Originally Posted by Damien

I think the main problem is her account doesn't add up to me.

It seems that she was mugged. This doesn't appear to be in dispute.

She includes her work phone on the list of items taken.

Her work phone is then turned on and the police notice she has it.

She is questioned and 'on the advice of her lawyer' says no comment.

The case proceeds and she pleads guilty.

Now if she found the phone again and was mistaken about it being stolen then why offer No Comment? Why did the police and CPS proceed with the case? If you're robbed and you mistakenly list an item stolen that wasn't then the police aren't going to go after you for that. They must have had some evidence this was deliberate.

The article from Sky said she lost her job at Aviva over this and that she wanted a new work phone. That seems the most plausible explanation here. She saw a chance to get a new phone and so added that to the list of stolen items and then was done for when it was uncovered.

All I would say is that it was a spent conviction so to resign now over it seems weird unless more is to come out. I guess she didn't want the story to drag on and Labour don't want to go down the Tory route of spending weeks defending someone only to have to fire them later.