Hopefully that doesn't end up being the case. But she's argued herself stupidly into a position where the protest has to go wrong.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Hopefully that doesn't end up being the case. But she's argued herself stupidly into a position where the protest has to go wrong.
Isn't that her plan?
Why would she be sacked? For what? Seems to me any time someone has an opinion that isn't accepted narrative there are attempts to stymy that debate with calls of "divisiveness" or often "racism" or "something-phobia." People that use such rhetoric know they've immediately got someone over a barrell in the current climate. Then they attempt to get them sacked.
Bollocks. The worst thing she said was about homeless people and tents because the fact is it's a neglected issue, our government seems to find money for many things but not solving a problem that disgraces our nation and has done for decades so she shouldn't have used such language about tents which they don't exactly pick out of joy.
Bollocks. The worst thing she said was about homeless people and tents because the fact is it's a neglected issue, our government seems to find money for many things but not solving a problem that disgraces our nation and has done for decades so she shouldn't have used such language about tents which they don't exactly pick out of joy.
Its literally explained in a tweet a few posts up.
Yes but that's only a technical reason which is in play because of a ridiculous and unjustified furore because someone has less conventional views and airs them. So really it's about content getting shut down not a technical transgression in my view.
I mean she's violated the ministerial code, for the second time in her career I should add - the first of which meant she was forced to resign. Trivialise it all you want but she clearly has a history of subordination and ministerial misconduct.
The old I'm not a racist but...argument.
So you are saying that Braverman's views should not be shut down and she has a right to air them, whilst using that right to prevent and restrict others' right to protest?
She's the fecking Home Secretary, not writing an op ed in the Spectator.
It makes no sense for Braverman to be going for the PM role and some tories supporting her with that. She's virtually universally disliked even amongst tory voters. YouGov reckons she has 15% of people being supportive of her and that usually nosedives once people become PM.
Mr Weak.
It is woke organisations like the police that will destroy this country.
We need to bring back the blackshirts for some law and order.
We need to bring back the blackshirts for some law and order.
She’s the Home Secretary and seems to be going out of her way to incite a riot in order to further her leadership ambitions. Even in the appalling populist depths to which UK politics has sunk in the last 7 years, her Trump tactics represent a new low.
Just watched a clip of the Nadine Doris interview, does anyone know anything about Dougie Smith? Other than the parties?
What a weird take.
Thus us such a weird post. I mean I doubt she'll be sacked, but it definitely wont be because she hasn't done anything to deserve to be.
She says or does things on a weekly basis that are a legitimate reason for sacking in any semi responsible government.
And what current climate? The current climate of human rights being a thing?
hopefully braverman’s about to find out that people will only tolerate shit around them until it starts to smell. horrible cnut deserves any bad luck that comes her way.
The problem with this brand of politician is that even when they're disgraced in public office, most of them have a cushy job lined up after. BoJo, Truss, and their ilk still wield considerable pull. In olden times, they'd be put in public stocks and we'd lob rotten fruit and veg at them and they'd either be jailed or killed.
"Says or does things" is non specific. That is sentiment not substance, as are a few other replies here.
I don't think her immigration points were unwarranted. I think anyone with any logic should understand it is an issue for Britain, and one that needs addressing and someone within government really should be calling that for what it is and actually taking action instead of trying to score virtue points around it or walking on eggshells. It needs lowering from both illegal and legal routes and the government at the moment are providing smoke and mirrors rather than proper strategy for it.
I don't think her comments on the police are without foundation from my experience around protesting and the way Muslims seem to get treated by comparison. There is a certain reverence or fear there, possibly because it's a large group and a more cohesive one than other groups within Britain and hard to contain if it leads to further protests, possibly the fear of being called "Islamophobic" which is always a great tactic to stifle legitimate action by the police or anyone questioning Muslims. I don't know why it exists but it does and she's not making that up from thin air.
The homeless point was the stupid comment, but I mentioned that. It's not sack worthy but it's highly insensitive and misjudged.
The problem with her for me is not her views, most of which are based in truth but the fact I am not convinced she's actually sincere. She may just be playing certain cards for whatever personal agenda she has within government.
It's not "inciting a riot" to speak the truth. If she is telling the truth on the police, it is dutiful to say it regardless of how it is received.
Anyone that riots has personal responsibility. In fact, rioting is underreported as a whole within the mainstream media - it happens on a smaller scale regularly in Britain and that's nothing to do with Braverman. There are plenty of people ready to do it, whether it's rioting or looting or whatever nefarious deeds they can get away with. Plenty of stores have a major issue with this in certain areas...and I won't go further than that on this issue because I have a feeling the truth won't be well received but look it up for yourself.
