Baying for Baroness Scotland’s blood


by Guest    
2:24 pm - September 19th 2009

Tweet       Share on Tumblr

contribution by Steve

Right-wing newspapers are baying for Baroness Scotland’s blood. It was discovered that she had unknowingly been employing an illegal worker. To them it doesn’t matter that she says she was deceived by being presented with forged documents showing everything was legal. If there’s one part of society the right-wing papers hate more than gypsies and preaching Muslims – it’s illegal immigrants.

The Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph have already called for her to resign. The Daily Telegraph said, “ignorance is no defence,” which could easily be applied to those who took out taxpayer-funded mortgages or sitting as shadow ministers despite having swindled the expenses system.

Naturally, the hypocrisy has been easily overcome at Conservative party HQ. Willing journalists have gone along with the charade.

But a better comparison would be the MP Damian Green. When caught leaking official home office documents to the press, he claimed:

I cannot think of a better symbol of an out of touch, authoritarian, failing government that has been in power for too long. I believe in the Italian proverb that fish rots from the head. The only thing I am guilty of is exposing the government’s failed immigration policy.

Breaking the rules and leaking confidential documents is ok as long as the Tories are doing it. And it’s ok for the right-wing press when it involves scaremongering about immigration. Lesson for lefties: principle and the rule of law matters for little. The best policy is to go on the offensive and accuse your opponents of politicking.

It’s worth nothing that the civil servant who leaked the documents, Chris Galley, had signed the Official Secrets Act. He is also supposed to be non-partisan, and yet happily to admitted after he was a Tory supporter. Naturally, the Conservatives did not bother condemning any of this. They’ve now developed a renewed focus for rule of law.

The very same Chris Galley is now running the Sunlight Centre for Open Politics, an operation run by people sympathetic to the Conservative Party. Naturally, Guido Fawkes is a big cheerleader and has been gunning for Baroness Scotland all week. The very same blogger once declared his support for amnesty for illegal immigants. So much for libertarian principles.

The PM should stick to his guns and let an enquiry take its course, rather than letting those baying for her blood get an easy victory.

  Tweet   Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party ,Labour party ,Realpolitik ,Westminster


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


I’m no fan of the right-wing press, and I am a fan of being lenient towards people who make mistakes (and in any case, I don’t have any moral problems with employing undocumented immigrants as long as they’re under the same working conditions and payscales as everyone else).

However, I think you’re missing the reason for the anger here: the government that Baroness Scotland is a part of imposed the anti-illegal-immigration legislation in question, and decided, deliberately, that ignorance wouldn’t be a defence to it.

As a person she thoroughly deserves the benefit of the doubt. But in her role as someone who wants to deny others the benefit of the doubt, she doesn’t.

(similarly, I loathe Guido, but it’s not hypocritical to believe both that there should be an amnesty for illegal immigrants, and that government ministers should obey the laws they’ve inflicted on the rest of us…)

: the government that Baroness Scotland is a part of imposed the anti-illegal-immigration legislation in question, and decided, deliberately, that ignorance wouldn’t be a defence to it.

That’s not why the right-wing press are baying for blood though are they? It’s because of them the laws on immigration are so stupid.

It’s both in fact.

PS Sunny isn’t this whole post one giant piece of whataboutery?! :-)

4. Silent Hunter

Ah!

And there we have it . . . it’s “racist” to criticise Baroness Scotland.

Nothing to do with the fact that she’s clearly broken the very law that she helped to bring into being.

Nothing to do with the fact that anyone else finding themselves in the same predicament are prosecuted regardless of any extenuating circumstances.

It’s all just RACISM.

Well thanks Sunny for that “balanced” viewpoint.

The irony is that you have just provided justification for racists everywhere to jump on the bandwagon against the Baroness for all the wrong reasons.

She should resign because she should be under the same constraints of the law that the rest of us are under.

It’s not about her skin colour – it’s about her lack of judgement; which for one of the countries, so called, ‘leading’ judges, does not look good.

But hey! . . . that doesn’t quite fit in with your own ‘not so hidden’ agenda now does it?

