Technical breach of the "rules" or breaking the "law" – Discuss

The law is written to deal with this inadvertent failing.

As long as she is fined something not too much less than the max £2,500 for partially checking the details of her staff and inadvertently employing an illegal immigrant then Im OK.

As to whether she should quit, given the state of our government and it's moral authority I think that's a pretty moot point by now.

given the state of our government and it's moral authority

What does that mean?

oh, Im sorry, did I forget to list every "illegal" act by both individual ministers and the government in cabinet to help you grumm?

I could go off to google and link to each of them* if you like, but Im on the train and the batterys going flat

* fraudulent expense claims; breach Geneva convention; Fraud in public office (passports for pals); just about anything by Mandy…etc etc

Not really I just think it's a bit of a 'Daily Mailism'.

I'm certainly no fan of New Labour.

She should walk.

I may have just got de-sensitised at some point, but this one is deadly dull. There's no corruption, there's no profit and nothing about it touches the business of government. It affects the woman's suitability for her job in the same way that accidentally leaving a load of laundry in the washing machine for a couple of days until it goes whiffy and has to be washed again would – it suggests that she has other things to worry about. As do a huge majority of the 20% of London households who also hire a cleaner.

It's quite fun reading the spoutings of trhe Mail on the subject, but it just isn't "yet more evidence" of the malaise in government. 🙂

I think the law is **** ridiculous though personally – although she is very stupid if she was involved in bringing in the legislation and didn't manage to follow it herself.

Are you supposed to ask to see a passport if you get in a plumber/builder/joiner etc? Has anyone here ever done this?

Not just you BigDummy, it's only the papers that give a fig about this one. And maybe a few closet BNP supporters.

This country has a lot worse problems than a few (hard-working) illegal immigrants.

Are you supposed to ask to see a passport if you get in a plumber/builder/joiner etc

No, because they are not your employees. It is a faff, but it isn't that bad.

Interesting that they're trying to get away with giving her an 'administrative civil penalty' rather than prosecution and fine, as of course a criminal conviction would make her position untenable.

one law for members of the inner party, another for the proles…

Chapaking gets in early with the BNP related jibes…!

The issue here is not about the housekeeper and her hard working nature. The issue is about the lawmaker being a lawbreaker.

one law for members of the inner party, another for the proles…

This is rot. Most people in this position would get a bollocking and possibly a fine. If you run a business and are consistently hiring illegals that's different.

The issue is about the lawmaker being a lawbreaker.

It's awkward this. It doesn't bother me in the slightest, but it ought to tell them something. They have (supposedly) created one criminal offence per day for the last decade. That's a whole lot of things which patently aren't really wrong as such which are criminal offences which loads of people are certainly committing all the time without anyone noticing or caring.

I strongly agree with Stoner's point on this. Our unelected deputy prime minister has TWICE been forced to resign (once should have been enough) because of dodgy dealings with dodgy businessmen. Despite that, he is unbelievably, Secretary of State for Business.

And of course our former Prime Minister never resigned for taking us into an illegal war based on lies.

All things which are a little bit more serious than hiring a housekeeper.

Furthermore, the British people appear to be hugely comfortable with lying and dodgy politicians. Lord Mandelson received a thumping great majority in the election following his first resignation, and today many are fully prepared to believe his claims about the future of the Royal Mail.

And of course the British people were perfectly happy to give New Labour a massive majority in 2005, despite the fact that it was very clear by then, that the party was led by a liar.

Although my personal favourite is, how the Tories actually increased their majority on Westminster Council, despite the fact their leader had been fined for being corrupt and deliberately and knowingly, acting illegally – they should have lost control in what was then a marginal council (if people had been bothered about corrupt politics)

So I can't see why not checking out the legal status of your housekeeper, should pose a problem for the British electorate.

What BigDummy said. I think the idea that she should go over this is ridiculous- I don't see any moral failing here at all.

I dont neccessarily think she should quit because of what she did in itself…

But what the government need to defend is a charge that while they have introduced so much petty legislation that increasingly "criminalises"* (or severely inconveniences in the name of one-size-fits-all statutes) either through inadvertence, ignorance, or stupidity so many people that if one of their own (The attorney general and chief law-writer, no less) is NOT treated with the same kind of ubiquitous suspicion and summary justice as any other member of the electorate.

* of course, I dont mean Mrs Miggins is more likley to get sent daan, but she is more likely to be penalised by fine or some other statutory restriction such as reovcation of some licence or permission to practice/trade.

This country has a lot worse problems than a few (hard-working) illegal immigrants.

damn straight!

lazy **** scallies?
theyre not "stealing our jobs" theyre DOING our jobs.

What BigDummy said. I think the idea that she should go over this is ridiculous- I don't see any moral failing here at all.

I agree however its ironic that IIRC she was an advocate of the part of this law that insists that the onus is on the employer if it transpires the employee falls foul of the law. Which (and again I am not particularly after a witch hunt and agree with Stoner above) makes here culpible.

Another thread by the Cpt berating the govt …is it today you get the e-mail form the Tory stazi?

