[Politics] Louise Haigh

[PascalGroß Tips]

More to this by the sounds of it ...

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Transport Secretary resigns

Transport Secretary Louise Haigh resigns after Sky News revealed mobile phone guilty plea

Louise Haigh admitted on Thursday she had pleaded guilty to an offence after incorrectly telling police that a work mobile phone was stolen in 2013.

news.sky.com

We must have honest, credible and capable politicians and even more so, cabinet ministers. But perhaps we should also be a little sensible as to where the line is drawn? This lady was mugged and made an error of judgement concerning a phone over 10 years ago. Yes she held BJ to account over dishonesty but he was surely in a different league.
I feel sorry for her but this story also adds to my greater concern that we will never attract ‘normal but capable’ people into politics

She seems to have done the honourable thing.

What's not to like?

 

[carlzeiss]

Reported to have responded with "no comment" in her Police interview so obviously had nothing to hide

 

[Thunder Bolt]

More to this by the sounds of it ...

An absolute discharge from a guilty plea. Spent after 1 year, and strangely a DBS isn't required for a politician, so didn't have to be declared, which it was.

 

[hart's shirt]

Worse than that, imagine working in a job where those that are on your side leak it to the press…

Political opponents aren't always found on the other side of the house.

They're often on your side trying to get your job.

 

[jcdenton08]

Reported to have responded with "no comment" in her Police interview so obviously had nothing to hide

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.

 

[Bodian]

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.

Yes - fair enough. But why wouldn't you just say 'Oh look, I've found the phone that I thought had been stolen'? That would have been the end of the matter surely....unless there was something else going on.

 

[jcdenton08]

Yes - fair enough. But why wouldn't you just say 'Oh look, I've found the phone that I thought had been stolen'? That would have been the end of the matter surely....unless there was something else going on.

I’m not commenting on her guilt or innocence - she pled guilty, end of, whether she says it was under legal advice or not it was her choice and if she was innocent she could’ve pled not guilty, so I don’t buy that.

I was just pointing out to the poster that not commenting in a police interview is usually the correct course of action.

A police interview is for the police’s benefit, not the accused, to gather evidence. She very probably gave a prepared statement instead - if she lied in that, that’s her choice but a bad one.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Yes - fair enough. But why wouldn't you just say 'Oh look, I've found the phone that I thought had been stolen'? That would have been the end of the matter surely....unless there was something else going on.

As I see it, she found it, but then forgot to inform the police it had been found. If you believe her, she said it was a genuine mistake, which is why she pleaded guilty and received the minimum sentence.

 

[BLOCK F]

She seems to have done the honourable thing.

What's not to like?

Hi Harry, yes she has done the right thing, but I think the bigger story is, as Rob Powell says, there are still some questions to be asked, and I wonder what they will be?
As an aside, if what she says about her solicitor’s advice is true, then that sounds rather odd advice to this layman, (but I have now read JC Denton’s informed comments). Additionally, Starmer as a former DPP, would obviously know all the legal ins and outs surrounding the case and yet he appointed her to his Cabinet, so presumably he was happy with the situation. What has changed? Stories like this conviction don’t have a habit of staying undiscovered for ever.
Someone was gunning for Louise H, perhaps even Starmer himself.
A strange one, watch this space.

 

[happypig]

An absolute discharge from a guilty plea. Spent after 1 year, and strangely a DBS isn't required for a politician, so didn't have to be declared, which it was.

It was a Conditional Discharge which is the lowest punishment available; if you commit another (similar) offence during the specified period, you can be resentenced.
An Absolute Discharge is where there has been an offence but no punishment is deemed appropriate.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It was a Conditional Discharge which is the lowest punishment available; if you commit another (similar) offence during the specified period, you can be resentenced.
An Absolute Discharge is where there has been an offence but no punishment is deemed appropriate.

Ah, it wasn't clear in the Sky link, and I didn't click on it. My fault.

 

[Javeaseagull]

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.

Totally agree. Early on in my career as a Prison Officer I resolved that if I was ever in police custody I would say absolutely nothing. Everything would be answered by a solicitor.

 

[carlzeiss]

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.

Will bear that in mind next time I get my collar felt

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Hi Harry, yes she has done the right thing, but I think the bigger story is, as Rob Powell says, there are still some questions to be asked, and I wonder what they will be?
As an aside, if what she says about her solicitor’s advice is true, then that sounds very odd advice to me. Additionally, Starmer as a former DPP, would obviously know all the legal ins and outs surrounding the case and yet he appointed her to his Cabinet, so presumably he was happy with the situation. What has changed? Stories like this conviction don’t have a habit of staying undiscovered for ever.
Someone was gunning for Louise H, perhaps even Starmer himself.
A strange one, watch this space.

There are indeed all sorts of questions that can be asked.

For example, why would Starmer know all the ins and outs of every legal case in the country going back ten years?
He was DPP from 2008 to 2013. He wouldn't know the ins and outs of every legal case at the time.
So how would he know all the ins and outs of a legal case that arose after he ceased to be DPP?

What has changed? Have a look to see who broke the story. I would imagine thy have sat on it and released to to cause maximum embarrassment.

Perhaps there are other questions that Labour's opponents haven't yet thought up yet that will be asked?

Such is politics.

From what I have read of the case, one explanation of the oddity is she is protecting the person who 'disappeared' her phone at the time.
Other speculation is of course possible.
I will await further news with one eyebrow hovering in a pre-raised position.
If I can remember to remember to do so

All the best

 

[Right Brain Ronnie]

One of the few good people in this government. This is ridiculous, Starmer should not accept the resignation

I bet he forced the resignation, scared this could drag his popularity even lower.

 

[BLOCK F]

There are indeed all sorts of questions that can be asked.

For example, why would Starmer know all the ins and outs of every legal case in the country going back ten years?
He was DPP from 2008 to 2013. He wouldn't know the ins and outs of every legal case at the time.
So how would he know all the ins and outs of a legal case that arose after he ceased to be DPP?

What has changed? Have a look to see who broke the story. I would imagine thy have sat on it and released to to case maximum embarrassment.

Perhaps there are other questions that Labour's opponents haven't yet thought up yet that will be asked?

Such is politics.

From what I have read of the case, one explanation of the oddity is she is protecting the person who 'disappeared' her phone at the time.
Other speculation is of course possible.
I will await further news with one eyebrow hovering in a pre-raised position.
If I can remember to remember to do so

All the best

You are right, Starmer wouldn’t know the ins and outs of every legal case, but I reckon he could have laid his hands on the details of this one if he had really wanted to. Perhaps I should just have said, he would have understood the legal implications of the conviction. Anyway, the main point of interest from now on will be what else will emerge from this rather strange case. I wonder whether a political opponent on her own side has had any part in this?
Finally, what ever one’s political views views, who the f—k would want to be a politician?
Not us!

 

[amexer]

Do we realy think with the 1000s of phones that must be stolen every year the police are out theretrying to track them down and ringing owner when they are turned on

 

[Eeyore]

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... ?

 

[PascalGroß Tips]

An absolute discharge from a guilty plea. Spent after 1 year, and strangely a DBS isn't required for a politician, so didn't have to be declared, which it was.

Oh indeed … I’m not arguing about the legal outcome. All I’m saying is that it sounds like there is more to it than the story she has put out about the one phone she thought had been stolen when mugged. Suggestions re multiple phones and her loosing her job at Aviva and Aviva referring the matter to police. That sounds to me like it’s more than what she’s saying - IF true.

EDIT - due to NSC going into a crazy mode not responding to iPhone keyboard for a few minutes, eventually catching up and finding my message had posted. As I type this bit I keep getting kicked out of the message - just like someone else posted about the other day