I would have hoped that in this day and age we could perhaps move on from the whole Black v White, pointless debate, and leave it to the rump of the terminally stupid of ALL colours.

I’m in favour of legalising drugs and prostitution but if a minister in charge of the Home Office gets caught snorting coke off a call girl’s breasts it’s not hypocritical to call for their sacking.

“the government that Baroness Scotland is a part of imposed the anti-illegal-immigration legislation in question, and decided, deliberately, that ignorance wouldn’t be a defence to it.”

That’s certainly the press narrative, but its factually incorrect. this rule was brought in 1996 as a criminal offence. Labour simply decriminalised it.

There’s no point complaining at least to this extent: Minister caught out by red tape regs is a story, and there’s no point complaining when they cry “gotcha”. It’s just not a resigning matter. I would be very sorry to lose someone of her calibre and I don’t think the Government can afford it. Given that she is one of those who is almost certainly losing money by being a Minister I hope she doesn’t decide it’s not worth it.

“The very same Chris Galley is now running the Sunlight Centre for Open Politics, an operation run by people sympathetic to the Conservative Party.”

It’s a blog, and a crap one at that. It just thinks it’s an NGO.

Baroness Scotland is in trouble, because there is a clear case to answer that she, the Attorney General broke the law. A law she helped introduce. Not hard to understand the issue is it?

The comparison with Damien Green is particularly aggregious. A public interest immunity that has de facto protected MPs (including Grodon Brown) in possession of leaked documents was breached by the government, and they were made to look stupid. Deservedly.

Baraoness Scotland has no such defence. I as I understand it she did not even keep copies of the documents she said she was shown. Again the law is crystal clear. It is a defence to have copies of the documents on which the employer based their assumption that the emplyee was legal. If she does not have those documents she has no defence in law.

The one thing any government of any hue can not afford to let creep into the psyche is ‘one law for them and one law for us’.

As I write this and re read “Steve”‘s contribution, I am increasingly incredulous that he actually wrote it. Your real name isn’t Jackie Smith is it?

@4

Sorry, where is it said that this has anything to do with race? I didn’t get that impression from the OP or any of the comments.

That’s not why the right-wing press are baying for blood though are they? It’s because of them the laws on immigration are so stupid.

FFS – it’s because of the legislature that laws are crap. Grow up.

@8 indeed. I’m reminded of this gentleman.

@9 oh come on. the right-wing press has set the tone for an environment where the major political parties are engaged in some kind of hideous ‘let’s pile on the dirty foreigners’ Dutch auction. Yes, if politicians weren’t spineless they’d tell the right-wing press and its ignorant readers to go swivel, but they are, and hence don’t, and hence the right-wing press sets the legislative agenda on immigration.

11. Shatterface

Oh, the poor powerless Government. They can invade countries on a whim but their decisions are made by newspapers which can barely support themselves.

It’s all just RACISM.

Well thanks Sunny for that “balanced” viewpoint.

Jesus. I didn’t even write the piece, let alone say this is driven by racism. You trolls are getting far too easy to bat away these days.

Baroness Scotland is in trouble, because there is a clear case to answer that she, the Attorney General broke the law. A law she helped introduce. Not hard to understand the issue is it?

Really? And you have proof she broke the law and wasn’t deceived do you? I know that innocent until proven guilty isn’t very popular these days, especially in the tabloid press – but perhaps people could offer evidence before making assertions?

@11, I’m reminded of Stalin’s incredulity after Attlee replaced Churchill in 1945. Yes, governments can invade countries – but they also need votes, which come from people, who read tabloids…

@12, surely the point is that it doesn’t matter if she was deceived – unless she can produce copies of the (fake or otherwise) documentation she says she saw, she’s broken the law anyway. Nobody’s accusing her of the more serious criminal charge of *knowingly* employing an illegal immigrant.

Sunny

you seem not to know the difference between ‘ a case to answer ‘ and guilt.

The fact that there is a case to answer, is clear, and not disputed. after all it was the good Baroness who reported herself to the relevent investigative agency.

