In my limited, second hand experience of dealing with legal proceedings, it would be wrong to thing that the advice given by soliciters/lawyers is always correct, and it would often be wrong to read too much into somebody behaving in a way that doesn't seem entirely sensible and logical from a detached viewpoint.
I've not broken any laws, but I've watched enough '24 Hours in Police Custody' to know that 'No Comment' is always the sensible approach.
You might need to take these off if you think that this is the end of it. So much doesn't add up.
Yes, very good at dealing with the rail unions. Don't bother negotiating, just give the greedy bastards what they are asking for. Job done. An embarrassment just like the majority of the cabinet.
A Conservative Party spokesman said: “Louise Haigh has done the right thing in resigning. It is clear she has failed to behave to the standards expected of an MP'
Where do I start... ?
If she's one of the good people, it doesn't say much for the rest.
I don't agree with that. Each situation is different. Folk aren't defined by the law, they are defined by character. In this case, it really is nothing.
I'm talking in general, not just this case. You can't become a Teacher, Doctor, Transport worker but hey, MP is fine. I'd rather have someone with character and no criminal record than just the character bit, I'm just surprised it's just not excluded in the first place and cut out any grey areas.
I don't believe it should be the case though. As an example, 30 years odd a go a friend of mine was convicted of fraud and spent six months inside. It was a stupid thing to do, I really don't know what he was thinking. But we all do stupid things.
Bbc report that the Conservatives had the bones of this during the election campaign but couldn't find the magistrates court it was held at to get the finer details so no journalists would touch it
I might have this wrong (and, if anyone can provide evidence to the contrary, please do) but I don't think Haigh actually has a criminal record but has been found guilty of a criminal conviction. I was half-listening to WatO and I think this distinction was raised.
It reminds me of that bit in Yes Prime Minister when Hacker's worried that one of his ministers has resigned, and Humphrey's like "No! This is brilliant, you bounced them into resigning over a point of principle that nobody understands or cares about instead of over something people are interested in."
How do you know?
