Talk:Suella Braverman

OUT OF DATE!!!!!

She was reappointed by Sunak.

'antisemitism'

(a) In the first place, there is no such thing as 'anti-Semitism', since there is no such thing as 'Semitism' (or 'Semites'). Antisemitism = hatred of Jews, by definition. The article itself spells it 'antisemitism' later on, but nobody expects consistency in Wikipedia. (b) It is utterly absurd to equate the fight AGAINST cultural Marxism with antisemitism, since cultural Marxism itself is deeply antisemitic.

KC, not QC?

Why KC? She is a Queen's Counsel. MurrayGreshler (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II has died, therefore, Suella Braverman is a King's Counsel , considering King Charles III is now the monarch.

References to 'Queen' will be replaced by 'King'. 2406:E003:E1E:1701:7910:5E39:1B52:7B25 (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

But she wasn't made a KC, as misleadingly now stated in the article. At the time the appointment was as a QC. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Have a read here; https://twitter.com/thebarcouncil/status/1567941550289592329 .

No new Letters Patent will be issued, as the change from 'Q.C.' to 'K.C.' is automatic.

This applies no matter whether the King's Counsel is in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.K. or in the British Overseas Territories. 2406:E003:A09:6101:4D3A:35FA:64BF:B8AD (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Queen's Counsel and King's Counsel are not two separate things, by which a person can only be one or the other but not both. Any QC automatically becomes KC the moment there's a K instead of a Q, and any KC automatically becomes QC the moment there's a Q instead of a K. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

LOL. 92.21.247.115 (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

State comprehensive Uxendon Manor Primary School

Only secondary schools are referred to as comprehensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.132.135 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This is wiki, mate. Errors and ignorance are required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.247.115 (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

"qualified as a New York Attorney"?

This statement is on her official government profile: https://www.gov.uk/government/people/braverman Kaihsu (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems legit: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorneyservices/search?0 Kaihsu (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

POV lead

I think the last three sentences of the lead are pretty questionable with regard to NPOV. The IP who added them has now been temporarily blocked, but I would value some third opinions before simply reverting this. Obviously some of these matters might belong in the article, but it would be good to see a carefully referenced discussion in the main body first rather than just leaping to quite lurid language in the lead. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you have assessed this correctly, there should be coverage in the body but the frothing rhetoric in the lead is probably a bit OTT. Perhaps it is TOOSOON for the lead at the moment. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I've removed the section for now. I'll also note that much of the content was sourced to a single opinion piece, not to mention one source only mentions Braverman once, in an aside and another is just a category. Woodroar (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It needs to be there somewhere. That a senior legal officer has been accused (and has not denied) of misrepresenting their career by reliable sources is a serious issue. Emeraude (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Much of the content currently in the lede (it'll probably be gone again by the time I finish writing this) certainly needs rethinking, but to completely omit her position on the current Brexit legislation, which is the by far the position this hitherto-obscure politician is best known for, is definitely not appropriate either. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Minister on Leave

Suella Braverman became the first person to be designated as a Minister on Leave today, but I'm not completely sure how to include this information in the article, particularly in the infobox. Could anybody lend a hand? Thanks FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that I've worked out how to incorporate this information now. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@FollowTheTortoise: I reckon her tenure as AG had ended since the beginning of her maternal leave. It is either occupied by either one or another for UK ministers of the Crown and law officers of the Crown; what the Act did was creating a cabinet capacity for the minister on leave to be paid as a cabinet minister but not retaining the position for the him/her. This announcement and the AG gov.uk webpage can, in my opinion, support my view. Cheers, -- NYKTNE _(talk) 17:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment; in law, Braverman is no longer the Attorney General, but a Minister on Leave (and, according to gov.uk now, not a Cabinet minister). I am just worried that this might be an oversimplification of the real situation on account of the fact that, as far as I'm aware, the only real reason why she is no longer AG is for technical salary reasons. Outside of ministers, people on maternity leave don't stop being called "Assistant Manager" etc. as far as I'm aware. Braverman's gov.uk page says that she is "Minister on Leave (Attorney General)", as opposed to just "Minister on Leave" and this BBC News article seems to suggest, at least to me, that Michael Ellis's appointment is only temporary. I don't feel incredibly strongly on this issue, but I hope that you can see why I think that it might not be best to say that she is no longer Attorney General in the infobox etc. I think that the "On Leave" status tag works quite well as things stand. Have a nice evening! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn’t the circumstances around the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021 be included in this article? – Kaihsu (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

