Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Baroness Scotland Should Do the Honourable Thing

How on earth can Baroness Scotland stay in office when, according to reports, she is being fined £5,000 for employing an illegal immigrant. It can't be put down to a simple technical error when it was she who took the original legislation through parliament.

There used to be a time when honour played some part in these things. If that were the case today, she'd be gone by lunchtime. As Martin Bright has just twittered...

How can you have an Attorney General who has been fined for breaking the law?

Bang on. Of course, Gordon Brown could sack her, but that would require a bit of courage, wouldn't it?

86 comments:

Anonymous said...

Iain, this government are getting away with murder.

In the old days, the press would not have let it go, yet his has been barely commented on by the MSM.

How there are not riots I will never know.

They are untouchable.

Pam Nash said...

You can't SERIOUSLY believe that Gordon will act quickly, given his previous??

Anonymous said...

If this is the benchmark for the highest in the land then the proles have little to fear!

Anonymous said...

Why's it only £5k? Surely the fact she brought the legislation in demands the maximum penalty?

Simon Emmett said...

Brown has got no bottle, nor any authority in his own party. He wait for a "mini-reshuffle" no doubt.

Unsworth said...

But the Borders Agency have yet to interview this 'illegal immigrant'. So who has issued the fine and why has the chief prosecution witness not even been questioned? True, the cops have broken down her doorway and carried out a search which has, it is reported, turned up an out of date passport - but is that therefore proof beyond all reasonable doubt?

It's clear that there's a huge operation now to close the whole matter down, involving the police, the head of the Borders Agency, the Home Office and even Brown himself (a truly ghastly spectacle on breakfast TV today).

Why?

And what about the noble lady's other troubles - expenses, etc etc?

Nick said...

Yes Iain - but by lunchtime a few days ago!

The Bagger said...

On TV this morning Broon falied to support his criminal attorney general saying "I'll wait to look at the report"

She's toast

Leonard Cartwright said...

I think we all need a sense of perspective. Should we really expect people who hold high office to check every last bit of paperwork for their housekeepers? Yes, it looks terrible, but I would rather live in a society where genuine mistakes were punished, rather than minor mistakes blown out of all proportion. Or maybe it is because the big screw ups by politicians are never punished that we look instead to the trivial?

Not a sheep said...

Gordon Brown - "courage", "decent thing", don't make me laugh.

Matthew Dear said...

There used to be a time when politicians - of all parties - would resign at the merest hint of taint on their reputation. It was a major news event. Heck, even Peter Mandleson's two resignations fall into this category. And that was the way it was. The way it should be...

Now we have members of the Government PROVEN to have committed CRIMINAL offences and they cling on by their fingernails, kicking and shrieking and protesting their divine right to stay in office. For they are the clique. They are the chosen.

It's sick!

What do you have to do to lose your job in this Government?

(A thought: did Lady Scotland technically prosecute herself?!)

Russell said...

It's only £5,000. Not that much money, not in Westminster Village terms. And besides it was only a technical breach of the rules. Not at all like breaking the law. And anyway she'd said straightaway that she wouldn't be resigning, so that's that one sorted. And the £170,000 of expenses, that's a separate matter, one for the appropriate authorities. Nothing to do with anything, really.

So what's all the fuss about? A mere minor peccadillo. Brown can relax. In new Labour terms, his Attorney General's hardly done anything wrong at all.

Old Holborn said...

It is a criminal offence. Therefore, the highest legal authority in the land now has a criminal record.

Dontcha just love this country?

Any colour but brown said...

Labour peer doing the honourable thing? That, sir, is an oxymoron.

John Willman said...

The UK Border Agency has pages and pages showing the documents you need to see to check that an employee is not an illegal immigrant.

Baroness Scotland is an impressive person with a great back-story, but she broke the law she helped create. It's more than a "technical" thing.

She will go eventually, but Brown is dithering again - he's hopeless as a leader.

