Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Louise Haigh mobile phone story

Hollis

bloody furious
Last edited:
Whether or not it should be a story, I'm interested as to why the solicitor would recommend her to please guilty and stay silent under oath.

Can't believe this advice would have been given unless there was something untoward as to how she had handled the loss and subsequent discovery.

Louise Haigh has conviction for fraud by misrepresentation relating to a mobile

:confused:
Her days were numbered once she blurted out the truth about P&O being cowboys and the the tool-maker's son threw her under the bus to cosy up with DP World. Nothing "emerges" without reason.
 
No real idea about her wider politics, but she seems to have been passionate in the transport brief, and pro public transport and pro worker from what I’ve seen so far which are big ticks as far as I am concerned

feels less of an issue compared to thousands of pounds of free stuff trousered by Starmer
 
this does really seem like scaping the barrel as far as political scandals go. what's next? labour MP skipped a train fare once?

Yeah - I mean if you wanted a more modern work phone, surely an accidental coffee spillage or dropping it in the bog could effortlessly achieve the required result..
IT depts are on to you if you try that. not give you a new device but give you an old one that someone else has handed back when they left or were upgraded.
 
this does really seem like scaping the barrel as far as political scandals go. what's next? labour MP skipped a train fare once?


IT depts are on to you if you try that. not give you a new device but give you an old one that someone else has handed back when they left or were upgraded.
Tell me about it! I drenched my laptop with coffee and ended up with an older machine: but this is why I find it hard to believe you'd declare a mobile stolen in order to get a newer model - as it being claimed by 'the sources' here..
 
Reading the story, my response would be who the fuck cares? Either she tried to blag a better phone or it was just a genuine mistake. The idea that it's concerning is just plain daft.
One thing I'm really puzzled about is the line that Plod called her in for questioning after she turned the old phone back on.
Do they really expect us to believe that Plod put any effort whatsoever into tracking down a stolen mobile phone?
 
Whether or not it should be a story, I'm interested as to why the solicitor would recommend her to please guilty and not to comment during the interview.

Can't believe this advice would have been given unless there was something untoward as to how she had handled the loss and subsequent discovery.

Louise Haigh has conviction for fraud by misrepresentation relating to a mobile

:confused:
Yep, I don't give a flying fuck about what she did, but the brief's advice sounds very odd. Unless, as you say, there's more to the story. Even then, I don't give a fuck even if she really did try to blag a new phone.
 
One thing I'm really puzzled about is the line that Plod called her in for questioning after she turned the old phone back on.
Do they really expect us to believe that Plod put any effort whatsoever into tracking down a stolen mobile phone?

Yes, this absolutely definitely never happened.
 
Starmer's letter to her very much left the door open for her return. She'll be back. I think most people out there can see this is crazy but it had to be dealt with.
 
Whether or not it should be a story, I'm interested as to why the solicitor would recommend her to please guilty and not to comment during the interview.

Can't believe this advice would have been given unless there was something untoward …

Your second bit sums it up, imo.

She tried to nick the phone. She probably came clean to her brief, so he gave her that advice (he can’t advise her to lie, so he said say nothing).

It’s correct that it’s come to public attention; she’s an elected politician. People who vote for politicians should be made aware of their criminal backgrounds regardless of the severity, and make their own decisions. It is after all, a conviction for fraud, regardless of the seriousness.

Most probably wouldn’t give a toss about a spent conditional discharge from 10 years ago but that’s their call, not hers or Starmer’s.

She’s resigned because they didn’t come clean about it; not because it happened.
 
Last edited:
this does really seem like scaping the barrel as far as political scandals go. what's next? labour MP skipped a train fare once?


IT depts are on to you if you try that. not give you a new device but give you an old one that someone else has handed back when they left or were upgraded.

Only if your a cunt to your it dept
 
She'd be better off just admitting that she fucked-up years ago than insulting people's intelligence with this 'I found it later, genuine mistake' bollocks.

'I got mugged and some time later after I told the police that the muggers had nicked my phone, I found it! Would you believe it? There it was, sitting in my handbag all the time. I must have just missed it. Silly me! Then I tried to use it and got my collar felt. Whoops. Genuine mistake!' :D


1732868043536.png
 
Last edited:
let he who has not ever stolen anything from work cast the first stone

(typed on a 'borrowed' keyboard)
I've got four old Apple keyboards and an ancient MacBook on top of my wardrobe, all of which I should probably have given back but they never asked.

I also once printed out the entire first draft of my novel on the work printer over the course of a week. :D
 
apparently this was known to the party as she admitted it when they were in opposition, which means it was almost certainly leaked to press by internal enemies. We weren't getting improved transport though, her heart may have been in it but we'd have ended up with another crap public/private mash up and still will.
 
Back
Top Bottom