There is already a sentence about how Braverman has been designated Minister on Leave, but if you want to add more (for example, the reasons why the Act was passed) then feel free! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Anonymous gossip and BLPs

@Emeraude: 1) The article is by Nick Cohen, who is a columnist. It is an opinion piece, and reads as a smear job. Opinion pieces are not suitable sources for Wikipedia, particularly for a WP:BLP. WP:RSEDITORIAL Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

2) See WP:BLPGOSSIP Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. The wording which I deleted presented as a fact an opinion of an anonymous informant. The article doesn’t even say that the informant heard Mr Johnson make any remark about Ms Braverman.

3) I originally considered changing the wording of this, to: According to an anonymous informant to the Observer, Boris Johnson chose Braverman as Attorney General because she was a “malleable” legal figure who “would do his bidding”. - which I have now done. But on reading this, I realised that this would bring Wikipedia into disrepute, so I deleted it.

4) What justification do you have for including unspecific anonymous gossip in a BLP?

Sweet6970 (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• So, is it your opinion that she is, in fact, a leading lawyer with an illustrious career at the bar? Why have you deleted the entirely uncontroversial sentence: "A particular criticism is that the attorney general, while a politician, has always had the role of upholding the rule of law, acting independently of government."? Whose unattributed "gossip" is that? Emeraude (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

For heaven’s sake, please stick to the point. My opinion of Suella Braverman is irrelevant to this article and so is yours. I am concerned about the lack of any suitable source for the statement: A particular criticism is that the attorney general, while a politician, has always had the role of upholding the rule of law, acting independently of government; Braverman was a malleable legal figure doing the bidding of Prime Minister Johnson without independent thought. The anonymous gossip is the second part of that sentence, and the first part has no significance without the second, and it makes no sense to include it. I take it you have no justification for including the opinion of an anonymous informant.

I have read the Cohen article twice, trying to find something which was suitable for inclusion, and I could not come up with anything. I think that the current wording which I added should also be removed, because Wikipedia articles should not be based on anonymous gossip. I do not understand why any experienced editor would disagree with me. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I can see both sides here: why Emeraude wants to use a Nick Cohen article-which is a reliable source for his opinion-and why Sweet6970 thinks the anonymous nature of allegations should rule them out. The original phrasing was too close to wiki voice for comfort, though it skirted round things slightly so it's not a blatant case of "remove on sight". So on the whole I think that the current phrasing is probably about right. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Transgenderism

@Sweet6970: The passage under the Attorney General section:

In May 2022, Braverman was criticised by Caroline Derbyshire, chair of the Headteachers' Roundtable, for remarks she made in an interview with The Times about how schools should deal with transgender pupils. The interview included a comment by Braverman that some teachers were effectively encouraging gender dysphoria by taking an "unquestioning" attitude.

has some overlap but overall is quite different in terms of content and emphasis from the passage reverted under the Political and legal positions section:

In an interview with The Times, Braverman said that schools do not have to accommodate requests from students who wish to change their gender, including the use of the pronouns, uniforms, lavatories and changing facilities of a different gender. She has sided with J. K. Rowling, who has campaigned to protect female-only spaces, and argues that, legally, under-18s are only entitled to be treated by the gender of their birth. She said that the "unquestioning approach" adopted by some teachers and schools is the reason different parts of the country have very different rates of children presenting as transgender.

That Braverman sides with JK Rowling is based on a quote from the interview where Braverman described the writer as, "Very brave, very courageous. I'm on her side." Do you need verification?

References

CurryCity (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the discussion.

