±«Óãtv

Well yes, and she's been fined, and that should be the end of it all. But it won't because this is politics. instead we will waste much valuable time and effort at this. Everyone should be allowed to make mistakes. Just do not let it happen again and [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

BUYER BEWARE!
It has been intersting to hear/and read the arguments regarding Baroness Scotland, and some views on the News Night TV programme (22.09.09). It is my view on a legal level that if on a mens rea (guilty mind) view of legalese, of which the Baroness should remember; IRN, should apply; Intention, Reckcklessness, and, or Negligence. As a crime she and her act; her actus reus (as she must remember) should surely apply. The weak argument made by the Labour member that she should be treated as any REASONABLE (my words) member of the public is a weak point, based purely on the same legalese noted above: Intent, Neglegence, or Recklessness. If the argument is a crime then it is these 3 areas of a 'guilty mind' that surely should apply, either one will do: actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.

The Actus Reus (guilty act) however, speaks for itself (res ipsa loquitur (Tort not argued here, nor is the essay-long 4-point examples of actus reus)). A Act supported by the learned person as a guilty act, fulfils the essential tennet of a crime, not withstanding an alternative argument of vicarious liabilty, which too may fall foul to any protection in law; based on the lawyer making law, or privy to that making, suerely?

As reasonable members of the public we can make mistakes (see above), provididng that our long running occupation (i.e. job) is not linked to an act that we should have, or been knowledgable of, etc, being a crime or possible crime (e.g., a pub landlord should know the laws of their off/or on-license, and what can/not be done within such laws, i.e selling alcohol after hours!), and that one should REASONABLY investigate, as REASONABLE people should, especially those that either make CERTAIN laws, or pub landlaords, what should or ought to be known of their business/occupation, and what should be done within that sphere of business.

Such a sphere may sometimes encompass hiring individuals.
Those 'knowledgeable' of their occupation, and expecations within their occupation or business should, hopefully, understand the repercussion of failing within the expectation.

It therefore bemuses me, and intrigues my senses how the Baroness should escape REASONABLE punishment, yet realise that as a 'lawmaker', people she argues against may suffer worse - for less, yet at a greater cost (and certainly without publicity).

We may all deserve a free drink from the landlord of 'Scotland', providing her pub is still open, and not run by her staff that have flexible CV's, different to the CV's at her other Office....I hope!!!!

This illegal immigrant had no documentation to say she could stay here, if she did have any this matter would never have risen. This being the case, how can a Baronness Scotland be fined for not taking a photocopy of something that didn't exist?

Baronness Scotland clearly didn't look at any documents concerning this woman's legal status to stay here, but Labour, aided by the media, is now trying to muddy the waters with all this photocopying rubbish.

I, most certainly, would not contemplate employing a solicitor of such ineptitude to deal with any matter affecting my personal affairs and the speedier she is no longer in a position to affect the affairs of my country the better for all its citizens.

As an illegal immigrant Loloahi Tapui wouldn't have the relevant documentation to recieve proper payment from Baroness Scotland...Surely it is the responsibility of the employer to keep proper records regarding tax and national insurance and you would think that as a member of the government the Baroness would be extra vigilant regarding such matters...
maybe Miss Tapui had obtained false documents but in any event simply having a legal looking piece of paper with a national insurance number and tax codes on it guarentees nothing in regard of the holders authenticity..
Are those employed by members of the ruling authorities not vetted before they are employed??
What is the point of an immigration policy if not even the rule makers can be bothered to do things correctly as they would expect of others??
I'm afraid the matter of the laws that the Baroness has or has not compromised is out of my sphere of knowledge being that i'm just an ordinary member of the public but it seems to me that there is no way that the lady can remain in her post as she has shown by her action/ inactions that she is not able to deal with her ministerial duties in the manner that is expected by those that have ceded the responsibility to her....A favourite maxim of politics is "to be seen to be doing the right thing" which Baroness Scotland seems unable to do....Therefore in my opinion she should resign....

If I was an illegal immigrant and the Attorney General had asked to see my passport I would have forgotten about the job and moved to another part of the country.
Is it more reasonable to believe that someone went to the trouble to obtain forged papers just to get a job as a cleaner or to believe that the Attorney General did not see them? The possibility that we have a liar as Attorney General is far worse than having a careless one.

I was the General Manager of a small construction company during the 'consultation' on what became the Immigration, Asylym and Nationality Act 2006.
I complained that the propossed Act put too great an administrative burden on employers to carry out what should be a government function - that of controlling illegal immigration.
In particular, I objected to the fact that an illegal immigrant being issued with a National Insurance number by the Department of Work & Pensions, was not an indicator that the person concerned had a legal right to work in the country.
As an employer we were going to be required to obtain and keep photo copies of documents off two lists of approved documents as proof that we had checked an employee's eligibility to work. We had to do this not just for one employee, but for every single one of our employees and all prospective employees, before we offered them employment.
Now I see that the Attorney General agrees that this is an 'administrative nightmare' - because even she, who helped to frame the Act, has failed to comply. I even saw one report that suggested she thought that, if a prospective employee had a National Insurance Number, it indicated that they had a right to work in this country. Exactly one of the points that I had raised during the 'consultation'.
It has been a long standing principle that 'ignorance of the law is no defence'. The Attorney General has broken a law that she was certainly not ignorant of' and is unfit to remain the Attorney General.

Is the Baroness's that she was ignorant of the Law or merely incompetent?

Justice should be blind, I suggest the Crown Prosecution should work in the same way as clinical drugs trials;

The CPS should have any document before them, written to obscure identity known only by a reference number.

The Police should not have direct contact with the CPS, and the judgment to charge for any offence made without knowledge of whether someone is a Baroness or a Forklift driver.

Further to this I suggest an additional charge of "Breach of Public Trust", should automatically be put to any senior civil servant, MP, or Lord who is convicted of fraud, or corruption whilst in office..........Carrying a mandatory prison sentence.

Feel free to discuss the proposition with your Legal advisors Baroness

Gordon Kennedy

Is the Baroness's that she was ignorant of the Law or merely incompetent

Justice should be blind, I suggest the Crown Prosecution should work in the same way as clinical drugs trials;

The CPS should have any document before them, written to obscure identity known only by a reference number.
The Police should not have direct contact with the CPS, and the judgment to charge for any offence made without knowledge of whether someone is a Baroness or a Forklift driver.

Further to this I suggest an additional charge of "Breach of Public Trust", should automatically be put to any senior civil servant, MP, or Lord who is convicted of fraud, or corruption whilst in office..........Carrying a mandatory prison sentence.
Feel free to discuss the proposition with your Legal advisors Baroness

Gordon from Dagenham