Louise Haigh

[Tryingtokeepgoing]

AIBU to think that if you really didn’t commit the crime, don’t plead guilty even if your solicitor advises you to. I mean, sure, for a traffic or speeding offence maybe that’d be the expedient thing to do. But fraud…?

Louise Haigh resigns over stolen mobile phone fraud conviction

https://www.thetimes.com/article/6772fe81-8e36-4e5d-baa8-4902a6553b4d?shareToken=3fe1e52cb5b31dc1a3e40721c219a69e

Reform's standards aren't higher, evidently.

It is refreshing to see a minister promptly resign over a scandal. Like normal service being resumed after the last few years where no one resigned or was sacked for anything unless it had been dragged out in the papers for weeks.

Why are you so obsessed by Reform? It’s whataboutery. She’s an ex-con. That’s that.

Typical hyperbolic nonsense. She didn't spend time in prison.

Maybe they can, and usefully contribute in some jobs. But I still think it should rule out some options, depending on the conviction and the role. Would you let a convicted fraudster run the finances of your business? Wouk you let a convicted paedophile work with children? Would you let someone with a conviction for ABH work in the police?

She is still an MP, why are people bring up MPs as comparison, or have I missed something, I thought she had just resigned as Transport secretary.

A law breaker should not be allowed never be allowed anywhere near the legislature. It’s as simple as that. She should be sacked as an MP. You can start the campaign against reform if you want.

Most likely it was that he found out that a call was made to one of her family members using the ‘stolen’ phone.

She shouldn’t be an MP. Parliament is a joke, our scummy MPs are a joke. The whole system is corrupt. Stuffed full of corrupt low lives.

Maybe it’s a small detail but I am confused about the dates and her age. According to the current reporting she is 37, born mid 1987. However her resignation letter states she was 24 in early 2013. Something doesn’t add up.

Presumably she’s been fired (told to resign) - but it does beg the question, why …

That's a somewhat scattergun approach. She hasn't actually broken any regulations and Starmer didn't see it as a problem when she was appointed. It's a pretty minor offence.

Sure.

Evidently he sees a problem now - the "further information", possibly?

To spare Starmer his blushes. He has no problem appointing a convicted thief and fraudster, until it became public knowledge.

Starmer is a total an utter liar and hypocrite. And shit Prime Minitser in term of competence.

Who knew that this shower would be worse than the last lost.

Louise Haigh’s ‘stolen’ phone was ‘used to call relatives’

https://www.thetimes.com/article/74fcc0e4-4286-4df5-8b78-adbc96fb7123?shareToken=f17a19ef52edde1dae3748716b3d530b

What a moron.

Worse? Do you remember that Boris Johnson ended up having to resign because he appointed as a chief whip a guy that he knew had allegations of sexually assaulting people against him when he did it again? Pincher by name?

It's all speculation.

In what way scattterfun? Which of my examples do you disagree with. Surely it’s common sense that a conviction can be spent, that for most roles it’s no longer declarable or relevant, or indeed on your record. But for more sensitive roles it is.

I hadn’t realised fraud was a minor offence though - It’s thought it was more serious than theft. And I don’t think I’d want - cleaner with a theft conviction, no matter the circumstances. Sure, perhaps the risk is low. But with so many cleaners without a theft conviction, why employ one with. The same for ministers. Plenty of MPs without a fraud conviction. I can’t believe the minimising sometimes!!

Well, Haigh herself said you can’t be a law breaker and a law maker, back in 2022, so…

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=590460625784775&id=100044625270382

@Minahundaralskarmig I noticed that. I also notice some iffy timings on her education/work experience side of things. If born in summer 1987, she’d have started uni in 2005 (assuming no gap year). She went to LSE, didn’t finish the course then did her degree at Nottingham. So I make that at least 4 years of study 2005-2009. But she was working for the local council “after graduating” from 2006-2008. And was working in Parliament and a Unite shop steward and a special constable from 2009? Just seems oddly convoluted.

The Times article linked to above says that Aviva and the police found that Haigh had been phoning contacts, including relatives, from the phone before and after the reported theft.

Was that a detail she neglected to tell Starmer?

Did she give him the abbreviated version where the phone was just "switched on"?

The constant references to rule breaking by other MPs or ministers really isn't the point. Labour supporters on here have posted thousands of times about a lack of ethics in the Conservative Party.

And, on the most part, they were right. I'm able to criticise the party I voted for and it's also one of the main reasons that I didn't vote Conservative for the first time ever in the last election.

But apparently it's not an issue if someone who's been convicted of fraud is given a Cabinet position if you vote Labour. It's blinkered to say the least and undermines the argument that's been made on here for years.

Scattergun in that they're not comparable. She's hardly a paedophile wanting to work with children. I would have thought ABH was a prerequisite for the police. However they accept people with convictions and recruit on a case by case basis.

You can't compare a convicted child abuser with someone who lied about a mobile phone.