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

But having worked in these sorts of companies, high performers during these years went through phones like tic tacs. Accidentally dropped in a lift smashing it to smithereens. Left in taxis after nights out. Lost in pubs. Left in airport security trays, to name some of the more common occurrences.

To my knowledge no one lost their job or was warned over those repeated losses, even when they were particularly stupid.

There’s definitely more to it.

Yep - as I've said before, it's like men and women.

Women have to be 100 times better than men to be considered good.

Labour has to be 100 times better than the Tories.

I am not sure that having a conviction should rule you out of being an MP or a minister. We want criminals to be properly rehabilitated.

Obviously it depends on the conviction, although I think if a non-violent/sexual conviction is spent that should be that.

Fraud is relevant for financial services jobs but not sure it is for being a transport minister.

The surprise here was that the police gave any sort of shit about a stolen phone.

Labour has to be 100 times better than the Tories.

Well certainly they have to be better. That was their whole pitch at the General Election - "We're not the Tories'.

That's exactly what I've been saying. Over this post and I have not had anybody get back to me on that, because we are talking about a spent conviction, the government was saying, people should employ ex-convicts.they have had a spent conviction. They should be able to work. We have a lot of people unemployed. And this is actually saying, don't bother because you're not going to get a job.

I would say fraud is a big red flag for a minister tbh - and of any party

yes it is a spent conviction but it is also a telling sign of her character

but ultimately there must be more to this than just this conviction - I would imagine there is more to come out and they are getting ahead of the story

That's the right wing press for you. Farage is talking about 'Christian forgiveness' for an MP thug who assaulted his girlfriend and didn't declare his conviction.

I wonder what time of the day the mugging was.

If Starmer was aware of the situation, gave her the cabinet role, then didn’t support her when the story came out, he's not treating her fairly. Or doesn’t think she's worth the negative news articles.

Or she's still not telling the truth and she's had to resign for other reasons.

The problem is that in opposition, labour were very keen to call for the resignation of ministers before they were even found guilty of any crime, so are victims of their own standards.

Yes

Total overkill on the face of it, but I'm glad she's resigned rather than pretending nothing has happened and carrying on (as has been common in recent years). It's a spent conviction of something not terribly important when she was quite young.

If it is actually more than is being reported then fair enough - although again, she was quite young and it's not related to her current job.

Definitely more to this than she’s saying, it’s not uncommon to not be exactly sure what’s been taken if your bag is stolen but to go as far as a charge and conviction says she either kept the phone and said nothing, used it or was proved to be lying about an aspect of the robbery.

If it is actually more than is being reported then fair enough - although again, she was quite young and it's not related to her current job.

She was 27, the year before she was mature enough to be selected as an MP.

I don't think so. It seems to me there's more to this than has been disclosed so far. I don't think the Police would charge someone criminally for one instance saying their mobile was taken in a mugging then discovering it wasn't. It's convenient to blame the Solicitor. She did a "no comment" interview then pled guilty so the prosecution must have had strong evidence against her. The more significant issue is why Starmer (quote from him, "law makers shouldn't be law breakers" re Partygate) knew about her criminal conviction but still promoted her into Govt. I understand her conviction is spent so maybe he thought it wouldn't come out just like he thought all the freebie clothes etc wouldn't come out.

Total overkill and she'd been open about it for years, but he was already cross with her about this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0r82pjd8gpo wasn't he? Morgan McSweeney's obviously doing moves to get rid of anyone vaguely left wing.

“She’s been open about it for years” and yet no one (apart from Keir - allegedly) knew? Surely her constituency should have the right to know who they’ve elected to represent them?

The hypocrisy on this thread is astounding.

This stinks to high heaven. None of it seems to make sense. I suspect there's a lot being left unsaid.

This story would have emerged regardless of party. Though a lefty news outlet might have decided not to pursue …

LH fraud theft guilty plea … it would be known by her employers, their insurance company, the police … at least a dozen, or more people are aware. Probably chatting about it non-stop since her political career started and now cabinet problem 100s are aware that there a story. Surprised took this long to emerge as headline.

I look forward to hearing all the recently-convicted rioters 'explaining' in future that they poorly advised to plead guilty and regret following their solicitor's advice.

Total overkill and she'd been open about it for years

Nope. She only told KS and now it's all come back to bite her on her bum, which tbh I'm delighted about.

I'm not convinced she was even mugged.

Probably thrown her under the bus to appease P&O owners: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0r82pjd8gpo

The woman likely lied and committed fraud. The fact that it was a criminal investigation is very telling. You don't resign over a misplaced phone, but they do make you resign for fraud, lying and loss of trust.

It all seems odd.

Wiki (OK Wiki) says "From 2012 until her election in 2015, Haigh worked for insurer Aviva as public policy manager, responsible for corporate governance and responsible investment policy."

The mugging happened in 2013 and she was sentenced in 2014. Did she carry on working for Aviva afterwards or not?

Also, she had been a special constable in the Met between 2009 and 2011. If things with the phone had gone down as she said, surely she'd have had enough knowledge and savvy not to no comment and plead guilty after a genuine mistake, lawyers advice or no? I know there are reports that there was a repeated loss of phones but this was the offence she was charged with.

"However, three separate sources claimed she made the false report to benefit personally, with two of the sources alleging she wanted a more modern work handset that was being rolled out to her colleagues at the time.
The now cabinet minister had been working as a public policy manager at Aviva, but two sources said she lost her job at the insurance firm because of the incident."

From Sky News. What sources?

All about as clear as mud to me on info I've seen. Maybe I'm missing something!