Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] Louise Haigh



Pavilionaire

Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
31,318
Hotchilidog said:
One of the few good people in this government. This is ridiculous, Starmer should not accept the resignation
Click to expand...
If we were three or four years in to their term then I might agree with you, but they're only been in power for less than 5 months and have not had a good start either.

Her card was marked over the P&O "rogue operator" comments, she was on borrowed time.

Again, it shows how Labour are crying out for an Alistair Campbell figure. They would have known she had a weakness with this phone issue, so - in effect - she was on a yellow when arriving into power. P&O should have been her second yellow, and the party should have got rid then, thus avoiding this tacky story now.

Weird timing, because if Labour wanted her gone then why not leak the story around Christmas and bury the bad news?
 




A

amexer

Well-known member
Aug 8, 2011
6,916
Can only assume Starmer or maybe herself wanted out and this was dug up to give tomedia as a reason
 


Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
56,733
Faversham
Rdodge30 said:
I’m aware that they knew about it and chose to ignore it !!

My take on that is that it is amateurish vetting.

I fail to see how I’m wrong or prejudiced? (I have already said in another thread that this is just a distraction- it’s the policies that are relevant not this 👍
Click to expand...
Fair enough..
 


R

ROSM

Well-known member
Dec 26, 2005
6,867
Just far enough away from LDC
Pavilionaire said:
If we were three or four years in to their term then I might agree with you, but they're only been in power for less than 5 months and have not had a good start either.

Her card was marked over the P&O "rogue operator" comments, she was on borrowed time.

Again, it shows how Labour are crying out for an Alistair Campbell figure. They would have known she had a weakness with this phone issue, so - in effect - she was on a yellow when arriving into power. P&O should have been her second yellow, and the party should have got rid then, thus avoiding this tacky story now.

Weird timing, because if Labour wanted her gone then why not leak the story around Christmas and bury the bad news?
Click to expand...
As I have said before, the tories had this story in the summer and wanted to use it in the election campaign. Apparently came from a former colleague at aviva. What stopped it was the tories had the wrong magistrates court and so couldn't substantiate the claim
 


sparkie

sparkie

Well-known member
Jul 17, 2003
13,325
Hove
jcdenton08 said:
That’s not how that works.

When arrested, you see either your own or a duty solicitor. The police give you and the solicitor the reason for arrest, but not all (or indeed any) of the discovery (the evidence against you).

Every single word you say is recorded, and if you went to trial every word you say is evidence to be used against you.

Absolutely nothing you say answering questions in a stressful situation then and there in the police station will lead to your immediate exoneration. If you are denying the charge, the solicitor will likely advise you to make a prepared statement to give the police your side of the story on your terms, without answering leading questions or potentially accidentally self-incriminating.

The truth is if the police have the evidence already, it doesn’t matter what you say or do, you will be charged, so your defences are best saved for trial.

Absolutely no inference should ever be made by giving a no comment interview to the police - 99% of the time it’s the correct course of action whether innocent or guilty of the allegation.
Click to expand...
The police's role is to build a case against the accused not to get to the truth. This is not generally understood.

Everyone - including the totally innocent - should always do a "no comment interview" to give no help to the police in building that case against them.
 
Last edited:






P

Professor Plum

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 27, 2024
803
Commander said:
Imagine working in a job where people are paid to actively try to find misdemeanours you made a decade ago so you have to resign.

We accept that as the norm, and then moan that the MPs we have aren't capable enough people.

We get the Government we deserve.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I hate the way we treat MPs in general. The two I’ve had personal experience of (one Labour, one Tory) were both really professional in the way they dealt with the issue and both produced a positive result. What many people seem to struggle with is being even-handed. A lot of people seem to think their political opponents are fair game for this sort of grubby raking-up-the-past but not the lot they support.

Haigh made a f***-up like many of us do when younger. But she received a punishment and got on with her life. Fair play to her. What seems odd about the case is that she actually came clean about it with Starmer and the party previously and they said it was ok as it was a spent conviction (which seems like a reasonable position to take) but have now gone back on that decision.

I think she’ll be ok as it happens. A lot of MPs have stepped down for misdemeanours and make a comeback a couple of years later.
 


Zeberdi

Zeberdi

“Vorsprung durch Technik”
NSC Patron
Oct 20, 2022
7,272
sparkie said:
It's good advice, best taken.
Click to expand...
Not if you later try and rely on evidence in your defence in court that you didn’t disclose when questioned by the police - it could actually harm your defence as Judges are allowed to instruct the jury to draw a negative inference from your silence - not a lot of people realise that either.

Best advice is to request a duty solicitor be present in any formal interrogation/recorded questioning as soon as possible who can advise when to remain silent and when to disclose information.
 




Bry Nylon

Bry Nylon

Test your smoke alarm
Helpful Moderator
Jul 21, 2003
20,672
Playing snooker
ROSM said:
As I have said before, the tories had this story in the summer and wanted to use it in the election campaign. Apparently came from a former colleague at aviva. What stopped it was the tories had the wrong magistrates court and so couldn't substantiate the claim
Click to expand...
That is completely at odds with the sequence of events I’ve been told.

(Plus, if it was the work of political opponents, there is no way they’d have slipped this into the press late on a Thursday night the day before the Assisted Dying debate was due to dominate the political agenda for days on end).

It’s pretty clear to Lou who shoved her under the bus and it wasn’t anybody on ‘the other side.’
 


R

ROSM

Well-known member
Dec 26, 2005
6,867
Just far enough away from LDC
Bry Nylon said:
That is completely at odds with the sequence of events I’ve been told.

(Plus, if it was the work of political opponents, there is no way they’d have slipped this into the press late on a Thursday night the day before the Assisted Dying debate was due to dominate the political agenda for days on end).

It’s pretty clear to Lou who shoved her under the bus and it wasn’t anybody on ‘the other side.’
Click to expand...
I am very interested in what you have been told. The aviva colleague part has come from someone very familiar with one of the journalists who wrote the story. At the end of the day, it's sky and the paper involved who chose when to publish it.

The piece about it being part of the Tory election strategy is here in chris Mason's article on the bbc website yesterday https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y31zyw90vo
 


sparkie

sparkie

Well-known member
Jul 17, 2003
13,325
Hove
Zeberdi said:
Not if you later try and rely on evidence in your defence in court that you didn’t disclose when questioned by the police - it could actually harm your defence as Judges are allowed to instruct the jury to draw a negative inference from your silence - not a lot of people realise that either.

Best advice is to request a duty solicitor be present in any formal interrogation/recorded questioning as soon as possible who can advise when to remain silent and when to disclose information.
Click to expand...
Well I suppose that depends what other evidence there is.

If there is no other evidence ( in law some accusers are automatically believed by the police for instance ) then the only case the police can build is by tripping you up with loaded questions in a stressful interview.
A professional, experienced questioner vs an amateur, stressed first timer.

Also if you answer some questions but not others then an inference is used as part of the case the police are building against you right there .
 
Last edited:




Bry Nylon

Bry Nylon

Test your smoke alarm
Helpful Moderator
Jul 21, 2003
20,672
Playing snooker
ROSM said:
I am very interested in what you have been told. The aviva colleague part has come from someone very familiar with one of the journalists who wrote the story. At the end of the day, it's sky and the paper involved who chose when to publish it.

The piece about it being part of the Tory election strategy is here in chris Mason's article on the bbc website yesterday https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y31zyw90vo
Click to expand...
In the sequence of events I’ve been told, the whole sorry saga goes back to Saturday 12 October. The PM and Lou Haigh had a ‘clear the air’ meeting after he’d bollocked her the previous day for going miles off message, calling P&O a cowboy operator and suggesting people should boycott them, leading to parent company DP World threatening to pull out if the government’s flagship Investment Summmit the following Monday and shelving a £1bn investment for the Thames Gateway.

From that point on her card was marked, especially as the back-dated 15% settlement with ASLEF she’d negotiated the previous month had been given with no conditions attached and included drivers who’d retired or left the industry during the 2 year dispute. It’s fair to say that didn’t go down especially well either.