So I wouldn't be ready to blame Braverman for the potential for that.
Well it is smelling pretty bad to me.
I have stepped away from the Israel Palestinian thread for some time now.
But despite me having different views to some others, I have utmost respect for people who choose to exercise their democratic right to go on a march to express their legitimate views about the war there. A war which I find difficult to take.
Braverman has totally and utterly failed in her job as Home Secretary.
And she knows that.
So she has chosen to stoke up hatred and anger on the streets of the UK and London in particular, especially on Armistice Day in order to try and show that she is strong and doing her job.
This is a planned strategy of hers of the most vile and despicable kind.
And just goes to show the lengths she is prepared to go to in order to justify her hatred of anyone who doesn't agree with her.
What 'truth' regarding the police is she exactly bestowing upon us? And is it appropriate for the home secretary to question the neutrality and competency of the police force? Put aside the whole culture war spiel and consider that for a moment.
And I don't understand this desperate conflation of the ceasefire protest with that of a riot. It feels as though people like Braverman and her ilk are absolutely desperate for there to be some sort of trouble to kick off, praying that some fringe idiots attack the cenotaph (despite the timings of the protest and the remembrance event not aligning, and deliberately so) just to dignify her hateful rhetoric. Her irresponsible sentiments have also no doubt galvanised some EDL types who'll now be yearning for a brawl tomorrow under disingenuous patriotic pretences.
Now you might find some parity with her views and your own and I do find that unfortunate, but nevertheless its entirely inappropriate for someone who heads the home office to offer nothing but divisive soundbites straight out of a fascist handbook. She's not some 'tell it how I see' show woman on GB news, she's supposed to be the feckin home secretary. The fact she's willing to stir the pot so provocatively during armistice day of all days in the hope of furthering her own career agenda (at the expense of the PM no less) just tells you all you need to know about her character.
That is correct and it should have been obvious that holding a protest meeting this weekend would have this effect.
The right to protest is to be valued, no 'protest' meeting should be banned, yes of course 'a protest' of any kind it will upset people of a different view, but it should not be banned.
Choosing to hold any 'protest meeting' this particular weekend however, is a poor decision from the organisers, and has to be seen as an attempt to get people like Braverman to bite, and now she has, the focus has shifted on to her agenda and given her the 'oxygen' she needs, for whatever reason(s) she has to oppose.... in another parlance, a 'perfect own-goal'.
Why is it inappropriate?
For starters its a protest calling for an armistice, on a day commemorating an armistice of all things. Its been setup to deliberately avoid the path of the cenotaph and timed so that it happens hours after the remembrance silence. The country won't come to a standstill tomorrow, with sporting events, trade, and even jollies at pubs going ahead as you'd expect on any other day. Surely the right to exercise one of the fundamental virtues of a democracy that was so hardly fought for would be deemed an appropriate right on a day which both remembers and reveres the sacrifices that helped achieve that?
Indeed, it's not like it is the first march either, they've been going on each weekend for a few weeks now.
Precisely. There seems to be this narrative that this protest was specifically set up for tomorrow of all days, as if it were a deliberate, one-time act of provocation. It was the likes of Braverman who decided to crudely conflate the timings to insinuate some sort of nefarious association. Last weekend it was a 'hate march', tomorrow its a march to 'riot' during armistice.
'Poor decision' was what I suggested not that it was inappropriate! The protest is valid but not this weekend, for the reasons I've cited. The organisers decision is doing their cause no good when it allows such as Braverman, to steal the show and that is what she has done!
I think to help the Palestinians we need to move public opinion more in their favour, more in the US obviously, but here in the UK too. I was confident that the continuing news from Gaza would go a long way to doing this, that sympathy for the Palestinian cause would grow, with Israel coming in for more criticism, and rightly so.
I was confident, not so much now. I'm sure the march organisers didn't even think of armistice day to begin with, but when they learned the significance they should have cancelled for that weekend. Not to do so is simply counter-productive in terms of public opinion. It's not about the protests being right or wrong, or whether people are entitled to protest, it's about whether the protests work or not, and, for this particular weekend, they won't.
I was confident, not so much now. I'm sure the march organisers didn't even think of armistice day to begin with, but when they learned the significance they should have cancelled for that weekend. Not to do so is simply counter-productive in terms of public opinion. It's not about the protests being right or wrong, or whether people are entitled to protest, it's about whether the protests work or not, and, for this particular weekend, they won't.
