💾 Archived View for splint.rs › poliltical_stories.gmi captured on 2024-05-12 at 15:19:40. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I Don't Understand What I'm Reading

The Guardian informs me that Suella Braverman has resigned, stating:

Suella Braverman has resigned

Earlier today, I sent an official document from my personal email to a trusted parliamentary colleague as part of policy engagement, and with the aim of garnering support for government policy on migration. This constitutes a technical infringement of the rules … nevertheless it is right for me to go.

I don't understand any of this.

Standard users make mistakes like this all the time. The only thing you can do is help them by making the interface easier. If this is a firing offence, you only encourage people to never send email, and instead have others do it for them, to release culpability. This rule does not seem any more realistic than demanding that someone never stutter publicly.
If this is because she's suspected of bad intentions, it doesn't do anything - secretly leaking information *with* plausible deniability is not only trivial, but easier now than at any point in human history.
How is anyone else understanding this? Is the regular viewer meant to hear this and think 'by Jove, chatting about work with a PERSONAL EMAIL ACCOUNT - the absolute nerve of the woman! I would never!'?

I put out the Guardian article as it's the most digestible, coming with at least some explanation of the events. The explanation here is that Braverman has not in fact resigned over accidentally sending an email from the wrong address, which answers questions 1 and 2. However, the third point remains. Why release an explanation which seems so suspicious? Why not simply resign and state one's disgust with the current practices of the government?

Interviews with government officials don't help my understanding in the slightest. Quite a number assume bad faith in everything, and simply go on the attack, with a very rude reporter using harsh language, prompting the politician to hide behind Barnum statements.

I wish I could see someone asking straight-forward, non-accusing, non-rude questions, and attempting to make the conversation more honest.

Sending emails from the wrong place, and similar computer-mistakes is rather common. Is this really a rare incident?

If the email was sent internally, where's the harm?

The Guardian has reported that there must be some subtext. Could we go through this and get your opinions on the subtext?