SFO raids four premises in BAE contracts probe

[Squirrel 41]

Jacko,

All very impressive but for all your passionate defence, you're wasting your time for precisely the reasons BEagle outlines: this is about whether Tony Blair as PM and Lord Goldsmith as AG acted legally in strong-arming the SFO to stop the enquiry because Prince Bandar popped into No 10 to have a quiet word.

The Court concluded that Bandar did indeed pop in and attempt to pervert the course of justice, which if you or I had done it, could have resulted in a criminal conviction and a period inside. And let's face it, despite all of the denials from No 10, the discovery of "national security" at precisely the time that the Typhoon was sale in the offing was pretty "convenient"... :hmm:

Perverting the course of justice is a crime in the UK. Bribing foreign governments has been a crime in the UK for several years. So what if you don't like CAAT or Grauniad? Stop and thank them for protecting the rights that we hold dear.

And on the substance of the allegations: if I were Sir Dick Evans and I was so sure that I was innocent, I would have been very, very keen for the SFO investigation to continue and clear my company. :)

Of course, if there was something that may be "misunderstood" or was "outside company guidelines" or resulted from "complex rules that could be unintentionally misinterpreted" [insert any other weasel words you like], then you and Sir Dick may be slightly less keen for the SFO to reopen their investigation......:hmm:

S41

[Jackonicko]

If anything happened, it happened 20 years ago, and the balance of the evidence is that BAE did exactly what the Govt told it to.

But even if there was something dodgy way back then, frankly, I don't care. We won a massively important order which preserved high value jobs and provided investment for improving UK kit, instead of letting the French or the Yanks (who were much less fastidious when it came to 'payments') grab the order.

And this pointless investigation into ancient history threatens jobs today.

I wouldn't find much to praise about Tony or Goldsmith, but if they did have the balls to quash this, in our national interest, then good for them.

It's abundantly clear that there were no bribes, as such, and that any payments made were commission. It's a fine and blurry line, but while these payments were close to that line, they were not miles over it.

And if the legal weasels don't like it, I'm not unduly bothered.

[Strangelove PhD]

I notice Beagle has a humongous chip when it comes to BAE.
But what's the truth behind it?
Maybe a session with a psychiatrist would reveal that one Christmas, Santa brought young Beagle an Airfix kit of the Lightning and that :mad: Teddy Petter had neglected to include one of the wings.
Damn that outfit of northern monkeys :{

[BEagle]

Squirrel41, thank you for restating the case so clearly.

Strangelove, I have nothing against any specific company. I do, however, detest corruption.

My Airfix Lightning was fine - it just needed a huge amount of weight to sit on its nosewheel!

And Jacko, you state "It's abundantly clear that there were no bribes, as such, and that any payments made were commission." How do you know that? Personally I would prefer the SFO to make such an announcement.

[Squirrel 41]

BEagle - thanks for being so consistent, especially in defence of peple you clearly disagree with / loath. Voltarie would have been proud! :ok:

Jacko

Forgive me for summarising your position, but it seems to be

(i) it was a long time ago

so it doesn't matter,

(ii) there may have been some dodgy stuff going on but since the Saudis were paying it's ok because it was them nicking their own cash

so it doesn't matter

(iii) everyone else did/does the same thing anyway

so it doesn't matter

and

(iv) if it's in the national interest then the government can do what the hell it wants, including acting illegally.

Points (i), (ii) and (iii) are just moral relativism, because I suspect you'd be slightly pi:mad:ed off if a British MP or civil servant nicked £1bn by adding it on to the procurement of something.

And as BEagle says not only is corruption morally wrong, but it rots government from the inside and the collapse of western-orientated autocracies in the Middle East is in my limited view a very significant medium-term threat to the UK based on what may replace it (think: Taliban with oil and lots of gucci weapons). We should at least not be promoting corruption in my view - and we should be showing the way forward through promoting the rule of law, not embarassingly shuffling it away into a neglected corner.

But point (iv) really worries me: do you really think that by invoking "national security" the executive can do whatever it wants? This is the road to perdition, mate.

Nonetheless Jacko, I owe you a vote of thanks, though I thought you were a journalist rather than a comedian:

It's abundantly clear that there were no bribes, as such, and that any payments made were commission. It's a fine and blurry line, but while these payments were close to that line, they were not miles over it.

Can you prove any of this? If so, pls forward the documents to the SFO who I'm sure would be delighted to receive it. Brown envelope optional.

S41

[Roland Pulfrew]

S41

Bribing foreign governments

No bribery has been proven, it has only been alleged, and after 2+ years investigation the SFO could not bring a case.

has been a crime in the UK for several years

And that of course assumes that the allegations are correct; at present there is no proof that bribery has occured. Out of interest can you define 'several years'? 5? 10? 20?

Even if there was a bit of bribery does it really matter now. The contract was won, the money has been spent and as JN has tried to point out BAES now has anti-corruption measures in place.

Now then, one Bentley Brooklands at £230K divided by £24.99 = how many posts on PPRuNe...... :E

[soddim]

I cannot understand why in the UK we are beating ourselves up over this matter. As far as one can tell the Saudis were spending Al Yamamah oil on themselves (or the chosen royals) using BAE as the travel agent. The oil was theirs to waste - either in the excesses of the royals or on support for second rate BAE aircraft.

If anybody should be beating themselves up about this it is the Saudis, not us.

Did Blair break the law - Yes. Did BAE break the law - no.

[Squirrel 41]

Roland

The issue is not whether any bribery occurred or not: it is whether there was an attempt to pervert the cause of justice in shutting down the SFO investigation. And the Court has held that there was, and that this was illegal.

As I said before, being cleared by the SFO would be the best possible course for BAES and their reputation. Happily for them, this may now occur. Assuming of course that there is nothing to hide; Sir Dick E keeps protesting his innocence and that of the Company, so I'm sure that he's got nothing to worry about. ;)

On your question: the UK ratified the 1997 OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in 2002 (see http://www.oecd.org/department/0,2688,en_2649_34859_1_1_1_1_1,00.html) and the UK is obliged to investigate potential corruption. Under Art 5

“Investigation and prosecution of the bribery of a foreign public official shall be subject to the applicable rules and principles of each Party. They shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another State or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved.”

In other words, the UK had voluntarily signed up to commitments which required it to act against bribery and expressly removed considerations of economic self interest from the mix.

The 2001 Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act made it an offence for British firms to bribe foreigners.

"Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security (ATCS) Act 2001 includes legislation on bribery and corruption. This came into force on 14 February 2002 to deter UK companies and nationals from committing acts of bribery overseas. These changes to the UK law on corruption and the full legislation are available on the following website: www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/20010024.htm "

The source of this? British Embassy Warsaw website: http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1159200954121

Hope this helps,

S41

[Jackonicko]

Squirrel,

My personal views on the matter are irrelevant. I'm a washed up journo who didn't work hard enough at school to have a proper job.

Therefore summarising those parts of my posts which indicate my personal opinion are a waste of time. Let's concentrate on the facts, since they are more interesting.

