The two points are mutually exclusive.

Who said I was indicating she had a criminal record?

Methinks you jump to conclusions that are not indicated in the post but are only in your fuddled, cantankerous head.

Or possibly your post was less clear than you think.

You could be right. Maybe it is that I should have used a form of language that would have been understood by the lowest common denominator, but then I may have been accused of dumbing down the discussion.







Well, now you can spend time from your life looking for an opportunity to "catch me out" making a mistake on any subsequent posts I make. (If I make any). Enjoy.

She was not prosecuted but was given a "civil penalty".

A civil penalty is a wheeze thought up by the government to get money out of its citizens without giving them a fair trial. Basically its a tax.

So she hasn't been convicted of anything.

Having said that she broke the law and as the government's most senior law officer you would have thought she should resign or have been sacked.

But of course the rules that apply to the rest of us don't apply to politicians do they?

It's like a fixed penalty traffic offence. Presumably they're taxes too.

And FWIW, it's typical of a politician to break the law and come out and say they've effectively done nothing wrong. She's breached the law of the land and I fully expect the same treatment for a curry house employing an illegal worker that she received, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

No need to become paranoid

Actually a fixed penalty for a traffic offence (except parking) is criminal not civil.

Civil penalities are a means of raising revenue. In effect the government is saying "Give us some money and we won't prosecute you and you won't get a criminal record."

Prosecuting people through the courts on the other hand is expensive and costs the government money.

Even worse some of the pesky blighters get off due to technicalities, such as being innocent.

So what's your solution?

If you've broken the law you should be dealt with by the criminal courts.

Its then up to the government to prove your guilt, not you to prove your innocence (well at least it is at the moment).

If you are guilty you should be punished.

If you're innocent you go free.

Simples.

Its worked for 1000 years so why change it?

So people employing illegal workers in advertently should be dragged through the courts?

So you'd suggest that every single person caught doing 34mph in a 30mph limit should be brought to trial?

No but people who were responsible for drafting, presenting and overseeing into statute, regulations that are so convoluted and place responsibility upon employers to do the job of government, should not be allowed to claim "an administrative oversight"

She should have her fired straight through the door.