"I didn't know": is this right?

[Peter Ward]

This is on the BBC HYS at present, in the latest thread about Labour sleaze:

HYS said:

Harriet Harman has to go, she must either resign or be sacked by Gordon Brown.

She has by her own admission accepted a donation to her deputy leadership campaign funds via a 3rd party in breach of the electoral rules.

Ignorance/Good Faith are not a defence against breaking the rules. If she gets away with this, will we have the "Harman defence" enshrined in law, such that if the police cannot prove I saw the speed limit signs I can drive with impunity ?

Is this situation realistic? We're seeing several Labour party officials use the "I didn't know it was illegal" defence (yeah, right) and it be accepted. If the poster is right, then we could use the "I didn't know 60 was illegal because I didn't see the sign" and it would have to be accepted, right? The old "ignorance is no defence" line has gone out of the window lately, it seems. At least for those in power -- so it's the same for everyone, right?

[10 Pence Short]

Ignorance isn't supposed to be a defence.

[madbadger]

How about incompetence? Standard Labour party defence.

[BliarOut]

Well they've acknowledged something unlawful occured on national TV. Surely the police should investigate automatically and not need an invite?

[Peter Ward]

10 Pence Short said:

Ignorance isn't supposed to be a defence.

But it's being used as one. So can normal people use it too? Not just for speeding but for anything? After all, there's so many laws now that it really is impossible to know everything that's illegal. It used to be common sense but it isn't any more.

[Red Devil]

Aw c'mon. These are the people who frame and pass the laws that they expect the hoi polloi like us to abide by.

You seriously imagine that are going to apply the same standards to themselves? Get real.

And then these same politicians have the unmitigated nerve to bleat about not understanding why the populace at large think they are all venal and treat them with well deserved disdain.

Their hypocrisy makes me want to

Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct - Thomas Jefferson.

[WildCat]

FishFace said:

Peter Ward said:

This is on the BBC HYS at present, in the latest thread about Labour sleaze:

HYS said:

Harriet Harman has to go, she must either resign or be sacked by Gordon Brown.

She has by her own admission accepted a donation to her deputy leadership campaign funds via a 3rd party in breach of the electoral rules.

Ignorance/Good Faith are not a defence against breaking the rules. If she gets away with this, will we have the "Harman defence" enshrined in law, such that if the police cannot prove I saw the speed limit signs I can drive with impunity ?

Is this situation realistic? We're seeing several Labour party officials use the "I didn't know it was illegal" defence (yeah, right) and it be accepted. If the poster is right, then we could use the "I didn't know 60 was illegal because I didn't see the sign" and it would have to be accepted, right? The old "ignorance is no defence" line has gone out of the window lately, it seems. At least for those in power -- so it's the same for everyone, right?

No, that won't happen. We're talking about a breach of electoral rules. Not criminal law.

But this was donation by same person - under the guise of other people. It thus fraudulent - especially if someone in the party knew about it. That why there a call to have the police investigate by other politicians of the opposite colours