Braverman’s letter to PM – and Sunak’s response, in full

Published

3 years ago

May 24, 2023

admin

Suella Braverman and Rishi Sunak have exchanged letters about the home secretary’s actions after she was fined for speeding last summer.

The letters come after Ms Braverman faced accusations of breaking the ministerial code by involving civil servants in her efforts to avoid a group speeding awareness course.

In a three-page letter to the prime minister, Ms Braverman laid out her version of events, and Mr Sunak responded by saying “further investigation is not necessary”.

Read the full letters below.

From Suella Braverman to Rishi Sunak

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to provide further information in relation to my receipt and handling of a speeding ticket, which has been the subject of recent media interest.

Around June 2022, while Attorney General, I was found to be speeding. I received notification that I could take a group speed awareness course or receive a fine and three points on my licence, which was clean at the time. I opted to take the course and booked a date in Autumn.

After arriving at the Home Office in September as Home Secretary, I informed officials in my Home Office Private Office (PO) about the course and asked whether it was appropriate given my new role. This reflected my lack of familiarity with protocol relating to my newly acquired official status as a ‘protected person’, which means I am required to have a close protection security team overseeing my movements, and with me always in public. This involves close protection having knowledge of and involvement in many areas of what would otherwise be considered my ‘private life’, not related to my work as a Minister or Member of Parliament.

In discussions with my Principal Private Secretary (PPS) I was advised that the Cabinet Office’s Propriety and Ethics Team (PET) would be the best source of advice on whether it was appropriate to seek to do the course in a way that protected my privacy, security, and was least disruptive to the course participants and provider. I readily agreed to this suggestion. Consequently, on 28 September 2022 my PPS discussed this with the Permanent Secretary’s Office. The Permanent Secretary’s Office, at the request of the Permanent Secretary, then asked PET for guidance (noting that their own initial view was that this was not a matter for civil servant involvement) and asked if they were aware of any precedents and for any advice. PET advised it was not an appropriate matter for civil servants to take forward. My PPS also rightly pointed out that I needed to be mindful to ensure that I did not ask a company to change their rules due to my position, which neither I, nor to the best of my knowledge anyone acting on my behalf, ever sought to do. My PPS confirmed that I could continue discussing the matter with Special Advisers, and asked them to pick up with me. I made no further requests of officials.

I therefore later engaged with Special Advisers about how we would enable my participation in a way that would maintain my security and privacy. This was to determine whether there were other options possible within the overall framework and rules of the provider.

My preference at this point, following consultation with my Special Advisers, was to attend a group course in person rather than online due to privacy concerns. Participation in a speed awareness course is supposed to be private, and Special Advisers raised concerns about the risk of me being covertly recorded while participating online, and the political ramifications of this. PO and the Permanent Secretary’s officials also had previously advised that participating online risked generating media interest.

However, Special Advisers raised concerns about the difficulties of ensuring the appropriate security arrangements for an in-person course. Their concerns included that my protective Security team might need to join me in the room or be unable to undertake appropriate vetting of other course participants owing to third party privacy concerns.

Special Advisers then contacted the course provider to better understand the range of appropriate options that might be available – and consistent with the course provider’s rules, policies and practices. Based on this further information, I concluded that none of these could satisfactorily address the aforementioned security, privacy and political concerns. I therefore opted to take the points and pay the fine, which I did in November.

I accept that I was speeding and regret doing so. At no point did I try to avoid sanction. My actions were always directed toward finding an appropriate way to participate in the speed awareness course, taking into account my new role as Home Secretary and the necessary security and privacy issues that this raised. My interactions with officials intended to provide appropriate clarification of the options available to me in my role as Home Secretary. Whenever I was informed that a possible option was not available, I accepted that. At no point did I instruct officials to behave contrary to the advice that was provided.

I considered the involvement of my Special Advisers appropriate, given the logistical, security, privacy, media, and therefore political considerations involved. I regret that my attempt to find a way to participate in the course in a manner that would have satisfied these concerns has enabled some to construe a potential conflict of interest. With hindsight, I acknowledge that the better course of action would have been to take the points and fine upfront.

The Ministerial Code sets out that Ministers must provide a list of all interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict. It does not define what should be included, but it does specify the different types of interests. These are all framed around the responsibility for avoiding a conflict of interest between Ministers’ public duties and their private interests, and tend to relate to ongoing circumstances or relationships. Recognising the importance of integrity and transparency, I approach my declarations with great care and consideration.

