SFO raids four premises in BAE contracts probe

[Mr C Hinecap]

From the Telegraph - Money Section:

The Serious Fraud Office has taken a new direction in its investigation into allegations of corruption surrounding defence contracts with BAE Systems. The SFO confirmed it had on Tuesday raided four addresses in connection with its investigation into situations where BAE has been the prime contractor.

It is understood that the focus of the raids was not connected with Saudia Arabia and Romania. Allegations of corruption involving BAE and those two countries are well known.

It appears the SFO and the Ministry of Defence Police, which was also present at the raids, is also focusing on other contracts, possibly in Africa.

BAE said it was "cooperating fully with the SFO and as this is part of an ongoing investigation we cannot make further comment at this stage".

It was reported that among the properties searched were the Kensington home of John Bredenkamp and a company he owns.

Mr Bredenkamp, a Zimbabwean, has interests in Southern Africa in a company called ACS – Aviation Consulting Services – which is a representative for aircraft makers including BAE.

The latest raids do not necessarily represent a widening or deepening of the SFO investigation. No arrests were made during the SFO raids. Various BAE employees have been questioned by the police but no arrests have been made. The company has denied all allegations it has acted in a corrupt way.


I thought this was worth dragging from the Money Section and sharing with you all. :E

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

If we trade with countries and cultures where "palm greasing" is reputed to be SOP, what's the solution? All Contractors or national governments boycott them until they mend their ways? It would still happen, I'm sure; but the Customer would probably receive less effective/safe kit from less than reputable sources.

[backseatjock]

This SFO investigation has been active for some time now and it would seem that while a number of BAE staff have been questioned, no charges have been brought against anyone. So far, no evidence seems to have been found that BAE actually did anything wrong or I am sure we would have seen charges pressed.
Interesting thing about today's coverage (also in Guardian) is that while BAE is consistent in saying it can not comment because this is an ongoing investigation (understandable I guess as it could prejudice any future case against it) the SFO would seem to be briefing journalists. Not sure how appropriate that is!
And it does seem odd that while the SFO probes into BAE's affairs on a seemingly never-ending basis the UK MoD and other government officials, up to and including TB, are supporting the same Company in its bid to secure a Tyhoon deal in Saudi.
Presume the SFO is a government body and the two very different approaches/attitudes to the same Company must send conflicting signals to any potential customer. Would be interesting to know if this is damaging BAE's sales at all and, if it lost a big order on the back of all this, whether it might have a case of its own to press for damages to its business through loss of corporate reputation.

[MrBernoulli]

BAe in general seem to feel that the MoD exists to keep its fat cats in fat pensions and perks, in spite of the third-rate gear they produce. I hope the SFO screw them big time.

[GlosMikeP]

BAe in general seem to feel that the MoD exists to keep its fat cats in fat pensions and perks, in spite of the third-rate gear they produce. I hope the SFO screw them big time.

MOD is every bit as much to blame as the suppliers. And I suspect BAE's income comes more from USA and Saudi these days; MOD will be a small, and declining, part of its portfolio.

However, on thread, I recall a BAe (before BAE Systems) marketing guy telling me years ago that the difference between a 'bribe' and 'commission' was timing. I do hope they get their timing right, unfailingly....

I don't think I could sail that close to the wind; and what really surprises me is that so many ex mil guys have, and perhaps, do.

[A2QFI]

"I don't think I could sail that close to the wind; and what really surprises me is that so many ex mil guys have, and perhaps, do."

The ex-mil guys find that they can relax from their rigidly structured fixed salary past and get stuck into some wheeling and dealing and get paid by results - at least I did!

[GlosMikeP]

"I don't think I could sail that close to the wind; and what really surprises me is that so many ex mil guys have, and perhaps, do."

The ex-mil guys find that they can relax from their rigidly structured fixed salary past and get stuck into some wheeling and dealing and get paid by results - at least I did!

Me too but not with BAE and not where I have any difficulty seeing which side of the line I'm on. Still lots manage it well enough and good luck to them, but I still find it surprising.

[EODFelix]

I also believe that a quite a few years ago the NAO conducted an audit of the whole Al Yamamah contract. However mysteriously it never saw the light of day - rumours of sweetner payments to members of the Saudi royal house abounded. Al Yamamah prime contractor, BAE Systems, said in 2005 that it and its predecessor British Aerospace had earned £43 billion in twenty years from the contract.

[GlosMikeP]

The numbers seem quite believable. It's often been said that the AY contract kept BAE afloat. And in the present UK climate of under-funding, that's believable too!

[WasNaeMe]

MrBernoulli -" I hope the SFO screw them big time."

Not going to happen.....
Seem there are a lot of (maybe to many) Wannabee..... 'aircraft designer/builder/I know better/experts' in the RAF (or ex RAF with little or no experience of) these days.
:rolleyes:

[backseatjock]

" I also believe that a quite a few years ago the NAO conducted an audit of the whole Al Yamamah contract. "


Think you will find the original AY contract was negotiated by the UK and Saudi governments and BAe's role is as the 'prime contractor' for delivery of kit. This next contract for Typhoon seems to be the same.

Re commissions. Things that may or not have been done in the business world of 15 or 20 years ago, are often not done today. Surely the reason for this is as much about different attitudes in society today than years gone by. We see this across many business and also non business applications.

The real question is whether anyone, no matter who it is, broke any laws. If there is hard, factual evidence to suggest they did, they should be dealt with accordingly.

But the SFO, which seems quick to speak (or leak) information to members of the national media, would appear no closer to producing anything that would indicate this to be the case. If it had, charges would surely have been pressed by now.

It will be interesting to see how long this organisation will be allowed to adopt this approach, without results. Or will BAe have a case for claiming damage to its business through contiunued and unsubstantiated allegations against it?

[BEagle]

From The Sunday Times November 19, 2006:

Blair hit by Saudi 'bribery' threat

David Leppard


SAUDI ARABIA is threatening to suspend diplomatic ties with Britain unless Downing Street intervenes to block an investigation into a £60m “slush fund” allegedly set up for some members of its royal family.

A senior Saudi diplomat in London has delivered an ultimatum to Tony Blair that unless the inquiry into an allegedly corrupt defence deal is dropped, diplomatic links between Britain and Saudi Arabia will be severed, a defence source has disclosed.

The Saudis, key allies in the Middle East, have also threatened to cut intelligence co-operation with Britain over Al-Qaeda.

They have repeated their threat that they will terminate payments on a defence contract that could be worth £40 billion and safeguard at least 10,000 British jobs.

The Saudis are furious about the criminal investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into allegations that BAE Systems, Britain’s biggest defence company, set up the “slush fund” to support the extravagant lifestyle of members of the Saudi royal family.

The payments, in the form of lavish holidays, a fleet of luxury cars including a gold Rolls-Royce, rented apartments and other perks, are alleged
to have been paid to ensure the Saudis continued to buy from BAE under the so-called Al-Yamamah deal, rather than going to another country. Al-Yamamah is the biggest defence contract in British history and has kept BAE in business for 20 years.

At least five people have been arrested in the probe. They include Peter Wilson, BAE’s managing director of international programmes, and Tony Winship, a former company official who oversaw two travel and service firms that are alleged to have been conduits for the payments. Both deny any wrongdoing.

The Saudi threat was made in September after the royal family became alarmed at the latest turn in the fraud inquiry. Sources close to the investigation say the Saudis “hit the roof” after discovering that SFO lawyers had persuaded a magistrate in Switzerland to force disclosure about a series of confidential Swiss bank accounts.

The sources said the accounts relate to substantial payments between “third party” offshore companies that may have received large sums in previously undisclosed “commissions”. Fraud office sources say they are now trying to get more documents that will tell them who benefited from the accounts. The trail is said to lead to the Saudi capital Riyadh.

The Saudis learnt of this development only when they were contacted by the Swiss banks in the late summer. “They hit the roof,” said a source close to the investigation.

The Saudi royal family, which effectively controls the government, instructed a senior diplomat, said to be Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf, its London ambassador, to visit Downing Street. He held a meeting with Jonathan Powell, Blair’s chief of staff, according to the sources.

The diplomat is said to have delivered a 12-page letter drawn up by a Saudi law firm demanding a detailed explanation of why the investigation was still continuing.

The Saudis had been given the impression during a meeting with Blair in July last year that the inquiry would be stopped, say the sources.

“The Saudis are claiming in this letter that the British government has broken its undertaking to keep details of the Al-Yamamah deal confidential,” said a source who has read the document.

“It regards the disclosure of these documents to the SFO from Switzerland, and from the Ministry of Defence, as a totally unacceptable breach of that undertaking. They are claiming the deal is protected by sovereign national immunity and that the British have no right to poke around in their private financial affairs.

“It is a really infuriated letter demanding a full and open explanation, pending which the Al-Yamamah contract is suspended and all payments would stop.”

A defence official said that the preliminary contract, signed last August, to sell the first 24 of 72 promised Typhoons, better known as Eurofighters, was then temporarily suspended. That contract alone is said to be worth £11 billion and would safeguard 9,000 jobs at the Eurofighter’s UK headquarters in Warton, Lancashire, for the next decade.

Downing Street is said to have persuaded the Saudis to reverse for the time being their decision to suspend the Typhoon payments. However, the Saudis made clear they would carry out their threats unless the demands in their letter were met.

During the meeting with Powell the Saudi diplomat is said to have issued a threat to sever all diplomatic and intelligence ties. Such a move would be
damaging for Britain’s strategic interests in the volatile region.

It would involve the Saudis withdrawing their ambassador to London, and the British ambassador in Riyadh would be sent home. Direct communications between the two countries on political, economic and security issues would have to be conducted through a third country.

“It was the Swiss stuff that sent the Saudis over the top. The threat to cut off diplomatic and intelligence ties was a very real one,” said the defence official.

The row will put renewed pressure on Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, to intervene. Earlier this year Goldsmith, who is the “superintending” minister for the SFO, was asked to determine whether its inquiry was “in the public interest”. That request followed earlier Saudi pressure on the Ministry of Defence.

A spokesman for Goldsmith said: “We do not comment on ongoing investigations.”

Al-Yamamah, meaning “the Dove” in Arabic, has kept BAE in business for 20 years. It was signed in 1985 when Britain agreed to sell 72 Tornados and 30 Hawks to Saudi Arabia.

The deal was renewed in 1993 when the Saudis agreed to buy another 48 Tornado warplanes. In a third stage of the contract signed last year, Britain is selling up to 72 more planes, the Typhoons.

A Downing Street spokesman said: “We don’t speak about ongoing investigations and we don’t speak about discussions with other countries.”


:hmm:

[soddim]

They are banging on about old news but nevertheless it is worth remembering how sensitive this hot potato is - conseqences far more important to UK than cash for peerages scandal.

There is no doubt that the muck is there waiting to be spread but is it in anybody's interest to spread it?

[Brian Abraham]

Lecture on ethics by company

"We dont pay bribes but we will make facilitation payments"

Could someone define the difference - confused. :confused:

[soddim]

Interesting article:

Geopolitical Diary: A U.K.-Saudi Crisis?
Nov 20, 2006

According to the Sunday Times, a senior Saudi diplomat informed British Prime Minister Tony Blair in September that Saudi Arabia was prepared to suspend diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom and to stop sharing intelligence on al Qaeda unless a British investigation into corruption at British Aerospace Systems is halted. British officials are investigating a $113 million (60 mllion-pound) slush fund that BAE allegedly set up for some members of the Saudi royal family. The purpose of the fund was, according to reports, to ensure that the Saudis would continue to buy aircraft from BAE in what is the largest defense contract in the company's history.

It is not clear why the message to Blair, from September, was revealed now or whether it was the British or Saudi side that did the revealing. If we were to guess, we would guess that the revelation was made by the Saudis. This would increase the pressure being placed on the British, but it also sheds light on the investigation, which the Saudis clearly wanted to hide. Nevertheless, the fact is that someone leaked it to the Sunday Times and, so far, neither government has denied the story.

In some sense, the threat is symbolic. Suspending diplomatic relations has some implications, but not enormous ones. Suspending cooperation over al Qaeda is not insignificant -- but so long as the Saudis are working with the United States, Saud intelligence will continue to be passed on to the British. The substance of the threats, therefore, is not nearly as significant as the fact that the threats were made, and that they were made so publicly. This is a real crisis in U.K.-Saudi relations.

The real Saudi threat is that they will suspend the BAE deal, which is supposed to be valued at about 40 billion pounds (about $76 billion). If that were to happen, it would be a huge blow to BAE and to the British economy. BAE certainly needs this deal; it would be overstating it to say that Britain needs this deal, but not by much. If the Saudis canceled, it would cost thousands of jobs and force a restructuring of the British defense industries. It also would make some other country -- probably the United States -- very happy, when the project is transferred.

The issue is quite simple. BAE is accused of bribing members of the Saudi royal family with money and gifts to get the deal. The British government is now investigating these gifts, which would be illegal under British law. In so doing, they likely will name the Saudi officials and dignitaries who accepted the bribes. Apart from any legal implications, this will publicly embarrass those officials. The Saudi government does not want these names revealed: If there were bribes, they went (by definition) to powerful and significant individuals -- in short, to people in and close to the Saudi government. Therefore, the Saudis want the investigation stopped immediately and have taken the extraordinary step of threatening diplomatic, military and economic consequences ranging from symbolic to disastrous.

Welcome to the real world of multiculturalism. The Anglo-American view of law is that it overrides custom and requires government officials to act in a disinterested fashion. The Saudi view of law is that the formal law must co-exist with the customary form of government. In other words, the giving of gifts to powerful people when seeking their favor is customary, and the idea that a government official may not profit while serving his country -- while undoubtedly the Anglo-American view of law -- is simply not theirs. There is, throughout the world, a profound tension between a wide variety of cultural norms. What is bribery in London is simply good manners elsewhere.

In other words, if BAE is going to get a 40 billion-pound contract from the Saudis, the company is going to follow Saudi custom. Unfortunately, BAE is a British firm and, as such, it has to follow British law, which treats such behavior as a felony. Even if the Saudis are beyond that law, BAE isn't. Now, the British government did everything it could to help BAE win the contract, in hopes that its major defense contractor would prosper. However, the British government is now investigating the same company that it cheered on, knowing full well how business is done in Saudi Arabia.

While the British get twisted in deep ethical knots, the Saudis are going ballistic. They may not expect the world to understand how they do business, but they also do not expect senior members of the royal family to be dragged through the courts and the media. The Saudis have gone to this extreme to show how seriously they are taking the matter, and they may have no option but to do so. But it is not clear that the British government can block the investigation.

This probably doesn't have long-term geopolitical consequences, except for this: If the BAE contract is not continued, the only other country with the capacity to handle something of such magnitude will be the United States. The Saudis have been cautious about going too deep with the Americans since the crisis of 2002-2003. This affair could change that. It would seem to us that this mess might just draw the Americans closer to the Saudis.

[brickhistory]

What's Arabic for F-35 'Dave?'


Good post, BTW.

[backseatjock]

Soddim says: " It would seem to us that this mess might just draw the Americans closer to the Saudis."

Other option, which would probably not please the Americans too much, is business going to the French who would appear to be all over the Kingdom at the moment. Rafale could do with the order too.

I don't think we should underestimate the threat to British jobs outside the UK defence industry if the Saudi's go ahead with breaking diplomatic ties to the UK. There are a great many more British companies doing good business in the Kingdom.

I just wonder about all this SFO media stuff. Very unusual for an organisation like this to be seemingly conducting an enquiry into any business through the pages of a national newspaper (in this case The Guardian).

Surely, taking the British justice system into consideration, that in itself (a) can't be acceptable behaviour and (b) could prejudice any future case it might wish to bring. I can't see BAE Systems leaking the information that has appeared in print, which seems to follow a view that everyone is guilty, until proved innocent.

Mike Turner, BAE chief is consistent in his statement that his company has and is operating within the laws of the UK. Knowing a bit about this industry, he could also add that it operates within both European and, for BAE, US
anti-corruption legislation. It has no choice, in this respect.

The Telegraph had an editorial piece yesterday in which Jeff Randall criticised the SFO's three year investigation and The Guardian's 'dogged' campaign against BAE. He concluded it was time for the SFO to put names in the frame or close the book, as the longer it drags on the worse it will be for British commercial interests.

A sensible conclusion, in my view and possibly time someone forced the issue.

[mary_hinge]

Don't know if this is old news coming around again:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23375819-details/50,000+British+jobs+at+risk+if+vital+defence+deal+is+lost/article.do

And also at (sorry)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=418513

[L1A2 discharged]

Also in the torygraph.

If they cancel Typhoon for Saudi it will mean the we can keep those personnel currently being stripped from already short manned (and womanned) locations in order to support the contractor in location. :uhoh:

And the visitors will have to find another country in which to practice those things forbidden inside the magic kingdom.:D :E

[dwayne_doberman]

Mr Bernoulli, what a load of utter sh1t you've posted. What a completely stupid post - why have you bothered to waste both your time and the time of those who read this otherwise excellent forum?

You clearly have no idea what is needed to do any deal in Saudi Arabia, have you? The Saudis do not accept "3rd rate" products.

The sales to KSA have allowed the UK to participate/undertake in Eurofighter, Nimrod, Hawk 100/200 and JSF.

What would be YOUR solution to UK investment in aerospace?


BAe in general seem to feel that the MoD exists to keep its fat cats in fat pensions and perks, in spite of the third-rate gear they produce. I hope the SFO screw them big time.

