Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join Under 16's Support Chat, open NOW from 6pm - 7:30pm! Over 16's welcome to support our younger members. Find us here

£5k fine for hiring illegal immigrant...

MixBotMixBot Posts: 8,656 Automated Account
...for the woman who helped to create the law on this very subject. Even Richard Littlejohn couldn't make this one up. Says the Beeb: "Attorney General Baroness Scotland has been fined £5,000 after being found to have employed a housekeeper who was not legally allowed to work in the UK. The UK Border Agency said she took steps to check Tongan Loloahi Tapui's right to work but had not kept a copy of documents, as required by law. Opposition parties say her position is 'untenable' but No 10 said it was an 'inadvertent' mistake. She apologised for the 'technical breach' and said she accepted the fine."

Technical breach? Baroness Scotland, like most of her New Labour friends, is a lying cunt. This wasn't a "technical breach" of anything. She broke the law and only got half of the fine that she could (and should!) have got. After all, it's not as if our Lordships are hard-up, is it? Has she, as the woman who broke the law she helped create, resigned from her job in utter shame? Of course not. The Prime Mentalist - who is currently trying to persuade the world that Barack Obama doesn't think he's a total fucking embarrassment - has even said she's keeping her job! Just what the fuck does someone have to do to be forced to resign from a Gordon Brown government?

People complain that I give politicians too hard a time - with actions like this, they bring it on themselves. Cunts, the lot of them.

Over to you.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    From a legal position the punishment appears to fit the crime.

    I suspect the accused had good legal advice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    She deserved to be punished, she has been, quite severely when compared to punishments dished out for more serious crimes (I mean what the fuck, she employed someone she shouldn't have.)
    If she'd gone into town and glassed someone she wouldn't have been given a £5000 fine, I can guarantee it. The justice system in this country stinks because people who commit crimes like the above are crucified. People who go out and ruin the lives of others are given fuck all.

    Does the punishment fit the crime? Certainly not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Personally I dont think she should have been asked to resign unless she escaped the fine - as a lawyer and especially as someone who writes laws she should have more respect for supremecy of law above all things.

    If she had just taken her punishment without arguing there would have been none of this shitstorm which now suggests shes a stupid bitch and the law she wrote is heavy handed and wrong, now she has galvanised it by taking the fine - But at the end of the day she will probably claim it on expenses anyway :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seeing this in the news helped me win a £7 share of pub quiz prize winnings last night, otherwise, I wouldn't really care.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    She deserved to be punished, she has been, quite severely when compared to punishments dished out for more serious crimes (I mean what the fuck, she employed someone she shouldn't have.)
    Really? Check this entry from The Devil's Kitchen blog, detailing the case of a farmer who was fined £10k for every illegal immigrant working for him just a few days ago. The Baroness got off very easily, by the looks of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The legal punishment seemed about right to me. But from a political perspective, when you have a say in a particular law, and then forget some of the details yourself when it comes to obeying it, you've gotta go imo.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Really? Check this entry from The Devil's Kitchen blog, detailing the case of a farmer who was fined £10k for every illegal immigrant working for him just a few days ago. The Baroness got off very easily, by the looks of it.

    As with Baroness Scotland, all we have to go on is his word that he wasn't employing illegal immigrants. It's not been proven yet becase he hasn't been to court, and nowhere does the blog say he has actually been fined the full 10k yet.

    Ultimately, he employed 12 people. I could be mistaken but I doubt very much he had no idea they were illegal immigrants. Maybe if it were 1 or 2, maybe 3 or 4. But 12? Get serious. He's employed himself a cheap army of labour and he's been caught out.

    Scotland employed one person, she got caught, admitted she'd made a mistake and paid the fine immediately. And I think she genuinely did make a mistake. She's certainly no gang-master.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    She deserved to be punished, she has been, quite severely when compared to punishments dished out for more serious crimes (I mean what the fuck, she employed someone she shouldn't have.)
    If she'd gone into town and glassed someone she wouldn't have been given a £5000 fine, I can guarantee it. The justice system in this country stinks because people who commit crimes like the above are crucified. People who go out and ruin the lives of others are given fuck all.

    Does the punishment fit the crime? Certainly not.

    There is a commercial reason for the apparent severity of sentence.

    The UK Government corporation are only protecting their own commercial interests.

    Why would they not ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The UK Government corporation are only protecting their own commercial interests.
    And there was me thinking that her remaining was down simply to the arrogance of the Baroness and the breathtaking stupidity of the Prime Mentalist. This "commercial interests" line needs explaining, cos I can't make head nor tail of it.

    Still, we can hope that the forthcoming Sunday newspaper interview that the illegal immigrant has given will finish her off.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    And there was me thinking that her remaining was down simply to the arrogance of the Baroness and the breathtaking stupidity of the Prime Mentalist. This "commercial interests" line needs explaining, cos I can't make head nor tail of it.

    Still, we can hope that the forthcoming Sunday newspaper interview that the illegal immigrant has given will finish her off.

    My comment was in reply to Whowhere's contention that the punishment for this particular crime was somewhat severe.

    It had nothing to do with the individual case where any guilt (or innocence) is unknown to me. I could only rely on hearsay if I was at all interested.

    The apparent severity of the punishment for any legislative offence makes sense if you realise that a so-called illegal worker will probably result in a substantial loss of revenue to the UK government. It is in that corporation's "commercial interest" not to let that happen.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The apparent severity of the punishment for any legislative offence makes sense if you realise that a so-called illegal worker will probably result in a substantial loss of revenue to the UK government. It is in that corporation's "commercial interest" not to let that happen.
    It would certainly explain why this government seems to do sod all about illegal immigrants. Much as I hate to sound like a Daily Mail editorial, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    Meantime, Loloahi Tapui has given her interview to the Mail on Sunday (brokered by Max Clifford, as they all seem to be nowadays) and her version of events is almost completely different to the one the Baroness gave. I wonder which of these two has 113,000 reasons to lie?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Meantime, Loloahi Tapui has given her interview to the Mail on Sunday (brokered by Max Clifford, as they all seem to be nowadays) and her version of events is almost completely different to the one the Baroness gave. I wonder which of these two has 113,000 reasons to lie?
    Probably nearly as much as the Daily HateMail might have paid the illegal immigrant in question (it seems even evil illegal immigrants are okay if it helps to sell copy and bring down the government the BlackMail hates so...).
Sign In or Register to comment.