The Pyramid of Illusions

We can only speculate the reasons why the Mayan civilisation collapsed. We have a little more historic record to explain why the Roman Empire collapsed and more recently, the collapse of the British Empire. The record of the current disintegration of Western civilisation into revolution and war is perhaps a little too close for an objective view but we do need to step back and look at what all these power structures have in common. The two main points is that they all share a vulnerability to collapse. This is hardly surprising when you consider the other main factor they all share... and that is a power structure in which the majority of power is held by the elite minority while the labouring majority that build and maintain the infrastructure hold the least power.

This is often erroneously referred to as The Pyramid of Power. I say 'erroneously' because, of course, it is not a pyramid of power but a pyramid of people. The fewest people at the top and holding the greatest share of wealth and power and the vast majority at the base with the least wealth and little or no power. The structure of power is an inverted pyramid. The majority at the top and the minority at the base. When the greatest share of wealth and power is distributed among the smallest minority while the vast majority support this structure with their labour and taxes with little to gain in return, this power structure becomes increasingly unstable.

We have to look at what exactly we mean by power. Every individual, regardless of rank or status has only the true power to make choices. This is effectively a binary power: yes or no, to go this way or that way, to comply or not to comply. No one has the true power to make anyone do anything they do not wish to do. They may have some official authority but this is just part of the illusion of powers beyond the binary power to make a choice. The commander has the authority to command the infantryman to fire but the infantryman still makes the choice to comply... and could choose not to comply. There may be many factors that influence this choice, such as the consequences of disobeying a direct order, but it is still a choice and only the infantryman has the power to make that choice.

This illusion of authority and entitlement is the tenuous foundation on which all such power structures are based. However, this kind of 'power' is not created by those who wield it but by those who submit to it. What gives this 'power' its authority is the ability to manipulate the choice to comply. But it always remains a choice. If everyone exercised the choice not to comply (including enforcement officers), the 'power' is reduced to whomever is physically the strongest. Even then, while it may be possible to beat an opponent down, an order to comply... even under torture... can still be disobeyed. Only the consent and compliance of those who are subject to authority can give it 'power'.

The power of a small select ruling elite to control the vast majority of the labour force is a very fragile illusion and it depends 100% on maintaining that illusion. The reality remains that, while every member of the ruling elite is completely dependent on the labour force to maintain the infrastructure: to build the offices they inhabit, to manufacture the technology they rely on... even to make the weapons that arm the enforcement agencies and, of course, to provide the tax revenue from which to pay the enforcement officers, the vast majority of the labour force depend on the ruling elite for nothing. If the ruling elite were to withdraw their input into society, no one would notice unless they happen to read of it in the news. It would make not a scrap of difference. The trains would still run, water would still flow, crops would still grow. But, if the labour force were to withdraw its labour, everything would grind to a halt. Wild sheep exist quite happily without shepherds... but not a single shepherd can exist without sheep. Sheep farming is only possible as long as sheep do not come to this realisation.

So the structure of virtually every civilisation has been the greatest share of overall wealth and power held by the smallest number of people who provide the least amount of input into society while the greatest number of people who put the greatest level of input into society have the least share of the overall wealth and virtually no power. This is always a recipe for disaster. Without the people at the bottom of this structure, the civilisation's very existence is impossible, whereas, without the people at the top, civilisation remains virtually intact. The greatest power of input and the power of numbers lie with those at the bottom. Unless governed with compassion and consideration, revolution is inevitable.

The only way in which any civilisation can be sustainable is if the power to make law and distribute resources lie with those who provide the resources and maintain the infrastructure. Every section of the structure above must be administrative positions and always answerable to the majority. That way, the majority have a vested interest in making society as functional and effective as possible. When the majority have nothing to lose, the elite minority have nothing to bargain with and either the balance of power is reversed by revolution or civilisation will collapse.

Wealth:

The concept of wealth is pretty much a red herring. It is used as a carrot and its evil twin, poverty is used as a threat, both in order to gain compliance. The Conservative government current at the time of writing have a clear agenda to advance poverty to the extent that working hard for a living is no guaranteed way of escaping poverty. Working hard for a living is increasingly becoming the only means of staying alive as the Welfare system and the National Health System is being dismantled under the guise of 'saving money'. But it is not about the money. It never has been.