[Echo 5]

Mr Bernoulli, what a load of utter sh1t you've posted. What a completely stupid post - why have you bothered to waste both your time and the time of those who read this otherwise excellent forum?
You clearly have no idea what is needed to do any deal in Saudi Arabia, have you? The Saudis do not accept "3rd rate" products.
The sales to KSA have allowed the UK to participate/undertake in Eurofighter, Nimrod, Hawk 100/200 and JSF.
What would be YOUR solution to UK investment in aerospace?
Good post dwayne.
Apart from soddim, backseatjock and now yourself there has been some utter cr@p posted on this subject by the usual bunch of ill informed prats who know less than nothing about BAe never mind business in the Middle East.
I fail to see WTF it has got to do with anyone on here IF and I repeat IF certain payments were made to whoever.
It must be great to sit on the moral high ground and spout total bo!!ocks.
Wasn't going to dignify this thread by posting but it's done now.

[backseatjock]

Rumour machine within the industry suggests a Rafale deal is now very close to being signed - could be within the week.

Bad news for British industry generally, not just BAE, if this does happen. It is reported that some 50,000 could be affected throughout the UK supply base. Only around 5,000 - 6,000 of these at BAE.

Difficult one to judge, but after three years of investigation and not one charge being brought against anyone, you can understand the frustration apparently being shown by the Saudis and also senior BAE execs.

Having read much of the coverage during the weekend, it would seem one complaint is that our SFO is moving into areas in which it has no jurisdiction. If true, this must surely be stopped, unless the SFO can fully justify its actions by presenting hard evidenced facts and pressing charges.

BAE's public response may not be seen to amount to much, but I do have some sympathy. After all, this is a criminal investigation. Like anyone else facing the prospect of legal action, the company will have been advised to tread carefully in order not to prejudice any legal case. Against a backdrop of some very well briefed newspaper journalists, seemingly on one newspaper in particular, this can not be easy.

Tragic if the 72 aircraft order is lost to the French.

[G-CPTN]

http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/clickability/index.html?url=/video/world/2006/11/27/boulden.eurofighter.fears.cnn

[BEagle]

Nope - no sympathy at all for 't Bungling Baron if it is proved that he's been throwing bribes and 'facilitation incentives' around.

If there's no case to answer, then why are the Saudis so concerned?

Not quite blackmail to say "Drop your investigation - or we drop our order", but close.

The SFO is entirely right to continue its investigation into this business - and if that means the Saudis buy Rafale, then so be it. But that won't stop the investigation......

[ORAC]

The Independent: French poised to steal £10bn Saudi contract from BAE (http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2021446.ece)

Fears are mounting that Saudi Arabia is about to cancel a £10bn deal to buy British-built Eurofighter Typhoon jets and purchase a rival French aircraft instead because of a long-running fraud inquiry into its relationship with BAE Systems. Sources close to the negotiations say that the Saudis could decide to order between 24 and 36 Rafale fighters from Dassault, of France, in the next few days.....

"This isn't sabre-rattling any longer. The sabre is out of its scabbard and is being brandished over our heads," one UK defence source said. "The Saudis are serious about switching to the French and it could happen in the next 24 to 48 hours.".......

The British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sherrard Cowper-Coles, is understood to have been working frantically to save the deal. He met the Saudi defence minister, Crown Prince Sultan, over the weekend.......

[jindabyne]

From soddim

The real Saudi threat is that they will suspend the BAE deal, which is supposed to be valued at about 40 billion pounds (about $76 billion). If that were to happen, it would be a huge blow to BAE and to the British economy. BAE certainly needs this deal; it would be overstating it to say that Britain needs this deal, but not by much. If the Saudis canceled, it would cost thousands of jobs and force a restructuring of the British defense industries. It also would make some other country -- probably the United States -- very happy, when the project is transferred.



BEagle

I sort of enjoyed your previous jibes at BAE SYSTEMS and 't tales of Bungling Baron but, given soddim's accurate observation (not to mention the real threat to thousands of retired employees' pensions, including mine), I cannot understand the tone in your last post. It is hard to fathom your apparent enthusiasm over the prospect of so many of your fellow countrymens' livelihoods being at risk.

[BEagle]

jinda', IF 't Bungling Baron has been "Givin' a little sweetenerr orr two to 't brown lads from 't desert" to help secure this sale then, sorry, but he becomes 't BENT Baron and I hope it won't affect your pension if 't TypHoon deal falls through.

Again, if there is nothing to this, then why are the Saudis so worried? Methinks they doeth protest too much?

I inherited some shares from a late aunt. First ones I got shot of were the BWoS shares.

[Echo 5]

jindabyne,

You have a PM

[Echo 5]

[QUOTE=
I inherited some shares from a late aunt. First ones I got shot of were the BWoS shares.[/QUOTE]


BEagle,

You're repeating yourself now but I hope you got a good price for them.:)

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Whether or not anyone from BAE Sys needs, in due course, to prove their innocence, the Saudi Arabian withdrawal will put a significant dent in the British aviation and defence business. It is worthwhile remembering that this is one of the few manufacturing sectors we have left, let alone its contribution to our balance of payments (not that anyone seems to care about that anymore). The Guardian, who seem to have been stoking this quite nicely, will have achieved a political aim of the old fashioned Liberals and Socialists. There are probably hordes of similar thinking individuals embedded in the Civil Service and other Public appointments who will grasp at the chance to damage our international arms trade. Would you say this matter has been allowed a significant level of leakage to the Media?

As I flippantly tried to say in Srl 2, there are some countries that expect "gifts" as part of any trade deal. We either trade with them on their terms or not at all. There are always others that will unless the custom is made illegal in international law. Soddim makes that point well at Srl 15. It's the way Arabs do business and to them it's not immoral. It's an exchange of gifts; as lame as that may sound to our democratic Western, dare I say "Christian", ears. So if it's alright by them, why has the SFO investigations made them spit the dummy? We have implied that they are "criminals" and corrupt in Western eyes. Behind their back, their private affairs have been "violated" (eg poking around in a private bank account). That is no doubt the way they will see it. Arabs, whatever else one thinks of them, are proud and sensitive. We all remember the fuss over ITV broadcasting "Death of a Princess", don't we? On that occasion it cost UK PLC money as well.

It's interesting to note the responses this matter has provoked. In the tree hugging fraternity outside this Forum, seeming joy that Britain's arms trade has been damaged and our place in the World, however slightly, diminished. No doubt there will be similar glee from our foreign competitors who will now know to be more careful how they make gifts. Within the Forum, we see similar joy from the prospect of BAE Sys getting a good kicking. well, BAE Sys have severely p**sed me off many times in the past and will, no doubt, many times in the future but, like it or not, it's the only big player we've got. Whatever damages them damages all their suppliers, sub-contractors and, in turn, the rest of our consumer economy that feeds off them.

Human nature makes me say that I hope that the SFO draws an inconclusive blank and that BAE Sys sues the a**se off the Government. That's not very bright, though, as it's a classic home goal and each and every one of us will eventually pay for it.

[BEagle]

Take a look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2004/10_october/04/money.shtml from BBC2's The Money Programme of a couple of years ago......

Now understand why certain people are getting nervous.

Edited to add: No idea how much my shares in BWoS went for - just wanted rid of them!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

While I read that, have a look why I think the liberal thinkers out there have found a chance to damage our position, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1958579,00.html

[backseatjock]

Golf_ Bravo_ Zulu makes an important point. The loss of such a large Typhoon order will ripple much further than BAE Systems' factory gates in terms of its impact on employment.

What about the effect it will have on other equally important British engineering companies, including Rolls Royce, Smiths and others.

It is clear that a significant hole has been made in BAE's stock market value in the past couple of days, reportedly as a direct result of this issue and yet none of the allegations made by The Guardian or SFO have yet been backed up by hard evidenced facts or charges against individuals, let alone the Company.

That can't be right.

BAE's CEO is quoted as saying that after three years of this investigation the SFO should either 'put up or shut up'. If there is hard evidence of corruption or impropriety, involving BAE or any of its employees, the SFO should present it. I don't think many would disagree with that.

Conversely, if there is no hard evidence to support what are currently unsubstantiated allegations, surely it is time this one was put to bed.

[ORAC]

The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-2477241,00.html): Saudi Arabia plays down threat to end talks on BAE deal

Saudi Arabian sources yesterday played down talk of a rift with BAE Systems, after speculation that the Kingdom was about to ditch plans to spend £10 billion on British-made fighter jets in favour of rival French aircraft. A senior Saudi source insisted that the country was committed to its 30-year relationship with Europe’s largest defence company, but admitted that talks over the purchase of 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets had been “delayed”.

“This isn’t a crisis situation, nothing’s been cancelled,” the source said. “There are just some issues that need to be sorted out before things can proceed.” .........

The Saudi source said that there was no intention of issuing any kind of threat to BAE or Britain. “This stirring is being driven from London,” he said....

[eal401]

It seems to me that the SFO simply has a MrBernoulli or a BEagle in charge, i.e. a "I hate BAE and will do anything to have ---- over."

Oh and MrBernoulli and BEagle. if you are so keen to see British industry and employment damaged in a significant manner then please do me a favour. Take yourself to the nearest airport, buy a one way ticket and get the ---- out of this country. We don't need your sort here. Scum. :yuk:

(If BAE wasn't here, where would all the RAF go when they leave?)

[DEL Mode]

If the Saud's dont take the Typhoons, then does that mean that the RAF WILL HAVE to take them, thereby a double wammy for the British tax payer?

I am so glad that the politico's have the well being of this nation as their prime concern, after paying back their loans of course!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ewan Whosearmy]

It seems to me that the SFO simply has a MrBernoulli or a BEagle in charge, i.e. a "I hate BAE and will do anything to have ---- over."
Oh and MrBernoulli and BEagle. if you are so keen to see British industry and employment damaged in a significant manner then please do me a favour. Take yourself to the nearest airport, buy a one way ticket and get the ---- out of this country. We don't need your sort here. Scum. :yuk:
(If BAE wasn't here, where would all the RAF go when they leave?)
Yeah, you sock it to them! It's prefectly alright to break the law if it means people make money and get to keep their jobs! Anyone who even suggests that the Police should investigate alleged crimes such as these is a traitorous scum bag! <sarcasm: OFF>

While I hope that no-one loses their jobs, and that we don't lose any contracts, I do hope that the Police investigation is complete and proper. If people are breaking the law then they need to be dealt with. If we are to start allowing - or even supporting - selective application of the law, then where do you draw the line? How many jobs cannot be risked in order for the Police to investigate possible wrongdoings? The implications of such an approach don't even bear thinking about.

[mary_hinge]

Secret payments of millions of pounds from Britain's biggest arms company have been found in Swiss accounts linked to Wafic Said, a billionaire arms broker for the Saudi Royal family, according to legal sources.

http://www.modoracle.com/?page=http://www.modoracle.com/news/detail.h2f?id=12116

[glum]

(If BAE wasn't here, where would all the RAF go when they leave?)

Marshalls!:eek:

[BEagle]

eal401, awfully sorry if the old-fashioned concepts of civilised business practices, integrity, honesty and justice upset your Thatcher-greed mentality.

I take the pi$$ out of much of 't Bungling Baron's rank incompetence, but do NOT 'hate' any one organisation per se. I do, however, detest corruption, greed and lying - I sincerely hope that BWoS will prove themselves totally innocent of the allegations which have been reported in the press....

TypHoon must sell itself on merit. It deserves to - it's an extremely capable jet.

[Lazer-Hound]

Is it REALLY in our long-term interests for Saudi to get Typhoons? Who knows who they might be used against in 1o or 20 years time? Maybe us. Remember the Iranian F14's?:eek:

Secondly I really don't think it's in our long-term interests to cancel a criminal investigation because of economic blackmail, which is what the Saudi threats amount to. If we did that then we'd be no better than the French:yuk:

[Polikarpov]

Article on this on the BBC today.

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6206298.stm).


Defence firms fear Saudi fall-out

One of the largely untold stories about the cooling of relations between Saudi and the UK is the extent to which it has engendered near-panic in leading industrial and defence companies.

[Violet Club]

There is a depressing drift in this thread towards blaming the Guardian and the liberal enemy within for undermining the Saudi deal and/or BAE Systems. Somone even cited George Monbiot for Gawd's sake.

Before too long I'm sure some sensible Ppruner will get around to blaming the Kosovar asylum-seeking dole-scroungers too...comin over 'ere, stealing our defence contracts, depressin our shareolder value...we're only barely into Page 3 of this thread, after all.

If BAE is really unhappy with the reporting of this story has it gone to the PCC or even to Alan Rusbridger's office and at least made a complaint?

I would also suggest stepping back from all this for a moment to wonder what's really going on.

The Saudi regime is not deflected or affected one bit by public opinion or legal rulings in other people’s countries. IF a case, or even prosecutions, are brought against BAE in the UK the Saudis will shrug and say "that's your problem (infidel), we couldn't care less."

So is Saudi really concerned with the SFO case – or is the whole thing a giant negotiating ploy to push down the seemingly ridiculous price that the KSA is being charged for these aircraft?

Now I know the ridiculous price is one that the Saudis agreed to themselves – Saudi government spokesmen have even acknowledged prices in public, which is unprecedented...but maybe now they see a chance to save a few billion and perhaps also get an even better price out of Dassault at the same time.

The potential for a Rafale order in the KSA was on the cards before, during and after the much-celebrated 'deal' with BAE. Arguably, Rafale is an even better aircraft for the RSAF as it will deliver operational capability into service sooner than Eurofighter will...so is this whole Eurofighter fuss actually a giant smokescreen to do a better deal with Rafale, or to secure a bargain basement split order between Eurofighters and Rafales?

I just wonder if there is more going on here than injured Saudi pride.

VC

[steamchicken]

Those BAE jobs in the Magic Kingdom - I remember a sizable PPRuNe-M thread about the number of instructors who had quit and (under the terms of Al-Yamamah) been replaced by RAF secondees, presumably at taxpayers' expense. What is the current situation?

[India Delta Sierra]

Streamchicken
There have been a few instructors quitting but not a significant number. VERY few secondees - not costing taxpayer though as BAe Sys pick up their tab. RAF have no interest in sending crews to KSA and are under no pressure.
Agree with Violet Club - price has been mentioned in Saudi press and is considered to be too high, thus possible bargaining chip.
Lazer sound - I wouldn't worry too much if they're sold Typhoon - will look impressive but tactically utilised to full extent - I think not.

[Zoom]

Welcome to the real world of multiculturalism. The Anglo-American view of law is that it overrides custom and requires government officials to act in a disinterested fashion. The Saudi view of law is that the formal law must co-exist with the customary form of government. In other words, the giving of gifts to powerful people when seeking their favor is customary, and the idea that a government official may not profit while serving his country -- while undoubtedly the Anglo-American view of law -- is simply not theirs. There is, throughout the world, a profound tension between a wide variety of cultural norms. What is bribery in London is simply good manners elsewhere.
So the solution is obvious: change our law to suit the culture of the nation we are dealing with, especially as we are always exhorting our people to behave as our hosts do when working or living in their countries (except Papua New Guinea). (And especially if it means keeping votes for Labour.)
I once saw this quote by a business from that neck of the woods: 'Don't regard this as a bribe, but as a thank you gift for considering our proposal.'

[DaveyBoy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6180945.stm

Fighter planes fraud probe ends

The Serious Fraud Office has ended its corruption inquiry into a £6bn fighter planes deal with Saudi Arabia.

Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said the SFO was "discontinuing" its investigation into Britain's biggest defence company, BAE Systems.

The probe had related to the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia. BAE has denied any wrongdoing.

Lord Goldsmith told the Lords he thought that a prosecution "could not be brought".



So that's that then. Incidentally, Lord Goldsmith (who gave sizable donations to the Labour Party and was subsequently made a life peer, nominated by Tony Blair) is also the man who gets to decide whether the Prime Minister is guilty of any Cash-For-Honours type dealings. I wonder what he will find?

[reddeathdrinker]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6180945.stm


The Serious Fraud Office has ended its corruption inquiry into a £6bn fighter planes deal with Saudi Arabia.

Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said the SFO was "discontinuing" its investigation into Britain's biggest defence company, BAE Systems.

The probe had related to the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia. BAE has denied any wrongdoing.


Not surprising, really :) Buisness must go on, or the Saudis might buy French....

[airborne_artist]

I don't know why they blinked - the Saudis would never have bought from the French, as they certainly wouldn't trust them to run a long term project of the type required. Only the US and the UK will stand by the Saudis.

[Tourist]

Am I the only peron who doesn't have a problem with bribing in countries that require bribes to trade? The only difference between a bribe and commision is timing.

As far as I am concerned, our Foreign Office should be doing this sort of thing all the time in the interests of British trade.

Keep business honest within our borders, but screw the rest of the world.
If we don't, the French, Russians etc certainly will.

And before some of you get on your high horses, how many of the rest of you, like me, have had to grease a few palms to get airborne in Africa/Balkans?

[WasNaeMe]

"......I hope the SFO screw them big time"

Any more 'gobsh*te' ?? Mr Know it all... :hmm:

[WasNaeMe]

eal401,......I sincerely hope that BWoS will prove themselves totally innocent of the allegations which have been reported in the press....

'reported in the press'....

Which all it ever was...

Tch...

T'Bungling Baron obviously needs peeps the likes of you lot to run his company..... Not!!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The SFO could have been told to put up or shut up. Were they? no!. Very theatrically they have been told to drop it for the Public Good. The stain of implied guilt now remains without the means of removing it. In the background, the Fabians and bleeding heart Liberals will be busy chipping away at other aspects of our very successful arms industry; until they actually break it.

[WasNaeMe]

GBZ,
“The stain of implied guilt now remains without the means of removing it”..??

How, if (after how many years...??) the establishment can still not bring charges,... can any-one be tainted with guilt??....


BSJ"...will BAe have a case for claiming damage to its business through contiunued and unsubstantiated allegations against it?..."
Now that's worth a thought for shareholders.