The purpose of the form is to declare anything which might interfere, or be perceived to interfere, with a Minister’s integrity when making decisions in the public interest. I did not consider that a speeding infringement or attending a speed awareness course, needed to be disclosed. It is not an ongoing situation with the potential to influence my decisions. In general, minor driving offences tend to be excluded from official forms. For example, barristers are not required to inform the regulator of minor speeding infractions; similarly, these are excluded if you are asked about any criminal history when you apply for a visa to the UK, or in the annual security questions asked of civil servants in the Home Office with heightened security clearance. I note that PET has, since November 2022, introduced references to fixed penalty notices in their introductory discussions with new ministers, recognising that the position was unclear given these are not currently explicitly covered by Ministerial interest forms. I am grateful for this clarity, and in the future would declare any similar speeding course or fine.

As I outlined, I informed my officials of the speeding and driving course, and the Permanent Secretary’s office was involved in the conversations as described above, determining whether it was appropriate for civil servants to engage with the security and logistics of me attending this course. It was never suggested by anyone in my PO or the Permanent Secretary’s Office that I needed to disclose the situation on an updated form. I also understand that, despite being aware of events at the time, at no point did the Permanent Secretary or Cabinet Office suggest that my actions resulted in a conflict of interest or merited any investigation.

I am deeply committed to all the Nolan Principles of Public Life, including honesty, integrity and openness, and I regret that these events have led some to question my commitment. I have at all times been truthful and transparent, and taken decisions guided by what I believed was right and appropriate given my office, not by any personal motivation. Another principle, of course, is leadership: Ministers must hold themselves – and be seen to hold themselves – to the highest standards. I have always strived, and will continue to strive, to do this.

As I say, in hindsight, or if faced with a similar situation again, I would have chosen a different course of action. I sought to explore whether bespoke arrangements were possible, given my personal circumstances as a security-protected Minister. I recognise how some people have construed this as me seeking to avoid sanction – at no point was that the intention or outcome. Nonetheless, given the fundamental importance of integrity in public life, I deeply regret that my actions may have given rise to that perception, and I apologise for the distraction this has caused.

I hope this clearly sets out my involvement in this matter and provides you with all relevant information. Should you require any further information, I will of course be happy to provide it.

Yours sincerely,

Suella Braverman

From Rishi Sunak to Suella Braverman

Dear Home Secretary,

Thank you for your letter and for your time discussing these matters with me.

Integrity, professionalism and accountability are core values of this Government and it is right and proper that where issues are raised these are looked at professionally to ensure the appropriate course of action is taken.

I have consulted with my Independent Adviser. He has advised that on this occasion further investigation is not necessary and I have accepted that advice. On the basis of your letter and our discussion, my decision is that these matters do not amount to a breach of the Ministerial Code.

As you have recognised, a better course of action could have been taken to avoid giving rise to the perception of impropriety.

Nevertheless, I am reassured you take these matters seriously. You have provided a thorough account, apologised and expressed regret.

It is vital that all those in Government maintain the high standards the public rightly expects. I know you share this view, just as we are committed to delivering on the issues that matter to the British people – from making our streets safer and reducing net migration to stopping the boats.

Yours ever,

Rishi Sunak

World

What we learned from the latest release of Epstein files

Published

6 hours ago

December 24, 2025

admin

What we learned from the latest release of Epstein files

A trove of newly released Epstein files include emails that appear to involve Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, while another suggests Donald Trump travelled on the billionaire’s private jet “many more times than previously has been reported”.

The US Department of Justice released at least 11,000 more files on Tuesday.

It went on to claim that some of them “contain untrue and sensationalist claims” about President Trump.

Here are some of the latest news lines from this release of Epstein files. Being named in these papers does not suggest wrongdoing.

Who is ‘The Invisible Man’?

Among the documents released is an email sent to Ghislaine Maxwell that speaks about “the girls” being “completely shattered” at a Royal Family summer camp at Balmoral.

It is dated 16 August 2001 and sent by a person referred to only as “The Invisible Man”, but whom Sky News is reporting appears to be the former prince, Andrew.

We have come to that conclusion from reviewing the email address used, which is assigned to the Duke of York in Epstein’s contacts book and the chain of correspondence.

In the correspondence, “The Invisible Man” asks Maxwell: “How’s LA? Have you found me some new inappropriate friends?”

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has previously denied any allegations against him.

The Peru trip

Another email appears to show Maxwell arranging “two-legged sight seeing” for “The Invisible Man” during a trip to Peru.

She appears to forward to “The Invisible Man” part of a conversation between herself and another person.

The email says: “I just gave Andrew your telephone no. He is interested in seeing the Nazca lines. He can ride but it is not his favorite sport ie pass on the horses.”

“Some sight seeing some 2 legged sight seeing (read intelligent pretty fun and from good families) and he will be very happy. I know I can rely on you to show him a wonderful time and will only introduce him to friends that you can trust,” Maxwell said.

The context of the email is unclear and there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing.

Trump on Epstein’s jet?

The latest bunch of files also includes an email from an unidentified prosecutor dated 7 January, 2020, in which President Trump is mentioned.

The email accuses him of travelling on Epstein’s private jet “many more times than previously has been reported”.

It adds that President Trump “is listed as a passenger on at least eight flights between 1993 and 1996, including at least four flights on which Maxwell was also present”.

The email’s sender and receiver have been redacted. However, at the bottom of the email it says assistant US attorney, Southern District of New York. The name has also been redacted.

President Trump has denied any wrongdoing in relation to his relationship with Epstein, and being on any of Epstein’s flights does not indicate any wrongdoing.

Limousine driver report about Trump

One of the documents in the release shows a report made to the FBI that was recorded on 27 October 2020.

It includes an unverified claim by a limousine driver that he overheard the US president discussing “abusing some girl” in 1995.

The driver also mentions Trump said “Jeffrey” while on the phone during a journey to Dallas Fort Worth Airport in Texas.

A significant part of the statement, along with the driver’s identity, has been redacted.

The US justice department has said that some of the documents in the latest Epstein files release “contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election”.

“To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already,” it said.

Postcard mentions ‘our president’

Also among the documents is a postcard that claims to have been sent by Jeffrey Epstein, but has been refuted by the justice department.

In it, the sender tells the recipient: “Our president also shares our love of young, nubile girls.”

It’s not clear who “our president” refers to and the context of the postcard is also unclear.

The US justice department initially said it was “looking into the validity” of the postcard but later said on X that the “FBI has confirmed” the postcard is “FAKE”.

It cited reasons including a claim that the writing does not appear to match Epstein’s and another that the letter was postmarked three days after his death.

Row over unreleased documents

It is believed that many files relating to Epstein are yet to be made public.

There has been anger at the justice department’s slow release of the files, with politicians threatening to launch legal action against Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The deadline for the release of all the documents has passed.

“The DOJ needs to quit ⁠protecting the rich, powerful, and politically connected,” Republican congressman Thomas Massie said.

World

‘No one is here to help us’: Palestinians watch as Israeli diggers tear down homes in East Jerusalem

Published

12 hours ago

December 23, 2025

admin

'No one is here to help us': Palestinians watch as Israeli diggers tear down homes in East Jerusalem

A balcony of onlookers stare as three diggers gnaw at the four-storey building that was a fixture of their daily view.

The roads of Silwan’s Wadi Qaddom neighbourhood are blocked off by Israeli police as residents watch the demolition in the valley from every vantage point. The block of flats was home to around 100 of their neighbours – many of them are now homeless.

An elderly woman sits at the bus stop near the police checkpoint closest to the demolition site. As she walks back down the hill, she looks back at the destruction. Her cheeks are red with anger when she hails that God is their only protection.

“Where are the Arab countries? No one is here to help us,” she exclaims.

Of the 230 buildings demolished in East Jerusalem’s Palestinian neighbourhoods in 2025, the block of roughly 13 flats is considered to be the largest and took 12 hours to completely demolish.

The building was without a permit, like many in Silwan, and stood on land that was not licensed for residential use. The residents were challenging long-standing demolition orders and applying for licensing when diggers arrived at dawn.

The Jerusalem Municipality said the demolition of the building in Silwan was based on a 2014 court order, and that residents were granted extensions for the execution of the order and were offered various options in order to find a solution, but they declined to do so.

But an architect and urban planner from the Israeli NGO Bimkom (Planners for Planning Rights) – which is supporting the families in their bid to license the land of the building – says their time to act was cut short.

“They were told that the demolition order would be implemented, and then they would get another six months’ recourse to try to continue with their planning. Six months is not enough for these planning processes. They take a long time,” Sari Kornish tells us in front of the Jerusalem Municipality after meeting with the building residents’ lawyer there.

Are permits granted for Palestinians in East Jerusalem?

“Very, very few, and in recent years, since October 7, less and less,” says Sari.