At the time of these alleged bribes (which would have taken place 20 years ago, and which, if they happened, related to the Al Yamamah Tornado deal and not to today's Typhoon deal, BAE was still partially state-owned, and was only the prime sub-contractor on what was a government-to-government deal. BAE acted with the full knowledge and consent of both governments throughout Al Yamamah, and the payments were approved by the Ministry of Defence. This was effectively an automatic process that was “out of the company’s hands.” Howard Wheeldon, defence analyst at BGC Partners, suggested that the worst that the British Government could be accused of was “a degree of naivety” and that successive governments had “no case to answer.”

The payments were written into the contract in annexes, and were required because Al Yamamah was originally paid for on an ‘Arms for Oil’ basis. This was not illegal either under UK corruption law nor under the US Foreign Corrupt Practises act. The money was owned by the Saudi Government, and was passed to Prince Bandar, Saudi Minister of Defence and Aviation via Saudi Ministry of Defence and Aviation (MODA) accounts that were audited annually by the Saudi ministry of finance. Every payment was approved by one or both governments, and, according to Bandar, used “exclusively for purposes approved by MODA.”

Lord Goldsmith implied that the real reason that the SFO dropped the inquiry was that there was no case to answer. “My judgement was that a prosecution wouldn't succeed," even if the SFO had been given the go-ahead to continue the probe for a further 18 months and to delve into Swiss bank accounts connected to the Saudis.

Even in yesterday's judgement, it was made clear that:

"According to the Attorney General's evidence, BAE has always contended that any payments it made were approved by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In short they were lawful commissions and not secret payments made without the consent or approval of the principal. The cause of anti-corruption is not served by pursuing investigations which fail to distinguish between a commission and a bribe. It would be unfair to BAE to assume that there was a realistic possibility, let alone a probability, of proving that it was guilty of any criminal offence. It is unfortunate that no time was taken to adopt the suggestion (referred to in evidence) to canvass with leading counsel the Attorney's reservations as to the adequacy of the evidence."

That's why I say "It's abundantly clear that there were no bribes, as such, and that any payments made were commission."

And let's repeat, for emphasis, the words of the judgement

"The cause of anti-corruption is not served by pursuing investigations which fail to distinguish between a commission and a bribe. It would be unfair to BAE to assume that there was a realistic possibility, let alone a probability, of proving that it was guilty of any criminal offence."

Do I approve of the Saudis trying to apply pressure on the UK Government? No, I don't. But that is an entirely separate question and does not indicate that there was corruption.

[BEagle]

It would be unfair to BAE to assume that there was a realistic possibility, let alone a probability, of proving that it was guilty of any criminal offence."



Which is, of course, very different from saying that no criminal offence had actually been committed.

[DESPERADO]

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.

[Jackonicko]

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.

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.

And I see absolutely NO EVIDENCE of corruption or bribery.

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?

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!

[DESPERADO]

"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.

[airsound]

Desperado - two excellent posts, if I may say so.

Jacko, maybe I'm being naive. Whatever, I hate to say this - but your attitude to this surprises me, and, I have to say I find it rather shocking.

airsound

[Jackonicko]

"Am I 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?"

No. That's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that the authorities should look carefully at what they are given, and by whom, before wasting public money on pointless, massively expensive, potentially damaging investigations.

There's a difference between guardians of public morality reporting genuine cases of illegal activity, and $hit-stirring weasels cynically using information of dubious provenance (and gathered using deplorably underhand tactics) to try to achieve political aims......

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.

A number of people who I trust, from a number of organisations and agencies, assure me that BAE and HMG are pretty clean on this one - and that they were certainly cleaner than any of our competitors were at the time. I would not want anyone to have crossed the line and used outright bribery to win an order, but nor would I want them to operate to standards that the rest of the aerospace industry could not or would not operate. Shocking as it might seem, I'm relaxed if HMG fought for orders as hard as the Yanks would have done, though I'd disapprove if they came out with the "buy aircraft X because that will be a token of our alliance in the war against terror, you're either for against us" line.

I would not say that the SFO and the Judiciary had "no axe to grind."

The SFO have had more than enough time to put up or shut up, and have done neither.

For our own interests (and not in order to placate the Saudis) we should choose to waste no more money on this flawed process.

1) No evidence has been produced (and what anecdotal evidence there is suggests that there is no case to answer).

2) This all happened 20 years ago. And it threatens UK jobs today.

3) There is NO EVIDENCE that BAE did anything wrong, and yet people like you are still harping on and on about corruption, tarnishing the company's reputation and damaging the UK and its interests.

Again, quoting the report (and I note that the Guardian studiously avoid this)

"According to the Attorney General's evidence, BAE has always contended that any payments it made were approved by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In short they were lawful commissions and not secret payments made without the consent or approval of the principal. The cause of anti-corruption is not served by pursuing investigations which fail to distinguish between a commission and a bribe. It would be unfair to BAE to assume that there was a realistic possibility, let alone a probability, of proving that it was guilty of any criminal offence."

[airsound]

You don't have to shout. We're not deaf. Well, maybe a bit....

airsound

[Strangelove PhD]

...but hard of understanding.

Whilst it would be a capital idea to spend vasts amounts of money checking through BAE and their subsiduaries dealings.
The Government is skint, and what would it acheive?
Possibly the loss of jobs at BAE, possibly the loss of revenue into the UK. It would certainly cost the tax payers a few more spondoolies.

The opinion of people in the know seems to be that nothing will come of any further invstigations.
So why waste the money?
Why not spend it on some extra gas for shifty fix and let them do a farewell flypast of their Sassenach bases.... Or mabe find out exactly what happened to Diana :oh:

p.s. Does Dick Evans have anything to do with BAE anymore?

[backseatjock]

Strangelove - re your question whether Dick Evans has anything to do with BAE any more. The answer is no.

BeAGLE and others - my real gripe is with Jacko's media colleagues who seem very happy to quote CAAT, Corner House and Vince Cable but unwilling to quote anyone with a view which in any way supports BAE. Even the statement Jacko quotes, from the same very senior judges who criticised TB and his merry men and found them guilty of unlawful practice re stopping SFO inquiry, has been largely ignored. Whatever your views of BAE, surely journalists have a duty to present some form of balance in their articles.

It seems to me that in the absence of any credible evidence to support allegations of wrongdoing, the BAE inquiry should have been halted, with this given as the reason. Why anyone thought to play the 'national security' card, I will never understand.

To those who query why the SFO would want to continue with a case that was 'doomed to failure' as Jacko points out, consider the pressure the SFO is under to successfully prosecute companies for wrongdoing. It is a big organisation and has, I understand, a sizeable budget. Yet its success rate would appear to be relatively low. Some pressure to justify existence, perhaps.

And finally re The Guardian. I have it on good authority that, purely by coincidence of course, its journos/photographers just happen to find themselves in the same place at the same time as the SFO. This allegedly included an incident where one of the newspaper's photographers found himself outside the very Chelsea house that a squad of SFO officials was raiding. Surprise, surprise, the photographer was just passing that address at the very time the raid started.

