BAES Bungs

[Saintsman]

I see that this has raised it's head again BBC NEWS | Business | BAE Systems faces bribery charges (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8284073.stm)

Whilst it may not be the done thing here. Its the only way to do business in some countries. If BAES didn't cough up, someone else would. Some people should realise that having a righteous attitude doesn't put food on the table.

[jindabyne]

Oh cripes - just when I thought people hadn't noticed.

[Jabba_TG12]

You wouldtn have thought though that two of those countries would have included Saudi Arabia and The Czech Republic?

Yeah, I bet they're scratching around for crumbs in both of those places...

No sympathy for BAe, I'm afraid. They knew what they were doing.

Cause and effect.

[jindabyne]

They knew what they were doing.

From that, I take it that you do (know what they were doing)?

[Navaleye]

This case is clearly not in the public interest and should be dropped. The only people that will gain from this is the parasitical legal profession. Let it go IMHO.:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Having been employed in the defence industry for nigh on half a century I do feel that it would be better is we didn't flog our kit to every man with a buck, or who wants a buck. If they do go else where we may hope that our kit is better.

Indonesian air defence had British Decca Radar :(

Argentina had British Type 42 and Canberra.

Iraq had British C2C systems.

Didn't the Taliban have Blowpipe?

Not to mention the French.

One marginal advantage is that we know the capabilities, or failings, of the kit.

Same deal with the training systems. We train 'em, we fight 'em.

[Fareastdriver]

I presume that if it come to court proceedings the prosecution will call on dozens of French, German, Italian, American, Japanese, Chinese businessmen, plus others, who will be able to give expert advice on how to do it.

[Navaleye]

Its a valid argument PN. It just means that they will go to the French or Russians with a resultant net loss to UK PLC that funded the development of the things in the first place.

[soddim]

Is it too much to expect that a bunch of expense-fiddling ministers could get round to doing some real governing by kicking this whole process into touch?

[Ewan Whosearmy]

This case is clearly not in the public interest and should be dropped. Let it go IMHO.

Great idea!

That way, when we preach to other nations about stamping out corruption and being respected by the international community, they can respond that it's not in the public interest to investigate corruption and tell us to get knotted.

[BEagle]

I know it's only The Grauniad, but when one reads such detailed allegations as Crime and corruption : the BAE Systems £60M Saudi slush fund (http://www.angloarabia.com/bribery/slushfund.html) , it is difficult to believe that 't Bungling Baron Waste O' Space isn't really 't Bunging Baron BWoS.....

The files include large cash payments into Prince *****'s Bank of America account in Los Angeles, where he has acquired a Beverley Hills mansion. More picturesque items include a peacock-blue Rolls Royce for Prince *****'s wife, and a £175,000 Aston Martin Le Mans for himself.

Sorry, jinda'. But the sickening rolling over by the detestable poodle Bliar proved to me that there was indeed a case to answer.

:mad:

[Dengue_Dude]

I can really imagine the French ripping their hair out and wearing sack-cloth and ashes. (This is not a dig at them).

What is it about this country? When in Rome . . .

It's a no-brainer, if we don't sell stuff, someone else will. I'd rather keep Brits in a job than someone else.

Is it moral - probably not - then tell me when arms sales of any description are moral. One of man's greatest skills is inventing more ways of killing each other.

Our weapons used against us? Why not, that's been happening since the Romans traded weapons with their trading partners.

As it says in Ecclesiastes 'there's nothing new under the sun'.

[PPRuNeUser0139]

Isn't it time we climbed off our high horse and stopped preaching to other nations..?
We're no different to other countries when it comes to corruption - why should we be?
For years we've been fed the 'snouts in the trough' stories about the Euro politicians in Brussels when the reality was happening right under our noses - cash for honours, cash for questions, interest free loans et al.. It suited our Westminster masters to have the electorate think that they were whiter than white.
BAES - and other major players - do whatever is necessary to win business.. Call it commission, call it expenses, call it training, call it whatever the hell you like but that's how the game's played.
Accept that business is business and if you don't like the means, then involve yourself in an activity that doesn't smell so bad.
The services always prided themselves on their integrity which is why some here are uneasy with cases such as the current BAES saga.

[Lima Juliet]

If we sell Waste'O'Space's crap to the other nations then we won't be told to buy it for ourselves - here's hoping, what a great plan! :}

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Sidevalve

It's convenient for us to preach to other nations - there is no high horse.

For example, we sell BAe Hawks to Malaysia, but only on the condition that they clean up corruption and do something about bombing and strafing people they don't like (with the Hawks we've just sold them). Now do you see how it works?

[Ewan Whosearmy]

I'd rather keep Brits in a job than someone else.

BAe Systems employs 110,000 people. Only 30,000 of them are British.

