The full exchange of my emails with Lucy Allan - trying to get a straight answer to a simple question

Following the shocking email I received from my MP Lucy Allan on Thursday evening which I reported on my blog on Friday here I thought it would be useful for everyone to see the full exchange of emails between myself and Lucy Allan, so that you can decide yourself why Lucy Allan has reacted so extremely by referring to my behaviour as ‘stalking’ and asking me not to contact her offices again. Many of these emails I have published before but never as a full thread in chronological order.

Just to set the scene I want to recap on a few important points  - or to use Lucy Allan’s own phrase ‘let’s get some facts out there’.

Lucy Allan herself encourages her constituents to contact her by email and to telephone to arrange surgery appointments. Her website sets this out here and she has confirmed this via her facebook and twitter accounts.

I have never telephoned either of the offices of Lucy Allan but I was going to telephone her office to arrange a surgery appointment after tomorrow if she had still not replied to my email of 4^th January 2016 by then. The suggestion of telephoning for a surgery appointment came from the Telford & Wrekin Conservatives themselves on Thursday after I explained to them that I have been contacting Lucy Allan by email but I have not been getting straight answers.

Lucy Allan continues to be very proud of her Contract between herself and the People of Telford which you can see here . She is clearly failing badly in respect of No IV. ‘Be accessible to everyone’ because she has blocked many Telford residents from making comments on her facebook page and now she is refusing to respond to my own genuine question by telling me to stop contacting her offices. I also know from comments that have been made to me that I am not the only Telford resident whose emails have gone unanswered.

Lucy Allan as an MP is expected to follow the House of Commons Code of Conduct. This includes the general principles of Accountability and Openness as set out in Paragraph 8. These state the following:

‘ Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness

Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.’

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards unfortunately cannot investigate alleged breaches of Paragraph 8 as she only investigates alleged breaches of Paragraphs 10-16 of the Code of Conduct.  Even though I made an official complaint about Lucy Allan to the Commissioner based on an alleged breach of Paragraph 16 I knew that it stood little chance of success because you have to demonstrate that the conduct ‘would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or its Members generally’ (ie. not just to the individual MP you are complaining about). Indeed the Commissioner confirmed to me last week that she was not going to investigate my complaint but made it clear it is because of the strict tests set out in Paragraph 16 of the Code.

Very few complaints are actually investigated by the Commissioner. The statistics on this can be seen here and the number of complaints currently under inquiry can be seen here.  I agree with the widespread calls for an overhaul of the Parliamentary watchdog and I can recommend a read of this article from the Guardian from last month .Understandably Lucy Allan gets a mention !

Before moving on to my exchange of emails with Lucy Allan I would like to stress that I am one of many people asking the same question which is why she will not publish the email which she says contains the words ‘Unless you die’. This question was being asked by many others on 11^th December 2015 on Lucy Allan’s facebook page of various political allegiances. Lucy Allan’s reaction to those comments was to delete over 500 comments and then block many facebook users, including myself and many other Telford residents, from making comments on her facebook page in future. 

Until recently there were still many negative comments about Ms Allan’s non-publication of the ‘Unless you die’ email on her facebook page which were dated 14^th December 2015 and they were shown under her re-posted statement about the mis-representation of her constituent’s email. 

 I have noticed for the first time this morning that Lucy Allan has deleted all those comments together with the statement from her facebook page. 

Her statement is still shown on her website and this is the same as the one that was posted on her facebook page except that the latter included the extra sentence ‘I did not claim that either anonymous message was a threat of any kind’.

Last week another Telford constituent emailed Lucy Allan and asked her why she would not publish the ‘Unless you die’ email. Lucy Allan replied very quickly but did not answer the question. Instead Lucy Allan blamed the constituent whose email she had added the words ‘Unless you die’ to and Lucy Allan also blamed the media for reporting the story.

I am grateful to Ian Denny who is not from Telford but, like so many of us, just wants Lucy Allan to be open and accountable. Ian has been previously successfully in exchanging emails with Lucy Allan and his latest message to Lucy Allan from yesterday can be seen here.

Why is it so important to know the answer to the question of why Lucy Allan will not publish the ‘Unless you die’ email ?

It is an obvious answer. It is important to know that our MPs are being open and accountable in line with the House of Commons Codes of Conduct. Without this, there is no trust and I am afraid that I now have no trust whatsoever in Lucy Allan after the way she has conducted herself on this matter and how she has reacted to me by ultimately stopping me from asking her a question she clearly does not wish to answer.

The unpublished email would appear to be the only evidence that would support Lucy Allan’s account that the words ‘Unless you die’ came from a separate anonymous email received on 27^th November 2015. 

All she has to do is publish the email which she has already stated is anonymous and does not constitute a threat, or even an extract of that email so that we can understand the context in which the words ‘Unless you die’ were written. How hard is that? It’s not as if we are asking her to do anything difficult like a spacewalk.

 She says the unseen email (or maybe emails plural if you look at her reply to me of 24^th December 2015) is amongst those held by the police. However that would not stop her from publishing it. After all she was very quick to release the tape of the telephone threat she received even though that was handed to the police and of course she released the email (albeit misquoted by Ms Allan) from Adam Watling and so what stops her from publishing the anonymous non-threatening email with the words ‘Unless you die’ if it really does exist ?

My exchange of emails with Lucy Allan

My first email was prompted by my comment on Lucy Allan’s facebook page being deleted along with hundreds of other comments on 11^th December 2015.

Here is a chronological summary of my email exchange with Lucy Allan and her office, then I show the wording of the emails (except for the Automatic email-acknowledgements).  Please note that in fairness to the assistant, I have left her name blank.

1.       12^th December 2015 My email to Lucy Allan headed ‘An urgent question from a Telford constituent’

2.       12^th December 2015 Automatic reply from Lucy Allan’s office acknowledging receipt of my email

3.       14^th December 2015 Email acknowledgment from Lucy Allan’s assistant.

4.       18^th December 2015 My reply to Lucy Allan’s assistant thanking her for her email

5.       22^nd December 2015 Reply from Lucy Allan which did not answer my question but just referred me to the statement on her website I had already seen

6.       22^nd December 2015 My reply  to Lucy Allan as she had not answered my question

7.       24^th December 2015 My reminder to Lucy Allan as I could see that she was back working on social media but had still not answered my original question of 12^th December 2015. I headed this email ‘URGENT – your failure to reply to my email’ and copied in the Assistant as well.

8.       24^th December 2015 Automatic reply from Lucy Allan’s assistant saying that the office is now closed until 4^th February 2016

9.       24^th December 2015 Reply from Lucy Allan

10.   4^th January 2016 My email to Lucy Allan as I was confused by her reply as it conflicted with her previous statements

11.   4^th January 2016 Automatic reply from Lucy Allan’s office acknowledging receipt of my email

12.   14^th January 2016 My email to Lucy Allan thanking for acknowledgement and requesting a reply by 18^th January 2016, copied to Assistant

13.   14^th January 2016 Lucy Allan’s shocking response headed ‘Contacting my office’

My email to Lucy Allan of 12 December 2015

'Hello Lucy, 

I am one of your constituents and I supported you at the election in May.

I hope therefore you will be good enough to respond to me.

I believe that much of the criticism you are receiving can be addressed if you publish the email you received in which you say someone stated 'Unless you die''. If for some reason you cannot publish it you should explain why. You have released the phone call of the verbal threat and so I do not understand why you cannot release the email with the words 'Unless you die'. Until you do so I am afraid that many people will just not understand where these words came from and will believe that you simply made them up. 

You were, of course wrong to attribute these words to Adam Watling (Rusty) and that is something I have never seen before in my life. 

