:laughing: 100 %
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#79980
Youngian wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 6:31 pm
A retired copper on a phone in this morning was more sympathetic due to under qualified duty solicitors unnecessarily instructing clients to 'no comment' when they don't need to.
But as the thread infers making bogus insurance claims is a ubiquitous piece of low level tacky middle class fraud that allegedly isn't real stealing. They'll probably be some columnist next week telling us that sanctimonious puritan Starmer isn't like us.
LegalClaret covers the no comment bit- it's reasonable. But pleading guilty?! Is a solicitor going to advise that?

The discharge doesn't at all show that the magistrate thought she hadn't really committed fraud.
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#79983
Andy McDandy wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 6:32 pm And as I asked earlier, who hung onto this, and why release it now?

And isn't it odd that of all the cases of lost or stolen mobile phones reported, it's this one that someone keeps an eye on and follows it up?
Would think that work tracked it and didn't appreciate what she'd done so told the cops.
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#79985
Apart from the P&O comments which did cause a bit of awkwardness for Starmer, but the rest of it seems like pretty weak sauce. Who's saying she shouldn't have settled the industrial disputes? That's what Labour (not least in Streeting's department) did. Who opposes renationalizing train franchises? And she wanted extra money for something in her department (buses). That's going to be true of every minister, I should think.
Simon Fletcher
@fletchersimon
.
@LouHaigh
:
-resolved the industrial dispute on the railways
-was proceeding with rail public ownership
-spoke clearly on P&O
-gave priority to buses & opposed removal of the £2 cap
For her approach she attracted hostility from the right. It’s a backward development to lose her
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#79998
UK increases World Bank contribution, boosting climate finance prospects
Government puts forward £1.98bn in funding over three years, an increase of about 40% on last pledge
Each pledge covers a 3 year period. The last one was 2022-25. There's been some inflation since then, but still a big real terms increase for this period (2025-8).
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#80003
davidjay wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 6:21 pm @Tubby - "Plead guilty and get it over with" is a massive temptation to a worried, naive youngster. Like many things, the legal system works worst if you're inexperienced.
She was 23 or 24, with a degree and a good graduate job, not a teenager straight off the boat. She wouldn’t be getting anything over with by pleading guilty. She’d have a conviction for fraud which she’d have to disclose.
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#80004
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:56 pm
davidjay wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 6:21 pm @Tubby - "Plead guilty and get it over with" is a massive temptation to a worried, naive youngster. Like many things, the legal system works worst if you're inexperienced.
She was 25 or 26, with a degree and a good graduate job, not a teenager straight off the boat. She wouldn’t be getting anything over with by pleading guilty. She’d have a conviction for fraud which she’d have to disclose.
By Youngian
#80006
Mores the pity as the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act that allows convictions to be spent has become totally eroded with caveats. Sexual offences and safeguarding children aside, minor convictions should be quashed and forgotten about after five years on the straight and narrow whatever your job.
Last edited by Youngian on Fri Nov 29, 2024 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Malcolm Armsteen liked this
By davidjay
#80010
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:56 pm
davidjay wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 6:21 pm @Tubby - "Plead guilty and get it over with" is a massive temptation to a worried, naive youngster. Like many things, the legal system works worst if you're inexperienced.
She was 23 or 24, with a degree and a good graduate job, not a teenager straight off the boat. She wouldn’t be getting anything over with by pleading guilty. She’d have a conviction for fraud which she’d have to disclose.
A graduate with a good job is a lot less streetwise than a scal who left school at 12.
By NevTheSweeper
#80024
The Weeping Angel wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 11:14 pm


The treating of politics as entertainment by political journalists has been to our detriment.
Whatever one's view of this debacle, it once again exposes Starmer's poor political judgement. If he knew of Haigh's past conviction, she should have never been picked for a cabinet position. No doubt the press will bring out more "exposures" of past MPs missteps in the hope that they will continue to destabilise the government and bring forward the distant hope of a fresh general election.
By Youngian
#80026
Whatever one's view of this debacle, it once again exposes Starmer's poor political judgement. If he knew of Haigh's past conviction, she should have never been picked for a cabinet position.

Or be prepared to defend his decision. Thinking about it, he probably should have. The 'Labour just as bad' brigade will find any old shit any way to justify their narrative.
User avatar
By The Weeping Angel
#80029
NevTheSweeper wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2024 9:36 am
The Weeping Angel wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 11:14 pm


The treating of politics as entertainment by political journalists has been to our detriment.
Whatever one's view of this debacle, it once again exposes Starmer's poor political judgement. If he knew of Haigh's past conviction, she should have never been picked for a cabinet position. No doubt the press will bring out more "exposures" of past MPs missteps in the hope that they will continue to destabilise the government and bring forward the distant hope of a fresh general election.
and you will no doubt hype it up for all it's worth.
User avatar
By Crabcakes
#80033
NevTheSweeper wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2024 9:36 am Whatever one's view of this debacle, it once again exposes Starmer's poor political judgement. If he knew of Haigh's past conviction, she should have never been picked for a cabinet position. No doubt the press will bring out more "exposures" of past MPs missteps in the hope that they will continue to destabilise the government and bring forward the distant hope of a fresh general election.
The absolute opposite. It shows he is willing to look past the superficial and recognise talent, and that he is willing to take a risk if it means putting that talent into use for the public good. You want a criticism? He was arguably too optimistic that the press wouldn’t make such an absurd mountain out of a molehill about it, and given their leniency with the array of corruptions and dodgy dealings from the past government, even that is arguably understandable - you might well have thought they’d want to avoid bringing up MP’s pasts, given the current LOTO has confessed to cybercrimes, and a whole swathe of Tories have very, very dubious pasts.

But as I say, I’m hopeful this has had the effect of making the cabinet look very seriously again at Leveson 2. Sky’s desperation to win a ‘gotcha’ leading to much needed proper press regulation and rebalancing would be a perfect epilogue to this.
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#80035
Whatever regulation of the media you think there should be, Leveson 2 is a red herring. It was very specific, and hard to see why it wasn't all covered as part of the original Leveson. Well, not hard to see why, if you know what I mean.

What is Leveson 2?
The Leveson inquiry, led by judge Sir Brian Leveson, started in 2011 after it emerged that journalists at Rupert Murdoch’s now defunct News of the World tabloid hacked the phone of murdered school girl Milly Dowler. The first part of the inquiry looked at the culture, practices and ethics of the press. The second part was meant to be an investigation into the relationship between journalists and the police.
Don't think any sensible or workable regulation is going to stop Sky headhunting for resignations.
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#80036
davidjay wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 9:53 pm

A graduate with a good job is a lot less streetwise than a scal who left school at 12.
Not in this respect. A graduate (Nottingham) is likely to know some lawyers as friends, for starters, even if she knew nothing about law herself (which I think is unlikely). I think it's unlikely that she'd be dependent on some (by her account) incompetent duty solicitor.
  • 1
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 54
long long title how many chars? lets see 123 ok more? yes 60

We have created lots of YouTube videos just so you can achieve [...]

Another post test yes yes yes or no, maybe ni? :-/

The best flat phpBB theme around. Period. Fine craftmanship and [...]

Do you need a super MOD? Well here it is. chew on this

All you need is right here. Content tag, SEO, listing, Pizza and spaghetti [...]

Lasagna on me this time ok? I got plenty of cash

this should be fantastic. but what about links,images, bbcodes etc etc? [...]