Transport Secretary Louise Haigh admits pleading guilty
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: 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.
No it doesn't. Have another go.There's clearly a difference.
"It's not the action, it's the reaction".
You are constantly trying to find duplicity in those who are not "anyone but the last lot" proponents. The problem with that is that Starmer advertised himself and his party as being better than that.
It's fair to disagree with Starmer's judgement in appointing her but if there is new information about what he was told as the Times and other reports suggest I'd say the reaction is better.
If this were "the last lot" right now you'd be watching Mel Stride or Chris Philip on BBC Breakfast telling us all that what Haigh did was "wrong" but nevertheless they were going to brazen it out for another week before the inevitable letter.
Let's be honest about it whatever happened he'll never do right for people like you.
If this were "the last lot" right now you'd be watching Mel Stride or Chris Philip on BBC Breakfast telling us all that what Haigh did was "wrong" but nevertheless they were going to brazen it out for another week before the inevitable letter.
Let's be honest about it whatever happened he'll never do right for people like you.
FNG said:
How much theft from your employer is acceptable?
I'd like to know, as I don't nick stuff but with the current cost of living, a little bit on the side would be well handy.
Most of my colleagues appear to be stealing the oxygen they breathe. They may or may not be stealing pens, but they definately steal time. Lazy fI'd like to know, as I don't nick stuff but with the current cost of living, a little bit on the side would be well handy.
kers. Also seems to be something in the wind about the phone malarkey is the excuse for the Labour party to remove her after going rogue with the train driver's pay claim - not cleared with treasury or No10, rumoured first Starmer heard was on the radio.
Then again going rogue, not my words there but Starmer's, with the attack on P&O with dear Angie.
What else? Too far left? Unions not happy now it seems.
Still there will be the usual suspects coming along soon white knighting about stupid children being horrible about fashion, when in reality it's the lack of professionalism and integrity that really should be sharply focussed under the spotlight. Not forgetting a liberal dose of ah but Tories etc.
Broad brush accusations about something or other incoming no doubt. State of it.
Then again going rogue, not my words there but Starmer's, with the attack on P&O with dear Angie.
What else? Too far left? Unions not happy now it seems.
Still there will be the usual suspects coming along soon white knighting about stupid children being horrible about fashion, when in reality it's the lack of professionalism and integrity that really should be sharply focussed under the spotlight. Not forgetting a liberal dose of ah but Tories etc.
Broad brush accusations about something or other incoming no doubt. State of it.
BikeBikeBIke said:
The Gauge said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
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.
You do know that a court hearing isn't the first time the CPS (not police as you state) learn of a persons defence?xstian said:
None of that makes any sense.
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.
Read the post again. Carefully.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.
It's not the giving her the job after her crime - if he had said "I am appointing Louise Hague to my shadow cabinet in the knowledge that she committed a criminal offence, was prosecuted for it and will soon have that conviction spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. She has acknowledged her wrong doing and paid her debt to society. As such she us just as entitled to a fresh start as the next person" I would have applauded his enlightened outlook. The issue here is the concealment.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Read the post again. Carefully.
It's not the giving her the job after her crime - if he had said "I am appointing Louise Hague to my shadow cabinet in the knowledge that she committed a criminal offence, was prosecuted for it and will soon have that conviction spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. She has acknowledged her wrong doing and paid her debt to society. As such she us just as entitled to a fresh start as the next person" I would have applauded his enlightened outlook. The issue here is the concealment.
But also even if she told him about the conviction, if the circumstances that led to that conviction are different from reality then she’s out of order. Ie the fact she started using the phone afterwards is completely different from saying it was turned on and that’s why police investigated.It's not the giving her the job after her crime - if he had said "I am appointing Louise Hague to my shadow cabinet in the knowledge that she committed a criminal offence, was prosecuted for it and will soon have that conviction spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. She has acknowledged her wrong doing and paid her debt to society. As such she us just as entitled to a fresh start as the next person" I would have applauded his enlightened outlook. The issue here is the concealment.
She’s a flat out liar. She is still minimising what she did instead of wholly owning it. That’s what makes her untrustworthy IMO rather than simply having a spent conviction.
CoolHands said:
But also even if she told him about the conviction, if the circumstances that led to that conviction are different from reality then she’s out of order. Ie the fact she started using the phone afterwards is completely different from saying it was turned on and that’s why police investigated.
She’s a flat out liar. She is still minimising what she did instead of wholly owning it. That’s what makes her untrustworthy IMO rather than simply having a spent conviction.
I disagree........as long as she was open and honest when she needed to be about having a past conviction that was spent I don't see the actual specifics of the offence being important....otherwise having a 'spent' conviction is valueless and that goes regardless of rossette colour.She’s a flat out liar. She is still minimising what she did instead of wholly owning it. That’s what makes her untrustworthy IMO rather than simply having a spent conviction.
LimmerickLad said:
I disagree........as long as she was open and honest when she needed to be about having a past conviction that was spent I don't see the actual specifics of the offence being important....otherwise having a 'spent' conviction is valueless and that goes regardless of rossette colour.
yes good point. I guess I just don’t like the way she minimised what she did in her recent statement The Gauge said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
The Gauge said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
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.
You do know that a court hearing isn't the first time the CPS (not police as you state) learn of a persons defence?Anyway, there are reasons that would would not disclose your defence in a Police interview which is what I said in response to someone who said there aren't.
And the fact a lot of people give NC interviews suggests it's very common advice not to.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Saturday 30th November 10:56
BikeBikeBIke said:
Well... A defence statement is voluntary in Magistrates court cases but I can't believe it's totally compulsory in Crown court cases or at least not in detail becaise I can think of at least one Rape trial which collapsed when WhatsApps proved the guy was totally innocent on day one of the trial and the defence certainly hadn't disclosed them in advance. It would be a bit odd if some information came up during a trial that totally exonerated someone amd it wasn't admissable becaise the CPS hadn't been told in advance. Would you even be able to have an appeal, becaise the exonerating evidence wouldn't be new evidence?
So you’ve Googled the disclosure manual and rather than think, “perhaps it’s more complex that I thought”, you’ve thought “how can I blag around it because I can’t possibly accept I may not know about this stuff?” Doesn’t quite fit in with this, does it?
BikeBikeBIke said:
In fact you don't even need to offer a defence at the trial, you can just say "They have no evidence."
BikeBikeBIke said:
And the fact a lot of people give NC interviews suggests it's very common advice not to.
It doesn’t suggest that at all (to NC when you have a defence). People give NC interviews mainly for these things which are quite common:
1) The police evidence is so strong and you have no defence to provide.
2) The police evidence is so weak there’s no need to say anything.
3) You provide a pre-written statement and NC to any questions around it.
KAgantua said:
bern said:
Messy? You mean the actual writing right? Ive read that twice and it doesnt seem to make sense. Did AI write that?If she had just plugged it into chatGPT she could have posted this:
chatGPT said:
On Louise Haigh: I’m told by a source that the story which emerged last night is inconsistent with what she shared with Starmer back in 2020, when she became Shadow NI Secretary. It’s understood they had a conversation last night, but the PM felt unable to reconcile the discrepancies. The view was that there was too much of a gap between what was said in 2020 and the current account. As a result, Haigh was advised to resign.
For her part, Louise Haigh stated in her resignation letter today that she made a mistake in not informing her employer when she found the phone that had been stolen. She added that, “whatever the facts of the matter,” she did not want to become a distraction.
For her part, Louise Haigh stated in her resignation letter today that she made a mistake in not informing her employer when she found the phone that had been stolen. She added that, “whatever the facts of the matter,” she did not want to become a distraction.
Edited by Plymo on Saturday 30th November 12:39
Plymo said:
KAgantua said:
bern said:
Messy? You mean the actual writing right? Ive read that twice and it doesnt seem to make sense. Did AI write that?If she had just plugged it into chatGPT she could have posted this:
chatGPT said:
On Louise Haigh: I’m told by a source that the story which emerged last night is inconsistent with what she shared with Starmer back in 2020, when she became Shadow NI Secretary. It’s understood they had a conversation last night, but the PM felt unable to reconcile the discrepancies. The view was that there was too much of a gap between what was said in 2020 and the current account. As a result, Haigh was advised to resign.
For her part, Louise Haigh stated in her resignation letter today that she made a mistake in not informing her employer when she found the phone that had been stolen. She added that, “whatever the facts of the matter,” she did not want to become a distraction.
For her part, Louise Haigh stated in her resignation letter today that she made a mistake in not informing her employer when she found the phone that had been stolen. She added that, “whatever the facts of the matter,” she did not want to become a distraction.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff