Transport Secretary Louise Haigh admits pleading guilty
Discussion
essayer said:
Yeah, she’s toast.
“My solicitor advised me not to comment during that interview and I regret following that advice.. I appeared before Southwark magistrates.. Under the advice of my solicitor I pleaded guilty - despite the fact this was a genuine mistake from which I did not make any gain.”
Well summed up and outcome predicted on Page1.“My solicitor advised me not to comment during that interview and I regret following that advice.. I appeared before Southwark magistrates.. Under the advice of my solicitor I pleaded guilty - despite the fact this was a genuine mistake from which I did not make any gain.”
Mr Penguin said:
ArchiveThe article said:
The Times has been told that Aviva began a formal investigation into Haigh after establishing that the stolen mobile phone was being used to call her existing contacts, including one of her relatives.
Investigations by police confirmed that the same numbers had been called by the phone before and after the report of the theft.
Investigations by police confirmed that the same numbers had been called by the phone before and after the report of the theft.
768 said:
Mr Penguin said:
ArchiveThe article said:
The Times has been told that Aviva began a formal investigation into Haigh after establishing that the stolen mobile phone was being used to call her existing contacts, including one of her relatives.
Investigations by police confirmed that the same numbers had been called by the phone before and after the report of the theft.
Investigations by police confirmed that the same numbers had been called by the phone before and after the report of the theft.
768 said:
Mr Penguin said:
ArchiveThe article said:
The Times has been told that Aviva began a formal investigation into Haigh after establishing that the stolen mobile phone was being used to call her existing contacts, including one of her relatives.
Investigations by police confirmed that the same numbers had been called by the phone before and after the report of the theft.
Investigations by police confirmed that the same numbers had been called by the phone before and after the report of the theft.
My issue is not really with the offence - I see no issue with Haigh becoming an MP and government minister - she made a mistake, she pleaded guilty and was punished. She's paid her debt to society and she has a right to have the slate wiped clean.
My issue is that Starmer knew about this and, whilst trumpeting his "you can't be a law maker and a law breaker" narrative, appointed her to the shadow cabinet.
I also worry that Starmer had a nasty little side deal with her from when she disclosed the issue to him - the speed of her resignation suggests that, when told, he said something along the lines of "OK, we'll keep quiet about it but if it ever comes out, you have to resign straight away"
As ever, it's not the action that's the issue; it's the reaction
My issue is that Starmer knew about this and, whilst trumpeting his "you can't be a law maker and a law breaker" narrative, appointed her to the shadow cabinet.
I also worry that Starmer had a nasty little side deal with her from when she disclosed the issue to him - the speed of her resignation suggests that, when told, he said something along the lines of "OK, we'll keep quiet about it but if it ever comes out, you have to resign straight away"
As ever, it's not the action that's the issue; it's the reaction
ClaphamGT3 said:
My issue is not really with the offence - I see no issue with Haigh becoming an MP and government minister - she made a mistake, she pleaded guilty and was punished. She's paid her debt to society and she has a right to have the slate wiped clean.
My issue is that Starmer knew about this and, whilst trumpeting his "you can't be a law maker and a law breaker" narrative, appointed her to the shadow cabinet.
I also worry that Starmer had a nasty little side deal with her from when she disclosed the issue to him - the speed of her resignation suggests that, when told, he said something along the lines of "OK, we'll keep quiet about it but if it ever comes out, you have to resign straight away"
As ever, it's not the action that's the issue; it's the reaction
That also makes her very compromised and easily manipulated.My issue is that Starmer knew about this and, whilst trumpeting his "you can't be a law maker and a law breaker" narrative, appointed her to the shadow cabinet.
I also worry that Starmer had a nasty little side deal with her from when she disclosed the issue to him - the speed of her resignation suggests that, when told, he said something along the lines of "OK, we'll keep quiet about it but if it ever comes out, you have to resign straight away"
As ever, it's not the action that's the issue; it's the reaction
ClaphamGT3 said:
My issue is not really with the offence - I see no issue with Haigh becoming an MP and government minister - she made a mistake, she pleaded guilty and was punished. She's paid her debt to society and she has a right to have the slate wiped clean.
