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.