You have put Telford in the national media (Telegraph,Independent,Daily Mail,Spectator,BBC to name but a few) for the wrong reasons and I believe that unless you now give us the full picture with the explanation of the second email that you must now step down.

Yours sincerely

Neil Phillips'

Email from Lucy Allan’s assistant of 14 December 2015

'Dear Neil 

Thank you for emailing Lucy.

The contents of your email have been noted and Lucy aims to respond to all constituents in 5-10 working days.

Best wishes

XXXXXX'

My reply to Lucy Allan’s assistant of 18 December 2015

'Dear XXXXXX,

Thank you for your email.

I look forward to receiving Lucy's reply shortly and within the timescale you have given to me.

Regards

Neil Phillips '

Reply from Lucy Allan of 22 December 2015

'Dear Neil

 Thank you for emailing me. 

Regarding your concern, I have released a statement on this which is as the following: 

“There has been confusion and misreporting surrounding recent social media exchanges involving me. Some headlines and stories have claimed that I invented fake death threats and that I admitted to doing so.

This is emphatically not the case and not something, which I have ever done, or would ever do. The facts are that West Mercia Police are currently investigating a death threat made by telephone to my Telford office. The anonymous male voice message, which was reported to police by a member of my staff, stated:

"Hi Lucy Allan I just want to let you know that soon someone is going to f**king kill you, you f**king b*tch. Hope you die."

At the same time, the Metropolitan Police are investigating a cyber harassment campaign, which has made it difficult for my office staff and me to carry out our roles and duties in Parliament and in Telford.

Regrettably, this level of abuse – often anonymous – has become a fact of political life. I do not believe it is something, which most people would consider to be a proper part of a functioning democracy. Nor do I believe that it is a level of vitriol and frequency of threat with which the vast majority of British people would expect their elected representatives to have to cope on a daily basis.

Sadly, vicious cyber bullying seems to have become the stock-in-trade of certain elements of political parties and some campaigners apparently acting on their behalf. I believe it needs to be stopped. If it is not then there is a real risk that it will drive out of politics many well-intentioned people from all parties. This in turn will inevitably, and perhaps irretrievably, damage voters’ choices in our system of elective democracy. Cyber bullying harms our democracy and we should not stand for it.

I want to make it clear that I do not know who made the death threat on my office answer phone. I am unable to make any connection between it and some of those who regularly direct varying levels of abuse at me on Twitter and Facebook.

Equally, I have acknowledged that a recent Facebook posting made by me drew upon two separate anonymous communications sent to me online. In conflating elements of these two communications, I created a misleading impression, for which I have apologised. In the climate of intimidation created by the sort of cyber abuse to which MPs of all parties are now commonly subjected, on a daily basis, I believe that this error was understandable.

However, it emphatically does not amount to my having invented fake death threats or of ever having admitted to doing so. To claim that I did is wholly false. In reporting what I can only believe was a genuine death threat plus an unacceptable level of social media harassment to the police, I believe I have acted responsibly and within my duties as an MP and my rights as a citizen.”

Although this has been a distraction I will be focusing my attention on what I was elected to do and that is to serve the people of Telford. If you have any other concerns which are not media related then please do not hesitate to contact me.

 Thank you again for contacting me and Merry Christmas.

 Best wishes

 Lucy'

My reply  to Lucy Allan of 22 December 2015

'Dear Lucy,

Thank you for your reply.

I have seen your statement thanks.

Unfortunately you have not answered my question which is why you have not published the email which contains the words 'Unless you die'.

Please answer this question rather than avoiding it. If you do not answer it then the only conclusion that I and many other people will draw is that this email does not actually exist. 

Regards

Neil Phillips'

My reminder to Lucy Allan of 24 December 2015 as she was back working on social media but had still not answered my question of 12 December 2015

'Dear Lucy,

I note that you have failed to respond to my email of 22nd December 2015 after not giving me a straight answer to my email of 12th December 2015.

I note that you have still failed to publish the email in which you state that the words 'Unless you die' appear.

You are causing many people to be seriously concerned because we cannot understand why you do not publish the email and the only conclusion you are leading us to draw is that the email does not actually exist.

Will you please reply to my email today explaining why you are not publishing the email.

If I do not hear from you by the end of today this matter will have to be taken further because you are clearly failing in your duty to respond to a fair question from one of your constituents on a matter which is extremely serious which you appear to be taking very lightly. 

Yours sincerely

Neil Phillips '

Reply from Lucy Allan of 24 December 2015

'Dear Mr Phillips

I refer to your email.

You have had prompt responses to all your previous communications. Please note the police have a file containing various online malicious communications, which include communications containing the words to which you refer.

For the record it was the son of a Labour Councillor, who falsely claimed I had faked a death threat. This was a bizarre and twisted claim. The reality was, I re posted words on my Facebook page that were sent to me by someone using a false name. I did not suggest at any point  those words amounted to a death threat.  I did not 'make up' the words used. MPs routinely receive this kind of material including me.

I do accept I should not be engaging with these online anonymous trolls and that it was ill judged to try to expose them in the way that I did. For that reason I removed the post within hours.

There office is now closed and there will be no further communication on this matter until January. 

I wish you well. 

Yours sincerely

Lucy Allan MP'

My email to Lucy Allan of 4 January 2016

'Dear Ms Allan,

Thank you for your email of 24th December 2015.

I appreciated you replying to me on Christmas Eve, especially as I had received an earlier Out of Office email from your assistant saying that your Office would not be back open until today.

I just wanted to let you know that I am afraid that I was puzzled after receiving your email. Rather than bringing me clarity on the subject of my email to you I am afraid that your reply left me more confused because of the following two points:

1. Your reply of 'Please note the police have a file containing various online malicious communications, which include communications containing the words to which you refer.' seems inconsistent with your previous statements in which you have stated that there is only one anonymous email which contains the words 'Unless you die'. 

To correct this inconsistency will you please confirm whether you meant to tell me that the words 'Unless you die' actually appear in one single email or whether you did mean to use the word 'communications' plural which would be at odds with your previous statements ?

2. I understand that the Metropolitan Police have a file containing various online malicious communications but can you please tell me why have you not published the anonymous email of 27th November 2015 which contains the words 'Unless you die' ? Is it because the Police have advised you not to publish it or it is because you have chosen not to publish it ?

       

An early reply would be very much appreciated. 

I wish you well for the New Year of 2016.

Yours sincerely

Neil Phillips '

My email to Lucy Allan of 14 January 2016

'Dear Ms Allan,

Thank you for your acknowledgement of my email of 4th January 2016.

I look forward to receiving a response by Monday 18th January 2016 which I believe fits in with your 10 working days target response time. 

Yours sincerely 

Neil Phillips '

Lucy Allan’s response of 14 January 2016

'Dear Mr Phillips

I am writing to ask that you do not continue to contact my office.

My staff in both London and Telford have expressed concerns about your conduct. They have felt unsettled by your behaviour over a considerable period. It is appearing obsessive in both its frequency, nature and tone. It has been described as 'stalking.'

I have a responsibility to my staff to ensure their wellbeing at work. There is no requirement for them to accept repeatedly unreasonable conduct from residents on such a regular basis. Whilst they are experienced and very professional in dealing with unhappy and angry residents, with empathy and consideration, your behaviour has gone well beyond that. It is unacceptable. 

You are the first Telford resident whom I have had to ask not to contact my office. I have 75,000 constituents to whom I seek to provide a quality service. Your conduct is preventing those with genuine needs and concerns from receiving help and support from their MP.

Any further contact will be considered to be harassment. 

Yours sincerely

Lucy Allan'

That's the end of the email exchange. All I was trying to do was to get a straight answer to a simple question which I asked over a month ago. 

