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

Actually, my strong feelings are about someone with a fraud conviction being in a position of power and in control of a substantial budget. Furthermore, most people would agree that someone with a conviction for fraud should not be in government.

Nevertheless, I agree convicted criminals shouldn’t be in parliament, although I realise that’s problematic as parliament should represent the people, and some people are convicted criminals.

The reform MP should be castigated, and not in parliament, but there aren’t suspicions that his conviction has been hidden from the public to further his career, or financially benefit him. Furthermore he is not in control of a multi billion budget, nor has he caved in to union demands apparently without clearance from the treasury of Starmer.

Why don't you present your credentials for policing the board?

So you want OP to list every other MP who broke the law? How far back do you want her to go? Again, the thread is about LH.

That's not what I said is it.

I said that there is a Reform MP with a conviction for DV he didn't disclose, who is currently an MP.

If people don't want MPs to have previous convictions, then it should apply across all parties.

Do you often show such a lack of self awareness?

I don"t think anyone on the thread would this man to remain an MP.

You started off on a weird tangent with 'What about Christian forgiveness?'

This thread is specifically about Louise haigh

interestingly the daily mail haven’t really said much on the matter

i don't want to be cynical but getting the resignation in before the big vote yesterday was a good way to ‘bury bad news’

in terms of whether or not a convicted criminal can be an MP - perhaps if they are forced to disclose convictions to the electorate? However, there are reasons why most professional bodies would bar you for having convictions and I would argue being an MP, and particularly a minister, should require the utmost integrity and honesty.

for eg an accountant lost his qualification for being convicted of train fare dodging. Would we expect the same of a minister?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/farage-james-mcmurdock-reform-girlfriend-assault-b2655465.html

Labour have not found being in government as easy as they had hoped. The newspaper stories about who paid for Keir Starmer’s clothes and glasses went on for weeks and have only just stopped. I expect Keir Starmer wanted her out so he didn’t have another month of stories about mobile phone thefts.

A PP put it rather well when they said that Labour seem really taken aback whenever the papers publish stories about them. The last time Labour came into power they had the newspapers on their side for quite a long time - it seems as though this time they have already fallen out with the press.

This truly deserves its own thread.

Meme time!

Oops click to expand

Haigh is a minister, or rather was. I think most people would agree that a conviction for fraud, even when spent, should exclude you from certain roles. You’d already be excluded from law and most financial services, I think you it should also exclude you from being a minister, in control of billions of pounds.

I agree, it's crazy.
As I said, if all those on here splitting hairs and tying themselves in knots trying to justify LH''s behaviour just because she is a Labour politician can honestly say they would cut a Tory the same slack, then so be it.
But of course, a lot of Labour's supporters on here seem OK with any shenanigans as long as they can point to something they perceive as worse that the Tories have done.
I am wondering at what point some critical thinking might be engaged.
Grown-ups are in charge indeed.

A correction to this - it was actually Haigh herself who said that. So, well and truly hoist by her own petard. It’s amazing to think that with such a a large majority and number of MPs to choose from that Starmer made such a foolish error.

I really can't believe the amount of people excusing her. It wasn't just once, it was three times! And she didn't declare her conviction when she stood as MP, which I understand was unspent. That the sort of person she is-dishonest. I'd actually be surprised if she told Keir Starmer the whole story. There's loads of whataboutery going on about tories but really, if you're going to be part of a government who made such a big deal about being squeaky clean and law abiding, you can't complain when they chuck you under the bus.

She's just lucky it happened the day of the assisted dying bill or it would be a story for weeks.

The cynical among us would wonder if the timing was deliberate.

You backed the wrong horse, a criminal one. Get over it. The desperation to try and white wash over the ex-con’s activities is a desperate look.

It raises questions about spent convictions and rehabilitation. In your opinion MPs don't deserve a second chance after being convicted.

You can be barred from being an MP but having a spent conviction is not one of the reasons.

Starmer is the former head of the CPS and knows the law. Haigh disclosed the conviction to him a few years ago so he was obviously aware of it before appointing her to the cabinet.

I believe she was told to resign for reasons other than the conviction, one of them being her comments regarding P&O.

Your desperation to throw stones at Labour after the Tory fiasco, is laughable. All these threads are the same and if you're challenged, you're told to start another thread. That's not free speech is it.

And would you be arguing for MPs with spent convictions if LH was a Tory? Or would you be shouting Tory Sleaze?
Just wondering

No, that’s not what I said. In my opinion a conviction for fraud, spent or otherwise, should preclude you from being a minister, as it does from being a solicitor or working in financial services. A conviction for death by dangerous driving wouldn’t necessarily have the same longevity, or for being drunk and disorderly. You can see that fraud is a particularly serious conviction for someone in a position of authority, trust and oversight of substantial budgets?

Starmer is the former head of the CPS and knows the law. Haigh disclosed the conviction to him a few years ago so he was obviously aware of it before appointing her to the cabinet.

She did tell him about the conviction, according to all the coverage.

Starmer only accepted Haigh's resignation after "further information" emerged.

What was that further information that prompted her to tender her resignation and him to accept it?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxy1kp73y9o

Free speech? Lefties don’t know what that is, do they? Anyway Go ahead and keep defending her. She’s already gone. An ex-con cabinet minister is not a good look. Most people’s standards are higher than.

I don't agree. I think you can make stupid mistakes, learn from it and move on. If she had a string of convictions for fraud then I'd agree.

I believe that people can be rehabilitated.