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

Both fukwits, thank you for confirming.

I haven’t confirmed anything. 🤷‍♀️

Fraud covers a huge range of offences, as well you know.

I'm sure many on here have rounded up mileage claims - thats fraud, as is running a benefits scam inventing claimants and taking millions from the state.

Are you saying the two are comparable?

Then there is fraud involving financial services, another range of offences.

We have the rehabilitation of offenders act, which allows people with spent convictions the right not to disclose their past, unless the work requires a DBS check, which oddly, being in cabinet does not.

So why are so many wanting to change the law?

I’m saying that someone who is convicted of fraud is a “convicted fraudster” by definition.

The rest is all your own hyperbolic ramblings, again, I’m afraid.

It never takes too long for people on the right to throw insults when they run out of argument.

Nothing hyperbolic about pointing out Parliament even in the 70s, realised people convicted of criminal offences needed a second chance.

A 2nd chance that people like you don't want to give her, her crime must forever follow her to the end of her days.... that fact hyperbolic enough for you?

She hasn’t acknowledged that she did anything wrong though and has played it down as much as she can - that doesn’t suggest she has been redeemed.

and the conviction wasn’t spent when she was elected - her constituents should have been made aware of it when making their choice. As shown by this thread, a lot of people wouldn’t have been bothered by it

but again, there is clearly more to the story as it says further info came to light. Unless the further information was ‘the press are about to publish’ which would not be a good reflection!

She was told to resign by Number Ten - is Keir Starmer "on the right?"

Some would argue that he is, yes.

People “on the right”?

What on earth are you talking about? You have no idea who I vote for. All you know is that I don’t think convicted criminals should be in charge of the country… and that’s right wing?

Do these debate tactics generally work for you? Do people just tire of them and stop replying to you and you consider that as a “win”? Your argument style is incredibly tedious and transparent.

You are constantly derailing, deliberately misinterpreting other people and misrepresenting what they’re saying.

Now you’ve moved on to calling anyone who disagrees with you “right wing”.

It’s frankly embarrassing.

Technically speaking, even though a conviction is spent, the crime still happened and the perpetrator is still a convicted fraudster.

No one is saying that those with spent convictions should not be given a second chance. What most are saying is that some convictions and some roles are incompatible. Sexual and violence offenses and certain roles are obvious. For most, fraud and roles involving trust or money are also likely to have been ruled out. Haigh is still employed - she’s an MP who’s reasonably well paid. The fact that her past actions rule out better paid jobs is no one’s fault but her own.

Indeed, there are certain roles and convictions that are not compatible but we either believe in rehabilitation, outside of these roles or we don't.

In the case of Haigh and so far it does appear to be just the one offence, why is she, in your opinion, suitable to be an MP, represent her area, vote on very important subjects like the budget, the assisted dying bill, terrorism, justice bills etc etc but isn't able to be bring about the re nationalisation of the railways or decide if a tunnel or a cutting should take the dualling of the A303?

It all strikes me as rather partisan "oh goody, a labour minister has resigned, yipee!!!" rather inconsistent too.

If you re being genuine, then by your own argument, she shouldn't be an MP either... which ironically, i said should be the case if this is a pattern of frauds.

Like i said, if this, for example, had been Tory transport minister Grayling, i wouldn't have wanted him to resign over a similar conviction 10 years earlier, car dooring a cyclist? yes sack cloth n ashes forever more!!

She’ll be back in Cabinet at some point anyway. She’s too talented to be on the back benches permanently.

How is she going to be back?

Nothing will have changed, whatever her talents. It also seems, from what Starmer is saying that he was not given the whole information.

How is she going to be back?

Different PM who respects the UK legal system and its provision of spent convictions. I’m sure I’m not the only Labour voter who’s disgusted and disappointed by this.

Apparently her inflating busting payrise she gave out to the railway was her decision.
Not a team decision.

Given the state of the countries finances, that doesn't sound plausible, the treasury would have been all over it & its now how collective cabinet works.

However, the dispute cost 3x the amount in lost GDP than settling it..... so the small amount it cost, in relative terms, was money well spent, the net cost was even lower.

Yes i can see the optics of how keeping her on would have played with the right wing media etc but a spent conviction is either spent, after 10 years or its not and if it isn't, where does that leave the criminal justice system?

Papers like the Mail, Express or some MN posters, will never accept Labour can do a single good thing...

Hard to tell is this is comedy. She is too talented’

Disgusted by what?

By her, I suppose?

Maybe look at your own very small team of limited talent before she has even had a chance to prove herself.

Though she has started the renationalisation of the rail network, after your lot wrecked it, bringing it to financial ruin, very high subsidies and the network owned by foreign operators.

I’ve been running the railways? Well that’s news to me. What on earth are you talking about.

By Starmer’s disregard of the law. I thought he was better than that. You knew perfectly well that was what I meant.

You know very well what "i'm on about"

You conservatives are all the same "never our fault, "always someone else to blame"

The previous govt, which you are a huge fan off, fucked this country, inc its railways.

Hard to tell from your ramblings what your point is anymore. In any case, the exceptionally talented Louise ‘phones4me’ Haigh won’t get a chance to fix the railways. Maybe she will get appointed as telecoms minister or something. Talent nod nod, wink wink.

Are cabinet positions subject to usual employment law ? They're gifts of the Crown as I understand it.