Is there something vague in the story from Louise Haigh?

weekend blog

Being a rather slow and ignorant person, I’m struggling to believe the story we’ve been fed about former Labour transport minister Louise Haigh’s admission of fraud. After all, surely if you’ve had your handbag stolen and reported this to the police claiming your work phone was in your handbag and you later find out that your phone was in a drawer in your home, then why would you confess to a charge of fraud? Surely you would just go to the magistrates court, explain your mistake and apologise for not informing the police that your phone had been found in your home?

This suggests to me that there are a few questions to which we deserve answers but such answers we will probably never get. Here are just some of those questions

1. How many time has this phone been ‘stolen’: Is it true that Louise Haigh has actually reported her work phone from her employer (insurance company Aviva) had been stolen not once but twice? If it was twice, was she given a new work phone after the first time it was stolen? What happened to the original phone?
2. Delay in reporting the theft: Is it true that Louise Haigh waited 3 to 4 days before reporting the theft? If, yes, why did it take her so long?
3. Calls made from the ‘stolen’ phone: Did Louise Haigh make phone calls from the ‘stolen’ phone during the time between the alleged theft and her reporting the loss to the police? Did she then make further calls on the ‘stolen’ phone after reporting the theft to the police?
4. Photo taken after the theft? Did Louise Haigh submit a photo of the ‘stolen’ phone to either the police or to her insurance company (Aviva?) or employer (Aviva?) as proof of the theft? Did the ‘meta data’ from this photo show that the photoi had been taken after the phone had allegedly been ‘stolen’?
5. Why confess to fraud? Was it the discovery by the police or her insurance company (Aviva?) or her employer (Aviva?) that the photo of the phone had been taken after the phone had been ‘stolen’ which led to suspicions of fraud which were then confirmed by calls made from the phone after it had supposedly been ‘stolen’ which led to the accusation of fraud? Was it the weight of evidence of deliberate fraud which convinced Louise Haigh’s solicitor to recommend she pleaded guilty?
6. Fired by her employer? Following an investigation at Louise Haigh’s employer, insurance company Aviva, was Louise Haigh fired or ‘let go’ or politely informed her massive talents would be better employed elsewhere or something of that ilk?
7. What did Starmer know? What new information did Starmer get which made him change his mind about Louise Haigh’s suitability to be a government minister and which led to her resignation? If Starmer believes Louise Haigh is not a suitable person to be in government, why does Starmer believe she should be an MP?

Given that we little people, we worthless plebs, are still paying Louise Haigh’s considerable MP’s salary and expenses and her (£17,000?) pay-off on resigning her ministerial job and given that we and our children will be on the hook to fund her extremely generous, gold-plated, inflation-protected ministerial and MP’s pension, maybe we deserve answers to the above questions? Moreover, maybe Louise Haigh’s constituents could even be asked whether they believe Louise Haigh is actually a fit person to serve as an MP and whether they now want her to continue to represent them in parliament?

But there’s only one certainty in the vague Louise Haigh incident – we will never be told the truth and the flame-haired siren of socialism will continue to luxuriate in a trouble-free, taxpayer-funded life that few of us could ever imagine affording for ourselves.