Letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 

Dear Commissioner

I am writing to make a formal complaint about the behaviour of MP Priti Patel. On 12:14 PM on 25^th of July she posted a message on Twitter stating as follows:

“We should encourage young people to get involved in politics & support their

engagement. I hope you will join me in supporting @darrengrimes_”

This email comes with an attachment displaying a picture of the person known as Darren Grimes together with the text:

“I’m Darren Grimes. You might know me as a twentysomething who the Electoral Commission fined £20,000 and accused of criminal conduct…”

Please find a hardcopy of this tweet enclosed (doc 1).

Hopefully you are somewhat familiar with the Commission’s draft report, and have a copy available. I will, however reproduce here the relevant sections on Mr Grimes:

“BeLeave’s spending

1.19. BeLeave was never registered with the Commission as a campaigner in

the EU Referendum. Unregistered campaigners could only legally spend up to

£10,000 on referendum campaigning. But Mr Grimes, acting on BeLeave’s

behalf, incurred spending of over £675,000. All this spending took place after

BeLeave met the criteria for registering as a campaigner.

1.20. As explained above, this spending was joint spending with Vote Leave.

Under the common plan provisions in EURA, it had to be treated as campaign

spending incurred by Vote Leave. But it was still spending by BeLeave, and

counted against its spending limit, even though only Vote Leave were required to report it.

1.21. The Commission is satisfied that Mr Grimes knew or ought reasonably to have known that BeLeave was not a permitted participant. The Commission is therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Grimes incurred referendum spending in excess of £10,000 on behalf of a body that was not a permitted participant, and that he knew or ought reasonably to have known he was doing this. Mr Grimes committed an offence under section 117(3) PPERA. BeLeave also committed an offence under section 117(4).

Mr Grimes’ spending return

1.22. After the referendum Mr Grimes delivered a spending return in his

capacity as an individual campaigner. Although he put the name ‘Darren

Grimes/BeLeave’ on it, it wasn’t a return for two campaigners; it was a return for him as an individual campaigner. He included payments of £675,315.18 that was not his spending. It was BeLeave’s spending. This was substantially inaccurate reporting that has resulted in a lack of transparency about whose spending this was. The Commission is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Grimes failed to deliver a referendum spending return to us that complied with PPERA. He thereby committed an offence under section 122(4)(b) PPERA.”

Please note that I have highlighted what I consider to be the relevant parts. I would suggest that this makes abundantly clear that Mr Grimes has been found guilty by a public body of electoral offences under several different headings. And this is not simply an “accusation” as Mr Grimes disingenuously has attempted to make out in the tweet supported and retweeted by MP Ms Patel.

I would also submit that as an MP Ms Patel should be fully aware that these are real and serious offences and not merely accusations.

The tweet attached by Ms Patel to her own tweet takes you directly to Mr Grimes’ tweet thread where he is requesting help to “Fight the biased Electoral Commission” (copy enclosed, doc 2).

On the upper right-hand corner of the picture of Mr Grimes you can see the lettering “Visit crowdjustice.com” and on crowdjustice.com Mr Grimes has a page where attempting to raise money he says:

“Hi, I’m Darren Grimes. The 24-year-old Leave activist who the Electoral Commission fined £20,000 and accused of criminal conduct. I am here today to ask you for help to fight the Commission’s verdict.

Latest: July 25, 2018

Your donation will help me fight this in court, not pay the Electoral Commission

I want to be absolutely clear that each donation will go directly to my lawyer, to mount a legal challenge as indicated on my case page, and not to pay the Electoral Commission's proposed fine....”

(Copy attached doc 3).

So in fact by retweeting Mr Grimes’s tweet Ms Patel is not only soliciting public support for a person who has been found guilty of serious electoral offences, she is also expressly supporting a request to donate money to fight a decision by an established public body that is the Electoral Commission, thus seriously seeking to undermine its credibility and authority.

Please note also that Ms Patel used a Twitter account which explicitly identifies her as an MP to do this (Priti Patel MP @patel4witham).

