FabSwingers.com forum: Louise Haigh

Pershore

Fair play, fessed up and resigned. At least we can applaud her falling on her sword. But now a new minister must start again. Should (fairly) small misdemeanours in the past be a resigning matter for MPs? We've all made mistakes, no?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
5 weeks ago

in Lancashire

I think there's the issue of declaring the issue, which it looks like she did so now obviously there'll be scrutiny over whether she should have been a minister..

It looks more a human error than trying to be dishonest at this point, if it's the former then it's not really a big thing (but will be made to be so by the opposition no doubt)..

Twas ever thus..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *0shadesOfFilthMan
5 weeks ago

nearby

"Fair play, fessed up and resigned. At least we can applaud her falling on her sword. But now a new minister must start again. Should (fairly) small misdemeanours in the past be a resigning matter for MPs? We've all made mistakes, no? "

Google says 27% of uk adults have a conviction, increasing to 33% of men.

The chancellors just been caught out on a faux CV, not a crime but it is deception, surely should be a sackable offence.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
5 weeks ago

Cestus 3

Lots of the population have a criminal record and their are procedures depending on the job, in the past It was enhanced criminal record check (disclosure and barring service, DBS). but having a record as long as one has disclosed it, cannot prevent an interview for the job.

An ex drug user cannot be refused an interview if they have disclosed.

I read that she disclosed her past offence which is acceptable to the rules, and she passed her interview, so what is the issue here.

She fell on her sword, now I think did she have to was she a scapegoat was she one of the few people kier could coupe with without an internal backlash?

I would be in a tribunal I think if a employee disclosed there past offences, the offences did not interfere with the role, I gave them the job, and another finds out takes offence and I then sack them I do not think that would fly in a tribunal, especially if I had taken out a super injunction to cover myself being reported on.

The perks of power A!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
5 weeks ago

Cestus 3

Google says 27% of uk adults have a conviction, increasing to 33% of men.

The chancellors just been caught out on a faux CV, not a crime but it is deception, surely should be a sackable offence. "

If my C.V is not true and I am found out, there is only one penalty.

The sack.

But she will not fall on her sword she is the example along with Boris truss and others who have messed up of the modern politician once I am in fu0k you for 4 years.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *arakiss12TV/TS
5 weeks ago

Bedford

Bit strange this one, makes me wonder if the announcement of distraction is a distraction from something else and more damning.

Does she have something else hidden in the closet that was due to pop up.

Or she can't hack the task and now realises she is out her depth in her role and took this as a way out.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensherman333Man
5 weeks ago

Newcastle

"Bit strange this one, makes me wonder if the announcement of distraction is a distraction from something else and more damning.

Does she have something else hidden in the closet that was due to pop up.

Or she can't hack the task and now realises she is out her depth in her role and took this as a way out. "

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *emma StonesTV/TS
5 weeks ago

Crewe

"Bit strange this one, makes me wonder if the announcement of distraction is a distraction from something else and more damning.

Does she have something else hidden in the closet that was due to pop up.

Or she can't hack the task and now realises she is out her depth in her role and took this as a way out. "

The populace have spent the last few years complaining about politicians in government refusing to resign when they have done something wrong.

A politician resigns and people start questioning their reasons for doing so.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
5 weeks ago

Cestus 3

"Bit strange this one, makes me wonder if the announcement of distraction is a distraction from something else and more damning.

Does she have something else hidden in the closet that was due to pop up.

Or she can't hack the task and now realises she is out her depth in her role and took this as a way out.

The populace have spent the last few years complaining about politicians in government refusing to resign when they have done something wrong.

A politician resigns and people start questioning their reasons for doing so."

The reason I question it (I am glad she fell on her sword, other M.P's take note), is that she disclosed her past offences, and still resigned which in my opinion is a case for the employment tribunal as she didn't have to go as she has disclosed the offence and it was accepted. how do we know the disclosure was accepted, she has just resigned so she was given the job.

In the past M.P's resigned for much less anything shady in their past came to light goodbye.

So I understand what your saying, and would like those days again, but from what I understand she did not have to go, Rachel Reeves she needs to go she has lied, so has lost trust.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
5 weeks ago

Central

It's refreshing that a politician resigns, to prevent further potential harm to the country and government. On this occasion, she appears to not have been involved in anything atrocious, nor that wasn't public. It's probably right to step aside, if media scrutiny risks deflection away from government business.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *lfasoCouple
5 weeks ago

South East

Absolutely, a politician with a real conviction.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eoBloomsMan
5 weeks ago

Springfield

"Absolutely, a politician with a real conviction."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
5 weeks ago

Gilfach

"I read that she disclosed her past offence which is acceptable to the rules, and she passed her interview, so what is the issue here."

I think the issue here is that it doesn't add up.

If she disclosed it before being appointed, why did SKS get rid of her? He could easily have said "I knew about it, and I believe in rehabilitation of offenders. She's a great politician and we shouldn't judge her by errors in her youth". The whole party could have made statements that it was terrible that the press was hounding someone who made an honest mistake, and they could have taken the moral high ground.

But that's not what happened. Instead she's been 'resigned' overnight as soon as the story broke. Does that sound like a reasonable reaction to the situation?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eroy1000Man
5 weeks ago

milton keynes

"I read that she disclosed her past offence which is acceptable to the rules, and she passed her interview, so what is the issue here.

I think the issue here is that it doesn't add up.

But that's not what happened. Instead she's been 'resigned' overnight as soon as the story broke. Does that sound like a reasonable reaction to the situation?"

It is an unusual situation. This offense was many years ago and not a secret to the Labour party at least so why all of a sudden is it a problem. I wonder if she was being hounded or threatened with other revelations if she did not quit, which would be a terrible situation if true. I understand she was the one who criticised P&O just before the investment meeting so could have made enemies. Only other thing is SKS saying in the house that law breakers should not be law makers and then went on to do just that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread