Suella the Brave

(Photograph: David Woolfall, CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

In the aftermath of her Wednesday piece in The Times (‘Police must be even-handed with protests’), there’s every likelihood that Suella Braverman’s stint as Home Secretary could be coming to an end. As Rishi Sunak deliberates on whether to sack her, it’s important to note that such a dismissal will only nominally be down to what she wrote, and entirely due to what she has failed to do – lie. Like all weak leaders, Sunak is caught between the Scylla and Charybdis of public opinion: should he support her honesty and look weak to his critics, or sack her and appear weak to the nation? Again, like all weak leaders, Sunak can almost certainly be relied upon to make the wrong choice – perhaps he should take up smoking to calm his nerves (assuming any shopkeepers can be convinced he looks over 14).

Criticising the police is hardly anything new for those in government, neither is the expression of concern at the events about to unfold during Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday in the capital. And yet, chief hypocrite in City Hall, Sadiq Khan, managed to shrug off his recent bout of laryngitis to lambast Braverman for ‘interfering with the police’. Sure Sadiq, remind us all who sacked Cressida Dick?

Then of course there’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who one assumes would have the final say on what goes ahead on Saturday. Having summoned Met Chief Sir Mark Rowley to his desk on Tuesday for a severe wigging (which one might tentatively construe as criticism), Sunak was left with egg on his face as Rowley refused to ban the pro-Palestine march. In history’s greatest climbdown from a Number 10 highchair, a snookered Sunak has promised to hold Rowley ‘to account’ – which in short translates as “it ain’t my fault when the Shiite hits the fan, guvnor.”

And last but not least, we have Sir Mark Rowley himself – a man who only earlier this year complained that the police had been ‘too permissive’ regarding officers with criminal records. So, what exactly is the takeaway here? The only person not allowed to criticise the Old Bill or voice an opinion about these terrorist marches, is the person charged with the defence of the nation – and the one who thinks we ought to do something about them?

Certainly, we’ve all heard Suella’s political enemies up in arms at what she has said – but why exactly is that news? Shouldn’t we be more concerned if they thought she was doing a great job? Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, has called for Braverman’s head, insisting that her comments were “encouraging extremists on all sides”, instead of merely the nice ones who vote Labour. “Half the party has told the PM to sack her,” claims a former cabinet minister – but with a ‘Conservative’ Party stuffed to the gills with pinkos, where’s the shock in that? And then there’s inveterate wankers like Piers Morgan, who routinely piss themselves just to gauge which way the wind is blowing: “Quite frankly she’s become a disgrace to her government and our country.”

https://x.com/PiersUncensored/status/1722709977859494030?s=20

Yes, thanks for that insight, Piers.

For the record, this is what Braverman actually said:

Unfortunately, there is a perception that senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protesters. During Covid, why was it that lockdown objectors were given no quarter by public order police yet Black Lives Matters demonstrators were enabled, allowed to break rules and even greeted with officers taking the knee?

Right-wing and nationalist protesters who engage in aggression are rightly met with a stern response yet pro-Palestinian mobs displaying almost identical behaviour are largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law? I have spoken to serving and former police officers who have noted this double standard.

According to The Guardian, this is the most ‘provocative’ part of the article, because it accuses the police of being biased. But even that is not accurate. Braverman merely states that there is a ‘perception’ of bias; she cites incontrovertible evidence and notes the agreement of former officers. In other words, she didn’t go nearly far enough.

Of course the police play favourites with groups they come into contact with, and have done for a considerable period. You cannot fill-in as teaboys for Just Stop Oil, offer ad-hoc blowjobs to BLM rioters, and run police stations as grooming cafes, only to send in the riot police for lockdown protestors and think no one will notice. The surprise isn’t that Braverman has finally pointed it out, but that the Met senior management from Rowley down haven’t already been sacked en masse.

Opposition to the ‘hate marchers’ is far from an extreme position, either. The latest polling indicates that at least half of the public believe this weekend’s march should be banned (against just a third who think it should go ahead), and a whopping 72% of the public don’t think she should be sacked. Not only is Braverman’s opinion mainstream – if you disagree with her, it’s you who’s likely to be the extremist. Furthermore, as Home Secretary, defence of the realm, responsibility for policing, and dealing with agitant scumbags is precisely her brief – is the Home Office minister supposed to look the other way, or lie about her feelings?

True to form, the police response to this weekend’s pro-Palestine marches has been shameful. Rowley has repeatedly lied about not having the powers to shut them down, and doggedly refused the opportunity to request government do just that. He claims there is “insufficient intelligence” of a risk to public disorder, despite the obvious panic at Scotland Yard. Police leave has been cancelled, thousands of extra officers have been called in, and war veterans are reportedly being advised not to wear their medals. The Met have even started apologising for their handling of the situation before the fiasco unfolds this weekend.

My one criticism of Braverman is that this conflict with the Met should have been handled ages ago. It was clear that the police were far from up to the task against BLM, refused to implement stop and search, and have aided and abetted the eco agitators. A staunch Home Secretary should have insisted these issues be dealt with, and resigned in protest when they were not.

For now, we can only pray the weekend passes by with a semblance of decency and decorum from all concerned. As for Rishi Sunak, a dismissal of a decent minister for telling the truth will be the final nail in his Gucci coffin. Instead of sacking Suella, he should be sacking the likes of Rowley, Khan, Chancellor Jeremy, and every other Hunt in the Cabinet like him.

Frank Haviland is the Editor of The New Conservative, and the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West.

If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!