Long may the 'Fabians and bleeding heart Liberals' continue chipping away.... Keeps us all on our toe's does it not?



Should have kept them shares Beags'

[Flying Lawyer]

I've been advising in this (not on the SFO side) for some time and, if I was to be completely mercenary (yes, I know all lawyers are assumed to be), I'd be disappointed the investigation has been terminated.
In fact, I think it was the correct decision.

The investigation has been going on for about 2 years and I estimate it would be about a further 18 month/2 years before the SFO would have been in a position to decide:
(1) whether there was any evidence of illegal payments,
(2) if so, whether there was sufficient evidence to prosecute anyone,
(3) if so, whether a prosecution was likely to be successful, and
(4) if so, whether it was in the public interest to bring a prosecution.

Bear in mind that it wasn’t until 2001 that UK corruption law was extended to include bribing foreign officials. Whatever did or didn’t happen before 2001 could not be an offence under a law which didn’t exist at the time.

This is only a hunch, but I think it unlikely there would have been sufficient (even if any) evidence to mount a prosecution.
Even if there was, I have very serious doubts whether it would be in the public interest to rake up old matters.

Given that there was no suggestion of personal gain, but allegedly things happened to obtain contracts for the benefit of this country, I suspect a jury would have been very reluctant to convict - even if there was evidence of illegal payments.

[Exrigger]

EW comments:
If people are breaking the law then they need to be dealt with. If we are to start allowing - or even supporting - selective application of the law, then where do you draw the line?

But this happens all the time in the UK, with regards to all manner of offenses from speeding to fraud etc, how the law/courts deal with you is dependant on who you are. Would you or I been treated like Jeffrey Archer for the same crime, I doubt it very much, how many others like him in Lincoln prison would of been allowed to wine and dine in Zuchinis most days. How many in power or in the entertainment or royalty who have actually been found guilty and still not been dealt with like the rest of us. Additionally BAES has not even been found guilty of any wrong doing and no proof exists so are we now just going to come out with the stock phrase 'no smoke without fire' and treat them as guilty anyway, trial by newspapers that allways get the facts and do not have hidden agendas. We have a hypocritical/inconsistent law and government in this country, what about Cherie BLiar she was found gulity in the newspapers of wrongdoing, how come she never ended up in court, oh I know one rule for one and one for those we don't like.

[Talk Wrench]

Seems that our illustrious leader has done something useful for once by his intervention into the SFO's inquiry pertaining our supply of Typhoon to the Saudi government.

Many jobs saved, red faces spared and good news for Baes shareholders no doubt.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/14/ubae114.xml


regards,

TW

[tucumseh]

Exrigger

“But this happens all the time in the UK…”

Quite right, and particularly in the MoD it seems. At one of those mandatory “management” courses we get sent on we had a discussion on this. People listed real “offences” they knew about that had gone unpunished, or were even condoned. The ones I could remember included fraud (multiple examples), theft, GBH, taking drugs, arson (or at least wilful fire raising), wheelman on a robbery, sexual assault on a minor, as well as the common everyday ones like maladministration and bullying/harassment. And some humourous ones as well, like the guy who was carpeted for being drunk on duty and while getting his bollocking threw up on the boss’s desk. Then got told he was being promoted the following week but would he clean up the mess first.

I'm afraid anyone who doesn't think his kind of thing goes on is very naive. Common knowledge in MoD. But, to paraphrase one Labour Party employee "It was a good day to try to bury this news".

[BattlerBritain]

I can concur with that.

Having worked at a rather large aerospace testing establishment about 10 years ago I was very surprised to discover that bungs were being made to very senior managers concerning contracts made to UK companies!!

How about a bung for supplying software which turned out to be on delivery (get this) shareware software!!

It even had the shareware logo on startup!!

I left very shortly afterwards after querying this practise and was told, in no uncertain terms, to keep my mouth shut.

Then a few years later, this time working for a 'French' defence contractor based in UK, we were bidding for a contract with a NATO partner only to lose an almost certain contract because we hadn't bribed the right official. And the gauling thing was, the Yanks got the contract 'coz they had!!

Of course this sort of thing goes on. If anybody thinks it doesn't then they are in cloud cuckoo land.

The only difference is that in this country we try and keep it under the carpet. At least in other countries (Mediterranean ones for example) it's above board. Perversely that seems more honest.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

How, if (after how many years...??) the establishment can still not bring charges,... can any-one be tainted with guilt??....
; my inference was, yes. The "no smoke without fire" principle will be on more the Guardian readers' minds. There were people on the BBC this morning already claiming a "cover-up". Presumably it is now up to BAE Sys to clear their name; but is it worth the aggravation?

Long may the 'Fabians and bleeding heart Liberals' continue chipping away.... Keeps us all on our toe's does it not?
Keeping us on our toes is one thing and, as you say, not necessarily bad. I believe, though, that these people have malicious intent and won't rest until our defence industries have been destroyed. It's easy to lapse into paranoia these days but I also believe that Noo Labour still contains some old fashioned Labour Party activists. These people would be happy to work on the inside to further the "swords to plough-shares" Socialist aims.

[BEagle]

So what Wasnaemeyeken and GBZ are saying is that it's OK to break the law of the land if it helps BWoS out, is it?

Not only 'liberals' have morals.

Good riddance to 't Bungling Baron's shares - I wouldn't wipe my backside on them!

[steamchicken]

So the cops and the SFO are "Old fashioned Labour Party activists who will stop at nothing to destroy our defence industries" (BTW: I reckon there are quite a few (Very) Old Labour activists at BAE Warton, Barrow, Govan, Rolls Barnoldswick, Hucknall, Derby etc, Babcocks Rosyth, Devonport, Vospers in Portsmouth Naval Base. Hint, blokes in overalls) but the Labour cabinet ministers are heroic patriots. Glad we got that one cleared up?

Or did he mean that Swiss Toni, Blair, Beckett and Goldsmith killed the investigation in order to give BAE such a bad reputation they would never get another contract, as part of their secret comsyp plot?

[Echo 5]

BEagle,

Your previous posts starring t'bungling baron and his flatulant pup have been very amusing. However,your persistant sniping at BAe as a whole would suggest to me (and others I believe) that you have a rather large chip on your shoulder. Were you rejected at some time by the Baron ?
As for the shares...........coming along nicely I believe.:)

[Exrigger]

Beagle comment:
So what Wasnaemeyeken and GBZ are saying is that it's OK to break the law of the land if it helps BWoS out, is it?

Not only 'liberals' have morals.

Good riddance to 't Bungling Baron's shares - I wouldn't wipe my backside on them!

So you appear to be another person who has an axe to grind about BAES , what part of 'no proof of wrong doing has been found after 2-3 years of wasted tax payers money and nobody has been even hinted at being charged with fraud or any other crime' do you not understand. Also re: have BAES got a case for defamation of character/wrongfull accusation/compensation, probably but I have found them to above stooping to the level of all their deriders.

[RileyDove]

If the SFO had no evidence or indeed chance of bringing any prosecutions why is it in the National interest to end the investigation? The government could quite happily have let it continue until it found nothing and said oh well!
The worrying thing to me is if the Saudi's had cancelled Typhoon we would have ended up with the things!

[BEagle]

"However,your persistant sniping at BAe as a whole would suggest to me (and others I believe) that you have a rather large chip on your shoulder. Were you rejected at some time by the Baron ?"

No.

As for the SFO investigation, I would opine that the issue is 'Not Proven'. Which is an entirely different thing to 't Baron being 'Not Guilty'....

As for Trust-me-Tone's part in the SFO dropping matters? One can only speculate.

[Brewster Buffalo]

...........

As for Trust-me-Tone's part in the SFO dropping matters? One can only speculate.

"Speaking at an EU summit in Brussels, Mr Blair said he had put to one side the effect on "thousands of British jobs and billions worth of pounds for British industry" - basing a decision on this would have potentially put Britain in conflict with international law.


He said his role as prime minister was to advise on what was in the best interests of the country."


The whole thing stinks......who is running this country??

[Exrigger]

Rileydove wrote:
If the SFO had no evidence or indeed chance of bringing any prosecutions why is it in the National interest to end the investigation? The government could quite happily have let it continue until it found nothing and said oh well!
The worrying thing to me is if the Saudi's had cancelled Typhoon we would have ended up with the things!

Because it would have just continued to be a waste of tax payers money, and the governement wastes enough of it without futile investigations. After putting up petrol and airfares to save the world, when in reality he needs money for his Education, Education, Education plot (as he failed with the billions wasted on the NHS) he needs all the money he can get. As we already have 36 and climbing, and the aircraft is better than anything else around, I dont see your point about us ending up with the things.
Also to Beagle 'not proven' is not the same as guilty and as it never came to court for anyone, then as this is a legal term only a court can pass judgement, oh hold on there is no evidence of wrong doing and nobody went to court and this was not from a governmet directive this came from the SFO itself over the preceding months.

[soddim]

I wonder if it really was the Saudis who thought of the threat that resulted in the end of the investigation?

Or did BWoS put them up to it when the investigators got too close?

Guess we'll never know the answer but, in any case, it worked.

[Exrigger]

Historically BAES has taken the stance of no action when attacked, so I don't think they would be clever enough, or particulary with the investigation stupid enough to risk getting caught at something as obvious of cooking up this scenerio with the Saudis.

[backseatjock]

BEagle says - "As for the SFO investigation, I would opine that the issue is 'Not Proven'. Which is an entirely different thing to 't Baron being 'Not Guilty'...."

Heard the Attorney General on BBC 5 Live last night making it very clear that aside from national interest and security considerations, there was 'very little evidence to suggest wrongdoing on the part of BAE' and certainly not enough evidence to consider a court case against it.

With statements like that and BAE's share price rising as reported yesterday, don't thin there is much it needs to do to clear its name. Investors seem to have made their minds up already.

I wonder where The Guardian will turn to next in its long-running campaign against BAE, or whether it might consider looking for real news?

[RileyDove]

Exrigger - a few points ! 'Better than anything else around' - erm are you really sure about that? Certainly handy for air displays but helpful to the guys who need air support on the ground I think not! As for the investigation - well you obviously work at the SFO and know exactly what they have been doing for the past few years! Do you think they might have regular progress meetings to see if they actually have a chance of a prosecution? But hey Lord Goldsmith has decided no so he must be right!

[Exrigger]

Rileydove:

Thanks for your response: With regards to my comment as to the Typhoon being the best thing around, I suppose I better qualify this by saying flying characteristic wise it is superb, but untill it is NATO cleared for weapons loading/firing and the RAF can use it to its full mission capability, also if it is usied in conflict it will then have the opportunity of showing wtat it is capable of doing exactly what it says on the tin. If you look at the Harrier, Jaguar, Tornado all were decried at the beginning but now they have proved themselves in confilcts. Also two incidences with the American Airforce suprised and shocked them (by the way this was there reporting not ours) at the capabilities of the Typhoon.
As to my being part of the SFO, I am not, but I do watch the news, read the reports published by BAES (I know they will obviously lie to their shareholders and staff), read the comments that the SFO leak (of course they will lie as the government and the Saudis told them to), really we cannot argue against the scale of evidence from the newspapers and the knowledgable posters on this forum. With this weight of evidence it is obvious that BAES is a warmongering, fraudulent company with no scruples or ethics and should be burned at the stake and put out of business this instant.

[GreenKnight121]

And provided proof that in the UK there is one law for the poor, and the law is up for sale to the rich.

[Climebear]

Seems that our illustrious leader has done something useful for once by his intervention into the SFO's inquiry pertaining our supply of Typhoon to the Saudi government.
Many jobs saved, red faces spared and good news for Baes shareholders no doubt.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/14/ubae114.xml
regards,
TW

I believe that the PM did not say that he was doing this to save BAE Systems and other jobs but because the ripples from the investigation were threatening national security. Although it pains me to say it, I have seen the evidence to support his claim before the announcement was made (though I doubt that it will not be made public for a significant number of years). As ever, the media has dissappeared down the wrong rabbit whole chasing the Typhoon deal (mind you, given the PM's track record I wouldn't have believed him on face value either). This is not a decision to protect BAE Systems - they just 'got lucky'.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Plus, we get to stay friends with a group of people that threatened to stop sharing intelligence on Al Quaeda with us if we continued to investigate!

Yep, we certainly did the 'right' thing. :ugh:

[GreenKnight121]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6180945.stm

some exerpts: (underlining and bolding are mine)

"Lord Goldsmith said he thought that a prosecution "could not be brought". He said the decision had been made in the wider public interest, which had to be balanced against the rule of law."


"Lord Goldsmith also told peers that Prime Minister Tony Blair had agreed that the continuation of the investigation would cause "serious damage" to relations between the UK and Saudi Arabia.


"Lord Goldsmith said that both Mr Blair and Defence Secretary Des Browne had argued that carrying on the investigation would harm intelligence and diplomatic co-operation with Saudi Arabia, in turn damaging the UK's national security."


"BBC business editor Robert Peston says that major UK companies - both arms firms and other manufacturers - have voiced fears that they stood to lose other lucrative deals should the probe have continued.

The SFO said its decision had been taken "following representations that have been made both to the Attorney General and the Director of the SFO concerning the need to safeguard national and international security".


It added: "No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest."


"Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman Simon Hughes said: "From the moment investigations began, it was clear that they would not be popular in Saudi Arabia. "But to pull the plug halfway through, and when real progress was just being made, is the worst of all possible outcomes."


"But Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: "We made it clear that because of the commercial issues involved we wanted the SFO to make a rapid decision about whether to continue their inquiry or whether to bring it to an end. "Having decided there is no case to answer, it will be welcomed by all those concerned."



So, just what is the real story... does the Lib Dem voice have a point? Was proof starting to show up?

When "Lord Goldsmith said he thought that a prosecution "could not be brought", does that mean that they weren't finding evidence, or that there would be no charges brought by the Attorney General (see above statements) no matter what evidence was found!

What is clear is that tremendous pressure was brought on the SFO... including representations that the investigation constituted a security risk, and therefore continuing could be considered an "act against National Security".

With that position, could treason charges have been brought against the SFO if they had continued the investigation?

Were they told "stop, or face charges yourself"?


Or was it a recognition of the fact that if there will be no prosecution no matter the findings, why spend time and money continuing?



And power wins over law again!

[timex]

And provided proof that in the UK there is one law for the poor, and the law is up for sale to the rich.

Kettle calling Pot.......

[Double Zero]

Climebear,

when I see phrases such as " I Have saw the evidence" I get a mental picture of a less than honest type with a chainsaw - having worked 'for' BAe ( it was with in J.F. days ) I can only think this telling...
DZ

[Climebear]

Thanks for pointing out the error - edited to correct. Oh and I do not work for BAE.

[BEagle]

From the BBC:-

Legal move over halted BAE probe

Campaigners are threatening legal action against the UK government after investigators dropped a probe into a series of arms deals with Saudi Arabia.
The Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Corner House labelled BAE Systems, the firm accused of corruption, as bullies. BAE strongly denies wrongdoing.

Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said he felt the Serious Fraud Office inquiry would not have led to a prosecution.

SFO head Robert Wardle said he had "a different view" to Lord Goldsmith.
Mr Wardle told the Financial Times newspaper: "There is no guarantee that charges will be brought until you've completed an investigation."

'Powerful body'

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Lester said Britain had to move quickly to change the law to stop political interference in corruption investigations.
"British Aerospace are an enormously powerful body, more powerful than many governments," he told the BBC.
"What is so serious here is that the rule of law is threatened and the reputation of the office of attorney general when there is outside political interference of this kind."
Explaining why his group was taking legal action, Nicholas Gilby from Campaign Against the Arms Trade said the SFO should have been allowed to complete its inquiries.
"The government's commitment to fighting fraud means nothing if BAE Systems is placed above the law," he said.
"Democracy must not give way to bullying by arms companies."

The Attorney General's Office said it was unable to comment on "hypothetical" legal situations such as the possibility of action by campaigners.

The SFO had been studying the al-Yamamah arms deal, thought to have earned BAE more than £40bn over the past 20 years.

BAE has supplied fighter jets, missiles and helped to construct an airbase for the Saudis.

The company was accused of setting up a slush fund to sweeten the deal - something they have strongly denied.

The end of the inquiry came amid repeated suggestions that the Saudis were angered by the probe and were threatening to pull out of current plans to buy 72 Eurofighter planes from BAE for £6bn.

On Thursday Attorney General Lord Goldsmith announced the SFO was dropping the probe, and said he thought that a prosecution "could not be brought".

He added that the decision had been made in the wider public interest, which had to be balanced against the rule of law.

Lord Goldsmith insisted that no weight has been given to commercial interests or to the UK's national economic interest.

'Sorry episode'

And Prime Minister Tony Blair also said national security had dictated the SFO's decision.

Although current Conservative MPs labelled it a "sorry episode", former Tory defence minister Jonathan Aitken disagreed.

Mr Aitken had responsibility for overseas defence sales during the late 1980s.
He said even if the allegations against BAE were true, it was the correct decision to end the investigation in order to maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia.

Shares in BAE Systems were up almost 7% at the close of trading on Friday.

[Pontius Navigator]

It takes years to build a reputation for integrity, need I say more?

[BEagle]

More in today's Sunday Times:

Leant on and lumbered — how Goldsmith ‘put the state before the law’

Lobbying by ministers and spy chiefs doomed the ‘slush fund’ probe, write Isabel Oakeshott and David Leppard

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2508436_1,00.html

And here:

Fraud chief: this is Saudi blackmail
David Leppard and David Cracknell

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2508464,00.html

And again here:

Cloak, dagger, bluff, blackmail, and Tony's nervous protector
by Simon Jenkins

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2508314,00.html

[LeCrazyFrog]

Yet again, he manages to get away with it using the same old tactics... Used by others before him by the way...
- War in Irak : Part of the "Global War on Terror"
- Stopping the SFO inquiry: Part of the (sorry...) VITAL part of the "Global War on Terror"
- Probably the "cash for honours" is another secret trick to win the war on terror, but we don't know yet..