Alan Douglas said...

Crying for the moon. Labour does not do "honourable", except as in member, and even then, another def (slang) would seem to apply more accurately.

Alan Douglas

Anonymous said...

SOT: listening to debate on this on R5 and it turns out the usual travel announcer is taking the week off work because she aches a bit having done the Great North Run.

Try that in the private sector.

James said...

It's mind-boggling. On the one hand, you have Gordon Brown gurning away on Facebook talking about getting trust back into politics, and then a short time later, you get the Attorney General...The ATTORNEY GENERAL for Chrissake!...clinging on after being found to have broken the law!

If she won't go, she should be fired. When will they realise action like that is the only way to turn public opinion around even the slightest degree?

Anonymous said...

And the £170,000 of expenses she claimed "inadvertently" of course!

The Lakelander said...

What an absolute non-sequitur....the name of a Labour politician and the word "honour" in the same sentence...

Pete Chown said...

She could always use her powers as Attorney-General to stop the case, saving herself £5000.

If it looks as though she might be forced to resign anyway, she might be tempted... I'd love to know what would happen if she actually tried!

Colin said...

Old Holborn@

It is not a criminal offence, it's a civil offence. A world of difference.

That said, she should go, as it is a "strict liability" offence. That means it doesn't matter if you made a mistake or didn't intend to break the law. If you broke the law, even if you didn't intend to, or you did it for perfectly good reason, you're guilty. A very left wing concept.

I also note that the bbc is using the phrase "in technical breach of the rules". It seems to imply that little people break the law, but regime henchmen merely breach the "rules".

Anonymous said...

" How can you have an Attorney General who has been fined for breaking the law?"

Hmmm... I'm no fan of Baroness Scotland, but I'm not sure we could have a situation where all our law makers gave up their jobs every time they had, say, a speeding conviction.

That said, if she had the 'honour' which is bandied about so often in mention of 'honourable members' or 'noble lords' and the like, then she would stand down.

Raedwald said...

If, as a result of the Tongan's statements to police today, Patricia Scotland is arrested and questioned on the criminal rather the civil offence, her DNA and prints will go on the national database. Even if she is not charged ('a prosecution would not be in the public interest')we will have an Attorney General whose DNA must be retained because, according to (then) Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker, she is 'likely to commit further criminal offences'.

The unseemly haste with with a 'civil' penalty seems to be being rushed through to prevent any criminal investigation, and thus the scenario above, stinks of high-level interference.

Any colour but brown said...

"Leonard Cartwright said...
I think we all need a sense of perspective. Should we really expect people who hold high office to check every last bit of paperwork for their housekeepers? "

The law requires EVERY employer to fulfill certain obligations - one of which is to check and copy certain documents. She has not fulfilled that obligation.

"Leonard Cartwright said...
Yes, it looks terrible, but I would rather live in a society where genuine mistakes were punished, rather than minor mistakes blown out of all proportion."

She wrote the legislation, there is no allowance for the attorney General to make such mistakes. She must be seen to be totally rigourous in all things legal. She failed to do that.

"Leonard Cartwright said...
Or maybe it is because the big screw ups by politicians are never punished that we look instead to the trivial?"

This is not a trivial matter. This is the Attorney-General breaking the law!! What could be of greater import than that?

Don't forget that she not only authored the legislation, but has gone on record as praising the zero-tolerance implementation of the law for reducing the number of illegals in employment - and she is found to have one of her own!!!


Add to that her apparent fraudulent claims for 170000 in expenses over several years and you see more of a state of mind than an oversight. If the expenses thing is true, you have a serial criminal as Attorney-General.

Sandy Jamieson said...

Surely this must also be reported to the Bar Council who have powers to suspend her or strike her off as a practising barrister

JuliaM said...

Leonard Cartwright: "I think we all need a sense of perspective. Should we really expect people who hold high office to check every last bit of paperwork for their housekeepers? Yes, it looks terrible, but I would rather live in a society where genuine mistakes were punished, rather than minor mistakes blown out of all proportion."

So would I, Leonard, so would I.

But you miss the point. This woman is getting this flack precisely because she ushered in a law that gave no such leeway to businesses...

She's hoist on her own petard, and, in the words of McDonald's diners everywhere, 'We're lovin' it!'

Stu said...

People can we get this straight... There is no such thing as a technical breach of the law. You either break the law or you don't. As the head of the legal system in this country who brought this draconian law in, which she has now broken she should resign.

The Purpleline said...

Iain, even Obama has seen the light; being associated with a mentally deficient Brown is not a good move.

I think he has just given Scotland a free pass, this will come back to haunt him.

The man is an accident waiting to happen; I am surprised the American border agency allows him in the country.

Where is the Queen on this total corruption of the UK.

Fyffe’s have just bought the advertising rights to re-name the houses of parliament.

Quite ironic that Scotland keeps tripping up this Scottish imbecile

Cynic said...

I am waiting for a Minister to be convicted of murder and then to see the PM on TV explaining that it was only a little murder, a technical murder so these is no need for a resignation.

This will immediately be backed up by BBC news broadcasts stressing the expert view of the technical nature of the crime and the fact that the Minister might have got off but has chosen to plead guilty to 'do the right thing'. Indeed, as soon as he was found standing over the deceased with the murder weapon, shouting 'Got you, you bastard' he reported himself to the Police before they caught up with him.

There will then be a Panorama Special on 'in the wake of this case do we need a change in our murder laws' and televised coverage of the first Cabinet meeting in The Scrubs as part of Gordon's promise to take it around all of the UK

Cynic said...

"but I would rather live in a society where genuine mistakes were punished, rather than minor mistakes blown out of all proportion."

So would I but its her own Act - the one she steered through and that has been used to treat ordinary decent business people in just this way.

tory boys never grow up said...

I'm afraid she should go - a £5000 fine is not a technical breach of the rules.

But before casting the first stone perhaps Mr Dale should also do the honourable thing regarding his driving into imaginary lamposts? Driving without due care and attention, damage to public property all spring to mind.

Nick Drew said...

Baroness Scotland Sings
(apologies to Ray Davies)

I got her from a bar down in old Soho
Where you don’t stay long
Or you catch a dose of Ebola
E-B-O-L-A Ebola

She walked up to me and she asked for a job
And I asked her name
And in a dark brown voice she said Loloahi
L-O-L-O Loloahi

Well she’d left Tonga just a week before
And I'd never ever hired illegals before
But Loloahi smiled and she looked the part
And said ‘OK lady, when do I start?’

Well I’m not the sharpest knife in the tray
But when she showed me her papers, they looked OK
They said ‘Loloahi’

I fired her today
I rushed to see Gord
I begged and implored
I got down on my knees
And he said I have his full support

Well I'm not the world's most clever QC
But I know why Gordon appointed me …

The rules are the rules but it’s just a mistake
I got mixed up, muddled up in good faith
Over Loloahi

Alan Douglas said...

"Should we really expect people who hold high office to check every last bit of paperwork for their housekeepers?"

If we expect it of farmers and small businessmen, then we should expect it even more from our glorious leaders, especially ones who MADE the law so damn awkward for everyone.

See The Englishman's Castle blog (http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/) for details of a farmer who also checked all details but has been fined up to £ 120,000 and has to now "prove" he is innocent.

We are all "equal under the law", are we not ? Or are some troughers more equal than others ?

Alan Douglas

Anonymous said...

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/employersandsponsors/listemployerspenalties/

It'll be interesting to see if the fine ever makes it to this page!
BBC breakfast were busy mitigating on her behalf this morning, emphasising it was only a TECHNICAL breach of the rules - she should still technically resign - the DPP did when caught kerb crawling - is there any difference?

Cynic said...

Its not just a civil offence.

From teh Borders Agency website

" Under the 2006 Act, it is a criminal offence to knowingly employ a person aged 16 or over who is subject to immigration control and who has no permission to work in the United Kingdom,"

Employing them while NOT knowing is attracts just a civil penalty and there is a defence to that re checking documents etc.

Gallimaufry said...

"Hmmm... I'm no fan of Baroness Scotland, but I'm not sure we could have a situation where all our law makers gave up their jobs every time they had, say, a speeding conviction."
A Transport Minister might find their credibility lacking in that situation.
The only way for the former Home Office Minister Attorney General to keep her job is on "compassionate grounds".

Oliver Drew said...

Oh this is magic. She won't be sacked because she "inadvertently" broke the law! That is a classic from Gordon Brown...

So I'll inadvertently speed and lose my licence (granted it'd take a lot of offences at this point...) but would I get off...no.

How can you suggest that it's ok because the offence was "inadvertent"? That's just utterly crazy.

Also, even if this issue wasn't a resigning offence, her expenses most certainly are!

John Bennett said...

@Colin & @ Old Holborn

I'm surprised it's a civil offence. Most of the '000s of new offences created by this government seem to be 'criminal'.

If she were to be guilty of a criminal offence would she be able to continue acting as "An Officer of the Supreme Court"?

Cynic said...

" How can you have an Attorney General who has been fined for breaking the law?"

Well, when you have a Government that is regularly hauled into the High Court in judicial review for breaking its own laws, that invaded another country illegally and lied about the reasons, that hounded an eminent scientits to his death because he told the truth, whose officials are being investigated for torture ..... well, perhaps this is really small beer.

Nick said...

£5k fine
£170k "expenses"
Still £165k up.

No shame.

Plato said...

It is said that the reason why she hasn't gone is because Labour doesn't have anyone else qualified to be the AG.

They have all come from the Lords and their last resort now is Bob Marshall-Andrews.

Anonymous said...

http://page.politicshome.com/uk/brown_no_further_action_is_necessary_on_baroness_scotland.html

If there's a right way and a wrong way...

Pathetic.

Rog said...

So the Attorney General "accidentally" broke the very clear laws that she championed.
+
£170k scam
=
£5k Fine.

NuLab maths.

Can you get pitchforks from Ebay?

john miller said...

Someone at the Beeb will get a rocket. Fancy saying that she "technically, broke the law".

I think you'll find the correct wording is "technically, she unknowingly overstepped the rules".

Anonymous said...

Since when did "honour" appear in the "New Labour" dictionary? And politicians of all colours wonder why the turnout for elections continues to fall. Hopefully not in 2010 and we can bring in some politicians who deserve to be called "honourable".

Anonymous said...

The whole business stinks but it's what we now have come to accept from a government with no "moral compass".

It confirms yet again that Gordo is indecisive and afraid to take the correct action.

It further diminshes Labour's repuation with the electorate and will harden people's view that Gordo is not Prime Minister material.

Why oh why doesn't Sarah give him some loving wifely advice and tell him to quit now while he still has some remaining sanity?

Anonymous said...

A farmer gets an on the spot fine of 120,000 for having illegals working on his farm, via a contractor I understand.

Attorney General admits to breaking the law, gets a slap on the wrist.

What's even worse, we have a government so vile and corrupt that this appears venial.

Chris

golden_balls said...

I think the fact that she was repsonsible for this legislation is far more relevant than her breaking any rules.

We have a labour cabinet where they admit to taking class B drugs and a shadow cabinet where some admit or are alledged to have taken class A drugs. Breaking the law isn't all that important nowadays.

True Belle said...

Yes she should and so should Mr Brown.

Fide et virtute may be lost on her!

£5k is peanuts . Who writes the rule books on this one?

Anonymous said...

A labour minister is like Herpes.

Once you get it you can't get rid of it

Anonymous said...

