Connect with us

Published

on

Suella Braverman and Tory critics of the police are undermining public confidence in law enforcement and eroding trust in Britain’s system of democracy, according to heated WhatsApp exchanges among Conservative MPs leaked to Sky News.

The true scale of the civil war between Tory MPs over the policing of pro-Palestinian marches and behaviour of the home secretary is tonight revealed in dozens of private messages between them which lift the lid on a far greater scale of discontent in the party than is currently playing out in public.

The angry WhatsApp debate has led to angry exchanges between figures who both back and oppose Ms Braverman, with some accusing her Tory critics of helping Labour, while others are accused of inflaming the far right.

Politics latest: Sunak considers whether to sack Braverman

In one exchange, the Tory MP Karl McCartney attacked Bob Neill, the Tory MP who went public with his criticism of Mrs Braverman, saying he and other critics of the home secretary would be getting Christmas cards from the Labour shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper.

“You stretch our patience,” Mr McCartney declared.

On the other side of the debate, Jackie Doyle-Price said that Tory MPs should not ignore the fact there is a legitimate right to protest and added: “Colleagues making noise about them are simply advertising them and make them bigger as a consequence.”

More on Conservatives

She later told Sky News she was more concerned about advertising the marches to the English Defence League and hard right “to kick up trouble”.

She said: “I wish as much attention was paid to my speeches as my WhatsApp messages.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Braverman asked if she will resign

Danny Kruger, the socially conservative MP and strong backer of Ms Braverman, weighed in firmly behind the home secretary.

He said it was entirely legitimate for the government and Tory MPs to comment on how the police operate.

“Ofc [of course] if they did enforce the law – eg against face coverings or racist changes – there would be serious disorder, and so they’d have a reason to request a ban. The only way to avoid disorder is to tolerate the intolerable, to allow the illegal.”

He said that it was no longer enough to have a “quiet word” with the police when there were issues and instead advocated for “proper challenge”.

The veteran Tory MP Bernard Jenkin made a firm intervention in the group against public criticism by Conservatives of the police, receiving support from a number of his colleagues.

Mr Jenkin, who has been a Tory MP since 1992, asked colleagues if he was the only one “who thinks it is it most unfortunate that the chief of Met Police is being placed under pressure from the government, which threatens to compromise public confidence in his operational independence?”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Braverman used words I wouldn’t have used’

Read more:
Braverman meets Met chief amid Tory row over protest article
Met releases details for ‘significant’ operation across Remembrance weekend
Chancellor distances himself from Braverman’s criticism of Met

It comes following Ms Braverman’s explosive article in The Times on Wednesday, in which she accused the Met Police of having “double standards” on how it policed protests.

The testy exchange began when Jackie Doyle-Price, who served in government under David Cameron and Theresa May, argued with Sir John Hayes about whether protesting is a right or allowed.

Sir John is an arch-backer of Ms Braverman.

He said it was “so sad to see protests being allowed on the Remembrance weekend”.

Sir John said it was “wholly inappropriate” – and called on colleagues to “speak for the law-abiding, patriotic majority by saying so”.

Ms Doyle-Price emphasised protesting was a right and not something to be “allowed”.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Some of those siding with Sir John included Danny Kruger, Michael Fabricant, Jill Mortimer and Mr McCartney.

William Wragg agreed with Mr Jenkin, as did Ms Doyle-Price, Tim Loughton and Mr Neill.

“I’ve had enough of this rubbish”, William Wragg said following the debate.

This was preceded by a warning not to conduct this discussion on WhatsApp because “some colleagues are untrustworthy disgraceful leakers”.

The messages leaked to Sky News are from a Tory MP WhatsApp group and were sent yesterday and today.

Ms Doyle-Price advised MPs to “express their views to whips and to the home secretary directly”, while Ms Mortimer warned about colleagues leaking messages sent on WhatsApp.