“It has always been discrimination. It has always been not enough.”

Far-right minister of national security Itamar Ben-Gvir posted on X about the building’s demolition.

He said: “Proud to lead the policy of demolishing illegal buildings – not only in the Negev, this morning in East Jerusalem (Silwan neighbourhood) a building that was built illegally and 100 people lived in it – was demolished! Strengthens the police and the district commander.”

Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank is illegal under international law.

On Sunday, Israel’s far-right finance minister Bezalel Smotrich announced that the security cabinet approved 19 new Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Half a million Israeli settlers currently live in the West Bank, and over 230,000 live in East Jerusalem, where some are taking over homes instead of seizing land.

At least 500 Palestinians have lost their homes to lack-of-permit demolitions in East Jerusalem, and at least 1,000 people, including 460 children, are at risk of forced displacement from eviction cases filed against them in Israeli courts by settler organisations.

In the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Batn al Hawa in Silwan, Zuhair al Rajabbi looks out from his balcony at the homes of his neighbours.

The landscape is marked by demolition sites, and former homes of his neighbours are marked by Israeli flags. Settlers are busy renovating the rooftops to make their own.

“They have five children, and a grandmother was in one room. Downstairs, there was a family of seven children, with the wife and mother, in that one,” he says, pointing at the roof of his neighbours.

As we watch, a woman quietly mops the dirty water into a hole in the fence and onto the roof of the house next door.

“Look, they are even putting the dirty water on our neighbour’s roof,” Zuhair says with a sad bitterness.

“We used to live together like we live here at home – eating and drinking with them. It makes me sad when I see their home disappearing.”

World

Russia launches major deadly missile and drone attack on Ukraine

Published

18 hours ago

December 23, 2025

admin

Russia launches major deadly missile and drone attack on Ukraine

Russia launched a major overnight missile and drone attack on Ukraine that killed at least three people – including a four-year-old child.

Officials say Russia fired more than 650 drones and three dozen missiles in an assault that began during the night and stretched into daylight hours Tuesday.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the barrage struck homes and the power grid in 13 regions across Ukraine, causing widespread outages in bitter temperatures.

It comes a day after he described recent progress towards a peace deal as “quite solid”.

The bombardment demonstrated Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intention of pursuing the invasion of Ukraine, Mr Zelenskyy said in an online post.

Ukrainian and European officials have said Putin is not sincerely engaging with US-led peace efforts.

The attack “is an extremely clear signal of Russian priorities,” Mr Zelenskyy said.

“A strike before Christmas, when people want to be with their families, at home, in safety. A strike, in fact, in the midst of negotiations that are being conducted to end this war. Putin cannot accept the fact that we must stop killing.”

US President Donald Trump has for months been pressing for a peace agreement, but the negotiations have become entangled in the very different demands from Moscow and Kyiv.

US envoy Steve Witkoff described talks in Florida with Ukrainian and European representatives as “productive and constructive”.

Trump was less effusive on Monday, saying, “The talks are going along.”

Initial reports from Ukrainian emergency services said the child died in Ukraine’s northwestern Zhytomyr region, while a drone killed a woman in the Kyiv region, and another civilian death was recorded in the western Khmelnytskyi region, according to Mr Zelenskyy.

Russia launched 635 drones of various types and 38 missiles, Ukraine’s air force said. Air defences stopped 587 drones and 34 missiles, it said.

Polish and allied fighter jets were deployed after the Russian airstrikes towards western Ukraine, near Poland’s border.

“Fighter jets were scrambled, and ground-based air-defence and radar reconnaissance systems were put on heightened readiness,” the operational command of Poland’s armed forces said.

It was the ninth large-scale Russian attack on Ukraine’s energy system this year and left multiple regions in the west without power, while emergency power outages were in place across the country, acting Energy Minister Artem Nekraso said. Work to restore power would begin as soon as the security situation permitted, he said.

Ukraine’s largest private energy supplier, DTEK, said the attack targeted thermal power stations in what it said was the seventh major strike on the company’s facilities since October.

DTEK’s thermal power plants have been hit more than 220 times since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022. Those attacks have killed four workers and wounded 59.

Authorities in the western regions of Rivne, Ternopil and Lviv, as well as the northern Sumy region, reported damage to energy infrastructure or power outages after the attack.

In the southern Odesa region, Russia struck energy, port, transport, industrial and residential infrastructure, according to regional head Oleh Kiper.

A merchant ship and over 120 homes were damaged, he said.