She DID employ an illegal work in breach of the law. The only question is did she make suffcient checks, and keep a copy of the documents checked to make a statutory defence.

John, I agree with you about the tone but, ultimately, legislators are responsible for what is introduced to Parliament and what makes it to the statute book. I don’t believe they should be absolved of their responsibility. It is not the right wing press that drafts the legislation. It is not the right wing press that finds time in the Government’s busy programme of churning out yet another law and order bill (or something to do with databases) to introduce yet another bill on immigration (if I recall correctly there is at least one every two sessions or so). It is not the right wing press that is herded dully through the Aye lobby.

Let us put the blame for legislation where it lies – on the legislators.

In relation to your second point @13, quite.

16. Chris Baldwin

Illegal immigrants need to work just like everybody else.

Surely all those who have access to state secrets, especially senior politicians and civil servants should have all staff who work in their home vettted by the security services? As Attorney General she is most likely to give legal opinions on all sorts of matters, for example the use of anti -terrorism legislation to freeze he assets of Icelandic Banks. Bearing in mind the frequent loss of computer equipment holding sensitive information, the prospect of a an unvetted employee having access to a senior minister’ home is worrying. What was the arrangement when the IRA was targetting ministers?

18. Fellow Traveller

History repeats: William Jefferson Clinton had a similar problem with his Attorney General nominees Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood in 1993.

Rich people and their coloured servants, eh?
Can’t get the staff these days.

19. councilhousetory

Sunny your obviously not a lawyer so should avoid making pronouncements on the law. It’s irrelevant if she was deceived as this is no defence. And who bought this in? She did.

So, the Labour party makes it an offence to employ, even unknowingly, illegal immigrants. This has the effect of criminalising large numbers of employers who make mistakes. A senior Labour figure then breaks the law, which is okay, because most of the criticism has come from right-wingers.

Sorry Sunny, but this is really smacks of attack blog tactics. Yes, the tabloids are unpleasant and don’t like illegal immigrants, but to use that to fend of any criticism of Baroness Scotland is ridiculous. Especially as it was the Telegraph who exposed the Conservatives’ expenses abuses.

“So, the Labour party makes it an offence to employ, even unknowingly, illegal immigrants. This has the effect of criminalising large numbers of employers who make mistakes.”

For the umpteenth time no. Untrue. A lie. Bollocks. How many times does this have to be explained?

The tories made it an offence in 1996. Labour decriminalised it and replaced it with a civil penalty.

I don’t know how to explain this any more clearly. Amateur lawyers are a menace.

22. Tim Worstall

Whether she should resign or not, whether she’s a good minister or not….I have to admit that I’m simply laughing like a drain.

Petard, hoist, own are some of the words that come to mind.

23. Dual citizen

Jimmy @21
Even if Labour did decriminalize it and make it a civil penalty, it’s still an offence.

Fellow Traveller @18
Quite. Same thing happened to George W Bush’s nominee for Homeland Security in 2004.

She admitted herself that she broke the law. I’m more than prepared to accept it was a mistake and not willful (which is still a criminal offence).

But regardless, Bns Scotland is responsible for upholding the law and her mistake makes her position untenable. Period.

Always funny to see the Brownshirts start spouting “rule of law, rule of law, blah blah blah”.

Guido would not no the rule of law if it punched him in the face. And as for the Tory party in general it is full of crooks. But it is ok as long as you are Conservative.

“Even if Labour did decriminalize it and make it a civil penalty, it’s still an offence. ”

Actually no. Hence the term “decriminalise”.

And of course once Call me Dave gets in we can look forward to ministers resigning immediately they have been accused of any wrong doing.

Oh wait…………………………………

27. Silent Hunter

Sunny:

Firstly, forgive me, indeed you didn’t write the piece . . . some bloke called Steve did.

But the inference of “right wing press” and “immigration” does rather point to the racist card and to try to pretend it doesn’t is just disingenuous.

You say . . .

” Really? And you have proof she broke the law and wasn’t deceived do you? ”

Sorry but you (and JohnB & JSlayer) seem to have entirely missed the point that “being deceived” doesn’t seem to excuse anyone else caught in this predicament; so why should she be different?