Yes, everybody else (US, France, etc...) does bribery to sell arms around the world. However they are much better skilled at it than the Brits: When there is some noise about it, they just shut up, let the storm fade away and by the time the inquiry is complete, the deal is done and the dealers are long gone enjoying their bribes in some Caribbean islands...

Amateurs come up with excuses like:
- "Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel and Palestine. That strategic interest comes first."
- "It was claimed scrapping the contract for 72 Typhoon fighters would threaten 50,000 jobs" 50,000???? c'mooon...
- or the already mentioned "global war"...
:D :D

At least now, the British government will have to drop its patronising "we-are-the-only-law-abiders-in-this-world-of-crooks" stance...They've become like the rest...:ok:

[Ewan Whosearmy]

However they are much better skilled at it than the Brits: When there is some noise about it, they just shut up, let the storm fade away and by the time the inquiry is complete, the deal is done and the dealers are long gone enjoying their bribes in some Caribbean islands...
:


LCF

I agreed with much of your post apart from this bit. The Yanks (Boeing, actually) have recently been caught paying-off important people, and the French (Dassault) were also recently caught stuffing cash into the pocket of a South Korean Air Force Colonel. You guys aren't as good at your illegal practises as you might like to think.

[GreenKnight121]

And when those US government officials and companies were caught, officials (and company senior officers) lost their jobs (and some went to prison), and companies had to pay fines in the hundreds of millions of dollars and lost contracts (Boeing was banned from bidding on space-related contracts for over a year, during which time several large contracts were awarded to competitors for one example, the cancellation of the KC-767 lease deal and putting the KC-135 replacement project open to Airbus to bid in on for another).

That seems to be just a bit better than the current situation in the UK, now doesn't it?

[Pontius Navigator]

Course Lockheed would never have done anything like that would they?



BTW, who made the Dutch Starfighters?:}

[BEagle]

Not to mention the German F-104G and the Japanese P-3 and TriStar deals.....or the Egyptian C-130 bribery case.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

That seems to be just a bit better than the current situation in the UK, now doesn't it?

It certainly does sound better.

A scan of my posts in this thread would have told you that I don't agree with what our government has decided to do regarding this affair, so next time keep your knickers on, mate.

[buoy15]

Investigation stopped in the interests of "National Security"

Requests for the present findings to be published - "Not in the public interest"

I thought National Security was in the Public Interest - am I missing something here?

[Jackonicko]

"That seems to be just a bit better than the current situation in the UK, now doesn't it?"

Superficially, perhaps.

The difference is that there was NO EVIDENCE OF ANY WRONGDOING BY BAE in this case, and that our most senior law officers judged that there were no charges to answer, and that there was no chance of a prosecution.

The other difference is that in Al Y BAE were operating as scrupulously as they could, trying to keep on the right side of the barely perceptible line between gifts/commissions and bribes in a culture in which the giving of gifts is seen as being entirely proper and honourable - and were not engaging in outright corruption on a domestic US programme (KC-767) nor in offering bribes to influence officials in European NATO countries, where gifts are not seen in the same light at all.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

The difference is that there was NO EVIDENCE OF ANY WRONGDOING BY BAE in this case

That's not at all the case. The truth is that the investigation was not completed - and unless you were helping the police conduct their investigation and were privvy to their files, you simply cannot say definitively that there was 'no evidence'.


our most senior law officers judged that there were no charges to answer, and that there was no chance of a prosecution.

No, they didn't. Political pressure led our AG (a man who, incidentally, has already been called into question about the sudden change in legal advice he gave Tony Blair on the eve of the Iraq war) to call-off the investigation; it certainly does not appear as though the SFO and senior police officers got together and said, 'let's call it a day, because we can't find any wrong doing' - they were told what to do.

As someone here has already pointed out, you can't state that there was 'no chance of prosecution'. Why? Because the investigation a) was not concluded, and b) because you have absolutely no idea what the SFO had, or had not, found up until the point they were ordered to cease investigating (and nor do I).

[buoy15]

"No charges could be brought until the investigation was complete, the SFO Chairman said so, Goldsmith and Bliar decided so!"

BWoS spokesman, Sheik Ya Wallet

[GreenKnight121]

And since the investigation will never be completed...


Ewan, I was not responding to just your post, but to several "every one else is doing it, why can't we" and ""the US is just as bad... OK, much worse" posts.

To the others
Yes, there have been a number of such dealings in the past, which were not dealt with then... to the dishonor of both those who participated and those who looked the other way.

That does NOT mean that "since they got away with it we should too"... nor does it mean that "since the law was ignored then, we should ignore it now"!

Nothing will ever change unless we decide to change it, too many of the posters here appear to have taken the position of "why bother trying to change anything, let it all go on as before".

If that attitude had been held by our fore-fathers, slavery would still be the norm throughout the world, Nobles would still rule by "Divine right" (and be able to kill any commoner they wished without penalty), medicine, etc. would still be "try this root extract, it will cure your son's demonic possession" and "sheep's bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes", and the rich could pay their way out of any legal situation!

[DESPERADO]

I am surprised by the slightly pompous attitude of some of the posters. It is a little arrogant to suggest that just because there was an investigation BAE must be guilty of something.
I am not a fan of BAE, particularly as I am itimately involved with dealing with their middle and senior management in my current role. They are not team players by any stretch. It appears to have escaped their attention that we are at war and are just using the current conflicts to rip us off for as much as they can get.
That said, when it comes to multi-billion pound trade deals with nations that are important to us economically and strategically I think we have to maintain a healthy dose of pragmatism. Those of you baying for BAE blood would presumably be happy if they went to the dogs or lost a contract of this nature because that is what they deserve.
Presumably you would be happy to hand out the P45's to those who would lose their jobs as a result of a failure in realpolitik between the UK and KSA so that you could feel smug on top of your moral pile. Admittedly the number of 50,000 jobs bandied about is ridiculous but there are significant UK jobs, in the thousands, riding on this.
Anybody who believes that slightly dubious marketing and PR practices that may happen when dealing with nations outside our comfortable western clique have obviously never tried to win a contract in a former soviet republic or any number of other countries that we could all name.
We cannot be so arrogant as to judge everyone by our own blue sky standards - different cultures do things differently. 'When in Rome' (or Riyadh etc). Perhaps those of you out there with the correct moral compass that I am clearly lacking would prefer that we boycotted completely any nation without our rigorous adherence to democracy (the West Lothian question, NHS postcode lottery, legal subservience to unelected EU commissions etc etc are not really a shining beacon are they) - it is all relative.
To clarify, I don't like BAE but I support their workers and the strength that they do give to British industry and technology.
I think the current government is the most morally bankrupt, undemocratic and corrupt government in living memory.
All that said, it was the correct decision to drop the SFO inquiry for the UK as a whole.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

I am surprised by the slightly pompous attitude of some of the posters. It is a little arrogant to suggest that just because there was an investigation BAE must be guilty of something. <snip>
All that said, it was the correct decision to drop the SFO inquiry for the UK as a whole.

Well, we'll never know 'if BAe was guilty of something' because the investigation did not reach a natural conclusion. So, all of the countries that we preach to about how they should be more like us, and how corruption should be stamped-out, and how the government should be accountable to its people etc. can all now turn around and tell us that we have one rule for them, and one for ourselves.

I am certainly pragmatic - the very fact that we have to sell arms to Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, despite our pretend stance on the importance of human rights, requires a degree of pragmatism if you don’t want to be utterly exasperated with this country’s duplicity - but I also think that when we're being watched by every pair of eyes to see whether we practise what we preach, we should take it on the chin and then move on.

Moreover, I don't like the idea that we have given a country that threatened to stop sharing information on Al Quaeda with us if we carried on investigating what it wants. How many countries would the US allow to get away with that? None – they’d have added them to the axis of evil list and told them they were screwed. We give-in, and do a good job of looking like the poodle that so many portray us as sniffing around dog $hit looking for whatever morsel of food we can get.

I actually share your sentiments about the welfare of the men and women employed by BAe, but I don't do so at the expense of allowing a company to break the law simply because it could 'make lots of money and allow it to retain its work force'.

I am not baying for anyone's blood, but i'd have liked to have been able to turn around to detractors of this country - and there are many who see us as hypocrites - and told them that we had done the right thing in investigating it, and found nothing to warrant further action (or, conversely, that the individuals concerned had been called to account). I don't care whether they’d have believed me; so long as I believed it myself, that would be all that mattered.

[Shot to the Beach]

How many countries would the US allow to get away with that? None – they’d have added them to the axis of evil list and told them they were screwed.

A little naive I would suggest!

Remember you only know what the press what you to know about this matter. 'BAE innocent of corruption' would hardly give the pinko journos an excuse to bash them now would it. There is more at stake here than UK Plc being able to have the pompous attitude of we're whiter-than-white, whilst every other arms dealing country does what is required to seal the deal.

[DESPERADO]

Ewan, I don't think we are very far apart in our opinions, just a subtley different approach. BAE stinks as a faceless corporation because, as I said before, the management doesn't do anything at all that doesn't suit BAE - I reiterate, I have lots of current first hand knowledge of the 'not team players' attitude.
But, there is an enormous amount at stake here that to my mind outweighs our desire to give BAE a kicking. It is in the national interest for any number of reasons (jobs, war on terrrrrrr, global strategic issues, economics). These things are a lot to give up so that we can strut around telling everyone how morally superior we are. The French will be impressed as they sneak in an take the contract. We live in a corrupt world, you only have to look at the internal workings of the EU and the commission. The US is not above applying significant pressure in other ways to get what they want.
If we were to continue this inquiry and antagonise the KSA into walking away from the contract, and perhaps diplomatic relations, the rest of the world will look upon is with pity not applaud our naive piety.

[backseatjock]

Ewan - assume you have more facts at your disposal than the Attorney General who, as i/c SFO, would have a little more access to relevant information than you.

I may not be the biggest fan of BAE myself but there would appear to be very little evidence, if any at all , to support the accusations of corruption involving BAE. Lots of suggestion (by The Guardian mainly) and an apparent regular flow of information to one news reporter in general (how ethical can that be) to keep the flow of interest here.

If this was you and no evidence was found to charge you, woudl you be happy with everyone assuming you were guilty. I guess not.

Just because BAE is a multi-national business does not make the situation any different. Innocent until proved guilty is the way our democracy works.

Note with interest that head of SFO, who so violently disagrees with the decision of Attorney General, has not fallen on his sword and resigned. Would that not have been expected, if he so firmly believed BAE was guilty of a crime?

And for him to say that he is sure that if the inquiry were to last for another 18 months, evidence would be found is quite rediculous. Not sure of any case for the prosecution that works in that way.

Agree with many media commentators. If the SFO has real, hard, factual evidence (whatever that may be) it should present it. Seems like it did, to the A-G and that his decision was not sufficient for a court case.

Through friends in the industry, I understand The Guardian has its teams digging around 'for dirt on BAE Systems' in both Czech Republic and South Africa again. Shall we start a sweep to see when the next article appears?

None of us, except The Guardian newspaper it seems, have an inside track into the workings of the SFO investigation. Trial by media, which appears to be its favoured option, is not admissible in court though!

[Bo Nalls]

Seems the septics are looking at the case with a view to claiming jurisdiction under its Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act.


The US could claim jurisdiction over the case under its Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) because the shares of BAE Systems, the company at the heart of the inquiry, are traded in New York as American Depository Receipts.
It would also be able to act because the SFO's two-year investigation found evidence to suggest that alleged payments of £300 million were made to an unnamed Saudi official via American banks.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/23/nbae23.xml

[Exrigger]

So those across the pond who are whiter than white and never do any wrong are going to poke their noses into business that is nothing to do with them (oh hold on, nothing new there then). I suppose their pet puppy will roll over and have his tummy tickled when whistled.

[soddim]

Perhaps it is more significant for BAE that all their business in the United States will almost certainly be affected. Could be that the Saudi contract is small fry compared with future lost business.

[Exrigger]

I am inclined to agree, they have achieved quite a large business base in the States. I just wonder if this will also turn out the same way as the SFO investigation: Once again accusations of hiding the truth because of US/British economic interests being compromised when the enquiry is called off due to no evidence, shades of having been down this route spring to mind.

[jindabyne]

Merry Xmas chaps.
It's over - done, dusted, and AY will proceed. As, like it or not, will BAES US business; do try and appreciate that BAe no longer exists (if you can really grasp the meaning of that). No doubt, however, the more self-indulgent elements of the UK media will continue to pursue their 'campaign'. From all quarters of industrial competition (not just Western), gifts will still be given (albeit perhaps with greater introspection), treats will still be offered, and 'bribes', as ever, will not be made by the more civilised. To all those out there that still imagine that these multi-billion contracts are won through bribery - dream on! Long may the West do business with Arab trading partners; it serves to prosper our all economies, in spades. If, in so doing, you are not able to come to terms with the customs of those countries, tough (IMHO). Let's be altruistic, but let's also be realstic.

[Exrigger]

jindabyne: I realise now in my haste I typed BAE instead of BAES, I should no better :O. I agree with your sentiments, to all enjoy the festive season.

Regards

Mick

[FormerFlake]

Of course our US cousins would have nothing to gain by the Typhoon contract falling through.

[jindabyne]

Mick,

Re-BAes etc - wasn't having a pop at you. Have a good one ---

[Exrigger]

jindabyne:

Cheers, I realised that :), and have a great festive break.

Mick

[soddim]

And a very merry Christmas to you too, jindabyne.

I doubt if anybody who supports British industry would argue that BWoS should not have been very generous to those who helped them sell to the Saudis but I would hesitate to approve of what are alleged to be very hefty back-handers of the magnitude that even the Mafia or the drug cartels would kill for.

Incidentally, I understand that Gordon Brown is to take 2% of the latest deal as an 'arrangement fee' - sounds like a similar case of 'bribery' to me!

Happy New Year in which nobody gets found out but Blair leaves!

[BEagle]

Princely price of the ‘slush fund’ girls

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1596756.ece

See today's Sunday Times for yet more allegations concerning BWoS and the Saudis....... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1596693.ece

Far from 'Done and dusted', Jindabyne, methinks, as this brief extract would seem to indicate:

'Last autumn, after the Saudis threatened Downing Street that they would halt the contract and suspend diplomatic and intelligence ties unless it was stopped, Tony Blair intervened to end Britain’s biggest-ever bribery inquiry. Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, told parliament the decision was made “in the national interest”.

Robert Wardle, the director of the SFO, said he had decided that the 2½ year probe could no longer be justified. He had been told that if intelligence links with the Saudis broke down, Al-Qaeda would cause “death on the streets”.

But opposition MPs and watchdogs were suspicious. Many in Whitehall, and at the SFO, suspected Blair, Goldsmith and others had simply caved in to Saudi blackmail.

“Goldsmith’s a bastard,” said a friend of Wardle. “This business showed he’s the most political attorney-general in decades.”

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the industrial countries grouping that monitors corruption in trade, smelt a rat. Under a treaty, inquiries cannot be stopped for economic or political reasons.

The OECD is planning to send a team to Britain to interview Goldsmith and officials about the decision'

[Echo 5]

Beags,

12 hours since your last ( unedited) post and no-one is biting so I will, just to humour you.

Your paranoia regarding BWoS really is rather sad especially since you yourself in a previous post ( which I cannot be Arrsed to search for) admitted that you have never had any dealings with BAe. That being the case you seem to have one hell of a chip on your shoulder. Take a break mate and give us all a break.

Sorry for the belated response but some of us have to work weekends.

Jindabyne,
Further our previous PMs..............All signed up and looking forward to year end. :ok:

[JessTheDog]

I heard a story (from a very credible source) about BAe paying for two "call girls" to "escort" a very senior officer of an Asian nation. The very senior officer declined the escort and the call girls said "we're paid for....what do we do now?" I wonder if they are the same ladies.....:}

[soddim]

I wonder what agenda is being pursued by the Times. We know more or less what has taken place and we know why. Whether or not we agree with it the deal is done and is consigned to history.

Time to move on and count the pennies (and jobs) from the Typhoon deal.

[BEagle]

I don't think that The Times has any specific agenda, beyond reporting the facts.

Bliar may have caved in to 'foreign' coercion to direct the SFO to stop its investigations, but the OECD is made of sterner stuff and , it seems, is determined to get to the truth.

If the OECD discover that Bliar lent on the SFO through political or economic reasons, the effect on international trade will be very serious. But if their investigations show that there were no bribes, no slush fund to entertain visiting foreigners with 'escorts' in opulent London hotels and no impropriety then fine. Good news for all concerned.

However, I simply cannot sibscribe to the view that it's OK to stop being concerned about the ethics of any company just because 'British jobs are at stake' or for whatever other lame excuse is trotted out by those who don't want the truth to be known.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Soddim

Does 'the truth' count as an agenda?

[soddim]

Of course the 'truth' counts but there were no facts in the Times article to indicate any breach of the 2002 act - what happened in 2001 might have been as described but does not show that anything illegal happened.

My personal opinion is that there is probably a lot of dirt waiting to be dug up and what I saw in Saudi does not reassure me of the company's innocence.

However, rightly or wrongly, the SFO investigation has been stopped for political reasons and adding fuel to the fire for the OECD is not going to affect Bliar and Co but will adversely affect this country's reputation and could still cost us dearly in jobs and sales.

There are very good reasons right now for retaining those few 'friends' we have left in the Middle East and it must be important to maintain our relationship with the Saudi Royals if we are to stand any hope of dealing effectively with both Iran and Iraq.