Money does not exist except as a system of measuring value. Just as inches do not exist except as a system of measuring length or width. There is no finite stockpile of inches that we consume each time we measure something. By the same token, there is no finite stockpile of pounds or dollars. Yes, money does have a 'tangible' form as coins or banknotes but these are simply symbols just as the markings on a ruler are symbols of inches. It is a visual reference and nothing more.

Initially, money represented effort... or rather, the value of effort. It has taken many forms in various cultures from rare shells, rare stones, even rare feathers and eventually to rare metals such as gold. Rarity was important because it had to rely on either effort or extreme good luck to obtain these tokens. Searching for these items required effort with no guarantee of success but they could be obtained by exchanging goods or services for them and their value was universally accepted. It was a much more reliable system of exchange than barter, which relied on finding someone who (a) needed what you had to offer and (b) was able to give what you wanted in exchange. A universal token is something that everyone would want because they can exchange it for whatever they need.

But money is no longer in the form of rare items or metals. The Gold Standard has long been abandoned and it has become a means of controlling wealth and poverty. In nature, there are times of plenty and times of famine and drought. These affect everyone. Those who put in the effort to store food and water supplies stand a better chance of surviving famine and drought that those who don't. This was not dependent on wealth. But, with better cultivation and water conservation methods, we are no longer at the mercy of the whims of nature. Furthermore, Western society is now largely secular and, despite an undercurrent of religious conviction to some degree, we are no longer in fear of the 'wrath of gods'.

Because civilisation has always been based on this inverted pyramid structure of illusion, it has always been necessary to exercise control of the labouring majority and this has always been achieved with fear and intimidation. Initially with the fear of gods and the human agents who enforce 'God's Will' (which, interestingly, always conforms to the will of the ruling elite). But, in the absence of vengeful gods and devastating famines, there is actually little to fear. These universal dreads have been replaced with money. The promised rewards of wealth and the threatened horrors of poverty keep the masses under control.

Poverty is, in effect, a form of artificially targeted famine. Unlike natural famine, it does not strike everyone. But, as long as poverty is avoidable by simply having a job, it isn't enough of a threat. Wealth has always been difficult to achieve of course but, in theory, poverty should not be difficult to avoid. But here, we encounter the fundamental differences between political agendas. The initial agenda of the Labour party was to close the gap between the wealthy and the poor by limiting the ways in which the wealthy could exploit the poor and enhancing the ways in which the working classes could improve the quality of their lives. This paved the way toward a system in which the country could move away from traditional Rule of Lineage in which those born of wealthy and privileged families (often with family ties to the monarchy) with inherited wealth were effectively 'born to rule'. Union leaders and others with working class roots could become politicians. Through successive Labour governments, we saw voting rights, public welfare, education and public health systems put in place. The working majority had a voice.

Labour's commitment to the working majority ended with the election of Blair, a right wing politician with the clear agenda to rid the ruling elite of this stone in its shoe by changing the agenda of the Labour party with New Labour, a slightly more moderate version of the Conservative party... becoming progressively less moderate as his period in Office continued. New Labour's agenda differed from the Rule of Lineage agenda of the Conservative party in that it took a purely self-interested line of wheeling and dealing for personal gain. This played into the hands of the conservatives to some extent as it put pretty much the same policies in place. The culture was get in, make your pile and get out. Prior to Blair, it was not uncommon for a serving Prime Minister to be facing a former Prime Minister on the Opposition benches. But Blair entered politics as a well-to-do middle class lawyer and departed Westminster a multimillionaire... never to be seen in the House of Commons again. New Labour was not about class or lineage. It was purely the Del-Boy objective of 'a nice little earner'. But Blair did some of the conservatives work for them by reinforcing a culture of fear and paranoia and stripping away many of the public liberties that traditional Labour had fought so hard to earn.

Now, with the present Conservative government in power, the essential agenda of Rule by Lineage is back on track and the climate is becoming increasingly like some mythological fight between Good and Evil. David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn could not be more diametrically opposed. Corbyn is a traditional Labour stalwart intent on restoring Labour values, the Welfare system, the Health service, British manufacture and nationalisation of vital industries. Cameron's agenda is to scrap the Welfare system, privatise the health service, abolish Human Rights laws and strip workers of any rights or protection from exploitation. He is systematically putting education into the hands of private corporations with a clear objective of limiting education to that needed for industry and no more. He is increasing tuition fees for higher education so that it falls once again exclusively into the hands of the privileged. One must consider what the word: “conservative” actually means. It refers to the conservation of traditional social classes with the wealthy elite ruling the labouring majority by right of noble birth.

The British political system is not and never has been a democracy. The term has certainly been borrowed from the Greek model most notably of Athens in the 5^th Century BC, but it differs from the Greek model in that laws are created by government and imposed upon the people. In the Greek model, it is Rule by the People for the People with the base of power being the electorate. Laws were devised, reviewed and, where necessary, amended by the people and enacted by an administration of representatives. What we have is a Parliamentary Rule of Law and this is the model on which the US system is based... albeit as loosely as the UK system is based on the Greek model. The only element we have actually taken from the Greek model is elected officials. But, beyond election, the people have no control over the workings of government.

Conservatism is traditionally opposed to “the interference of Parliament” and its primary objective is to return the “divine right of monarchs” to rule overall and attribute authority among the nobles according to lineage and birthright. Although modern conservatism has distanced itself from this stance, it remains its essential objective. Cameron, Osborne and Johnson all have a lineage of British nobility with Cameron and Johnson having family ties to the Queen. There has always been close family ties between the monarch and senior members the Conservative party.

Despite negative press (the media not immune to government influence), Jeremy Corbyn's popularity with the public is unprecedented in British politics. His integrity and apparent incorruptibility poses a serious threat not only to the Rule of Lineage agenda of the Conservative party but also the powerful corporations that have always benefited from a mutual back-scratching relationship with monarchs, dictators and governments throughout the world. This places Jeremy Corbyn in a very dangerous position. Although it would be naïve to completely rule out the possibility that Corbyn's persona is a front to garner sufficient support to win the 2020 election with such a powerful majority that he could put through corporate-friendly legislation and policies with little resistance (after all, it worked for Blair), my personal view is that he is the Real Deal. I trust him. Unfortunately, this implies that he is unlikely to survive to take Office in 2020. Too many far too powerful people have too much at stake to allow that to happen. By that time, he will be 72 and an untimely death could too easily be attributed to his age.

I feel it is vitally important that a man of such integrity must survive. But that can only be made possible through revolution. We cannot leave it all to one honest man. Corbyn alone cannot halt the inevitable path toward totalitarianism. The gloves are off and the government no longer conceal their agenda to strip away the rights and protection for the people that has been so hard won. Although I am not alone in this view, we are a long way from the unity needed to bring about the change required to create the society we want to live in and want our children and grandchildren to grow up in. The majority of the people could be likened to the man who, having fallen from the top of a 50 storey building, could be heard to say as he passed each storey “So far, so good”.

There are dark days ahead whether we take action or not. But, if we do take action, we can have some control over the destiny of our children and grandchildren. The major defence of The Establishment is the illusion of entitlement and power to control our lives. The major weapon of The People is to see through the illusion. But, of course, we have a lot invested in that illusion. The primary target must be the illusion of money. This is the Dragon's underbelly. The source of all power to control and oppress is the shared illusion that money is an actual resource. But the more of that we have, the more we have to lose. While the pay-cheque's in the bank and beer's in the Fridge and Strictly Come Dancing is on TV, there is the inclination not to rock the boat. I'm afraid that the boat must not only be rocked but overturned entirely and we must rely on each other to keep us all afloat. Before we can pull the illusion out from under the feet of the Ruling Elite, we must abandon it ourselves.

We must share skills and resources and refuse to acknowledge money. Barter if we must or devise some other system of exchange that does not allow the transfer of currencies into the new system. The objective of this is to render money worthless... or rather, acknowledge its worthlessness. It's just paper and meaningless data. We have to take shared and mutual possession of resources and distribute them according to need. We have to become a People's Assembly and decide what constitutes value. Those whose only claim to 'power' was money will effectively have nothing. We have to take over the running and maintenance of the infrastructure. We do that anyway... but we have to do it on our terms. This means national strikes, alternative 'currencies', occupation of industry and a period of chaos is inevitable.

This must also spread virally throughout Europe and the US (this latter will certainly be our most formidable adversary). It will be difficult and frightening and we will be up against intimidating forces. That is why we must initially take control of our own economy. Those who already rule by virtue of wealth will have nothing of value with which to pay enforcement personnel.

