Transport Secretary Louise Haigh admits pleading guilty
Discussion
ALawson said:
ChevronB19 said:
She’s resigned
Apparently without using the word resign. 
Of course, it's the usual non-resignation anyway where she's only stepping back from a cabinet post. The coordinated response letter from Starmer even says "I know you still have a huge contribution to make in the future." Let's hope it's a huge contribution to pot washing on a P&O ferry and not our politics.
chemistry said:
Wow, that’s some effort to spin there 
Hardly spin, it’s a fact. I’ve little time for any of them and my interest in politics is waning as quickly as my faith, but at least this particular cabinet minister went without too much fuss. I wouldn’t go as far as to suggest it’s a refreshing change moment, but it’s an improvement on the last shower of idiots. Blue62 said:
Hardly spin, it’s a fact. I’ve little time for any of them and my interest in politics is waning as quickly as my faith, but at least this particular cabinet minister went without too much fuss. I wouldn’t go as far as to suggest it’s a refreshing change moment, but it’s an improvement on the last shower of idiots.
So was Starner aware of her fraud, but appointed her to his cabinet anyway? Or did he not bother to do any background checks before appointing her? In either case, it’s a pretty bad look for him and hardly an improvement over the Tories; turn a blind eye or never asking the first place…chemistry said:
So was Starner aware of her fraud, but appointed her to his cabinet anyway? Or did he not bother to do any background checks before appointing her? In either case, it’s a pretty bad look for him and hardly an improvement over the Tories; turn a blind eye or never asking the first place…
I don’t know, but this happened before she became an MP, so maybe our expectations are a little too high. Who knows what sort of background checks were done on Chris Pincher for example (there are quite a few others to choose from), although in his case his behaviours were in plain sight for many years before he was promoted. It’s certainly not a good look, but get some perspective.
Murph7355 said:
After being exposed.
If this hadn't come to light, do you think she'd have "resigned"?
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here Murph, I’m struggling to think of any public figure who just randomly decided to ‘fess up, perhaps you can enlighten us? If this hadn't come to light, do you think she'd have "resigned"?
If it’s about doing the honourable thing then I think the point is that she didn’t hang around for a few days or weeks, thank Christ.
I think it's a complete storm in a teacup, being stoked up for political purposes (politics is politics after all). I can barely summon the energy to give half out of 10 on the can I be bothered about it scale.
Pleasantly surprised she has resigned after just one night of reflection - I think the usual is at least 3 or 4 days having "the full support of the PM".
As for the "no comment" advice, isn't there an entire thread on here somewhere about not attending police interviews if you can? The whole premise for the thread is the police just try and trap you into admitting guilt and saying nothing gives the police nothing - should someone tell the thread it's wrong?
And most people would not take legal advice about their legal advice.
The biggest mistake of hers was turning the thing on again and not just chucking it away, though I am surprised the police had the resource to follow up it's activation - oh for simpler times.
Pleasantly surprised she has resigned after just one night of reflection - I think the usual is at least 3 or 4 days having "the full support of the PM".
As for the "no comment" advice, isn't there an entire thread on here somewhere about not attending police interviews if you can? The whole premise for the thread is the police just try and trap you into admitting guilt and saying nothing gives the police nothing - should someone tell the thread it's wrong?
And most people would not take legal advice about their legal advice.
The biggest mistake of hers was turning the thing on again and not just chucking it away, though I am surprised the police had the resource to follow up it's activation - oh for simpler times.
Blue62 said:
Murph7355 said:
After being exposed.
If this hadn't come to light, do you think she'd have "resigned"?
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here Murph, I’m struggling to think of any public figure who just randomly decided to ‘fess up, perhaps you can enlighten us? If this hadn't come to light, do you think she'd have "resigned"?
If it’s about doing the honourable thing then I think the point is that she didn’t hang around for a few days or weeks, thank Christ.
Guess not.
Southerner said:
Is it normal for police to have a sufficient level of interest in a reportedly nicked mobile phone to be monitoring whether it’s switched on? Crime reference number and move on, surely. Or might the employer have noticed it come back to life and made their own report to the police, I wonder? All a bit cryptic.
Very perceptive - apparently it’s ‘phones’ and aviva supplied details of more than one instance but the criminal charge related to one phone. Perhaps it was even ‘organised’… 
A member of the cabinet involved in organised crime haha Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff