The media are already after Andy!

Yes I recall this story.

She was extremely foolish.

I think, although the statement is correct, using “convicted fraudster” does seem a little strong.

I’m amazed AB chose her, given that it would take the press 5 seconds to publicise it, though it appears it’s not caused too much public outcries (yet).

Surely there must be more suitable people?

Though actually she did admit her “fraud”, now has a criminal record and people are allowed second chances!

Just hope she keeps her phone in her pocket haha

Well, the way the press ruthlessly digs into anyone's past, whether in the public spotlight or not, it seems anyone thinking of going into politics had better have an utterly spotless track record on any level.

That just leaves the Angel Gabriel.

If it ain’t there they’ll make it up. I just wish they would wait and give this new bloke and his chosen ones a chance.

As they say in the bible. 'Let he/she who is without sin cast the first stone' .

Lots of people do one thing that is stupid. But go on to lead blameless lives and act with integrity.

I think people should be allowed to make an official declaration before taking office of any minor misdemeanours and then that should be the end of it. Louise Haigh is a classic example of the kind of thing I have in mind. She did something stupid when she was young and stupid, and one has no reason not to think that she learnt her lesson.

Padstow13

Well, the way the press ruthlessly digs into anyone's past, whether in the public spotlight or not, it seems anyone thinking of going into politics had better have an utterly spotless track record on any level.

That just leaves the Angel Gabriel.

Well, did you not know the gossip around The Angel Gabriel? 🤣🤣🤣

M0nica

As they say in the bible. 'Let he/she who is without sin cast the first stone' .

Lots of people do one thing that is stupid. But go on to lead blameless lives and act with integrity.

I think people should be allowed to make an official declaration before taking office of any minor misdemeanours and then that should be the end of it. Louise Haigh is a classic example of the kind of thing I have in mind. She did something stupid when she was young and stupid, and one has no reason not to think that she learnt her lesson.

Yes! This seems fair and realistic.

Padstow13

Well, the way the press ruthlessly digs into anyone's past, whether in the public spotlight or not, it seems anyone thinking of going into politics had better have an utterly spotless track record on any level.

That just leaves the Angel Gabriel.

Yup. That 😒😕would be it.
As a child , I once played the Angel Gabriel in school play.
Perhaps that would get me through.....🤣🤣

It was all publicised at the time; one of Starmer's ruthless sackings. 'Convicted fraudster' is a bit harsh although it was fraud she committed. No doubt the Campaign was driven by fury.
Oliver Robbins, who was also sacked ruthlessly by Starmer because he failed to inform him personally about Mandelson's 'failure to pass scrutiny ' for the post of Ambassador to USA, is now suing the Government. But it won't be Starmer paying damages.
Wonder if he is claiming his last freebie by attending The football match tomorrow?

An interesting choice of thread title, Molly . Is it the media who are already muckraking, or is it you?

You use the phrase 'convicted fraudster', which appears to make your position very clear - are you pretending that you think the media are to blame, or is it just an unfortunate choice of words on your part?

If you think the media should back off, then fair enough, but you might want to make that a bit clearer. If not, then why suggest that you are blaming the media?

I hope that all of the media holds AB to account.

He is about to become PM through what I feel was a devious route.

Crikey- this old chestnut again. We’ve had recent posts about this when AB was standing for Makerfield by election, supported by Haigh, and then posters debating who might he choose to be in his cabinet. High paid the price when it was first brought to public attention by the press in 2024 when she decided to resign from her post. Are people bringing this up because even though this is already in the public domain she needs to be punished again? I don't hold that view in all the. circumstances that she requires further punishment or that she should not be able to be in government.

Louise Haigh, the MP for Sheffield Heeley, is the former UK Secretary of State for Transport. She resigned from the Cabinet in November 2024 after it was revealed she had pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation in 2014.

Tranfromjustice.org.uk: One in four people have a criminal record. Where are we going to get good MPs if we disallow 1 in 4 people and anyone who has a spent conditional discharge ?

Conviction Details
The Incident In 2013, while working for Aviva, Ms. Haigh was mugged and reported to the police various. items that the muggers had stolen, one of which was her work phone had been stolen. She later found that the phone and switched it on. Her employer had already issued a work phone replacement. She did not contact the police to inform them she had found it. Unbeknownst to Haigh, switching on the phone triggered a police alert that the phone was in use and they brought Haigh in for questioning. Her Duty solicitor advised her to say ‘no comment’, as most solicitors might in such circumstances.
The Conviction Police referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service, and in 2014—six months before the 2015 General Election—she pleaded guilty to making a false report to the police, ie she had originally reported the phone stolen when mugged but did not update the police it had been found to take it off the stolen phone register. She received a conditional discharge, which is the lowest possible legal penalty
The Resignation Although the conviction was spent and did not prevent her from being an MP, the press dug up this history and published. Haigh stepped down as Transport Secretary in November 2024, stating that the resurfaced issue would act as a distraction from the government's agenda

Who did Haigh defraud Mollygo? Haigh benefitted from no financial gain. Her lowest form of legal penalty was a conditional discharge- on what basis is that now elevated to convicted fraudster

Are you aware of how many other MPs in all political parties might have a spent conditional discharge?

Or is it just Louise Haigh, a female Labour politician you seek to highlight? She admitted the offence in 2025- 11 years ago. She has already been exposed in 2024 by the press.

Why her, why now and why again?

I don't think it's just the media after AB - the title of this post- Haigh is not AB!

To Haigh's credit she managed AB's campaign effectively and very successfully in Makerfield.

Yes she is fit to lead any AB campaign as asked in OP- she is able and skilled.

GrannyGravy13

I hope that all of the media holds AB to account.

He is about to become PM through what I feel was a devious route.

I disagree about the devious route, but agree that AB should be held to account.

That's not the same as digging dirt on anyone in his orbit, though. That was so tedious after the GE, and, (plus the spite on social media) ultimately brought down KS in a way I found undemocratic.

AB presents an opportunity to start again, and I'd very much like to see him get a chance. Not to evade scrutiny, but not to be subject to the ridicule and muck-raking that KS had to deal with.

Burnham will no doubt be subjected to the same lynch mob mentality of the press and social media as Starmer was.
And surprise surprise he and his cabinet ministers will have clay feet because most people have something that can be dug up and hurled at them even if it is only trivial it will be blown out of all proportion.
I agree that he should be held to account but not hung drawn and quartered in the public eye.

Oh, you mean a bit like Teresa May, Boris, Liz Truss, (particularly) and Sunak.

The media will go after Louise Haigh because she is a little tiny bit left wing.

Teresa May, Boris, Truss and Sunak were PMs leading a government of minsters and MPs for the country- Haigh is not PM.

The OP was titled the media are already going after Andy then entirely reverted to a historical reference to Haigh's spent conditional discharge described as a convicted fraudster

So not the media but a Gransnet poster already going after a female MP who may or may not be in AB's cabinet. The media covered this historical 2014 conditional discharge in 2024 and its now 2026!

I'm curious about the OP's motivation in going after Haigh and posted accordingly.

eazybee

It was all publicised at the time; one of Starmer's ruthless sackings. 'Convicted fraudster' is a bit harsh although it was fraud she committed. No doubt the Campaign was driven by fury.
Oliver Robbins, who was also sacked ruthlessly by Starmer because he failed to inform him personally about Mandelson's 'failure to pass scrutiny ' for the post of Ambassador to USA, is now suing the Government. But it won't be Starmer paying damages.
Wonder if he is claiming his last freebie by attending The football match tomorrow?

And some talk about the vitriol directed at Farage!

Cossy it seems vitriol towards MP’s is part of the job nowadays.

Haigh wasn't sacked- she resigned.

Robbins sacking was very different and may reach an employment tribunal for adjudication- decision not yet. available/

Cossy I agree, seems to me like the majority of the vitriol is right wing directed towards against current government- ie Labour based on historical misdemeanours .

Robbins apart Starmer said he would take no more freebies 2 years ago in 2024. Haigh's historical 2015 conditional discharge historically exposed in 2024. It's hardly high level concern subject to current investigation as Farage is currently facing in comparison.

Doodledog

An interesting choice of thread title, Molly . Is it the media who are already muckraking, or is it you?

You use the phrase 'convicted fraudster', which appears to make your position very clear - are you pretending that you think the media are to blame, or is it just an unfortunate choice of words on your part?

If you think the media should back off, then fair enough, but you might want to make that a bit clearer. If not, then why suggest that you are blaming the media?

I was merely pointing out that’s how the media put it this morning.
I wondered how long it would take before they found something against AB.
Not long.
In terms of second chances?

It’s evidently personal choice.

AB offering a post to someone who “agreed to resign over a fraudulent claim” fits in with what one senior Labour figure described it as a “good resignation” which may allow her to come back at a later date with a clean slate.