29 Nov
10:09am, 29 Nov 2024
18,186 posts
|
jda
I'd say spent convictions are spent, or does anyone with a speeding ticket have to resign too?
|
29 Nov
10:14am, 29 Nov 2024
28,498 posts
|
TROSaracen
The issue for me is she’s still lying. An honest ‘I was young, stupid, accept my conviction’ would have been better than some clear BS that is still trying to carve out innocence. A 10 year old tweet can nail you in public life don’t forget….. |
29 Nov
10:15am, 29 Nov 2024
27,735 posts
|
Bazoaxe
so conviction spent, but she hasnt been rehabilitated TRO ? Honesty in these roles is key but it seems to be standard that they dodge about the truth |
29 Nov
10:52am, 29 Nov 2024
26,197 posts
|
larkim
TROSaracen wrote: The issue for me is she’s still lying. An honest ‘I was young, stupid, accept my conviction’ would have been better than some clear BS that is still trying to carve out innocence. A 10 year old tweet can nail you in public life don’t forget….. How do you know she is lying? She was convicted, fine (do we know if she pled guilty or was found guilty?) and shouldn't hide away from that. But that's not quite the same as meaning she has to own the dishonesty if she disputed it at the time and still disputes it. "I pled not guilty but accept that I was found guilty" is consistent. I don't think for those in public office "spent" convictions are not necessarily fair game; in the world of work, spent convictions still may feature on enhanced DBS checks even if their nature as "spent" convictions means there are limited circumstances under which knowledge of the conviction can be used. I do agree that "I was guilty but i was young and daft then" is a better, tidier story. But it might not necessarily be a true one. |
|
29 Nov
10:59am, 29 Nov 2024
26,198 posts
|
larkim
On spent convictions etc |
|
29 Nov
11:00am, 29 Nov 2024
26,199 posts
|
larkim
Obviously a govt minister isn't quite the same, but it does highlight that we can't just say "spent conviction, irrelevant". Even though in the context of this situation I would actually say that that should be the case.
|
|
29 Nov
11:01am, 29 Nov 2024
26,200 posts
|
larkim
Fields wrote: And I would think a lot of the incoming movement came from Ukraine and Hong Kong resettlement. The latter was certainly down to UK historic empire links. I couldn't find any reference to HK at all in the migration stats. Any evidence? |
|
29 Nov
11:31am, 29 Nov 2024
28,500 posts
|
TROSaracen
Larkim, no 24 year old goes out for the night completely unaware throughout they don’t have their phone with them. And then gets home, and it’s not there on the kitchen table charging etc, but is blundered across ‘some time later’ once the nice new shiny upgrade is in her hands. The story is utterly implausible and she’s lying. |
29 Nov
11:32am, 29 Nov 2024
9,081 posts
|
um
Larkim - she declined to comment when called in / interviewed by the police and pleaded guilty at court. (ref BBC/Sky etc citing her statement)
|
29 Nov
12:18pm, 29 Nov 2024
509 posts
|
DaveG
Taking Haigh at her word, the fraud she committed wasn't wrongly declaring the phone stolen, but not reporting it found. Making a honest mistake in reporting what was stolen isn't calculated, but later finding out it wasn't and not reporting it is calculated. If I think my laptop is stolen and get £500 from the insurance, but late find the robbers knocked it behind some drawers and it works ok I need to pay the insurer back. Haigh's defence that her employer told her not to report it as found is as strong as when a drug dealer does what their bosses tell them. These things aren't an issue if people know about them. 3 years after the conviction we was Shadow Policing Minister. The public surely have a right to know if someone in that role has a recent criminal conviction. She's a member of cabinet and we have a right to know about the criminal convictions of them. If we decide we don't care, that's fine. Had this been known before the recent election there would be no issue. It appears that Starmer knew when she was appointed to cabinet, but not clear if he knew prior to that, or if Corbyn knew when giving her a policing role. I think there is a clear difference between this and Kemi Badenoch, who could have gone to prison if Harriet Harman pressed charges for hacking her website. We know what Badenoch did and can judge her for it; we didn't know what Haigh did and can't just ignore the positions she's got for herself based on that. If in a year or two she's made a cabinet minister again that would seem fine as it's on record, but accepting a position whilst hiding that information seems wrong. On a different point, I'm not seeing why Starmer is being criticised for acknowledged that we will continue to have some immigration controls. Every party in every country acknowledges that. There were commitments to have immigration controls in Labour's 2017 and 2019 manifestos. I wouldn't see the existence of immigration controls as being right-wing; you can have more left-wing and right-wing ways of implementing them and a generic attack on the Tories doesn't really tell us anything about how they will be applied.- |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Dec 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018