Talk:Suella Braverman

'Controversy' section added 6 April 2023

I am deleting the section added recently, for various reasons: 1) There should not be a separate ‘controversy’ section – any inf about Ms Braveman’s attitude to grooming gangs should be a subpara to the ‘Political and legal positions’ section 2)The main source is an article by Ella Cockbain in the Guardian. This is an opinion piece, and therefore not suitable as a source. 3) The other sources do not feature as reliable sources on RSP So – if information on this aspect of Braverman’s views is to be added, non-opinion sources from recognised reliable sources should be used. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It is important to note that several reliable and recognized sources, including Aljazeera, Middle East Eye, Dawn, The Independent and Anadolu Agency, have reported on this topic. None of these sources are considered opinion sources, making their reporting a valuable and credible contribution to the discussion. In addition, the criticism of Dr. Ella Cockbain, an associate professor of crime science of the Gaurdian, and former chief prosecutor Nazir Afzal should be noted, as it brings a valid and notable perspective to the discussion. Her comments have sparked outrage on social media, and Pakistan has condemned her remarks. Given the importance and relevance of these viewpoints and reactions, the controversy section is necessary and relevant. It belongs on Wikipedia and will stay here.

I have also provided an additional sources of the The Independent and News International, both of them are authentic news report and not an opinion piece. StarkReport (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Some of this material might find a home as a subsection within "Political and legal positions", but as written it is an over excited coatrack which is WP:UNDUE and confuses opinions with facts and so certainly doesn't meet WP:NPOV. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, as I said before, any material on this matter should not be under a separate section called ‘Controversy’: many of Ms Braverman’s views are controversial, and if we include anything about this, it should be in a subpara under the Political and legal positions section.

Secondly, there is no foundation for the opening statement ‘Suella Braverman caused an uproar….’ The paucity of coverage on this shows that hardly anybody is interested. (David Blunkett responded in a letter to the Guardian [1] referring to her ‘completely unwarranted attack on Labour in relation to child sexual abuse ‘ i.e. his complaint is that Ms Braverman is using the grooming gangs scandal as a political stick to beat Labour with. I am not suggesting that we refer to Mr Blunkett’s view in our article.)

The source The News International appears to be a publication in Pakistan i.e. not Rupert Murdoch’s outfit.

The only serious source is the Independent. This does not say that anyone was outraged. The bits which seem to me to be most relevant are: [Braverman said:]“We’ve seen institutions and state agencies, whether it’s social workers, teachers, the police, turn a blind eye to these signs of abuse out of political correctness, out of fear of being called racists, out of fear of being called bigoted.” and Sir Peter Wanless, NSPCC chief executive, welcomed the government’s focus on tackling child abuse but also stressed that race should not be the sole focus on the issue.

So even the NSPCC is not outraged – in fact, they welcome the government’s focus on tacking child abuse.

My conclusion is that this incident is not significant enough to be included in our article.

Sweet6970 (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I would broadly agree with most of that, but don't want to leap to the conclusion that there is nothig salvageable here. Most of the reporting is just republishing outraged tweets, but there may be useful nuggets buried in the dross that could be included in a suitable subsection of the Political and legal positions section. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Boris Johnson has a Starmer slur controversy section just because of a minor backlash. And wrong, it does not belong in Political and legal positions, because everyone is against those child abusers and as they should be. We are talking about Braverman's statement that were pointed elsewhere and were enough to cause controversy. It is important to accurately represent notable controversies in the public figure's life, and this particular incident should not be dismissed as a minor backlash or lumped into a broader section. This controversy has gained international attention, with Pakistan itself condemning the remarks as hateful and racist. NSPCC did talk about her remarks with strong disapproval.

I concur that the section in question would benefit from some revisions, particularly as noted by @Sweet6970 regarding the phrasing of "Suella Braverman caused an uproar." but the section is apt and to the point. StarkReport (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see any noteworthy controversy in the report in the Independent, which is the most significant source in the deleted wording. If this was a noteworthy event, there would be more coverage in the British media. WP:NOTNEWS, and this has barely made it to the news. I do not think it is appropriate to include material on this in our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

"Tory peer urges Sunak to distance party from Braverman’s ‘racist rhetoric’" seems worthy of mention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I see that there has been some further comment on this, though I'm not yet convinced that it is worth mentioning in our article. Do you have a suggested wording? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Anther source: [2]. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

Can we have a different image than the current one? There are many available here: c:Category:Suella_Braverman. Dympies (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2023

Change “AS” to “As” at the start of the second paragraph in the Immigration section. ErlandCooperHusband (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Czello ^(music) 12:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Complaints in "Immigration" section

Instead of appending as is normal in Talk, I am editing the proposed text to try and get it right in a less cumbersome way; see History of Talk for previous iterations. If this is considered unacceptable I won't continue this way. pol098

There has been to-and-fro about complaints of "racist sentiments and discriminatory narratives", with correct summaries per WP:BLP as that was only part of the reason given for the referral - NPOV requires the full context to be given and per WP:BLP as this is not the whole reason given in the source. Is the following wording considered acceptable for the Immigration section, with a brief summary in misconduct? If not it can be edited to improve it. It gets a bit wordy with full context.

