back to article Government by Gmail catches up with UK minister... who is reappointed anyway

The UK's Home Secretary – the minister in charge of policing and internal security – has been forced to apologize for breaching IT security protocols in government. Suella Braverman, who had already resigned for the breach, was reinstated in the UK's merry-go-round approach to government. She has written to the chair of …

  1. Lord Elpuss Silver badge

    In the scheme of "UK Gov Shitshows so far in 2022", this is a non-issue.

    Retrain and put her back to work. Which is exactly what's happened.

    1. smudge
      FAIL

      In the scheme of "UK Gov Shitshows so far in 2022", this is a non-issue.

      No. It is the tip of the iceberg. (Another lettuce to bring the government down!)

      She admitted that she did it six times in the six weeks that she was Home Secretary for the first time. Presumably because she has been confronted with the logs showing these six events.

      Follow-up questions which should be asked include:

      - how many times did she do this during the 31 months that she was Attorney General? (for those overseas, that position is the most senior law officer in the government)

      - how widespread is this practice throughout government?

      1. ChoHag Bronze badge
        Mushroom

        Don't look behind the curtain

        But it could be worse. Governments could be competent...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "- how widespread is this practice throughout government?"

        Ask Hillary Clinton :)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          You'll get a LOT of thumbs down for that, because Hilary is on the LEFT (and therefore a Good Egg). Same with Hunter Biden and his laptop. We don't want to make a fuss about any of that, because the nasty Orange man might get another go.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Oh very much so! Orange man bad!

            He is worse than corn pop and corn pop was a pretty bad dude.

          2. Peter X

            AFAIK, Hilary *was* investigated and found guilty. AFAIK, Hunter Biden *is* being investigated and it doesn't look good (for him).

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              true, it's deeply disturbing the FBI is protecting the offender, due to the disgusting material it makes the FBI look like a head of the catholic priest during the worst of the investigations.

            2. Ian Johnston Silver badge

              What political offices does Hunter Biden hold?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                son of president, that apparently helps him earn a few million without a job, and avoid prosecution for crimes. Kinda like prince andrew.

          3. iron Silver badge

            No he's getting a lot of downotes for that because Hillary was never part of any UK government ffs.

          4. Jan 0 Silver badge

            > Hilary is on the LEFT

            for small values of "left".

            At least she used her own email sever, which may well have been more secure than the official server, 'though not subject to government scrutiny.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              > for small values of "left".

              That is so indeed, at least by European values:

              https://www.europe1.fr/politique/republicains-a-droite-democrates-a-gauche-plus-complique-que-ca-2662117

              1. Spanners Silver badge
                Boffin

                That is so indeed, at least by European values:

                Rather, she is left by US values but Like Obama and now Biden she is centre right by the values of the developed world.

                As US politics does not actually have a "left", it can only be relative to itself.

                1. clyde666
                  Thumb Up

                  Upvoted for the English lesson

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  > As US politics does not actually have a "left", it can only be relative to itself.

                  I remember reading a French (or Swiss?) academic study recently were the two US parties were categorised as "right" and "far right".

                  If I find the link I'll post it.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    It all depends where you stand. Everyone answers that question from their own political viewpoint and as the left have galloped off into the weeds the right appears to have moved. The sad thing is that now the only true liberals in the US are the MAGA.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Actual long cable?

              Even with VPN, and all the other stuff, at the end of the day it could still go through a major state player, then all best are off!

              It’s a pain but the rules are simple and VERY well explained to anyone handling these communications. In order to do what that have all done you need to respond to a question with a down right lie! Not a ministerial code break.

            3. MachDiamond Silver badge

              "> Hilary is on the LEFT

              for small values of "left"."

              Hilary is in her own box that's attached with squiggly line up and off to the left away from the main T.O.

          5. LDS Silver badge

            The Orange Man can't do email - just tweets - so he's safe, from this point of view. Having them printed from one account, then scanned, and sent through another account looks a lot of effort to me.... <G>

            But what about the top secret documents he shouldn't keep in his private house, scattered around? Or those destroyed without following the rules?

            1. Jedit Silver badge
              Trollface

              "the top secret documents he shouldn't keep in his private house"

              Please - Trump didn't keep top secret documents in his private house. At least, not after he found a buyer.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: "the top secret documents he shouldn't keep in his private house"

                Oh yeah, the supposed nuclear codes or some other such bunk. Gone all quiet in the media probably because it was false.

                A bit like the Georgia Guidestones getting blown up or the Las Vegas shooter. Everything just goes quiet.

        2. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

          'private server' and 'gmail' are entirely different beasts. Hilary was of course investigated, I doubt Braverman will get such scrutiny.

        3. Stuart Castle Silver badge

          The difference being that Hillary, at least from what she said, operated her own servers with the full knowledge, and vetting, of the US Security agencies.

          I have no idea if that is correct, but I have it on good authority that the email system in the US houses is so terrible that senators and congress people using their own email servers is tolerated, if not exactly liked.

          If that is true, I think the real scandal isn't so much the fact that it is tolerated, but that no one has succeeded in getting the provided email system working reliably. The email system would have been installed in the 90s, so I blame all the US presidents from both parties for this. So. that would be Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

          1. Dave314159ggggdffsdds Silver badge

            "I have no idea if that is correct, but I have it on good authority that the email system in the US houses is so terrible that senators and congress people using their own email servers is tolerated, if not exactly liked."

            So they claim. It is actually just the typical behaviour of public servants seeking to evade monitoring requirements. It should be treated as a crime, just like any other cover-up is treated as the crime it could potentially cover.

            It really is utterly unacceptable, although of course it is widespread.

        4. Stork Silver badge

          It appears to be SOP. Hillary got the suggestion from Colin Powell, and the Trump offspring continued the tradition.

      3. Anonymous Coward Silver badge
        Facepalm

        > "She admitted that she did it six times in the six weeks"

        She sent a document to her own gmail 6 times. She sent it from there to the wrong person once (that we know of)

        But what kind of information governance allows sensitive material to be sent by email outside the organisation? That is the bigger question, not some numpty's misuse of it.

        1. Loyal Commenter

          The subtlety here is that, as well as this, she sent information about policymaking, which was supposed to only be discussed by those involved, to a back-bencher who, as well as not being part of the government, and therefore not privy to such information, also has a political identity that is self-described as "anti-woke", which, in plain English, means "anti-decent-human-being". The same self-appointed moniker also applies to Braverman herself, which, to be honest, is the bigger problem with her.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            as a former Security Minister, Hayes should have known to blow the whistle on Bravermans use of insecure private email.

            That he, so far as we know, didn't suggests he was aware it wasn't on the level for her to do so.

            Word is that he is effectively her handler on policy - possibly because she's not astute enough to write a coherent policy herself.

          2. LybsterRoy Silver badge

            == has a political identity that is self-described as "anti-woke", which, in plain English, means "anti-decent-human-being" ==

            I didn't see the sarcasm flag around that so I have to assume you meant it. Would you care to post your justification for your ability to define the meanings of the English language?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              has a political identity that is self-described as "anti-woke"

              If we're into broad sweeping statement territory (El Reg comments after all...) then 'woke' is typically used by people who object to not being able to "call a spade a spade", or to go to Sun/Daily[Hate]Mail level - not be openly racist/sexist/homophobic.

              Probably the same people supporting our esteemed [current?!] Home Secretary who is currently doing a plastic Enoch Powell impersonation, and is one speech away from 'rivers of blood' in rhetoric.

              Or were we discussing the lack of basic competency amongst the current government?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: has a political identity that is self-described as "anti-woke"

                Funny that you mention Enoch, he infamously said that descendents of the immigrants arriving in the UK in the 1960's would end up running the country... how did that turn out?

                1. MarkTriumphant

                  Re: has a political identity that is self-described as "anti-woke"

                  That's not the bit of Rishi Sunak or Suella Braverman that makes me question why they are in charge. Or any of the other people currently making the attempt to run the country.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: has a political identity that is self-described as "anti-woke"

                Woke in the US is - if you arn't pro-gay, you are anti-gay. If you say something to someone and they don't like it - you are anti-woke. If you don't invite people to your party based on racial balance and not based on friendship - you are woke.

                Frankly its just one more excuse to keep people divided and fighting against each other, so the big corrupt media can avoid being ridiculed.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: has a political identity that is self-described as "anti-woke"

                  Ah yes, 'murican politics living only at the very ends of the scale.

                  If you are not 100% pro something then you must be 100% against it. If you do not support abortion up to the moment of birth then you are anti-abortion.

            2. Loyal Commenter

              Well, very briefly, "woke," which isn't really a term anyone uses for themselves anyway, roughly means to be aware of social issues that may put other people at a disadvantage, and to be generally respectful and compassionate towards them, and just in general a decent human being. So, "anti-woke", very roughly, translates as "disrespectful and discompassionate." Or "not a decent human being". That's certainly not a label that I’d choose to apply to myself, but it seems to some, being what we'd more colloquially describe as "a cunt" is a badge of honour.

              Is that clear? Good.

          3. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          the appendix to her letter to the Home Affairs Select Committee shows she sent documents to her personal email six times between 15 Sep and 16 Oct. And on top of that is the time which she she then forwarded from her personal email to Hayes and the inadvertent recipient.

        3. Stuart Castle Silver badge

          Even if they have adequate controls in place, are they enforced equally?

          Would an Administrative Assistant who did the same thing six times also be given a "second chance"? I'd argue they probably wouldn't.

          However, that said, what happens depends on whether the messages, or data contained in them, was classified. if it was, she should be in prison now. I've got a cousin who used to deal with classified data as part of his job. He was an Administrator, but he had to hand in any electronic devices to the security desk when he started his shift, only getting them back when he finished. They also only had a couple of computers in the office that had internet access, with all the others being on an air gapped network. Any classified data was only allowed on the air gapped computers. He was repeatedly reminded he risked prison if he left the office with any classified data.

          1. ItWasn'tMe

            Information classifications

            Note that there are different levels of information classification. This is described on the following gov.uk website (public info).

            https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-security-classifications

            So I doubt that anyone would go to prison for mishandling documents/information marked as just Official.

    2. Rameses Niblick the Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble?

      In the scheme of "UK Gov Shitshows so far in 2022", this is a non-issue.

      I'm pretty sick of this kind of attitude. "Everything else is so awful, this thing that's a bit shit doesn't matter". Of course it matters, if I'd done this with sensitive company documents I wouldn't be retrained, I'd be fired for gross misconduct. The fact it was done 6 times in such a brief tenure ask Home Sec means this is not a mistake, it is a habitual way of working for her, it's just this is the first time she's been caught it's been detected.

      I'm beyond the point of accepting "I know our politicians are beyond useless, but we accept it because we tell ourselves the others are just as useless". Why do we think this is OK? Why as a population do we accept it? These people are meant to be the best of us, the wisest of us and yet I wouldn't leave them alone for 5 minutes unsupervised in a room with a pair of safety scissors. The excuse "We think others are as bad" is not a reason to accept it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        why do we accept it?

        "I'm beyond the point of accepting "I know our politicians are beyond useless, but we accept it because we tell ourselves the others are just as useless". Why do we think this is OK? Why as a population do we accept it? These people are meant to be the best of us, the wisest of us and yet I wouldn't leave them alone for 5 minutes unsupervised in a room with a pair of safety scissors. The excuse "We think others are as bad" is not a reason to accept it."

        Everybody is free to stand for election against 'these people' and everybody else is free to vote for them. So if we want a change, all we have to do is change our voting habits. Stop electing 'these people'. And stand for parliament against them. Simples! :)

        1. Rameses Niblick the Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble?

          Re: why do we accept it?

          So if we want a change, all we have to do is change our voting habits. Stop electing 'these people'.

          Which is exactly my point, and yet people insist on voting for these imbeciles and putting them in power, despite all previous experience. If people still want conservatives in charge in spite of the last few years, no amount of "someone I never heard of" putting their name on the ballot is going to change masochistic tendencies.

          That being said I would gladly stand against them, care to lend give me the £500 it costs to do so? Unfortunately I can't afford to throw that kind of money away.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: why do we accept it?

            Seriously - if you intend to stand against one of these eejits and you represent the "I know what a computer is and why it is important to be secure and not use personal email for government business" party, I will put up the whole of your deposit.

            Just make sure the rest of your manifesto and policies ensure that Windows 11 is abolished and gigabit fibre will be a universal service and offered free.

            1. Uncle Slacky
              Thumb Up

              Re: why do we accept it?

              > gigabit fibre will be a universal service and offered free.

              Sounds like broadband communism but OK.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: why do we accept it?

            The print media (and their websites <cough> Mailonline</cough>) are adept at conveying the image that however bad the conservatives are at the moment, the alternative will be - for unspoken reasons <cough>red scare</cough> - worse.

            Once the public start saying to themselves "they're as bad as each other" (although objectively British politicians are not all as bad as each other), then it becomes the case that some just don't bother voting, leaving only the motivated that make the effort to vote. And if those are motivated by the aforementioned on-the-whole-right-of-centre-press then you get what we've had.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: why do we accept it?

              You don't need the press to say it. Anyone who lived through the 1970s and 1990s knows from personal experience how economically catastrophic a Labour government will always be.

              1. mrfill

                Re: why do we accept it?

                Yes, I do indeed remember the 1970s when inflation reached 35% under the Heath administration and also remember the 90s when mortgages shot up to 15% after the ERM fiasco and the subsequent property price crash with all the negative equity going on. That was under the Major administration. Labour were only in power in the 70s from 74 to 79 and only 3 years in the 90s (by which time the economy was doing rather well,)

                The last 12 years also haven't been exactly financial nirvana and on November 17th its going to get a lot worse.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Anyone who lived through the 1970s

                Knows that councils had to provide housing for people and we weren't turfing out thousands of young families onto the streets. That was the council housing all the selfish shits bought up in the 80s to fund Thatcher's economic boom.

                You look at what Truss did and still believe that Labour will always be worse?

                How? How will paying a tiny bit of attention to the millions of desperate low paid workers make things worse?

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Anyone who lived through the 1970s

                  Truss wasn't wrong in principle, just totally stupid and inept in implementation.

                  The best way to fix the situation for the lowest paid is to get the country growing, so overall tax income increases. Strangling investment by increasing taxes on the very people who create that growth never works. You can't tax your way to growth, something Labour have never understood.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Anyone who lived through the 1970s

                    ahh the old laffer curve bollocks.

                    your out of date, thats been proven bollocks same as trickle down.

                    history shows that everytime conservatives get in power they fill their pockets and their mates pockets and leave the country fucked.

                    Only fuckwits believe otherwise, same as brexshitters thinking CONselfservatives were doing it for anything but the racist vote of brexshitters

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Anyone who lived through the 1970s

                      Only fuckwits believe otherwise, same as brexshitters thinking CONselfservatives were doing it for anything but the racist vote of brexshitters

                      Thank you for that literate and well-argued rebuttal. Good to see that the intellectuals are still around.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: Anyone who lived through the 1970s

                        well if you will post conservative illiterate economic bollocks talking points, best to point out how fuckwittted you are!.

                  2. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

                    For everyone trying to live through the 2020s ......

                    The best way to fix the situation for the lowest paid is to get the country growing, so overall tax income increases. Strangling investment by increasing taxes on the very people who create that growth never works. You can't tax your way to growth, something Labour have never understood ...... Anonymous Coward

                    Whenever you can’t tax your way to growth, and it be growth which the current Conservative Party led government admits is absent and vitally needed nowadays for the future, why is there so much present day chatter about across the board taxation rises in the fast approaching November budget statement/yet another markets testing mini budget???

                    Does anyone at all directly involved in such matters actually know what needs to be and how to do it and who is to do it and with what?

                    All available evidence, backed up by more than a decade of mounting failures, increasing debt and rising deficits would more than just suggest there is no one in their ranks even remotely able and capable of commanding and controlling such as may help.

                    J’accuse.

                    1. Loyal Commenter

                      Re: For everyone trying to live through the 2020s ......

                      I'm deeply scared, amanfromMars is making sense. I think I may have slipped through a wormhole or something.

                2. Martin an gof Silver badge

                  Re: Anyone who lived through the 1970s

                  the council housing all the selfish shits bought up in the 80s

                  There might have been a few "selfish shits" as you put it, but a lot more were ordinary working-class people of modest means who bought into the home-owning hype. As is often the case, some "early adopters" won, but after a while people realised that their houses in the middle of council "sink" estates weren't really worth anything like the money they had been led to believe and in many cases found it difficult to sell at anything like the value needed in order to move up the housing ladder.

                  But the two biggest problems created by Thatcher's right-to-buy was not that existing council houses were taken out of the stock available, but a: that the sale price was not sufficient for councils to be able to replace that housing and b: that they were actually prohibited from doing so, meaning that (housing associations aside, and they were only just beginning in the 1980s) the amount of affordable-rent housing in all parts of the country declined and declined.

                  It was another of Thatcher's ideologies which had some merit but was extremely badly and insensitively implemented.

                  M.

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: why do we accept it?

                I lived it, so fuck off with that bollocks, all roads to now start with fucking useless conservatives fucking the country over for their own pockets.

              4. Loyal Commenter

                Re: why do we accept it?

                Anyone who lived through the 1970s and 1990s knows from personal experience how economically catastrophic a Labour government will always be.

                Well, they certainly know how much blame Labour got for Tory policies that caused the economy to suffer. When Labour got back in, at the end of the '90s, the economy picked back up after 18 years of Tory mismanagement. Remind me again, whose watch was "Black Monday" on?

                Now, of course, I'm not going to claim that Labour's economic policies have always been right (Gordon Brown selling off the gold reserves when the price of gold was low springs to mind), but it is pure bullshit to try to play the "Tories are good with the economy" card. You only have to look up any graph of GDP vs national debt to see that debt goes up during Tory administrations, and, on the whole, the only sustained periods of debt reduction in our lifetimes have been under Labour. Thatcher managed to get an economic bounce by "selling off the family silver," and getting big returns from privatising everything she could (plus a handy windfall from North Sea oil and gas revenues). The problem is that now, we don't have those things to privatise any more, and in many cases, we are stuck paying more for them, because, as private entities, they cost the same to produce, but profit is extracted. Mortgaging your children's futures isn't exactly economically competent, or forward thinking

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: why do we accept it?

            No point voting, the government always get in.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: why do we accept it?

              Then stop doing it, so that the rest of us can choose a government that works.

            2. Kane Silver badge
              Thumb Up

              Re: why do we accept it?

              "No point voting, the government always get in."

              The House Always Wins

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: why do we accept it?

              If Liz Truss leaves nothing else behind as her lagacy, at least she has proved beyond any doubt that Some Governments are Worse Than Others. Therefore voting is important, and who knows? The winners might be less awful than the other lot would have been.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: why do we accept it?

                It is sad that we are in the south park situation of voting for the least worst candidate. Do we vote for useless out of touch career politician number 1 or number 2?

          4. Martin an gof Silver badge

            Re: why do we accept it?

            the £500 it costs to do so? Unfortunately I can't afford to throw that kind of money away.

            Don't forget you will also need ten people from the constituency to nominate you, and you'll need an election "agent" who could be yourself. You absolutely do not need to be backed by a political party and you get one free mailing and certain other help (something to do with hire of rooms for public events).

            However, if you choose your constituency carefully and campaign well, you stand a good chance of getting your deposit back - I think the requirements are only that you get 5% of the votes cast, which isn't necessarily a huge hurdle.

