# Talk:Bribery Act 2010

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bribery Act 2010/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   00:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

lead
I gave it a quick copy edit; the only issue I have with it is that it might be a bit short
Background
What is the Salmon Committee?
Clarified, distinguished. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
...after its introduction by Jack Straw—when?
Added. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
...would happen the competitiveness of British industry—happen?
Hamper; silly tyop. Now fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Act
...but "could potentially encompass items such as contracts, non-monetary gifts and offers of employment"—according to whom?
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The "relevant function or activity" element is explained in Section 3—it covers "any function of a public nature; any activity connected with a business, trade or profession; any activity performed in the course of a person's employment; or any activity performed by or on behalf of a body of persons whether corporate or unincorporated", applying to both private and public industry, and encompassing activities performed outside the UK, even activities with no link to the country.—that is a very long sentence and needs to be broken up
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
..."therefore, a German business with retail outlets in the UK which pays a bribe in Spain could, in theory at least, face prosecution in the UK".—Again, according to whom? Is this the wording of the Act or a comment by a third party?
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Who is the director of the appropriate prosecution agency? The DPP?
No; whoever the head of the local police unit or relevant body is at the local level - it varies from place to place and can't easily be defined. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Refs
You name the publishers for all your offline sources, but not for those Guardian articles. I'll save you the trouble of looking it up and tell you that it's published by Guardian News and Media.
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
That's it, I think. I'll stick this on hold to give you a chance to address the above. If you'd ping me when you're done, I'll check back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   01:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. All looks good to me, so I'm happy to pass this. Nice work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   18:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is a mess of contradictions and tense issues regarding whether the act is in force and whether (and when) guidance was or will be issued. It needs going through and making consistent. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Think I fixed it; let me know if you can see any remaining problems. Ironholds (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)