SACK Suella Braverman, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was told on all sides today.

Pressure was piled on the premier to dismiss his far-right Home Secretary after she penned an extraordinary attack against peace marchers and the police in The Times newspaper.

The article, which Downing Street said had not been cleared, accused the police of political bias and demanded a crackdown on demonstrations for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Number 10 insisted that it still had confidence in Ms Braverman, whose public provocations are now a daily event, but it was almost alone in that view.

One Tory senior former cabinet minister said after the latest outrage: “She’s trying to get sacked, I hope she succeeds.

“Supposing there’s a riot on Saturday, has she helped or hindered? She’s the first Home Secretary to contribute to public disorder.”

And Tory justice committee chairman Bob Neill said her article was “unwise” and “ill-advised.”

Only two Tory MPs spoke up in the Home Secretary’s support in the Commons during an emergency debate on her latest outburst, dubbed “inaccurate, inflammatory and irresponsible” by London Mayor Sadiq Khan. 

Mr Sunak remains concerned about her influence among his party’s membership however, despite allegations that she ignored changes to her article demanded by Number 10. 

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said the PM was “too weak” to sack his Home Secretary.

Speculation is rife that Ms Braverman is looking for political martyrdom to endear herself to hard-right Tories, positioning herself for the leadership election that would follow anticipated election defeat.

But her article went further, both by attacking the police and by unsubtly trying to rally a far-right bloc to her side.

“Senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protesters,” she claimed, inaccurately suggesting that “lockdown objectors were given no quarter by public order police yet Black Lives Matter demonstrators were enabled, allowed to break rules.”

Claiming her views on “double standards” were shared by serving and retired police officers, she added that “football fans are even more vocal about the tough way they are policed as compared to politically connected minority groups who are favoured by the left.”

Doubling down on her smear that the protests in support of Palestinians are “hate marches” she virtually incited the police to disrupt Saturday’s demonstration.

“This weekend the public will expect to see an assertive and proactive approach to any displays of hate, breaches of conditions and general disorder,” she wrote.

Labour MPs led calls for her resignation in the Commons. Jon Trickett told her to quit as she was “attempting to draw the police into taking a political role – a dangerous, slippery slope.”

And Chris Bryant said that “there is no place for hate on the streets, there is no place for hate in the Home Office either. 

“The present Home Secretary is the person inciting hatred.”

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper focused on police independence but also accused Ms Braverman of “inflaming community tensions in the most dangerous ways” when her job was “keeping the public safe and not an endless leadership campaign.”

The all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims warned she was “fanning the flames of hate and inspiring the far right,” making Muslim communities unsafe.

And Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said: “Once again, Suella Braverman’s extremely ill-judged comments seem deliberately designed to divide communities.

“The Home Secretary’s remarks will increase the risk of violence from counter-protesters while violating the operational independence of the police. Their duty is to facilitate the right to peaceful protest.

“Our right to protest is not subject to the opinions of our political leaders.”

Ms Braverman caused additional offence in Northern Ireland by writing that the Gaza marches were “an assertion of primacy by certain groups – particularly Islamists – of the kind we are more used to seeing in Northern Ireland.”

Angry loyalists, used to “asserting their primacy” during the marching season, demanded clarification – briefings suggested that “dissident republicans” had been the intended target.