1) Firstly, all the text about this interview should be in the same place. If we are going to expand the wording about this, then I would agree that it should be in a separate section under ‘Political and legal positions’ as you had done. But I’m not sure ‘Transgenderism’ is the right heading. I would suggest ‘Views on transgender matters’.

2) The wording ‘She has sided with J K Rowling’ is misleading, because it implies that she has intervened on a legal case on the side of J K Rowling, and that is not the situation. But it may be appropriate to include a quote.

3) I don’t have access to the Times. Could you supply actual quotations from the article on which you based your wording?

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

1: Agree with the suggested heading. 2: The JK Rowling reference doesn't necessarily need to be included, although it's somewhat notable IMO.

3a: Fourth paragraph of the article:

She described JK Rowling, the Harry Potter author who has campaigned to protect female-only spaces, as a “heroine” of hers. “Very brave, very courageous. I’m on her side.”

3b: Caption for a photo of the writer:

JK Rowling has the backing of Braverman and the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby TIMES PHOTOGRAPHER RICHARD POHLE TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD

3c: Two consecutive paragraphs deeper into the article:

It is not a view endorsed by Braverman, 42, who said that teachers and medical professionals should take a much “firmer line” on gender dysphoria”. She added: “You can see that by huge disparities around the country. Some parts of the country there are very low rates of children presenting as transgender, in some parts of the country it’s quite worryingly high. That must be to do with the way teachers and local education authorities are approaching this subject. I think there is something to be said for young people seeing what their peers are doing and being influenced by that.

“Medical professionals, teachers should be taking a much firmer line. They shouldn’t take an unquestioning approach, they shouldn’t just take what the child says. There could be a whole host of other causes to why that child might be coming forward with these issues. It might not actually be that they want to go down the line of gender reassignment.”

The Guardian piece appears to have adequately covered the rest.

CurryCity (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the quotations. I agree that Ms Braverman’s reference to J K Rowling is noteworthy. I suggest combining the 2 wordings as:

In an interview with The Times, Braverman said that schools do not have to accommodate requests from students who wish to change their gender, including the use of the pronouns, uniforms, lavatories and changing facilities of a different gender. She argues that, legally, under-18s are only entitled to be treated by the gender of their birth. She said that the "unquestioning approach" adopted by some teachers and schools is the reason different parts of the country have very different rates of children presenting as transgender. She also expressed admiration for J. K. Rowling, referring to her as ‘a heroine ’of hers. Caroline Derbyshire, chair of the Headteachers’ Roundtable, criticised Braverman’s remarks about schools, saying “Schools do all kinds of things to safeguard the welfare of young people that they are not ‘bound’ to do by law”.

Any comments from anyone? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! The positions section appears to simply list and describe what she stands for, as opposed to a more comprehensive treatment of each position including, for example, any criticism. So it might make sense to still mention the criticism or even the JK Rowling reference under Attorney General while the rest goes under Political and legal positions. CurryCity (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I see your point, but I think on balance it is better to have all the text about this subject in one place – and now that you have provided more inf about her position on transgender matters, I think it is better to put it under the ‘Political and legal positions’ section. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

On the whole I think it best to keep this on one section unless any comments impinge directly on her role as Attorney General. You should also look at MOS:CURLY. Otherwise fine. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright. BTW do straight quotes just mean ' or " or something else special? CurryCity (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

"nor had enough experience to seek such appointment"

Can the phrase "nor had enough experience to seek such appointment" be removed? It is a matter of opinion that Braverman is not experienced enough to be a QC, not a matter of fact. Unusual.Octopus (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It is the opinion of Joshua Rozenberg, who is an established legal commentator. Perhaps this opinion should be attributed to him. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine if attributed but not in wiki voice. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It is a fact. No one gets QC so early in a barrister's career. And it is attributed. Emeraude (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

When I said 'this opinion should be attributed' I meant that the article should explicitly say that this is the opinion of Joshua Rozenberg.

There is also the point that the lead of the article should follow the body, so this should also be included in the body of the article.