Well ?

27 “But the inference of “right wing press” and “immigration” does rather point to the racist card” ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Nobody gives a shit what you think or what you say. Go back to jerking off on Guidos site troll.

@25 say what now? See: “parking offence”

@27, re me, what the fuck? Is that not exactly what I said in my comment @13?

Thanks for clearing that up Jimmy.

but to use that to fend of any criticism of Baroness Scotland is ridiculous. Especially as it was the Telegraph who exposed the Conservatives’ expenses abuses.

Rumbold – you’re missing the point. Tories only care about the rule of law when it affects Labour. Otherwise there’s always some excuse. My point is – let’s have consistency. Actually it’s not my point, it’s Steve’s. No one is saying Scotland is innocent – only let the enquiry take it’s place.

The Telegraph is among the most hypocritical of papers. It vociferously defended Green because it was the recipient of those leaks. It cares about rule of law even less.

Silent Hunter – I’d stop digging yourself into a deeper hole if I was you, and wait till some more articles about Gordon Brown come up so you can scream ‘ZaNuLieBore’ again.

30. Sunny H. You accuse The Telegraph of being hypocritical: does that mean that you are free from all flaws?

“does that mean that you are free from all flaws?”

No that would be me.

33. Ollie Cromwell

Where do you get that she was presented with forged documents, she has made no such claim and that might be a libel on the housekeeper, She saw the wrong documents. A Marriage certificate for example.

Anyway it now seems she can’t read expenses rules either. See

http://the-red-rag.blogspot.com/2009/09/baroness-scotland-has-no-defence-to.html

34. Dual Citizen

Well it looks like Labour MPs are baying for her blood too. And using the right wing press to do so.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214764/Baroness-Scotland-Labour-MP-speaks-shock-Gordon-Brown-sacked-Attorney-General-illegal-immigrant-housekeeper.html

“Anyway it now seems she can’t read expenses rules either.”

Me neither. That’a as clear as mud.

36. Silent Hunter

Hello Sally,

My, my . . . didn’t your parents drag you up properly then. LOL

I very rarely comment at ‘Guido’s site’ because there are just too many semi literate people there for whom English grammar & syntax are strangers.

Eg: “…Guido would not no the rule of law if it punched him in the face…”

Possibly not, however, he would probably “know” how to spell the word . . . know unlike your good self. I will assume that you were educated under a Labour Governments “educashun, edukayshon, edupyercason” banner.

Sunny:

What’s the matter sunshine? Is the truth hurting?

I look forward to “Steve’s” next article (because clearly it’s not you writing under a pseudonym . . . of course not.) about Baroness Scotland and her dodgy expenses claims that have now come to light.

BTW . . . Sally!
You might want to look up the word “pseudonym” in a “dictionary” – it’s a book full of words, . . . and how to “spell” them.

You may find it rather useful when one wants to avoid looking like an ill educated untermenschen. (that’s German BTW, but let’s see if you can master English first before we move on to another language)

@36 if you’re going to insult people in German because you think they’re illiterate, at least get the fucking case right. It’s 1 untermensch, 2+ untermenschen…

“No your honour, I was deceived into thinking the car had been abandoned because it was just sitting there all on its own. I thought I could give it a decent home. It didn’t contain any documentation that suggested it belonged to anybody else and I did thorough search. D’you like Barry Manilow btw? I’ve got a box set of all his stuff, just a tenner…even a car stereo if you’re interested. £60 the lot.”

Silent Hunter

#….. a Labour Governments “educashun, edukayshon, edupyercason” banner.#

I know you had it tough as a kid, but surely you can afford apostrophes these days. Playing the pedant demands a certain amount of grammatical precision. Good to see you’re still haunting the web with your gonzo reactionary ranting. However, do try to leave a bit of room for cogent thought and the occasional rational conclusion in there somewhere.

“Hello Sally,

My, my . . . didn’t your parents drag you up properly then.”