This is no longer just a matter of protest. The time for protest has passed. We can no longer continue demanding that they bring about the change we need. They won't and we must. The time has even passed to say act now before it's too late. It was too late last year. It was too late the year before that. It has been too late for a long time while we have been dumbed and numbed by TV, apps and online games. Oil corporations are poisoning the oceans with impunity. Government officials have been (and probably still are) raping children with impunity. Poverty is being forced upon everyone not born into inherited wealth and we are being systematically lied to, oppressed, and forced into submission. What exactly does the government have to do to convince you that you have nothing to gain and everything to lose? Jeremy Corbyn is justifiably being hailed as our last hope. But, in this present climate of kleptocracy, corruption, surveillance and 'Black Ops', it would be naïve in the extreme to believe he will ever be allowed to take up Office. I would like him to live well beyond 2020. However, if Corbyn is seen as our 'last hope', we must recognise that we are his last hope. Without us, he is surely doomed.

The power of immovable integrity

 

 

The reason Ed milliband attracted ridicule was because he tried too hard. He was too malleable to the image makers and not good enough at pulling it off. He dressed in the City Slicker garb that Blair had adopted with far more aplomb than Milliband but is somewhat gauche and clumsy. Too easy to photograph with an idiotic facial expression, he was not the most photogenic candidate for leader. What he did have is an apparent innocence and, presumably, the Labour party felt that this was what was needed. His brother, David is far more photogenic and, one would imagine, far slicker. But David comes across as something of a spiv. People would not trust him. Women might want to bed him but they wouldn't expect any loyalty or commitment in return. Some women might be up for bedding Ed... but one gets the impression that he would then stalk them with love poems forever after. Ed is the archetypal 'Nice-But-Dim'. Also, his willingness to try to appease the image makers left one wondering if he would be equally willing to appease the lobbyists. He was every inch the puppet.

Corbyn, in contrast, makes no attempt to appease the image makers. He doesn't dress like a City Slicker (or a spiv). He does not ridicule or take pot shots at the easy targets and the very characteristics on which Cameron has tried, unsuccessfully, to capitalise as his weaknesses are actually his strengths. He is, in many respects, the image makers' nightmare. He rides a bike in preference to a chauffeur- driven limousine and doesn't seem to mind that his cycle helmet looks a little silly. It's part of his charm. Yet, when he speaks, he is to the point. He shuns the lavish photo-opportunities, banquets and audiences with the High-and-Mighty in preference to spending time with the ordinary people of whom he is seen as very much a part.

More to the point, one definitely gets the impression that he would not give in to lobbyists regardless of promised rewards or threats. What could they threaten him with? There are, it would seem, no skeletons in his closet and the worst that the media's 'dirt archaeologists' have managed to dig up is an affair with Dianne Abbot twenty years ago. Not exactly the Profumo Scandal and pales in comparison with Cameron's pig's head fiasco. Corbyn is as he has always been. He has always ridden a bike and worn off-the-peg clothes from BHS. He doesn't try, he simply is. And he is seen by the general public as incorruptible.

Even the Tories would have to concede, if only privately within their heart of hearts, that, if an election were to be held now, Corbyn would win with a majority that would exceed even Blair's landslide victory in 1997. Labour is once again the 'people's party'.

So why are critics within his own party saying that he could not win the election in 2020? To answer that, we have to look at who his critics are. Many are those who had joined the party during Blair's premiership. No longer the 'belt & braces' socialist party of its origins, it had become effectively a branch of the Tory party. The City-Slicker image and profiteering from wheeling and dealing with lobbyists and corporations was the New Labour way. This was all about capitalising on fear and greed, increasing police powers and introducing new laws that serve only the powerful at the expense of the electorate. Politics had ceased to be about governing for the people and had become the stepping stone to the dizzying world of unimaginable wealth that Thatcher had created.

Prior to Thatcher, leaders from both sides of the House would get their turn at the helm in Number 10 and return to the opposition benches following electoral defeat. Regardless of what one may think of their policies, they were committed politicians. It was in no way unusual for a serving Prime Minister to be facing a former Prime Minister across the Despatch Box. This, they saw as their calling. All that changed with Thatcher. She got in, did the arms deals (brokered by her son, Mark Time-To-Pay-Mumsie Thatcher) and deregulated the banks, opening the financial world to the biggest orgy of greed and corruption since The House of Medici in 15^th Century Italy. On leaving Office, she was never to be seen in the Commons again... and left Westminster several million pounds richer than when she first entered it. The same was true for Blair. The culture of 'get in, make your pile and get out' was born. Cameron, no doubt, has a place on the board of BAE Systems or suchlike when he is eventually spat out of Westminster.