My issue is that Starmer knew about this and, whilst trumpeting his "you can't be a law maker and a law breaker" narrative, appointed her to the shadow cabinet.
I also worry that Starmer had a nasty little side deal with her from when she disclosed the issue to him - the speed of her resignation suggests that, when told, he said something along the lines of "OK, we'll keep quiet about it but if it ever comes out, you have to resign straight away"
As ever, it's not the action that's the issue; it's the reaction
None of that makes any sense. My issue is that Starmer knew about this and, whilst trumpeting his "you can't be a law maker and a law breaker" narrative, appointed her to the shadow cabinet.
I also worry that Starmer had a nasty little side deal with her from when she disclosed the issue to him - the speed of her resignation suggests that, when told, he said something along the lines of "OK, we'll keep quiet about it but if it ever comes out, you have to resign straight away"
As ever, it's not the action that's the issue; it's the reaction
If you have the right to have the slate wiped clean, how can you criticise Starmer for giving her the job? You even say you have no problem with her becoming a MP or minister.
She resigned too quickly? I’m going to speculate, like the rest of your post. If She didn’t resign immediately and Starmer announced he had full confidence in her, you would be complaining about that instead.
ClaphamGT3 said:
My issue is not really with the offence - I see no issue with Haigh becoming an MP and government minister - she made a mistake, she pleaded guilty and was punished. She's paid her debt to society and she has a right to have the slate wiped clean.
My issue is that Starmer knew about this and, whilst trumpeting his "you can't be a law maker and a law breaker" narrative, appointed her to the shadow cabinet.
I also worry that Starmer had a nasty little side deal with her from when she disclosed the issue to him - the speed of her resignation suggests that, when told, he said something along the lines of "OK, we'll keep quiet about it but if it ever comes out, you have to resign straight away"
As ever, it's not the action that's the issue; it's the reaction
Do you think "you can't be a law maker and a law breaker" is slightly different if you do the law breaking as a serving Prime Minister than it is if you do it as a member of the public and see your conviction spent before you become an MP?My issue is that Starmer knew about this and, whilst trumpeting his "you can't be a law maker and a law breaker" narrative, appointed her to the shadow cabinet.
I also worry that Starmer had a nasty little side deal with her from when she disclosed the issue to him - the speed of her resignation suggests that, when told, he said something along the lines of "OK, we'll keep quiet about it but if it ever comes out, you have to resign straight away"
As ever, it's not the action that's the issue; it's the reaction
I think Haigh had to go for a number of reasons and the new stuff to come out overnight adds to that but I'm surprised to see you of all people attempting to draw some sort of comparison between what Haigh did as a member of the public and what Johnson did and how he behaved whilst he was the serving Prime Minister.
Puts her bad legal advice claim into perspective.
Dishonest and stupid. Is that the best Starmer can get for his cabinet?
"Lost" her Aviva phone three times.
One fraudulent claim. I guess the other two were just carelessy lost as far as could be established.
"Haigh was said to have reported her phone missing on three occasions. "
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/louis...
Dishonest and stupid. Is that the best Starmer can get for his cabinet?
"Lost" her Aviva phone three times.
One fraudulent claim. I guess the other two were just carelessy lost as far as could be established.
"Haigh was said to have reported her phone missing on three occasions. "
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/louis...
Edited by irc on Saturday 30th November 07:37
BikeBikeBIke said:
MrBogSmith said:
Something
If you have a defence then you provide that defence to the police in interview.
You really don't. If you tell the police your defence in interview they know to for evidence to debunk the defence at the trial. If the first time they hear your defence is in court they don't have time to go on a hunt to debunk your defence. (Obvs in tbe UK the court can draw an inference from that but if itsna credible defence that shouldn't matter.If you have a defence then you provide that defence to the police in interview.
