Suella Braverman row: Leaked messages reveal scale of civil war between Tory MPs over policing of pro-Palestinian marches and home secretary’s behaviour

Published

2 years ago

November 10, 2023

admin

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.”

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.”

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?”

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.

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

Politics

Post-Brexit EU reset negotiations ‘going to the wire’, says minister

Published

26 mins ago

May 18, 2025

admin

Post-Brexit EU reset negotiations 'going to the wire', says minister

Negotiations to reset the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with the EU are going “to the wire”, a Cabinet Office minister has said.

“There is no final deal as yet. We are in the very final hours,” the UK’s lead negotiator Nick Thomas-Symonds told Sky’s Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips.

On the possibility of a youth mobility scheme with the EU, he insisted “nothing is agreed until everything is”.

“We would be open to a smart, controlled youth mobility scheme,” he said. “But I should set out, we will not return to freedom of movement.”

Politics latest: PM outlines ‘benefits’ for UK from closer EU ties

The government is set to host EU leaders in London on Monday.

Put to the minister that the government could not guarantee there will be a deal by tomorrow afternoon, Mr Thomas-Symonds said: “Nobody can guarantee anything when you have two parties in a negotiation.”

But the minister said he remained “confident” a deal could be reached “that makes our borders more secure, is good for jobs and growth, and brings people’s household bills down”.

“That is what is in our national interest and that’s what we will continue to do over these final hours,” he said.

“We have certainly been taking what I have called a ruthlessly pragmatic approach.”

On agricultural products, food and drink, Mr Thomas-Symonds said supermarkets were crying out for a deal because the status quo “isn’t working”, with “lorries stuck for 16 hours and food rotting” and producers and farmers unable to export goods because of the amount of “red tape”.

Asked how much people could expect to save on shopping as a result of the deal the government was hoping to negotiate, the minister was unable to give a figure.

On the issue of fishing, asked if a deal would mean allowing French boats into British waters, the minister said the Brexit deal which reduced EU fishing in UK waters by a quarter over five years comes to an end next year.

He said the objectives now included “an overall deal in the interest of our fishers, easier access to markets to sell our fish and looking after our oceans”.

Turning to borders, the minister was asked if people would be able to move through queues at airports faster.

Again, he could not give a definitive answer, but said it was “certainly something we have been pushing with the EU… we want British people who are going on holiday to be able to go and enjoy their holiday, and not be stuck in queues”.

PM opens door to EU youth mobility scheme

A deal granting the UK access to a major EU defence fund could be on the table, according to reports – and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has appeared to signal a youth mobility deal could be possible, telling The Times that while freedom of movement is a “red line”, youth mobility does not come under this.

The European Commission has proposed opening negotiations with the UK on an agreement to facilitate youth mobility between the EU and the UK. The scheme would allow both UK and EU citizens aged between 18 and 30 years old to stay for up to four years in a country of their choosing.

Earlier this month, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told Phillips a youth mobility scheme was not the approach the government wanted to take to bring net migration down.

When this was put to him, Mr Thomas-Symonds insisted any deal on a youth mobility scheme with Europe will have to be “smart” and “controlled” and will be “consistent” with the government’s immigration policy.

Asked what the government had got in return for a youth mobility scheme – now there had been a change in approach – the minister said: “It is about an overall balanced package that works for Britain. The government is 100% behind the objective of getting net migration down.”

Phillips said more than a million young people came to the country between 2004 and 2015. “If there isn’t a cap – that’s what we are talking about,” he said.

The minister insisted such a scheme would be “controlled” – but refused to say whether there would be a cap.

👉 Click here to follow Electoral Dysfunction wherever you get your podcasts 👈

‘It’s going to be a bad deal’

Shadow cabinet office minister Alex Burghart told Phillips an uncapped youth mobility scheme with the EU would lead to “much higher immigration”, adding: “It sounds very much as though it’s going to be a bad deal.”

Asked if the Conservatives would scrap any EU deal, he said: “It depends what the deal is, Trevor. And we still, even at this late stage, we don’t know.

“The government can’t tell us whether everyone will be able to come. They can’t tell us how old the young person is. They can’t tell us what benefits they would get.

“So I think when people hear about a youth mobility scheme, they think about an 18-year-old coming over working at a bar. But actually we may well be looking at a scheme which allows 30-year-olds to come over and have access to the NHS on day one, to claim benefits on day one, to bring their extended families.”

He added: “So there are obviously very considerable disadvantages to the UK if this deal is done in the wrong way.”