[BEagle]

"....rightly or wrongly, the SFO investigation has been stopped for political reasons."

How can that possibly be 'rightly'. Are you saying that political blackmail is OK if it helps to sell TypHoons or whatever?

No wonder the OECD is breathing down Bliar, Goldsmith and 't Bungling Barons' necks..... But, as I keep saying, if all allegations are false then there's nothing for them to fear.

If.....

[soddim]

BEagle, please have the good grace to admit that even you do not know what the outcome would be if we lost all co-operation of the Saudis.

If the outcome would have been disaster in our Iraqi misadventure, inability to stop the nuclear maniacs in Iran from trying to annihilate Israel and failure to stop terrorist attacks in this country, then the Bliar brigade was probably right to stop the SFO investigation.

If not, they were wrong.

I don't know the answer and nor do you.

[BEagle]

BAE Systems, Britain's biggest defence contractor, has confirmed confirmed to the Attorney General that "support services" were paid for and provided to senior Saudi Arabian officials as part of a major arms deal, according to a report yesterday.

See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/aa91a592-e2e4-11db-a1c9-000b5df10621.html

According to the Financial Times, BAE declined to comment on the material published by the attorney general's office, and denied any wrongdoing.

The SFO is reportedly examining BAE Systems' dealings in the Czech Republic, Romania, Chile, Qatar, South Africa and Tanzania.

[BEagle]

Attempt to oust legal expert heading European corruption investigation


A very interesting article in today's Grauniad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,,2064191,00.html

[BEagle]

And yet more trouble for 't Bungling Baron:

Now Switzerland launches bribery probe into BAE

From today's Sunday Times at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1782035.ece

Smoke..... Fire.....??

[Echo 5]

Beagles one man campaign to bring about the downfall of the UK aerospace industry goes on, and on, and on, and on,and zzzzzzzzzzz:bored:

[BEagle]

Little sir echo pops up again with another useful post.....

A campaign againt sleaze, spin, corruption, blackmail and attemped cover ups - perhaps. And if BWoS are exonerated, absolutely tremendous.

But Bliar and Goldsmiths' parts in this..... Hmmm.....:hmm:

[Echo 5]

And if BWoS are exonerated, absolutely tremendous.
Not sure if I detect a trace of sarcasm or insincerity there. :hmm:

[soddim]

They cannot be exonerated without concluding the investigation so I suspect they might not be totally happy that the threats from the Saudis persuaded Anthony Liar to call it off.

They are now having more difficulties with the American side of the business as a result and that is where they expect to make most of their future earnings.

[airsound]

Beagles one man campaign to bring about the downfall of the UK aerospace industry goes on, and on, and on, and on,and zzzzzzzzzzz

Don't know about BEagle, but said industry's doing a pretty good job on its own.

Remind me again - how many whole aircraft do we build in Britain these days?

airsound

[Echo 5]

how many whole aircraft do we build in Britain these days?

Hawk. Dozens of them. Maybe hundreds.

Typhoon. Final assembly for UK and some Export customers. Could be hundreds in the long term.

[airsound]

Hawk. Dozens of them. Maybe hundreds.
Yes quite right - more than 900 in fact. Very successful. But the Hawker-Siddeley Hawk first flew 33 years ago, and even then it was the first new all-British aircraft for some time. Same year as Tornado first flew, which was of course nowhere near the first international cooperative venture, what with Jaguar, Lynx, Concorde etc.

Typhoon. Final assembly for UK and some Export customers. Could be hundreds in the long term.
Some Typhoons may be finally screwed together here, but no way could you call it all-British. Perhaps I should have added that phrase ‘all-British’ to my comment - but I kind of thought that that was implicit in what I said. Sorry if not.

Let’s not forget that BAE Systems recently pulled out of one of the most successful aviation projects in the world, Airbus, preferring instead to build armoured vehicles and submarines. As I intended to suggest, the British aviation industry is nowadays a pale shadow of what was one of the greatest in the world.

airsound

[Echo 5]

airsound,
Some Typhoons may be finally screwed together here, but no way could you call it all-British. Perhaps I should have added that phrase ‘all-British’ to my comment

Sorry, I knew what you meant. Just me being snotty. Mind you, no way anyone can say that JSF is all American. Partly British wouldn't you agree ?

How's that for a bit of thread creep. No doubt Beags will come up with some more damning evidence as to BWoS' misdemeanours very soon.:)

[airsound]

no way anyone can say that JSF is all American. Partly British wouldn't you agree ?

How's that for a bit of thread creep.

Yes, I think you're right - it is a bit thread-creepy. But on the other hand, this is a rumour network, and although creeping threads can take us further than the originator intended, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Hope you agree, Mods

Btw, yes, good to be involved with F-35. Much better than not.

airsound

[BEagle]

Just to keep Echo 5 happy:

See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1813808.ece

Police investigating alleged corruption by Britain’s biggest defence company sought access to Downing Street’s computer system to trawl for e-mails sent by and to Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair’s chief of staff.

They suspected that Lord Powell, his brother, an adviser to BAE Systems, the firm at the centre of the inquiry, was lobbying Downing Street aides to have the investigation stopped.

[Echo 5]

Just to keep Echo 5 happy:
Echo 5 appreciates that kind thought. Thank you BEags.:)

[BEagle]

Yet more interesting information from the Grauniad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles/story/0,,2097149,00.html

Here's an extract:

"It is alleged by insider legal sources that the money was paid to Prince B***** with the knowledge and authorisation of Ministry of Defence officials under the Blair government and its predecessors. For more than 20 years, ministers have claimed they knew nothing of secret commissions, which were outlawed by Britain in 2002."

:hmm:

[Jackonicko]

1) Whatever gets UK plc business, in my view, and we're talking about a £40 Bn deal that kept god only knows how many high value jobs, and the tax on which kept all of us in work!

Everyone else was bribing the Saudis, whereas all anecdotal evidence (even from BAE's competitors) is that BAE recognised that there was a line between bribery and the normal gift-giving culture/use of middlemen that is endemic in the region, and always tried to stay on the right side of that line.

All evidence suggests that BAE has done nothing wrong and that payments made were approved by the MoD.

2) These payments are (ancient) history, and relate to Al Yamamah/Al Yamamah II, and NOT to the ongoing Typhoon deal.

3) The Guardian has been mounting a cynical and unscrupulous campaign against BAE Systems, and the individual journalist involved is deserving of the opprobrium that PPRuNe usually reserves for journos. It is profoundly uncomfortable to see fellow PPRuNers parroting this kind of leftist drivel, which aside from being utter shi.te is part of a profoundly anti-defence and anti-military underlying agenda.

[eal401]

Presumably you would be happy to hand out the P45's to those who would lose their jobs as a result of a failure in realpolitik between the UK and KSA so that you could feel smug on top of your moral pile.
I suspect BEagle would be overjoyed to do that.

His constant anti-BAE stance shows he cannot possible have any regard for those employed by the company or those affected in the wider context. (I am assuming he has even a vague understanding of economics to comprehend that - big assumption. Then again, he does list "aerospace consultant" in his profile, so he will be used to the economics of ripping people off for f*ck all return)

For other posters:

I can only apologise for those who suffer dealing with BAE senior management, try coping with them day by day! Incompetence seems to be the requirement for career development here!! It can be very frustrating as a subordinate, if it is how customer see us, that is even worse.

[Wrathmonk]

eal401

To be fair I don't think Beags is totally anti-BAe. Just one particular man (a former CINC STC....) who works for them, thats all! What happened then BEags - dis the nasty man steal your lunch money in the playground!:E

Joking aside, a reminder that this topic is the subject of Panorama on Mon 11 Jun.

[Double Zero]

I agree totally with the remarks that BAe management couldn't organise a c*** up in a brothel - and the only reason Wart On is still going is because they stole the Hawk production line from Dunsfold.

Yes, I'm going to mention the Sea Harrier - the last British fighter.

The world would have been a better place if the whippet-botherers had got the push, and Dunsfold carried on ( BTW I left before it closed, as I couldn't believe what passed for BAe 'management' in the later years).

This in hindsight will make the cancellation of the TSR2 seem nothing.

It's hardly surprising they had to pay mega-bucks to get someone daft enough to buy the Tornado - have you heard the reports from GW1&2 especially concerning Saudi practices & the RAF distancing themselves with all haste ?!! Not that their own results were too wonderful...

As for a post I read the other day asking why a GR1 Tornado with JP233 hadn't been organised to attack Port Stanley in '82, two answers - how many tankers would that have been, 'Black Buck' was considered on the edge !

Also I worked at ranges where JP233 was tried - it did virtually no damage & was regarded a total lemon, it's only value was the deterrent effect of delayed action.

[Wrathmonk]

Double Nothing

This is the second thread where you have trashed the RAF Tornado contribution to Ops. As JP233 sorties accounted for a miniscule amount of actual attacks during GW1 and 2 (not forgetting Kosovo, Op DESERT FOX, attacks in self defence during Op SOUTHERN WATCH) perhaps you would be so good as to provide evidence, or a link to evidence, to support your comment

Not that their own results were too wonderful...

:mad:

[OCCWMF]

Let me see if I got this right......

Investment £1bn
Return £40bn

Pray continue.

[Double Zero]

Wrathmonk,

I can point you to range personnel who recorded the JP233 non-results first hand;

as for other lessons, how about being shot down in droves on the first night of GW1, then being held back behind more useful a/c...

Oh and being embarassed by passing airliners at medium altitude - even Tornado drivers have described it as a slab-sided piece of junk - it's only able to do it's work now by stand-off weapons & decent targetting systems - so might as well be a Dominie, particularly the F3.

Other than paying people to take them, a huge export success ?

[Exrigger]

Double Zero:
as for other lessons, how about being shot down in droves on the first night of GW1

The figures I have is two Tornados (1x RAF, 1x Italian) on the 18th Jan 91 (first day of the war), 1 on the 20th, 1 on the 23rd and 1 on the 25th. Hardly shot down in in droves is it. The total aircraft losses for all coalition aircraft between the 18th Jan and the 14th Feb was 27, again hardly droves.

[Wrathmonk]

Double Nought (or is it WEBF.....)

You're right - what was I thinking. The GR4s did nothing in GW2. They didn't fly numerous sorties at low level in support of the counter SCUD campaign in the Western Desert, haven't been on constant ops for 15 years, can't land back on with bombs they don't drop....

And of course no SHARs were lost in the Falklands campaign. All propoganda ....

T:mad:r

[Double Zero]

GR4's during GW2 ?

Yes Seajets were downed by ground fire during the Falklands ; but they had no vaunted ECM suite & were not expressly designed for attacking enemy airfields ( though they did rather well with BL755 & others ).

As to the bring-back point, how about the 'get there in the first place ' ?!!!:)

[Wrathmonk]

Not that ECM would have helped against bullets in the same way that ECM won't help you against a ballistically launched, non-guided, SAM.

However, your comment ...

GR4's during GW2 ?

... shows your true colours as a Walt who lives in the past.

From here (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/F21F8E7A_BD8A_55BA_43FA63F04FC5D6B4.pdf)

Due to the need, since 1991, to enforce the NFZs over Iraq the RAF already had some 25 aircraft and 1,000 personnel in the Gulf. During Operation TELIC a further 100 aircraft were deployed together with a further 7,000 personnel. This deployment included Tornado GR4s and Harrier GR7s in the offensive role, Tornado F3s for AD, VC10s and Tristars for AAR,Nimrods and Canberras in the recce role, E3-D Sentrys for AEWand control and Hercules and the new C17s for AT. Support Helicopters were also provided, 20 Chinooks and 7 Pumas.

The Tornado GR4s were fitted with the new Storm Shadow stand-off missile. Storm Shadow has a range of over 230 kilometres and can be used day or night in all weathers. It is designed to achieve exceptional precision against high value targets and minimise collateral damage.

Although the first bombs were dropped on 20 March 2003 the air campaign proper began on the 21 March. Precision attacks by both aircraft and cruise missiles were made against several hundred military targets in Iraq. These precision attacks continued for several weeks. As the land battle developed, an increasing number of CAS sorties were flown. Up to 700 sorties a day were flown against Iraqi ground forces and the RAF played a significant part in this effort. RAF aircraft flew 2,519 sorties, 1,353 of which were offensive strike, and released 919 weapons, approximately 85% of these were precisionguided. Operation TELIC also saw the first use of the Stormshadow stand-off precision air-to-ground missile.

[MrBernoulli]

From the BBC today 7 May 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6728773.stm :

"Prime Minister Tony Blair declined to comment on the Panorama allegations.

But he said that if the SFO investigation into BAE had not been dropped, it would have led to "the complete wreckage of a vital strategic relationship and the loss of thousands of British jobs"."


Bliar shoots himself in the foot and shows that his (and Goldsmith's) earlier, well documented, claims that no weight had been given to commercial interests when stopping the SFO investigations have turned out to be the usual bunch of lies! The bloke is a f*****g clown. Does he think we have short term memories? Will somebody shoot the t**t, please?

[nigegilb]

It is hugely ironic that Blair was behind the legislation that made the BAe actions illegal in 2002.

Illegal, illegal, illegal. Blair's legacy?

[Brewster Buffalo]

ExRigger

The figures I have is two Tornados (1x RAF, 1x Italian) on the 18th Jan 91 (first day of the war), 1 on the 20th, 1 on the 23rd and 1 on the 25th. Hardly shot down in in droves is it. The total aircraft losses for all coalition aircraft between the 18th Jan and the 14th Feb was 27, again hardly droves.

By co-incidence I'm reading the section on the Tornado in the Gulf War in Lewis Page's book and that says -

"Within seven days they (RAF) had lost 5 tornado bombers from a force of 45, all to ground fire in the vicinity of their targets......The RAF's Tornados had thus taken 10% casualities in a week."

[Pontius Navigator]

This site has 6 losses:

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/2005/c4/table47.html

Date
Aircraft type
Service
Casualties
Cause



17 January 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
2 injured (minor)
Hit by a surface-to-air missile



17 January 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
2 killed
Undetermined. Possibly hit by Anti-Aircraft-Artillery fire



19 January 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
2 injured
Shot down by a surface-to-air missile



22 January 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
2 killed
Undetermined. Possibly hit by Anti-Aircraft-Artillery fire



24 January 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
2 injured (minor)
Premature detonation of one or more 1,000lb bombs



14 February 1991
Tornado GR1
RAF
1 killed
Hit by surface-to-air missile




1 injured (minor)

[eal401]

BAE Systems recently pulled out of one of the most successful aviation projects in the world, Airbus,
So you think the A380 and A350 are successful do you? (stifles incredulous laughter)

[BEagle]

Whether or not the Tornado/JP233 acquitted itself well in GW1 is hardly germane to the issue.

Which is whether 't Bungling Baron is actually 't Bent Baron Waste o' Space.

[airborne_artist]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/graphics/2007/06/08/ixd08big.gif

[Wrathmonk]

BEags

But it wouldn't be PPRuNe without massive thread creep :p

So what did the Bungling Baron do to you then!

[nigegilb]

Can't deny that the Attorney General is a very clever man. When asked to comment on what he knew, he wasn't able to, because "UK national security was at risk". Ha ha, who is head of MI6? Oh yes, that man Scarlett, he of 45 min WMD fame......Wonder what he will get out of this one. At least we know he has a proven track record of working with the Attorney General.:p

Off with both of their heads I say. Guardian comment today.

"The Guardian's initial revelations gave the Serious Fraud Office little choice but to open an investigation. In 2005, the Saudi government informed Blair it would not lodge another order with BAE (for 72 Eurofighters) unless this case was abandoned. Last December, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, instructed the SFO to drop the case. He and the prime minister cited "national security" as the reason for this surrender. Something was being secured all right: but it was BAE's income and the backsides of the ministers - led by Blair - who put the company's interests ahead of the nation's.

This was not the first time Goldsmith intervened to prevent justice from being done. He has come to symbolise everything that is wrong with Blair's government: the cowardice of ministers, lawyers' truths, capitulation to corporations and foreign governments, and the judicial abuses permitted in a nation without a constitution. He represents something very old - the British establishment's closing of ranks - and something new: the corruption of purpose and method that has attended the project of liberal interventionism from its inception."

[Double Zero]

Hi Wrathtype,

it would seem the statistics back me up, and in referring to the GR4 I meant the aircraft as known today, not a GR1 with a new paint job & minor add-ons.

A walt I am not - I do not pretend to be a Tornado driver, just a dismayed observer ( not in the flying sense, though I've done plenty of hours as technical photographer - as in being on flt test teams, not just taking pretty pictures - for BAe & elsewhere).

Everyone else must be bored with this, so I suggest this chat ends now.

[Double Zero]

Well if it's me you're on about I don't think I've exactly let slip a huge secret, as the bad guys worked out long ago to park AAA units near runways - one of the reasons JP233 was dumped, I was told by a Tornado avionics chap, the Geneva convention stuff being a nice excuse !

I would think it treasonous to supply less than the best kit we possibly can to the people in the front line - Test Pilots used to think that way - whether it's SA80's ( understand it's a lot better now ) or Tornado's.

I have misgivings about the Harrier's kit too, but I would happily join the men & women in the front of anywhere, with either a camera ( experienced with ) or a gun - not trained for but I don't mind being a target - have no family to support unlike most of the poor sods & soddeses ( ? !).

I'm 45, but indeed still suffer the teenage angst you mention, mainly aimed at bean counters in BAe.

Go on, I'm kicking my heels at the moment playing with yachts, call my bluff & send me to the sandpits !

[Pontius Navigator]

Double Zero, when weamn thing toured Huntings in 1974 we told 'em then that the damn thing needed wings and a rocket motor. Bit like a Blue Stell actually.

