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

She is lying to us, and this is what I find objectionable. Rather than admitting her wrongdoing, she is suggesting that she was innocent and wrongly advised to plead guilty. But we know that she had reported a phone as stolen, and then was using the ‘stolen’ phone to call relatives. There is some undisclosed history about other phones too. I don’t appreciate being lied to and she ought to tell the truth.

It was a spent conviction and not one to merit more than an absolute discharge. Starmer was aware of it. He needs to get some more backbone and support her. I am disappointed that he failed to support her.

Yes, I don't buy the idea that she was just absent-minded, discovered the reported-stolen phone at her home, carried on using it in the same way as previously, and never thought that she should inform her employer or the police about her mistake.

I thought that was exactly what happened, I read it somewhere yesterday probably X

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.

Yes, according to The Times, she "lost" three phones hence the investigation and sacking. Aviva aren't some fly by night Wernham Hogg outfit, they took action over theft and fraud.

Why is fraud that doesn't result in a custodial sentence, such a heinous crime in your view?
ASBO's cover a huge range of offences, behaving antisocially includes: drunken or threatening behavior. vandalism and graffiti.

So a non violent offence like stealing a company phone, is much more serious than threatening behavior? which having been a victim off, is bloody frightening and not something you get over v quickly.

You really do not believe in the rehabilitation of offenders at all, you seem to equate a very low level fraud with say someone who has a conviction for defrauding someone of their pension.

You also don't believe someone given an ASBO as a 13yo should be considered for a ministerial role.... ever!

However, IF its true she has "lost" a series of phones, then thats entirely different and not a one off error of judgement or as you'd say stupidity! then yes she has lied to Starmer and needs to go.

Are you usually so rude?

Where have i said that? please point me to the post.....

A simple conditional discharge for a one off "spent" phone theft/fraud wouldn't preclude anyone from almost any job.

Like i said earlier, i recent did a DV clearance reference interview for someone with violence conviction, he was open and honest, he got the clearance.

You don't seem able to understand that Fraud covers a huge range of offences, from claiming UC but getting paid £20 for 2 hours of gardening to defrauding someone out of a pension or house deposit...

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

Mn must be pro Labour at all times ;

Although it is drifting off from general sentiment with that

she’s not “rehabilitated”
she’s not told truth in past,
& still not telling the truth

That is not rehabilitated ….

As i said in my last sentence, if true, then clearly not.

Since when did some random on the internet become the arbiter of truth? You have absolutely no idea whether she’s telling the truth or not. It’s your opinion not fact.

It’s all coming out in the wash now. Louise ‘phones4me’ Haigh.

As fraudsters go, not even a bright one. A thicko and a crook. Running a state department. Honestly how low the standards in government have fallen.

“Are you usually so rude?”

Quite likely.

“Where have i said that? please point me to the post...”

Well, you wrote it repeatedly and the issue isn’t with my inference, as many other posters have come to the same conclusion. If that is not what you were trying to imply, you should consider how you put your point across more carefully.

Right, did all the threads about Michelle Mone and Boris Johnson escape your notice?

l

Hahahahahaha

Did you read her resignation letter on the “internet”. … there is no truth or retribution in her own words in that letter. Unless you think that isn’t a true representation on her resignation letter … from the internet.

If the “news outlets” on paper, or internet that are reporting her guilty plea and circumstances are sued, and/issue retractions, then I’m understanding she is guilty of fraud and there is no indication from LH, in her letter that she accepts that she commited fraud

All that after she completes a law degree ….

I just can't help thinking of the Blackadder III episode where Baldric is applying to be an MP (probably fractionally paraphrasing as I haven't gone back to check the exact words):

Blackadder: "Any criminal convictions?"

Baldric: "None whatsoever"

Blackadder: "Come on Baldric, you're applying to be an MP, I'll just put you down for fraud and sexual deviancy"

Well, we've had the fraud, and I'm happy to think that it won't be so long before someone manages the sexual deviancy. Plus ça change.

It smells like 1950s Grimsby docks on a warm summer afternoon...

I'll put my very plausible theory down. The night the story broke, a couple of things were mentioned that were not mentioned the day she resigned. I dont know if they've been brought up again as I stopped following the story.

I've put the story together as; she was robbed/mugged, thought her work phone had been nicked. She wanted her work phone upgraded to a newer model that some of her colleagues had been recently provided. She (presumably after received the upgraded mobile from work) finds the old phone in her car(?) - she doesnt inform work of this.
Police find out that the old phone is in her possession; work finds out that shes told a fib regarding her phone (I think via the police). Some legal professional advises her to say nothing to the police, cos she'll get sacked from work.
Police do her for making a false-ish report (or rather not updating them about the un-stolen phone).

The things that were mentioned the night before, but not on the day of her resigning were about the newer phone she had replaced by work, and that she wanted a newer one as some of her colleagues had been upgraded, and I think the part that the police discovered the handset was still in her possession but she hadnt informed the police as such.
I took an interest in the story as I used to work in mobile comms, so spotting phone fraud is always interesting.

She got caught trying to blag a phone upgrade from work, and she was made to pay. It was fraud.

Someone should look into the law degree. Who knows what the story is there.

After all, ‘Rachel from accounts’ proves that you can’t trust anything that comes from these pound shop ministers.

I've put the story together as; she was robbed/mugged, thought her work phone had been nicked. She wanted her work phone upgraded to a newer model that some of her colleagues had been recently provided. She (presumably after received the upgraded mobile from work) finds the old phone in her car(?) - she doesnt inform work of this.

It’s worse than that, she was clearly lying all along about thinking the phone had been stolen. The phone was used to make calls to her family members in between the time of the ‘mugging’ and submitting the insurance claim. And the photo of the phone that she submitted with the insurance claim was believed by police to have been taken AFTER the ‘mugging’.

The idea that anyone doesn't know where their phone is at all times in this day and age is absurd. Even if she did genuinely think it was in the handbag, it would have rung or beeped or she would have randomly tripped over it fairly soon after. Add to this that she "lost" several phones, then she is not only a thief, but as liar as well and has no business being an MP, never mind a senior minister in government.

No quite likely about it!

I suggest you read what is written, rather than making stuff up in your head.

In 3 posts i ve said she should go if this isn't a one off but the idea that a very low level non custodial conviction, 10 or more years ago, precludes anyone from many careers, is for the birds.

“What you re saying is no one can be reformed, that there is no redemption.
Your past will follow you until you die.
Thats pretty grim & vindictive.”

Here you go. Here is one example.

Lol! No its not, you'd have to particularly puritanical to say no one, no matter the crime can be redeemed.

Like i ve said repeatedly, if LH is a serial phone "thief/fraudster" then clearly, its not a one off and she is right to go, if only because she must be very stupid.