- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Suella Braverman (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0/UK Government)Suella Braverman criticised by cycling campaign group for “avoiding public scrutiny” over speeding offence
London Cycling Campaign has criticised Home Secretary Suella Braverman for not taking the dangers of speeding on road seriously after she committed an offence and allegedly requested civil servants to arrange a private speed awareness course, thus looking to “avoid public scrutiny” and “dismiss the danger caused to others by speeding”.
Braverman was caught speeding in a 50mph zone last summer when she was attorney general, and given the option of accepting a fine and points on her licence or attending a speed awareness course.
According to the Sunday Times, she allegedly asked civil servants to help her to arrange a one-to-one course to avoid the embarrassment of being recognised by fellow participants. When civil servants declined to do so, she sought other options including taking an online course without revealing her identity. Ultimately, she opted to pay the fine.
road.cc reached out to London Cycling Campaign, and Simon Munk, Head of Campaigns told us about the concerns this raises for the state of safety on British roads and drivers’ attitude towards speeding and the dangers caused by it.
He said: “Surveys tell us that a majority of UK drivers admit to speeding routinely. We have an enforcement and justice system that tolerates this and more, frequently lets off dangerous, even killer drivers for tearing apart lives, families and friendship circles with little or no consequences. And all while the evidence shows speeding is one of the primary causes of serious and fatal collisions.
“Anyone in public life, let alone someone responsible for the public’s safety, attempting to stand above the public on this issue and avoid an appropriate punishment is deeply concerning. Even more concerning is that over and over again we see senior politicians and others in public life not only caught speeding, but attempting to dismiss that as an issue and often getting away with no real consequences.
“We’ve also heard from those who have attended speed awareness courses that part of the benefit of the course is having others talking about the terrible excuses they’ve given themselves for speeding and indeed offenders having to confess their own excuses to others. Trying to sidestep that to avoid public scrutiny not only misses the point of the course, it also dismisses the danger caused to others by speeding.”
More traffic trouble for the Tory Government?
News of Braverman’s offence came after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was fined for his failure to wear a seatbelt last year. Within the last year, two of Braverman’s ministers at the Home Office were banned from driving for six months. The immigration minister, Robert Jenrick, was caught driving almost 30mph over the limit and the security minister, Tom Tugendhat, was caught driving while using a mobile phone.
> Green Party: Government’s “anti-cycling narrative” creates danger for cyclists
David Ward, the executive president of the Towards Zero Foundation, which campaigns to reduce road deaths across the world, also came out in criticism of the Home Secretary, stating politicians were “normalising” breaches in road safety.
He said: “There is a worrying trend, whether its Rishi Sunak’s failure to put on a seatbelt or now Suella Braverman, when senior politicians really ought to be setting a better example.”
He added: “Going on a course in public is part of the penalty – by trying to somehow make it private, she was in effect trying to mitigate the impact. This makes it doubly complacent.”
However, notorious lawyer acclaimed for earning ‘not guilty’ verdicts for celebrities charged with driving offences and outspoken and self-proclaimed road safety expert Mr Loophole, or Nick Freeman came to Braverman’s defence.
> Mr Loophole applauds police action against "vigilante cyclists" filming law-breaking drivers
Mr Loophole said: “On occasions the course providers contacted us and said, ‘I know you’re asking for such and such, would you mind if we have the course just exclusively for that particular person?’
“The reason behind it tends to be they want people attending the course to concentrate on the contents of the course and not on the people who are actually at the course.
“So if you’ve got a world class footballer or world class actor or musician, you don’t want people looking thinking, ‘oh wow, guess who’s on my course!’, they want to be tuning into what the course is about. So there’s nothing wrong with that.”
Can Braverman be forced to resign for a speeding offence?
Meanwhile, Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), representing civil servants have released a statement: “Breaking the ministerial code doesn't appear so much to be a lapse of judgement as of a pattern of behaviour. Suella Braverman is quick to criticise civil servants when it suits her, but even quicker to ask for their help when she needs it.
“Civil servants' role is to deliver government policy not to act as her personal assistants. How many more lives will Rishi Sunak give her? This is double standards. If she was a PCS Union member she would not expect to be treated so leniently.”
The Labour leadership has also called for investigation into the claims, and demanded that she should go if she broke ministerial rules. Braverman has already breached ethics before under the short-lived Liz Truss government and had to resign as Home Secretary back then, before being reappointed by Sunak.
Besides, there's already a precedent for ministers landing in hot waters for speeding offences. In the past, Labour MP for Peterborough Fiona Onasanya was ejected from parliament by a recall petition after being found guilty of perverting the course of justice in 2018, by lying to avoid a speeding fine.
The Lib Dem minister Chris Huhne also resigned from the coalition cabinet in 2012 and ultimately served time in prison over an arrangement in which his wife had taken speeding points on his behalf 10 years earlier.
Braverman, however, has claimed that she is “confident that nothing untoward happened”.
Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after graduating with a masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Wales, and also likes to writes about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.
Latest Comments
- 3BO 5 min 23 sec ago
3BO has cracked it, shipping a product that is integrated with Whatsapp. Convenient and clever.
- Simon E 8 min 35 sec ago
Everything in moderation, my dear fellow....
- bensynnock 10 min 41 sec ago
Even a slow cyclist can seem fast to somebody who is standing still and not expecting to see a bike.
- JMcL_Ireland 1 hour 46 min ago
I absolutely stand by my criticism of Elite (note: I'm not criticising the volunteer marshals). They charge an arm and a leg for these events but...
- Destroyer666 1 hour 59 min ago
There's a lot of good stuff here, but shoe reviews are still lagging on average when comparing to for example bike or tire reviews. Specs relating...
- galibiervelo 2 hours 32 min ago
Loved the Bastion in the flesh but Lemond's bike has the soul. Nice event and met some friends and contacts but like the magazine, it does promote...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 24 min ago
Awaiting the next feckless driver asking the judge to delay the start of the sentence because "they owe a few more cyclists a proper goodbye"....
- Hirsute 4 hours 42 min ago
All in the article - road tax.
- chrisonabike 5 hours 56 min ago
Ah, but: in UK, if a motorist drives into you (or simply parks in a cycle lane, forcing you out into the path of another motorist) then the council...
Add new comment
92 comments
You've nicely swerved my question there Rendel. Care to answer it?
Gray's report was one of the final nails in the coffin of Boris'tenure as PM. Without 'partygate' he likely would have continued as PM. Once the report was out Boris was an electoral liability and the wheels were put in motion.
I have no idea what was accurate or not, I wasn't actually there.
Prior to the revelations about her contact with, and subsequent employment by, the Labour party I was happy to trust Gray's version. Now I'm much more sceptical.
Who benefits? You ought to be asking questions of Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak too!
I suspect the main reasons for his fall are down to one individual - name begins with B...
If Gray's report was in any way biased, innaccurate or untrustworthy, why did Johnson accept her findings in full, apologise and say he took full reponsibility for the wrongdoing it revealed?
In terms of your question about Starmer having nothing to hide, he has unequivocally stated that he did not approach Sue Gray with any form of job offer whilst she was involved in conducting her enquiry. You may choose to disbelieve that if you wish but in terms of "why not answer the question?" he has done so - something which Braverman, whom you are defending, refused to do eleven times yesterday in the Commons.
I'm glad that you think refusing to answer a question should raise suspicions.
"Sue Gray refuses to cooperate with inquiry into her job with Labour"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sue-gray-keir-starmer-rep...
"Sir Keir Starmer refuses ten times to say when he first approached Sue Gray over job"
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-sue-gray-chief-of-staff-refu...
Granted it's not quite 11...
Well at least all those shenanigans are over and done with now.
Oh wait...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/23/boris-johnson-referred-to-police-over-allegedly-hosting-friends-at-chequers-in-lockdown
Remember that Sue Grey chose not to investigate at least one "event" which, it seems, was probably the worst party of all of the one Boris attended in terms of breaking the rules. I mean the "ABBA party" in the flat. No one has any idea why this was not investigated. Before her links to the labour party were revealed (and before the report was published), Tory ministers and Boris were falling over themselves to say what a great person Sue Gray was and how impartial she would be. It's only when they found out they could smear her and therefore her report the tables turned.
