"If you knew half of what these Guardian journos have been up to, then perhaps, like me, you'd be convinced that however slimy TB may have been, there are even more cynical and dishonest folk involved in this whole episode."
As somebody suggested earlier we are into the realms of moral relativism - are you suggesting that there would not have been any original investigation without CAAT and the Guardian? Even were that true are you also suggesting, as a journo, that it is not for the newspapers and journo's in our democracy to point out to the correct authorities cases of illegal activity, corruption etc etc? Just because the Guardian seeks to sell papers and CAAT has a bit of a leftward bent does not mean that they don't have the same rights as any of us to complain and ask for the investigation of illegal activity - i might not agree with many of their opinions and politics but I'll defend to the death their rights to make the point. However, once the independant investigating authority (in this case the SFO) gets involved I absolutely agree that it is not for CAAT the Guardian or Tony Blair to materially interfere with the investigation because as the judgement points out, this is illegal!
"Journos who have nothing to lose from making base accusations have made them. Politicians, industry personnel and civil servants who have everything to lose if they are caught out lying have denied them. I know which side I trust."
You trust TB, Lord Goldsmith etc etc? Good luck to you. I don't trust them or the Guardian but I am still prepared to put my faith in the SFO as a public body if they are prepared to stand-up to all external politically motivated pressure and get on with their job.
"And I see absolutely NO EVIDENCE of corruption or bribery."
I will choose my words carefully here as I don't want the secret police hunting me down - but just because you don't see any evidence doesn't mean there isn't any! If you have some detailed inside track at the SFO whereby you can back that up then I defer to your knowledge but I seriously doubt it - you are guessing from your own dealings with BAE that they are clean. Just because you don't have any evidence doesn't fill me with a warm glow that BAE are squeaky. The only ones in this mess who actually have no axe to grind are the SFO and the Judiciary. I repeat, once an investigation is started it should be continued until there is evidence for a charge or it is clear that there will not practically be enough evidence for a conviction - it is not for you, I, TB or CAAT to say at what point this has been reached - it should be up to the SFO - THIS IS THE PRINCIPLE that our society and laws are based on.
"Such evidence should have been produced to justify any SFO enquiry (innocent until proven guilty, and all that), which should not have been triggered at the behest of malicious and highly partisan mischief-making, unscrupulous Guardian journos. If you want to get indignant about anything, then how about the inappropriate complicity between 'sources' within the SFO and a Newspaper?"
Anyone caught leaking from the SFO should be sacked as this also betrays the principle and compromises a fair trial in the future. But I understand their frustration without condoning in the same way that I understand the frustration of people in the MOD leaking the govts defence cutbacks. Again I suspect that you are guessing that there is no evidence. If the SFO really had uncovered absolutely nothing in their 2 year investigation then perhaps the management has a case to answer. However, I think that it is highly unlikely that the SFO would have continued for 2 years without some evidence to keep them going - what would be the motivation for chasing this for no reason and with no evidence? I just don't see it.
Before my money, as a taxpayer, is wasted on a wild goose chase (and especially one with quite such serious consequences) I want to be sure that it hasn't been motivated by spite and skullduggery by peacenik lefty hacks and the Campaign against the Arms Trade. Especially when the investigation is looking back at something that is supposed to have happened 20 years ago!
What are these serious consequences you speak of? That we might upset the Saudi's or that we allow politicians to interfere with the rule of law in our country? That TB decides who gets investigated and prosecuted and more importantly who doesn't? That we allow a foreign government, not even a remotely democratic one, to dictate to our police forces how they should conduct an inquiry in Britain. That we allow a foreign government to threaten us with the unknown consequences of future terrorism? I think that it is a disgrace to allow this to happen in my country. When did we ever allow any country to threaten us in such a way?
You claim that you want to be sure that it wasn't motivated by leftie peacniks etc etc, well how are you going to be sure of that when the inquiry is folded early? BAE are actually in limbo and if innocent should have nothing to hide - that is the beat way of shutting up the lefties - your solution to sweep it under the carpet will ensure that it goes on and on.