www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/dis....var.2342376.0.0.php

LABOUR LEADER Wendy Alexander faces a Holyrood ban after a parliamentary sleaze watchdog found her guilty of breaking the rules on MSPs' conduct by not declaring donations to her leadership campaign.

.
.
.
.

The revelation comes as the Electoral Commission, which regulates election finances, admitted it allowed Scottish politicians to break the law for five years before considering using its criminal sanctions. It believed politicians needed half a decade to "learn" about new laws governing their behaviour.

Devolved body v reserved body. We now know which one has principles.

TLJ wrote:
www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/dis....var.2342376.0.0.php

LABOUR LEADER Wendy Alexander faces a Holyrood ban after a parliamentary sleaze watchdog found her guilty of breaking the rules on MSPs' conduct by not declaring donations to her leadership campaign.

.
.
.
.

The revelation comes as the Electoral Commission, which regulates election finances, admitted it allowed Scottish politicians to break the law for five years before considering using its criminal sanctions. It believed politicians needed half a decade to "learn" about new laws governing their behaviour.

Devolved body v reserved body. We now know which one has principles.

I can't say I'm surprised. Assorted officials, like judges, fiscals and police persons whose job it is to enforce the law do so just as the notion takes them. Some years ago when a crooked auctioneer defrauded me of £250, and many others of far more, the fiscal told me that "it wasn't in the public interest to prosecute" despite the fact that I had proof positive of his criminality. I had no recourse. When it becomes apparent that officials haven't been doing their job they should be disciplined and IMO heads should roll in this case.

You couldn't make this up! I read this story with total disbelief. How can the officials tasked with enforcing laws controlling political donations decide not to enforce them? What was the purpose of employing them? What is their legal position?

And they can't count. A 5 year grace period would have expired after 5 years. Yet they still turned a blind eye.

And complex legislation? I have not had the benefit of any training yet I knew you couldn't accept donations from abroad. It was designed to stop Sean funding the SNP. For Wendy to write to somebody in Jersey thanking them for their cash, when they money had been channelled through a Glasgow company to avoid detection, is just, is just, is just .....

Words fail me.

DavieDites wrote:
How can the officials tasked with enforcing laws controlling political donations decide not to enforce them? What was the purpose of employing them? What is their legal position?


That's a discretion which all regulators have - even the police and the PF.

However, given the climate of suspicion which exist against politicians, in this case it's not the most circumspect of policies to adopt, is it ?

TLJ wrote:
DavieDites wrote:
How can the officials tasked with enforcing laws controlling political donations decide not to enforce them? What was the purpose of employing them? What is their legal position?


That's a discretion which all regulators have - even the police and the PF.

However, given the climate of suspicion which exist against politicians, in this case it's not the most circumspect of policies to adopt, is it ?

TLJ, I'm not sure you're correct on that one. Remember the EC told us they had decided not to refer Wendy's conduct, BUT, they gave specific reasons for that. What they didn't say was that they had decided not to apply the Law for the first five years. That decision was not something that was within their discretion. They just can't do that.

Furthermore, they lied throughout that investigation, not just to the media but to individuals (like me) who made formal complaints about Alexander's conduct, by stating that investigations were continuing.

What they didn't say at any time was that nothing would come out of it because they had introduced a FIVE YEAR bedding in period for politicians to learn the new rules. That was never publicly stated by the EC but more importantly they didn't have the authority to introduce such a rule anyway.

I think we we will hear more about this matter and that the two spokespersons who feature in the Herald article will be out of a job. And so they should be.

TLJ wrote:
That's a discretion which all regulators have - even the police and the PF.

Ah, TLJ, there's the rub. Discretion on whether to prosecute or not, when excercised in private inevitably leads to abuse. These decisions must be transparent and in the public domain. It's why we desperately need elected chiefs of police, prosecutors and judges.

Clare wrote:
TLJ wrote:


That's a discretion which all regulators have - even the police and the PF.



TLJ, I'm not sure you're correct on that one. Remember the EC told us they had decided not to refer Wendy's conduct, BUT, they gave specific reasons for that. What they didn't say was that they had decided not to apply the Law for the first five years. That decision was not something that was within their discretion. They just can't do that.


They can, Clare. Offences are not prosecuted for all sorts of reasons - but perhaps the EC should have been a bit more forthright at the time and explained baout its 5-year "rule".

Levenax wrote:
TLJ wrote:
That's a discretion which all regulators have - even the police and the PF.

Ah, TLJ, there's the rub. Discretion on whether to prosecute or not, when excercised in private inevitably leads to abuse. These decisions must be transparent and in the public domain. It's why we desperately need elected chiefs of police, prosecutors and judges.

And you think elected chiefs of police, prosecutors and judges won't lead to abuse ?

The issue is one of transparency - something which can be achieved without resorting to having a justice system run by the tabloids and the lynch mobs.

TLJ wrote:
And you think elected chiefs of police, prosecutors and judges won't lead to abuse ?

The issue is one of transparency - something which can be achieved without resorting to having a justice system run by the tabloids and the lynch mobs.

