• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

[Continuation] General UK Politics V Suella Strikes Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
It turns out that contrary to the headlines in the papers and GB News, the Poppy seller in Edinburgh wasn't attacked or abused at all, according to the police.
Nobody was chanting about Jews, according to the police.
Also, the Poppy seller who wasn't attacked or abused, isn't a veteran, either. He's a known Walter Mitty fraud, a laughing stock in real military circles.
And has a string of convictions for sex offences.
The plot thickens...

Right Wing disinfo, again
 
It's being touted that Braverman is actively seeking to be fired. This, supposedly, sets her up as a prime anti-Sunak candidate, or something.

Anyway, it strikes me she's succeeded unless Sunak calls her bluff and keeps her on.
 
Andy_Ross said:
It turns out that contrary to the headlines in the papers and GB News, the Poppy seller in Edinburgh wasn't attacked or abused at all, according to the police.
Nobody was chanting about Jews, according to the police.
Also, the Poppy seller who wasn't attacked or abused, isn't a veteran, either. He's a known Walter Mitty fraud, a laughing stock in real military circles.
And has a string of convictions for sex offences.
The plot thickens...

Right Wing disinfo, again
Click to expand...
Where are you seeing this? I see him getting some flak online for wearing a maroon (ie. Para) beret, while telling various papers he was in 32 Signal Regiment, but other pictures shows him wearing a different coloured beret on other occasions.
 
In any case, someone aged 78-years-old hardly qualifies as a 'veteran' in the context of WWII. The youngest conscripts then would now be well into their late 90's and early 100's.

There is something about the word 'veteran' that stirs people's emotions but just because poppy sellers cos-play in military gear and berets doesn't mean they are exempt from life's vicissitudes such as people being rude to you and walking past your poppies without buying. How did he get so much news coverage? Oh of course, the usual tabloid suspects, 'Protect our Poppy Sellers'. _Doh.


The same rag that helps Suella stir up trouble with the click bait headline, 'Suella to jail Cenotaph protestors' (yes, I was baited and I clicked) but just as I suspected, it transpired Suella does not have the power to do any such thing.
 
Vixen said:
In any case, someone aged 78-years-old hardly qualifies as a 'veteran' in the context of WWII. The youngest conscripts then would now be well into their late 90's and early 100's.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Military "veteran" has never meant either just WW2 or even only the world wars. Which morons think that?
 
KDLarsen said:
I saw that, but it makes no mention of him being a Walter Mitty type and/or having convictions for sexual offenses? The only thing Google brings up is an anonymous, leftist news/satire Xitter account, which base the former allegation on him wearing a maroon beret.
Click to expand...

Sorry - I had my CT filters on and didn't think about the rest of the stuff.
 
Labour's Pat McFadden has pointed out that Braverman breached the ministerial code, by not clearing her article attacking the police with the government's press office.
 
Last edited:
KDLarsen said:
Where are you seeing this? I see him getting some flak online for wearing a maroon (ie. Para) beret, while telling various papers he was in 32 Signal Regiment, but other pictures shows him wearing a different coloured beret on other occasions.
Click to expand...

He's a walter, play acting.
 
Darat said:
Military "veteran" has never meant either just WW2 or even only the world wars. Which morons think that?
Click to expand...

Here, it refers only to those who fought in the war. I know in the USA it means anyone who served in the armed forces. My post did say 'within the context of WWII', otherwise, all ex-armed forces personnel will be featured in SUN newspaper headlines as being precious hothouse flowers who should be accorded special privileged treatment like the 78-year-old fellow in his beret. Not nice to be dissed but it is hardly headline news, was the point being made.
 
Vixen said:
Here, it refers only to those who fought in the war. I know in the USA it means anyone who served in the armed forces. My post did say 'within the context of WWII', otherwise, all ex-armed forces personnel will be featured in SUN newspaper headlines as being precious hothouse flowers who should be accorded special privileged treatment like the 78-year-old fellow in his beret. Not nice to be dissed but it is hardly headline news, was the point being made.
Click to expand...

UK servicemen and women have served in armed conflicts since WWII. The Falklands and Afghanistan spring to mind.
 
Vixen said:
Here, it refers only to those who fought in the war. I know in the USA it means anyone who served in the armed forces. My post did say 'within the context of WWII', otherwise, all ex-armed forces personnel will be featured in SUN newspaper headlines as being precious hothouse flowers who should be accorded special privileged treatment like the 78-year-old fellow in his beret. Not nice to be dissed but it is hardly headline news, was the point being made.
Click to expand...

What are you wittering about this time?

Where do you mean by 'here'? You're apparently in Finland.

Yes, your post did say "in the context of WWII", but that's the first mention of WWII in the thread, so you're the one implying that veterans must be from that war to qualify for the name. Given that there can only be handful of people who were in the forces in WWII still alive today, who do you think Poppy Day is in aid of now?

As GlennB says, British service personnel have been serving since WWII, and many of them have seen active service around the world.

