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

Whereas I'm not shocked at your lack of manners, goes with the territory.

Territory?

Wasn't LH the one who nearly ended a high value contract

Why do you rate her so highly?

Plus getting done for fraud with work mobile phones isn't exactly smart. Most people get through life without that kind of investigation and outcome

Plus getting done for fraud with work mobile phones isn't exactly smart.

It's a great insight into how people assess risk and reward though. And on that basis alone, I wouldn't have given LH a cabinet post unless there really was no alternative.

And all this after studying law ….

But that's irrelevant.
Are you saying that Labour mps, peers and ministers can do whatever they want, break whatever rules they want, commit whatever offences they want up to and including the point when they are 'as bad as The Tories'?
Because it seems like it

Unless it's committed by a Labour minister, then it's absolutely fine, pps have never complained about Tory sleaze and we are bitter AI Tory bots

If you say so.

I was merely reflecting on what I have seen in politics and government in my lifetime.

If having a conviction for fraud is enough to disbar someone from a position as a cabinet minister then fine. Sounds like a very clear message that people involved in making the law need come to it with clean hands (to borrow a legal expression).

However it does make me wonder how this new found zeal for propriety seemed to be overlooked in recent years.

Moreover I find myself suspecting that the moment a media-approved government is in power, there's no conviction that wouldn't be overlooked.

You haven't answered my question.
Where is the line you will draw?

I would have said this is, or was, a largely media approved Government. Maybe only the Mail and the Telegraph newspaper wise that didn’t support them and hardly anyone reads the Telegraph.

I don’t think you are a Tory bot but the last Tory government was so corrupt that it’s recognised as one if the most corrupt in living memory. Even their own ant corruption tsar resigned because of it. (And was never replaced IIRC). And there definitely wasn’t as much concern about it on here every time a Tory MP got caught up in a fraud or sex scandal or a taking freebies scandal as their is when Labour are concerned. There just wasn’t.

And the idea that anything that’s happened since July has put the on the same level as the Tories is ridiculous. If people genuinely believe that then I’m not sure they’ve been paying attention.

Admittidly it doesn’t help that the majority of the British media is right wing and supports the Tories. Most people aren’t going to know about this stuff if it isn’t reported on of hasn’t made the front pages.

Why does it matter ? I'm not in government. I don't even play someone who is in government.

I'm just a humble British subject who pays their taxes and aspires to be a tiny part of a whole that is trying to make everyones lives better. Ideally the globe over, but you have to start at home.

Within those parameters I place my trust and faith and try to make sense of what is happening.

For better or for worse, that may make "a line" a little bit hard to delineate. Generally I oppose capital punishment. However I have zero sympathy for anyone who waves weapons around in public and gets (to coin a phrase) "deaded".

If it's a line you are seeking, then don't come to me for a quick answer.

As a wag on FB commented today about a story "the Telegraph doing what it does best: Reporting on rich peoples problems".

You left out the Express, by the way.

Incidentally, I'm restating my opinion that this government is not media-approved. All the fussing over a 2 million alleged petition shows that. If the media approved of this government that would have been below the "and finally in Skegness, a donkey has been taught to windsurf" story that beat a petition of six million in the news stakes.

I actually have a couple of mobile phones from work in a drawer some where that I never bothered sending back and work didn’t ask me to return. I even put them on to try and look for a phone number sometimes. But I’ve never tried to use them and they’re probably worth £5 now after all these years.

I would have some sympathy for her if this was a genuine oversight. But for me Aviva reporting her to the police for fraud is huge.

I'm not impressed by anyone who steals from work* (although that's a wobbly line, just in case anyone feels like nitpicking). Not only is it lazy and unimaginative, it also makes the workplace much shitter for everyone else and can risk innocent people being suspected - or even blamed and fired.

I repeat my assertion that criminals - anyone who thinks crime is a good idea - are thick as pigshit. No matter how rich it seems to make them.

Having had to sit in on a disciplinary and provide CCTV evidence to the police as part of an investigation made me even more convinced.

Do I rate her highly? Or do I rate Grayling and Shapps so lowly that they're heading for the Mariana Trench?

Grayling's decision to cancel the electrification of Bristol and Oxford's railways cost far more than it saved, once Hitachi had been bunged a considerable sum for fitting diesel engines to the electric trains. Bristol remains swamped by polluting diesel trains.

Shapps went out of his way to piss off railway staff, just for the sake of doing so. He spent months refusing to let the operators negotiate with their staff who were several years into a pay freeze during a period of high inflation. Then claimed that it was nothing to do with him (liar - the words "Secretary of State" are littered through the National Rail Contracts, the Managing Directors can't fart without written permission in triplicate from Whitehall). His bloody-mindedness caused a great deal of economic damage, and resulted in a higher pay deal and less opportunity for restructuring than if the government had got on and made an offer before inflation rocketed. He's the reason that Northern Rail and Avanti are in the state that they're in, if you don't employ enough staff to run your operation without recourse to overtime then you'd better keep them happy enough to want to come in on their days off.

In that context, even Howling Laud Hope would have been a breath of fresh air.

Why does she only have 22 connections on LinkedIn? That’s so weird.

She probably had a lot more 48 hours ago - but they’ve all disassociated themselves from her rapidly 😂

😂

Or maybe she is limiting who sees her history prior to becoming an MP, and when she did what job. 😂

Aviva might not have had a choice … it could be part of their insurance policy and once fraud is reported, they cannot undo it.

I worked at a company similar and a person did what was considered legally as fraud, the company did not want person arrested but it was automatic report to police and company had no role as all - it was a police matter.

Don’t blame Aviva … blame LH for thinking it was OK. I don’t believe that she didn’t know where that work phone was and “some time later” could be an hour, or a year. She is not giving detail where it’s required.

What’s the FB definition of Rich People … seems to me these days it’s anyone with a job above minimum wage, some savings, & a mortgage. Anyone who has aspirations.

The bar is very very low these days.

She should compare notes with Rachel Reeves on LinkedIn usage ☺️

It hard to accept the woman has a single brain cell if she's too stupid to know about metadata.

So now we have the extra information from the Times article, reading between the lines it seems probable that:

• Louise Haigh, while working for Aviva, had a company mobile phone in which case the monthly bill would have been sent to Aviva's employee expenses team.
• She claimed her phone had been stolen in a mugging which she reported to police three to four days after it happened.
• Possibly because this was the third phone she had reported lost in three years, possibly just through strict adherence to procedure, someone scrutinised the itemised bill and they found that it had been used after the date it was reported stolen, to call the same numbers that Louise Haigh had been calling before that date. There being no credible explanation why anyone other than Louise Haigh would call those numbers, she was sacked for her dishonesty and reported to the police, charged with fraud by misrepresentation, pleaded guilty and given a conditional discharge.

If I've extrapolated correctly and that is how it happened, I personally wouldn't want her as a senior minister.

Sacked, wow!

Just sheer stupidity. If she wanted a new phone, she could have waited a year, ime many companies allow a replacement after 2 years as the warranty expires.