If jobs have to go because BAe have been caught handing money under the table, then who says they'll be the British jobs?

[The B Word]

Yes, if 80,000 are foreigner's jobs then why-oh-why do we have to listen to the "Sovereign Capability" argument!!!

[Jabba_TG12]

With respect Jinda, its not my ethics being questioned here, its theirs, if they have any.

I've not been in the industry as long as PN, but certainly from recent observations, out of uniform, over the last 10 years, it seems to me that there is no such thing as an ethical defence contractor.

I dont need to know what BAe have been upto and what they are being accused of. The SFO and the AG do.

Although, has been mentioned on other sites... what with one of the countries concerned being the Czechs, who have yet to ratify the EU constitution and with Lord Mandy being the Trade minister... the timing is very interesting. Blair due to be crowned President Of Europe soon after the constitution is ratified - only Ireland and the Czech's left - The Czech's were saying last week that it would take them until next year to complete ratification - suddenly within 7 days, this blows up and lo and behold, the Czechs are involved in it.

Hows this for a conspiracy theory....

What price Mandy leaning on his Czech opposite number re ratification, in return for this not having political fall out in the Czech Republic, the BAe board suddenly decide they want to settle up out of court, they walk away "unconvicted" and still able to trade in the US, Blair gets the top job in Europe, Gordon exits stage right to the G20, his work is done... replacement comes in, calls the election and Cam has to pick up the pieces with by that point the constitution fully ratified. Theres no point in Cam's referendum because the treaty will have been fully ratified and we'll basically be stuffed.

Anyway, I digress. BAe... they could always argue it was a technical breach of the law. It worked for the AG, didnt it?

Seriously... I know it may invite howls of protest from those very closely aligned to the industry, but as I said, my feelings are that BAe will get their just desserts. Another contributor has pointed out that 4/5ths of their workers are overseas anyway. The board will have known exactly what they were getting into and if it results in prosecutions, tough. We rightly cannot go around telling other nations to clean up their act when corruption runs through the veins of both politics and industry, absolutely rampant. BAe has pulled the nation's plonker for too many years. The whole industry and the way the British military procure equipement is in need of a serious clear out and reform. If this is to be the watershed, so be it.

Sorry. :suspect:

[Finnpog]

This story does present me with an ethical problem.

By being able to throw big bucks into the back pockets of crooks, it means that the 'sub-standard' products produced get enforced upon the PBI and the rest of us Crown Servants.

If we had the best product at the best price, the deal would be mouth-watering to a purchaser.

As it is, it has frequently been a shocking product at a hair raising price, but greased through the back door.

One of the talking heads quoted SA as paying 2.5 times more for a plane which their Air force didn't want.

"Good game. Good game!"

[minigundiplomat]

If you produce a product that is inferior to a competitor, you shouldn't cry foul when customers go elsewhere.

BAe have played the UK job card too many times, whilst flogging the MOD equipment that is often inferior to foreign made products.

If you break the law, you should face the consequences. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

If BAe have broken the law, as the SFO seem to think they have, then they should be prosecuted.

I have no particular axe to grind against BAe, but they seem to think that they can get away with murder, and then make the right noises about the survivability of the UK defence/aerospace industry.
If they can't compete through innovation and quality, then let them fail. If they can, and produce products the UK military actually need, then in this era, stuff should be flying off their shelves without bungs or political interference.

[jindabyne]

Jabba,

No need to be sorry. We have very different views over the issue, and I can respect that. Innocent until proven guilty - and thus far, I've seen little of proof here (nor on the previous forum).

[green granite]

Surely all they have to do is call it commission for helping to sell the equipment. :}

[soddim]

There are some very naive and simplistic views already posted on this thread. Whilst I do not pretend to know the foreign sales market inside out, what little I know is that competition is fierce, not just on quality and price but also on influence. Often there are influential corrupt locals in the procurement chain and no sale is possible without their backing.

Is it better not to sell to them and let the French, Russian, American or Chinese get the contract?

Some people need to realise that the price usually reflects the cost of this 'influence'.

But why do we pay so much for our kit????

[Finnpog]

I'm with you all the way.
:ok:

[Rigga]

Once, as a mere QA Engineer, I was tasked with transferring a BAe146 from a central african country back to the EU.
The Project fell down when I asked for approx £100K to deal with the unexpected admin costs of civil and military officials, customs and police.
It happens all around us - I've seen what a large US airframer donates in the way of golfing and weekend jaunts to potential buyer's staff. And its not just limited to sizeable organisations either. How many politicians and civil servants have been caught? Anyone for a Floating Duck-House?

And whilst I note the rise in international "Conduct" training that may give loads of staff some new certificates, we may be training the wrong people anyway.