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this should be explicitly attribited, and have done so. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Which reliable source has ever said that this is not correct? She is unquestionably unqualified to be a QC on merit or by experience, hence her grant of QC by dint of office. Unless there is a source that says otherwise, Rozenberg is not a sole voice but merely staing what is fact, not his personal opinion. Emeraude (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Then you'll be able to find a second independent reliable source that says it. Until then it should be attributed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

There was, of course, the Prospect article which was also used as a reference, but that has very conveniently been removed from the article as well! Oh well, I suppose we just have to accept that she is the best lawyer that ever worked at the English bar with decades of experience and totally worthy of a QC, as opposed to an honorary QC by reason of appointment. Now I will spend my time searching for sources that show her depth and length of experience as a leading barrister. I'll report back in 50 years!! Emeraude (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Triratna

https://mythoughtsbornfromfire.wordpress.com/2020/02/16/suella-braverman-cultural-marxism-and-the-triratna-sect/ 2A00:23C5:B3A2:A001:B171:EA86:14EA:FEFA (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

That information is already included: if you have a more specific suggestion please make it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Name change

When and why did she change her name from Sue-Ellen? There's no reference to it in the article. It is pertinent if she is running for office under a false name on the ballot paper. 185.13.50.215 (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that in the UK "As long as it is not done for fraudulent or other unlawful purposes, a person may assume any forename without any formalities and can identify themselves with, and be identified by, the assumed name." She was known as Suella in Cambridge in 2000 so it's hardly a recent thing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Ancient accusation

This is trivial gossip. The accusation was in Varsity in the year 2000. There has been no other report of this. There is no reason to believe the accusation is true. Since I don’t have access to the magazine, I don’t have the context as to what exactly she was accused of, and whether any evidence was provided. This is a BLP, and we should not be hosting dubious accusations such as this. Sweet6970 (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

22 years ago is not "ancient". If you do not have access to Varsity that is your problem, but the Wikipedia way is to assume good faith on the part of the editor who did. It is NOT a BLP issue to say that she was accused of something - she was - it's a fact. That she was cleared, or not, would make for completion, but the fact remains she was accused. Emeraude (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, note that I have reverted your other deletions re-ECHR withdrawal. Your claim that you couldn't find any source for SB wanting to withdraw from the ECHR is empty - I found four in less than two minutes and have added them to the article (minus the Daily Mail, which is not usually regarded as a reliable source but I think could be on this occasion). Emeraude (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a student newspaper, it doesn't belong as it doesn't have gravitas. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

What? Of course it's a (Cambridge University) student paper. Where else would stories about a Cambridge University student election appear? Gravitas is neither here nor there. Emeraude (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

There's quite a detailed discussion including scanned copies of the original allegations and the subsequent rebuttal in The Spectator [1]. I don't think the story really stands up. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I stand by my removal even more then. You need exceptional sourcing for a charge of vote rigging and bribery. Here, the egg appears to be on the face of the Varsity student editors. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Varsity's editor may have an eggy face but, nevertheless, the accusation was made which is all the article says. If there is evidence the accusation was wrong, that can be added with the appropriate citation. Might even boost her reputation! 12:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think a student newspaper can be considered reliable. — Czello 12:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Then it's a shame The Spectator devoted so much space to it......... Emeraude (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Which per WP:RSP can't always be considered reliable either as it's largely opinion pieces. — Czello 12:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

A student editor is still a student, learning, and not reliable. Putting the student accusation in the article smears her.Gilgul Kaful (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with removal here: the sourcing is inadequate for the allegation. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 12 September

Add {{pp-blp}} per protection reason [2]). 82.132.187.238 (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Madeline (part of me) 08:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Unclear usage

This poorly constructed sentence, "Following Truss's appointment as prime minister, she appointed Braverman as Home Secretary, she resigned in October." leaves ambiguous who resigned. It should also be two distinct sentences. Good grammar, expression and punctuation have never been a strength demonstrated by Wikipedia's hotch-potch of amateur editors. 185.65.27.236 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Updated BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

They both resigned in October. Thincat (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Transgender matters section

@Arcahaeoindris:

1. Transgender matters are matters to do with transgender people, ideas, practices, legal status etc.

2. LGBT stands for ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender’. The section says nothing about LGB matters. Your change to the heading means the heading no longer makes sense.

