Oh dear – I wonder who the replacement will be?

And their useful idiots on here

No need for that. Please don’t resort to personal insults just because someone doesn’t agree with you. You have the right to be as myopic as you like, but it’s not compulsory (yet).

No need for that. Please don’t resort to personal insults

I see. So when you said:

More two faced;

Was that a personal insult or unintentional irony?

If you don’t like it, don’t dish it out.

I don’t care what party she was an MP for, that’s a non-story.

Conservative Party Chairman Nigel Huddleston told Sky News the revelations are “extremely concerning”.

No, they’re really not, especially not by Tory standards. F the hypocrisy.

Conservative Party Chairman Nigel Huddleston told Sky News the revelations are “extremely concerning”.

Coming from a Tory MP, you’re kidding… F the hypocrisy.

I don’t care which party she was an MP for, sounds like a non-story to me.

Of more surprise to me is that back in 2013 the police actually investigated a mobile phone theft!

The Times is reporting “…that Aviva launched an investigation after Haigh said that company mobile phones had been stolen or had gone missing on repeated occasions.”.

If that is true, it might explain why the police took the investigation more seriously in the first place (and it might also explain the fairly rapid resignation, to avoid digging a bigger hole).

If there were multiple incidents, it’s particularly daft behaviour when you are working for Aviva, because patterns that like that are exactly the sort of thing insurers spend their time looking for as part of their anti-fraud processes!

I don’t care which party she was an MP for, sounds like a non-story to me.

It’s very much a non-story. The main question is who is digging up a 10-year old story about a spent conviction for a story which could plausibly be low-level insurance fraud to get a new mobile phone or it could be a genuine case of not knowing exactly what was taken in a mugging incident. The repercussions stemming from finding the old phone and turning it on whereupon it’ll have notified her employer (who owned the phone) that it had been activated again.

And for what purpose is this story being got at now? Distraction tactics? Labour fearing a leadership bid against Starmer after his fairly lacklustre start to Government and deciding to get rid of the nearest viable contender? Tories / RW grubbing around for dirt? Oil / auto industry interests who aren’t thrilled with the prospect of a transport system that no longer focuses entirely on roads and cars?

It’s a mess, no doubt about it but personally I reckon the answer should have been:
Dear Tories – if you’re looking for criminals, try the ones in your own party first”.

This is a non-story that ironically, in it’s nonentity, has become a huge “WTF?!”. Basically evetyone is saying “well the previous lot didn’t resign in spite of far worse things so why’s she stepped down?”

Just need ‘fake news’ for the full set. BINGO!

She should of asked someone to hack the Times website and change the story.

The leader of the oppo would be a shoo-in.

Basically evetyone is saying “well the previous lot didn’t resign in spite of far worse things so why’s she stepped down?”

Not everyone. Boblo seems to favour putting her head on a spike outside the Tower of London. Most others have a more refined sense of perspective, thankfully.

I’m sure Michelle Mone will have managed a quiet chuckle to herself at this one.

Still a Baroness, no less…

Still a Baroness, but also still being investigated by the NCA for alleged fraud, with £75 million of assets frozen in the meantime, so I’m not sure she’ll be chuckling just yet.

The messaging from No 10 is that she breached the Ministerial Code so of course she must resign. It’s disappointing to see her go since she was strong on the portfolio and apparently keen to move things in the right direction, but after the endless crooked shambling of the last eight years plus it’s refreshing to see something that resembles integrity in government.

Useful rule of thumb, BTW. Anyone who refers to a 2024 Labour politician as a ‘lefty’ can safely be ignored.

Well, it appears that the new transport minister has a similar mindset, so there’s still some hope that we may see progress on the active travel front…

https://road.cc/content/news/new-transport-secretary-put-cycling-front-and-centre-311511

Sounds like a genuine mistake at a time of stress, compounded by bad advice. Storm in a teacup, no matter what bullshine the Tories try to whip up. Johnston remained prime minister with an unspent conviction.

I know view is Labour walk on water but this was serious enough for her to be fired for dishonesty by Aviva. You would rightly expect any Financial Services provider, who let’s face it manage everyone’s money don’t employ dishonest people. Are we saying Cabinet Ministers running £30BN departments are held to a lower standard?

. WordPress eh

I know view is Labour walk on water but this was serious enough for her to be fired for dishonesty by Aviva. You would rightly expect any Financial Services provider, who let’s face it manage everyone’s money don’t employ dishonest people. Are we saying Cabinet Ministers running £30BN departments are held to a lower standard?

Hallelujah.

I know view is Labour walk on water but this was serious enough for her to be fired for dishonesty by Aviva.

Fired for dishonesty? How many times? Has she got anywhere near Johnson’s record yet?

Has she got anywhere near Johnson’s record yet?

Does it matter?  ‘We’re sh1t but not as sh1t as the sh1test Government ever so that’s all right then…’.

Yes, it does matter. A successful career can be built on the back of a career of serial dismissals for dishonesty in one party, you can get to the very top. In the other, you give up your position, no matter how small your past misdemeanour.

I know in my industry (NHS) you won’t be employed if you have had a previous criminal conviction

That’s simply not true. You have to declare any convictions and they are taken into consideration, it depends on the offence and how long ago it was.

In the other, you give up your position, no matter how small your past misdemeanour.

A conviction for fraud isn’t a small misdemeanour. It has very serious consequences for future employment opportunities (like having to resign as a Cabinet Minister) and she would have had regular compliance training regards this.

If she was a Tory MP I’d hazard a guess you would have a very different point of view.

And she stepped down. Where as Conservative ministers just ticked along, even when fined in office. I’m not saying her past behaviour shouldn’t matter, I’m pointing out the disparity in consequences for different ministers in very different governments.

A conviction for fraud isn’t a small misdemeanour. It has very serious consequences for future employment opportunities

Most employers don’t require you to declare spent convictions. As for the seriousness of the offence, the judge thought it worthy of a conditional discharge.

You’re all asking the wrong question, though.

The question is, why is this so important to  boblo?

The question is, why is this so important to  boblo?

Well it isn’t really, I suppose I’m playing Devils Advocaat (as its Xmas 🙂 ). I was just curious at the initial 100% response that this really didn’t matter, it’s just small thing, who cares etc when this is supposed to be the new broom where no sh1t sticks. I’m pretty sure (read 110% sure) that if this had been someone from ‘the other side’, the response would be much less forgiving. I suppose I’m also a little disappointed in the first 5 months. What started as ‘thank Christ for that’ has quickly morphed into ‘Jesus, not again…’.

It’s a curious contradiction that’s all. And I’ve even been outed as ‘right wing’. I’m really not, I’m just interested in the willingness to rush to forgiveness/excuse when it suits. Nowt so queer as folk I suppose.

I’m pretty sure (read 110% sure) that if this had been someone from ‘the other side’, the response would be much less forgiving.

Your problem there is that many of us didn’t vote for this government and have been consistently critical of it. So you could try to be more wrong, but you would be unsuccessful.

I suppose we should take some solace from the fact that an issue as small as this has triggered a resignation/removal from this government.

Can anyone honestly imagine a previous offence of this triviality causing the removal of a minister in Johnson’s government?

Under the Tories you can be a crook with three aliases (that you threaten to sue one of constituents for revealing – before bottling it when your bluff is called) and get to be Defence Minister.

The previous offence in this case being such child’s play that it is the sort of thing your average Tory MP regards as “something our family nanny might have done when they were younger”.

Still, rules are rules and Labour are abiding by them.

I suppose we should take some solace from the fact that an issue as small as this has triggered a resignation/removal from this government.

I know we are so lucky to have a Labour Government filled full of upstanding members.

I know we are so lucky to have a Labour Government filled full of upstanding members.

Sarcasm. Well done.

I’m not particularly enamoured of this current Labour government.

But I’d rather have them than a Johnson-Truss-Sunak era government of industrial scale crooks.

Not ideal. But better.

I’m not particularly enamoured of this current Labour government.

But I’d rather have them than a Johnson-Truss-Sunak era government of industrial scale crooks.

Yeah, that’s where I’m at. I maintain though that the resignation was a massive overreaction. I’d like to think that society should provide for the rehabilitation of people with a spent, declared conviction.

Who said “genuine oversight”?

She lost her phone at home and then said she was mugged? That’s a little more than an oversight.

That’s a genuine lie.

Not sure. If you can’t be trusted with a phone, can you be trusted with a £30b budget?

It might be they’re slightly better than the previous Gov (this remains to be seen in deeds not words) but it’s still not good enough. I’m not prepared to give them a bye just because they’re not quite as sh1t as the last lot.

She lost her phone at home and then said she was mugged? That’s a little more than an oversight.

That’s a genuine lie.

That’s not what she said happened.

That’s not what she said happened

What, the person guilty of Fraud? Fraud: when someone intentionally misreprents the truth. AKA ‘lying’… Well that’s OK then…

What, the person guilty of Fraud? Fraud: when someone intentionally misreprents the truth. AKA ‘lying’… Well that’s OK then…

Glad you agree. Next!

Glad you agree. Next!

🙂

Sarcasm. Well done.

Well they do say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit so why not set the expected behaviours equally low.

Well they do say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit so why not set the expected behaviours equally low.

This makes no sense.

Not sure. If you can’t be trusted with a phone, can you be trusted with a £30b budget?

Well, seeing as the offence was 11 years ago, she could have spent that time becoming the foremost authority on her ministerial brief – if you mean ‘trust’ in the sense of competence.

If you mean ‘trust’ in the sense of honesty, I reckon it’s built-in that any given Labour politician in 2024 is less likely to be corrupt than an equivalent Tory – for a couple of reasons:

1. Tories are much more likely to have the sort of contacts who can enable fraud – PPE procurement being a prime example.

2. Even if they could find accomplices in their despicable schemes, there’s more chance of it being an entrapment job courtesy of the RW media.

All of this is separate from Wes Streeting, though. He really is just a Tory in a red tie – and the NHS will see this soon enough. His conflicts of interest are, frankly, staggering.