Oh I was very well brought up, and one thing I was taught was not to turn up to various peoples property unless I had been invited. This is a Liberal site , and you are not a Liberal so no body invited you here. But then pompous fools like you are always revealing what hypocrites you are.

As for my education, I was educated under a Tory govt, so quite what that says I don’t know , except another of your weird theories just went up in smoke.

Scotland was caught by the very law she helped create. There is no defence. She is guilty of at best a civil offence and if she did this knowingly she is also guilty of a criminal offence. Add to this the fact she has claimed £100K plus for expenses she is not entitled too and I can only wonder how she is still in office. If this has been a Tory, the left wing BBC would have been howling it from every TV set in the country. The BBC (and Sky for that matter, though it’s no wonder when their principle political correspondent is married to a Labour insider) have been noticably quiet on the Scotland affair.. I wonder why??

She employed am illegal immigrant. Therefore an offence has been committed. The degree depends on whether it was knowingly, in which case it’s criminal, or unknowingly, in which case it is civil. What the law was prior to the Labour Government’s current legislation is irrelevant. It is what the law says now that is relevant. As I understand it, the legislation specifically denies the defence of “false documentation” unless this can be proved by way of a photocopy. If there is no evidence of the alleged documentation then it is assumed not to have been seen and therefore the offence has been committed.

As for whether Baroness Scotland should have to answer for this, of course she should just like everyone else. Indeed I would suggest that as she is the Attorney General she should have been doubly vigilant. It does however count in her favour that she reported herself.

42. Silent Hunter

Sally:

This is a “Liberal site” . . . Oh I’m sorry; I hadn’t realised this is a “Local shop, for local people, we’ll have no argument here”!

Get over yourself, dear.
I take it “Liberal” doesn’t quite run to “Free Speech” then?

JB: I would check your German phrase book again, ungezeifen.

Monkeyfish:

Always a pleasure to bump into old Labour trolls on the web. :)
Haven’t seen you around much lately at the Graunidad . . . I take it they banned you too? Which incarnation are you onto now?

@Sally

“This is a Liberal site , and you are not a Liberal so no body invited you here”

That’s a bit like sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “La La La I can’t hear you” because you disagree with what another poster says. If you disagree, then argue your case rather than flaming.

If you only want to debate with people who completely agree with you, may I suggest setting up a completely censured, sorry moderated, blog so nobody can read that instead. You can argue with yourself to your hearts content safe in the knowledge that nobody will disagree with you ever again.

What a rude, bad-tempered, intolerant lot you all are on this thread. Some tabloid should hire you to do opinion columns.

Indeed, the lack of tolerance for opposing views is a tad illiberal.

A £5,000 fine. That should be an end to the matter, right?

47. the a&e charge nurse

A £5,000 fine for not taking a photocopy – that seems a bit harsh?

Looking at the SkyNews clip I’m inclined to believe that Baroness Scotland simply made an error of judgement (trusting the word of her employee) – the fine merely stimulates the kind of paranoia that eventually arises in all bureaucracies (see Kafka’s ‘The Trial’).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zegJOwn2YIk

Anybody know what happened to the cleaner – was she sent back to the death squads?

#47 – I haven’t been able to find out; no-one seems to be reporting that. In an article disgracefully speculating about the state of Lolahi Tapui-Zivancevic’s marriage which I’m certainly not going to link to, the Daily Fascist claims that she has vanished. (They also reckon the Church should check immigration documents and assist the state in organising deportations when conducting marriage ceremonies.) But I don’t trust the Mail for factual information, so in all honesty I’m not sure what’s happened to her.

Frankly I couldn’t care less about Baroness Scotland, (although it is interesting that her natural instinct as an employer was that it wasn’t her job to be a zealous immigration officer), I’m more concerned about what happens to Tapui-Zivancevic.

I haven’t read anywhere how much Tapui-Zivancevic was paid, either, which is the second most important question as far as I’m concerned.

She didn’t just take the poor woman’s word.
Didn’t she claim that she saw the passport with the correct stamps?

Yet no such passport has been found.

This, and the expenses – she’s toast.

(Well, let’s face it, they’re all toast now.)