In 2022, as Home Secretary, Braverman referred to people reaching the UK by crossing the Channel in small boats as an 'invasion'. Braverman's comments attracted criticism from an 83-year-old Holocaust survivor who in January 2023 accused Braverman of using language akin to Nazi rhetoric. Braverman stood by her comments and declined to apologise, stating: "We have a problem with people exploiting our generosity, breaking our laws and undermining our system."

In response to these comments and others about sexual grooming gang members being predominantly British-Pakistani men who "hold cultural values totally at odds with British values", nine organisations—London Muslim Community Forum, Natasha Lloyd Owen and Chiara Maddocks - Co-chairs of the Society of Labour, Lawyers Crime Group, Society of Asian Lawyers, Association of Muslim Lawyers, Muslim Lawyers Action Group, Luton Council of Mosques – 23 Muslim organisations, Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, and Sunni Council of Mosques—wrote a letter to the Bar Standards Board in May 2023 about their deep concern that Braverman (a barrister before becoming an MP, and still subject to certain professional rules governing conduct despite not practising as a barrister since 2015) had breached the body's code of conduct with "racist sentiments and discriminatory narratives". The letter urges the Board to investigate and take action against what they claim is racist and inflammatory language used by the home secretary about British men of Pakistani heritage and asylum seekers, citing their view that three Bar Council code of conduct rules were breached: CD5 - behaving in a way which is likely to diminish trust and confidence, C8 - conduct which the public may reasonably perceive as undermining honesty, integrity or independence, and C12 - a breach of the instruction not to discriminate against any other person on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic or national origin or other grounds.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) Pol098 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

It's more complete now, but still needs to list the nine organisations which lodged the complaint - without naming them it is nothing but weasel words. Also, the 'Imigration' section isn't appropriate for this as it is not solely imigration related. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the previous brief wording is better: As a result of her comments, Braverman was referred to the Bar Standards Board in May 2023 by nine organisations which claim that she has breached the code of a barrister due to alleged "racist comments and discriminatory narratives". The proposed wording above is, in itself, more informative, but because of its length, it gives the impression that a major investigation is underway, whereas we don’t even know if the Bar Standards Board is treating this as a serious complaint – the story only comes from the complainants. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

(Editing rather than appending may not be a good idea. I had edited the text, and my edit crossed with the previous addition, which I haven't yet considered. I wrote the following before Sweet6970's contribution) Thanks. Text now amended per previous comment. I didn't think the sectioning was right, and will look to changing it. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I've edited the suggested text to reflect the actual letter, not news reports about it. It's a letter, not a formal complaint, expressing views. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Not "Immigration", in Allegations section add subsection "Statements deemed racist"? I'll put it in, it can be edited or removed. Pol098 (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

A comment about sources: text has been criticised as relying significantly on a WP:primary source, which Wikipedia deplores. As the text is explicitly about "a letter saying ...", the best source in this case is the letter (primary) itself. My personal opinion is that the primary source guideline is quite inappropriate here; I invoke WP:Ignore all rules, and am considering removing "non-primary source needed". I'd also comment that in this particular case (and many others) the WP:secondary sources are inferior. Reading the letter, it is quite clearly putting forth opinions; while a "complaint" (natter) in ordinary usage, the implication of the word is a formal complaint invoking a standard procedure. All the news media reports (nice secondary sources, not just the POV-accused Guardian) use words that to me imply that a formal procedure has been invoked, with specific breaches reported and accusations made which must be investigated; I agree that they are unreliable sources for the fine detail. Actually the letter alleges that SB said certain things, the only actual allegation, clearly true as widely reported. It is then worded indicating that the signatories' opinion is that SB's remarks were racist and breached rules, with no allegations as such. There is no explicit allegation or accusation of law- or rule-breaking, just "it is our opinion" (correct me if I misremember). Apologies for the rant; I slept badly last night, and kept myself awake thinking these thoughts. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The interpretation of primary sources should be supported by only secondary sources to ensure we avoid OR and undue weight. Opinions which the secondary sources will inevitably introduce should be carefully attributed and, where appropriate, balanced with alternative opinions from other secondary, per WP:NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

1) I agree with DeFacto that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources.

2) Pol098 says above that the letter is putting forth opinions, rather than a formal complaint. But the way the text currently reads, with details of the code of conduct rules allegedly breached, makes it look like a formal complaint. And the section heading is Complaint to the Bar Standards Board. So I think that our current wording is misleading. I would still prefer the much briefer previous wording.

3) As a practical matter, it would be better to list the names of the organisations in a footnote.

Sweet6970 (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Alleged breach of the ministerial code

Could someone add the links to Laurie Magnus (executive), National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme and possibly also Speed limits by country? Thank you. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I’ve added links for Magnus and the offender retraining scheme. I think the Speed limits by country is irrelevant and over the top. Thanks for suggesting these links. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It's hardly irrelevant, but probably not needed here. Many thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Far-right politics

I think it is important to critically examine Suella's far-right association with certain political ideologies and her stance on migration and progressive values in the UK. In the introduction, it would be beneficial to provide a balanced and nuanced perspective, mentioning how her rhetoric is often referred to as far-right by many scholars and journalists. In discussing Suella's political positions, it's essential to provide specific examples and evidence to support the claims made. Mentioning her statements, speeches, or legislative actions would strengthen your argument. A few academic [3] [4] and journalistic references [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Any thoughts? Aimilios92 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)