Tory MPs' WhatsApps on Braverman
Tory MPs' WhatsApps on Braverman
Tory MPs' WhatsApps on Braverman
Leaked Tory MPs' WhatsApps
Leaked Tory MPs' WhatsApps
Leaked Tory MPs' WhatsApps
Tory MPs' WhatsApps on Braverman
Leaked Tory MPs' WhatsApps
Leaked Tory MPs' WhatsApps
Leaked Tory MPs' WhatsApps
Tory MPs' WhatsApps on Braverman
Tory MPs' WhatsApps on Braverman

Full WhatsApp exchanges

Here are the messages between Tory MPs that have been leaked to Sky News:

Wednesday 8 November

Sir John Hayes (22:55): So sad to see protests being allowed on the remembrance weekend. Wholly inapproriate (sic)… and we should speak for the law abiding, patriotic majority by saying so.

Thursday 9 November

Jackie Doyle-Price (09.07): There is a right to protest. They are not “allowed”. Colleagues making noise about them are simply advertising them and will make them bigger as a consequence.

Sir John Hayes (09:23): They have been “allowed” by the Chief Constable, who could have requested that they be stopped.

The legal right to protest has always been qualified by when, where and how, which is why organisers routinely deal with the police and local authorities.

Surely, most of our constituents will regard the remembrance weekend as a time for quiet, solemn reflection.

Sir Bernard Jenkin (09:28): Am I the only Conservative MP who thinks it is most unfortunate that Chief of Met Police is being placed under public pressure from the government, which threatens to compromise public confidence in his operational independence?

If he does now ban demonstrations, some will say he has given in to political pressure.

These conversations should be conducted in private, without undermining public confidence in policing in London.

William Wragg (09:29): No, you’re not the only one.

Danny Kruger (09:31): I didn’t notice us all staying quiet when the cops dragged off women at the Sarah Everard vigil, or allowed BLM to demonstrate with impunity. Ofc we and govt should comment on how the police operate. And note Home Sec isn’t calling for Met to request a ban (tho they should imo), just to enforce the law.

(09:35): (Ofc, if they did enforce the law – eg against face coverings or racist chants – there would be serious disorder, and so they’d have a reason to request a ban. The only way to avoid disorder is to tolerate the intolerable, to allow the illegal).

Jackie Doyle-Price (09:39): No you are not.

John Stevenson (09:39): Absolutely not.

Jonathan Djanogly (09:48): Police can’t ban protests. They can however place restrictions on them. The Everard case gave rise to the question arising when the placing of restrictions effectively gives the police the right to ban protest.

This has been compounded by recent legislation giving more powers to condition eg in relation to noise levels and protest nèar businesses etc.

The net result is that the police are increasingly being accused of political interference.

I don’t see this reversing unless we depoliticise the police engagement by moving to a N Ireland style Parade Commission whereby restrictions are placed by community reps, rather than the Police.

It seems to be working v well in N Ireland, where it is generally regarded to have depoliticised Police.

Bob Blackman adds Jill Mortimer, Tom Hunt and Brendan Clarke-Smith to the chat

Tim Loughton (10.01): You are not Bernard.

Danny Kruger (10:05): Here come the cavalry.

Bob Neill (10:08): Absolutely you are not Bernard,

Danny Kruger (10:14): Helpful thank you Jonathan. I don’t think we need non-political oversight of the police, the set-up now is right – we just need police to enforce the law equally.

Kit Malthouse (10:38): I defended the police in both those instances, as I did with the toppling of the statue and various other difficult operational situations. Yes they don’t always get it right, as they would freely admit, but as we scrutinise them, they deserve our respect don’t they?

Bob Blackman adds Robin Millar to the chat

Danny Kruger (10:50): I respect your consistency Kit and I remember you were very robust on the rioters in 2011 when I was still hugging hoodies… but times have changed and a quiet word behind closed doors won’t convince the public we are on their side and share their attitude to these disgraceful protests. What happened to ‘the police are the public’? So yes respect but also proper challenge.

