BEagle
Jacko maybe goes a bit far with the defence but, let's face it, a 5-0 unanimous decision by senior members of the highest court in the land hardly leaves much doubt as to the rights or wrongs of the SFO decision to halt the AY inquiry.
I noted, with some amusement, that the CAAT spokesperson while giving comment on the House of Lords decision, said that the UK public was now better aware of the spurious claims that many thousands of UK workers depend on the defence and aerospace industry for employment.
On a recent Radio 5 phone in programme, that same spokesperson was suggesting that UK workers in the defence and aersopace industry should be taken from employment in that sector and put onto repairing and upgrading the West Coast rail line. Highly credible!
Jacko gets one thing right and it is something many who post on Prune seem to forget. CAAT does not support anyone who works in the defence sector, be that in research and development, manufacturing, support or on the frontline itself.
I just wonder where all the funding for CAAT's expensive campaign against the defence industry is coming from. For an organisation that would appear to survive on the proceeds of occasional fund raising concerts, car boot sales and the like, it seems able to retain some of the most expensive lawyers available in its crusade against the very industry that keeps many of us off the streets and able to pay our bills.
What is the ultimate objective and in whose interests might that be?
Meanwhile, back in BAE land, we have four other SFO inquiries entering their fifth year and still apparently without enough evidence to support a prosecution. Yet, according to CAAT and The Guardian, the volume of evidence which is readily available to support their allegations is huge.
Is the SFO so incapable of seeing what CAAT and The Guardian see so clearly? I suspect not!