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!