Comments on: Hotter and hotter for the Attorney

By: botogol

botogol — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:27:08 +0000

She’s got herself in deeper and deeper – she’s now explicitly saying that she DID see a passport… but the cleaner apparently didn’t have one…

http://order-order.com/2009/09/27/ukba-want-to-know-the-truth-about-the-missing-passport/
.-= botogol´s last blog ..Links for 2009-09-25 [del.icio.us] =-.

By: gyges

gyges — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:27:31 +0000

Swift u-turn saved Baroness Scotland. Interesting note from the Sunday Times, "BARONESS SCOTLAND was saved from facing questions about her expenses last week by a swift government U-turn that at a stroke changed its policy on allowances." There's a lot more to the article ... but surely she's still liable? .-= gyges´s last blog ..Lawful Debate =-.

By: barboy

barboy — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:26:32 +0000

At the point that Max Clifford, sucking at the teat of chav celebrity, appears on the scene, one knows it is all getting rather silly. Whilst I can buy in to the ironies of her failing to comply with the legislation of her own government etc., her failure is hardly uncommon among employers and she has been sanctioned. That should be the end of it, unless she has lied etc., in which case, it is nothing to do with the law and everything to do with the scummy level at which politics is played out these days.

I, for one, don’t give a toss whether, in isolation, she stays or goes but, in a relative sense, there is something very wrong if she goes and others get to stay.

Patricia Scotland, working class, state educated, and external LLB to silk (proper silk) within barely twenty years. No mean achievement, and for anyone, let alone a black woman.

In contrast, Jack Straw, white, male, public school, Oxbridge, and mediocre junior lawyer who would never have been made a proper silk, allegedly commits fraud when claiming for expenses which he never borne. And what happens ? Nothing, zilch.

I cannot but help feel that Patricia Scotland just happens to make for a much safer target for the cowards to round upon.

By: Peter Hargreaves

Peter Hargreaves — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:14:37 +0000

Does anyone seriously think that in a democractic society the Attorney-General should be in the House of Lords? How can elected MPs challenge this high official’s decisionin Parliament if the need arises? It is no use sending a monkey when you want the organ grinder!

By: The Week: Brown nose out of joint, legal embarrassment, something to believe in | Solicitr

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:45:13 +0000

[...] For a barrister’s view of the semantic and legal intricacies check out Carl Gardner’s analysis at Head of Legal . All in a week that started with legal-political embarrassment as news broke that [...]

By: botogol

botogol — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:47:06 +0000

the UKBA may feel she did no checks of her right to work

In other words she was shown docs that did not establish a right to work (and may have inspected them — so what), but she did no checks at all on whether the housekeepr was legal.

By: Stu Peters

Stu Peters — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:17:32 +0000

The Baroness, who has never held an elected position, was a Home Office Minister responsible for the passage of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 through Parliament. She made the decision to employ illegal immigrants.; clearly she feels that at least one of the laws that she assisted to come into being does not apply to her. She should go, forthwith.

By: Carl Gardner

Carl Gardner — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:56:55 +0000

I don't think that contradicts her, actually: at para. 2.10 of the penalties code it says you only count as having done a "partial check" if you have copied at least one document where more than one should have been copied, or else copied them all but failed to recheck when leave to remain was up for renewal. So no photocopies at all = "no checks".

By: botogol

botogol — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:59:14 +0000

so for first offence, normally,
partial checks = £2500
no checks at all = £5000
Interesting..

By: Amy Lyons

Amy Lyons — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:06:35 +0000

The UK border agency framework for penalties is here:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/employersandsponsors/listemployerspenalties/publicationassessment/tablecivilpenalties.pdf?view=Binary

Assuming allowable reductions are given and assuming that the Baroness co-operated, as the agency accepts she did, then a first offence fine under the framework should only be £5,000 where there have been *no checks* : a first offence with co-operation and partial checks results in only a £2,500 fine under the framework (if the reduction in penalty is given in toto).

Of course one can’t be sure of all this; the fine would also fit with it being a second offence with partial checks, co-operation and self reporting of the worker; or it could just be that for reasons unknown the UKBA chose not to apply any reductions available under the framework giving credit for co-operation.

Still, few of those options reflect well on Baroness Scotland. She should go.