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

Seems a bit penny-ante to me. I mean even 5 top of the range iPhones would only have been about £10,000 retail.

Fraud is one of those offences where it seems the bigger the number, the less people care. Just ask Rupert Grint

Not the path LH is pursuing… she resigned saying “whatever the facts of the matter..”.

Didn’t say anything redemption… did she?

She just made excuses from a person not accepting responsibility.

Rosie Duffield said on X that the leadership knew about this years ago but now LH is becoming a nuisance they have thrown her under a 're-nationalised train', as she put it.

This isn’t about being an mp, it’s about being a cabinet minister. She is still an mp

A "telling sign of her character".

No, it just means she got caught. And it's not in the public interest to stop people with spent convictions from working - certain convictions and jobs aside - I obviously understand why you don't want someone with a spent conviction for sexual offences working with kids or vulnerable adults.

And as a minister she's only a figurehead for the civil servants doing the actual work behind the scenes.

I suspect most MPs have indulged in criminal conduct of some kind or other. As have most MNers, whether they admit it or not.

Quick scan of google search headlines:

Left leaning news:
”LH incorrectly reported phone stolen”

Factual news:
”LH pleaded guilty to fraud”

Lefty-la-la.

“what sort of society do we want? can no one ever be rehabilitated?”

Sure. Apparently only the ones who belong to the party we vote for though.

So what do you think people with convictions should do with the rest of their lives?

Live off benefits?

No thanks, I want people working, paying taxes and being useful members of society.

I thought as much.
They kept it under their hats in order to have a way to control her or swiftly remove her.

She’ll be costing them too much P&O money.

LH …. didn’t come clean, at all. The played victim, poor LH-with law degree, was told by solicitor to plead guilty to something the hadn’t done?? (Supposed to believe she was so terrified that she couldn’t behave appropriately and honestly about a work phone??)

& hasn’t told whole truth to her boss

She could have have, since beginning, told her truth, what she learned, and how she’s changed. What others can learn from her mistake(s).
Instead, she lied, & was very vocal about others dishonesty, & leadership lost trust in her.

"In some capacity post conviction" so basically, make a mistake/error/being stupid as a young person and all that awaits you for the next 60 years is sack cloth and ash?

Unless i'm mistaken you seem to take quite an anti Labour stance on other threads?

Haigh/Starmer made these quotes about people who were making laws but at exactly the same time, breaking them... ie Parties!! a totally different scenario and one that is correct too, i m sure if Boris had an anti social conviction for a particularly wild party 10 years ago, he'd still be PM....

Outside of a custodial sentence, i think anyone should be able to be an MP or even a minister.... people can often become better people through making and learning from acts of stupidity/error or do we just want our MPs etc to be guilty of only running through Fields of Wheat? incidentally, that would be criminal damage lol!

However, all of this is caveated on if Haigh's offence was a one off and not part of a wider pattern of stealing phones.

And appointed her anyway

That should preclude you from any type of office

Has anyone actually supported the Reform MP?

I think not

Threads can be about just one thing

Then you suspect incorrectly. Fraud is a serious conviction and not compatible with a role in government. As she herself said in 2022! Also, I have no allegiance to any political party. Why you’d assume that because I criticise a member of the government I’d support the opposition is unclear. This is not, after all, the school playground where ‘taking sides’ is a key part of needing to fit in.

As have consistently said, though some either ignore or fail to comprehend, some convictions and some jobs are incompatible. I have not said that convicted criminals should be excluded from all jobs, because that’s not what I believe.

And the actual thrust of my original post came from her explanation of the circumstances. I took that at face value, and asked why, in those circumstances, one would chose to plead guilty to a fraud offence. It has since transpired that she was not telling the whole truth, and that, along with the tribal approach of some posters, is why this thread has gone the way it has.

I have posted on a wide range of threads, many of which do not have any anti Labour content at all. What I do take is an anti authoritarian stance. I also have limited bandwidth for stupidity ☺️

I have also consistently stated that I firmly believe in rehabilitation of offenders, but that there are some convictions and some roles that are not compatible. Would an ASBO preclude one from being in the government? Well, clearly an ASBO is less serious than fraud. But would indicate a level of selfishness that should perhaps preclude them from a ministerial position.

And as it is already in the public domain that there were at least two other phones involved over a period of time I think that’s enough to establish a pattern. But again, others are at liberty to interpret that differently as well.

People can downplay the seriousness of a fraud conviction if they like. They can take a view that it shouldn’t lead to mistrust in an individual. But, out in the real world I think most would disagree. It’s a bit stupid to jeopardise one’s career in an insurance company for the sake a of a few hundred pounds worth of mobile phones. But it’s even more stupid when you have aspirations in politics. As someone posted further up, just being that stupid should rule someone out of a ministerial position really.

Are you deliberately misinterpreting her point or are you genuinely unable to understand that criminal convictions should and will preclude you from doing some jobs?

That, unsurprisingly, makes no sense.

I don't believe that the OP is a Tory voter if you read her posts

So your suspicion doesn't appear to be based on fact

Actually threads can be about a whole range of things. Why are the right constantly trying to police threads? They do nothing but drone on about freedom of speech and then try to dictate what people talk about.

That last sentence appears to be part of the current problem

By “the right”, you can’t seriously be saying that anyone wanting to only discuss this specific case on this specific thread is right-wing, surely.
And in any case, it was YOU who wanted to dictate the direction and content of the thread. You demanded comment on another MP. Others have simply declined to participate in your whataboutary

You seem shocked that such a thing could possibly happen.

Compared with Shapps or Grayling she'd rank as a genius, but that's obviously a very low bar.

I’m shocked by your naivety and lack of critical thinking. Nothing else.