Yes indeed, as I said earlier, the general consensus (and not only from the left) when the Gray report was published was that Johnson & co had dodged a bullet and that she could justifiably gone deeper and been harsher in her conclusions.
Ah, but Johnson can always dig a deeper hole: now we have the news stories about him putting up friends'n'relations at Chequers during lockdown restrictions...
Agree it is by no means the biggest reason she should not be in Government.
I think we can make a long list of why she is unsuitable though.
The forestry commission has asked you to stop writing that list - they just can't plant replacement trees quick enough
I imagine this type of thing goes on every day over quiet drinks after work in the private club.
Of course it does. Doesn't make it acceptable though.
Agreed. Sadly people always seem more desperate to vote for Machiavellian types than honourable, principled individuals.
As with Watergate, the cover up is worse than the crime. It is most unedifying to see a minister directly refuse to answer questions from an MP about whether or not she asked civil servants to get her a private course. Is she doesn't think it's a big issue to ask them to do this, why won't she admit that is what she did?
Trying to use civil servants to cover up something for party political purposes is a clear cut breach of the ministerial code.
And to everyone saying it doesn't count because they refused to do it needs to ask themselves why they refused to do it, and remember that a minister is responsible for the actions of their ministry and themselves.
"I offered a bribe, but it wasn't a crime because they said no"
I was on a driver awareness course just this morning. I was embarssed I got caught, don't normally speed, and first time caught on 27 years driving.
There was no AA moment where I had to stand and say, hello, l my name is Tim, and I've been a naughty boy, and nobody would have recognised her a year ago. I found that the only thing I learned is that I can speed in another county, and go on their course next week if I got caught there, but can only do it again in my county after 3 years has lapsed.
It confirmed to me that older gents think it's illegal for cyclists to ride 2 abreast, and to not use cycle lanes, and that cyclists are generally hated. Some in there had 6 points, previous 18 month bans, and that's just 2 that admitted it. Saved my license and the expense on insurance, but that's about it.
Speeding is wrong, does kill, and no excuse. However, the issue is not that she sped, but tried to cover it up
Are you Dorset based? As far as I'm aware Dorset is the only county in England and Wales that doesn't subscribe to the National Speed Awareness Scheme and so yes, you can be offered a course in Dorset and one in another county within three years, but for all other counties in England and Wales one every three years is all you can be offered. Offend twice in three years with neither offence being in Dorset and you'll have to take the points and fine for the second one.
shit, busted
The Peter Principle.
I think Suella has reached her natural tide mark in her career, now...
Not sure it applies, she was obviously incompetent long before the last promotion.
She was probably the worst AG the country has ever had.
That was my point, and my understanding of the PP - she has now failed upwards as far as she can go: she'll have to move down now...
The Peter principle states that a person who is competent at their job will earn a promotion to a position that requires different skills. If the promoted person lacks the skills required for the new role, they will be incompetent at the new level, and will not be promoted again.[1] If the person is competent in the new role, they will be promoted again and will continue to be promoted until reaching a level at which they are incompetent. Being incompetent, the individual will not qualify for promotion again, and so will remain stuck at this final placement or Peter's plateau.
My understanding is more like the above. As she has been incompetent at lower roles than Home Secretary, the Peter Principle hasn't really worked in this case.
OK - my misunderstanding and I stand corrected. Dammit!
Are they shuffling all the incompetents into position of power so that when they screw up, they can then replace all of them with the upstanding, competent politicians that they've been saving for a rainy day?
Er.... no.
I don't think the governing party has enough upstanding, competent people to form a Government left.
On one level, that fact that she was embarrassed/ashamed for it to be known she was convicted of speeding is encouraging. However it says something about her character that she sought to protect her privacy not by stumping up the cash and taking the points like anybody else, but by abusing the privilege of her office, so cheaply.
Seeing the commentary on the news, you would be forgiven for thinking that speeding isn't a crime.....
If she didn't want the embarrassment of being in the same room as us plebs, then she shouldn't have done the crime. If she had any integrity, she could have gone on the public course and maybe even spoken afterwards about what she'd learnt. Now, she's got the points and the public embarrassment - what a complete idiot.
Agreed. She could even have turned the course to her advantage: I made a mistake, and I'm paying the price just like everyone else (except offenders in Lancashire, of course)
Pages