Sir Bernard Jenkin (10:56): But this confrontational public discourse strikes me as another example of the fraying of the unwritten understandings on which the stability of our constitutional settlement rests, and which undermines public confidence in our system of government and democracy.

Finger pointing and blaming does not strengthen our institutions. It undermines public confidence in them, and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also, I see no political advantage in it, if that’s the idea behind it.

Jackie Doyle-Price (10:59): There is no political advantage whatever. Running in front of an angry herd won’t stop Government from being held accountable for any trouble. Particularly when public comments have been so divisive.

Michael Fabricant (11:07): Did the Met ban a right wing rally back around 2011?

James Grundy (11:09): Yes, I think it was the EDL in Tower Hamlets if I recall?

Jill Mortimer (11:11): There was this too [shares link to story in Evening Standard over pro-Israel rally in Golders Green]

Michael Fabricant (11:11): So unlike the claims of the Met Police Commissioner who said we cannot, it seems we CAN ban marches after all. Or has the law changed since?

James Grundy (11:15): I think he claimed the threshold of risk hadn’t been reached rather than any change on the law, which is of course his decision, but given the very different approach to the Golders Green march Jill references above, it does seem inconsistent.

(11:16) *In the law sorry.

Jill Mortimer (11:17): It is consistent with the bigger scarier mob being allowed to have their march – isn’t that what reasonable people would call bullying?

James Grundy (11:17): A fair assessment Jill.

Jill Mortimer (11:18): It would seem that the aggressors win and those who actually just want peaceful reflection must remain silenced

Bob Blackman adds Marco Longhi to the chat

Karl McCartney (21:42): Really pleased with @Bob Neill and @Richard Graham’s helpful public carping in last 24hrs, (I’m sure the Christmas cards from Yvette Cooper will take pride of place amongst all their others)… but not as half-pleased as they obviously both are with themselves.

You stretch our patience. Just like the ‘ever popular’ [Anna] Soubry did.

Jackie Doyle-Price (21:48): I would advise colleagues to express their views to whips and to the Home Secretary directly.

Friday 10 November

Lee Anderson (08:10): You mean instead of to the press?

Virginia Crosbie (08:11): Yes please

Jill Mortimer (08:11): …and on WhatsApp because some colleagues are untrustworthy disgraceful leakers?

William Wragg (08:27): I’ve had enough of this rubbish

Continue Reading

Politics

‘Will the PM side with parents or tech bros?’: Labour peer demands action on children’s smartphone safety

Published

on

By

'Will the PM side with parents or tech bros?': Labour peer demands action on children's smartphone safety

Sir Keir Starmer needs to choose between parents who want stronger action to tackle harmful content on children’s phones, or the “tech bros” who are resisting changes to their platforms, Baroness Harriet Harman has said.

Speaking to Beth Rigby on Sky News’ Electoral Dysfunction podcast, the Labour peer noted that the prime minister met with the creators of hit Netflix drama Adolescence to discuss safety on social media, but she questioned if he is going to take action to “stop the tech companies allowing this sort of stuff” on their platforms where children can access it.

Sir Keir hosted a roundtable on Monday with Adolescence co-writer Jack Thorne and producer Jo Johnson to discuss issues raised in the series, which centres on a 13-year-old boy arrested for the murder of a young girl, and the rise of incel culture.

Politics latest: Could the UK retaliate against Trump?

The aim was to discuss how to prevent young boys being dragged into a “whirlpool of hatred and misogyny”, and the prime minister said the four-part series raises questions about how to keep young people safe from technology.

Sir Keir has backed calls for the four-part drama to be shown in all schools across the country, but Baroness Harman questioned what is going to be achieved by having young people simply watch the show.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Sir Keir Starmer held a roundtable with the creators of the Adolescence TV drama.

“Two questions were raised [for me],” she said. ” Firstly – after they’ve watched it, what is going to be the discussion afterwards?