The problem here isn't the NC interview. The problem (if she had a decent case) was pleading guilty. And pleading guilty got her a conditional discharge which I assume she was happy with at the time.
".....it may harm your defence, if you do not mention when questioned, something which you later rely on in court...."
xstian said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
My issue is not really with the offence - I see no issue with Haigh becoming an MP and government minister - she made a mistake, she pleaded guilty and was punished. She's paid her debt to society and she has a right to have the slate wiped clean.
My issue is that Starmer knew about this and, whilst trumpeting his "you can't be a law maker and a law breaker" narrative, appointed her to the shadow cabinet.
I also worry that Starmer had a nasty little side deal with her from when she disclosed the issue to him - the speed of her resignation suggests that, when told, he said something along the lines of "OK, we'll keep quiet about it but if it ever comes out, you have to resign straight away"
As ever, it's not the action that's the issue; it's the reaction
None of that makes any sense. My issue is that Starmer knew about this and, whilst trumpeting his "you can't be a law maker and a law breaker" narrative, appointed her to the shadow cabinet.
I also worry that Starmer had a nasty little side deal with her from when she disclosed the issue to him - the speed of her resignation suggests that, when told, he said something along the lines of "OK, we'll keep quiet about it but if it ever comes out, you have to resign straight away"
As ever, it's not the action that's the issue; it's the reaction
If you have the right to have the slate wiped clean, how can you criticise Starmer for giving her the job? You even say you have no problem with her becoming a MP or minister.
She resigned too quickly? I’m going to speculate, like the rest of your post. If She didn’t resign immediately and Starmer announced he had full confidence in her, you would be complaining about that instead.
the tribester said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
MrBogSmith said:
Something
If you have a defence then you provide that defence to the police in interview.
You really don't. If you tell the police your defence in interview they know to for evidence to debunk the defence at the trial. If the first time they hear your defence is in court they don't have time to go on a hunt to debunk your defence. (Obvs in tbe UK the court can draw an inference from that but if itsna credible defence that shouldn't matter.If you have a defence then you provide that defence to the police in interview.
The problem here isn't the NC interview. The problem (if she had a decent case) was pleading guilty. And pleading guilty got her a conditional discharge which I assume she was happy with at the time.
".....it may harm your defence, if you do not mention when questioned, something which you later rely on in court...."
Rufus Stone said:
I think Chapham is saying it's okay in his personal opinion, but if someone personally states what Starmer did then it's a bit hypocritical of them to then appoint someone with a criminal record even if spent.
But that suggests there's no difference between Haigh committing fraud 10 years ago as a member of the public and if she'd done so a week ago as a serving minister.There's clearly a difference.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: You do have to wonder how differently it could have worked out for Haigh and poor Lucy Connolly if only they'd had Perry Mason BikeBikeBIke advising them.
If Lucy Connolly is who I think she is, if she'd given a NC interview she wouldn't have been charged. Nobody who shared it was prosecuted.From memory there are 4 elements of the offence and by definition in the interview she will have admitted 3 of them becaise she will have regarded them as harmless. That leaves intent which she will not have known was significant.
If she'd said nothing the Police would have had to do a lot of leg work for the first three elements and would never have proved intent beyond reasonable doubt. They'd have dropped the whole thing of found something else to charge her with.
The Police don't interview suspects to help them talk their way out of it, they interview suspects to build a case amd full in the gaps in the evidence they have.
In Haigh's case I'm not sure what she could have said that would have helped her she was blatantly guilty.
nikaiyo2 said:
Phew at least according to Rachel reeves CV she was on hand to make sure no real harm came to Louise, only her phone got lost but not lost, only semi lost.
I don’t wish to belittle our 5d economic grand strategist but this is what first sprang to mind when I saw that…‘This time next year UK, well all be millionaires’, or maybe not.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff