ChatterBank8 mins ago
When Exactly Was Louise Haigh's Fraud Conviction Spent.
Was Haigh still in office before her conviction was spent, how long is the period of dislosure before it does not have to be disclosed?
Answers
No best answer has yet been selected by barney15c. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Ah, but if you have a secure job (as she had) then security clearance means it never goes away and will need to be disclosed forever. The record will not be wiped from PNC until she is 100 or dead.
I would hope all Government ministers have to undergo a NPPV3 at the very minimum and prefereable SC in addition.
New Judge, was she an MP before her Offence was spent?
Haigh admitted she had pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation relating to misleading police in 2014 and was elected to Parliament on 7th July 2015, approximately a period of 6 months. I would doubt her conviction was spent by the time she became a politician. Was this disclosed when she was campaingning to be an MP?
“New Judge, was she an MP before her Offence was spent?”
I don’t know because I don’t know when she was convicted (it might have been as early as 2nd January 2014) and I don’t know who long her Conditional Discharge was for.
“Was this disclosed when she was campaingning to be an MP?”
Whether I was or wasn’t doesn’t matter. She was not required to do so. Candidates are not required to disclose any convictions (spent or unspent). The only thing in tthat respect which disqualifies a potential candidate from standing is if they are in custody (or at large) having been sentenced to twelve months or more.
“I would hope all Government ministers have to undergo a NPPV3 at the very minimum and prefereable SC in addition.”
Any vetting they require after having been elected will depend on their post. I imagine all MPs will need security clearance to access Parliament, its computer systems as well as any other government buildings to which they require access. But these vetting and clearance processes (many of which will examine all convictions - spent and unspent) will not rely on the individual’s disclosure. Those carrying out the checks will have access to the necessary records.
I can only suppose there's a lot we aren't being told.
I was in a similar position to her - lost my passport, had to report the loss before I could get a new one, which I duly did. Months later I found the old one again. Did I think to alert the police? It never occurred to me for a second.
The only difference from Haigh's case was that I didn't use the old passport again; why would I, when I had a new one? But the same might apply to Haigh - why on earth did she use the old one again? It doesn't seem she actually had anything to gain from what is supposedly deceit, except a spare phone.
So on the face of it, I have a lot of sympathy for her and suspect she's being trolled more by her own party than by the opposition. But as I say, there are a lot of holes in the story.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.