There is an old line that "the law" is an anagram of "wealth", and to an extent this was and is true - money talks and you can pay your way out of most things, not least through hiring the best legal teams. Over recent years though it is the position of people, rather than strictly their wealth, which seems to afford them protection. There seems to be some sort of 'brotherhood' or masonic type allegiance whereby they rally round and protect each other no matter what the charge. I think there are two reasons for this - firstly the extent of nepotism which now exists in and between 'public' organisations (parliament, Civil Service, BBC, Press) if you are not partnered with a peer group member they are family or you went to school with them etc. The extent of this far exceeds the argument that birds of a feather..... I have experience of Civil Servants who were directly influential on the career and thereby financial rewards of wives/husbands etc including recruitment.
Secondly and of great concern is that these relationship beget a blind loyalty such as we see from Brown, and have seen from Blair. The fact that Mandelson is where he is now is most illustrative of this and far more disconcerting, to me anyway, than the Baroness Scotland issue. In the USA it was three strikes and you were out here it seems to be three strikes gets you enobled and in all but name the leader of the country. Similarly with Cameron on the expenses issue it was not what was done that mattered but how 'disposable' you were, for which read how close a friend/ally.
We have ended up with the ruling class being the occupants of vast greenhouses with no one able/willing to 'throw a stone'. They are especially tied because if one, right, person gets 'turned' the whole house will come tumbling down. Thus with Brown it is as much his fear of what Baroness Scotland knows than any personal allegiance that will keep her afloat.
There once was a Civil Service policy that said that those who ought to know better, who were in a position of responsibility, would not be afforded leniency. This has now gone by the board and those who are easy targets are the ones brought to court. If you want evidence of this ask HMRC how many prosecutions it has made for Working Family Tax Credit fraud and compare this to those for off-shore tax evasion. Is it really likely that amongst those thousands with undeclared liability there is not at least one Minister, Senior Civil Servant, or employeee or ex-employee of HMRC itself? Should these not be cast iron cases for the most vigorous prosecution? Well where are they? Tax-payer confidentiality? - tell that to the mom from Gateshead who is named and shamed in the papers while those in power are granted amnesty.

Cinna said...

Sky News reports Brown proposes now further action and is standing by her. They are both an absolute disgrace. It shows just how little honour exists among these people. She should resign. According tto the legislation she passed she must now have a criminal record.

Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs said...

To me there's a foul odor of "forgetting that my mortgage was paid off while still claiming expenses" about it.

Ignoring the irony of the lawmaker falling foul of her own law, what about the £170,000?

She should go because of the unique circumstances of her position and for the other expenses "error".

But they are all like that: they trough, gobble, snort and squeal on my hard earned cash like the disgusting pigs that they are.

We need to build a bigger abattoir.

Cynic said...

This really is the end of any semblance of credibility for this regime.

They have turned this country into a corrupt banana republic

JuliaM said...

Nick Drew wins this thread, no question! ;)

Peter said...

Honour? Nulabor?

Sorry Iain, but I don't think any of them knows the meaning of the word.

startledcod said...

Gordon Brown could have led on this one with a very simple telephone call.
GB – Pat, have you broken the law?
PS – I’m not sure, I’m waiting for the Border Agency to report.
GB – Don’t be ridiculous, you were in charge of this legislation and I presume you have checked, did you break the law? (Nokia flies across room)
PS - Er yes, I did.
GB – Do you wish to resign or would you like me to fire you?

yarnesfromhorsham said...

Honourable thing - doubt it. Lack of moral fibre. But has she reported herself to the Bar Council. NO - Naughty naughty. Technical breach indeed. Inadvertant oversight. Yeah right.

Vienna Woods said...

Just a thought, buthas Gordon Brown ever taken the "quick-decision"? Has he ever asked for the resignation of any minister, or MP? In fact has he ever taken a battleground decision about anything, or has he stumbled and stuttered every step of the way?

At least with Blair we always knew that whenever he said "He/she has my full support" they had just a couple of weeks to live, which usually prompted a resignation.