Oh and I do love the fact CAAT feels qualified to pass comment on the value of contributions to the UK economy from the defence industry and finds a whole host of newspapers willing to quote meaningless stats such as 'BAE only employs 35,000 people in the UK, less than the 100,000 employed in the UK's curry houses'.

Can't remember which rag I read this in today but it underlines Jacko's point about a group of journalists covering this issue, who have no idea at all about the background or facts.

Rant over.

[tornadoken]

The Opposition's spokesman on Foreign Affairs did a splendid job last night, of endorsing the 1965-2007 UK/Saudi deals while finding some grounds for procedural criticism. We risk moving into a "who governs" morass - lawyers, or our elected representatives trying to balance the ideal with the practical.

CAAT, wanting no truck with arms or with regimes unlike our own, follow CND, on through conshies and Quakers - all valiant, honest and estimable. All decent folk would prefer:
a) that the KSA was run rather like Surrey County Council. Well, they do it their own way, so that's that;
b) that all weapons could be binned. Well we will be at the bin right alongside (your preferred ogre), but till then we will talk softly but carry a big enough stick in self-defence.

In 1930s similar evangels wanted the League of Nations to outlaw not just bombing, but Air Power. 1936's Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms was influenced by The Private Manufacture of Armaments by P.Noel-Baker. He saw he had encouraged Hitler and was Attlee's Sec.State for Air when we got into the Bomb business, trying to influence from inside the tent - and won the 1959 Nobel Peace Prize.

So, if we have the arrogance to believe we could/should try to improve the world, we must work, sweet reason, in partnership with leaders and their systems as they are. Blair/Goldsmith did that with unsavoury characters in Ulster. They did not indulge in unilateral gestures of no influence, save to open our jobs and security to infiltration.

[Echo 5]

Beags,

Truth, honesty and decency. Old fashioned values they may be, but some of us still hold them dear.


In real life you wouldn't per chance wear an old raincoat, carry a shopping bag, reside in Coronation Street and be known to one and all as Roy Cropper ? :)

[BEagle]

Presumably you're referring to that clog-and-whippet land TV programme on ITV? Must admit, I haven't watched it since colour TV first started - it was somehow more realistically 'grim oop Nawth' in grainy old 405-line monochrome.

Who is this Roy Cropper?

Anyway, back to the plot Michael.....

[Blakey875]

Beags,

Roy Cropper in the 'Street' is doing or has a similar attitude to yourself. The plot being there are some protected species type of animal in the locale and against everyone's wishes his conscience made him report the fact to the 'Greens' even though it will cost people their jobs and bankrupt others.... whereas a Nelson approach would have been better. Does that make sense of the comment?

[DESPERADO]

"I would not say that the SFO and the Judiciary had "no axe to grind."

The SFO have had more than enough time to put up or shut up, and have done neither.

For our own interests (and not in order to placate the Saudis) we should choose to waste no more money on this flawed process.

1) No evidence has been produced (and what anecdotal evidence there is suggests that there is no case to answer).

2) This all happened 20 years ago. And it threatens UK jobs today.

3) There is NO EVIDENCE that BAE did anything wrong, and yet people like you are still harping on and on about corruption, tarnishing the company's reputation and damaging the UK and its interests."

Jacko, I'll repeat it for you because I don't think that you are listening to my point - if you are then you have chosen to ignore it. You are arguing about the innocence or otherwise of BAE. Personally, as I have stated before, this is not the issue here for me. The issue is fundamental to the way our country is currently governed. Of course the High Court has made it clear (and you can make the letters as big as you like - I do get the point!) that as yet BAE have not been proven to do anything wrong. I have no problem with BAE and if they are innocent well thats great. The issue is that TB under pressure from a large corporation and a foreign power decided to interfere materially in an independant investigation. Period.

For you to suggest that the SFO are guilty of anything more than doing their job is a an unnecessary slur on the professionalism of the people in that organisation who are clearly unable to fight back. However, it is ok for you with a bit of a chat with some mates in BAE to completely clear them of all charges. How do you know that they did nothing wrong? - where is your evidence for this assertion? Again though we are off-piste - the independance of the police, investigating authorities and the judiciary are continually questioned and erroded by this govt and people of your ilk are just encouraging the thin end of the wedge. This is a completely black and white issue - independance of the investigation as opposed to your constitutional solution that allows the govt to veto inquiries that they don't like. Sounds a lot like Russia and Zimbabwe to me.

What have I said that tarnishes the reputation of the company? I have accused them of nothing. As for damaging the interests of my country, well I have been there and done it not just talked about it like you - put my @rse on the line in a BAE product on quite a few occasions without complaint. But thanks for being patronising and insulting. However, if you think that people interested in the separation of powers from the executive and the due process of law in Britain is some kind of traitor then you are clueless about the issue at stake here. You don't have to be a hippy to be concerned about the control freakery of this govt This govt rides rough over the rights of ordinary citizens, spends billions on surveillance (CCTV), demands ID cards etc etc in the name of protecting us from terrorists. How many die each year from terrorist attacks in the UK? Average 5-10 over the last 5years? How many die in car accidents - 3500?, curable cancers etc - perhaps I am the only one who thinks that we have our priorities wrong.

How is the process flawed? The SFO decide that there is a case for an investigation, they investigate until it is clear that there is no case to answer or they have evidence for a prosecution. Period. If this were a murder investigation would you be saying that the police have had more than enough time to put up or shut up? I am confused about the flaws in this process? If this were another corporation accused of say, insider trading, wouldn't you want it to go through the same process or do you really want the Prime Minister to have a veto? If that is what people really want in our democracy then we really are in trouble.

[DESPERADO]

Sam Leith from the Telegraph puts it much better than me.

'No one, whether within this country or outside is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice," is the ringing refrain of Lord Justice Moses's judgment on the Al-Yamamah fraud inquiry. It is a wonderfully fierce and lucid restatement of the principle of separation of powers and, in its context, an object reminder of why it is so important.
It says, at root, that the law is the law: and that it operates independently of political convenience, diplomatic horse-trading, and calculations of personal or even national advantage. Bravo to that.
The argument for turning a blind eye to corruption in the arms trade is much the same as the one applied against closing tax avoidance loopholes for the super-rich. And it is, for all that it gets dressed up in the pompous language of international realpolitik, a playground argument: if we don't do it, someone else will.
If we didn't call off the dogs, we were told before the Serious Fraud Office's inquiry was halted, the Saudis would buy their fighter planes from France instead of us. So, for the greater good, we ought to let this one slide.
The problem with this reasoning is that by "recognising the reality" of corruption and conniving in it, you also perpetuate it. You forfeit not only your ability to talk without hoots of derision about an "ethical foreign policy" (remember that?), but any chance of applying pressure to others. "You go first" and "just this once" are shoddy principles on which to form policy.
Say you are a shopkeeper, caught selling a 14-year-old lad a two-litre bottle of White Lightning, some fireworks and a grab-bag of huffable solvents. What sort of defence is it to maintain that "everyone's doing it" and "he would have had got it from someone so it might as well be me"?
We recognise that excuse as pathetically childish and self-serving. So why, if the person concerned is an arms dealer, do we suddenly regard this as a sophisticated and hard-headed defence of British interests and a regrettable example of the way the world wags, but there it is old boy?
Piffle, poppycock and monkey nuts. It is in the interests of Apu's Kwik-E-Mart to sell Bart the cider. But the police are there to make sure Apu serves his interests only in accordance with the law. If you are a local politician, and you're up for re-election, and the Kwik-E-Mart is one of your big supporters, you might hope to have a word with the copper, mind. And that's exactly the reason we maintain a functional separation between politicians and the judiciary.
There was enough evidence of corruption in the Al-Yamamah deal to warrant an independent investigation. That investigation, quite properly, went ahead. And it was only halted when extreme political pressure was put on those conducting it.
In the end, it was stopped after an explicit threat to withdraw a big arms contract, and an implicit threat that "lives would be put at risk" were the Saudis to withdraw their co-operation with our counter-terrorism operations. That is to announce that we're willing to do business with people who promise to connive in the murder of our citizens unless they get their way. Nice.
We're not talking about persecuting arms dealers (would that we were!): we're simply asking that if credible evidence presents itself, that they are doing business corruptly, it be investigated by independent authorities. A wealthy or powerful crook is a crook none the less, and the law is specifically set up to make sure he is dealt with the same as any other.
To allow politics to enter the operation of law is not only to make the law vulnerable, it is to make politicians themselves more vulnerable. What sort of pragmatism is that? "I have no power over the courts. Full stop," is an unanswerable response to any foreign state trying to bully a British prime minister in that department. If you let it be known you can swing the odd favour with the judiciary for your special pals, or those who threaten to let your citizens be murdered, you are asking for trouble.
So it was a disgrace that Tony Blair should have halted the investigation, regardless of whether it was in response to a threat from Prince Bandar, or whether you follow Lord Justice Moses's pointed suggestion that the threat was simply a "useful pretext" to avoid embarrassment.
It was a disgrace that the head of the SFO - whose independence from political considerations, as the judgment reminded us, is required "by statute" - should have caved in to it.
And it will be a disgrace if Gordon Brown does not, now, wipe the eye of his predecessor, allow the investigation to re-open and then keep his prime ministerial snout well out of it.

[Jackonicko]

OK, you want it simple.

There should be some grounds for an investigation. Some indication that such an investigation is warranted.

Some indication that our laws were broken. Some indication that corruption took place.

Sh.it-stirring by the Guardian and CAAT isn't sufficient evidence, on its own.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Jackonicko. It's good (if not disturbing!) to agree with you now and again.

[BEagle]

From today's The Sunday Times:

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is investigating whether secret accounts in the tax haven of Liechtenstein were used by BAE Systems to make payments to the Saudi prince at the centre of a £43 billion arms deal.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3736572.ece

[Exrigger]

BEagle; On the face of it you seem to lead a very boring life if the apparent enthusiasm you have for spending an inordinate of time trawling the internet news site for anything that involves adverse comments against BAES and then your fervour to get it posted into PPRune

Also this comment appears that you are not alone in your desperation to prove that BAES has done something wrong somewhere/sometime in the past:

The SFO said yesterday that its investigation into BAE’s alleged bribes for a Saudi jet fighter contract remained closed - although it confirmed it was actively looking at cash paid in relation to BAE contracts involving at least six other countries.

When are all these people going to get a life, if this activity was aimed at people it would be classed as harassment.

[BEagle]

You can throw your petty invective at me as much as you like. I care not.

However, this latest story in The Sunday Times appears to counter Jackonicko's claims that there is no case to be answered.

This allegation is particularly disturbing:


The High Court referred to claims by two Whitehall officials whose description to The Sunday Times of the nature of the Saudi threat formed the basis of the judicial review.

“****** went into Number 10 and said, ‘Get it stopped’ . . . If they didn’t stop it, the Typhoon [fighter] contract was going to be stopped and intelligence and diplomatic relations would be pulled,” the newspaper reported.


THAT, if true, is what I call harassment.

[Exrigger]

I thought I was quite polite and worded as more of an observation, what I wrote should'nt be seen as invective, petty or otherwise:


in·vec·tive
noun
1. vehement or violent denunciation, censure, or reproach.
2. a railing accusation; vituperation.
3. an insulting or abusive word or expression.
adjective
4. vituperative; denunciatory; censoriously abusive.


The get a life comment was actually aimed at the news paper personnel, CAAT etc from the quoted section rather than you personally, but like you I care not.

I would actually call your example more bullying or blackmail, allegedly, rather than harassment.

[Squirrel 41]

Jacko et al

Desparado has said it more eloquently than me: the issue here is actually not whether BAES is innocent or not: that would come out of an impartial enquiry, and as has been pointed out, BAES is innocent until proven guilty.

The issue is that the former PM applied pressure to an independent judicial process inappropriately and the court rightly slammed him for his conduct. The fact that the SFO had been working for two years on this is irrelevant - it's a complex enquiry which some people had apparently been trying to stymie at every juncture, so it's not a big surprise that the investigation was protracted.

And it's possible that the Saudis may learn something about the rule of law from this too - if so, all the better.

Bravo to the Judges for upholding the rule of law - and as has been said before - if BAES are innocent, then they are the one with the most to gain from being cleared by the SFO. Let's hope that the Court's order in a couple of weeks is as forthright as the judgement: "SFO, crack on!"

S41

[airsound]

Don't wish to sound conspiratorial, or to suggest something sinister when it's probably just a 'puter glitch, but when I tried to access the Sunday TimesOnline article, all I could get was the headline. The rest seems to have disappeared.

Tried via the paper's own website, as well, searching via the headline and also the reporter's name (David Leppard), all with the same result.

Spooky? or just uselessness, on my part or someone else's?

airsound

PS (1205) It has suddenly returned, apparently intact. I was going to delete this post, but thought I might leave it a little time in case the article disappears again. (Maybe it was being updated - it doesn't have a latest filing time/date unlike some other sites)

[tornadoken]

To my chagrin, today's Daily Mail op-ed column takes a position very close to mine (#270)

[ZH875]

BAE bosses detained at US airport (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7407023.stm)



Two executives of defence company BAE Systems have been briefly detained when they landed in the US on business.


Chief executive Mike Turner and an unnamed senior colleague were spoken to when they arrived at Houston airport, and had electronic equipment examined.


US officials are investigating corruption allegations involving a huge arms deal between BAE and Saudi Arabia.



I don't think the USA would stoop so low as to offer bribes to buy their aircraft, would they? :E

[backseatjock]

As Jacko and others have pointed out previously, the 'arms deal' or is that 'strategic defence relationship' that was AY, was actually negotiated between the UK and Saudi governments. The subsequent contract was signed between the two governments.

Not at all sure how the alleged bribery by BAE would have impacted on that. And still can't quite work out how you can bribe a customer with that same customer's own money and apparently with its own money!

Later media reports today say Turner was allowed to continue his travels in the US and is now back in the UK. Guess it couldn't have been such a major issue really.

