She didn't get away with it, she paid a fine. Firstly it was a civil offense, therefore not a sackable offense. How can anybody imply that she should be treated differently to a member of the public, in fact it's silly to expect that.
The tories are of course looking to make an issue out of anything to gain points, and the media follows suit.
When looking at this logically, if we are to say that she should have known the law better because she's the attorney general, and therefore be punished further, then are we to assume that since the public didn't pass this law, then this makes the public now exempt from any punishment at all.
To put it simply, everyone gets treated the same regardless of their position, or knowledge of the law, otherwise it's unfair. Making mistakes is not necessarily being ignorant of the law, it's often unknowingly making a mistake or forgetting to send a document.
Anyone can make mistakes, and to be sacked from public office for life for not photocopying a document is absurd and a media witchhunt. It seems people are out to get anyone for making an honest mistake, because they wish to take their anger out on someone. Alternatively the media tells us what to think, so many tabloid readers will get angry reading the editors opinions, even when they are often blown out of proportion.
Yeah many here will just post "yes I'm angry etc etc", but are they really engaging their brains, or just regurgitating media nonsense like a talking parrot.
Anyway she may end up resigning because of the witchhunt, and not because she really deserved to lose her job.
So to summarise: Yes she broke the law, was ignorant of the fact she harboured an illegal immigrant. Yes she was punished accordingly to the law, and no that does not make someone ignorant of the law itself. Therefore it's difficult to prove she wittingly ignored the law and it's not appropriate to sack her over this issue. To happen once is a mistake, but to happen twice is probably sackable.
[edit on 23-9-2009 by john124]