She acted as any normal human being would. She satisfied herself that she wasn’t breaking the law by employing Tapui-Zivancevic, but didn’t act as an over-zealous immigration officer would. The trouble is, the law requires employers to behave like over-zealous immigration officers.

By the way, as I understand race discrimination laws, employers can ask for proof of immigration status at the start of employment, and at such a time when status shown on those papers has expired, but cannot repeatedly ask for documents (and rightly so). So by not taking photocopies of papers that may have been valid at that time but expire at some point in the future, Scotland would be caught in a Catch 22.

The trouble is, the law requires employers to behave like over-zealous immigration officers.

Hello?!

The law she brought in…!!

employers can ask for proof of immigration status at the start of employment, and at such a time when status shown on those papers has expired, but cannot repeatedly ask for documents (and rightly so). So by not taking photocopies of papers that may have been valid at that time but expire at some point in the future, Scotland would be caught in a Catch 22.

Eh?

Case 1: the papers expire. Scotland is allowed to ask for new ones, and can (indeed must) fire the employee if they aren’t provided.

Case 2: the papers don’t expire. Scotland isn’t supposed to ask for new ones, and isn’t liable to the fine. That’s true even if the papers are, unknown to Scotland, revoked – the statutory defence still works if she’s got a copy of the relevant documents.

#51

Yes, I believe the law she brought in is wrong. But I didn’t think anyone was arguing she should be sacked for bringing in anti-immigration laws.

#52

I’m not a legal expert but I think both cases are accurate. However, if she doesn’t know when the papers expire, because she didn’t take a copy, that’s when she’s caught in a Catch 22 – shouldn’t ask for them again to check when they expire, but should act on the knowledge that she should have that they had expired.

edit – to make it clear that this is not in any way legal advice, as I’m not suitably qualified and don’t want to break the law online!

Well if she is in a Catch-22 she’s only their because she didn’t follow her own rules in the first place .

Still, her remaining in place is another gift to the opposition, so I shouldn’t complain too much I suppose.

Ooops – I mean “there”

She ticks too many PC boxes to be sacked. A case of dont do as I do, do as I say, you little people. I am going to keep my money and chauffer driven Jag.

I say down to the Police station for DNA swabs, fingerprinting and mug shots as would have happened to us little people.

She hardly complain of ignorance of the law as it was she who introduced the rules in the first place and insisted on the harsher defence requirements. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

Truth be told, I do not detect an air of rising anger about this. I believe I can supply an explanation to those who are angry.

Since everyone, including Labour voters expects there to be a change of government within a few months, she is out of a job anyway. No point getting too wound up about it in that context is there?

“Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.”

Some sort of fine perhaps?

Maybe the maximum fine possible, £10,000, would have been more appropriate seeing as she had no excuse for ignorance as she wrote the damn thing. She employed the woman for ages, not just a couple of weeks. Other people have been fined £5,000 for employing illegals for a few days.

If you look at the guidelines she seems to have been given a harsher penalty than would otherwise have been the case. A one-off first timer might expect a warning. I don’t disagree with a heavier penalty because of her position, but i think that’s what she got. For those who which to continue flogging this particular dead horse there’s some spectacular rubblish in the torygraph about how she could be “struck off” as they put it.

Think she may have been reported to the Bar Council.

Guido being a twat, that’s all.

64. Gordon Kennedy

I would like the Baroness’s opinion on the proposition that the further up a social heirarchy one is, the harsher the penalties should be for transgression.

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.

As 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.

Feel free to discuss the proposition with your Legal advisors Baroness

Gordon Kennedy
Forklift driver from Dagenham

Jack Straw says the complaints about Baroness Scotland result from sexism.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Article:: Baying for Baroness Scotland’s blood http://bit.ly/DxHSq

  2. john band

    Disagree with @libcon on B Scotland http://bit.ly/DxHSq – nowt wrong with employing illegals, but ministers shld follow their own silly laws

  3. Liberal Conspiracy

    Article:: Baying for Baroness Scotland’s blood http://bit.ly/DxHSq





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.