This is the political climate into which the Yuppie Labour faction entered the fray. It didn't matter where one's loyalties lay as the politics of both sides served the same agenda. That is to look after the corporate interests of the biggest companies and eventually reap the rewards waiting for them on the other side of the Revolving Door. To them, a Labour victory in 2020 is a far less attractive (or lucrative) proposition than being instrumental in ensuring that Corbyn's policies do not see the light of day. They are as aware as everyone else that Labour's chances of an election victory are greater now than ever before... but at a cost. Under Corbyn, they see their dreams of profiting from perks of Office and opportunities for corruption with impunity evaporating like ether under the desert sun.

There are many who hold a blade for Corbyn's back and he needs to tread with caution. But he is no stranger to the betrayals and conspiracies that have been a part of politics since Time Immemorial. He's been around for a long time and has learned a thing or two. His greatest weapon against the Tories is the Tories themselves. Like a master of Tai Chi, he allows his opponent to destroy itself. He is the Iceberg to the Tory party's Titanic.

Social Mobility

Alan Milburn is our new “social mobility tsar”. It’s an interesting thought that we now have more tsars at one time than Russia did throughout its entire history, but I digress. His job, we are told, is to ensure that every member of the community has access to social mobility. Now, this does not mean, as some may think, that everyone gets a mobility scooter with “HELLO” written on it. It means that everyone should have access to careers regardless of social class… or education… or, in some cases, ability.

I’m not knocking this. I think it’s a good thing. Careers should not be closed to those who do not belong to the right class or did not attend the right schools. A state school background does not mean a lack of intelligence or suitability. Likewise, a public school background does not guarantee intelligence, as George Osborne has clearly illustrated. But I’m not too sure about the idea of a failed A level student doing my hip replacement when the time comes. However, I’m all for this… in principle.

However, social mobility is not always an upward path.

I got a phone call from a nice chap at the Department of Work and Pensions last Friday. He rang up just to see how I was feeling, which I thought was nice. I said: “Fine, thanks”

He said: “Oh dear!”

I said: “Is there a problem?”

He said: “Well, Mr. Tocknell, you’ve been retired for almost three years now and I was just wondering how much longer you’ll be needing your pension”

I said: “The rest of my life, I hope”

He said: “Yeah. Any idea how long that’ll be? Only we got a recession on”

I said: “Righto. I’ll just nip off and shoot myself, shall I?”

He said: “Really??” with a little more enthusiasm than I would have liked.

I said: “No. I was being sarcastic!”

He said: “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, Mr. Tocknell”

Well I had him there! It just so happens that I was reading an article in the Random Ramblers’ Monthly last week. Apparently the Department of Purposeless Research at Bath University has been conducting research into this very subject. It appears that sarcasm is actually three levels higher than previously thought. The new lowest form of wit is now practical jokes resulting in death… but I digress.

He said: “Well, if you’re not going to pop off anytime soon, how would you feel about returning to the job market?”

I said: “How would I feel?? What do you think?”

He said: “Yeah, that’s what I thought”

I said: “I thought so”

He said: “What are you good at?”

I said: “Writing letters of outrage to the press and forgetting why I’ve just come upstairs”

“Hmmmm! That does seem to narrow the field somewhat." He said: “We’ve had a memo from Alan Milburn. We have to encourage people to broaden their horizons”

I said: “Listen mate, I’m a bit long in the tooth to start embarking on some upwardly mobile career ambition”

He said: “Well, I wasn’t thinking of ‘upwardly’ exactly”

I said: “I’m RETIRED! What are you planning to demote me to??”

He said: “Have you ever though about becoming a pet?”

I said: “A PET??????”

He said: “Yeah. A lot of people are very fond of old folks and there are those who’d love to have one of their own. You’d have your own bed, meals provided and, to be honest, it wouldn’t half ease the burden on the treasury”

Well, I have to confess that being a pet is not a career I’d ever seriously considered but I guess my options are a bit limited. Anyway, the upshot is that I have to find myself an owner by 2013. I am house trained… although I do tend to fart a lot these days. I am prepared to hobble after sticks but it’s probably best not to throw them too far or you might have to wait a bit.

Sooo… if you’re going to be looking for a cute novel pressie for the kids around Christmas time….. But please remember: an old person is for life, not just for Christmas.

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!