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

“you'd have to particularly puritanical to say no one, no matter the crime can be redeemed.”

Non-one has said that. You are just inventing that people are saying that. I can’t tell if you really don’t understand or if you’re on a wind up…

Sorry but if you & many other posters, want her gone for a very low level, non custodial sentence, 10 years ago, then its very clear that, in her case, there is no redemption.

A fraud conviction is not a low level crime. Conviction for an offence under the Fraud Act automatically disqualifies her from being a Company Director. It rules out law and financial services. She’s also required to declare it for any role requiring an enhanced DBS check, even though it’s spent. Maybe she’d get a role as a teacher even if she declared it, but that’s for the employer to decide. She still has open to her any career not requiring a DBS check, and any role requiring a standard DBS check, for which she is not required to disclose it.

You can continue to insist that there is no link between the type of offence and the type of job that is then open to you, but the facts do not support your position. No one is saying that there is no career available to her - indeed, she still has a moderately well paid job, as an MP. It’s just that her past actions means that she has limited her career opportunities. That’s unfortunate, but a direct consequence of her actions.

This thread has wandered somewhat from my original “why plead guilty if the facts are as she claimed”. And that fair enough, as the facts are not as she has claimed.

Ok. I’ll break it down a little bit more for you. When you put “you'd have to particularly puritanical to say no one, no matter the crime can be redeemed.” it is wildly misinterpreting what anyone is saying. We are not saying “no one” can be redeemed. We are saying people with jobs which wield law making powers, shouldn’t have criminal records. Working in Timpson’s with a fraud conviction? Fine. Being responsible for laws and policies in the country with a fraud conviction, not fine.

Is that more understandable?

@Alexandra2001
Can I ask, were you a Labour voter?
Because you seem to be cutting LH a lot of slack here.
Can you imagine writing Rees Mogg committed very low-level crime 10 years ago. It's crazy he should resign about this?

You can say that when they wipe £ 30 billion off the Stock Exchange and crash the pound.

Her fraud conviction is very low level, she wasn't jailed, nor a suspended sentence and yes you can work in FS after a fraud conviction, all depends on the circumstances, as the FSA have advised & yes you can be a company director too, unless specifically banned..... SRA also say they will look at the individual circumstances....

Please stop putting words in my mouth, i ve never said there is no link, clearly a conviction for child abuse, rules out, forever, working with children.... what i'm saying is a one off v low level fraud conviction shouldn't bar someone from being a minister.

Clearly, if LHs offence isn't a 1 off, then its right she goes.

You can ask!!! but its irrelevant, to me this about fairness and yes forgiveness too.

No if Rees Mogg had a criminal conviction for stealing a phone 10 years ago, that shouldn't bar him from being a minister.

If he was convicted 6 months ago, then yes it does.

I’m expecting slower burn pain - unemployment rise, business failure and inflation back up following last budget

Whatever posters on here may say, Keir Starmer obviously thought that the facts as they have come to light are incompatible with the Labour Party's current USP ("We are not the sleazy Tories") and she was told to resign.

Indeed, although it’s says a lot about him that he only took that position once it became public. We now know he appointed her knowing she had a conviction for fraud which, at the time of appointment was not spent, and then went on to agree that law breakers cannot be law makers. Only once it became public, itself a leak from a disgruntled former Aviva colleague, did that contradiction matter.

I fail to see why there’s so much sympathy for someone convicted of fraud being ousted from a ministerial position when they still have a moderately well paid role as an MP and so many options available to them. Would people be as forgiving for a cleaner with a theft conviction seeking employment as a cleaner? Theft being a far lower level crime than fraud. Although according to some, who conflate the sentence with the severity of the crime, we should ignore that. Haigh committed a serious crime, plead guilty and got a low level sentence. The crime was still serious.

The double standard never changes and it never will. Tories mislay £29 million - Michelle Mone , or £37 billion - Dido Harding. The press ' yeah it's bad but what can you do eh. Covid innit?'

Starmer gets a free Arsenal season ticket. ' Stop thief! Resign!'
However I suppose it is a good sign Labour is held to a higher standard.

Actually I think the double standards are very evident on this thread.
Would you be so casual if a Tory minister had committed fraud?
There are a lot on here splitting hairs and lecturing on forgiveness because LH is one of their chosen party.
If she were a Tory, not so much.
That's double standards

However I suppose it is a good sign Labour is held to a higher standard.

Which is how they wanted it. Their entire campaign for the General Election was "We are not the sleazy Tories".

The press didnt remove her from her ministerial role, or make starmer give back his freebies.

It isnt the press making the decision its the labour party.

Welcome out of hibernation. The Tories were voted out months ago.

I do find myself idly wondering if she could be covering for someone ? I realise there is zero suggestion of this, but that has never stopped a really good conspiraloon theory from taking flight.

It's good to consider all possibilities. Especially when you feel something doesn't make sense.

Gold fish attention spans . 14 years blithely forgotten. Compared to 4 months 😂. Never mind though , Labour will resign and publicly apologise. Because Elon Musk says so.

Raise your bar, it’s fallen in a sinkhole.

I'm sure Aviva and the police had good grounds for a fairly serious process

I doubt this tbh

I’m expecting slower burn pain - unemployment rise, business failure and inflation back up following last budget

As seen through business confidence released today. Lowest since the pandemic

The suggestion is that when asked to provide a photo to the police of the stolen phone the "metadata" attached to the photo showed that the photo was taken AFTER the phone was allegedly stolen. That's a bit more than a "genuine mistake" or an "oversight." That's clearly fraud and she was lucky to only get a discharge if this is true....

A fraudster and a thicko.

I didn't say they didn't. But as we know the polices grasp of reality can be a tad ... simplistic at times. Especially when dealing with women.

As I said, given the extremely limited details released, it's something that flitted through my mind. But not without reason from my experiences. It's likely it's nothing at all.

what i'm saying is a one off v low level fraud conviction shouldn't bar someone from being a minister.

Actually I think it should. Fraud is fraud. In her case it was a criminal offence and she was sacked for it. I don't want people convicted of fraud in charge of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

Another person's guilt (in the case of poor ethics from other parties) does not absolve her of guilt. The MN posts about the poor standards in public office when the Tories were in power filled thread after thread. And they had a fair point.

Labour were elected on a clean up public office mandate and so far we've had a Chancellor that lied on her LinkedIn profile and a Transport Minister who conveniently lost three work phones and was sacked for fraud. At least let's be consistent here and call out shitty behaviour whoever is in office.