Louise Haigh Resigns

[barry1010]

Don't think she had much choice.

https://news.sky.com/story/transport-secretary-louise-haigh-resigns-after-mobile-phone-mistake-13262782

[youngmafbog]

Of course this will be a good day to "bury bad news" since the assisted dying Bill wil take over the headlines by the end of the day.  Everything will then be swept under the carpet.  She has been pushed I am sure.

[mushroom25]

it's being suggested by the conspiracy theorists on XWitter that this was to all intents and purposes a political hit. and, that there are those close to the government top table who maintain a discreet file on misdeeds by cabinet post holders, which can be conveniently leaked should it ever prove necessary to have them removed.

[Bazile]

//Why would she go to the inauguration? Do all MPs go? //

I dunno - it wasn't a serious  question

[Togo]

She was in cahoots with the equally disingenuous Sue Grey. I wonder when she will start to tell the truth as well. 

[youngmafbog]

//that there are those close to the government top table who maintain a discreet file on misdeeds by cabinet post holders//

I wouldnt have tough that was much a conspiracy.  I would do it, so pretty sure many of them do.  It's common sense in a dog eat dog world.

 

[max137]

Sponsered and funded by A.S.L.E.F who got a massive pay sttlement just saying.

[gramps85]

The thing that worries me is that Starmer was told, by her, of the offence, yet he still decided to promote her to a Minister. It must call into, once again, his judgement and competence.

[Togo]

^^ He also had all the info on Saville and Fayed but decided not to prosecute. 

[barney15c]

She never informed civil servants of her conviction although Starmer was told. Was she still in office when her conviction was unspent.  Another issue was why didnt' she inform police the moment she found the phone ( i presume she was given an incident number for the stolen phone) and was she really mugged, should she have been charged for wasting police time.  All unanswered questions.

[New Judge]

“As far as I know spent convictions still have be declared in these circumstances”

No they don’t, barry.

A proposer is only obliged to disclose unspent convictions (and only then if the insurer asks - which they generally will). If the question is “have you ever been convicted of [whatever]” the proposer is entitled to answer “no” if the only convictions they have are spent.

You may be thinking of the circumstances where an insurer asks “have you ever had a policy cancelled?” In these circumstances the “ever” means precisely that. Having an insurance policy cancelled is not a “sentence” which can become spent and so is not covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders’ Act (RoOA). That’s why having (particularly) a motor policy cancelled is to be avoided at all costs because it can influence premiums - or even if cover is granted at all - for life.

As far as Ms Haigh goes, I too think there must be more to this than we are being told. The office of an MP is not (as far as I can remember) among the exceptions to the RoOA so she had no requirement to disclose her conviction. If, as suggested, she did disclose it voluntarily or if even she didn’t disclose it at all,  I don’t see what the problem is. That’s why I think there’s more to it.

Anyway, at least the train drivers got their pay rise with no strings. I notice Mr Starmer’s letter ends “I know you still have a huge contribution to make in the future.” So presumably after the appropriate period in purdah she will be quietly eased back in.

[Khandro]

Louise Haigh, the Transport Secretary, appeared at Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court six months before the 2015 general election, after making a false report to officers that her mobile phone had been stolen. Haigh claimed that she was ‘mugged while on a night out’ in 2013 and then reported the incident to the police. She gave officers a list of items she believed had been taken – including a work mobile phone. But in a statement to Sky News, the minister admitted she discovered ‘some time later’ that ‘the mobile in question had not been taken’.

Haigh was subsequently asked to come in for questioning. She says that she declined to comment, with the matter then being referred to the CPS. Subsequently Haigh appeared before Southwark magistrates where she pleaded guilty, despite – in her words – ‘the fact this was a genuine mistake from which I did not make any gain’. Haigh insists tonight that ‘the magistrates accepted all of these arguments and gave me the lowest possible outcome (a discharge) available.’

[New Judge]

"She never informed civil servants of her conviction although Starmer was told."

She didn't have to.

She was sentenced to a "Conditional Discharge". I cannot see the period of that discharge mentioned anywhere but the usual period is 12 months and it cannot be longer than three years in any circumstances. The conviction becomes spent when the period of the discharge is complete.

She was convicted in 2014 so the latest she would have to have disclosed the conviction (if she was asked) would have been 2017 and in all likelihood a lot earlier than that.

[barney15c]

Even with a 12 month conditional discharge her conviction would have not been spent by the time she became a politician. Was this disclosed to her constituents when she was elected in 2015 about 7 months later, surely she had broken some rule?

It seems utterly ridiculous that if you are asked about unspent convictions that you are not asked explicitly about spent ones too, especially in a cabinet post, and that she didn't to offer information to the latter, that just invites not disclosing anything negative. Also why are there not PNC checks on Politicians and Ministers.  The fact that Starmer will not answer explicit questions infers that he is not being completely upfront about her appointment checks.

[New Judge]

" Was this disclosed to her constituents when she was elected in 2015 about 7 months later, surely she had broken some rule?"

As I explained in the other thread, she had no requirement to disclose criminal convictions (whether spent or unspent) before standing as a candidate. As well as that (not that it matters) she could have been convicted in early 2014 (19 months prior to the election and her CD may have been for less than seven months.

"It seems utterly ridiculous that if you are asked about unspent convictions that you are not asked explicitly about spent ones too, especially in a cabinet post,..."

But she was asked about neither.

"Also why are there not PNC checks on Politicians and Ministers."

There are. But they do no depend on the individual's personal disclosure.

[barney15c]

Absolutely incredulous  a serving politician can get away with making minimal to no disclosures on spent / unspent convictions, the system is utterly broken.

[Khandro]

Jeremy Bentham in his Book of Fallacies -1824- (which I just happen to be reading about in the TLS) opines that we should not hold politicians too rigidly to account for some disjunction between their public pronouncements & their private practices, or for inconsistencies between views expressed in the past & in the present. Bentham referred to it as the "inconsistency-imputers argument", fallacious because personal inconsistency is often irrelevant to the merits of the argument.

[Canary42]

The HIGNFY view amused me :-

A Conservative Party spokesman says Louise Haigh “failed to behave to the standards expected of an MP", as she hadn’t thrown a lockdown party, bullied a civil servant, given a PPE contract to her mate, gone on reality TV instead of doing her job or crashed the economy

[Togo]

It now transpires that a photograph was taken, by Haigh, on the phone after it was reported stolen which plod has proof of and that they also suspect that she rang her mother on it but can not yet confirm this. Another inveterate liar and thief. They shame us all. 

[Khandro]

If she had reported say, a biro among the things stolen and then found it in a pocket, should she then have told the police?

At what point does the value of the object become worthy of inquiry?

[newmodarmy]

It raises the possibility that other items on the list are fraudulent claims. 

I don't know st what point the amount becomes non trivial but there's a clear difference between a 50p biro and a phone worth maybe £400.