But she told him about it before he appointed her to the shadow cabinet though, didn’t she - where was his zero tolerance then?The point is the PM is showing a near zero tolerance for people who f**k around with him.
But she told him about it before he appointed her to the shadow cabinet though, didn’t she - where was his zero tolerance then?The point is the PM is showing a near zero tolerance for people who f**k around with him.
She disclosed a spent conditional discharge, but maybe not the whole story.But she told him about it before he appointed her to the shadow cabinet though, didn’t she?
..and those clothes. She should have been prosecuted by the fashion police.Shame.. she’s a very brave lady…. With that hair.
No basis for a recall. Pre-MP offence.Doubtless fart-age will be assessing the prospects of a recall petition.
So she told him she pleaded guilty to a criminal offence yet he still appointed her. What’s changed since then?She disclosed a spent conditional discharge, but maybe not the whole story.
People make mistakes, especially people who have been mugged. You think plod would pursue a s5 offence on the above?Her statement reads:
As you know, in 2013 I was mugged in London. As a 24-year-old woman, the experience was terrifying. In the immediate aftermath, I reported the incident to the police. I gave the police a list of my possessions that I believed had been stolen, including my work phone. Some time later, I discovered that the handset in question was still in my house. I should have immediately informed my employer and not doing so straight away was a mistake.
fantastic advert for why smoking is bad. - she's 37 !
I hope I don’t look like that when I’m 37!fantastic advert for why smoking is bad. - she's 37 !
people make mistakes all the time - since it cannot be proved she lied to plod, it remains unproven, and all you got left is speculation and conjecture - the perfect breeding ground for a 100 page merry-go-round. Enjoy.People make mistakes, especially people who have been mugged. You think plod would pursue a s5 offence on the above?
Criminal Law Act 1967
An Act to amend the law of England and Wales by abolishing the division of crimes into felonies and misdemeanours and to amend and simplify the law in respect of matters arising from or related to that division or the abolition of it; to do away (within or without England and Wales) with certain...www.legislation.gov.uk
For the offence to stick, she must have knowingly made a false statement to the police - i.e. told them lies.
As we know a guilty plea stops the facts coming out and we can make up a story that suits. Lawyers advise, they do not tell people who are innocent to plead guilty. That is career ending advice.
I wouldn't expect anything less...I suspect
I agree people make mistakes. "I thought they took my phone, turns out they didn't. I forgot to update you." That wouldn't result in being charged for the above s5 offence. She was convicted of making a false report. They had evidence of her deliberately lying, she pleaded guilty to making a false report - Lying to the police.people make mistakes all the time - since it cannot be proved she lied to plod, it remains unproven, and all you got left is speculation and conjecture - the perfect breeding ground for a 100 page merry-go-round. Enjoy.
other than the fact she was charged, pleaded guilty and convicted, you meansince it cannot be proved she lied to plod, it remains unproven
was she throwing bricks at police?But she told him about it before he appointed her to the shadow cabinet though, didn’t she - where was his zero tolerance then?