Neil Phillips

17th January 2016

An email from a concerned non-Telford resident to Lucy Allan MP

Ian is just one of many voters outside Telford who is very concerned about Lucy Allan's conduct because of her lack of openness. This is an email he sent to Lucy Allan yesterday which I believe speaks on behalf of so many people throughout the country, irrespective of their political persuasion. Ian has previously managed to elicit a response from Lucy Allan and so it will be interesting to see if he does this time.

Subject: Political disengagement

Hi Lucy,

(c.c. various online forums)

I hope you are enjoying your weekend.

I guess in many ways, if as has been reported and suggested, you suffer from any narcissistic characteristics, you will not be listening to anyone when challenged.

In some ways, in the very forthright communication with one of your constituents, which can be argued verged upon threatening behaviour, you made it clear that you were not prepared to listen to his perfectly reasonable questions. In fact you stated that it would be harassment if he contacted you again.

After all, an MP who claimed to think that "politicians have an ethical duty not to mislead or misinform voters", must surely accept that question when presented with the evidence that you did indeed mislead.

That was specifically in conflating two emails together without attribution, and then posting that online in a public forum.

The curious element of this incident is the choice of email to publish. Me, like many others I imagine, find it strange that you chose to alter an email to change its core message rather than publish the one with the words "unless you die".

I am sure you will agree that those words are much more emotive and convey the thrust of your intended message by making public the communications that you receive.

That is why I suspect you are receiving numerous requests to publish this email. And the lack of a clear and unambiguous response is increasing the clamour for you to publish it.

I am sure you can understand that.

I chose politically disengaged as the subject of this email to try to explain why people like me care so much. A key element of disengagement begins with a lack of trust of those in power. And this is the essence of a democratic process, trusting those you choose to represent you.

It's the choice of language when answering questions. You can see it in interviews with journalists when the posed question is cleverly avoided. Or, for example the case of Jeremy Hunt who suddenly became unavailable for comment or interview on a key day during the recent junior doctor's strike.

I suppose in some ways, people, myself included, see your avoidance of Jon Snow and unavailability for comment during the recent press coverage adds to this feeling of disengagement.

And that's the issue. The way those in power - of all political persuasions - make pledges and then somehow avoid them once the vote is over.

Did you have that intention yourself all along? Or does this happen to those in power only once they have achieved it?

What goes on in your mind at these critical moments? I mean you made that election video about a politician's ethical duty not to mislead and misinform.

And then one day, you were sat on Facebook, you wrote a post, then pasted in parts of an email from a constituent (omitting the first 5 paragraphs). You then changed some of the words in the message as follows:

1) Deleted the word "probably" as in "...you are probably just a robot..."

2) You changed the word "they" and “their” to "you" and "your" in the text "...that they have no empathy for anyone but their super rich buddies...". I guess this makes the message tone much more personal to you rather than others, and reinforces your pre-amble about the examples of abuse you get

3) You replaced the ending so instead of "Think about it, yeah?" you replaced it with the words "Unless you die". I concede this is not quite a death threat, but it changes the tone of the message considerably and reinforces your point.

4) The altered selection of text you included together with the words "unless you die" were all published with the same quotation which gave the reader the clear impression it was a single communication, without at this point any knowledge of the editing you had made or the multiple sources.

What was your thought process at this point? Had you forgotten your pledge not to mislead or misinform? Or had you instead chosen not to honour that pledge at this point?

This is the core issue. By "selectively editing" as you yourself claimed to have done, but only after the integrity of the real message had been challenged by the sender, you had gone down a path which is clearly misleading and misinforming anyone reading it.

Whether you would have given that explanation or deleted it if not challenged is difficult to say after the course of events? Would you have done? Or was the choice to explain and then delete the post only prompted by being challenged by the original author?

Maybe now you could consider explaining your thought processes and why you chose to act and publish the communication in this way?