They blanched as they thought we were going to recommend cancellation.

[Double Zero]

Pontius,

I quite fancied the Thompson-Brandt BAP 100 as used by the Indian FRS 51's; they had a lot more penetration effect on runways ( seen first hand ) - though again they required the platform to be much too close to the target.

By the way, I am nothing to do with WEBF, though I think good luck to him generally !

[Archimedes]

Forgive the thread creep revisited about this, but... DZ - how, exactly, do the stats back you up? If referring to the loss of GR1s, it was hardly the 'droves' you claimed in your initial post. Losses were expected to be considerably higher, and there was widespread surprise at the low casualty rate.

And your reference to the GR4 is still puzzling. The Tornado GR4 of Op Telic was a rather different beast to the GR1 of Granby and not just a GR1 with minor add ons and new paintwork.

With regard to BAE, is it not the case that the law now causing them such bad PR came in to force in 2002, and that however morally repugnant/ overly entreprenuerial (delete as per opinion) the practice, any monies that may have been advanced to citizens of KSA prior to that date were perfectly legal so long such business transactions were done outside the UK? Or have I misunderstood this?

The other issue in the case - and something that one would have thought anyone of an anti-arms trade disposition would be pursuing if exercised by the idea of corruption in arms dealing - is whether or not other nations were making similar fiscal arrangements in a bid to secure the approval of the Saudi authorities for their products.

[Belgique]

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2007/06/08/stevebell080607.jpg

[Wader2]

Contrary to what PN and BB said,

"Within seven days they (RAF) had lost 5 tornado bombers from a force of 45, all to ground fire in the vicinity of their targets......The RAF's Tornados had thus taken 10% casualities in a week."

The Spring 07 Aviate, page 30, says that 8 Tornado were lost in the training leading to GW1 and during operations. Of these 8 50% were due controlled flight into terrain in all probability.

And not all of the other losses were on JP233 attacks -

[Fluffy Bunny]

You seem to forget that JP233 was desingned as a cold war asset and just like most of the weaponary for that era, it wasn't envisaged that the aircraft would be coming back for a second run. Just give the boys of BAOR a chance to get out into the weeds before the Fitters, Fencers, Frogfoots and Floggers gave them the good news.

You also seem to forget that a major amount of tornado GR crashes, German, Italian and Brit have been pronounced as CFIT by their BoIs over the airframes life. Hence the rise of the joke (Fairly bad taste) in the early to mid 80's "Why don't german farmers plough their fields?.... They're waiting for the RAF/Luftwaffe to do it for them"

On a lighter note (and back on topic) what did people actually think of tonights panorama?

[eal401]

what did people actually think of tonights panorama?
Yet another waste of 30 minutes of my life!

Did that woman actually do any research of her own or just read the Guardian archive?

The MTV video effects were one thing, then when plane-spotters were being used as evidence of where Prince Bandar's plane had been, all credibility leapt overboard and the ship sank.

Nothing new was presented, as far as I am concerned, no conclusions were reached. And the insufferably arrogant comment at the end refering to "if you are an arms dealer, just get government backing for any bribes," well that deserves no place in objective investigation whatsoever.

I want my licence fee back if that is the ****e the BBC are spewing out.

"Next week, what happens if we take TV away from kids." Perhaps they grow up to be Panorama "investigators."

[Double Zero]

Well, fine if you regard aircraft & crew as a very expensive cruise missile.

I know certain missions especially in earlier & Nimrod days were acknowledged as near suicide missions - but in relatively modern times, when not talking of nukes, it would be jolly handy to have the aircraft & crew back again - if being really brutal, for the numbers game.

My point is, the weapon did not do it's job - and if the BOI's ( such a reliable source ! ) reckoned most were CFIT, where was the vaunted hands off TFR " here I come " & other later kit exactly helping ?

[airsound]

As a self-confessed journo, I normally resist the temptation to leap at the bait frequently dangled in front of me by PPRuNers. But I’ve also been in aviation, mostly but not exclusively military, all my adult life, and I’m afraid I can’t resist a quick harrumph at eal401.

Eal’s remarks about Monday’s Panorama reveal a shocking implicit arrogance.

when plane-spotters were being used as evidence of where Prince Bandar's plane had been, all credibility leapt overboard and the ship sank.

Eal chooses to denigrate plane-spotters. In fact, in the absence of credible official information on aircraft movements, their evidence is usually accurate and often uniquely helpful.

Did that woman actually do any research of her own or just read the Guardian archive?
I gather eal doesn’t like The Guardian, but, whether you like its political stance or not, its reputation for investigative journalism is up amongst the best. Eal obviously doesn’t like the BBC either, but Panorama used to be in the same investigative league. Although it has significantly dumbed-down as part of the price for getting back into weekday primetime (instead of being hidden in the Sunday evening graveyard), it is still able to find and investigate worthwhile subjects, including Nimrod the week before. And ‘that woman’ is Jane Corbin, a courageous and extremely well thought of investigative journalist.

As for her final comment about getting government backing for bribes, that seems to be a reasonable conclusion from what she had demonstrated in the programme. As an ending to a programme, it was self-evidently comment, and not fact, and in my view, perfectly acceptable.

The odd previous post from eal suggests a connection with BAES, which might explain, if not excuse, his/her attitude. Whether or not that is the case, my view of his/her post is that it is meretricious claptrap.

Harrumph complete.

airsound

[Jackonicko]

I'm a journo, too, and I've been writing full-time about aviation and aerospace for 23 years, and a little time before that as a part time freelance.

I'd agree with Airsound as to the occasional value of spotters, though there's is a hobby I find it hard to understand.

I would absolutely disagree as to the credibility of the Guardian in this case - the journalist concerned seems to have been running a pretty cynical and unscrupulous one man war against BAE (think of BEagle with a pen, and without the sense of fun).

And whatever Ms Corbin's merits, to front a Panorama whose primary focus was a military aircraft procurement, I would have though that some grasp of military aviation would have been a help. She had a great manner on camera as she compared the prices of RAF Tornados (£16m) and RSAF aircraft (£21m) and paraded herself between two badly made Airfix models and the Tornado in the RAF Museum. She took no account of the support/spares/weapons included in one price, the inflation which increased prices between one contract and the other, nor the fact that the RSAF proce was an average based on GR1s, 1As and F3s.

Moreover, the use of words like bribe is pretty emotive. Payments to middlemen and facillitators are routine in the Middle East, and these payments were authorised by the MoD, which makes them seem rather less sinister than 'slush fund payments' made under the table by some corrupt company.

[eal401]

Eal chooses to denigrate plane-spotters.
Crikey, you don't need to tell us that you are a journo!!! Did I denigrate plane-spotters? Not that I can see, and it was not my intention.
Eal obviously doesn’t like the BBC either
Pointless sweeping comment, well done. Good journo material, anything else you'd like to do to damage journo reputations even more?
:D

Jackonicko has done a better job of supporting his view than either you or me.

(My first thought on the price "comparison" was "what about the support." Very, very, very lax reporting, so called reputation or not)

[Double Zero]

One thing I will stand up for BAe / Hawkers Dunsfold on - they did as I understand submit bids including the life & support or the aircraft - which I was told the U.S. did not.

We had a large team ( 100's ) of support people, always off somewhere.

I doubt such 'Rolls Royce' service survived the bean counter's mid-late 1990's era though.

[soddim]

The bottom line in doing business with the Saudis is that you do it their way or not at all.

If you can persuade them that their old way is now illegal in this country, as has clearly been done already, and they still want to do business with us, we should not then rake over practises that were not, in any case, illegal at the time.

If the Typhoon deal is signed despite the best attempts of the BBC and Guardian et al to sabotage it (probably to the unbridled joy of the Americans and French) it will testify to the desirability of the product - not the way we conduct our affairs.

Let's get real!

[Wader2]

Let's assume the £16m and £21m were like for like? Who pays the difference?

It is really just international number moving.

My aeroplane will cost £1m. I will invoice your government for £1.1m. I will pay you a facilitator's fee of £100k. Your government has an aeroplane costing £1.1m - done deal.

Who pays the bribe? HMG - the tax payer, BAE - the shareholder? Or the country buying the aircraft?

Or did it go:

My aeroplane will cost £1m. I will invoice your government for £1m. I will pay you a facilitator's fee of £100k. Your government has an aeroplane costing £1m and my company has absorbed a £100k - done deal.

Who loses? HMG - the tax payer who refunded the discount to BAE, BAE who reduced the dividend to the shareholder, or the tax man as the discount was tax deductable? Or the country buying the aircraft?

[airsound]

Oh, I’m sorry, eal401, I must have completely misunderstood you. When you said
....when plane-spotters were being used as evidence of where Prince Bandar's plane had been, all credibility leapt overboard and the ship sank
I believed you were denigrating planes-spotters - or at very least denigrating what they do, which, in the circumstances, is pretty much the same thing.

Silly old me.

Ditto for when you said
I want my licence fee back if that is the ****e the BBC are spewing out.
I thought you must mean that you didn’t like the BBC.

Can’t imagine how I can have been so wrong.

airsound

[airsound]

Jacko, I’m inclined to agree with you when you say
to front a Panorama whose primary focus was a military aircraft procurement, I would have though that some grasp of military aviation would have been a help
Indeed, I have several times tried to persuade the BBC at least to use advisers who know about aviation when they’re doing aviation stories. They rarely do, possibly because they figure that their top investigative reporters will find out enough about the subject in the course of their research. We know that doesn’t work - but I’ve come to the conclusion it’s probably a matter of pride. It’s also perhaps another result of the ‘dumbing down’ of programmes like Panorama - or maybe we should call it tabloidisation. Not that either phrase or word is particularly attractive.

But I still maintain that it’s better to have a tabloidised Panorama in peak time than not to have one at all. At least it is covering stories that we think are important - even if it does display a lack of aviation know-how in the process. I shall continue to try and persuade them to improve their output, but I don’t hold out much hope....
.
I disagree that
....the use of words like bribe is pretty emotive.

My OED defines ‘bribe’ as ‘money, etc, offered to procure action or decision in favour of giver’. Also, earlier in Corbin’s piece, Jeremy Carver, Board Member of Transparency International (www.transparency.org), said
"Those payments, on the face of it, are straightforward bribes as defined by the Ant-Bribery Convention". (of the OECD).

That said, Corbin didn’t actually refer to bribes in her upsum. She said
"...the moral of the story is that if you're a British arms dealer, make sure you've got government cover written into the contract, then a kickback or two should be no problem."
which I think to be fair comment, at least partly because she had referred to ‘kickbacks’ on more than one occasion already.

Altogether, I believe Corbin’s piece moved an important story along.

airsound

[nigegilb]

civobs no teenage angst here mate, just thought it was highly amusing that Blair passed laws that made this kind of backhander illegal in the UK, then denied access to evidence to a fraud investigation, denied that jobs were to do with the decision not to prosecute, then stated that UK national security was at risk from a Saudi threat to withdraw security cooperation. Saudi Arabia, the country that paid for the export of Wahabbism to the World and gave us over half of the 9/11 terrorists?

Like I say, a typical New Labour cock-up, that has been a gift to our industrial competitors and enemies in the World. If I am being treasonous for pointing out alleged illegal activities what does that make you, corrupt?

[BEagle]

"moral angst in the face of mindless bureaucracy and systematic moral turpetude is a good thing, unless it costs lots of jobs and reduces taxation income with consequent reduced spend on services, including the military."

Sorry, I will stick to the moral high ground.

Bliar and Goldsmith's attempts to stop lawful investigation of allegations about BWoS are wholly unacceptable. 'Not in the National Interest' and other statements are spin and tosh. They merely lead to suspicion that Bliar's government know something they don't want exposed.

But if BWoS don't come clean, jobs may well be lost if export customers elsewhere continue to take a dim view of their alleged practices.

[nigegilb]

Latest news below. Wonder if the US will get to try out the new one way extradition agreement again, kindly passed by Tony Blair's Govt, as well....
US expected to open BAE investigation

David Leigh and Rob Evans
Wednesday June 13, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

The US Department of Justice is now virtually certain to open an investigation into BAE under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

This would cover the alleged £1bn arms deal payments to Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, well-placed sources say.

Washington-based sources familiar with the thinking of senior officials at the DoJ, said today it is "99% certain" that a criminal inquiry will be opened.

Such an investigation would have potentially seismic consequences for BAE, which is trying to take over US arms companies and turn the Pentagon into its biggest customer.

[eal401]

Can’t imagine how I can have been so wrong.

Very easily, given that you are clearly an idiot.

The use of plane-spotters simply said to me "we are lazy and can't be bothered doing our own research." Much like the shambolic use of stock footage all over the place, adding no value whatsoever. Perhaps that denigrates stock footage filmers too? :rolleyes:

It was not an intention to "have a go" at plane spotters and, as I have said, that was not my intention. For any reading this, I apologise, and please take no credence of the words being put into my mouth.

You seem to dislike people having an opinion of their own. Basic principle of journalism I'd have thought. Probably only for the good ones.
I want my licence fee back if that is the ****e the BBC are spewing out.
For example, a good journo would have understood that the above was a criticism of one programme, not an entire channel. I'd have thought it obvious myself, but will try and pitch at Sun reader level or below in future, just for your benefit.

[Jackonicko]

"Let's assume the £16m and £21m were like for like? "

Sorry, but that's an assumption too far, for me.

I wouldn't even assume that either price was accurate, and would suspect that one was from Jane's planes and the other based on a shirt pocket calculation of "value of contract" divided by "number of Saudi Tornados" equals "shoddy Panorama makey up price tag."

[Boy_From_Brazil]

Unfortunately it is impossible to be awarded contracts in nearly all Mid-East countries without having a local "Agent" or "Sponsor". These guys are normally well connected and charge a % of the overall contract value. I guess in BAEs case the sums involved are allegedly so enormous it makes it very difficult to explain away legally.
However unpalatable it is, this is the known cost of doing business in this part of the world. If we dont do it many other nations businesses will (including a number of well known American contractors.)
BfB

[airsound]

Thank you for your calm and analytical post, eal410.
....you are clearly an idiot.....will try and pitch at Sun reader level or below in future, just for your benefit.
I guess you may have diluted your arument slightly there - but as I always say, if you can’t win the argument, slag off the person. . If this was a sporting arena, I guess your words would be classed as a professional foul. But since I don’t know who you are, I can’t tell whether professionalism is a word that figures largely in your life.

It’s another assumption, I know (sorry about that), but I’m assuming from an earlier post that you do actually work at BAES, and that you aren’t very happy there.
I can only apologise for those who suffer dealing with BAE senior management, try coping with them day by day! Incompetence seems to be the requirement for career development here!! It can be very frustrating as a subordinate, if it is how customer see us, that is even worse.
Perhaps that’s what makes you so grumpy and prone to these wild bouts of mud-slinging. To venture yet another assumption, maybe the strain of having to keep your mouth zipped whilst at work means that PPRuNe is your only release. If so, that’s very sad. Have you thought of quitting?

Forgive me if I’m completely wrong in my assumptions....

Anyway, thank you for explaining that your initial slagging-off of spotters was really meant to be a criticism of Panorama for using them. Now that is something we could discuss.
"we are lazy and can't be bothered doing our own research."
were the words you put into Panorama’s mouth. I think that searching out the right spotter is rather good journalistic research. Of course, reporters have to make judgements about the veracity of what a spotter says, but so they do with any piece of evidence offered to them. Also - can you suggest a better way of tracking the journeys of a big, but rather elusive, aeroplane around the globe? I don’t think asking national authorities is going to get you very far, do you? Spotters can provide independent, unbiased information.

I was going to go on to your strictures about what makes a good journalist - but I think I’m losing the will to live.

airsound

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Yer man F Forsyth often irritates me when he pontificates on things military and that shaded blue (light or dark, no preference) in particular. On this occasion in the Daily Express ( http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/ourcomments/view/9973 (http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/ourcomments/view/9973) ), though, (OK, it's the Express) he shows a fair understanding of the matter.

An insight to dealing with Arabs and Orientals; your most senior sales rep will never meet the king or the ministers, all his brothers and cousins. You have to engage the services of an intermediary. The closer to the throne, the better your chances. And yes, there will be a hefty commission fee. But there would be anywhere in the world. We secured the services of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a Cranwell-educated fighter pilot and firmly pro-British (well, he was until the complainers got stuck in). He is the son of Prince Sultan, the defence minister, then and now. You could not get a higher-placed representative. That is why we got it and the French lost. But here is the rub.

The Saudis paid in oil, not cash, so how to pay the commissions? The Prince did not want a percentage of the oil so it had to be direct from BAE Systems to him, in the form of a bank transfer. But was it too much? Whatever the price of the fighters or the commission, that was the deal we cut 20 years ago and if you renege on a signed and sealed deal you will never do business in that, or any, part of the world again because word spreads.
Second, he was the conduit for a whole range of other agents who had worked under him on different parts of the deal.

Third, though it looks enormous it is not vast in percentage terms.

It's a shame that he spoils it in his last sentence Now the £20billion Tornado deal will go through. The craftsmen at Filton and Bristol will keep their jobs. Rare as it is, well done Tony Blair.

[ORAC]

DefenseNews: Hungary Investigates Gripen Deal (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2844418&C=europe)

A Parliamentary Commission is to be instituted in Hungary to investigate allegations surrounding a tender for fighter aircraft destined for the Hungarian Air Force that was eventually awarded to a BAE Systems-Saab consortium.

The outcome of that tender process saw BAE Systems and Saab secure a contract, worth $1 billion, to deliver 14 JAS Gripen aircraft under a 10-year lease-to-own agreement slated to expire in 2016. The delivery schedule saw eight JAS-39 Gripens, including ‘A’ and ‘B’ types, delivered to the Hungarian Air Force in 2006, with the remainder in 2007.