3. ‘believes’ is superfluous, and also suggests that Wikipedia is saying that her statement is wrong, so your wording is not neutral.

4. The links you added into the quotes imply things which she has not said.

5. You should self-revert and justify your proposed change on this page.

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for taking this here.

1 and 2. "LGBT rights" is a broad topic heading that I think makes more sense. If Braverman had other views or things to say about LGBT people it would go here. Transgender matters is not a typical heading for this topic. Could rename it Transgender rights or Transgender issues if you're insistent with being more specific.

3. "Believes" is not a superfluous word as the section is about her views and political positions, not necessarily what is true. Framing them in that way is not non-neutral. The source describes this as something that she said, not what is fact. So we could change it to "said" instead of "believes" to make it clear that this is the case.

4. I linked to relevant pages to make this more informative.

5. Will not self-revert but me know your thoughts on the above and hopefully we can come to some kind of consensus. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I have boldly changed the section title to "transgender rights" for now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

1 & 2. I would prefer ‘Transgender issues’, but I would accept ‘Transgender rights’ as per the recent edit.

3. You say the source describes this as something that she said. We should do the same – and this was the previous wording. This is neutral – by saying that this is what she said, we remain neutral about whether she is correct.

4. I appreciate that your intent in linking was to be helpful to readers, but I am wary of linking words and expressions in quotes, because we don’t know whether the person speaking would agree with Wikipedia’s description of what they are talking about.

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It would make more sense to call this section "transgender rights" or "transgender issues" than "transgender matters." Also, I removed the reference to JK Rowling, since it isn't particularly relevant here. If there was more than one sentence in the article, then perhaps. Further explanation of why the quote is relevant would be teaching the controversy. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Since there appears to be agreement that ‘said’ is the correct word, I am deleting the reference to ‘believes’.

Are there any comments about my objection to using Wikipedia links for words contained in a direct quotation?

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

My view is that using Wikipedia links for words in a direct quotation needs to be done with caution, and suggestions to remove such links should be considered carefuly. But in this case I can't see any links in direct quotations in this section. Am I missing something? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies. I recognised the wording of the section as being close to words used in the source, but I see now that there are no direct quotations. I’m sorry for the trouble. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Name

Cruella Braverman??? How has this change of name come through? 2A02:A459:90BD:1:6017:B5C8:739:3E1F (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

We now know the facts of her resignation. Should state that she made a security breach through use of personnal email.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/19/suella-braverman-departs-as-uk-home-secretary-liz-truss 80.209.138.139 (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The current wording on this is: Braverman left her cabinet position as Home Secretary on 19 October 2022. She said that her departure was because she had made an "honest mistake" by sharing an official document from her personal email address with a colleague in Parliament, an action which breached the Ministerial Code. Braverman was also highly critical of Truss's leadership in her resignation letter.

Exactly what change are you proposing? Sweet6970 (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Resignation: Technical breach v security matter

@Proxima Centauri: I am deleting your addition because (a) I don’t think that this detailed discussion is DUE, and (b) if we are going to have this kind of detail, then we should also include the comments from the source provided by the IP above [3], the Guardian of 19 October, which includes several comments saying that the breach was a minor technical matter: The security breach was met with raised eyebrows from some of Braverman’s backers. Steve Baker, who co-led her leadership campaign and is now a Northern Ireland minister, said the use of a personal email had only been “technically” a breach of rules, and that such liaison with other MPs on policy was “perfectly normal”. One Tory MP said it seemed “very minor” and that most cabinet ministers had been guilty of the same thing. Another admitted: “If they wanted to keep her and she wanted to stay, this wouldn’t be a resigning matter.” A former No 10 aide also said it was “bullshit” that she would have been told to stand down for sending a draft written ministerial statement. “Special advisers and ministers, including the PM, have done much much worse,” they said. “Team Truss obviously handed her the revolver.” Sweet6970 (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Further story in the Guardian today [4] Sweet6970 (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The source provided by Proxima Centauri:[5]. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)