Suella Braverman criticised by cycling campaign group for “avoiding public scrutiny” over speeding offence

Rich_cb wrote:

FWIW I don't think ongoing contact (including a financial inducement) between the Leader of the Opposition and the senior civil servant involved in an active investigation into the current PM can be dismissed lightly. Neither party will confirm when contact began which leads to the conclusion that it began well before it should have done.

Once again, what is there in the Gray report that you think is untrue? What is there that Johnson or any other parties criticised in the report have alleged to be untrue? Johnson commissioned the report and accepted its findings, if there was any dispute about the truth of her findings then your continuous insinuations that she must have colluded with Starmer to produce an unfavourable report might have some basis, but as far as I'm aware there are none.

The only political option Boris had was to accept the report and hope the issue died down. Keeping it in the news, with an appeal etc, was political suicide. Gray and Starmer would have understood this well.

Regardless, there appears to have been a significant breach of the civil service code with the timing of the approach and job offer.

If there must be consequences for Braverman, based on her refusal to confirm/deny a code breach, then surely there must be consequences for Gray/Starmer?

Rich_cb wrote:

The only political option Boris had was to accept the report and hope the issue died down. Keeping it in the news, with an appeal etc, was political suicide. Gray and Starmer would have understood this well. Regardless, there appears to have been a significant breach of the civil service code with the timing of the approach and job offer. If there must be consequences for Braverman, based on her refusal to confirm/deny a code breach, then surely there must be consequences for Gray/Starmer?

I haven't read all the posts, but what's the connection between Gray/Starmer and misusing the civil service?

Gray/Starmer are alleged to have breached the civil service code. They both refuse to answer questions regarding this.

Braverman is alleged to have breached the ministerial code. She refuses to answer questions regarding this.

For some reason certain posters are very keen for Braverman to be punished but less so for Gray/Starmer.

Rich_cb wrote:

Gray/Starmer are alleged to have breached the civil service code. They both refuse to answer questions regarding this. Braverman is alleged to have breached the ministerial code. She refuses to answer questions regarding this. For some reason certain posters are very keen for Braverman to be punished but less so for Gray/Starmer.

It certainly seems to me that Braverman's breach is more serious as she's currently in a senior position, but I am perfectly happy for Gray/Starmer to face the consequences of their breaches. However, the investigation into Gray's employment has not been released, so I don't think there's anything for her to actually answer to, except for partisan accusations.

Has the investigation into Braverman been released?

I'm assuming you also think there's nothing for her to answer to other than partisan accusations?

Gray/Starmer appear to have had contact in breach of the civil service code, a financial inducement appears to have been made by Starmer. Both Starmer and Gray are extremely reticent about when the contact first took place.

If you think the possible offering of a financial inducement by the Leader of the Opposition to a civil servant investigating the PM is less serious than an alleged attempt to do a speed awareness course in private then I'm not sure you've got a proper grasp on the situation.

Rich_cb wrote:

Has the investigation into Braverman been released? I'm assuming you also think there's nothing for her to answer to other than partisan accusations? Gray/Starmer appear to have had contact in breach of the civil service code, a financial inducement appears to have been made by Starmer. Both Starmer and Gray are extremely reticent about when the contact first took place. If you think the possible offering of a financial inducement by the Leader of the Opposition to a civil servant investigating the PM is less serious than an alleged attempt to do a speed awareness course in private then I'm not sure you've got a proper grasp on the situation.

Is there an investigation into Braverman? If so, then yes we should wait for the results, but it seems fairly obvious that misusing the civil service is not acceptable.

As neither Gray nor Starmer are in office, I think you're just trying to shift attention away from your beloved Tories. To my mind, politicians in office have to abide by certain rules and attempting to use the civil service for personal matters is clearly wrong.

You seem to be implying that Gray was bought and influenced by Starmer to exaggerate or falsify the report into Johnson's law breaking and subsequent lying, but I've seen no evidence that Gray's report was incorrect in any manner. Can you just pinpoint which parts of the report you disagree with?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/24/suella-braverman-will-n...

Quote:

Rishi Sunak has decided not to order an investigation into claims the UK home secretary, Suella Braverman, broke the ministerial code by requesting to do a private speed awareness course, it has been announced.

