PDA

View Full Version : Don't do as I do, do as I say!! / Who Do You Believe?



scotsboy
22-Sep-09, 15:44
Is it right that Baroness Scotland should remain in her Government role?

Bazeye
22-Sep-09, 17:26
No. And why did she only get fined 5 000, whereas if it had been any small business man they would have had to pay 10 000. I was always under the impression that ignorance of the law was not an excuse. These people make me sick. [disgust]

Kodiak
22-Sep-09, 17:30
Also since she helped to write this Law she does not even have the excuse of not being aware of it. So it is far, far worse and she should GO !!

davie
22-Sep-09, 17:41
New Liebour political parasites, politicians if you wish, don't GO - there is no honour among them.

joxville
22-Sep-09, 17:43
She broke the law and should be kicked out of office forthwith, serve a prison sentence and be stripped of her title.

concerned resident
22-Sep-09, 17:51
Politicians have different Laws , to the general public, surely people must realize that after the expenses claims.

badger
22-Sep-09, 18:12
Someone said that she does not accept ignorance of the true state of an immigrant as defence. Typical hypocrisy. Who else would be allowed to plead that they "forgot to photocopy the documents"? She says she made a mistake - just like all those expenses "mistakes" [disgust]

PantsMAN
22-Sep-09, 19:02
No half-measures - off with her head I say!!

butterfly
22-Sep-09, 19:41
She didnt practice what she preached so she should go.[disgust]

Angel
22-Sep-09, 22:26
Absolutely... why change a system we accept and understand...

I mean I understand the need for corruption and accept it will never go away...

Angel...

tonkatojo
22-Sep-09, 23:02
Someone said that she does not accept ignorance of the true state of an immigrant as defence. Typical hypocrisy. Who else would be allowed to plead that they "forgot to photocopy the documents"? She says she made a mistake - just like all those expenses "mistakes" [disgust]

Aye and she has the audacity to say it wasn't a criminal offence just a civil action.

crayola
22-Sep-09, 23:37
No half-measures - off with her head I say!!Is that not a bit extreme? I suggest the ducking stool, if it's good enough for my ilk it's good enough for Lady S.

Does anybody know how you apply to become attorney general? Is legal experience necessary or can I make it up as I go along by applying heaped tablespoonfuls of common sense to my undoubted aptitude for high office?

Get your best broomsticks out sisters, our time is nigh. :D

Rheghead
23-Sep-09, 00:45
I think it is highly commendable of her to admit to her mistake and take the hefty fine on the chin. Good for her I say.

Bazeye
23-Sep-09, 08:49
I think it is highly commendable of her to admit to her mistake and take the hefty fine on the chin. Good for her I say.


He says in a tongue in cheek manner.;)

Rheghead
23-Sep-09, 11:39
He says in a tongue in cheek manner.;)

Not really, listen to what she says.

canuck
23-Sep-09, 11:49
I am an immigrant in the UK under the same Visa system as Lady Scotland's worker. I too am expected to supply my employer with copies of my documents.

But life takes over and sometimes we forget to attend to these details. Of course this story has reminded me that I need to get those copies over to head office.

I am very aware that it is so easy for things to fall through the cracks. Once the situation is recognized, if all the paper work really is in order, then it doesn't take much to get things sorted. What the Border Patrol should be about is not spending resources on charging people where minor omissions have been made, but rather focussing on the blatant breaches of immigration law.

tonkatojo
23-Sep-09, 12:42
Not really, listen to what she says.

I don't agree, try using ignorance as an excuse in court and see where it gets you.
The point being she should have done it and didn't, what makes it worse in her case, she drafted the law and now has been treat leniently while other businesses get the book thrown at them. Gross incompetence in my opinion, such as it is.

Cattach
23-Sep-09, 12:45
I think it is highly commendable of her to admit to her mistake and take the hefty fine on the chin. Good for her I say.

Hardly her decision. She appears have been told to apologies by the PM which is rather different. Recently 'Caithness' business man got jail for employing illegal immigrants - apologising did him no good.

Cattach
23-Sep-09, 12:47
I am an immigrant in the UK under the same Visa system as Lady Scotland's worker. I too am expected to supply my employer with copies of my documents.

