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

So hearsay, why not wait to have all the facts before building the gallows?

But thats the way with SM media, everyone is judge jury and executioner.

Gallows? Executioner?

Do you not think you’re being a little bit extreme with the hyperbole?

https://pledgeprogress.co.uk/

I have a growing gripe about websites that should be ".gov" - indicating they are actually part of government - being the anyone can buy them ".co.uk" (or .net). Makes me wonder who is hiding what.

As if LH is going to go public with the facts …..
she is carefully avoiding facts so far … her resignation a vehicle to avoid having Uk disclose “facts”

Democracy … that’s right, the voters are judge, jury & executioners … hyperbolicly

Do you mean that you think Pledge Progress should have a gov.uk domain name?

If so, why? It's not a government website.

If you scroll all the way to the bottom it says "Pledge Progress - an independent hobby website unaffiliated with any political party".

So it's run as a hobby by a random person or random people who can, as you say, buy a co.uk domain name. They would have no right to a gov.uk domain name.

There’s no need for her to go public with the facts. It’s a spent conviction that received the lowest level penalty possible, she owes nobody anything. And people like you wouldn’t believe her whatever she said.

It's a spent conviction. Allegedly she told Keir Starmer about it and he didn't think that was a problem.

However "more information" (unspecified by Downing Street) has since come to light and apparently he thinks that is a problem.

Which is why she was told to resign.

Which strongly implies she was not transparent with the facts she presented to Keir Starmer - this is a potential breach of the ministerial code that requires a full investigation.

Why then go public with awkward avoidance of facts … and resign?

People like me … sheeesh .. why would you denigrate a person looking for honesty from a public figure.

Her criminal past has been made public … and she resigned. Where’s the glory in that? Why should anyone respect that behavior, or her criminal conviction.

Nobody has said there’s any “glory”. Or suggested there should be any respect for a criminal conviction. We have a legal system that allows rehabilitation through spent convictions which means they disappear from the public record and the convicted person gets a clean start. By asking for the resignation of someone with a spent conviction Starmer has demonstrated disregard for the legal system - which seems very odd behaviour for a barrister and former DPP.

Figure of speech, as well you know... ie not meant to be taken serious...

It all comes down to the "new information" which meant she resigned.

As a point of ordered they don’t disappear for the purposes of an enhanced DBS check. And some never disappear even for an regular check. Through fraud is not one of those. And arguably a government minister ought to be subject to an enhanced check, though I don’t think that they are. In addition you are still required to disclose spent convictions for certain professions. Though again, politicians are not professionals by the normal definition.

But it’s all academic as at the point she was appointed a shadow minister the conviction was not spent. And I suspect Starmers change of heart boils down to the point many have been making on this thread, and that’s one of trust. Or rather lack of trust in a convicted fraudster. The correct thing to do was for her to be completely open about the conviction to him in the first place. Then if he’d still offered he the role it would have been hypocritical to then rescind it. But, she know if she was completely open she’d never have been offered the job. So she wasn’t. And Starmer can’t have minister he doesn’t trust, which is fair enough.

Lol at "Convicted Fraudster" you keep using this phrase, trying to make out she is some sort of mastermind and made millions out of pensioners and timeshares....

Aside, quite incredible that a driving offence such as a fixed penalty speeding offence is spent after 5 years, longer than for drink driving - the ban period & longer than a 1 year jail sentence for GBH !!!

It’s hypocritical of Starmer by any standards. He’s supposed to uphold the legal system, not discard it when it suits him.

She was convicted of fraud.

Maybe in 10 years Starmer will make a statement where he says he “incorrectly” discussed a spent conviction for fraud with one of his cabinet…. And then she incorrectly resigned.

Yeah and maybe I’ll live to be 200.

I think that's even worse because of the sheer stupidity.

She worked as the Public Policy Manager for Aviva.

A PPM 'must work closely with various departments to make sure everyone follows the rules. They are responsible for ensuring that all company processes and activities align with the set policies and guidelines.'

She had a remit to make sure everyone follows the rules and yet was keeping mobile phones without her employer's knowledge. If she had told them she found the phone they likely would have let her keep it.

If we want to froth about convicted fraudsters in public office, there's one headed to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year.

#Justsayin

I use that phrases because it’s the quickest, clearest way of describing the position. It’s also factually correct. What would you suggest I say? The alternative is to have to keep repeating her name and the impact on her behaviour on people’s trust of her. Which would mean using at least 15 words when 2 would do. :)

Is it frothing to express an opinion? That tends to be the response of those looking to stifle others opinions in my experience...

On the US point you are absolutely right. Shameful. And Bidens pardon of his son is indefensible. But that’s the way their system works…and makes ours seem like a paragon of virtue. Indeed, here in Italy the only ridicule of Labour amongst those I talk to is why aim so low if you’re going to perpetrate fraud, corruption or sleaze. Mobile phones, clothes and concerts? Where are the cars, villlas and holidays?!?! Though, to be fair, politicians of all colours are partial to a free holiday…

Mind you, what’s going on in the US is threatening to come over to us if the alleged £100m from Musk to Reform is anything to go by. Fortunately I think that’s going to fail at the first hurdle as a clear breach of election rules. And quite right too. It takes us back to the Victorian times when seats in parliament could be bought, either by industrialists or unions.

Haigh’s “fraudulent behavior, guilty plea and conviction” was very odd behavior for a former spec constable and law graduate working in Avivas “public policy” dept.

Which has precisely nothing to do with Starmer’s apparent complete disregard for our legal system.

BUT honestly who would do this to get new work phone! And it’s perfectly plausible that she did think the phone was in her bag when she got mugged, especially after such a traumatic event. It’s also plausible that the phone was actually down the back of the sofa or behind a chest drawers ‘lost’ and I think if she’d have explained this to the police there would have been no charge.

the fact that they presented enough evidence to the cps to charge her, it went to court and her solicitor advised her to plead guilty, which only happened if they think there is a little chance of a not guilty verdict, well I’d say that there is far more to this than were being told. Was she mugged at all?

However, I agree this is a spent conviction for a non violent crime and therefore I don’t think she should’ve lost her job over it.