I'm implying that there is an alleged breach of the civil service code.

Starmer and Gray are refusing to answer questions regarding this.

The potential breach is far more significant than Braverman's alleged misdeeds but, strangely, the good folk of road.cc seem inclined to ignore it.

Perhaps your accusations of bias should be spread a bit more widely?

Rich_cb wrote:

I'm implying that there is an alleged breach of the civil service code. Starmer and Gray are refusing to answer questions regarding this. The potential breach is far more significant than Braverman's alleged misdeeds but, strangely, the good folk of road.cc seem inclined to ignore it. Perhaps your accusations of bias should be spread a bit more widely?

You're firmly into whataboutism territory here. There was a full investigation into Starmer and Gray, but for some strange reason, the report is not being released, so I think your accusations are invalid.

Once again, can you just pinpoint which parts of the Gray report do you find troubling or inaccurate?

Just to be clear - I am no fan of Gray nor Starmer. I thought Gray's report was watered down and it does seem to have completely missed the Chequers party. Keith Starmer is in my view a red Tory and I don't agree with a lot that he says and I wouldn't vote for him unless it's a straight choice between him and the Tories. Meanwhile, this whole topic is specifically about Braverman and nothing at all to do with Gray/Starmer. I think you're just looking for a target to attack "on the other side" and falling into the trap of partisan thinking.

The point of bringing up Gray/Starmer is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of several posters on this topic.

The Gray/Starmer situation is very similar to the Braverman situation.

Questions are refused, vague assurances given.

Yet, apparently, Braverman should be sacked and Gray/Starmer have no case to answer.

Rich_cb wrote:

The point of bringing up Gray/Starmer is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of several posters on this topic. The Gray/Starmer situation is very similar to the Braverman situation. Questions are refused, vague assurances given. Yet, apparently, Braverman should be sacked and Gray/Starmer have no case to answer.

So, it is just whataboutism, then.

I don't agree that the Gray/Starmer situation is at all similar - there was no initial law breaking and I can't see any evidence of trying to cover up the law breaking (that didn't happen).

Braverman should be sacked due to her incompetence - not necessarily just because of this. Breaking the ministerial code is not necessarily grounds for dismissal, but often just for a warning to not do it again. However, she has shown her incompetence and lack of judgement on many other topics and I don't think she should be anywhere near government. I wouldn't trust her to manage some kids cycling to school.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I wouldn't trust her to manage some kids cycling to school.

Given her inability to drive at the speed limit, I wouldn't trust her near some kids cycling to school.

Rendel Harris wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I wouldn't trust her to manage some kids cycling to school.

Given her inability to drive at the speed limit, I wouldn't trust her near some kids cycling to school.

FTFY

Also, from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/23/civil-servants-have-to-fact-check-suella-bravermans-claims-to-cabinet

Quote:

Government sources told the Guardian Braverman has repeatedly got things wrong, including during cabinet talks about King Charles’s coronation in March and in meetings held this week on migration, in which she overstated the number of Ukrainians and Hongkongers who had come to the UK by tens of thousands.

One insider said she made “basic errors”, while another said she “keeps getting facts wrong”. After meetings with other senior ministers, the Cabinet Office was said to have had to contact officials from the Home Office, who were asked to “factcheck” her claims.

There was no such similar problem when her predecessor, Priti Patel, ran the Home Office, the Guardian was told.

I accept your correction.

There was no attempt to cover up law breaking. Now you're just being ridiculous.

She wanted the option to do the course in private. There's no suggestion she wanted to avoid the course.

There is, AFAIK, no minimum number of attendees for a course to be valid so the group element of it is not a compulsory part.

The Braverman issue was related to breaching the ministerial code, the Gray/Starmer issue is related to breaching the civil service code.

Both allegations relate to politicians not following the rules around interactions with the civil service.

In both cases the parties involved refused to answer questions on the topic.

They're directly analogous.