Obviously, as a private individual Ms Patel is free to support those causes and make those donations that she may find amenable, however, what I find objectionable is that she is publicly self-identifying as an MP when soliciting support and donations for Mr Grimes, who as is set out above, has been found guilty by a public body of several offences. She is therefore showing contempt in public via social media for the rule of law as currently recognised in the UK.

I would thus argue that Ms Patel is in breach of the following articles of the MP’s Code of Conduct:

5. Members have a duty to uphold the law, including the general law against discrimination.

6. Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents.

7. Members should act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them. They should always behave with probity and integrity, including in their use of public resources.

Regarding 5. I would say that in openly assisting a person who has been found guilty of electoral misbehaviour offences and helping them raise money, she is showing contempt towards the law of the land rather than upholding it as should be her duty as a parliamentarian.

On point 6. I would say that given that Ms Patel strongly supported Vote Leave, in so publicly supporting Mr Grimes, who was also a Vote Leave campaigner, she is in breach of her duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole, rather than favouring her specific political bias. It is highly unlikely that she would have endorsed another young person in exactly the same circumstances had they been campaigning for Remain.

Ms Patel has also breached public trust in her, point 7., because she is overtly favouring somebody who has been found guilty of several offences by a public body simply because they share the same political ideology. In so doing she is also undermining the perception of her own probity and integrity and by extension that of Parliament.

I also believe she has offended against her duty of Objectivity, because arguably she is not supporting Mr Grimes on the grounds of merit but rather because of his political affiliation.

There can be little doubt that this was done in public, Twitter being social media read and consulted by millions of people throughout the world every day.

Finally there is currently an ongoing police investigation into the behaviour of Vote Leave… As one of its most prominent political campaigners during the EU referendum in supporting Mr Grimes it may be possible to suspect that Ms Patel is seeking to cover her back, i.e., pervert the course of justice, regarding any possible charges that could be made against her. Again, this is not a good look for an MP and may constitute Advocacy where the MP in question has an interest to avoid criminal charges or monetary sanctions and therefore a financial interest.

I would be grateful for an acknowledgement of the receipt of this letter and also if I could be kept informed of any steps you may care to take. I would also request that you protect my identity, insofar as is possible and would seek your formal reassurance on this point.

Yours faithfully

Brexit Disunited 1              Remain EU 1

The Teams:

If challenged to describe Brexit Disunited in a single word, that word would be “division”, not meaning the thing you are supposed to scale, but rather the adjective. Brexit Disunited? Such are the tensions between them, that is frankly amazing that the side even managed to set foot on the pitch, and even then, the anarchic attacker who has become known as “the blonde bombshell”, had recently gone astray, only to be found in some right dodgy company on the other side of the world. Captain May appears to be well beyond her sell by date. Once they were the future, pretty soon they might be the past. Not sure why we should care.

Starting out as the underdogs Remain EU may just be beginning to catch fire. As the pundits had predicted two years ago they are starting to make a bit of a comeback, putting on a show of strength. They’ve recently been the subject of a large demonstration of popular support, pity that some of the centre forwards proved to be slightly, how to put this? Lacklustre, overawed… And they may be lacking some momentum. But there is definitely promise here, who knows what the future may hold? They are a diverse bunch, and it might be worth keeping an eye on these guys…

Match commentary:

The Blonde Bombshell scored really quickly for Brexit Disunited barrelling through Remain’s defence like a bluff red bus, with captain May showing not a little aggression… Unfortunately, that soon petered out and their initial promise began to look a bit… tawdry. Davis had to be substituted early on by Robbins because frankly he wasn’t up to it, despite his alleged military prowess. Nonetheless they managed to hold out until half-time with the invaluable albeit erratic help of Corbyn.

And then chaos, under pressure from Remain, their attacks were suddenly inhibited and there was a quick retreat from fair play to fouling, especially by defender Smoggy. Despite the best efforts of Go-go Gove, you could see goalie Hammonds heart wasn’t in it and Fox looked lost and lonely on the outfield. The goal, a header by O’Kay arising from a pass from Sorry within the area became almost inevitable. If the first half belonged to Disunited the second half was clearly for Remain, who had youth, enthusiasm and diversity on their side.

This was a hard-earned draw by both sides. They are expected to meet again sometime next year, who knows what will happen then?