[Utrinque Apparatus]

CAAT and the Guradian must really try to find some updated material for "evidence" ? Maybe they could ask the French for some more ? :hmm::E

[TacLan]

If anyone thinks that you can get anything major done in KSA without commission/brokers/bribery call it what you will, is naive and lacks experience of working with their culture. Unfortunately, its the price you pay for selling to these people. If you don't want to pay the price, don't sell to them.

Whilst not wishing to accuse any organisation of any wrong doing, how did the Americans get them to buy F5,F15, E3, C130's, Corvetes, Frigates, patrol craft plus support. Ditto the French with the Cougars/Dauphins/Super Pumas/frigates and oilers in the western province. Ditto the Germans with the torpedo boats. Ditto the Spanish with the Casa C-212's and APC's....the list goes on. To quote a banned book in the kingdom...he who is without sin etc.

Selling to the Saudi's is massive business, which companies and governments want to protect at all costs. This was highlighted in 2003 - 2005 with the little regard shown for the pink bodies of those working out there when the terrorist threat was as high as it gets. Other than creating a secure bolt hole in your villa (ours was on the roof.... no shade) little was done. Saying that, Salwa village compound is now on line, and appears to have reduced the risk somewhat, at least to BAe personnel.


The major question that I would like answered, is what started the SFO rabbit running in the first place?

A parting note, and lets not kid ourselves here.....
Saudi Arabia. When the oil runs out, so will everyone else

Edited to add: Some of the above may have already been covered in the previous 288 posts.....but I couldn't be arsed to read them all!

[rmac]

Related to the recent detention of BAE execs in the US.

As this was a transaction between the UK and KSA, just what the hell does it have to do with the US and on what basis do they feel they have the right to detain UK citizens, seize their property and invade their privacy.

Will our government complain, I doubt it, they haven't got the balls. Time to bring our one way love affair with the Americans under a bit of scrutiny :ugh:

[backseatjock]

Taking rmac's point, I wonder what the USG's reaction would have been if Mr Turner had been a US citizen and another country's border police had behaved in such a way!

Read somewhere today that a law has been passed in the US which now gives border police the ability to take laptops, PDAs, mobiles etc from anyone entering the country, without a search warrant or any real evidence of wrongdoing.

Are we starting to see (even more) paranoia in action...............:ugh:

[Double Zero]

I agree ' the Americans would never bribe anyone ' - Hello German Starfighter ? I knew a lot of BAe Sales / Product Support people, and their usual moan in the 1980's / 90's was " all we're given to go up against the Americans with is a crate of warm brown ale !"

Presumably that might have changed, and anyone who can sell export Tornados deserves either a medal or a pointy hat in the corner of the room...

Reading of Mr.Turners' detention ( I met him briefly a few times, probably a great accountant but not all that interested being helpful to pleb's like me who actually did practical work in trying to make BAe look good ) - has put a very wide grin on my face - just tell me Lygo has been done for shoplifting or something, - that's a hypothetical joke Ray mate - and my time on Earth is complete !

[Brian Abraham]

Not really following this discussion in any sort of depth but am surprised that thus far no mention has been made of the Woolf Report. Available here.
http://217.69.43.26/woolf/Woolf_report_2008.pdf

[Freehills]

Long time ago and place far away I did some stock market related analysis research on AY1 & BAe. 'Twer'n't pretty (but the cash flows were!)

But, as others have said. This is about the PM leaning on the SFO, not about BAE

[641st]

Lords overturn Saudi probe ruling

The House of Lords has ruled that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) acted lawfully when it halted its investigation into a Saudi arms deal.
The SFO dropped its inquiry into the £43bn deal with BAE Systems over fears it would threaten national security.
Ministers said that the Saudi government had threatened to withdraw cooperation on security matters.
The High Court had ruled in April that this was unlawful, but the Law Lords have reversed that decision on appeal.
The Law Lords voted 5-0 in favour of the SFO appeal.
One of them, Baroness Hale said she would have liked to have been able to uphold the court's decision that the SFO's director acted unlawfully because it was "extremely distasteful that an independent public official should feel himself obliged to give way to threats of any sort".
Despite this, she said: "I agree that [the director's] decision was lawful."
Another, Lord Bingham said the SFO director Robert Wardle "was confronted by an ugly and obviously unwelcome threat".
But he asserted that whether his decision was right or wrong was not at issue, rather whether it was one he was lawfully entitled to make. The House of Lords decided that it was.
National security
Campaign group Justice said the Law Lords had delivered "a disappointingly narrow judgement".
"It is a sad day for the rule of law when a senior prosecutor bows to threats from a foreign government and our most senior judges will do nothing to stop it," said Justice's director of human rights policy Eric Metcalfe.
Corner House, which was one of the groups which campaigned for the initial judicial review of the decision, said it was also "very disappointed".
But it defended its campaign to bring the case to court, saying a large amount of information on how decisions related to national security were made had been brought into the public domain.
This would otherwise have not been brought to light, Corner House's Susan Hawley told the BBC News website.
'Serious damage'


The al-Yamamah deal with Saudi Arabia was first signed in 1985 but ran into the 1990s and involved BAE selling Tornado and Hawk jets, other weapons and long-running maintenance and training contracts.
BAE was accused of illegal payments to Saudi officials, but the defence company has always maintained it acted lawfully.
In December 2006, the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, announced that the SFO was suspending its inquiry into the deal, saying it would have caused "serious damage" to UK-Saudi relations and, in turn, threatened national security.

[Roland Pulfrew]

And a link:

DT (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/2473629/SFO-was-right-to-call-off-BAE-Saudi-corruption-probe%2C-law-lords-rule.html)

Now, finally, perhaps we can put this one to bed.:hmm:

[jindabyne]

RP

If only, if only ---- surprised it's taking this long. Maybe they're waiting upon a steer from chums at the Guardian?

[Tightflester]

Where for art thou?

How did that bunch of Norther Monkeys get away with it?
I smell a rat :eek:

[BEagle]

The Law Lords merely decided that it was lawful for the SFO to have dropped its inquiry into the £43bn deal with BAE Systems over 'fears' that it would threaten national security.

That is absolutely not the same thing as finding that BAE was innocent of accustions that it made illegal payments to Saudi officials.

Had the SFO inquiry continued, it could have provided the answer to such allegations. But Bliar leant on the SFO, so the truth will probably never be known - and suspicions will therefore remain.

The Law Lords decision does not, as I see it, prevent the SFO from re-opening its case, should it choose to do so.

[Jackonicko]

Oh FFS.

Did someone in a BAE t-shirt molest you in your pram, BEags?

Or were you mug enough to buy one of their cars, or a barrow load of their shares?

BAE Systems may well have occasionally profiteered at the expense of the customer, and it may well have made a bollocks of a project or two.

But this incessant BAE bashing is getting tiresome.

It's a good company, generally, and a company that has often 'gone the extra mile' to support the war-fighter (that's you blokes), and that has produced the odd world beating product.

Many of its employees are your former comrades in arms, your ex-Students, and some of your former instructors and seniors, I suspect. All people who care deeply about aviation and the Royal Air Force. Not all, of course, but then there are irredeemably blunt chiselling tw@ts in the RAF, too.