Sources are suggesting the final straw came on Thursday, as the government discussed methods for adjusting EV targets for car manufacturers and some Ministers were regarded as being less flexible to the proposal than others. Then later that evening, under the cover of darkness and after the main news bulletins had aired, out slipped the Dear Prime Minister letter quickly followed by the PMs uncharacteristically brief response.

Even seasoned Westminster watchers are saying it’s all a bit odd and something doesn’t quite add up.

I believe the whole thing about the Tories wanting to leak this during the election campaign (but couldn’t because they didn’t know the relevant magistrates court) is a red herring. If they’d really wanted to get it out there, they’d simply have got a journalist to ask her, “Have you ever been summoned to court on fraud charges?” and see where the answer takes them. (And besides, claiming the scalp of a Minister is far more politically valuable than simply embarrassing a prospective Parliamentary candidate, so the idea that they wanted to do this in the election campaign makes no strategic sense tbh).

In more festive news, I understand that Louise Haigh and the PM’s new Chief of Staff are unlikely to be exchanging Christmas cards this year.
 
Last edited:


R

ROSM

Well-known member
Dec 26, 2005
6,867
Just far enough away from LDC
Bry Nylon said:
In the sequence of events I’ve been told, the whole sorry saga goes back to Saturday 12 October. The PM and Lou Haigh had a ‘clear the air’ meeting after he’d bollocked her the previous day for going miles off message, calling P&O a cowboy operator and suggesting people should boycott them, leading to parent company DP World threatening to pull out if the government’s flagship Investment Summmit the following Monday and shelving a £1bn investment for the Thames Gateway.

From that point on her card was marked, especially as the 15% settlement with ASLEF she’d negotiated the previous month had been given with no conditions attached and included drivers who’d retired or left the industry during the 2 year dispute. It’s fair to say that didn’t go down especially well either.

Sources are suggesting the final straw came on Thursday, as the government discussed methods for adjusting EV targets for car manufacturers and some Ministers were regarded as being less flexible to the proposal than others. Then later that evening, under the cover of darkness and after the main news bulletins had aired, out slipped the Dear Prime Minister letter quickly followed by the PMs uncharacteristically brief response.

Even seasoned Westminster watchers are saying it’s all a bit odd and something doesn’t quite add up.

I believe the whole thing about the Tories wanting to leak this during the election campaign (but couldn’t because they didn’t know the relevant magistrates court) is a red herring. If they’d really wanted to get it out there, they’d simply have got a journalist to ask her, “Have you ever been summoned to court on fraud charges?” and see where the answer takes them.

In more festive news, I understand that Louise Haigh and the PM’s new Chief of Staff are unlikely to be exchanging Christmas cards this year.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. Lots to unpack in that and very detailed. Thanks

Just one thing, I understand the journalists who ran this on Thursday evening had been working on this for a couple of weeks. Journalists wouldn't touch it in the summer but had to do a lot of leg work to track down the right court. I'm not sure how that correlates with the ev targets piece in terms of timing. I do agree there is more to this than purely she found a phone and turned it on. The story from aviva seems to imply multiple lost phones and a pre existing iwhs to get a new one that had been turned down
 


Bry Nylon

Bry Nylon

Test your smoke alarm
Helpful Moderator
Jul 21, 2003
20,672
Playing snooker
ROSM said:
Very interesting. Lots to unpack in that and very detailed. Thanks

Just one thing, I understand the journalists who ran this on Thursday evening had been working on this for a couple of weeks. Journalists wouldn't touch it in the summer but had to do a lot of leg work to track down the right court. I'm not sure how that correlates with the ev targets piece in terms of timing. I do agree there is more to this than purely she found a phone and turned it on. The story from aviva seems to imply multiple lost phones and a pre existing iwhs to get a new one that had been turned down
Click to expand...
Well, like most things, I guess there are various sides to this story. To be fair, I don’t know anything about the Aviva thing or anything about the journalists that have been working in this over recent weeks, so that is all interesting and throws doubt on some of the stuff I’ve heard.

