I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having changed my mind on this one - originally I also believed that a few extra payments was the cost of doing business at that time; however, my primary issue with this whole sorry tale is the rule of law in the UK constitution (such as we have). Far from being a looney on the left I consider myself to be pretty entrenched on the right and as such I firmly believe in the rule of law and the primacy of our system of democracy. It seems to me that the major principle behind the whole issue is the independence of the investigating authorities and the separation of the executive, the judiciary and the investigators.
Quite frankly I don't care which company it is and what the possible charges are, the principle remains that the government should not have inteferred in the independence of the SFO to carry out their job. The fact that the investigation had taken 2+ years is utterly irrelevant and probably proves nothing other than that it was difficult and complex (and perhaps already under significant political pressure to go slow).
It is ironic that some have accused the SFOs investigation as politically motivated (what does the SFO have to gain from politics I ask?) when the governments interference was nothing but political. The national security question is a convenient excuse - ultimately it is about jobs in the North west and scaremongering by BAE.
It is quite possible/likely that BAE is entirely innocent and has acted within the spirit and letter of the law at all times, but that really isn't for Tony Blair to decide. This govt has been an absolute disgrace when it comes to interfering with the rule of law and the independance of its statutary bodies (dodgy dossiers for war anyone?). TB's 'Presidential' style of govt was ideally suited to making dictatorial decisions without recourse and this to me is one of his completely corrupt and undemocratic decisions coming home to roost.
BAE are innocent until proven guilty along with the rest of us. But if the SFO believed there was a possible case to answer then it is absolutely their constitutional and legal duty to investigate the issue as far as they practically could - it is clear from the judgement that BAE are not guilty only because the investigation was interferred with for completely political reasons before the SFO had reached an endstate. Personally I don't want to live in a country that behaves in such an undemocratic fashion - I find it amazing that you in particular Jacko can subscribe to the notion that government can interfere in this way. Where will we ever draw the line? What if a friend of the PM is being investigated for corruption - how would we feel in the govt halted that inquiry? How can we lecture Mugabe on the probity of his electoral system and then interfere in our own independant public bodies?
Finally, I would like to add that I am not a Guardian reader. However, I am very close to BAE, AYII and Typhoon so I know a bit about the issues and believe it or not I have sympathy for BAE - my issue is the principle - yet another principle that this govt has seen fit to stomp all over.