More on Electoral Dysfunction

“And secondly, is he going to act to stop the tech companies allowing this sort of stuff to go online into smartphones without protection of children?

“Because if the tech companies wanted to do this, they could actually protect children. They can do everything they want with their tech.”

She acknowledged there are “very big public policy challenges” in this area, but added of the prime minister: “Is he going to side with parents who are terrified and want this content off their children’s phones, or is he going to accept the tech bros’ resistance to having to make changes?”

Harriet Harman said the government should impose time limits on inquiries
Image:
Baroness Harriet Harman

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

Can parliament keep up?

The Labour peer backed the Conservative Party’s call for a ban on smartphones in schools to be mandated from Westminster, saying it would “enable all schools not to have a discussion with their parents or to battle it out, but just to say, this is the ruling” from central government, which Ofsted would then enforce.

“I’m sensitive to the idea that we shouldn’t constantly be telling schools what to do,” she continued. “And they’ve got a lot of common sense and a lot of professional experience, and they should have as much autonomy as possible.

“But perhaps it’s easier for them if it’s done top down.”

Baroness Harman also questioned the speed with which parliament is actually able to legislate to deal with the very rapid development of new technologies, and posits that it could “change its processes to be able to legislate in real time”.

She suggested that a “powerful select committee” of MPs could be established to do that, because “otherwise we talk about it, and then we’re not able to legislate for 10 years – by which time that problem has really set in, and we’ve got a whole load more problems”.

On the podcast, the trio also discussed the 10% tariffs imposed on the UK by Donald Trump and the government’s efforts to strike a trade deal with the US to mitigate the impact of the levy.

The government has refused to rule out scrapping the Digital Services Tax, a 2% levy on tech giants’ revenues in the UK, as part of the negotiations with the Trump administration – a move Baroness Harman said would be “very heartbreaking”.

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

Continue Reading

Politics

Bakkt investors file class-action lawsuit after loss of Webull, BoA contracts

Published

on

By

Bakkt investors file class-action lawsuit after loss of Webull, BoA contracts

Bakkt investors file class-action lawsuit after loss of Webull, BoA contracts

A group of investors with cryptocurrency custody and trading firm Bakkt Holdings filed a class-action lawsuit alleging false or misleading statements and a failure to disclose certain information.

Lead plaintiff Guy Serge A. Franklin called for a jury trial as part of a complaint against Bakkt, senior adviser and former CEO Gavin Michael, CEO and president Andrew Main, and interim chief financial officer Karen Alexander, according to an April 2 filing in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The group of investors allege damages as the result of violations of US securites laws and a lack of transparency surrounding its agreement with clients: Webull and Bank of America (BoA).

Law, Investments, United States, Bakkt

April 2 complaint against Bakkt and its executives. Source: PACER

The loss of Bank of America and Webull will result “in a 73% loss in top line revenue” due to the two firms making up a significant percentage of its services revenue, the investor group alleges in the lawsuit. The filing stated Webull made up 74% of Bakkt’s crypto services revenue through most of 2023 and 2024, and Bank of America made up 17% of its loyalty services revenue from January to September 2024.

Related: Bakkt names new co-CEO amid re-focus on crypto offerings

Bakkt disclosed on March 17 that Bank of America and Webull did not intend to renew their agreements with the firm ending in 2025. The announcement likely contributed to the company’s share price falling more than 27% in the following 24 hours. The investors allege Bakkt “misrepresented the stability and/or diversity of its crypto services revenue” and failed to disclose that this revenue was “substantially dependent” on Webull’s contract.

“As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages,” said the suit.

Other law offices said they were investigating Bakkt for securities law violations, suggesting additional class-action lawsuits may be in the works. Cointelegraph contacted Bakkt for a comment on the lawsuit but did not receive a response at the time of publication.

Prices affected by Trump Media reports

Bakkt’s share price surged roughly 162% in November 2024 after reports suggested that then-US President-elect Donald Trump’s media company was considering acquiring the firm. As of April 2025, neither company has officially announced a deal.

