Employing illegal immigrants.....

[gaelic cowboy]

Does the law allow for such mitigating circumstances? If it doesn't throw the book at her. And even if it does still throw the book at her and she if she escapes.

CR

I thought she was shown documents which were found out to be untrue does it not then come back to the immigrant committing fraud and not then back on the employer

[InsaneApache]

I thought she was shown documents which were found out to be untrue does it not then come back to the immigrant committing fraud and not then back on the employer

No. The onus is one her to comply with the law. The law states that she must keep copies of all the documentation presented to her.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Attorney General Baroness Scotland employed an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper, the Daily Mail newspaper has reported.

The government's chief legal adviser employed 27-year old Tongan Loloahi Tapui for six months, the paper said. Her spokesman said the minister had employed the woman "in good faith", believing she was entitled to work in the UK. Ms Tapui has been dismissed.

[completely irrelevant and a demonstration of negligence, Home Office guidelines are attached which make this impossible if the employer has been diligent]


Employers are under a duty to verify the status of their employees. Knowingly taking on somebody who is an illegal worker is punishable by a two-year prison sentence and an unlimited fine. A spokesman for Baroness Scotland said she had "never knowingly employed an illegal immigrant".

[Had she followed the governments own guidelines she would have known, she did not, negligence proven]


"She hired Ms Tapui in good faith and saw documents which led her to believe that Ms Tapui was entitled to work in this country," the spokesman said.

[Document verification standards are clear and attached at the end of this post, they were clearly not followed, negligence]
At no stage prior to the matter being raised did Baroness Scotland believe there was any question over Ms Tapui's entitlement to work
Spokesman for Baroness Scotland


He added that Ms Tapui, who is believed to have lived locally and been married to a UK national, was in registered employment before being taken on by the attorney general.

[The duty is on her as the employer she must not rely on previous employers to conduct her due diligence, the same document verification standards apply]


He added that the woman was registered for tax and national insurance prior to her being hired and that the attorney general had paid tax and national insurance on her wages.

[It is incredible that they would rely on this defence when this government has spent so much money advising employers that this is insufficient and providing clear document verification guidelines which state - Having a National Insurance number in isolation is not sufficient for the purposes of having an excuse - see full guidelines below]


"At no stage prior to the matter being raised did Baroness Scotland believe there was any question over Ms Tapui's entitlement to work."

[Well there damn well should have been questions, questions asked by the Baroness in line with the Home Office guidelines attached, again negligence proven, it is a legal obligation that employers ask these questions.]


"Ms Tapui has now been dismissed with immediate effect."

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: "This is a government that says all small employers should be prosecuted if they don't know the immigration status of their employees and yet we have senior ministers who can't be bothered to make the checks themselves. "There is a real 'one rule for them, one rule for us' attitude at the heart of this government and it is a disgrace."

[Mr Grayling is correct, as a small business I am forced to pay a company to provide HR advice that helps me keep on the right side of the masses of red tape introduced by this government, I am not legally trained, i am not the Attorney General, but I operate within the law and pay the associated costs of doing so.]


Baroness Scotland was appointed attorney general by Gordon Brown when he became prime minister in June 2007, becoming the first woman to hold the post. In the role, she advises the government on issues of domestic and international law and attends cabinet when matters with major legal repercussions are discussed. Prior to that she worked as a minister in the Home Office, during which time legislation cracking down on illegal migrants and imposing tougher penalties on business and individuals who employ them was passed.
[So she must be seen to follow them to the letter and in the spirit, she has done neither]



Since February 2008, employers who negligently hire illegal workers have been liable for a maximum fine of £10,000 while those doing so knowingly face even harsher sanctions.
[So hand over the £10,000 at once Baroness because the negligence is clear, I then call for the harsher sanctions because if you did not do so knowingly your negligence was tantamount to doing so.]



At the time, the then home secretary Jacqui Smith said the changes would make it easier for employers to carry out identity checks and would deter "slipshod recruitment methods".
[Hoist with your own petard, you must now face the consequences of your slipshod methods.]

http://the-red-rag.blogspot.com/2009...efence-to.html

[gaelic cowboy]

I'm sold off to the Tower with her

[InsaneApache]

Is that a nightclub in Battersea?

[gaelic cowboy]

Yeah cool you could have a cocktail called the Chopping Block and the pole dancers could be dancing around those pikes the beefeaters have ah possibilities

[LittleGrizzly]

Thats great, throw the whole book at her. Theres no way someone in her position could use ignorance as an excuse whereas im pretty sure there'd be people who have been fined out there who were genuinely ignorant of the law....

I'll bet anyone on these boards a half pint* of Tetleys that nowt happens. You see these laws aren't meant for the powerful, they are meant for us 'little people', you know the one's who don't know that the Labour party is the state and the state is the Labour party.

So do the posters think she should be prosecuted for breaking the law. A law she herself helped draught. Or should she be let off, like the rest of the bastards who've been caught but exonerated?

In fairness as the expenses scandal showed its politicians in general that this applys too...

Or are you just trying to get as many hits in as possible before the tory's are back running the show (and about damn time too, no republicans or tories to rail against at the moment..

[Fragony]

Did she receive an honest salary, usually

lower pay -> they knew
equal pay -> they didn't

If she received a good salary, and payed her taxes, why give a crap? Hire whoever you want to hire I say.

[InsaneApache]

Or are you just trying to get as many hits in as possible before the tory's are back running the show (and about damn time too, no republicans or tories to rail against at the moment..

If When the tories get back in watch this space. My ire is always directed at those in positions of abuse power.

[Furunculus]

In fairness as the expenses scandal showed its politicians in general that this applys too...

Or are you just trying to get as many hits in as possible before the tory's are back running the show (and about damn time too, no republicans or tories to rail against at the moment..

in fairness, whilst all politico's are dirty crooks tm, at least the tories don't have the dubious honour of creating a vast torrent of legislation for nannying reasons which they then hang themselves upon, thus showing how pointless profuse legislation is because if it's not respected anymore precisely because of its profusion.