The protests have been recurring, and plan to run every weekend until there's a humanitarian resolution. Pausing it to deprive some sycophantic skidmark like Cruella of more hateful soundbites shouldn't be a reason at all, not when she evidently doesn't struggle to conjure up the usual hateful jingoism at a whim.
Yep it’s gold dust for the far right. They get to go in and be antisemitism AND islamophobic and generally ensure that chaos erupts confident in the knowledge that the finger won’t be pointed at them and instead their actions will be used for right wing political point scoring.
How is it inappropriate? This protest is calling for a ceasefire. The marches have been going on for weeks. It's not the protesters that chose the timing of Israel's bombing campaign.
Has there not been a march/protest/meeting almost each weekend since the war in Gaza.
Yes of course this Saturday 11/11 is Armistice Day.
And essentially, Armistice Day was about celebrating what was termed The End Of The War To End Wars.
Ok. I can see both sides.
You and I are plenty old enough and have both marched through the streets of London during the 1970s as part of the wide ranging Trades Unions strikes and protests. And these were chosen to have the maximum impact in order to create the maximum headlines.
Same through the main streets of Bristol city centre.
And no one was going to tell us when we could and could not march.
From what I have been told and heard, the march will not be close to the Cenotaph.
Yes in some respects, it might have been deemed best by some not to have done it tomorrow.
But from my perspective, there is a synergy between Armistice Day and protesting against what some are unhappy about the war in Gaza.
On one hand it's embarrassing Sunak claiming he still has confidence in Suella. On the other, I'm here for him not giving her what she wants and taking her down with him.
Are we allowed to talk about how much influence Braverman's Jewish husband has played in her abhorrent tone on this matter. Years ago she boasted about her husband being a "proud Zionist".
shes also gone on record in an interview saying she has close family in the IDF. That has to influence your politics
The truth is that they do favour some groups over others when it comes to protesting. Is it right to question the neutrality and competency of the police force? Yes, she's an important minister, that's exactly the type of thing she should be doing if she legitimately holds the view that they are incompetent or biased around a certain issue. I would expect our countries leaders to do that, yes. Should she wait until they've already policed the matter wrongly in her view? Maybe she felt publicising it was her only recourse, I'm not sure why she went down that route but there's nothing outrageous about the view presented.
Whether she's the best placed minister to be doing it I don't know, maybe others should be but I at least admire the fact she has the backbone to say some things that to me seem patently true but not many in government would admit. One of the reasons it won't matter what government we have, Labour or Tory is they're all spineless.
What fascist handbook? I wouldn't say there's a handbook, there's a playbook - throwing around words like "fascist" to shut down counter viewpoints. That's all she has presented while in office.
I'm not making any suggestions about the right to protest, as you have pointed out we have both taken part in marches/protests before, and its something in the UK which is a valid freedom and long may it last.
I happen to think those planning this protest got it wrong, I suspect with a large percentage of the British public, who until now have not really bothered about what is happening in the middle east, would have responded better (i.e. took notice of what is happening) if the protest leaders had said we will suspend the protest for this weekend, then continue thereafter. The publicity for the protesters cause would have been enhanced , because of the decision and thereby would have shot Braverman's fox.
The majority of the press/news vendors will ensure the public are tuning in for the wrong reasons tomorrow and God forbid if anything kicks off, then the next protest will become the 'replay' and the protesters will effectively find themselves protesting in an 'echo chamber'.
I sorry, but I don't agree that there is a relationship/synergy between a 'protest' and a 'remembrance' activity.
Do you have any evidence to backup this alleged 'truth'? And while you're at it, what are some of the things she's said you consider to be 'patently true'?
Last edited:
And I respect you enough mate to accept your disagreement and won't try to desuade you otherwise.
I too hope that things won't kick off, even though Braverman will be wanting it to.
The remembrance activity and associated traditions is on Remembrance Sunday...a whole day after the march.
The march on Saturday is timed to start at least an hour after the two minute silence, but more likely hours depending on where you are.
The march itself isn't even going past the cenotaph, so this idea that it needs to be defended is wide of the mark, and also the last few marches have gone past the cenotaph, and lo and behold, nothing has happened to it.
Lastly, the marches are happening every Saturday until there is a ceasefire in Gaza, this will be the 5th one consecutively - that's been the point behind them. The fact that tomorrow's is falling on 11/11 is purely coincidental.