Is ‘freebies’ a strong enough word for gifts to politicians?

In those days it was used by journalists to describe modest outings or perks provided, often by public relations firms, with a view to influencing copy written about them. Sometimes the ploy worked, sometimes it didn’t. It was all fairly harmless, and an accepted part of the scene.

Nowadays, the term is fast becoming synonymous with milking the system, sleaze, and the widespread acceptance of “donations” by politicians. Some journalists might struggle to avoid use of the term “bribery”.

READ MORE: Labour's new 'climate envoy' Rachel Kyte linked with £4m party mega-donor

As part of my duties as a civil servant in the 1970s, I was required to sit through several weeks of the Pottinger-Poulson trial in Leeds Crown Court. John Poulson was a Yorkshire architect, and George Pottinger was a senior Scottish civil servant. Poulson was charged with corruption in connection with the award of building contracts, as was Pottinger. Both were found guilty of fraud, and both were jailed for five years. Poulson received a further seven-year prison term, to be served concurrently with the original sentence. Pottinger later had his sentence reduced to four years on appeal.

It’s a long story. It was, after all, a 52-day trial. But, briefly, the two men worked closely on the project to develop Aviemore as a winter sports complex. It was at this time that Poulson began giving Pottinger “gifts”. These included clothing, a foreign holiday, and a bespoke house beside Muirfied Golf Course. Even at the value of the pound at the time, these amounted in total to several thousands of pounds.

As I recall from the trial itself, Pottinger claimed that these were simply gifts, and that he had not been required to give anything in return. And indeed he did not. But it was stated at the time that, under English law, it was an offence to “corruptly receive”, and that this led to a guilty verdict.

Now, I accept that George Pottinger was a civil servant and not a politician. But it occurs to me that both categories are, in effect, public servants. In terms of what is making the headlines today, I find it difficult to make the distinction. Perhaps journalists should ask themselves if the use of the term “freebies” doesn’t rather minimise what is going on, and that something stronger might be appropriate.

Keith Halley
Dalkeith

READ MORE: Wee Ginger Dug: We are right to distrust promises of gifts from Westminster

CHANGE was the political promise of our recently elected Labour Westminster government. We now know what they meant with their incessant campaign slogan.

Pensioners will have less change in their pockets this winter if they wish to feed their meters and buy fuel and/or food. Unlike our Labour leaders, they will not benefit from changes of clothes, spectacles etc from their affluent cronies. The homeless will only be able to change their temporary locations as the cold spells increase. The business sector will find a change in their prospects as they disappear, eg Grangemouth.

The one thing that we cannot change is the pedigree of our Prime Minister. His late father would no doubt be pleased to see that his skills live on, as he has left us with a UK leader who is a complete “tool”.

Sandy Coghill
Isle of Skye

I THINK that giving a “gift” to a politician and getting access in return is sleaze and corruption. MPs get an excellent income and expenses and can therefore afford to pay their own way.

I am of the opinion that getting clothes for self and family should be a resigning matter for any politician.

M Ross
Aviemore