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 what would have been the potential advantage to her if she'd have pleaded innocent? Which is what she says she should have done.

And of course she has not told the 100% truth to anyone in Labour. Because she is not going to do/say anything stops her get what she wants …. She is a person who lies, and cheats to get ahead, or get money.

And same for Reeves with her CV and her shitty job dressed up as “Economist” …..

Starmer on his anti-white-men-private-school-Oxbridge crusade is hiring people who think best way to get ahead is to lie and cheat their credentials and he put the thief in charge on money.

Obviously, not getting a criminal record if found innocent.

Presumably then going on to be found innocent and not having a criminal record?

I don't know why people are defending her. How can she mistakenly think her phone was stolen? Moreover the fact is she did have a conviction for fraud and that makes her not fit for public office.

I think she was intelligent and experienced enough in her working life to know that the case against her was a done deal and that the previous incidents wouldn't help. So I don't believe that she 'regrets' pleading guilty.

Follow the money.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reynolds-labour-investment-summit-p-o-haigh-b2628419.html

The Times report says the matter was handed to the police after an internal Aviva investigation. As PP have said, people rarely get investigated for losing/breaking a single phone handset. There is more to this and I'm surprised Starmer didn't see fit to investigate more thoroughly before offering her a cabinet position. The press will always try to dig up dirt on people in public life so he should have made sure there wasn't more to it.

Labour seems baffled when they get any press scrutiny, though. So he could well have assumed no-one would look into her history or care ?

He probably did know more of the story. He was DPP and has a legal brain so he would have asked. He maybe thought it wouldn't come out as it was a spent conviction but someone has spilled the beans for unknown reasons (to get rid of her?)

I think that that’s right. For the police to have been involved, and interested, in the first place there was clearly much more than just a lost phone or two.

And while agree that rehabilitation of offenders is important, I think most would agree there are some convictions and some jobs that are always incompatible. For me that includes certain (all?) sexual offences and working with children, certain violence offences and being a police officer, and fraud offences with senior civil service or government / police / forces roles.

The Times report says the matter was handed to the police after an internal Aviva investigation.

Agree this isn't a light thing.

According to wiki Louise was a Special Constable with the Met from 2009-2011.

Presumably she had a fairly good understanding of police procedures and the law.

Committing fraud at an insurer is presumably a sackable offence.

Something doesn't add up and doubtless there is more to come out.

It's annoying, because she did appear to be getting things done in the Dept of Transport.

I'm not sure anyone needed to spill the beans, the court register is available to the public.

I agree Starmer, given his background, probably did know more but I find it hard to believe he thought it would remain a secret.

She has to resign even if she was poorly advised back in the day or whatever. She shouldn’t have been allowed to get this far with this history, because it was not a one off incident reportedly. Any time there’s a report of an incident like this and then more details come out that indicate an initial less than full transparency, if in fact it was repeated incidents, then that’s not OK. Voters have not been able to decide.

It’s really important that government ministers have a clean record for honesty. If there have been repeated incidents of this confusion about valuable items being taken or not being taken, then doesn’t look honest. Nolan principles are quite clear about the appearance of probity being crucial, as well as the actual fact of probity. She’s failed that test. If it’s true it wasn’t a one off.

Haigh didn’t come into public life open about her past repeated behaviour so she lacked transparency. So it’s irrelevant that since then, she hasn’t continued to get confused over her employers’ mobile phones being stolen, or not. Because there should have been honesty from the start. Shame because she seemed good in the role.

I agree Starmer, given his background, probably did know more but I find it hard to believe he thought it would remain a secret.

Or maybe he only knew what she told him (spent conviction, minor offence) and has since, very lately, found out that there is more to it.

So the rules around spent convictions that apply to the rest of us don’t apply to MPs? That seems pretty draconian to me. And this really made me laugh - did you manage to type that with a straight face after the last government? I’d have said illegally proroguing parliament makes just about anything else look like small beer.

It’s really important that government ministers have a clean record for honesty. She clearly doesn’t. Nolan principles are quite clear about the appearance of probity being crucial as well as the actual fact of it.

It’s not a race to the bottom, just because the last government was morally corrupt. That’s why many voters said they voted them out.

I honestly don't know this - but do the rules for spent convictions count for things like regulated financial services? I would struggle to believe anyone who had a fraud conviction would be able to work in financial services, for example?

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just interested.

The law relating to spent convictions? Or are you conveniently ignoring that?

I don’t think anyone’s ignoring the law on spent convictions, rather making the point that for some convictions and jobs there’s an incompatibility. I’m sure most would agree that a conviction for certain sexual offences, not matter how old, ought to rule out jobs in certain fields for ever. And that the same is true of certain offences related to violence, and fraud. I think, though of course you might disagree, that a conviction for fraud ought to rule people out from certain senior public roles.

There’s clearly a lot more to this that we know, or indeed have a right to know. But no one is prosecuted for fraud and pleads guilty if all they’ve done is ‘lost’ a couple of work ‘phones.

MP, not in the Cabinet - HUGE difference.

Although i don't think JA should have been an MP either. Do you think that he should have been allowed to be?

I think, though of course you might disagree, that a conviction for fraud ought to rule people out from certain senior public roles.

I think a conviction for fraud is overkill for a lost phone and I don’t see how it could possibly affect suitability for a minister for transport. Equally I think kicking the shit out of a woman should preclude any public office but Reform obviously doesn’t agree with me. In any event it’s really refreshing to see a senior politician take some accountability, there hasn’t been much of that in the last few years.

Look, there is a world of difference between someone being given a job working in something completely unrelated to their spent crime or being in the Cabinet!

Spent on not, i do not think that (for example) someone who has stolen someone's money should then be allowed to work in a bank or be an accountant.

And someone who has committed fraud (because that is what she said she did) should not be in the Cabinet, no!

The spent conviction argument is a moot point, there is clearly more to this, her employer handed her over to the police, this is clearly a pattern of dishonesty. I don’t know about the rest of you but I have managed to work for large corporations for 20 plus years without ever being investigated for fraud and criminal activity - amazing.