Shares in Bakkt (BKKT) were $8.15 at the time of publication, having fallen more than 36% in the previous 30 days.

Magazine: Meet lawyer Max Burwick — ‘The ambulance chaser of crypto’

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump tariffs squeeze already struggling Bitcoin miners — Braiins exec

Published

on

By

Trump tariffs squeeze already struggling Bitcoin miners — Braiins exec

Trump tariffs squeeze already struggling Bitcoin miners — Braiins exec

The new trade tariffs announced by US President Donald Trump may place added pressure on the Bitcoin mining ecosystem both domestically and globally, according to one industry executive.

While the US is home to Bitcoin (BTC) mining manufacturing firms such as Auradine, it’s still “not possible to make the whole supply chain, including materials, US-based,” Kristian Csepcsar, chief marketing officer at BTC mining tech provider Braiins, told Cointelegraph.

On April 2, Trump announced sweeping tariffs, imposing a 10% tariff on all countries that export to the US and introducing “reciprocal” levies targeting America’s key trading partners.

Community members have debated the potential effects of the tariffs on Bitcoin, with some saying their impact has been overstated, while others see them as a significant threat.

Tariffs compound existing mining challenges

Csepcsar said the mining industry is already experiencing tough times, pointing to key indicators like the BTC hashprice.

Hashprice — a measure of a miner’s daily revenue per unit of hash power spent to mine BTC blocks — has been on the decline since 2022 and dropped to all-time lows of $50 for the first time in 2024.

According to data from Bitbo, the BTC hashprice was still hovering around all-time low levels of $53 on March 30.

Trump tariffs squeeze already struggling Bitcoin miners — Braiins exec

Bitcoin hashprice since late 2013. Source: Bitbo

“Hashprice is the key metric miners follow to understand their bottom line. It is how many dollars one terahash makes a day. A key profitability metric, and it is at all-time lows, ever,” Csepcsar said.

He added that mining equipment tariffs were already increasing under the Biden administration in 2024, and cited comments from Summer Meng, general manager at Chinese crypto mining supplier Bitmars.

Trump tariffs squeeze already struggling Bitcoin miners — Braiins exec

Source: Summer Meng

“But they keep getting stricter under Trump,” Csepcsar added, referring to companies such as the China-based Bitmain — the world’s largest ASIC manufacturer — which is subject to the new tariffs.

Trump’s latest measures include a 34% additional tariff on top of an existing 20% levy for Chinese mining imports. In response, China reportedly imposed its own retaliatory tariffs on April 4.

BTC mining firms to “lose in the short term”

Csepcsar also noted that cutting-edge chips for crypto mining are currently massively produced in countries like Taiwan and South Korea, which were hit by new 32% and 25% tariffs, respectively.

“It will take a decade for the US to catch up with cutting-edge chip manufacturing. So again, companies, including American ones, lose in the short term,” he said.

Trump tariffs squeeze already struggling Bitcoin miners — Braiins exec

Source: jmhorp

Csepcsar also observed that some countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States region, including Russia and Kazakhstan, have been beefing up mining efforts and could potentially overtake the US in hashrate dominance.

Related: Bitcoin mining using coal energy down 43% since 2011 — Report

“If we continue to see trade war, these regions with low tariffs and more favorable mining conditions can see a major boom,” Csepcsar warned.

As the newly announced tariffs potentially hurt Bitcoin mining both globally and in the US, it may become more difficult for Trump to keep his promise of making the US the global mining leader.

Trump’s stance on crypto has shifted multiple times over the years. As his administration embraces a more pro-crypto agenda, it remains to be seen how the latest economic policies will impact his long-term strategy for digital assets.

Magazine: Bitcoin ATH sooner than expected? XRP may drop 40%, and more: Hodler’s Digest, March 23 – 29

Continue Reading

Trending