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

I have an acquaintance that does this regularly - pretends a phone is stolen when out in town, gets a police report, gets a newer model from insurance and then sells old one. It's quite wide spread practice, and why the insurance companies are so hot on trying to catch people out.

The problem is that thinking its ok to low level defraud big corporate insurance companies may be a fairly commonly held belief as being 'no big deal' but it a) puts everyone's premiums up and b) is indicative of a character/personality not suited to being either a lawyer or a politician, where you have to be squeaky clean and newspapers will have dedicated teams trying to catch you out.

A surprising number of tory, and now labour, politicians do seem to enjoy taking that risk, I grant you (part of a risk taking personality that gives them a buzz?), but once caught out, position untenable. Thems the breaks.

Occams and Hanlons razor

I have an acquaintance that does this regularly - pretends a phone is stolen when out in town, gets a police report, gets a newer model from insurance and then sells old one.

Am I alone in vaguely recalling a huge push (and promise) from manufacturers and operators that stolen IMIE numbers would not work on their networks ? Coupled with it being an offence to change the IMIE number ?

Either they (very quietly) backslid on that promise, or you friend is selling dud phones or committing another offence as well as theft and fraud (in for a penny I guess ...)

The must be more to this story …
in my family, phones have been stolen .. mugging, pick pocket.
Police reports were made every time.

Police were professional and took it seriously. We gave all the phone details, and for the mugging they took clothing for DNA. Police checked cctv. Police took very long statement, and contacted victim to update etc.
police gave feedback & told victim-
They were not able to get dna from clothing. The cctv was blurry.
The mugging only stolen item was the phone.
They did not catch the thief.

A lot of time and effort from police. 100 sure this phone was “switched on some time later” but this did not trigger an arrest.

LH story does not make sense. If it was for gain - after it was “stolen” it was either used for expensive long distance calls, calls from abroad, “premium rate numbers” for contests etc or otherwise for money to be drawn from its use. Or, she sold it, or attempted to sell it.

Or, she had used it herself and got excessive charges to the work phone and then made up the theft to cover for using the phone for personal use - to call a family member in Thailand or contact the “Irish lottery which she won just call this number to claim”. Goodness she might have been phoning sex chats …

Her story, in total, has revealed that she is incapable of telling the truth then, and now. Her lack of transparency to the public, her constituents and PM is revealing.
Another person who committed that same crime, might have handled it differently and still kept their job. She has not shown regret, remorse for her actions, her regret is taking “legal advice to plead guilty”. - this despite being special police constable, law degree etc.

Her handling of this shows she is not a trustworthy advisor - she has kept her job as mp.

I don’t actually believe that story about stolen phones, given that the police couldn’t be arsed about a stolen car or a significant burglary within sight of where I’m now sitting.

All this was the year before she was selected to stand for labour. Theres a good chance she was doing this while trying to become an MP.

Big companies don’t like doing things like this - they don’t really want their clients to think they have dubious employees. So I am surprised she wasn’t just asked to resign. The fact they prosecuted suggests a much bigger story.

perhaps she was young and foolish but her statement doesn’t suggest she has matured at all as she has come up with such a daft story

It does seem unlikely, and I expect she was lucky that it was only one ‘phone she was prosecuted for. An employer is unlikely to involve the police for the odd phone - they’d just dismiss. Although, insurance being a regulated industry might make it more likely?

Anyway, if all she wanted was a new phone then I’m surprised she didn’t just tap up Lord Ali ;)

You'll note I sais aquaintance, not friend. And you can get money for any phone via one of the phone recycling schemes. Whether or not they report IMIEs to insureres, who knows? You can also sell any pho e to a private individual on eBay.

Big companies don’t like doing things like this - they don’t really want their clients to think they have dubious employees.

If that really were the case, then they'd stop hiring ex-ministers as non-exec directors.

Oh, for sure. There is probably a lively market in breaking down handsets for spares (where they aren't coded to a handset).

www.imei.info/

I am very concerned that it was her decision alone to make the pay offer to the railways union.

Would we allow a single minister to make a decision to take us to war?

They should have collective responsibility as a cabinet and discuss the way forward and have someone in there shouting for assessments of policy idea consequences.

This should concern us all that they don't appear to.
They have been swayed by the free clothes and tickets etc offered, and have let someone run amok.