Brown is particularly gutless and probably the worst Prime Minister that we could possible be blessed with.

Jimmy said...

This thread must take the biscuit for gibberish. As has been repeatedly explained, this government did not bring in strict liablity for this. Michael Howard did this when in office and made it a criminal offence to boot. The legislation with which she was involved recognised that this was excessive and made it a civil matter instead. It's like calling for someone to resign bacause they got a parking ticket.

And btw that 170k story turned out to be bollocks too. I'm sure she's holding her breath for the apology.

Vienna Woods said...

Just a thought, buthas Gordon Brown ever taken the "quick-decision"? Has he ever asked for the resignation of any minister, or MP? In fact has he ever taken a battleground decision about anything, or has he stumbled and stuttered every step of the way?

At least with Blair we always knew that whenever he said "He/she has my full support" they had just a couple of weeks to live, which usually prompted a resignation.

Brown is particularly gutless and probably the worst Prime Minister that we could possible be blessed with.

James said...

Just found this in The Ministerial Code, as set out by Gordon Brown in 2007:

"1.2 The Ministerial Code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law including international law."

Overarching duty to comply with the law, and yet she still isn't expected to resign after breaking not just any law, but her own law. Disgraceful.

James D said...

The thing I'm shocked about is the incompetence of it all. This has to have been known about within the Government before it got out, and they have to have known that it would be a significant embarrassment if and when it did. Why on earth didn't they simply fiddle it so that this Tongan woman became legal before anyone knew to ask about it?

Everyone already knew that New Labour were a bunch of dishonourable hypocritical moralizers and control freaks. Now we know that they can't even organize a cover-up properly.

Anonymous said...

I think Cherie Blair would make an excellent Attorney general, don't you?

Nigel Allery said...

Legally she can stay, morally she should go, politically she should definitely go.

By keeping her Brown is showing the nation that he has no power to act. But give it a week when the smell of a decomposing government becomes a stench and those around Brown will let him get rid of her. Brown's advisors are giving him more and more rope.

The plotters will have another victory against Brown, the nation suffers in the meantime.

perforatedulster said...

Failure to keep proper records for your domestic staff - fine £5000.

Day late with your tax return - fine £100.

Aggravated burglary - fine £50*.

Wiping the grin off Gordon Brown's face next May - priceless.

There are some things quantitative easing can't buy...

* based on recent experience as a victim.

Javelin said...

Strictly speaking civil fines are just another term for stealth taxes. So far from breaking the law the baroness should be congratulated for an unselfish act of contributing to help the ONE MILLION unemployed youth ... Ah No wait a second just remembered the cleaner.

Anonymous said...

She has only been fined because ALL she did was not keep a copy of the documents. Therefore she must have seen documents that satisfy the law. But the cleaner was illegal, therefore the law allows the presentation of documents that are insufficient to prove you are a legal worker.

Pete-s

Anonymous said...

so start a petition on the Number 10 website -

I'll sign it

AP said...

A £5000 fine is excessive for a technical breach of omission, i.e the taking and retention of a copy.

To put it into perspective, you could get caught and fined for shoplifting every day between now and Christmas and still have paid out less.

The fine is so high because the g'ment have now made it a new stealth tax on those nasty people who actually provide employment in this miserable little country.

That said, the Baroness should have resigned immediately. But what is the point in having power if you don't abuse it. (Chapter 1, section 1 (a) - Nu Labour Guidance to Ministers 2009 edition)

Fed up with deceivers said...

Hoisted by her own petard - she should go straight away.

Brown's actions bring the law into further disrepute - one law for them and another for us in terms of consequences.

Facts said...

"In the old days, the press would not have let it go, yet his has been barely commented on by the MSM."

Yeah, lead story on the BBC and Sky, front page of the Standard... Once again the massive Labour conspiracy among media types has hidden the truth from the masses.

"Add to that her apparent fraudulent claims for 170000 in expenses over several years."

This is an outright lie - as the Cabinet Office has pointed out, there was nothing fraudulent about her receiving the money and she didn't "claim" it. Now that little fact is something that the mainstream media really has ignored. And Iain, you might want to check with your libel lawyers before you continue to host comments that say otherwise...


"So I'll inadvertently speed and lose my licence (granted it'd take a lot of offences at this point...) but would I get off...no."

She hasn't "got off" - that's why she was fined £5,000. Unless you need a car to do your job I very much doubt you'd be fired (or be expected to "do the honourable thing" and resign) if you got caught by four gatsos in six months. Should notorious drink driver Paul Staines be banned from blogging?

Johnny Norfolk said...

Can you imagine what the Labour party/BBC would say about this if it was a Tory under the same circumstances. Nothing on the BBC Have Your Say of course.

Only Labour would do this its frankly disgusting.

Bath plugs for the many, not the few said...

Provided that it's not a technical breach of the rules she should be able to claim a refund for the £5000 fine on expenses.

But even if it is she should still be able to claim and get off er, scot free.

Unsworth said...

Next up, Brown will be calling for a change in the 'rules', a clarification of the law, etc etc.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Iain, nothing will happen to her.

Fine will appear on expenses as miscellaneous cleaning up.

1) She is a she
2) She shows how multi-cultural labour are
3) She's a lawyer
4) She's a labour baroness so not subject to the same laws as the peasantry.

She gives yardies a bad name but will be held up as an example of how "ethnics" can get ahead in labours brave new world.

Lying, par for the course for a lawyer.

Nothing can eradicate from my heart a deep and burning hatred for the Labour Party

Roger Thornhill said...

First off, I think it is wrong that Baroness Scotland was fined £5k.

I think she should not be fined at all. The "law" as it is is an utter pilchard. With guts. It stinks.

If you board a bus and the driver is disqualified, should you, a passenger, get the fine? Who is really breaking a law? Who is committing fraud here?

If you can prove complicity in the offence, an attempt to conspire to mislead the UKBA, then that is one thing, but the reason the employer is roped in in this way appears to be a) it is someone they can scare, lean on and catch b) they do their dirty work for them.

It is so, I believe, for the purposes of administrative convenience.

That is not good enough.

Baroness Scotland should return to office and then abolish this daft "law" and the 30,000 other offences New Labour have picked out of their belly-buttons in the last 12 years. If she refuses (guess), then she should then be subject to the full force of her own rancid legislation.

Jimmy said...

"The fine is so high because the g'ment have now made it a new stealth tax"

The fine is so high because of who she is. If you look at the guideline document, it seems pretty clear that anyone else would have got a warning letter, but you can imagine the tabloid response to that.

Stronghold Barricades said...

Honourable seems to have been expunged from the dictionary

Maybe we should just apply again to the OED and quote "Labour Party 1997-2010 as the sobriquet

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9.40 am

Iain, this government are getting away with murder.

The last one did as well. Just ask Blair and Campbell.

Anonymous said...

Brown should sack the bitch. He won't because he is gutless.

Vienna Woods said...

Roger Thornhill wrote,

If you board a bus and the driver is disqualified, should you, a passenger, get the fine? Who is really breaking a law? Who is committing fraud here?

Utter balderdash. Totally misleading example. A passenger does not employ the bus driver! This law was aimed at small companies; i.e. builders, who make a passing glance at paperwork (if at all) and take illegals on at a bare minimum part-time wage for full time work.

Jimmy said...

"This is an outright lie"

Of course it is. What do you expect? An apology? The people who blog this rubbish know that no-one's going to sue, so why would they care?

Sir Edward Heath said...

If you sacked her for incompetence what job would she do? Certainly not housekeeping. Hee! Hee! Hee!

Anonymous said...

Come on, if everyone was fined five grand for empolying an illegal immigrant we'd solve the economic crisis!