And there was never enough evidence of wrongdoing to justify the launch of this misbegotten, expensive, wasteful, mischievously-motivated probe in the first place. The Lord Chancellor judged then that there was no chance of a successful prosecution.

Like EVERY other company dealing in the Middle East, BAE paid commissions back in the 1980s. An unholy alliance of peacenik Campaigners Against the Arms Trade and f*ckwit Guardian journos (two categories of people who make strange bed-fellows with a retired Squadron Leader and highly respected former tanker ace like you, I'd have thunk) don't like BAE, don't like the arms trade, and especially don't like Saudi Arabia, and have stooped to some astonishingly low tricks to try to smear BAE and cause it as many problems as they can.

I'm not an uncritical admirer of BAE Systems by any means, but I know which side I support in this fracas.

1) This is ancient history
2) This is flimsy stuff and the balance of evidence is that BAE at least tried to stay on the right side of the line
3) Pursuing this ancient history (which was never likely to achieve anything) stood to cause immense damage to UK plc TODAY.

The SFO was right (as well as legally entitled) to drop this. The big question for me is whether it was ever right to spend public money launching an investigation in the first place.

When will you lot be satisfied? When the Saudis have ****-canned their Typhoon deal, or when BAE Systems moves its entire operation stateside, or goes to the wall?

[BEagle]

Jacko, such a daft, rambling, intemperate post is somewhat surprising from a self-confessed journo.

Had the SFO continued with its investigations, the verdict for BAE would have been either 'not guilty' or 'guilty'.

Having been leant on by Bliar and 'external factors', the SFO investigation was stopped. As a result the verdict is simply 'not proven'.

Ignoring your histrionics, the fact that the High Court and Law Lords are at such opposite extremes of opinion cannot be considered particularly comforting.

[backseatjock]

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!

[Jackonicko]

Let me make it less rambling. I don't think it was that intemperate, tbh - I'd prefer waspish!

(It may be just as daft....)

There was never sufficient evidence to justify an investigation by the SFO.

The investigation was launched largely at the behest of malcontent lefties who have an axe to grind.

The investigation was looking into ancient history, but had the potential to do us damage today.

BAE played the game more cleanly than other aerospace companies in the same market.



It amazes me that someone like you (intelligent, normally well-informed, distinguished ex-RAF officer - NB no smileys, no sarcasm implied) should ally himself with the Guardian's CAAT-backed campaign.

[BEagle]

I have absolutely no alliance with the Grauniad or any cat people - I just wish to know the truth.

[backseatjock]

Think we would all agree with your last post re wanting to know the truth BEagle but can't you accept that if, after five years, the SFO has still not been able to find enough evidence to support a prosecution, the truth may be that nothing illegal happened?

Or is the truth that CAAT and two journos from The Guardian are far better investigators than the UK's Serious Fraud Office?

[soddim]

The bottom line, Beagle, is innocent unless proved guilty. You seem to want to see proof of innocence.

The fact that some of the Saudi money was channeled to their own royalty is not a matter for our country to deal with in any case and the SFO investigation was going nowhere anyway. In most jurisdictions this would never have got started and it was quite right that it ended.

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Corruption in SA. BAe had a few fingers in the SA arms deal as well. This is the tip of the iceberg and the rot goes all the way to the top.

news24.com

Govt 'blocks arms deal queries'
24/08/2008 12:56 - (SA)



Johannesburg - Attempts by the government to obstruct the Democratic Alliance's enquiries into South Africa's multi-billion rand arms deal have continued, the party's arms deal spokesperson Eddie Trent said on Sunday.

Trent said the DA had received a response from Justice Director-General Menzi Simelane stating that the department would not give the DA access to the German and British Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) agreements with South Africa.

The MLAs set out the details of South Africa's co-operation with Britain and Germany in respect of their investigations into allegations of corruption connected with the arms deal.

"We believe that the German investigation ceased because of a lack of co-operation from South Africa, and we suspect that the British investigation may likewise also be ended due to a singular lack of assistance from the government," Trent said.

Releasing info

"If this is untrue, we challenge the Minister of Justice to refute this allegation by providing the public with substantive evidence that South Africa is co-operating fully with the British authorities.

"By accessing the MLAs, we would be able to hold government to account in terms of whether it assisted the German and British investigations.

"It is essential that our government co-operates fully with the investigations and ensures that any South Africans who benefited unlawfully from the billions of rands spent on the arms deal are publicly held to account."

The reason for the refusal that Simelane gave was as follows: "Disclosure of the copy of the request as well as other documents which accompanied the said request will in my view, prejudice the good international relationship that the Republic of South Africa has with the United Kingdom...

"I therefore refuse you access to the requested records... "

Said Trent: "Government has repeatedly stated that there were no irregularities in respect of the arms deal - yet they continue to obstruct and prevent access to relevant documents.

"If there are no irregularities, then government should have no reason to prevent those documents from being scrutinised and no reason to believe that the disclosure of any information in these documents would prejudice its reputation.

"We challenge government either to release the documents that they have refused access to, or to admit that they are concealing information."

[backseatjock]

SRT - the corruption case in South Africa involves a certain French defence Company and not BAE. There was a separate case there too involving a Franco-German defence Company and Mercedes cars.

You are right in one respect. BAE (and SAAB) was involved in the South African defence modernisation programme (Hawk and Gripen) as was Augusta Westland (Lynx) and others.

BSJ

[Double Zero]

Jackonico,

I'm with you on this one.

I worked very happily with BAe for quite a while, then chucked it in when highly experienced colleaugues were thrown out & accountants who did not know nose from tail were shipped in .

This included fatal accidents which BAe tried to wash their hands of, to their discredit and ultimate loss.

There is the overall point, however that BAe were 'less corrupt' than our competitors, especially our overseas ( long or short range ) competitors...I was moaned at one day by one our -BAe- salesmen that while ' the others' turned up with champagne, caviar and mega-bucks, he was lucky if he got a crate of brown ale to seduce customers with !

This may have changed in the mid-late 1980's...

I in my job as hanging cine-pods for weapon trials had got to know the Matra team quite well; when they turned up looking more sunburned than usual, I asked ' where have you been then, Yves ?'

" Oh, yesterday in Libya " - this was a day or two after Reagan sent in the F-111's !

I heard a little speech from a BAe ' manager' ( in broken English ) along the lines of " if we can make more money making washing machines, that's what we'll do !"

Which explains a lot...

[Strangelove PhD]

BSJ are you sure?

I thought BAE was the only corrupt / fraudulent defence company in the world.
I'm stunned that the French would do such a thing, there must be some mistake.

This has got northern monkeys selling substandard equipment to kill African orphans written all over it. You ask BEagle... he knows the score.

It sounds like SRT knows what he’s talking about too. I agree with him, it’s the tip of the iceberg; them northern monkeys are corrupt to the core. I heard they sell cigarettes to 10 year old kids too.

p.s. If anyone from BAE wants to bribe me to keep quiet, I 'm open to offers.

[backseatjock]

Strangelove - chuckle, chuckle :)

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Quite so. However, the Hawk was not the aircraft required or recommended by the Air Force folks who were to use it, yet it still won the tender so who knows? Just one of many in the whole SA arms deal mess.

[backseatjock]

Only Armscor can explain why the Hawk/Gripen package was chosen over and above other alternatives, but much has been speculated.

For what it's worth, I doubt the 346 could have been delivered in time to meet the SAAF requirement and the 2nd hand 339s that were being suggested were never going to be a serious option, any more so than the
T50.

On that basis, not sure what choice SA had, other than to keep the Impalas flying for a few years more, which I understand was not a realistic option.

BSJ

[Jackonicko]

The SAAF Colonel I spoke to explained pretty well. Mind, he was probably biased and perhaps BAE had paid him off....

:rolleyes:

[6Z3]

....Hawk was not the aircraft required or recommended by the Air Force folks who were to use it, yet it still won the tender....

I doubt the 346 could have been delivered in time

Now where have I heard all this before?

[Utrinque Apparatus]

The fact that the Americans have subpoenaed BAe execs just proves they are short of cash and a nice wad (in our parlance, a "fine") should see the resumption of the status quo ? :ok:

Anyway, without restating the obvious, isn't the the redistribution of wealth an exemplary pursuit in the eyes of the Guardian readership ? :}

An afternoon spent with a clutch of Guardianistas and CAAT "eccentrics" (as I did on one famour occasion) would certainly educate interested observers. God preserve us from the loony left, as evidenced by their current, chronic mishandling of everything in the domain of town halls to Parliament and their clear inability to think rationally in the real world.

[EAP86]

"I just wish to know the truth."

Has anyone spotted the gem on page 10 of the Woolf report quoting part of the law lords findings?

“46. ....... The essence of any bribery offence in relation to payments to an agent is the absence of approval by the employer or principal. The need to rebut the defence of consent is a particular difficulty in relation to offences overseas, as the Attorney General pointed out in his evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee (Q335, 27 June 2007) and as is noted at paragraph 4.93 in the Law Commission Consultation Paper (No. 185) “Reforming Bribery”.
47. According to the Attorney General’s evidence, BAE has always contended that any payments it made were approved by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In short they were lawful commissions and not secret payments made without the consent or approval of the principal. The cause of anti-corruption is not served by pursuing investigations which fail to distinguish between a commission and a bribe. It would be unfair to BAE to assume that there was a realistic possibility, let alone a probability, of proving that it was guilty of any criminal offence. It is unfortunate that no time was taken to adopt the suggestion (§ 34) to canvass with leading counsel the Attorney’s reservations as to the adequacy of the evidence.”

The SFO took 5 years and couldn't work this out? Or were they just fishing...

eap

[green granite]

Update

More than £100m was secretly paid by the arms company BAE to sell warplanes to South Africa (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/southafrica), according to allegations in a detailed police
dossier seen by the Guardian.
The leaked evidence from South African police and the British Serious Fraud Office quotes a BAE agent recommending "financially incentivising" politicians.


Full article: BAE paid £100m to secure South African arms deal, police files allege | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/05/bae-armstrade)

[jindabyne]

And so-----?

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

The film script from "The Last Boy Scout", I believe, made play on the fact that in the "real" world there were few "black and white" situations in business and government, but there were limitless shades of grey. Many of you commenting on this issue appear to be boy scouts and cannot or do not want to accept that business and government "succeeds" by being better, quicker, ****ier, noisier, and sometimes more efficient and acceptable than the opposition or alternatives. Like it or not, that's (capitalist) life and that's what keeps you employed.:)
Happy Christmas (or similar):ok:

[Jetex Jim]

The film script from "The Last Boy Scout..Like it or not, that's (capitalist) life and that's what keeps you employed.http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

So what's good for BAE is good for all of us. Thank goodness for that, somebody's finally explained it.

[BEagle]

From today's Sunday Times:



BAE Systems ‘gets Serious Fraud Office deadline from to admit bribes’

Iain Dey

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has set BAE Systems a four-week deadline to plead guilty to allegations of bribery linked to lucrative equipment contracts, according to industry sources.

The defence giant has been warned that it could face a criminal trial over the claims if it fails to reach an agreement with investigators.

BAE would be expected to pay fines running to tens of millions of pounds alongside any guilty plea.

The investigation relates to contracts struck by the company in South Africa, Tanzania and the Czech Republic. It is understood that the total value of the deals in question exceeds £2.5 billion.

BAE said it was “allowing the investigations to run their course” and that it is “providing access to people, information and premises whenever requested”. The SFO could not be reached for comment.

The probe was launched alongside a high-profile investigation into allegations that BAE bribed Saudi Arabian officials to secure deals. That investigation was dropped.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

Full article at BAE Systems ‘gets Serious Fraud Office deadline from to admit bribes’ - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article6823622.ece)

[Al R]

What does the Czech Republic have in the way of oil reserves?

Another government 'cover your arse' compromise and BAe is the lamb.

[Utrinque Apparatus]

I see that the SFO is resorting to that old cop out, experienced by Defence Companies all over the world, of negotiating a "fine" rather than a complex court case :rolleyes:

[Wrathmonk]

Oops, this has gotta hurt.

Clicky here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8500535.stm)

[BEagle]

From the BBC:

BAE Systems is to pay a fine of $400m (£250m) after pleading guilty to a charge of conspiring to make false statements to the US government.

The UK's largest defence group has also reached agreement with the UK Serious Fraud Office to plead guilty to breach of duty to keep accounting records.

That case is in relation to payments to a former marketing adviser in Tanzania.

In relation to the UK offence, it will pay a penalty of £30m, some of which will be a fine, some a charity payment.

The charity payment will go to Tanzania.

The last of the offences was committed in 2002. BAE has since reformed the way it conducts business.

However, BBC business editor Robert Peston said that pleading guilty to criminal charges in Britain and America was "a serious embarrassment to BAE".

Saudi deal

The US fine, agreed with the Department of Justice, relates to undertakings it gave to the US government in 2000 and 2002 in relation to the probity of the way it conducts business.

It is understood that the Department of Justice concluded that BAE breached these undertakings in relation to payments and support services provided to an unnamed Saudi official, as part of the £40bn al-Yamamah contract to supply military equipment to Saudi Arabia.

There was also an infringement of restrictions on the supply of sensitive US technology in deals to supply aircraft in Hungary and the Czech Republic.

Although the UK penalty is far less than Britain's Serious Fraud Office was seeking, it is thought to be a record for a criminal offence by a company in the UK.

The British charge stems from an £88m contract signed in 1999 to supply a radar system to Tanzania.

"Although the fines will be seen by some as damaging to one of the UK's most significant companies, BAE's directors are relieved at what they see as a final settlement of a controversy that has dogged the company for years," added our business editor.

BAE has been advised by its lawyers that the fines are fair.

't Bungling Baron Waste o' Space werr unavailable ferr comment, tha' knaws...

[Dimmer Switch]

I had a wee bet on with myself that BEagle would be the first PPRuNer to "break" this news. Thanks' for not disappointng BEags !