@Slooodie359 slow down a bit - when I had a work phone in similar circumstances (UK based organisation) international and premium rate numbers were barred unless travelling abroad was part of the employee's job, so it's unlikely that she was covering up excessive use.

In any event, wherever you think her f employer did with barring calls ….
she admitted Guilt to Fraud for Financial Gain. There was LH pursuing her own financial gain from her employers phone & phone usage.

Her excuse — “incorrectly” which is a carefully chosen word
which is not the same as “mistakenly”

The point is … police, & judicial aren’t going to follow-thru unless there is a crime.

Think about LH, described over. & over as “firebrand”… is she actually going to allow such a miscarriage of justice? Even at 24 having been special constable and with law degree, months from being elected MP?

Who wants an MP who pleads guilty when she in innocent??? Seriously she is so flawed.

IMO anyone who thinks she is honest and transparent, trustworthy … is naive.

I don't want people convicted of fraud in charge of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money

How much work do you all think ministers do? They have entire teams - entire departments in fact - working for them! They are not supermen and women doing it all on their own!

My colleague got mugged and had his work phone stolen. We called the police and they took it seriously as it was happening a lot at the time.

We can’t know if Haigh genuinely found the phone or not but it doesn’t feel like a huge deal to me. It’s a spent conviction, I think resigning her ministerial position was right as the right wing media will make a huge deal out of anything they can to discredit Starmer’s team - look at the fuss about his glasses and Angela Rayner’s house sale. Never mind everything the Tories have done in the last 14 years. Unfortunately if this new government really wants to go after them for their corruption in office they have to be squeaky clean.

I don’t think she needed to go as aren’t we all about rehabilitation now? And didn’t Farage say his MP who kicked his girlfriend and did prison time deserves Christian forgiveness?

But ultimately stories like this are a handy distraction from any positives this new government is achieving so expect more digging for skeletons in the closet and mud slinging. It was always too much to hope that opposition parties would focus on holding the government to account on policy when there are cheap points to score.

You don"t think bad leadership has an effect on those departments?

Positives? lol.

Name one!!! (scrambles around to make stuff up)

It was always too much to hope that opposition parties would focus on holding the government to account on policy when there are cheap points to score.

I'm happy to do that too btw. The consensus amongst the business leaders is that the budget was dire. It's inflationary and the employer costs it's added will result in redundancies and more people on unemployment benefit. I won't get into the public sector pay rises but they're also inflationary so net borrowers will be worse off as interest rates will have to remain higher.

If you don't believe me, take a look at the business confidence indicator which is at its lowest since the pandemic.

However, this isn't relevant for this thread which is about the ethics of cabinet ministers. This was called out repeatedly when the conservatives were in power yet apparently it's fine that Louise Haigh 'lost' so many firms that Aviva sacked her for fraud and had to appear in court.

No, i think many left leaning posters have said :

One off stupid mistake, 10 years ago, resulting in a non custodial sentence for a non violent offence, then yes, under the rehabilitation of offenders act, she should be allowed a second chance & that applies to Conservative MPs too.

But what some are saying is that people cannot change, cannot learn & should be barred from positions of political power.... thats v sad but does also show the tribal nature of politics.

Plus you & others use language carefully and try to pretend that this fraud happened last month and then tell blatant lies that she was sacked by Aviva, she resigned, now that may have been forced or may not have been... more supposition!

Atm the accusations of multiple frauds are no more than hearsay, inadmissible your honor!

Louise didn’t say she made a mistake….

said she “incorrectly” reported phone stolen.

the use of this the word incorrectly, indicates that it was not a mistake. It was deliberate fraud.

That’s the difference

If you're looking to distract from something @summer555 has it

If you don't believe me, take a look at the business confidence indicator which is at its lowest since the pandemic.

No i don't mean it was an accident as in unintended, she was convicted after all.

I just think that we all deserve a 2nd chance, but just the one chance, would you not forgive your son or daughter for a one off non violent non custodial crime, after 10 years?

So as i ve said repeatedly, if it was a pattern of fraudulent claims, then sure, she is unfit for public office, even as an MP.

Isn’t there a difference between convicted and being honest about it
And
convicted and still denying it, making it out to be a miscarriage of justice …

saying she”incorrectly”, bad legal advice & told plead guilty … not going to work in cabinet …

Also, we’re lead to believe it was more than a one off.