In terms of this govt (or any other govt) corruptness an absolute storm in a tea cup.
Yet to get a minister or a peer of the realm in prison for telling lies under oath unlike the last lot.
Think they need to try harder Cpt to be like your lot?

She broke the law so should be fined like the rest of us would.

Should she be punished more because of who she is? NO. That would be unjust.

If she isn't fined then those that have been should ask for a refund.

is it not chily, standing up there all the time Coolhandluke?

if only the law worked as it says it should

She broke the law so should be fined like the rest of us would.

Should she be punished more because of who she is? NO. That would be unjust.

If she isn't fined then those that have been should ask for a refund.

Olly will be pleased to hear that according to the BBC she's been fined £5000, same as anyone else would've been.

Zulu-Eleven – Member
one law for members of the inner party, another for the proles…

So, as a "prole", if you made this mistake and you were fined, would your colleagues being asking for your resignation?

if you made this mistake and you were fined, would your colleagues being asking for your resignation?

more pertinently Graham, what about if the Chief Constable of North Wales was found guilty of drinking and driving or breaking the speed limit – two specific laws that I understand he has been vociferously involved with enforcing – Might he not be asked to stand down in recognition of the hypocrisy and undermining effect of having a senior public servant break a law that they are intimately involved in applying to others?

GrahemS – The difference of course being that I'm not Attorney General.

A police officer, magistrate or judge convicted of a criminal offence would lose their job. why not the AG?

convicted of a criminal offence

It's not criminal offence is it?

Zulu, as far as I know, this is a civil, not criminal offence. However, Stoner's example above very succinctly explains the problem here. It's not so much the offence itself, but the the hypocrisy and undermining effect of having a senior public servant break a law that they are intimately involved in applying to others

Might he not be asked to stand down in recognition of the hypocrisy..

Indeed, and points taken from both of you, but my point is that the fact that these people stand to lose their jobs, in addition to the normal fine, means that their punishment is (in this case) far harsher than most "proles" would face.

So complaining about "one law for members of the inner party" is actually pretty misguided (in this case anyway).

Personally I'd like more MPs and lawmakers to feel the direct impact of the laws that they help to create, as it might help them think twice before introducing any new ones.

e.g. Go get me a Home Office computer and check they know the passwords to every encrypted item on it. If they don't then they face two years in jail under Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).

I would like to see a new law:
"Government may only enact a new law, having first repealed an old one."

That'll make them pay attention instead of slinging out new statutes like a soap opera scriptwriter! 🙂

So complaining about "one law for members of the inner party" is actually pretty misguided

I don't think Zulu-Eleven was complaining GrahamS.

In fact, it would appear that he strongly supports 'one rule for them and one rule for everyone else'.

Evident by his comment : "The difference of course being that I'm not Attorney General."

CFH:

Zulu, as far as I know, this is a civil, not criminal offence.

No, you see, thats the beauty of it – they're trying to issue a civil penalty notice, which is imposed non judicially and without admission of fault for a technical breach of rules, and payment of the penalty clears you from the chance of prosecution in the criminal courts for the criminal offence, which would result in a fine (fines can only be issued after conviction in a court of law, 1690 Bill of Rights – thats how **** up the system is!)

ernie, anyone with a status as a representative of the state in a judicial capacity is supposed to be subject the the same rules, that criminal conviction disbars them from office – trying to play with that and suggest I'm extolling different treatment for different people is frankly bollocks

……they're trying to issue a civil penalty notice………..and payment of the penalty clears you from the chance of prosecution in the criminal courts for the criminal offence

Well thank **** for that.

Baroness Scotland is hardly a big time criminal because her cleaner's papers weren't in order.

Although presumably, for cheap political point scoring purposes, you think she should be mercilessly pursued.

Criminal law:

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?&ActiveTextDocId=1561902

The laws the law Ernie…

Presumably Ernie you think that the law should not be applied in the same way equally across the board, justice being blind and all that – our very constitution is founded upon the principle that That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Ratty……………. you keep rabbiting on about some cleaner's papers not being in order.

And in the meantime …………… I'll criticise/oppose New Labour, on the grounds that they have screwed up the country.

.

No wonder politics is fecked up in this country, if people only worry about petty media manipulated nonsense.

[claps ernie]

Actually, I'd rather rabbit on about the whole slew of unconstitutional laws, illegal and corrupt actions and downright lies and criminal behaviour that have been committed by the bunch of ****…

Why bother criticising them – they're immune to it, they've proven that – surely the only correct action is to vote against them in the next election, primarily by voting for the party who in your local area has the greatest chance of defeating them…

but that might mean that you'd have to vote Blue wouldn't it, oh, the shame…

I mean, don't blame me, I didn't vote for Labour – is your conscience clear? if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem!

screwed up the country.

Country doesn't look too bad from where I'm standing.

Where are you standing ?

Actually I'm sitting. 🙂

I dunno, it's just that we are in supposedly the worst recession since whenever – yet life seems to be pretty ok for the majority of people round here (Lancaster).

I am certainly no fan of New Labour but when I see people talking about 'screwed up the country' and 'going to the dogs' etc I wonder if we live in the same country.