[vecvechookattack]

Pretty good news....My Shares in Bae have just rocketed.... Fab :ok:

[Doptrack]

What a surprise - never says something good if he can help it

[BEagle]

Dimmer Switch, actually it was Wrathmonk who first broke the story.

Hopefully this will bring the whole unsavoury business to a conclusion and BWoS will now move on.

[Dimmer Switch]

I aoplogise unreservedly BEags.........but I'm still keeping the 5 bob that I won from myself:}

[jindabyne]

Hopefully this will bring the whole unsavoury business to a conclusion and BWoS will now move on.

Surely not?

[vecvechookattack]

This is a great result for Bae... A fine of £280m is peanuts to a company of this size and thankfully the company has not been found guilty of anything....If it had then it would have meant the dole queue for a lot of British workers.

[Two's in]

thankfully the company has not been found guilty of anything....If it had then it would have meant the dole queue for a lot of British workers.

No...it was found guilty of LYING about the way it conducts business. BAE told the USG it did not bribe people and it was subsequently PROVEN that they did just that. The USG was not involved in the bribe, but they were able to prove BAE lied to them, hence the fine.

So in summary, they bribed, they cheated (other bidders), they lied, they got caught out and they were fined $400 million dollars. Hardly my definition of not being found guilty, but I suppose it all depends on when your moral compass was last swung.

[Ogre]

While I would not condone the behaviour, how much of the fuss was raised by companies who got beaten to the deal? Are we sure there was no hint of sour grapes? Yes bribes/backhanders/sweeteners are part of the culture in some countries, if you want to work with them then you play the game.

Personally I'm glad that it may have reached a conclusion, I have too many friends who would suffer if BAE folded.

Ogre

[Lima Juliet]

How about looking into the "irregularities" on home soil. What about the multi-millions we pour into this company from our overstretched defence budget that prop up jobs and get 1*-4*s some senior jobs in the company (including some civil servants at DE&S)? When I think about the money we have paid this company "over and above" the market rate in order to save British jobs, only to see them make massive profits year on year - it is "criminal".

Here's a list of eqpt to show their pedigree:

Tornado F3 - delivered with a concrete nose and engines that surged.
Typhoon - overan about 7 years and delivered with interim capability and clearance - plus increased cost.
FRES - underachieving and overrunning.
Nimrod MRA4 - lost count how long it is overrunning (10yrs?) plus costs!
HERTi - tried making this work a couple of times now at significant cost to the taxpayer.
Mantis - Who knows! But I bet it will be more expensive compared to off the shelf solutions.

Well aren't they a pretty bunch of cost overuns, under achievement of original spec and late deliveries? The late deliveries and cost overuns are one of the main reasons we have seen our forces dwindle from 300,000 personnel in the early 90s to just 180,000 in recent years - our increasing equipment tariff is often quoted as the reason. So you've saved 30,000 jobs in Blackpool/Preston/Hull and lost 120,000 jobs in the Armed Forces - well done all involved! :ugh:

Come on SFO and NAO get a wiggle on and get investigating! We need to get them to cut the cost of their equipment, get closer to delivery schedules and stop trying to please the share-holders and start looking after its customers!

Rant over

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

PS. Profits released this time last year were £2.37Bn or 7% of the total UK defence budget for 2009.

See here: BBC NEWS | Business | BAE Systems profits almost double (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7898558.stm)

[Rigga]

Leon Jabachancalmdownabit-Issasunday

[RileyDove]

I would be fascinated in what the SFO would find if they investigated U.S contracts awarded for the rebuild of Iraq!

[Exrigger]

RD, I also wonder what they would find if they looked into aircraft sales to Israel and others over in the middle east as well from other suppliers.

LJ - just remember that most of the delays/overruns or whatever title you want to hang on them is not allways the fault of the prime contractor (I do believe that the F3 radar issue was caused by a company that was not a BAES one at the time). When the customer keeps moving the goalposts/adding additional capabilities that they did not want when the original design request was quoted for, especially when they keep doing this during the development/testing phase, how is anyone supposed to cope with that.

Added to that they then expect all the additional bells and whistles to still be added/tested within the original timescales and cost (they would still waffle and delay into service dates because they could never afford the equipment in the first place), it's also odd that other major companies who also have the same difficulties with their customers do not appear to come in for half the criticism that BAES does.

[vecvechookattack]

No...it was found guilty of LYING about the way it conducts business

No it wasn't


So in summary, they bribed, they cheated (other bidders), they lied, they got caught out

No they didn't.

Bae admitted to conspiring to make false payments. Thats not lying, its not bribery its conspiring to make false payments. A mere administration charge.

We really should be very thankful that this is now over and British people can rest assured that their jobs are safe.

[Lima Juliet]

I do believe that the F3 radar issue was caused by a company that was not a BAES one at the time

Correct, but they are now one and the same - hence BAE and SYSTEMS.

[Exrigger]

So that makes the F3 radar problem BAES's fault by default because the company responsible is now part of the BAES, they really cannot win can they?

[soddim]

I find it hard to believe that so many posters here are so critical of one of the few successful manufacturing companies left in the UK. Nobody says they are perfect and they have had to admit to resorting to using money in a dodgy way to support the Saudi contract. But that was, and is, a contract that has created a great deal of wealth for the UK and a considerable influence in the industries of Saudi.

I hope most of the critical posts are from the French and the Americans because they are the people we had to compete with and they are the only ones to gain from BAE Systems discomfort. I hope we don't have too many Brits here determined to score own goals.

[tucumseh]

There are two inescapable facts here;

1.BAeS (and other companies) conduct their business in a world where backhanders are routine.
2.MoD, and other Government departments, know this.

What could have nipped this in the bud? Both sides acknowledging it? But, because the latter (Government) stood back, perhaps for a higher reason, BAeS had to decide what to do. They chose denial, which was always implausible. If they had challenged the Government (and Customers) to support them, and offered what one assumes is a raft of supporting evidence that both knew, then I suppose they would have been concerned about future business.

I imagine there are many in MoD who simply don’t know what to make of this. On the very first project I managed when I joined MoD(PE) I inherited a little problem. Briefly, a well known company told me I’d have to agree to a backhander to an African supplier if my entire aircraft fleet was not to be grounded inside 2 weeks, with no chance of a solution inside 2 years. I was asked how much I’d be prepared to cough up. Of course, it was simply subsumed within the “quotation” and only one person in the Service knew what happened – all they saw was a sudden and inexplicable improvement in front line availability. A minor episode, and I don’t imagine for one minute it is unique. Point being, the company, who had known me for about ten minutes, felt entirely comfortable revealing this side of their business. Not in the same league as BAeS’s billions, but the same principle.

[Wwyvern]

A few years ago, a large USA aircraft company was accused of bribery. A senior company rep was interviewed on UK TV, and he said that it was not "bribery", but "extortion".

[ricardian]

Daily Telegraph report (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/10307238/BAE-documents-lost-by-SFO-found-at-cannabis-farm.html)Documents identifying prosecution witnesses in a case against defence contractor BAE Systems turned up at a cannabis farm in east London after being lost by the Serious Fraud Office, it has emerged.

[Rigga]

So, maybe the Dope wasn't growing on a stalk, eh?