Rich_cb wrote:

There was no attempt to cover up law breaking. Now you're just being ridiculous. She wanted the option to do the course in private. There's no suggestion she wanted to avoid the course. There is, AFAIK, no minimum number of attendees for a course to be valid so the group element of it is not a compulsory part. The Braverman issue was related to breaching the ministerial code, the Gray/Starmer issue is related to breaching the civil service code. Both allegations relate to politicians not following the rules around interactions with the civil service. In both cases the parties involved refused to answer questions on the topic. They're directly analogous.

This is getting tedious.

She wanted a private course so that her law breaking would not be publicised amongst the other attendees i.e. cover it up or conceal it. She also specifically denied that she was speeding to journalists which in itself is not illegal, but shows clear intention to keep her law breaking hidden from as many people as possible (otherwise known as covering it up).

The group nature of speeding courses is a very important part as the attendees will interact and discuss things that they didn't realise about speeding. They don't do private courses as that would skip a key educational part of the experience. If she had asked about private courses directly, she would have been given a flat "no", but it appears she wanted to abuse her position as I can't think why she would otherwise ask the civil service to ask on her behalf. However, it could just as easily have been sheer incompetence on her part.

I completely disagree with your comparison with Gray/Starmer and won't bother continuing this discussion as it's going nowhere.

There is no compulsory group element to the speed awareness courses.

Asking for a private course is not therefore asking for any lesser punishment.

If public recognition were an important part of speed awareness courses then then the names of participants would be published. They are not, so most people are able to do them in complete anonymity as the chances of being recognised are minimal.

Your pretence that's there's no comparison with the Starmer/Gray situation is just cognitive dissonance on your part.

Both involve a senior politician and a civil servant.
Both involve an alleged breach of a code.
Both involve the direct avoidance of questioning.

Rich_cb wrote:

Your pretence that's there's no comparison with the Starmer/Gray situation is just cognitive dissonance on your part. Both involve a senior politician and a civil servant. Both involve an alleged breach of a code. Both involve the direct avoidance of questioning.

And one involved an investigation... and one won't!

Sounds like we don't have the results of that investigation though - anyone know what the hitch is?

chrisonatrike wrote:

And one involved an investigation... and one won't!

Sounds like we don't have the results of that investigation though - anyone know what the hitch is?

They didn't find anything that broke the code, so they don't want to publish it as it'll look like it was just politically motivated.

Sauce for goose etc... anyway here's the civil service reporting at the start of this month on where the matter rests.  And the Grauniad's version.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Sauce for goose etc... anyway here's the civil service reporting at the start of this month on where the matter rests.  And the Grauniad's version.

Okay, that gives more information as to Gray's reticence:

Quote:

FDA union leader Dave Penman suggested yesterday that Gray had decided not to comment publicly on the inquiry because she was focusing on the standard Advisory Committee on Business Appointments process that upholds rules on post-government jobs.

“She resigned as a civil servant; it doesn’t surprise me that she wouldn’t take part in a process when she is going through Acoba," Penman told Times Radio.

"Sue has got a right not to take part in an investigation that is being conducted under rather less clear processes. She can speak for herself or not," he said.

She also withdrew her cooperation because she found that the Cabinet Office enquiry, which was established on pretty dodgy ground anyway as there is no formal precedent for it, was using evidence that she had submitted to ACBA without her consent for it to be revealed to them. Don't blame her at all. ACBA should decide on the propiety or otherwise of her actions, as it does in all these cases, not a kangaroo court set up by the government out of spite and a desperate desire to deflect from their own misdemeanours.

Rich_cb wrote:

If you think the possible offering of a financial inducement by the Leader of the Opposition to a civil servant investigating the PM is less serious than an alleged attempt to do a speed awareness course in private then I'm not sure you've got a proper grasp on the situation.

Do stop saying "offering a financial inducement" when what you mean is offering a job, you are trying to conjure up some sort of picture of brown envelopes full of tenners being chucked at Gray to fiddle her report. Starmer has made it perfectly clear that no approach was made to ask Gray if she was interested in the job of chief of staff until after her report was published. Political leaders are perfectly entitled to enquire as to whether civil servants are interested in coming to work for them, and many civil servants have done so: Jonathan Powell left the foreign office to become Tony Blair's chief of staff in 1995, for example. Like many Tories in their current freefall, your attempts to create a deflectionary scandal really are looking rather desperate. You may wish to note, incidentally, that the Cabinet Office investigation into Ms Gray, which senior Tories briefed was going to prove that she had broken the civil service code, has been completed but the Cabinet Office minister is refusing to release it, despite the Head of the Civil Service saying that it should be. Very unusually for this government there haven't even been any links or rumours that any malfeasance was discovered. Funny that, isn't it?

A bribe would be so déclassé.
A large salary on the other hand.

When government ministers get well paid sinecures shortly after leaving office it raises eyebrows but obviously the same rules don't apply here...

Are you discussing the investigation that Gray refused to engage with?

Rendel Harris wrote:

Once again, if she has done nothing wrong and it's perfectly innocent and straightforward behaviour, why did she refuse...to answer a simple question about it?

There are clear rules for civil servants moving in to political roles. Starmer and Gray both refuse to give detailed answers about when the job offer was made and when contact between the two parties began.

Why would they be so reticent if all was above board?

Sniffer wrote:

It is odd which scandals bring down politicians. Johnson could have gone for a lack of integrity and dishonesty (sacked from previous jobs more than once for dishonesty), but it turned out that the Chris Pincher appointment that did for him.

Partygate may have brought him down in time, there are still HoC processes underway, but Sue Gray's report didn't do that.
...

Have to agree - karma operates differently at the top. Personal attributes which would have you out of many other jobs (lying, disloyalty, not taking responsibility, disinterest in the detail of your brief) turn out to be but the flip side of positives (ambition, self- belief, focus on popular appeal and ignoring the "politics" that most really don't care about). People *like* that you're different, a renegade and get up others' noses... until they don't - somehow belief disappears and your colleagues pragmatically withdraw their support.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Have to agree - karma operates differently at the top. Personal attributes which would have you out of many other jobs (lying, disloyalty, not taking responsibility, disinterest in the detail of your brief) turn out to be but the flip side of positives (ambition, self- belief, focus on popular appeal and ignoring the "politics" that most really don't care about). People *like* that you're different, a renegade and get up others' noses... until they don't - somehow belief disappears and your colleagues pragmatically withdraw their support.

Loyalty also seems to play a big part in politics. Politicians that don't display loyalty can often get themselves into top positions with some machiavellian scheming, but then when they reach the top, they suddenly find that no-one is loyal to them.

Rich_cb wrote:

I used to be less cynical but the whole Sue Gray affair has really knocked the scales from my eyes.

Gray produced a balanced and factual report; the general consensus was that if anything it was too easy on Johnson and hs colleagues for their repeated breaches of their own laws and guidelines. She then decided to leave the civil service and, perfectly legitimately as others have done before her, take up a position with a political party because it was made quite clear to her that she could not expect further advancement as she didn't fit the template of male public school Oxbridge mandarins that still largely hold sway in the higher echelons of the civil service. It would be a shame if that had made you cynical, particularly as prior to the "affair" you were so noted for your non-partisan, unbiased and politically open-minded stance on this forum. 

Alternatively, a supposedly impartial senior civil servant conducts an investigation into the most successful Conservative politician for a generation.

The result of said investigation is the end of said politician's term as PM.

Almost immediately after said investigation the civil servant is appointed to a well paid position with the political party that benefited most from her impartial investigation.

If that doesn't smell fishy to you then you don't have a nose.

Both Gray and Starter have been pretty coy about when their discussions about her role began too. Going back to your line of questioning from earlier, why not answer the questions if they've nothing to hide?

Rich_cb wrote:

Alternatively, a supposedly impartial senior civil servant conducts an investigation into the most successful Conservative politician for a generation. The result of said investigation is the end of said politician's term as PM.

What do you find factually incorrect in Gray's report? Anything? I see today Johnson has been referred to the police again for hosting friends at Chequers during lockdown, you appear to be keen to shoot the messenger. Note that the full Gray report wasn't even released until long after Johnson resigned.

More importantly, your assertion that her investigation brought down Johnson is simply untrue. Johnson resigned because huge numbers of his own ministers resigned and MPs expressed a lack of faith in him due to his failure to act over the Chris Pincher sexual assault allegations. The "Johnson was brought down for having a piece of birthday cake" narrative as favoured by his supporters is nonsense.