I did see that apparently Haigh disputes she lost multiple phones - but does conceded that a previous one was lost on a holiday.

The whole thing does seem very odd. Normally, you can draw a straight line through these things but this one seems very bizarre, not least the fact that Starmer dropped her so quickly having only appointed in July with full knowledge of this episode.

Also seems odd that a former colleague sits on this for 10 years before leaking it. I like to hold a grudge - but that’s a whole new level of bitterness.
 
Last edited:




R

ROSM

Well-known member
Dec 26, 2005
6,867
Just far enough away from LDC
Bry Nylon said:
Also seems odd that a former colleague sits on this for 10 years before leaking it. I like to hold a grudge - but that’s a whole new level of bibitterness.
Click to expand...
I once knew something about a local councillor who wanted to be an mp. I held back telling anybody until it would be too late to change his candidacy but would get major publicity. However someone else spilled the beans on something different and he was swapped out pre election.

But then I'm just a nasty bustard 😀
 


Thunder Bolt

Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Aug 18, 2009
68,176
Beside the seaside, beside the sea
Bry Nylon said:
In the sequence of events I’ve been told, the whole sorry saga goes back to Saturday 12 October. The PM and Lou Haigh had a ‘clear the air’ meeting after he’d bollocked her the previous day for going miles off message, calling P&O a cowboy operator and suggesting people should boycott them, leading to parent company DP World threatening to pull out if the government’s flagship Investment Summmit the following Monday and shelving a £1bn investment for the Thames Gateway.

From that point on her card was marked, especially as the back-dated 15% settlement with ASLEF she’d negotiated the previous month had been given with no conditions attached and included drivers who’d retired or left the industry during the 2 year dispute. It’s fair to say that didn’t go down especially well either.

Sources are suggesting the final straw came on Thursday, as the government discussed methods for adjusting EV targets for car manufacturers and some Ministers were regarded as being less flexible to the proposal than others. Then later that evening, under the cover of darkness and after the main news bulletins had aired, out slipped the Dear Prime Minister letter quickly followed by the PMs uncharacteristically brief response.

Even seasoned Westminster watchers are saying it’s all a bit odd and something doesn’t quite add up.

I believe the whole thing about the Tories wanting to leak this during the election campaign (but couldn’t because they didn’t know the relevant magistrates court) is a red herring. If they’d really wanted to get it out there, they’d simply have got a journalist to ask her, “Have you ever been summoned to court on fraud charges?” and see where the answer takes them. (And besides, claiming the scalp of a Minister is far more politically valuable than simply embarrassing a prospective Parliamentary candidate, so the idea that they wanted to do this in the election campaign makes no strategic sense tbh).

In more festive news, I understand that Louise Haigh and the PM’s new Chief of Staff are unlikely to be exchanging Christmas cards this year.
Click to expand...
The last sentence is interesting because I posted earlier in thread that Haigh had links with the previous CoS, Sue Gray.
 


C

ClemFandango

Active member
Oct 2, 2023
165
Hugo Rune said:
She had to resign.

Well done to her.

She would have been the front page story across most media for weeks if she hadn’t.

The government can’t afford to have this sort of distraction.

As for her crime, I don’t give a toss.
Click to expand...
Do you think she should have told her constituents about it before they had a chance to vote for her? Or is having an undisclosed criminal convictions totally irrelevant when choosing a ‘Right Honorable’ MP
 








P

Professor Plum

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 27, 2024
803
ClemFandango said:
Do you think she should have told her constituents about it before they had a chance to vote for her? Or is having an undisclosed criminal convictions totally irrelevant when choosing a ‘Right Honorable’ MP
Click to expand...
What do you mean by undisclosed? It's a spent conviction. There is no obligation to disclose. Come on. She acknowledges that she made an error back whenever. She went to court, got a conditional discharge, and moved on. She’s done well for herself. I’m not a big fan of all of her politics but I can admire her achievements. Let her get on with her life.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.
Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Share this page


Top
Link Here