Did you temporarily forget your pledge? Or had you chosen to take a different path where misleading and misinforming was justifiable. Hence the Animal Farm analogy. The new regime found grounds to veer from their original ideal and chose a different course than the one they had started out upon.

Maybe in your case the ends justified the means which is why you chose to mislead?

It would be fascinating I am sure if you answered each and every one of the 4 changes you made (above) and explain your rationale and justification?

Hope you continue to have a great weekend.

Cheers

Ian Denny

The shocking email I received from my MP Lucy Allan

For the full email exchange with Lucy Allan see my new post here
 

At 7.21pm last night my MP Lucy Allan sent me an email.  I just want to repeat that I am a Telford resident and until now I have always voted for the Conservative Party (never again after this!)

I believe that she must have read my comments on social media that I was going to contact her next week if I did not receive a response to my email seeking clarification on the unpublished 'Unless you die' email. The idea of contacting her to arrange a surgery appointment actually came from the Telford and Wrekin Conservatives yesterday when they politely responded to my concerns on Facebook.

She is clearly trying to stop me asking her any further about the ‘Unless you die’ email that she will not publish.

Just to let you know that I was so shocked by receiving this email that I went to the police today. They advised me that I need not be concerned as it was not a police matter as Lucy Allan had made no complaint against me. They suggested that I do not contact Lucy Allan again and perhaps I could see a lawyer regarding possible defamation. I won’t be contacting Lucy Allan again, even though she is my MP and she is supposed to be accessible. I won’t be concerned about defamation at this stage unless Lucy Allan herself publishes something defamatory. I want you to see this email for the sake of transparency and openness.

I also intend to write to the Conservative Party HQ to make them aware of how their Telford MP is behaving.

I should add that I have never phoned either of Lucy Allan’s offices and the contact that Lucy Allan is so clearly objecting can only be the emails that I have published via social media and this blog, challenging her on the existence or otherwise of the ‘Unless you die’ email. My first email to her on this subject was only as recently as 12^th December 2015.

Here is the email from Lucy Allan.

‘Dear Mr Phillips

‘I am writing to ask that you do not continue to contact my office.

My staff in both London and Telford have expressed concerns about your conduct. They have felt unsettled by your behaviour over a considerable period. It is appearing obsessive in both its frequency, nature and tone. It has been described as 'stalking.'

I have a responsibility to my staff to ensure their wellbeing at work. There is no requirement for them to accept repeatedly unreasonable conduct from residents on such a regular basis. Whilst they are experienced and very professional in dealing with unhappy and angry residents, with empathy and consideration, your behaviour has gone well beyond that. It is unacceptable. 

You are the first Telford resident whom I have had to ask not to contact my office. I have 75,000 constituents to whom I seek to provide a quality service. Your conduct is preventing those with genuine needs and concerns from receiving help and support from their MP.

Any further contact will be considered to be harassment. 

Yours sincerely

Lucy Allan

Lucy Allan MP'

The unseen Lucy Allan evidence - what we know about the 'Unless you die' email

   

I have been appalled at Lucy Allan’s consistent refusal to publish the email which she claims contains the words ‘Unless you die’. This would be the only evidence there is to support Lucy Allan’s claim that these words came from a separate email rather than from her own hand.

As an MP, Lucy Allan must follow the House of Commons Code of Conduct and two of the General Principles of Conduct are Accountability and Openness which state:

‘Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness

Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.’

I believe that by failing to publish the email that Lucy Allan claims to exist she is fundamentally breaching these Principles of Conduct and it is little wonder that people wish to complain to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. (See here for my simple guide)

So let us summarise what we know about this unpublished email and try and understand why Lucy Allan will not publish it.

What we know about the ‘Unless you die’ email

  

1.     It was received on 27^th November 2015 as Lucy Allan has confirmed that it was received on the same day as the email from ‘Rusty Shackleford’ (pseudonym of Adam Watling).