Jose Manuel Barroso, former EU Commission president, told Phillips it “makes sense” for a stronger relationship to exist between the European Union and the UK, adding: “We are stronger together.”

He said he understood fishing and youth mobility are the key sticking points for a UK-EU deal.

“Frankly, what is at stake… is much more important than those specific issues,” he said.

Politics

Retired artist loses $2M in crypto to Coinbase impersonator

Published

4 hours ago

May 18, 2025

admin

Retired artist loses M in crypto to Coinbase impersonator

Retired artist Ed Suman lost over $2 million in cryptocurrency earlier this year after falling victim to a scam involving someone posing as a Coinbase support representative.

Suman, 67, spent nearly two decades as a fabricator in the art world, helping build high-profile works such as Jeff Koons’ Balloon Dog sculptures, according to a May 17 report by Bloomberg.

After retiring, he turned to cryptocurrency investing, eventually accumulating 17.5 Bitcoin (BTC) and 225 Ether (ETH) — a portfolio that comprised most of his retirement savings.

He stored the funds in a Trezor Model One, a hardware wallet commonly used by crypto holders to avoid the risks of exchange hacks. But in March, Suman received a text message appearing to be from Coinbase, warning him of unauthorized account access.

After responding, he got a phone call from a man identifying himself as a Coinbase security staffer named Brett Miller. The caller appeared knowledgeable, correctly stating that Suman’s funds were stored in a hardware wallet.

He then convinced Suman that his wallet could still be vulnerable and walked him through a “security procedure” that involved entering his seed phrase into a website mimicking Coinbase’s interface.

Nine days later, a second caller claiming to be from Coinbase repeated the process. By the end of that call, all of Suman’s crypto holdings were gone.

Retired artist loses $2M in crypto to Coinbase impersonator — *Crypto scammers impersonate Coinbase support. Source:* *NanoBaiter*

Coinbase suffers major data breach

The scam followed a data breach at Coinbase disclosed this week, in which attackers bribed customer support staff in India to access sensitive user information.

Stolen data included customer names, account balances, and transaction histories. Coinbase confirmed the breach impacted roughly 1% of its monthly transacting users.

Among those affected was venture capitalist Roelof Botha, managing partner at Sequoia Capital. There is no indication that his funds were accessed, and Botha declined to comment.

Coinbase’s chief security officer, Philip Martin, reportedly said the contracted customer service agents at the center of the controversy were based in India and had been fired following the breach.

The exchange has also said it plans to pay between $180 million and $400 million in remediation and reimbursement to affected users.

Magazine: Arthur Hayes $1M Bitcoin tip, altcoins’ powerful rally’ looms: Hodler’s Digest, May 11 – 17

Politics

UK to require crypto firms to report every customer transaction

Published

8 hours ago

May 18, 2025

admin

UK to require crypto firms to report every customer transaction

United Kingdom crypto companies will need to collect and report data from every customer trade and transfer beginning Jan. 1, 2026 as part of a broader effort to improve crypto tax reporting, the UK government said.

Everything from the user’s full name, home address and tax identification number will need to be collected and reported for every transaction, including the cryptocurrency used and the amount moved, the UK Revenue and Customs department said in a May 14 statement.

Details of companies, trusts and charities transacting on crypto platforms will also need to be reported.

Failure to comply or inaccurate reporting may incur penalties of up to 300 British pounds ($398.4) per user. The UK Revenue and Customs department said it would inform companies on how to comply with the incoming measures in due course.

However, UK authorities are encouraging crypto firms to start collecting data now to ensure compliance readiness.

The new rule is part of the UK’s integration of the Organisation for Economic Development’s Cryptoasset Reporting Framework to improve transparency in crypto tax reporting.

The changes reflect the UK government’s aim to establish a more robust regulatory framework that supports industry growth while ensuring consumer protection.

UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves also introduced a draft bill in late April to bring crypto exchanges, custodians and broker-dealers within its regulatory reach to combat scams and fraud.

“Today’s announcement sends a clear signal: Britain is open for business — but closed to fraud, abuse, and instability,” Reeves said at the time.

A study from the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority last November found that 12% of UK adults owned crypto in 2024 — a significant increase from the 4% reported in 2021.

UK’s approach contrasts with EU’s MiCA

The UK’s move to integrate the crypto rules into its existing financial framework contrasts with the European Union’s approach, which introduced the new Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation framework last year.

According to the MiCA Crypto Alliance, one key difference is that the UK will allow foreign stablecoin issuers to operate in the UK without needing to register.

There will also be no cap on stablecoin volumes, unlike the EU’s approach, which may impose controls on stablecoin issuers to manage systemic risks.