Burnley nurse on child porn charges suspended

This Is Lancashire: Burnley nurse on child porn charges suspended Burnley nurse on child porn charges suspended

A NURSE from Burnley has been suspended by his professional watchdog after appearing in court charged with child porn offences.

Locum nurse David Hartley Haigh, 52, was charged by Lancashire Police with four offences following a 16-month investigation.

He appeared before Burnley magistrates on Christmas Eve, charged with three offences of making indecent photos or pseudo-photos of children, from August to October 2012, in connection with 63 movies seized from him.

Haigh, of Brunshaw Road, was also accused of possession of extreme pornography, involving sex with animals, between the same dates.

His case was sent for trial to Burnley Crown Court on March 31 and he was remanded on bail, on condition he does not approach witnesses in the case or have unsupervised contact with children aged under 16.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council’s interim orders panel, sitting at the Old Bailey in London, has also suspended his registration for 12 months pending the outcome of the proceedings.

Haigh was not present for the hearing, held before a three-strong panel, chaired by the NMC’s Nigel Bremner, which heard that his case was first referred to the watchdog by his employer, Pulse Staffing Ltd, on November 7, 2012.

He notified his employers regarding the allegations four days after he was arrested by police and remained on bail until he was charged late last year.

Haigh should be informed of their decision in writing as soon as possible, the panel ruled.

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:02pm Thu 30 Jan 14

angel13 says...

my god , who the hell can you trust these days ,
my god , who the hell can you trust these days , angel13

8:19pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Mister Red says...

It is best to wait for the trial and verdict before people find him guilty or not.
Some people decided Michael le Veil was guilty before his case and he was cleared.
It is best to wait for the trial and verdict before people find him guilty or not. Some people decided Michael le Veil was guilty before his case and he was cleared. Mister Red

10:38pm Thu 30 Jan 14

noddy57 says...

Mister Red wrote:
It is best to wait for the trial and verdict before people find him guilty or not.
Some people decided Michael le Veil was guilty before his case and he was cleared.
le vell was found not guilty,,,that does not mean he is innocent ,only in the eyes of the law is he innocent,,why did he not sue his accuser ?if that was me l would not rest untill she retracted her story and owned up to her lies, anyone who sifts through this detestable filth has to be up to no good,,highly suspicious in my view and l am rarely if at all wrong,,
[quote][p][bold]Mister Red[/bold] wrote: It is best to wait for the trial and verdict before people find him guilty or not. Some people decided Michael le Veil was guilty before his case and he was cleared.[/p][/quote]le vell was found not guilty,,,that does not mean he is innocent ,only in the eyes of the law is he innocent,,why did he not sue his accuser ?if that was me l would not rest untill she retracted her story and owned up to her lies, anyone who sifts through this detestable filth has to be up to no good,,highly suspicious in my view and l am rarely if at all wrong,, noddy57

9:23am Fri 31 Jan 14

drunken donut says...

noddy57 wrote:
Mister Red wrote:
It is best to wait for the trial and verdict before people find him guilty or not.
Some people decided Michael le Veil was guilty before his case and he was cleared.
le vell was found not guilty,,,that does not mean he is innocent ,only in the eyes of the law is he innocent,,why did he not sue his accuser ?if that was me l would not rest untill she retracted her story and owned up to her lies, anyone who sifts through this detestable filth has to be up to no good,,highly suspicious in my view and l am rarely if at all wrong,,
If you knew who Michael Le Veils accuser was you would understand why he is not suing her. This is common knowledge in the village where he lives and he is totally innocent, both legally and morally.
[quote][p][bold]noddy57[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mister Red[/bold] wrote: It is best to wait for the trial and verdict before people find him guilty or not. Some people decided Michael le Veil was guilty before his case and he was cleared.[/p][/quote]le vell was found not guilty,,,that does not mean he is innocent ,only in the eyes of the law is he innocent,,why did he not sue his accuser ?if that was me l would not rest untill she retracted her story and owned up to her lies, anyone who sifts through this detestable filth has to be up to no good,,highly suspicious in my view and l am rarely if at all wrong,,[/p][/quote]If you knew who Michael Le Veils accuser was you would understand why he is not suing her. This is common knowledge in the village where he lives and he is totally innocent, both legally and morally. drunken donut

4:00pm Fri 31 Jan 14

pdb951 says...

noddy57 wrote:
Mister Red wrote:
It is best to wait for the trial and verdict before people find him guilty or not.
Some people decided Michael le Veil was guilty before his case and he was cleared.
le vell was found not guilty,,,that does not mean he is innocent ,only in the eyes of the law is he innocent,,why did he not sue his accuser ?if that was me l would not rest untill she retracted her story and owned up to her lies, anyone who sifts through this detestable filth has to be up to no good,,highly suspicious in my view and l am rarely if at all wrong,,
Then who is to say that you or anyone else is innocent of whatever anyone decides to accuse you of.

The law in this country is innocent until proven guilty and that should stand whatever anyone is accused of.

What kind of a society do we want?
[quote][p][bold]noddy57[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mister Red[/bold] wrote: It is best to wait for the trial and verdict before people find him guilty or not. Some people decided Michael le Veil was guilty before his case and he was cleared.[/p][/quote]le vell was found not guilty,,,that does not mean he is innocent ,only in the eyes of the law is he innocent,,why did he not sue his accuser ?if that was me l would not rest untill she retracted her story and owned up to her lies, anyone who sifts through this detestable filth has to be up to no good,,highly suspicious in my view and l am rarely if at all wrong,,[/p][/quote]Then who is to say that you or anyone else is innocent of whatever anyone decides to accuse you of. The law in this country is innocent until proven guilty and that should stand whatever anyone is accused of. What kind of a society do we want? pdb951

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree