students paid eight times as much as UK citizens and a ban would create financial difficulties for them.
Is the situation the same today?
If so, what advantage do Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman hope to create for the UK by closing our universities?
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:
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.
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!
Rishi Sunak has announced that he won’t be investigating whether Suella Braverman broke the Ministerial Code by trying to get civil servants to arrange a private speed awareness course after she was caught speeding.
She didn’t want to mix with the hoi polloi, it seems.
Here’s how the BBC reported the story, a discussion of it from Politics Live, and how Labour leader Keir Starmer referred to it during Prime Minister’s Questions.
ALL of these segments feature commentators getting festive at Braverman’s expense and are therefore well worth watching!
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:
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.
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!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