2.     The email is anonymous as stated in Lucy Allan’s official statement.

3.     Lucy Allan did not regard this email as a ‘threat of any kind’ as stated in her statement on her facebook page.

4.     Lucy Allan stated to me by email on 24^th December 2015:

‘Please note the police have a file containing various online malicious communications, which include communications containing the words to which you refer.’

5.     On 4^th January 2016 I asked Lucy Allan for clarification of this statement which seems to be inconsistent with her official statement that the words ‘Unless you die’ came from one single communication but I still await a reply.

6.     There has been no statement from Lucy Allan to say that the police are preventing her from publishing the ‘Unless you die’ email but I asked Lucy Allan on 4^th January 2016 to confirm this.

7.     If this unseen email exists, there seems to me to be no reason why Lucy Allan cannot publish it because it is anonymous, it does not constitute a threat and she was very quick to publish the doctored email from Adam Watling and she was very quick to release the telephone threat to the media.

8.     As far as I have seen, Lucy Allan has not offered an explanation as to why she did not report the alleged cyber-harassment campaign and online malicious communications to the police until after her doctoring of Adam Watling’s email with the words ‘Unless you die’ was exposed. When she published Adam Watling’s email on 1^st December 2015 she introduced this by saying that from that day she intended to publish the online abuse she received. There was no mention of reporting the abuse to the police at that stage. Common sense tells me that if Lucy Allan believed that the online abuse was serious enough to be a police matter, she should have notified the police straight away on the 27^th November 2015, when she received the emails from Adam Watling and the anonymous author of the words ‘Unless you die’, or perhaps the following day. Instead, she felt then it was not a police matter and then waited 4 days before publishing the doctored email from Adam Watling on 1st December 2015. According to newspaper reports Lucy Allan then made a report to the Metropolitan Police on 2nd December 2015 and a separate report to West Mercia Police on 4th December 2015.  

9.        Lucy Allan only has a small majority of 730. The last thing she can afford to do is lose votes. She has lost the support of many Conservative voters by her refusal to publish the email with the words ‘Unless you die’ and by her refusal to give a credible explanation for withholding it.  She has also damaged the chances of her gaining votes from Labour supporters because of her ongoing attack on the Labour Party. Therefore, politically, it makes every sense to publish the ‘Unless you die’ email so that she can try and win back some support. It is hard to understand why her colleagues in the Conservative Party have not urged her to publish the email because they surely can see the political benefit of her doing so……… Unless, of course, that email simply does not exist and that is the logical conclusion Lucy Allan has driven me to.

Neil Phillips

10^th January 2016

I am a Telford resident who has always previously voted Conservative

How to Complain to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

If you wish to complain about Lucy Allan's conduct to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards here is a simple guide.


1. You need to send your complaint by post to the following address:

Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA


(Although emails sent to standardscommissioner@parliament.uk will be read, a complaint sent by post will be required if a complaint is to be investigated and so I would recommend a complaint by post is sent from the start)


2. Make sure your complaint shows your name and address and sign it.


3. If you believe it to be the case, explain that you wish to make a complaint against Lucy Allan MP for breach of paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct:

'Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally.'



4. Explain your reasons why you feel Lucy Allan has breached paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct,

ie it is not enough to argue that the MP has done wrong, you need to argue that her conduct has damaged the reputation and integrity of MPs generally.  


eg. You might feel strongly about the 'faked death threat' where Lucy Allan added the words 'Unless you die' and you might feel that she has failed to provide any evidence to support her claim that those words came from a separate anonymous email she says she received on 27th November 2015 because she has so far failed to publish that email.


5. Enclose evidence to support your claim - eg copies of press cuttings, copies of online media articles



6. Be prepared to be disappointed as only a small percentage of complaints are considered worthy of investigation but do not let this deter you. Nothing ventured nothing gained !  



For further reference

House of Commons - The Code of Conduct

Guidance notes on the complaints process