But life takes over and sometimes we forget to attend to these details. Of course this story has reminded me that I need to get those copies over to head office.

I am very aware that it is so easy for things to fall through the cracks. Once the situation is recognized, if all the paper work really is in order, then it doesn't take much to get things sorted. What the Border Patrol should be about is not spending resources on charging people where minor omissions have been made, but rather focussing on the blatant breaches of immigration law.

I am afraid in your situstion you have to be doubly careful. It is your responsibility to ensure you follow the rules of a country in which, effectively, you are a guest but deriving the benefits of a system you may be paying towards now but may not have been for very long.

Rheghead
23-Sep-09, 13:06
I don't agree, try using ignorance as an excuse in court and see where it gets you.
The point being she should have done it and didn't, what makes it worse in her case, she drafted the law and now has been treat leniently while other businesses get the book thrown at them. Gross incompetence in my opinion, such as it is.

She wasn't using ignorance as an excuse, she was using ignorance as a mitigating circumstance which we are all entitled to use in court. She fully accepts that ignorance was not an excuse that is why she pleaded guilty.

Why do you think she was treated leniently? She got fined 5000, that is a hefty fine despite the mitigating circumstance of not knowing, whilst drivers who bring in illegals only get fined 2000 knowingly doing so (last time I looked into it). So where is the logic there?

tonkatojo
23-Sep-09, 13:48
She wasn't using ignorance as an excuse, she was using ignorance as a mitigating circumstance which we are all entitled to use in court. She fully accepts that ignorance was not an excuse that is why she pleaded guilty.

Why do you think she was treated leniently? She got fined 5000, that is a hefty fine despite the mitigating circumstance of not knowing, whilst drivers who bring in illegals only get fined 2000 knowingly doing so (last time I looked into it). So where is the logic there?

mitigating circumstance is just a fancy way of putting an excuse. also what was the maximum for this offence ?.

Rheghead
23-Sep-09, 13:54
mitigating circumstance is just a fancy way of putting an excuse. also what was the maximum for this offence ?.

Am I supposed to glean some sort of severity with which she was treated by a comparison with the maximum sentence?:confused

tonkatojo
23-Sep-09, 13:58
Am I supposed to glean some sort of severity with which she was treated by a comparison with the maximum sentence?:confused

Yes, or how can you make a statement on the subject.

tonkatojo
23-Sep-09, 14:00
She wasn't using ignorance as an excuse, she was using ignorance as a mitigating circumstance which we are all entitled to use in court. She fully accepts that ignorance was not an excuse that is why she pleaded guilty.

Why do you think she was treated leniently? She got fined 5000, that is a hefty fine despite the mitigating circumstance of not knowing, whilst drivers who bring in illegals only get fined 2000 knowingly doing so (last time I looked into it). So where is the logic there?

Drivers get the fine even if they don't know 2000 being the maximum per head.
Not knowing is not an excuse/mitigating circumstance.

Rheghead
23-Sep-09, 14:01
Yes, or how can you make a statement on the subject.

Wouldn't a comparison with sentences dealt to other individuals be more reliable? We're trying to establish if she was treated out of the ordinary, right?:confused

To add to that, she was fined 50% of the maximum sentence, for unknowingly employing one person. Seems like she was dealt with severely in my opinion considering what others are getting up to.

tonkatojo
23-Sep-09, 14:05
Wouldn't a comparison with sentences dealt to other individuals be more reliable? We're trying to establish if she was treated out of the ordinary, right?:confused

Have it your way/interpretation, I really can't be bothered, nor really care.

Bazeye
27-Sep-09, 11:41
The Baroness or the housekeeper, someones telling porkies.

Tubthumper
27-Sep-09, 11:56
I would have believed the housekeeper, but since she's sold her story to one of the Sunday rags (via that 'media consultant' goon) I couldn't care less.

tonkatojo
27-Sep-09, 12:14
I would have believed the housekeeper, but since she's sold her story to one of the Sunday rags (via that 'media consultant' goon) I couldn't care less.

Like you, I think she has sour grapes and is now milking the papers for all the cash she can get before being deported (eventually/maybe).
I thought making money from criminal activities was outlawed, or is this a civil crime as the baroness used for her excuse.