            As I've opined here previously, if some of the rules used in the developed world were applied to elections in the US of A, things over there might be a bit less frenetic. I mean, over $6bn spent on political advertising seemingly mostly consisting of gun-wielding Biden-deniers* on the far right, and single-issue "pro choice" campaigners on the centre-right can't be a good use of money. Put an election spending rule in place (which would also help candidates of more modest means to participate) and (crucially in my opinion) put a time limit on campaigning.

            But as others have pointed out - internal government documents sent to a personal Gmail account? What on earth? Well, at least it allows Google to index government policy a bit more quickly (not keeping up with things, I guess Google still parses every email sent through Gmail?)

            M.

            *Yup, that's correct, though the numbers seem to be in dispute. The Washington Post puts it at 291 out of 561 - over half - while other sources put it higher or lower. I think I heard someone on the BBC yesterday say it was over 400, though this might have included those standing for some of the other elections on the ballot.

          5. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: why do we accept it?

            "That being said I would gladly stand against them, care to lend give me the £500 it costs to do so? Unfortunately I can't afford to throw that kind of money away."

            That is getting to be more of the problem. It's not just the filing fee, but the cost to run any sort of campaign. If you win, it's committing a chunk of your life (and sanity) to public service where every decision you make and have made will be subject to intense public scrutiny often out of context. You might also wind up the target of a few nut jobs that just want the notoriety of attacking a public figure rather than out of any philosophical disagreement.

        2. Primus Secundus Tertius Silver badge

          Re: why do we accept it?

          Parliament and government are supposed to represent ordinary people. This incident proves that they do. Government by supposed experts would be like government by the civil service: awful.

          1. wobball

            Re: why do we accept it?

            Hilarious!

          2. Loyal Commenter

            Re: why do we accept it?

            You are Michael Gove AICMFP

            Enough of this "so called experts" bollocks, please. It was deeply disingenuous when it was used to dupe people with brexit lies, and it’s no better now.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: why do we accept it?

          >Everybody is free to stand for election against 'these people' and everybody else is free to vote for them. So if we want a change, all we have to do is change our voting habits. Stop electing 'these people'. And stand for parliament against them. Simples! :)

          I know the replies will say "that's because you vote for the party and not the people", but I'll point out that only Conservative members votes for Truss, no-one voted for Sunak, and absolutely no-one voted for Braverman to be appointed, be forced to resign and then be re-appointed as Home Secretary.

          1. captain veg Silver badge

            Re: why do we accept it?

            > "that's because you vote for the party and not the people"

            Actually you vote for someone to represent your constituency, so literally "the people". Not the party to which they belong, and certainly not for the leader of that party.

            How you arrive at your choice is entirely up to you. My parents tell me that there was a time when party affiliation wasn't even mentioned on the ballot paper.

            -A.

            1. Loyal Commenter

              Re: why do we accept it?

              Spot on. In which case, if I chose to stand for election, in my constituency, I would be standing against a very good Labour MP who has an unassailable absolute majority amongst all registered voters, not just those who voted. Why the fuck would I do that? And if I chose to stand as a candidate in Braverman's constituency of (checks notes) Fareham in East Hampshire, I'd at the very least have to uproot my job and family to move to the area and live there for several years to stand a decent chance of representing the locality.

              And in any case, she's predicted to lose her seat if an election was called today anyway.

            2. sabroni Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: My parents tell me that there was a time when party affiliation wasn't even mentioned.

              Is that before they tuck you in and turn off the light?

              FFS, "my dad says...."

              1. that one in the corner Silver badge

                Re: My parents tell me that there was a time when party affiliation wasn't even mentioned.

                Yeah, right on, sabroni.

                Nothing good ever came from knowing what happened in living memory!

                Ignore the past!

                Who cares what has been changed! Things have always been like this!

                /s - in case you'd not realised

          2. LybsterRoy Silver badge

            Re: why do we accept it?

            == I'll point out that only Conservative members votes for Truss, no-one voted for Sunak ==

            Fascinating, please explain how they became MPs then.

        4. Loyal Commenter

          Re: why do we accept it?

          Stop electing 'these people'. And stand for parliament against them. Simples! :)

          Well, that's deeply disingenuous of you, because the first step towards seeing such people voted out of office is to call them out on what they are doing, rather than loudly proclaiming "so what" like you have done.

          Also, you know, we need to have an election to get rid. Current polling shows that, if we held one tomorrow, her party would win 450 fewer seats than the opposition.

          1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

            Re: why do we accept it?

            Also, you know, we need to have an election to get rid. Current polling shows that, if we held one tomorrow, her party would win 450 fewer seats than the opposition. .... Loyal Commenter

            Which is why elections when they are needed are not called for especially by all those who would be risking their future public employment with benefits/generous salary with additional public funded perks/expenses.

            And one has to ask why, whenever Mr Heaton-Harris has acknowledged on numerous occasions he has a legal duty to call an election now in Northern Ireland, he has avoided doing so? Is that wilful abdication of legal duty, unlawful and criminal, and thus tantamount to Northern Ireland Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris self-disqualifying himself as a fit and proper person for Parliament and ministerial office ...... and the fact that Parliamentarians themselves are so apparently accepting of the blatant abdication, does also have one raising questions as to their suitability for anything which requires effective public lead.

            Revolutions and civil unrest and Troubles have been born and triggered by less.

            1. Loyal Commenter

              Re: why do we accept it?

              The "troubling" word there (pun very much intended), is "Troubles". A hell of a lot of hard work, from a lot of people, including hard compromises, went into making the Good Friday Agreement, and the mad brexiters literally don't give a shit about it. They don't care if the killings start again in Northern Ireland (and the Republic), because they don't live there, they don;t give a shit about Irish history, and probably know very little about it, and what they do know is probably very, very one-sided. They probably all think the Black-and-Tans were great blokes because their idol Churchill was responsible for them.

        5. iron Silver badge

          Re: why do we accept it?

          I have never voted for any member of the current UK government.

          In fact I've never voted for any member of any UK government in the 30+ years I've been voting because the UK government is always decided by the voters in another country. If you don't live in England (or vote for the same party as the majority of English voters) you don't have a say.

          1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

            Re: why do we accept it?

            I believe the 1997 Labour Government (ie Blair 1) is the only one which would have taken power without Scottish MPs. In other words, just as every Conservative government at Westminster has been elected by the English, almost every Labour one has been elected by the Scots.

        6. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: why do we accept it?

          >Stop electing 'these people'

          Nice soundbite...

          Can you point to anything in Sualle's past which should have been visible to the average voter and specifically residents of Fareham - other than they stood as a Conservative candidate, that would have indicated they weren't suitable material for a Cabinet position...

          This fundamentally is the problem, anyone can stand to be an MP and whilst the major parties have selection processes, given the number of sheep that keep getting selected and elected, it is clear they aren't picking up the unsuitables...

          1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

            Re: why do we accept it?

            Can you point to anything in Sualle's past which should have been visible to the average voter and specifically residents of Fareham - other than they stood as a Conservative candidate, that would have indicated they weren't suitable material for a Cabinet position...

            That she was such a crap lawyer that she never made QC? Even if that didn't deter the voters it should certainly have ruled her out as Attorney General ... but she was the only Tory lawyer in Westminster who would tell Boris that his schemes were legal. Probably because she doesn't understand the law very well, hence not a Q(K)C.

        7. Kane Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: why do we accept it?

          "Everybody is free to stand for election against 'these people' and everybody else is free to vote for them. So if we want a change, all we have to do is change our voting habits. Stop electing 'these people'. And stand for parliament against them. Simples! :)"

          As long as:

          • You have the right education
          • You have the right amount of money
          • You have the right "friends"

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        If I'd done this with sensitive company documents I wouldn't be retrained, I'd be fired for gross misconduct

        It's even worse than that. These are government documents we're talking about, not corporate....send those where they aren't meant to go and you could be looking at imprisonment.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I agree with you. It seems that the BBC and The Guardian, plus much of the country want to bring down the government one cake or GMail at a time, if that's what it takes. We'll end up with a Labour government, so be careful what you wish for.

      But it seems that Braverman actually wants to do something about the migrant crisis, and we can't possibly have that, can we?

      1. captain veg Silver badge

        Re: it seems that Braverman actually wants to do something about the migrant crisis

        Quite apart from the fact that there is no such crisis, this rather overstates her attachment to principle rather than, say, pandering to the mouth-frothing crazies who might one day elect her leader of the party.

        -A.

      2. Loyal Commenter

        The only "crisis" is the one that refugees, amongst them women and young children, are being forced to sleep on the ground, in marquees, in November, because of a government which chooses to pursue the rhetoric that anyone crossing the channel in a small boat is a criminal, rather than doing the two things that would help the situation; providing "official" routes for refugees, and going after the actual criminals, by cooperating with trans-European efforts to stamp out people smuggling (and by association, the modern slavery and other criminal activity that goes with it).

        That doesn't suit those who engage in dog-whistle politics, though.

        edit - oh, and number three, employing enough case-workers to process the asylum cases, rather than "having to" put people up in hotels at great expense, wholly in order to drum up more anti-immigrant rhetoric.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          I agree with the need to deal with the criminals who facilitate this people trading, but those who arrive illegally are rarely refugees. By the UN's own definition a refugee is someone fleeing persecution. For the most part these people have left safe countries such as France or Albania where they are not being persecuted, because they think Britain will be a soft touch for illegal employment.

          Your support for them is shocking. Give some thought instead to the British citizens who are struggling to pay their own bills, and let the government help them instead of having to waste money processing illegal migrants. Charity begins at home.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            re: the British citizens who are struggling to pay their own bills

            After the tories fucked the economy only they can fix it?

            It's not migrants that are raking in massive profits while families are losing their homes.

            It's the RICH that are the problem, not the poor people displaced as a result of our countries arms deals with their oppressive governments.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: re: the British citizens who are struggling to pay their own bills

              This is the 2020s, not the 1820s. The days when people were either the rich minority or the poverty-stricken majority are long gone. Most people in the UK are ordinary middle class people who work hard to earn a reasonable living, and are entitled to keep what they earn.

              As for oppressive governments, France is a respected European state, and Albania (current source of the biggest group of migrants) is in the queue for EU membership. Neither is oppressive or persecutory.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: re: the British citizens who are struggling to pay their own bills

                all the middle class people who are now having to use fucking food banks due to fucked up CONselfservative policy bunging billions into their mates pockets then writing it off.

                The CON really fucking helped them!!! fuckwit.

          2. Loyal Commenter

            Oh silly me, I didn't realise that our country was being run into the ground by refugees. There was me thinking we'd had a Tory government for the last twelve years.

            Gather round, folks and take a look, see! Our very own captive sucker! See how they've swallowed the "divide and conquer" rhetoric hook line, and sinker!

        2. LybsterRoy Silver badge

          I wonder that if "official" routes for refugees were set up how many would qualify for refugee status and how many would have to go back to the current unofficial routes?

          You're dead right though - there's no crisis its only costing c£4b (I think that was the figure I saw quoted on the beeb) a year plus the costs of patrolling and rescuing these non-refugees.

          1. Loyal Commenter

            Those costs are largely there because there are no legal routes, and policing the "illegal" ones* that spring up is reactive and expensive.

            If legal and accessible routes for asylum claimants were provided, how many genuine refugees would choose to stow away in lorries, or cross the channel in dinghies? Here's a clue: it would be a round number.

            In a swoop, this would remove the entire refugee market from the people-smuggling gangs. They would be left with those people who, for some reason, are so desperate to reach the UK, they'll accept a high risk of death to do so, The odds are that those people are not going to be doing so willingly (would you?), and these are vulnerable people being exploited by criminals (modern slavery). The criminals here are very clearly the "people smugglers", not their victims.

            Nobody is going to claim that this sort of organised crime isn't a huge problem, but the current government's approach to tackling it actually exacerbates the problem, because by preventing refugees from having a legal route to get here, we are directly feeding their "business model".

            *It's not illegal to cross the channel in a small boat, by the way, in case you were wondering. It's the entering the country without going through border control bit that is questionable.

        3. Primus Secundus Tertius Silver badge

          @Loyal Commenter

          Utterly wrong! In the vast majority of cases, nobody forced these migrants to come here. They are foreigners, they are not our problem. You should be blaming the governments of their original countries.

      3. F. Frederick Skitty Silver badge

        "it seems that Braverman actually wants to do something about the migrant crisis, and we can't possibly have that, can we?"

        There is no migrant crisis. The UK has the lowest number of migrants arriving by unofficial channels of the Western European nations, and even those that are arriving are doing so in far smaller numbers than in the first decade of this century. Stop reading the Daily Mail you twat.

      4. Ian Johnston Silver badge

        But it seems that Braverman actually wants to do something about the migrant crisis, and we can't possibly have that, can we?

        Does she want to cut down the number of genuine refugees seeking to escape repression, torture and worse, or she just out to stop economic migrants like her parents?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          What a shamefully ignorant comment. Her parents came as legal hard-working immigrants, to compare them to the illegal migrants (not refugees) is pure Daily Mail crap.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            What exactly is the difference, hmm?

            Under the current rules, neither Priti Patel nor Braverman's parents would have been able to enter the country "legally".

            They are classic examples of "pulling up the drawbridge" after themselves.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              The difference is that they came legally under the rules at the time. To suggest that this is somehow equivalent to arriving illegally because the rules have changed is ridiculous.

          2. Loyal Commenter

            Her parents came as legal hard-working immigrants

            Yes, they came here to find work, legally under the rules at the time, and fair play to them, did well out of it. That's pretty much the definition of an economic migrant. We had "legal" routes for it to happen back then, and the right-wing (the likes of Enoch Powell) really didn't like it at all.

            These days, people of Indian heritage living in Kenya (Which IIRC is her lineage) would not get to come to the UK and become British citizens. If they wanted to do so, they'd have to risk their lives in a small boat, or hidden in the back of a lorry.

            We've always been a nation of immigrants, right back to Roman times and beyond. The main difference these days is that in the modern world, people can travel further, and some people don't like it that some of them don't have white skin.

            So we have gone from Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" to the daughter of the people he was probably talking about ranting about an "invasion" apparently with no sense of irony whatsoever. A reminder, if one were needed, that nasty hate speech can come from anyone's mouth.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              All religion/creed/colour is used as tribal dividers, I was shocked when young to find a freind of colour who complained about racism was perfectly happy to use racial slurs about pakistan and indian people, and seem oblivious to the hypocrisy.

              You have to remember most cultures have biases against sub groups even in their own peoples (see indian caste system for prime example, or english/irish/scottish/welsh abuse).

              So not really surprised.

              Down vote all you want, that won't change the facts!.

              1. Loyal Commenter

                Indeed. I saw a talking head on a programme on the TV last night (can't remember whom or what programme I'm afraid, so this is anecdotal), who made the pertinent point that the UK is actually one of the least racist countries in the world. This doesn't mean there's no racism here, far from it, but he highlighted the fact that a lot of European countries have a far worse problem with it.

                This apples across the world. My wife experienced racism as a white woman working in Japan, which is every bit as pernicious as anti-black racism from white people, or anti-Asian racism from black people, or any "anti-X from Y" you can think of.

                Sadly, tribal racism is baked into our evolutionary past, and this probably stems from the fact that when we were pre-human apes, we lived in small tribal units of a few hundred, and tribalism was a survival trait. "Protect the tribe from outsiders". Clearly, in today's world, we don't live in tribes, and we're not under constant threat from other groups trying to kill us, and steal our food and females. Evolution takes a long time to change though, especially when what was a survival trait goes to being simply a trait that confers no advantage. In today's world, it's arguable that it conveys mild disadvantage to be racist, but as I said, evolution works slowly...

                What we can do, as thinking beings, is recognise that the tools evolution has given us aren't all ones we need to use. We (well most people) don't go around raping and murdering because we have the occasional impulse to do so, for example. I put racism, and other forms of xenophobia in the same category. Others may choose to embrace them, but I think maybe that's not for the best...

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              These days, people of Indian heritage living in Kenya (Which IIRC is her lineage) would not get to come to the UK and become British citizens.

              What makes you think that?

              Certainly they don't have an automatic entry route to UK citizenship since Kenya and Mauritius (Braverman's parental background) declared independence in the 60s, that's hardly a surprise. There's still no reason that someone in their position couldn't apply legally for work, get a visa, and over time apply for citizenship. Just arriving, illegally, and expecting to be given support and a job is not a realistic approach, of course.

              is that in the modern world, people can travel further, and some people don't like it that some of them don't have white skin.

              Ah, another racist who thinks that skin colour is all that matters. There are many reasons to encourage immigration, mostly around the skills that people can bring to the country, but it seems that some people still only see colour. Sad.

          3. Ian Johnston Silver badge

            I said nothing about legality. You'll agree that her parents were economic migrants?

      5. that one in the corner Silver badge

        "It seems that the BBC and ... want to bring down the government one... at a time"

        That is rather the point of critical journalism: point out the problems in Government; *whatever* and *whoever* the Government is it shouldn't be hiding anything.

        No matter who is in power at the moment, there is - and should be - someone pointing out the flaws.

    4. JimboSmith Silver badge

      I work in retail and even we have rules about using personal email accounts for work purposes. There are consequences and penalties where I work for doing so. These include gross misconduct which will unsurprisingly result in you losing your job. For the Home Secretary to breach the rules where she works is utterly unacceptable.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I'm more worried that she was too stupid to conceal what she was doing. When I leak $WORKPLACE documents to the press I am not daft enough to send them anywhere from my work email.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > this is a non-issue.

      A potential OSA breach is the kind of non-issue that lands people in jail. If that's the kind of "retraining" you had in mind, that's not "exactly what happened".

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      No sorry you are wrong.

      Mishandling of sensitive information is a serious offense and anyone, anywhere else, would potentially be looking at jail.

      They certainly wouldn't have their job back after 6 days.

      How can anyone in that position ever be trusted again? Once may be a mistake. Six times is on purpose.

      To say she needed to see it during a teams call just shows the lack of care.

      Some of us have worked in environments requiring DV and STRAP levels of clearance. Most of all of these kinds of places also have to have some kind of disclaimer manually added to the first line of the email along the lines of "I confirm that this email contains no restricted information. dd/mm/yyyy"

      Any part of that missing and the email won't send.

      The very fact you have to add it manually should be enough to make you stop and critically examine whether or not you are about to breach security.

      Anyone can make a mistake. Once. THAT possibly requires retraining and moving on (possibly with some closer monitoring). More than that? Just nope.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    old news...

    The Register seems to be rather late...

    The lettuce knew of this before you...

  3. Neil Barnes Silver badge

    Phones?

    On some occasions, she said she needed to do so in order to view documents on her private phone while conducting a Microsoft Teams video call on her official phone.

    If only there were some sort of IT device with a screen big enough to do more than one thing at a time on...

    1. Howard Sway Silver badge

      Re: Phones?

      Or even better, imagine if the government could have been able to afford to buy her two phones. Or if they could afford a new toner cartridge and print out government documents for her, which could have been secured in some kind of box.

      We might have been one spyware loaded "sink the migrants" game in the app store away from our entire national security being blown wide open.

      1. Loyal Commenter

        Re: Phones?

        You probably missed the news a few days ago, that Truss's official phone was compromised by Russian spyware whilst she was foreign minister...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Phones?

          Truss's official phone was compromised by Russian spyware

          According to the reports I've seen it was her personal phone that was hacked, not her official one...

          1. Arctic fox
            IT Angle

            @AC "....her personal phone that was hacked...

            Given the type of idiocy she has so clearly been guilty of we know with utter certainty that she would cheerfully have conducted confidential government business on her private phone (and probably did) without a care in the world. She is a major league dishonest plank. Choice of icon? With her woeful ignorance of all matters of IT-security what else?

    2. LDS Silver badge

      Re: Phones?

      But do Prada bags have a pocket for tablets? Maybe those able to hold a laptop are not so fashionable?

      Can't a phone costing more that many laptops keep a Team call active while switching to another app? Or it can only work as an MS-DOS PC?

  4. thondwe

    RMS

    You'd sort of hope that HMG's I.T. people would enforce RMS/conditional access etc for important docs - rather than relying on policies which are routinely ignored!!

    1. Giles C Silver badge

      Re: RMS

      Yes it should be easy, studying for the ccnp security exam to renew it and in the section on email security one of the chapters is data loss prevention or how to stop confidential docs going to unsafe email addresses.

      It isn’t that hard to configure either

    2. Richard 12 Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: RMS

      I'm sure they can. They may have even tried.

      I'm also absolutely certain that any attempts at such policy enforcement over the last decade would have immediately resulted in Ministers screaming that they can't do their jobs if they have to follow the law and the ministerial code, and said civil servant is going to get fired if they don't let them email anything they want to anyone right this second.

      That kind of IT policy only survives if the boss really wants it to. Johnson has repeatedly proven his opinion of how important the law and ministerial code is.

    3. Ian Johnston Silver badge

      Re: RMS

      You'd sort of hope that HMG's I.T. people would enforce RMS/conditional access etc for important docs

      I presume that means that anything which contains "Linux" and not "GNU/Linux" is automatically deleted.

  5. Oh Matron!

    FTFY

    "To the disgust of most, Braverman was reappointed as Home Secretary"

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Jury nullification (google it)

    If these fuckers think they can get away with it, then it's a lucky day for any sod accused of it with me on their jury. I know judges are up to their necks in it, but for now you can't stop a juror saying "fuck you Cruella".

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Good old days

    When I worked for the Attorney General life was so simple. Classified documents came and went by hand. The AG had two phones, one was scrambled, and for anything urgent, there was always the telex.

  8. John Riddoch

    Pretty sure if I sent a document marked "confidential" to my home gmail account from work it would count as misconduct with an attendant likelihood of being sacked. 6 times? I'd definitely be out with a black mark on my name for a job. Why is this deemed tolerable for someone who is allegedly in charge of national security and policing? To wave it away with "I've had IT training so everything is fine" is crap, this should be basic confidentiality training for any incoming politician so I'd be surprised if she hadn't had the exact same training at various points in the past, she just chose to ignore it. If there isn't training given to politicians on IT security and document handling, someone needs a massive boot up the arse to get it sorted.

  9. Inventor of the Marmite Laser

    Take her personal phone and stick it in a blender

    1. DJV Silver badge

      I suspect that has already been done to her brain, especially given the crackpot ideas she and her predecessor came up with.

    2. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Ask her to hold her phone on top of an anvil whilst a member of the public (oh, alright, I'll volunteer if no one else will), brings a sledgehammer down on the phone.

      1. DJV Silver badge

        Ah, the old, "when I nod my head, you hit it" routine!

  10. steelpillow Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Plus ca change

    So we threw out Boris and his gang for holding parties because they were above their own law, not to mention being a menacing bunch of loose cannon.

    Then we threw out I've-forgotten-her-name-already for being above the natural laws of the financial markets, not to mention being a fracking menace.

    Now we have a Home Secretary who is breaking cybersecurity law because she is above the laws she is responsible for. I mean, what kind of excuse is it that she forwarded Govt stuff from Gmail because it was the only phone she had - it shouldn't have been in her Gmail box in the first place! Not to mention being a menace to all "invading" desperate foreigners. Then there was the story about her which appeared here about a week ago and shortly afterwards mysteriously disappeared.

    So that's all right, then.

    1. Loyal Commenter

      Re: Plus ca change

      So we threw out Boris and his gang...

      Except we didn't, did we? We've still got "his gang", who, on the large part, were hand-picked for their loyalty to him, and to brexit, in order to become candidates at the last election.

      Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Plus ca change

        An election that they won, handsomely. Democracy is such a bummer when you don't get the "correct" result, isn't it.

        1. John 110

          Re: Plus ca change

          "An election that they won, handsomely."

          That's only true if you're English...

          1. Julz

            Re: Plus ca change

            So where are you on the Mid Lothian question?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Plus ca change

              Hearts v. Hibs? If you're after the constitutional question over whether Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs should be allowed to vote on England-only matters, then that would be the West Lothian question. It was named after Tam Dalyell, who was the MP for West Lothian when he repeatedly raised the question during devolution debates.

              1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

                Re: Plus ca change

                And it has a very simple answer: It is not the business of voters in West Lothian to decide for the people of England who gets to make their laws.

                1. Martin an gof Silver badge

                  Re: Plus ca change

                  And it has a very simple answer

                  No, it doesn't.

                  It has a very complex answer because of a compromise "until we find something better" (20+ years and counting) funding arrangement known as the Barnet formula.

                  Money from central funds to the devolved parliaments is given as a 'block grant' which means that they can divvy it up however they like. So if Scotland wants to spend 2% of the grant on public transport and Wales wants to to spend 3% (totally made-up figures) that's absolutely fine.

                  However, the cash size of the block grant is calculated purely on the basis of what Westminster spends in England, thus if for some reason they decide one year (or even part-way through a year - watch out for the Autumn Statement incoming) to reduce the amount they spend on public transport, the Barnet formula ensures that the block grants are reduced by proportionate amounts.

                  The effect of this is that if the devolved administrations wish to maintain cash spending in (for example) public transport - perhaps they have just committed to buy a fleet of new trains based on the size of the grant at the time - they will have to reduce spending in other areas (alternatively they now have the option of minor variations in income tax).

                  The same applies to other 'devolved' reaponsibilities; health, education, housing, etc. etc. In other words while they might be 'politically' devolved, they are not (really) 'financially' devolved and there is therefore a really strong argument that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs should be able to vote on those areas in Westminster.

                  M.

        2. Loyal Commenter

          Re: Plus ca change

          "Handsomely," in this case, translates roughly to making promises he had no intention of keeping, and otherwise being pretty dishonest, which most people who voted for him seem to have cottoned on to, as his approval rating over time shows, from being largely positive, to very negative at the point he was forced to resign over an accumulation of various scandals and dodgy dealings.