Do you think veterans don't deserve any respect for what they've done?
 
Vixen said:
Here, it refers only to those who fought in the war. I know in the USA it means anyone who served in the armed forces. My post did say 'within the context of WWII', otherwise, all ex-armed forces personnel will be featured in SUN newspaper headlines as being precious hothouse flowers who should be accorded special privileged treatment like the 78-year-old fellow in his beret. Not nice to be dissed but it is hardly headline news, was the point being made.
Click to expand...

Anyone that served is a veteran.

I'm a veteran. I was in the navy.

I could claim to be a Falklands veteran or a cold war veteran but there's no need, serving is enough.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Anyone that served is a veteran.

I'm a veteran. I was in the navy.

I could claim to be a Falklands veteran or a cold war veteran but there's no need, serving is enough.
Click to expand...

This. Vixen doesn't get to define terms for the UK.

(Thinking of a good friend I used to do the Ride to the Wall with at this time of year. RIP Jimmy the One)
 
So in summary:
The organizers of the protest have said they aren't going anywhere near the Cenotaph
The organizers of the ceremony at the Cenotaph on Saturday say the protestors should be allowed to march.
The police say there is no reason to ban the march.

The only person who seems to be inciting violence here is the Home Secretary, who is doing so without a required approval from the PM and using the Tory's pet media to get whip up some morons to start trouble which she will blame on everyone else, Donald Trump would be proud.

And anyone who thinks Braverman being the next Tory leader guarantees keeping them out of power should remember 2016 when everyone 'knew' Trump couldn't win. The only thing that will probably keep Braverman from the leadership is that she's too dark skinned for most of the membership.
 
Garrison said:
So in summary:
The organizers of the protest have said they aren't going anywhere near the Cenotaph
The organizers of the ceremony at the Cenotaph on Saturday say the protestors should be allowed to march.
The police say there is no reason to ban the march.

The only person who seems to be inciting violence here is the Home Secretary, who is doing so without a required approval from the PM and using the Tory's pet media to get whip up some morons to start trouble which she will blame on everyone else, Donald Trump would be proud.

And anyone who thinks Braverman being the next Tory leader guarantees keeping them out of power should remember 2016 when everyone 'knew' Trump couldn't win. The only thing that will probably keep Braverman from the leadership is that she's too dark skinned for most of the membership.
Click to expand...

I've never seen anyone so blatantly try to get sacked and fail for so long.

Sunak's heading for overtaking Truss as the worst PM. He's already the worst Tory leader.
 
Andy_Ross said:
I think there's going to be trouble. A lot of right wingers and gammons are promising to turn up and defend our sacred monuments from the jihadist take over of the country.

Some are openly calling for a war to take back the streets.
Click to expand...

At least your right-wingers are not so heavily armed as ours.
 
jimbob said:
I've never seen anyone so blatantly try to get sacked and fail for so long.

Sunak's heading for overtaking Truss as the worst PM. He's already the worst Tory leader.
Click to expand...

I don't think he dares fire her. If he sacks her for breaking the ministerial code then he looks stupid for appointing her in the first place just after she was sacked for breaking the ministerial code. She also represents the views of the party faithful so any attempt to constrain her risks alienating the core of the party (and puts the kibosh on attempting to recover support lost to Reform/UKIP).
 
jimbob said:
Jonathan Pie on Suella Braverman

Not as many jokes as usual but very accurate



Click to expand...

I think todays cartoon in the Grauniad is perfect. It has SueAdolf outside the centoaph kicking down the tent of a homeless ex-soldier calling his "lifestyle choice" a disgrace to veterans.
 
The Don said:
I don't think he dares fire her. If he sacks her for breaking the ministerial code then he looks stupid for appointing her in the first place just after she was sacked for breaking the ministerial code. She also represents the views of the party faithful so any attempt to constrain her risks alienating the core of the party (and puts the kibosh on attempting to recover support lost to Reform/UKIP).
Click to expand...

Regardless of that. She's just going to keep turning the dial up. She is already close to open defiance. And the lack of consequences is going to embolden her.

Eventually he will have to sack her. And if he waits too long, you might see some other MPs crossing the floor. He was an idiot to reappoint her after she had already had to resign once.

Sunak seems incapable* of realising that sometimes a short term pain is better than leaving something to fester. And sometimes a short term benefit (appointing her in the first place to get the headbangers' support) is obviously going to blow up in his face.


As I said before, the Tory party has had its share of damaging leaders, although arguably fewer than Labour... But Sunak might be the worst leader of a mainstream party in my lifetime. And I include Corbyn, who scored own goals from a penalty at the other end of the pitch.



*Could have stopped here.
 
Garrison said:
So in summary:
The organizers of the protest have said they aren't going anywhere near the Cenotaph
The organizers of the ceremony at the Cenotaph on Saturday say the protestors should be allowed to march.
The police say there is no reason to ban the march.

The only person who seems to be inciting violence here is the Home Secretary, who is doing so without a required approval from the PM and using the Tory's pet media to get whip up some morons to start trouble which she will blame on everyone else, Donald Trump would be proud.

And anyone who thinks Braverman being the next Tory leader guarantees keeping them out of power should remember 2016 when everyone 'knew' Trump couldn't win. The only thing that will probably keep Braverman from the leadership is that she's too dark skinned for most of the membership.
Click to expand...

The best route for tories regaining power after the next election is for Labour to give Starmer free reign and him indulging in his worst Nu-Labor instincts.

SueAdolf is too narrowly focused on tory party members. She's more likely to be the next Michael Howard.
 
The Don said:
I don't think he dares fire her. If he sacks her for breaking the ministerial code then he looks stupid for appointing her in the first place just after she was sacked for breaking the ministerial code. She also represents the views of the party faithful so any attempt to constrain her risks alienating the core of the party (and puts the kibosh on attempting to recover support lost to Reform/UKIP).
Click to expand...

His skin colour has already done that. It amazes me that she thinks she can get around that obstacle with the faithful.
 
Last edited:
From elsewhere via Scrutable.

As seen elsewhere...

"Even cluster-**** Liz Truss who only served 49 days as PM managed to sack Braverman".
Click to expand...
 
jeremyp said:
Citation please.
Click to expand...

He keeps wearing a parachute regiment cap badge and parachute maroon beret. He was in the Royal Corps of Signals and is only entitled to their badge and a dark blue beret.

Even if he was in a unit that was part of the Air Assault Brigade he only got to wear a maroon beret while part of the brigade.

Wearing a parachute regiment badge and beret is the most Walter thing you can do.
 
Darat said:
Yet speak to folk and you'd think the police were the most woke organisation around, given all the recent inquiries and reports it is a most persistent case of cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

The police get called woke by people who want to see them being heavy handed against protests they disagree with.
 
jimbob said:
Regardless of that. She's just going to keep turning the dial up. She is already close to open defiance. And the lack of consequences is going to embolden her.

Eventually he will have to sack her. And if he waits too long, you might see some other MPs crossing the floor. He was an idiot to reappoint her after she had already had to resign once.

...
Click to expand...

But she apparently wants him to sack her, she doesn't want to resign.

So maybe he shouldn't sack her. Just have a mini cabinet re-shuffle and move her to a really low level post. Then she either has to resign, which she doesn't want to do, or take up the new position and be ever-so-slightly humiliated.
 
SteveAitch said:
But she apparently wants him to sack her, she doesn't want to resign.

So maybe he shouldn't sack her. Just have a mini cabinet re-shuffle and move her to a really low level post. Then she either has to resign, which she doesn't want to do, or take up the new position and be ever-so-slightly humiliated.
Click to expand...

Give her a new ministry - Minister for diversity and multiculturalism!
 
SteveAitch said:
But she apparently wants him to sack her, she doesn't want to resign.

So maybe he shouldn't sack her. Just have a mini cabinet re-shuffle and move her to a really low level post. Then she either has to resign, which she doesn't want to do, or take up the new position and be ever-so-slightly humiliated.
Click to expand...

Is there a Secretary of State for Rockall (take that one how you will)? A post which requires the incumbent to spend a whole lot of time inspecting Rockall...That would be a great use for Suella's "talents".

If not, then it is high time Rish! recognised this glaring absence and rectified it!
 
First they came for Boris and I said nothing.

Then they came for Suella and I said she's just over there, hiding behind the shed.
Because I didn’t want to make the same mistake twice.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
First they came for Boris and I said nothing.

Then they came for Suella and I said she's just over, there, hiding behind the shed.
Because I didn’t want to make the same mistake twice.
Click to expand...

That last line
 
So the Police are imposing a cordon around the Cenotaph to prevent any extremists getting near it, but I suspect Braverman will still be able to get to through...
 
The march isn't going near the cenotaph tomorrow.
Only the gammons travelling in to London to protect it will be there.
 
SteveAitch said:
But she apparently wants him to sack her, she doesn't want to resign.

So maybe he shouldn't sack her. Just have a mini cabinet re-shuffle and move her to a really low level post. Then she either has to resign, which she doesn't want to do, or take up the new position and be ever-so-slightly humiliated.
Click to expand...

I would recommend Sunak try that. Because I wish him a speedy political demise.

Braverman would still be able to claim constructive dismissal. Sunak would also confirm that he is too weak to get rid of her.

It would give Starmer a massive amount of ammunition. Not that he's short of it.
 
The British Legion says it backs the rights of the pro Palestinian demonstrators' right to protest and march.

That sound you heard was GB News and the Daily Mail spontaneously combusting in rage.
 
Andy_Ross said:
The British Legion says it backs the rights of the pro Palestinian demonstrators' right to protest and march.

That sound you heard was GB News and the Daily Mail spontaneously combusting in rage.
Click to expand...

Another one that needs to go on the list like the RNLB.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom