The Bribery Act 2010

I want to share something just in case (forgive my paranoia) of anything that may be regarded as repercussions. However, I do feel strongly that a point must be made here. This is not actually about trying to get someone punished so much as to convey a very clear message about what is and what is not acceptable in government. Now, I'm probably being overcautious here and I'm not suggesting that I pose any kind of a threat (or indeed that the police would take such action) but I would feel a lot safer if you could kindly share this as much as possible... just to appease me.

The Peter Cruddas incident remains unresolved and even unaddressed in any meaningful form. Cruddas, then Conservative party fund-raiser, was caught on video soliciting for bribes from undercover reporters posing as overseas businessmen by claiming that a 'donation' exceeding £200,000 could buy a degree of say in policy decisions and implying that Cameron and Osborne were familiar and cooperative with this arrangement.

I felt that someone should make an official allegation that a crime under the Bribery Act 2010 has been committed. That is to solicit bribes. Calling it inviting donations or whatever has no more credibility than calling burglary house-clearance. The fact remains that (a) he quoted a price (£200,000) and offered a service (that it would "open doors for you", that it would be "awesome for your business" and that "if there's anything you're not happy with, we can feed that back to the policies commission") and, in anybody's book, that is soliciting a bribe. A crime under the Bribery Act 2010 was committed on camera. No matter how many times Cruddas claims it weren't me, guv, he solicited bribes on camera. It carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and an unlimited fine. Clearly the minimum penalty is taking a slightly disapproving stance and this is the option the police have chosen judging by the action taken.

Now the incident has already been formally reported to the Met but the allegation was... er... allegedly made under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and has been passed on to the Electoral Commission to assess whether electoral rules have been breached. They appear to have overlooked the fact that a crime has been committed before their eyes.

So I wrote to the Commissioner of Police, Bernard Hogan-Howe to report a separate offense under the Bribery Act 2010. Although it refers to the same incident, it is a separate offense under a different Act. I wanted to stress specifically that this was the act under which I was making my allegation. OK, here's the letter:

"MPS Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe

Metropolitan Police Service

New Scotland Yard

Broadway

London SW1H OBG

I am reporting a crime by mail because your online reporting system only seems to recognize certain categories of crime and does not cover fraud or bribery. Also, I want to ensure that I have hard copy evidence of making this report.

I understand that police are "assessing" the Peter Cruddas 'cash-for-access' case to establish whether electoral rules have been broken. This is an entirely different matter to the most obvious issue: that Peter Cruddas was effectively soliciting bribes to influence government policy-making. Calling it 'donations' is no more a defense than a burglar calling his activities 'house-clearance'.

Therefore, I wish to report the following apparent offenses:

1. Soliciting bribes by a public figure. Cruddas had clearly stated that the undercover reporters could state what they were unhappy about and that their suggestions are fed to the Policies Committee at No. 10

2. Failure to prevent bribery. Cruddas' statement: "We feed all feedback to the Policy Committee" strongly implies that this system is routine.

3. Accepting bribes. Cruddas’ statements strongly imply that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are amenable to suggestions by big donors and that big 'donations' will "open doors".

Of course, apart from the video evidence that Peter Cruddas solicited bribes, the evidence of Cameron's and Osborne's involvement is only implied by remarks made on the video. However, this must be investigated under the Bribery Act 2010.

Yours sincerely,

Ron Tocknell"

To which, Mr. Hogan-Howe replied:

So, with a heavy sigh, I replied:

"MPS Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe

Metropolitan Police Service

New Scotland Yard

Broadway

London SW1H OBG

April 20 2012

Thank you for your reply dated April 10 2012, which I received on April 20.

I am perfectly aware that an allegation has been made under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and whether or not any offenses have been committed under that specific Act remains to be seen.

However, perhaps I should make myself perfectly clear on this: I am making an allegation under the Bribery Act 2010. Although it relates to the same incident, this is an entirely different allegation as it refers to alleged offenses under a different Act to the one that is currently being assessed and which may not be fully covered under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

The allegations that I am making are as follows:

(a)   That, according to evidence that is in the public domain, Peter Cruddas solicited bribes by claiming that payments in excess of £200,000 could “open doors” for businesses that pay this sum. He also stated: “Anything you’re not happy about will be fed back to the Policies Committee”, implying that the Policies Committee can be influenced by those who pay enough.

(b)  The assertions he made on the secretly filmed video strongly imply that both David Cameron and George Osborne are familiar and compliant with this procedure.

Whether or not Cruddas directly asked for a payment in return for an opportunity to influence policy decisions or whether or not a payment was actually received on this occasion is irrelevant in this instance. He was outlining the procedure and perceived rewards and, by stating that “It would be awesome for your business”, he was clearly soliciting a bribe on that occasion.

His account of similar occasions in the past and his assurances of  Cameron’s and Osborne’s cooperation strongly implies their complicity in this and that they are in the habit of drafting policies that are favourable to businesses in return for large donations.

Cruddas’ assertion that he was “blustering” on this particular occasion does not hold up against the evidence that Mark Adams, the whistleblower who alerted The Sunday Times had described the very process that Cruddas now claims was a one-off “bluster”. Adams’ allegation prior to the meeting that was secretly recorded strongly reinforces the implication that this was a regular occurrence.

There is, quite clearly sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation into alleged offenses specifically under the Bribery Act 2010. Regardless of any other investigations and/or assessments currently being carried out under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, my allegation is specifically under the Bribery Act 2010 and I do expect this allegation to be thoroughly investigated.

Yours sincerely,

Ron Tocknell"

That was on April 20 2012 and, at the time of posting, I have yet to receive a reply. OK, perhaps it didn't get through. I sent a copy... along with the following cover note:

"MPS Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe

Metropolitan Police Service

New Scotland Yard

Broadway

London SW1H OBG

Your ref: 2012040000979

May 21, 2012

Dear Mr. Hogan-Howe,

I refer to my letter of April 20, 2012, to which I have yet to receive a reply. Perhaps, for some reason, it never reached you so I enclose a copy.

If, however, you have received it but have decided that no further action is required, perhaps you would be good enough to provide a reason for this.

Despite assurances to the contrary from both politicians and senior police figures, it is the generally held belief that senior politicians are ‘above the law’.

I know that, if video evidence of myself soliciting bribes contrary to the Bribery Act 2010 was brought to the attention of the police, I would be arrested under this Act, as would anyone else implicated in the video.

However, it was not a video of myself but of Peter Cruddas, then Conservative Party Fundraiser and those implicated were not simply members of the public but the Prime Minister himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This, it would appear, makes a considerable difference. This does rather confirm the public perception that senior politicians and those they wish to protect are most certainly treated as being ‘above the law’.

I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not merely expressing an opinion here. I am officially reporting what appears to be a crime under the Bribery Act 2010.

As you are fully aware, it is the duty of the police to investigate any alleged crime that is reported or to provide justification if no action is to be taken.

Although you have written to me to explain that “an allegation had been made to the Metropolitan Police Service under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000” and that the “correct procedure for complaints of this nature” is for the Electoral Commission to carry out an initial assessment, I have received no acknowledgement of my allegation specifically under the Bribery Act 2010. I am sure (although please correct me if I am wrong) that the correct procedure for complaints of this nature would be to launch a police investigation into alleged crimes under this specific act (the Bribery Act 2010), as this is a police matter rather than an issue for the Electoral Commission.

I would be reassured if you could give me some reason to believe that the politicians elected into office remain subject to the law. To simply bypass laws that apply to everyone else… particularly if there is reason to suspect corruption… is to be complicit should it later emerge that corruption has, indeed taken place.

There is direct video evidence that Peter Cruddas was soliciting bribes and circumstantial evidence (through implications from his remarks) that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were receiving bribes in return for favourable policies. This is an extremely serious allegation. I fail to see any reason why the police have not taken action to investigate this allegation. Are the Prime Minister and the Chancellor protected from investigation by the nature of the office they hold? If so, then the police would be complicit in any charges of corruption that may later transpire.

I would be grateful if you could reply and explain either what action the police will take regarding this allegation under the Bribery Act 2010 or the reason why no action is to be taken.

I await your reply with interest.

Yours sincerely,

Ron Tocknell"

I could be wrong but I believe the police are obliged to investigate every alleged crime that is reported and justify any action... or lack thereof... taken. I'll keep you posted.

Now I am not alleging that harassment of some form would result from this interchange. However, sharing this as widely as possible would offset any inclination for it to occur.

I thank you for your cooperation.




OK, I've had a reply this morning (24/5/12). Still not acknowledging my allegation under the Bribery Act 2010 or any reference to this act at all. Simply a cursory statement that an allegation regarding this matter has been made to the MPS and it is currently being "assessed".