Well elected officials could hardly be worse than what we've got now. Fiscals can drop a case whenever they like and fob us off with "it's not in the public interest". It happened to me over £250 and that, although relatively trivial, was very unpleasant when I new the guy was guilty. It must be infinitely worse for the relatives of murder victims when they see the killer of their loved one getting away with culpable homicide and a trivial sentence as a result, when the offence was clearly murder that deserved at least 15 years. It's scandalous when a criminal walks away from a serious offence after some bungling, but highly paid official makes a cock up with the paperwork. When that happens "lessons are learned" but nobody gets their P45. Prosecutors and judges treat victims of crime with contempt and it's high time they were made to account for their actions. The threat of getting turfed out of their highly paid jobs would make them pay more attention to their duty. I'm no fan of the hang 'em & flog 'em brigade but criminals are running amok just now and nobody is doing anything about it.

Levenax wrote:
It must be infinitely worse for the relatives of murder victims when they see the killer of their loved one getting away with culpable homicide and a trivial sentence as a result, when the offence was clearly murder that deserved at least 15 years.


Have you any particular case in mind or is this just your normal generalisation based upon selected newspaper reports and none of the detail ?

Levenax wrote:
TLJ wrote:
And you think elected chiefs of police, prosecutors and judges won't lead to abuse ?

The issue is one of transparency - something which can be achieved without resorting to having a justice system run by the tabloids and the lynch mobs.

Well elected officials could hardly be worse than what we've got now. Fiscals can drop a case whenever they like and fob us off with "it's not in the public interest". It happened to me over £250 and that, although relatively trivial, was very unpleasant when I new the guy was guilty. It must be infinitely worse for the relatives of murder victims when they see the killer of their loved one getting away with culpable homicide and a trivial sentence as a result, when the offence was clearly murder that deserved at least 15 years. It's scandalous when a criminal walks away from a serious offence after some bungling, but highly paid official makes a cock up with the paperwork. When that happens "lessons are learned" but nobody gets their P45. Prosecutors and judges treat victims of crime with contempt and it's high time they were made to account for their actions. The threat of getting turfed out of their highly paid jobs would make them pay more attention to their duty. I'm no fan of the hang 'em & flog 'em brigade but criminals are running amok just now and nobody is doing anything about it.

I agree that the sentencing policies we are currently having to live with are outrageous. People are quite literally getting away with murder but that is for another thread I think. I have long been an advocate of a complete reform of the Criminal Justice system and particularly sentencing policy, not least the serving of only half the time scenario. It is absurd.

Anyway, on the Electoral Commission debacle my specific angle is this: the EC is a publicly funded body which was to investigate fully Alexander's conduct. That was their job and today, by their own admission, we now know they approached that investigation knowing that she would get away with it because of their policy not to prosecute within the first five years of the new laws. This means they lied to the public, who fund them, the media and everyone. It also means they themselves broke the law! TLJ, there is no separate "five year rule" here. No such thing! The law is the law is the law and the EC is there to deal with breaches of the law. They didn't have the authority to decide by themselves not to apply the law for five years. They overstepped their authority and their remit. This law was not accompanied by get-out clauses for politicians. Parliaments make law, not the EC.

I would want sackings immediately of these two quoted today in the Sunday Herald and that's just for starters. I intend to take the matter up at once because I have emails from that Commission telling me that Alexander's conduct was being fully investigated by them. At no point did they tell me about their own wee secret policy, a policy they did not have the authority to introduce.

Clare wrote:

Anyway, on the Electoral Commission debacle my specific angle is this: the EC is a publicly funded body which was to investigate fully Alexander's conduct. That was their job and today, by their own admission, we now know they approached that investigation knowing that she would get away with it because of their policy not to prosecute within the first five years of the new laws. This means they lied to the public, who fund them, the media and everyone. It also means they themselves broke the law! TLJ, there is no separate "five year rule" here. No such thing! The law is the law is the law and the EC is there to deal with breaches of the law. They didn't have the authority to decide by themselves not to apply the law for five years. They overstepped their authority and their remit. This law was not accompanied by get-out clauses for politicians. Parliaments make law, not the EC.

Politicians make the law but do not implement it. Those who do - not just the EC - are given flexibility in how they approach it, with "public interest" being one such consideration they must take into account when they regulate.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the EC should referred the issue to the PF (although that, in itself, would not guarantee a prosecution being taken forward). How they could claim that there was no public interest is beyond me !

TLJ wrote:
Have you any particular case in mind or is this just your normal generalisation based upon selected newspaper reports and none of the detail ?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/533084.stm

This was a particularly notorious one and it took all of 30 seconds to find it on the Beeb. There's plenty more where that came from.

Levenax wrote:
There's plenty more where that came from.

Exactly as I suspected. A generalisation based on a news report rather than detailed consideration of the evidence.

Does anyone really believe they would have stuck to their "five year bedding down" had the SNP been discovered fiddling? Nae chance. Electoral Commissions, wherever you find them, are bulwarks set up to protect the power elite from prosecution and as stumbling blocks for upstart parties who challenge the status quo.