More details emerge about the Wendy Alexander fundraising scandal

Dave Bartlett

The BBC News website had a clip of Ms Alexander saying she was innocent of any 'intentional' wrongdoing.

She seems to be admitting she broke the law.

Is ignorance a valid defence in court?

Gregor Addison

I'm sure Charlie Gordon is going through his e-mails too.

David Lindsay

Wendy Alexander does not matter. She leads the party that matters least in the forum in question. If she were not Douglas Alexander's sister, then no one would pay her the slightest attention. And it really has come to something when a connection to him is the best that one can do.

RW

"Is ignorance a valid defence in court?" Not for us ordinary mortals it ain't, but the Labour political elite have a special exemption from this, and are only guilty if they eventually discover they knew all along they were breaking the law, and sometimes not even then. Otherwise they're innocent and should remain in office. This is called "preserving one's reputation for integrity".

Damion Roberts

For your family? It's just like The Godfather. Gordon Corleone has a certain ring to it...

Damion Roberts

For your family? It's just like The Godfather. Gordon Corleone has a certain ring to it...

SJH

Claims of ignorance of the law (either by the English Labour party or by Wendy Alexander) on these dodgy donations are pretty poor. Jack Straw, in a speech given on 6 September 2006 to the Electoral Commission International Conference on the Regulation of Political Party Finance, made clear that the two central concerns arising from the Neill Committee report of 1998 which were reflected in the 2000 Act were (i) transparency on who was making large donations and (ii) bans on donations from foreign sources. These weren’t just bits of complicated detail but basic principles underlying the 2000 Act. Straw said: “The [Neil] Committee identified two other key areas of concern that required action and which the 2000 Act made legislative reality: Firstly, they said there was real public concern that large donations to political parties might be buying influence. Their final report states that "the ordinary voter is apt to suspect that a very large gift to a political party must be made with a specific object in view" . However, the Committee found little justification for this suspicion - "We have been given no evidence that leads us to doubt that nearly all [large givers] give generously either because they support the general aims of the party which they finance, or in order to minimise the risk of the other party attaining power." Despite this, the Committee felt that there was a 'compelling case' for the public to know when a significant donation was made to a political party which might raise questions or prompt suspicion. They were persuaded that a new system, based on full transparency of large donations, should be introduced. The 2000 Act therefore requires full disclosure of individual donors whose donations exceeded £5,000 and the Electoral Commission was established to be the guardian of this register. Secondly, the Neill Committee found that donations to political parties should only come from sources with a significant connection to the United Kingdom. The 2000 Act therefore effectively bans donations from foreign sources without a sufficient UK connection.”

Nicholas Millman

David Lindsay - the connections do matter. This issue has exposed a web of unhealthy connections between prominent members of the labour party, their supporters (including those in the BBC) and various vested interests. At this stage wholesale corruption remains to be proven, but the whole sorry mess stinks and no amount of tactical pro-Labour posting by you or anyone else is going to make the stench go away. Robust, impartial, independent investigation and, if necessary, prosecution to the utmost limits of the law is required. It remains to be seen whether this will happen without further political interference and obstruction by those with most to lose.

I agree that ignorance of the law is no excuse and that Labour spokespersons are misleading the public by continuously emphasising that those involved acted unknowingly. The absence of mens rea (guilty intent) is a defence to conviction rather than an exemption from prosecution. However, this is old-fashioned; with the current role of the CPS it seems that prosecution is decided on the basis of the likelihood of success rather than the need for justice to be seen to be done, viz. "Cash for Honours" etc.

An additional point of criticism is the display of widespread ignorance by leading Labour figures to the requirements of laws that they as a party sponsored and introduced. No amount of special pleading by David Lindsay, here or elsewhere, should be allowed to fudge the issue.

Ken Conway

Why on earth did Wendy require to solicit funds for an unopposed election when she and her husband have such a large income both fromm salary and "expenses". She could easily have afforded to pay her own bills!

david

i find her attitude so obnoxious, her body language screams me me me

David Lindsay

"Robust, impartial, independent investigation and, if necessary, prosecution to the utmost limits of the law is required." Yes, but we all know that it won't happen. There wasn't even a cash-for-honours prosecution, so the Police will just give up on anything as complicated as this, really quite quickly. They do have parking infingements to enforce, you know. And what makes you think that a Tory Government would be any better? Away with the lot of them!

L Telfer

She claims to have honesty and integrity but sadly this appears not to be the case, like the rest of her party she does not appear to know what honesty means.She claims to be a "child of the manse" .So does her mentor Gordon Brown who unfortunately for Britain wouldn't recognise truth if it bit him, he like her left his integrity in the manse along with his childhood.

salieri

It would upset the Scots terribly that the meaning has become subverted - catachresis is the correct term, I think - but is it perhaps time that the phrase "child of the manse" is regarded as a sort of Private Eye euphemism for "someone prone to break the law"?