Hungarian Defense Minister Imre Szekeres told a routine session of parliament on June 17 that the commission’s inquiry would include allegations that an Austrian intermediary on BAE Systems and Saab’s payroll may have used questionable tactics in lobbying the Hungarian government on behalf of the British-Swedish consortium.

“Due to the importance of the case in Hungary, we must analyze the Gripen decision, the tender and its consequences. The government is supportive of setting up a parliamentary commission to probe the case,” said Szekeres.

The then center-right Hungarian government initially signaled in June 2001 that Lockheed Martin’s F-16 had won the fighter jet tender. Three days later, the government reversed its position and awarded the order to Saab and BAE Systems. Saab and BAE Systems have consistently denied any impropriety.

The proposed inquiry happens as the BAE Systems-Saab consortium are under scrutiny by British and Swedish prosecutors probing allegations that the consortium may have offered unfair inducements to win a contract to sell 24 JAS Gripen fighters to the Czech Republic.

[eal401]

I was going to go on to your strictures about what makes a good journalist
One would have thought letting people have an opinion of their own would be high up the list. Obviously not in your case.
but I think I’m losing the will to live.

Oh good. Well, don't make a mess when you go.

I always used to defend the journo slagging on here. Stupid me. Next time I will get to know the type of person before making that decision :ugh:

[BEagle]

Oh dear, oh dear - the US Department of Justice is to hold an anti-corruption investigation into 't Bung-ing Baron's alleged activities....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6239918.stm

....and a reminder of what is alleged:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6732921.stm

[WasNaeMe]

"US prosecutors are aggressive in pursuing such allegations and make full use of the lopsided and unfair extradition arrangements with the UK. However, this case also potentially involves members of HM Government and the Civil Service. The Al Yamamah arms deal in question was a government-to-government transaction and it is therefore quite possible that extradition will be used by the US against UK officials."

[stickmonkeytamer]

Damn! I bought BAE shares last week- only lost 10% so far, but it will help with my tax returns...

Thorntons shares come with free chocolate vouchers- does anyone know if BAE shares come with a Typhoon voucher?

SMT

[Union Jack]

There is no doubt that the muck is there waiting to be spread but is it in anybody's interest to spread it?

The answer is that it depends where you are coming from - imagine, purely as an example, the furore that would erupt if someone discovered that there was a link between a defence contractor and the tenants of the two buy-to-let apartments that the Blair family (remember them?) bought in Bristol ...

Jack

[BEagle]

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7005947.stm

[HectorusRex]

See:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles/story/0,,2173947,00.html


Labour tries to block new BAE inquiry


Request from US investigators is ignored by home secretary

[BEagle]

Court to study BAE fraud decision.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7086997.stm

[BEagle]

From The Sunday Times
December 9, 2007


BAE chiefs face renewed corruption inquiry


David Leppard


THE Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is to relaunch a criminal investigation of alleged corruption at Britain’s biggest arms company, BAE Systems.

Whitehall officials say dozens of senior BAE executives are to be interviewed in the next two months about alleged bribery involving more than £80m in secret commissions. The money is said to have been paid to middlemen involved in lucrative government arms contracts in South Africa, Tanzania, Romania and two other countries. The new SFO interviews come only a year after Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, then attorney-general, controversially halted a separate corruption probe into BAE’s arms dealings with Saudi Arabia.

The government stopped that inquiry after the Saudis threatened to end intelligence cooperation in the war on terror, provoking a wave of international criticism.

Among those to be interviewed under caution in the new investigation will be Sir Dick Evans, BAE’s former chairman, who is still a consultant with the company. Mike Turner, the outgoing chief executive, is also expected to face questions. Both men adamantly deny any knowledge of wrongdoing.

Senior BAE managers are to be asked about six separate defence deals where questions have been raised about commission payments to middlemen said to be working for the company. These include £75m alleged to have been paid in connection with a £1.6 billion deal to sell Saab Gripen fighter jets to South Africa, one of the country’s biggest arms deals. The Gripen is produced by the Swedish firm Saab, in which BAE has a 20% stake.

The SFO plans to ask BAE executives whether they had any knowledge of bribes paid by the middlemen to South African officials and ministers in order to win the contract.

The SFO is also examining a £116m contract for BAE to refurbish and upgrade two British frigates that had been sold to Romania in 2003.

There have been allegations that an unidentified Romanian politician received a £6m secret commission in connection with the deal. BAE executives can also expect questions about several other deals including: A planned £1 billion contract to sell Gripen jets to the Czech Republic in 2001. Published documents allege that secret arrangements had been set up to pay commissions through offshore companies to three agents with links to the Prague political establishment. The sale of a £28m radar system to the government of Tanzania in 2002. There are claims that the contract price was corruptly inflated and that commissions worth 30% of the total contract price were paid to Tanzanian agents. Contracts involving the sale of surplus frigates and other arms to Chile. It is alleged that secret commissions may have gone to General Augusto Pinochet, the former head of state accused of torturing opponents.

BAE has consistently denied allegations of corruption and insisted it complied fully with antibribery legislation. Earlier this year it appointed Lord Woolf, the former lord chief justice, to chair a panel to review its business ethics.

A spokesman said this weekend: “BAE Systems continues to cooperate fully with the SFO investigation. As this is an ongoing criminal investigation, it would be inappropriate for us to comment on the substance of it.”

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Dog with a bone?

:ok:

[backseatjock]

No doubt the Sunday Times report made your cornflakes a little bit more enjoyable this morning BEagle.

It never ceases to amaze me that the SFO apparently conducts this 'criminal investigation' by announcing its intentions in advance, on a regular basis, through certain UK media titles.

Hardly the behaviours of a responsible organisation and not one many individuals would find acceptable, if alllegations were being made against them.

How would you feel if you were one of the named individuals BEagle? Fair game to suggest you are a guilty party, through the pages of national newspapers, before any charges or trial ?

Can't help but wonder what effect this apparent constant leaking of legally privileged information will have on any court case, if it ever proceeds that far.

[Echo 5]

Merry Christmas BEags from t'Baron and all us lads up in the Northwest. :)

BTW, it's BAe Systems not BAE. :=

[Lytham Lifeboat]

Goodness me Beagle.

You really do have a huge chip.

Did http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/admin/documents/ss_asset/bae_img_logo.gif refuse to employ, or sack you?

[Exrigger]

Hi BEagle, hope you are well. Bet you nearly choked with joy at this latest nugget of information you posted, I sometimes wonder if it is you that is feeding all this information to the newspapers in your one man vendetta to bring BAe Systems down.

[JimmyTAP]

it's BAe Systems not BAE.
Wrong
BAe Systems
Wrong
It is BAE SYSTEMS or BAE Systems.
Signed
A (currently) BAE Systems employee. Not for long though.

[airsound]

All of which just goes to show how daft it is when a company with a recognisable and understandable name (such as, say, British Aerospace, or BAe for short) decides to rename itself as an acronym, which, even 7 years later, most people get wrong most of the time. And it seems as if such a company (called, perhaps BAES) continues to get quite grumpy when people get it wrong. And continues to point out that the letters of its acronym don't stand for anything.

And, of course, if you get it wrong, it's your fault.

airsound
shortly to become just ASS, because that's how we corporate chaps demonstrate that we're 'going forward'. (Don't forget the letters don't stand for anything)

[Echo 5]

Jimmy,

Not worth getting into a sh!t kicking contest but on the renaming of British Aerospace it became BAe Systems. Where all the upper case came from I know not. Probably some journalists couldn't be arrsed changing from upper to lower case.

airsound,

And continues to point out that the letters of its acronym don't stand for anything.


When briefed by a Director some years ago he made the same statement. It's not an acromyn, it doesn't stand for anything. Lots of bemused folks. :hmm:

Signed:
Another BAE Systems employee. Not for long though.

[airsound]

Interesting point, Echo. My COD (sorry, Concise Oxford Dictionary) defines acronym as
word formed from the initial letters of other words
Well..... I'm sure the BA was originally formed from other words' initials, but as for the E.....

I guess you must be right, it's not an acronym, since BAE does evidently no longer stand for anything....

What a good thing we've nothing better to discuss, apart from MR2, MRA4, lawyers on ESF, JPA, JSF, JCA etc

airsound

[Echo 5]

airsound,

What a good thing we've nothing better to discuss
Absolutely, but it does does move away from BEagles one man vendetta which is now becoming somewhat tedious.

[JimmyTAP]

British Aerospace it became BAe Systems
No it didn't, but whatever.
I don't necessarily agree with the corporate brand BS but I do think that employees should at least get it right. To help, the company has this useful and informative website:}
BAE Systems brand (http://147.29.80.131/ourbrand/)
As employees, it is about the only thing we can discuss. I was involved in MRA4 but I am not in a position to divulge anything I may know about it. (Fortunately, there are so many other "experts" on here anyway)

[Echo 5]

Jimmy,

I did say that it isn't worth getting into a sh!t kicking contest, but
Bae Systems Jobs
Bae Systems Share Price
Bae Systems Brough
Bae Systems Recruitment
Bae Systems - Rochester
Bae Systems Saudi
Bae Systems Australia
Bae Systems Warton
Bae Systems Samlesbury
Bae Apprenticeship


We now have one upper case and two lower case. Doesn't really matter I suppose as long as we know who we are talking about.

[BEagle]

For those intellectual pygmies posting here who think otherwise, please note that I have nothing personal against BAC, BAE, BAeS, baES, BaE, baeS or whatever else BWoS calls itself these days.

But I have somewhat old-fashioned views about bribery and corruption - and, in particular, the way Bliar and his cronies tried to stifle earlier investigations.

If BWoS are proved innocent of all the rumours and speculation about back handers to Saudi princelings or whatever, then I shall be among the first to congratulate them.

Tha' knows.....

[JimmyTAP]

BWoS
Bliar
Those are so funny and so original.
Isn't it time the incredibly amusing "bungling baron" put in an appearance?
signed
an intellectual pygmy

[Echo 5]

For those intellectual pygmies


Now, how's that for a bit of arrogance ? :=

[Exrigger]

BEagle you presume to place yourself as an Intellectual giant compared to other poster on this thread, and you must think this with comments like:

For those intellectual pygmies posting here

this is an amusing thought, particularly from someone who's posts seem to be from the same track of an old record, which displays an inordinate amount of pomposity. But I have somewhat old-fashioned views about bribery and corruption this is a point of view that has yet to be proven and despite the constant 'investigations' which have provided no evidence to prove it in a court of law. I fear your amusing anecdotes in reply to others posts appear to actually show you are as much an intellectual pygmy as you claim we are. ;)

[soddim]

Now, now, chaps or chapesses. No point getting into the abuse mode so early in the thread - why not save it for the inevitable outrageous post that usually follows eventually?

Here's one for starters:

BEagle and the Sunday Times have done a good job reminding us that lots of people think my pension provider is running a dodgy business - will they or the Government take over my pension payments if they drive them out of business? Will they pay generous redundancy to those who lose their jobs? Will they stop selling arms to dodgy countries?

Thought not. So why don't they just shut up!

[Jetex Jim]

BEagle and the Sunday Times have done a good job reminding us that lots of people think my pension provider is running a dodgy business - will they or the Government take over my pension payments if they drive them out of business? Will they pay generous redundancy to those who lose their jobs?


I think you can be fairly sure that BAE will play the jobs card early and often, should there be any chance of any investigation harming buisiness.

Can you trust BAE with your pension? Well that's another matter entirely...

[JimmyTAP]

Why shouldn't they play the jobs card? There are thousands of jobs at stake and thousands more in related industries. As far as the pension goes, I haven't much choice about trusting BAE. I've paid into it for many years now.

[Jetex Jim]

Why shouldn't they play the jobs card? There are thousands of jobs at stake and thousands more in related industries. As far as the pension goes, I haven't much choice about trusting BAE. I've paid into it for many years now.


Bummer, well I suppose its too late to get a job with a company with some concept of ethical buisiness practice..

[JimmyTAP]

well I suppose its too late to get a job with a company with some concept of ethical buisiness practice..

Are there any?

[Double Zero]

Sorry to go back a few entries, but with regard to acronyms, I can honestly say that for the latter period of my time in the early 1990's with British Aerospace, ( I think that bit was fairly taken for granted ) the sub-division acronyms changed so often that we quite literally did not know who we were working for...

We were ' Military Aircraft Division ' for quite a while, until someone realised that spelt MAD !

[soddim]

Bummer, well I suppose its too late to get a job with a company with some concept of ethical buisiness practice..

Yep, They all went broke long time ago.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Bummer, well I suppose its too late to get a job with a company with some concept of ethical buisiness practice..

Yep, They all went broke long time ago.

and are we talking 1st world standard or 3rd world expected here?

[soddim]

No, GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU, we're talking about the real world of foreign defence sales.

If you do that sort of business you get involved with 'commisions' and 'arrangement fees'. In this country we call them taxes and consultants fees. Whichever way you look at it is boils down to legalised or irregular theft.

Just because we have 'democracy' it does not mean that we are perfect.

[Echo 5]

BEags has gone quiet. Perhaps the current banter/debate isn't intellectually challenging enough for him. ;)

[BEagle]

I wouldn't dignify some recent posts by describing them as contributing to a debate...

[JimmyTAP]

Definition
arrogant
adjective
unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more important than, or know more than, other people:
I found him arrogant and rude.


Looks like the "bungling baron" has bungled off to oversee his intellectual pygmies.


Back to the debate.


It would typically British to get the Saudis to cancel the Eurofighter deal because of alleged corruption then the French or Americans to step in with no qualms whatsoever. At least we would have "done the right thing". Those that would undoubtedly lose their jobs might disagree but who cares about them eh? They are only funny talking northerners after all.:rolleyes:

[Jetex Jim]

Things have certainly changed at the Daily Express:

Fredrick Forsythe’s column quoted earlier
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/ourcomments/view/9973 (http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/ourcomments/view/9973)

It always used to be that it was Johnny foreigner who went down the corruption route, Britain was above all that, now its accepted that we have to be as corrupt as (gosh even) the French to be able to compete on the international stage. Back in the day it was always assumed that our defence industry were actually doing a pretty good job and didn’t need to stoop to corruption. Maybe even Forsythe has worked out what the situation really is.

Come to that I can even recall the days when the Express used to get bent out of shape regarding organisations holding the country to ransom over jobs, of course that was when the trade unions were doing it, seems like its OK when BAE do it.

Gosh how times change. No wonder in his finally statement he says:

Now the £20billion Tornado deal will go through. The craftsmen at Filton and Bristol will keep their jobs. Rare as it is, well done Tony Blair.

And don’t they have any copy checkers at the Express?

[airsound]

Jetex J - well spotted, 007. I suppose it's a mistake anyone could make.

On the subject of another typo/freudian slip, I have just heard that nice Mr Brown (the single-hatted one) refer in Prime Minister's Questions to That Company as "British Aerospace". So that must be right, then.

airsound

PS D'you think they'll call him and put him right?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

soddim; that's the point I was clumsily trying to make against Jetex Jim's
company with some concept of ethical buisiness practice..

"Ethical" to our concept of Western standards is not the same in the Middle East, Africa and parts of South East Asia. I quoted Fred Forsythe at the time he wrote his piece (Srl 183) and the salient point was that one man's bribe is another man's commission; even if he doesn't know his Warton from his Filton (or his Tornado from his Typhoon).

The choices are to deal with foreigners strictly by our own standard or deal with them by their standards. If we rigidly abide by option one there will be no deal. I suspect that the Guardian and the fluffy liberals would be rather pleased if there was no deal.

Do we also need to remember that this is a Government to Government deal?

[Jetex Jim]

I suppose to a fiction writer like Forsyth Tornado and Typhoon are synonyms, I wonder if we can take the rest of his pontificating any more seriously?

The Typhoon sale to Saudi is a pretty interesting case, it appears that BAE cleverly ‘factored in’ the 72 that they expected to sell to Saudi when it was announced how many the RAF were going to buy and that these would equip three bases; Leuchars, Leeming and Conningsby. Normally any exports outside the consortium countries, like the handful to Austria would have been new work and gravy to the whole group, but in this case it seems that BAE took a rather larger slice of the work share than they would otherwise have done. Now seemingly the need for Leeming has disapeared and the same number of A/C will go to Saudi.

But I don’t think any of the BAE employees who contribute to this forum need worry too much even if the Saudi sale were to go t*ts up, I’m sure that the press will be fairly swiftly briefed on all the anticipated job loses and MOD persuaded somehow or other that it really does need Leeming as a Typhoon base after all.

Thanks to the moderating influence of the other members of the group at least Typhoon will be a fairly useful fighter, at least by the standards of what BAE is capable of lumbering UK MOD with when left to their own devices, (unsupervised by the three other countries) I need cite only Nimrod MR4 as an example.

On the MR4 most of the really clever stuff, the mission electronics is subbed to Boeing anyway leaving a fairly straightforward upgrade to the engines and airframe of an admittedly fragile and apparently carelessly assembled vintage airframe, but something BAE should have been able to manage on its own with little problems. But oh dear what a meal they have made of it.

Maybe if columnists like Forsyth were a little less partisan and a little more critical BAE would be obliged to finally stop acting like a nationalised company. At least if it was nationalised the UK taxpayer could be expecting to feel the benefit of that Saudi order...

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

On the MR4 most of the really clever stuff, the mission electronics is subbed to Boeing anyway leaving a fairly straightforward upgrade to the engines and airframe of an admittedly fragile and apparently carelessly assembled vintage airframe, but something BAE should have been able to manage on its own with little problems

I think you could describe some of De Havilland's manufacturing processes as quaint but certainly not "careless".

That's a very long sentence. You'd rarely get more for murder.

[Epimetheus]

The Guardian first to print on this, no doubt the others will follow

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/14/bae.armstrade

[backseatjock]

The Guardian first to print more allegations (sorry, the same allegations again) about BAE and Saudi! Well I am surprised. :)

Wonder what the ultimate objective of the two journalists, who strangely always seem to have an inside track into 'secret' documents in the possession of the SFO, actually is! And how 'ethical' is the fact that an apparent inside track to the workings of the SFO exists?

Reading my newspaper while munching coffee and toast this morning, it seems that BAE's much reported heavy handed, 'bully boy' lobbying tactics amounted to little more than a strongly worded letter. Reminds me of that Monty Python sketch from many years back - someone will be sending for the comfy chair soon.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

The Guardian first to print more allegations (sorry, the same allegations again) about BAE and Saudi! Well I am surprised.

Why the surprise? Since these are the exact same allegations that the government ordered the cessation of the SFO investigation into, of course they are going to be repeated. To save you and further surprises, here's a tip: until these matters are fully investigated, and a conclusion reached, they are going to be repeated ad nauseam.


Wonder what the ultimate objective of the two journalists... actually is!

Just a guess, but how about to establish whether any UK laws were broken by BAe?


Reading my newspaper while munching coffee and toast this morning, it seems that BAE's much reported heavy handed, 'bully boy' lobbying tactics amounted to little more than a strongly worded letter

At least, that's all they did *that you know about*. As the defence QC said yesterday to Lord Justice Moses, there is still a significant number of secret communications that have not been released.

[Jackonicko]

No, I'm sorry Ewan, but that's credulous nonsense.

As a specialist journo, you could quite easily follow this and find out the truth, which the Guardian blokes have signally failed to do.

This was a Government to Government deal, and all payments via BAE (BAE was a conduit, not a source) were approved by HMG.

BAE has tried (not always successfully, but it has tried harder than any other aerospace manufacturer I can think of) to draw a line between bribery and the kind of practises that are acceptable and legal routine in the Middle East.

That there is no connection between Al Y II and the Typhoon deal.

The Guardian has an agenda on this, and has stooped to dirty tricks of its own in its attempts to smear BAE Systems. Posing as official investigators and distributing 'fake' business cards with an address which turned out to be the Guardian's old archive was the tip of a shameful iceberg.

Its journos have behaved disgracefully, and with great partiality and have reflected great discredit on the profession that you and I follow.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

As a specialist journo, you could quite easily follow this and find out the truth, which the Guardian blokes have signally failed to do.


I believe I am reasonably well versed on the overriding issues, if not the minutiae of the argument. I appreciate that you have followed this much more closely than I, however.

This was a Government to Government deal, and all payments via BAE (BAE was a conduit, not a source) were approved by HMG.


Technically, perhaps. But we both know that it is absolutely not that simple: BAE actively solicited the business and pushed the product, ingratiating themselves with the customer in the process. That's fine - one would expect no less - but the question is: did they in the process break the laws of this country that govern such things? That is a perfectly valid question to ask, but the answer to it has been stifled by the Governement's intervention into the SFO's investigation.

The bottom line is that until the investigation is allowed to reach a natural conclusion, there will be fuel to feed the fire (see your own comments below).

I honestly do not have an agenda, even if I do feel very uncomfortable about the sale of Typhoon to Saudi for various reasons.


The Guardian has an agenda on this, and has stooped to dirty tricks of its own in its attempts to smear BAE Systems. Posing as official investigators and distributing 'fake' business cards with an address which turned out to be the Guardian's old archive was the tip of a shameful iceberg.

Its journos have behaved disgracefully, and with great partiality and have reflected great discredit on the profession that you and I follow.

Thank you for elucidating on the matter - I was unaware of this, and since I am not a Guardian reader, I had not followed their efforts closely.

I agree with you that such antics are disgraceful.

[Echo 5]

Surprised BEagle hasn't offered his usual input yet. Anyway:

BAE actively solicited the business and pushed the product, ingratiating themselves with the customer in the process

It would be rather remiss of them if they didn't solicit business or push their product. That after all is what any business does no matter what the product.

As for ingratiating themselves with the customer, that is bollox. BAE in its various guises has been trading with the Saudis for decades so where " ingratiating " comes into the equation I do not know.

Does anyone know where this thread is going apart from digging up the dirt ( if there is any dirt to be dug up ).

Is anyone really interested ?

[Ewan Whosearmy]

As I said if you re-read my post, BAE have acted exactly as I would have expected them to.

The question that you chose not to address in your highly selective use of a single (and incomplete at that) quote from my post, is whether they broke the law.

As for the direction of this thread, it doesn't have to 'go' anywhere. People are free to contribute their views as they see fit: that is the purpose of these boards.

If you don't care then don't post.

[Echo 5]

Ewan,

Not having a pop at you, just, how shall I put it, " thinking aloud ".

Bottom line is, the deal is done and that is that, and thousands of jobs are secure whether there was any iffy dealings or not.

Getting back in my box now. :)

[Top Right]

Didn't I read last week that the Tanzanian govt is in trouble for alleged embezzlement? So when's someone going to ask about that cheap little ATC system that BAe sold them ................

[Brewster Buffalo]

The court was told that Tony Blair, the Prime Minister at the time, applied “irresistible pressure” to end the SFO’s investigation in 2006. It was dropped in December of that year.

Lord Justice Moses said it appeared that Britain had simply "rolled over" instead of trying to make the Saudi government withdraw the threats, (that Saudi Arabia withdraw cooperation in the fight against terrorism) which amounted to criminal offences under British law.

[BEagle]

echo5, good that you're back in your box. Whilst there, perhaps you would care to read this item from today's The Times:

Central to the SFO’s investigation was whether BAE ran a £60 million "slush fund" offering incentives to Saudi officials to secure lucrative orders.

BAE has always maintained that it acted within the law and has said that the arms deals are government to government in the final instance.

Prince Bandar has also denied that he profited from the deal.

The High Court can only determine whether the decision to stop the investigation was legal or not.


It can order the SFO to reconsider its decision if it finds that it was illegal.

An investigation by the US Justice Department over BAE’s arms deals with Saudi Arabia, which was announced last year, is continuing.

It's far from a 'done deal'.......

And, from the Sunday Times of 17 Feb 2008:

Meanwhile, rebel shareholders suing BAE over bribery allegations have won an extension to a court order that in effect freezes the American property assets of Prince Bandar Bin Sultan. The lawsuit centres on allegations that BAE paid more than £1 billion in bribes to Saudi officials, including Bandar, as part of an agreement to supply military equipment to Saudi Arabia.

Bandar has consistently denied the allegations.

BAE has strongly denied making illegal payments.

[BEagle]

From the Press Association:

Ruling due on BAE Saudi decision

10 Apr 2008

The High Court is due to give judgment on the Serious Fraud Office's decision to drop its investigation into alleged bribery and corruption involving arms deals between BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia.

During a recent hearing it was suggested that the law in Britain was "powerless" to resist threats from Saudi Arabia that it would not cooperate in the fight against terrorism unless the probe was dropped.

The bribery allegations against the arms company arose out of BAE's £43 billion Al-Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia in 1985, which provided Tornado and Hawk jets plus other military equipment.

Lawyers for Corner House Research, which campaigns against corruption in international trade, and the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) are asking two judges to quash the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) decision, made in December 2006.

They argued it was tainted by Government concerns about trade with Saudi Arabia and diplomatic considerations after members of the Saudi Arabian royal family threatened to cancel a proposed order for Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft if the investigations continued.

They also accused the British authorities of unlawfully giving in to blackmail and breaking anti-bribery treaties.

They said the then premier Tony Blair had put "irresistible pressure" on the Attorney General and the SFO.

The judges were told that Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was behind the threats to hold back information about potential suicide bombers and terrorists.

Previously secret documents suggested the SFO had decided not to proceed with its inquiries after being told that "British lives on British streets" were at risk, and fears were raised of "another 7/7".

Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan are due to hand down their judgment at the High Court in London.

[ranger703]

High court rules SFO were unlawful in dropping their investigation!

[green granite]

One feels it would have been more sensible to have carried on and then said there was insufficient evidence to proceed further.

[Epimetheus]

More here too at the Beeb

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7339231.stm

[D-IFF_ident]

Does this mean that Black Omegas will be turning-up at the offices that are home to the Black Omegas?

[Jetex Jim]

Moderators, shouldn't this thread be merged with:
Government to Get Rid of Embarrassing Inquests
?

[BEagle]

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7341925.stm

't Bungling Baron won't be happy, tha' knows.

This also makes interesting background reading:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1596756.ece

[Jackonicko]

Paragraph 47 of the judgement reads:

"According to the Attorney General's evidence, BAE has always contended that any payments it made were approved by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In short they were lawful commissions and not secret payments made without the consent or approval of the principal. The cause of anti-corruption is not served by pursuing investigations which fail to distinguish between a commission and a bribe. It would be unfair to BAE to assume that there was a realistic possibility, let alone a probability, of proving that it was guilty of any criminal offence. It is unfortunate that no time was taken to adopt the suggestion (referred to in evidence) to canvass with leading counsel the Attorney's reservations as to the adequacy of the evidence."

I'm as keen as anyone to kick BAE when it f*cks up a programme, or uses its monopolistic position to charge high prices, but kicking the company for corruption is grossly and grotesquely unfair.

I've personally heard senior people from BAE’s competitors praising the company’s approach to business.

One Exec from a big US manufacturer told me that: “BAE has a reputation within the industry for knowing that there is a line between bribery and the kind of gift-giving and payments to middlemen that is routine and entirely acceptable in the Middle East, and my take is that they make real efforts to stay on the right side of that line.”

BAE has an external, independent expert committee (including Lord Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Philippa Foster Back, Director of the Institute of Business Ethics, and Sir David Walker, former chairman of Morgan Stanley) that evaluates the company’s ethics and business conduct, and is aggressively determined to prove that the company has never done anything improper when competing for and winning defence contracts.

The company has long-standing anti-corruption policies and training programmes in place, and is committed to never offering bribes or improper inducements (nor using third parties to do so) and any gift worth more than £25 has to be logged and registered, which is why their gizzits to journos are so paltry and meagre!

It seems clear to me that BAE Systems has been the subject of what appears to be a concerted campaign by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and the Guardian newspaper, whose journalists appear to have stooped to some stunningly shabby and dirty tricks of their own, and which has published numerous articles alleging corruption by the company, and which maintains a ‘BAE Files’ microsite on its website.

While I understand that some within the RAF may deplore some things about 'British Wasteospace' I'd question the motives and sanity of anyone who put them higher on the 'bad guy list' than the Guardian or CAAT.

At the time of these alleged bribes (which are ANCIENT HISTORY, relating to the Al Yamamah Tornado deal and not today's Typhoon deal, BAE was still partially state-owned, and was only the prime sub-contractor on what was a government-to-government deal. BAE acted with the full knowledge and consent of both governments throughout Al Yamamah, and the payments were approved by the Ministry of Defence. This was effectively an automatic process that was “out of the company’s hands.” Howard Wheeldon, defence analyst at BGC Partners, suggested that the worst that the British Government could be accused of was “a degree of naivety” and that successive governments had “no case to answer.”

The payments were written into the contract in annexes, and were probably required because Al Yamamah was originally paid for on an ‘Arms for Oil’ basis. This was not illegal either under UK corruption law nor the US Foreign Corrupt Practises act. The money was owned by the Saudi Government, and was passed to Prince Bandar, Saudi Minister of Defence and Aviation via Saudi Ministry of Defence and Aviation (MODA) accounts that were audited annually by the Saudi ministry of finance. Every payment was approved by one or both governments, and, according to Bandar, used “exclusively for purposes approved by MODA.”

Lord Goldsmith implied that the real reason that the SFO dropped the inquiry was that there was no case to answer. “My judgement was that a prosecution wouldn't succeed," even if the SFO had been given the go-ahead to continue the probe for a further 18 months and to delve into Swiss bank accounts connected to the Saudis.

The inquiry is thought to have angered Saudi Arabia. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that he was certain the right decision had been taken and that had the SFO investigation continued, it would have led to "the complete wreckage of a vital strategic relationship and the loss of thousands of British jobs.”

BAE says that it acted lawfully at all times, though it has been hamstrung in its response by the confidentiality agreements signed as part of the Al Yamamah agreement.

Sir Raymond Lygo, a former BAE chief executive, told me at Farnborough last time around (if I remember right) that there had been no secret payments.

"There was nothing untoward about the deal whatsoever. I was the one who won the contract and I would have known if anything was going on at the time. Naturally we paid agents, but there’s nothing illegal about that. It was absolutely in accordance with the law.”

So the SFO acted unlawfully in dropping the investigation.:hmm:

It seems pretty clear to me that the investigation was a pointless waste of money in the first place, picking over the bones of a 20 year old arms deal which was conducted pretty cleanly anyway.

But "Major arms company does exactly what the Government tells it to" isn't much of a headline-grabbing story, I guess. :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Doptrack]

Thank you Jackonicko:D:D

[Roland Pulfrew]

Well said JN.

This is another non-story, and only persists because it is a favourite of The Grauniad, just as Diana is a favourite of The Daily Express. It is ancient history, even more so than the 'drunken driver kills Princess' story and deserves putting to bed.

The SFO had been investigating for how many years? And still had no evidence to bring charges. It is yet another waste of tax payers moneyand what will it achieve? Absolutely c0ck all! The deal was done. UK Plc benefitted. The losers are??????

[BEagle]

If the High Court ruled that the SFO acted unlawfully in dropping this case due to pressure from Goldsmith, that is hardly a 'Hmmm' matter.

The SFO must be allowed to continue their investigations. If all comes up clean, that will be an excellent result.

But high level political pressure leading to a suspension of investigations, no matter what you might think, Jacko, does make one smell a rat.

[Jackonicko]

Au contraire, my old fox.

This was a pointless, groundless investigation into the prime sub contractor in what was a 20 year old government to government deal. Any fair minded observer would conclude that it was obvious that BAE had done nothing wrong. This was an investigation that was looking at the wrong target, and there was (according to the attorney general) no real chance of a conviction.

However, a politically motivated investigation (driven by the Guardian and CAAT, ferfuxake) and cheered on by the UK's industrial competitors into this ancient deal, stood a very real chance of spoiling Anglo-Saudi Arabian relations.

Just when co-operation with the Saudis was most needed in the war against terror, and just as they were in the final stages of negotiating a vital aerospace deal.

The only rats that I smell are the unsavoury and unscrupulous muck-raking journos on the Guardian, and the loony lefties who constitute the CAAT and its supporters. And those who (for reasons of their own) cannot pass up any opportunity to kick BAE, whether deserved (as it often is) or not (as in this case).

Put this to bed, and the winners are UK taxpayers, UK plc, BAE Systems, the RAF and the RSAF.

The losers? Dassault. Lockmart. Boeing. The French and US taxpayers.




and Guardian-reading, sandal-wearing, Tofu-eating, lefty hippy to$$ers.

[BEagle]

Personally I wouldn't even wipe my bottom on The Grauniad.

My quotes are from The Times. Hardly an organ favoured by the lentilistas of whom you are so rightly scathing.

But the allegations of "Drop the case or we won't tell you about terrorists" have been described as a successful ploy by a foreign regime to pervert the course of British justice.

Losers? Truth, honesty and decency. Old fashioned values they may be, but some of us still hold them dear.

I see BAE Systems shares are down over 5% today.

[LowObservable]

Well said Jacko....







... and did I mention that's a nice Bentley you've been driving lately?:E

[Roland Pulfrew]

BEags

Losers? Truth, honesty and decency

Surely they are only losers if the CAAT and Grauniad allegations are proven? The SFO had been investigating for over 2 years and were no closer to an actual prosecution. Only when they started to try to investigate Saudi private bank accounts did the Saudis start crying foul. I think I would to, if the SFO started investigating my bank account for no real reason. Equally I am sure that those Saudi accounts hide lots of secrets that the Saudis, and probably lots of other interested parties, wouldn't want investigating.

According to the memos published in the case neither the then PM nor the then AG actually ordered the SFO to drop the case. Semantics maybe, but it is just possible that there is no wrong doing in this case.

[Jackonicko]

The press has largely followed the Guardian's lead, and the Times has done so with as much brainless alacrity as anyone.

It's journalists are cut from much the same muck-raking, scandal-seeking, morally indignant and morally bankrupt hypocritical and unscrupulous cloth as are the Guardian's.

Hardly any of the Broadsheets have defence specialists with any in-depth knowledge or long experience, and if Guardian or Times journos were on fire, I wouldn't spit on most of them.

And I say that as a journo myself.

Like you, I'm all for Truth, Honesty and Decency.

Truth: BAE was only the prime sub-contractor on what was a government-to-government deal. BAE acted with the full knowledge and consent of both governments throughout Al Yamamah, and the payments were approved by the Ministry of Defence. This was effectively an automatic process that was “out of the company’s hands.”

Honesty: The payments were written into the contract in annexes, and were probably required because Al Yamamah was originally paid for on an ‘Arms for Oil’ basis. This was not illegal either under UK corruption law nor the US Foreign Corrupt Practises act.

Decency: BAE has established an external, independent expert committee to evaluate the company’s ethics and business conduct, and is determined to prove that the company has never done anything improper when competing for and winning defence contracts. The company has long-standing anti-corruption policies and training programmes in place, and is committed to never offering bribes or improper inducements (nor using third parties to do so) and any gift worth more than £25 has to be logged and registered.

[Jackonicko]

LO

I wish.

The best 'bribe' I've had this year was to watch England play a very poor game of Rugby, after which I had to undergo one of the most unpleasant train journeys I've ever experienced.

That ranks right up there alongside the infamous Boeing cheeseboard!

JN