I feel I'm being fobbed off here so I penned a reply to further press my point:

"SC&09 Specialist and Economic Crime Special Enquiry Team

590v

Metropolitan Police Service

New Scotland Yard

Broadway

London SW1H OBG

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Dear Chief Supt. Macleod,

Thank you for your reply of May 23, 2012, which I received today.

I am well aware that the MPS has received “other allegations” regarding this matter and I am well aware that the matter is being “assessed” by the Electoral Commission regarding an allegation under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. This is an entirely different matter even though it refers to the same event.

I am making an allegation under the Bribery Act 2010 and the allegation I am making is outlined perfectly clearly in my previous letters. However, I shall reiterate it yet again in the hope of getting my message home:

I allege that Peter Cruddas, then Conservative Party Fundraiser, actively solicited for bribes by (a) quoting a price (figures in excess of £200,000) and (b) stating the services rendered (“…it would be awesome for your business”, “…it will open doors for you…” and, most tellingly: “…anything you’re not happy about, tell us and we can feed it back to the policies Committee”). As this offense was committed on camera, there is sufficient evidence to act on this allegation.

I further allege that the remarks Cruddas made on the secretly filmed video strongly imply that the Prime Minister, David Cameron and the Chancellor, George Osborne were party to and compliant with the arrangements described by Cruddas. The implications are extremely serious. At best: the fact remains that Peter Cruddas did quote a price and did state that such a payment would purchase a say in policy-making. That is on camera and little is left open to interpretation. At worst: if the claims that Cruddas makes regarding Cameron’s and Osborne’s cooperation in this arrangement is proved to be true, we could be looking at corruption at the highest office.

I do appreciate the sensitive nature of this allegation and I do accept that, because of the positions held by those implicated, such an allegation must be handled differently than if it were simply against members of the public. However, that cannot mean that it goes uninvestigated.

Can you please acknowledge this complaint? If you feel the need to inform me that the matter is being assessed by the Electoral Committee under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, will you please also inform me what action, if any, is being taken under the Bribery Act 2010? If no action is being taken under the Bribery Act 2010, could you please let me know why?

Please reply and please address the matter I have raised regarding my specific allegation under the Bribery Act 2010.

Yours sincerely,

Ron Tocknell"

I'll keep you posted.


*********


The above was sent on May 24. Today is Thursday June 14 and, to date, the above letter has received no response. So today I am sending yet another letter to the Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe in a final attempt to get someone to acknowledge that I have reported an offense under the Bribery Act 2010... or even acknowledge that any mention of this Act has been made.


In the letter below, I refer to the Bribery Act 2010 a total of fifteen times so it would be hard to overlook any mention I have made of this specific Act. The letter is as follows:




"MPS Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe

Metropolitan Police Service

New Scotland Yard

Broadway

London SW1H OBG

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Dear Mr. Hogan-Howe,

Perhaps, as Commissioner of police, you could explain to me why I have received no acknowledgment that I have lodged an allegation against Peter Cruddas specifically under the Bribery Act 2010 on four occasions. To date, I have received two replies: one from yourself to confirm that an allegation had been made under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and one from Detective Chief Superintendent Stuart MacLeod to confirm that the MPS has “received other allegations regarding these matters…”.

Is this matter being investigated under the Bribery Act 2010? I am not interested in what action is being taken under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 or indeed any other Act other than the Bribery Act 2010.

I note that neither of the two replies I have received to date make any reference to the Bribery Act 2010 so I must ask you: is there any reason why this issue should not be investigated under the Bribery Act 2010? If so, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain any reason for not pursuing the matter under this specific act?

The fact that the matter is being investigated under some other Act of Parliament does not justify any failure to pursue the matter under the Bribery Act 2010, which was created specifically to deal with matters of this nature. To suggest that current investigations under some other Act would prohibit any further investigations under the Bribery Act 2010 would be on a par with suggesting that a bank robbery could not be investigated under the Theft Act 1968 because it is currently being investigated under the Road Traffic Act 1998 as the getaway car may have been illegally parked.

Peter Cruddas committed an offense under the Bribery Act 2010 and there is no ambiguity about this. The offense was committed on camera and everyone who saw the secretly filmed video was effectively a witness to this offense. No suggestion has been put forward that this video evidence was tampered with or altered in any way to misrepresent the claims that Peter Cruddas made. Peter Cruddas has not denied that he made the statements that were recorded. His insistence that his claims regarding the influence on government policy that could be attained in return for a minimum of £200,000 was a one-off “bluster” is no defense… and even if it were, that would be a matter for the courts to decide, not the police. The fact remains that, by quoting a price (£200,000+) and stating that the Policies Committee would consider favourable policies in return for such a sum, he did solicit bribes and, in doing so, he breached regulations set out in the Bribery Act 2010. The police must act on this regardless of what any other rules may or may not have been breached in any other Acts of Parliament.

Obviously, I don’t now if any other member of the public may have contacted the police to report this incident as an offense under the Bribery Act 2010. If it has already been reported under the Bribery Act 2010 by another party, perhaps you would enlighten me to this effect and let me know if any action has been taken under this specific Act or the reasons if no action is being taken under this specific Act. If, however, no other person has reported the incident under the Bribery Act 2010, could you please ensure that the fact that I am reporting the incident as an offense under the Bribery Act 2010 is acknowledged and that I am furnished with an incident number?

It has been reported in the Independent that Scotland Yard has launched an investigation into this incident. However, there is no mention of whether or not any new investigations are looking into offenses specifically under the Bribery Act 2010. Perhaps you could clarify this.

I do expect a reply. I don’t mind if it is from yourself personally or from someone you have delegated to respond but I do expect all the matters I have raised to be addressed in any reply. Any failure to reply specifically stating what, if any action is being taken or to be taken under the Bribery Act 2010 will inevitably be interpreted as a deliberate evasion of the issue and taken further.

Yours sincerely,

Ron Tocknell"

In the not unlikely event that this letter does not receive a reply within the next 30 days, my current plan is to then refer it to the IPCC with the complaint that I have reported a crime and that my report has not been acknowledged and the complaint will be against the Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe. If anyone has any ideas of a more effective way of taking this forward, Please contact me at: ron@loneturtle.co.uk


I just hope I'm not biting off more than I can chew here.
**********


Friday, June 22 


OK well this response actually went as far as acknowledging that I have made an allegation of bribery. No doubt I shall get a further response in due course to inform me that the matter is being investigated under Itinerant Performers & Circuses Act 1743.

Well, they have at least acknowledged that I have made an allegation of bribery against Peter Cruddas. However, as the reply did not state that this matter is being investigated under the appropriate Act, I can only assume that it is not. This question was asked directly and ignored. So I shall try once more to get a straight answer to a straight question. I decided to write to Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley myself:

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley

Specialist Crime and Operations Directorate

Metropolitan Police Service

New Scotland Yard

Broadway

London SW1H OBG

Friday, June 22, 2012

Dear Mr. Rowley,

I understand that Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey has contacted you regarding my allegation that Peter Cruddas committed the offense (under the Bribery Act 2010) of soliciting bribes by stating that businesses could influence government policy making in return for sums of £200,000 and above.

Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe, Detective Chief Superintendent Stuart Macleod and Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey all seem to share the same difficulty with answering a very straightforward question so please forgive me if I appear to be underestimating your intelligence. No offense is intended but I do want to make absolutely sure that this question is understood so that I may eventually receive an answer. So I am putting it as simply as I can. The questions I have are as follows:

1.     Is the incident in which Peter Cruddas was secretly filmed offering Sunday Times undercover reporters an opportunity to have their concerns “fed back” to the policies Committee in return for £200,000 being investigated specifically under the Bribery Act 2010?

Here is a clue: The answer is either “yes” or “no”

2.     If the answer to the above is “no”, could you please provide the reason for not investigating this incident under the Act (the Bribery Act 2010) that was specifically designed to deal with incidents of this nature?

I do hope that this letter is clear enough. I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Ron Tocknell

****************************

I think, if this letter either does not receive a reply or the reply evades this direct question, it is safe to conclude that the police are not prepared to fulfill a legal duty to arrest Cruddas.  

I can fully understand their reluctance. Investigating Cruddas under the Bribery Act could possibly reveal evidence that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are actively party to bribery. That would then require the unprecedented act of arresting, possibly charging and possibly prosecuting a serving Prime Minister and a serving Chancellor of the Exchequer. This would be the first event of its kind in British history. I fully accept that this would put the police in an unenviable position... but it would also be their duty.

Soldiers were sent to Iraq in order to secure oilfields for Shell, BP and Exxon. Soldiers are being sent to Afghanistan to safeguard an oil pipeline for the benefit of the above corporations. Any soldier who displays a reluctance to put his or her life on the line and is not prepared to die for this questionable cause is branded a coward and incarcerated in a military prison.

If soldiers are expected to be prepared to die in the course of their duty, then I expect the police to fucking well put up with whatever embarrassment that may be caused in the course of their duty!