          All this shows, is that if you promise people lots of good things, they'll vote for you, whether or not you have any intention of delivering them. This just demonstrates that a lot of people are terrible at spotting an obvious charlatan.

          As it happens, in my constituency, the incumbent Labour MP (Thangam Debbonaire) increased her already considerable majority, so that wasn't so "handsome" for the Tories, was it? Incidentally, she's also of Indian descent, but far from the "pull-the-ladder-up" attitude of the home secretary (and her predecessor under Johnson), she is very strong on refugee rights, amongst other things. It just goes to show you should judge someone on their merits, rather than their skin colour, or geographical origin. It may be confirmation bias, but I'd tip her as a future leader of the Labour party. She's a very good speaker, and handles the media rounds very well, and it's about time (and to it's shame that it hasn't yet happened) that Labour had a woman leader.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Plus ca change

        Of Sunak's 31-member Cabinet, 16 were Cabinet ministers under Johnson: Sunak, Raab, Braverman, Wallace, Zahawi, Dowden, Coffey, Shapps, Barclay, Gove, Heaton-Harris, Jack, Hart, Mercer, Williamson and Jenrick. Most of the rest were junior ministers or held other posts (e.g. Mark Harper was Chair of the COVID recovery group). I think it's just Hunt, Mordaunt and Mitchell who were back-benchers. Hunt and Mordaunt were Cabinet ministers under May.

        (All information off Wikipedia. List of Cabinet members from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63376560)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Plus ca change

      If only there was a senior minister with security in their remit who could have taken her aside and advised her...

  11. Yet Another Hierachial Anonynmous Coward
    WTF?

    Sacking is not enough

    Another clueless dipshit idiot in charge of the country. As if hashtags Rudd was not bad enough. What was she thinking? All that training, signing the OSA (I presume she must have done that to become home secretary), constant briefings on cyber terrorism, knowledge of auditing and traceability, and she still does something like this 6 times? And on a gmail account of all things. Now big brother google knows more about our government policies than the government.

    Surely when you become a senior government minster, someone from somewhere tells you to close all your personal "publicly hosted" free email accounts, and only use a personal email account that is hosted in a suitably secure environment.? Aside from anything else, the ability to get malware through a public account like that is just not worth any risk. No doubt Liz trusses hacked phone suffered similar.

    In any commercial organisation distributing internal classified information would be a sackable offence. It needs to be in this case too. And properly sacked. Not just removed from the cabinet, but sacked as an MP for misconduct in public office and a by-election called. Then people (and her cronies) would actually start to question and understand what she has done.

    1. steelpillow Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Sacking is not enough

      Ah, but don't forget she has made herself indispensible as the experienced expert on the government's immigration policy - you know, the one that isn't working and, but for her time as Attorney General, one might imagine was also illegal.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sacking is not enough

      > And properly sacked.

      Why hasn't she been charged under the official secrets act?

      Serious question.

      1. Adrian 4 Silver badge

        Re: Sacking is not enough

        Because she said how sorry she was, and how it will never happen again until next time etc.

        That's what passes for punishment when you appear to be loyal to a PM.

      2. Julz

        Re: Sacking is not enough

        Because the documents in question weren’t secret.

  12. tiggity Silver badge

    MPs love their own personal phones

    Official govt phones & email accounts subject to monitoring, audit, FOI data requests etc.

    Use your own phone and who knows what dubious apps & storage (Gmail, FFS, everyone knows that's not the place for confidential data - you have a Gmail account for random irrelevant dross, not for anything vital ) and you can leak information to whoever you wish, set up all sorts of unofficial & unmonitored communications back channels with who knows what individuals & organisations.

    I'm sure there's a massive culture amongst many MPs of "off the books" communications - cannot let data security measures get in the way of activities that may be extremely corrupt*

    * As a charitable sort, I am not implying Sue Ellen is corrupt: Same as if I see a bloke walking down the road at night with a chunky flathead screwdriver - I don't automatically assume he is going to try and jemmy his way into a car, as there's plenty of legit reasons for him to have that tool, but if local plod saw him they may well be having a chat on the grounds of "reasonable suspicion"

    1. Loyal Commenter

      Re: MPs love their own personal phones

      At the very least, he would be given what is charmingly referred to as "words of advice".

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: MPs love their own personal phones

      They also seem to like WhatTwat...

      Who knows what they discuss 'off the record' on Meta's app

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Noise really.....

    There's a £50Billion hole in the government finances........................................

    That means almost £1000 LESS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SPEND to support every man, woman and child in the UK!!!

    Think....Universal Credit.....think....NHS.........

    .....and this article in El Reg is about Cruella's phone????

    .....please.......get a grip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Loyal Commenter

      Re: Noise really.....

      More! Exclamation!! Marks!!! Please!!!!

      AND SOME RANDOM BLOCK CAPITALS TOO!!!11!!11eleventyone!

      1. Loyal Commenter

        Re: Noise really.....

        ...needless to say, asylum claimants don't get NHS treatment, free housing, Universal credit et al. They essentially get imprisoned (at great expense), and then, if the current lot have anything to say about it, deported to Rwanda.

        Successful asylum seekers become citizens, and, all metric indicate, end up contributing more in taxes to the exchequer than the average natively-born Brit.

        Try explaining that to your average thick-as-pigshit Daily Heil or Ex-cess reader though, and you'll wear out their poor little brain-cell.

        1. graeme leggett

          Re: Noise really.....

          Earlier today, someone tried telling me that an asylum seekling migrant only becomes a net benefit to the UK once they earn over £45,000 (I presume they meant per annum).

          Which seems a bit off given the median household disposable (ie after income tax etc) income in UK is around £31,000

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Noise really.....

          > Successful asylum seekers become citizens

          Not to detract from your general point but some do, some don't. Depends on many factors.

          1. Loyal Commenter

            Re: Noise really.....

            Well yes, technically speaking, residency and citizenship aren't the same thing, and a great number of benefits are simply not available to non-citizens, despite all the incoherent rage on the subject you might be able to find on the Internet.

  14. Jason Hindle

    Lines. It’s all about lines

    Two phones. The cabinet member’s personal phone. Another provided by the security services. And a simple line in the sand, backed up with a set of rules and the kind of law that gets offenders locked up. Job done.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Kudos

    To that member of staff who raised a warning, and to his boss for following up.

  16. BebopWeBop
    Devil

    To the surprise of many, Braverman was reappointed as Home Secretary, but not before some serious IT training, according to the letter.

    That will be how to turn it off and on again then....

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Gmail?

    What gets me is that a cabinet minister was even using Gmail for their personal email. That, in my view, would automatically deem them unsuitable for a post that has significant national security responsibilities.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like