SFO raids four premises in BAE contracts probe
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose to a fiction writer like Forsyth Tornado and Typhoon are synonyms, I wonder if we can take the rest of his pontificating any more seriously?
The Typhoon sale to Saudi is a pretty interesting case, it appears that BAE cleverly ‘factored in’ the 72 that they expected to sell to Saudi when it was announced how many the RAF were going to buy and that these would equip three bases; Leuchars, Leeming and Conningsby. Normally any exports outside the consortium countries, like the handful to Austria would have been new work and gravy to the whole group, but in this case it seems that BAE took a rather larger slice of the work share than they would otherwise have done. Now seemingly the need for Leeming has disapeared and the same number of A/C will go to Saudi.
But I don’t think any of the BAE employees who contribute to this forum need worry too much even if the Saudi sale were to go t*ts up, I’m sure that the press will be fairly swiftly briefed on all the anticipated job loses and MOD persuaded somehow or other that it really does need Leeming as a Typhoon base after all.
Thanks to the moderating influence of the other members of the group at least Typhoon will be a fairly useful fighter, at least by the standards of what BAE is capable of lumbering UK MOD with when left to their own devices, (unsupervised by the three other countries) I need cite only Nimrod MR4 as an example.
On the MR4 most of the really clever stuff, the mission electronics is subbed to Boeing anyway leaving a fairly straightforward upgrade to the engines and airframe of an admittedly fragile and apparently carelessly assembled vintage airframe, but something BAE should have been able to manage on its own with little problems. But oh dear what a meal they have made of it.
Maybe if columnists like Forsyth were a little less partisan and a little more critical BAE would be obliged to finally stop acting like a nationalised company. At least if it was nationalised the UK taxpayer could be expecting to feel the benefit of that Saudi order...
The Typhoon sale to Saudi is a pretty interesting case, it appears that BAE cleverly ‘factored in’ the 72 that they expected to sell to Saudi when it was announced how many the RAF were going to buy and that these would equip three bases; Leuchars, Leeming and Conningsby. Normally any exports outside the consortium countries, like the handful to Austria would have been new work and gravy to the whole group, but in this case it seems that BAE took a rather larger slice of the work share than they would otherwise have done. Now seemingly the need for Leeming has disapeared and the same number of A/C will go to Saudi.
But I don’t think any of the BAE employees who contribute to this forum need worry too much even if the Saudi sale were to go t*ts up, I’m sure that the press will be fairly swiftly briefed on all the anticipated job loses and MOD persuaded somehow or other that it really does need Leeming as a Typhoon base after all.
Thanks to the moderating influence of the other members of the group at least Typhoon will be a fairly useful fighter, at least by the standards of what BAE is capable of lumbering UK MOD with when left to their own devices, (unsupervised by the three other countries) I need cite only Nimrod MR4 as an example.
On the MR4 most of the really clever stuff, the mission electronics is subbed to Boeing anyway leaving a fairly straightforward upgrade to the engines and airframe of an admittedly fragile and apparently carelessly assembled vintage airframe, but something BAE should have been able to manage on its own with little problems. But oh dear what a meal they have made of it.
Maybe if columnists like Forsyth were a little less partisan and a little more critical BAE would be obliged to finally stop acting like a nationalised company. At least if it was nationalised the UK taxpayer could be expecting to feel the benefit of that Saudi order...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the MR4 most of the really clever stuff, the mission electronics is subbed to Boeing anyway leaving a fairly straightforward upgrade to the engines and airframe of an admittedly fragile and apparently carelessly assembled vintage airframe, but something BAE should have been able to manage on its own with little problems
That's a very long sentence. You'd rarely get more for murder.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere between hope and despair
Age: 62
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Govt rolled over to Saudi BAe threats, says judge
The Guardian first to print on this, no doubt the others will follow
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008.../bae.armstrade
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008.../bae.armstrade
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Guardian first to print more allegations (sorry, the same allegations again) about BAE and Saudi! Well I am surprised. 
Wonder what the ultimate objective of the two journalists, who strangely always seem to have an inside track into 'secret' documents in the possession of the SFO, actually is! And how 'ethical' is the fact that an apparent inside track to the workings of the SFO exists?
Reading my newspaper while munching coffee and toast this morning, it seems that BAE's much reported heavy handed, 'bully boy' lobbying tactics amounted to little more than a strongly worded letter. Reminds me of that Monty Python sketch from many years back - someone will be sending for the comfy chair soon.
Wonder what the ultimate objective of the two journalists, who strangely always seem to have an inside track into 'secret' documents in the possession of the SFO, actually is! And how 'ethical' is the fact that an apparent inside track to the workings of the SFO exists?
Reading my newspaper while munching coffee and toast this morning, it seems that BAE's much reported heavy handed, 'bully boy' lobbying tactics amounted to little more than a strongly worded letter. Reminds me of that Monty Python sketch from many years back - someone will be sending for the comfy chair soon.
The Guardian first to print more allegations (sorry, the same allegations again) about BAE and Saudi! Well I am surprised.
Wonder what the ultimate objective of the two journalists... actually is!
Reading my newspaper while munching coffee and toast this morning, it seems that BAE's much reported heavy handed, 'bully boy' lobbying tactics amounted to little more than a strongly worded letter
No, I'm sorry Ewan, but that's credulous nonsense.
As a specialist journo, you could quite easily follow this and find out the truth, which the Guardian blokes have signally failed to do.
This was a Government to Government deal, and all payments via BAE (BAE was a conduit, not a source) were approved by HMG.
BAE has tried (not always successfully, but it has tried harder than any other aerospace manufacturer I can think of) to draw a line between bribery and the kind of practises that are acceptable and legal routine in the Middle East.
That there is no connection between Al Y II and the Typhoon deal.
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.
As a specialist journo, you could quite easily follow this and find out the truth, which the Guardian blokes have signally failed to do.
This was a Government to Government deal, and all payments via BAE (BAE was a conduit, not a source) were approved by HMG.
BAE has tried (not always successfully, but it has tried harder than any other aerospace manufacturer I can think of) to draw a line between bribery and the kind of practises that are acceptable and legal routine in the Middle East.
That there is no connection between Al Y II and the Typhoon deal.
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.
Jacko
As a specialist journo, you could quite easily follow this and find out the truth, which the Guardian blokes have signally failed to do.
This was a Government to Government deal, and all payments via BAE (BAE was a conduit, not a source) were approved by HMG.
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.
Its journos have behaved disgracefully, and with great partiality and have reflected great discredit on the profession that you and I follow.
I agree with you that such antics are disgraceful.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow.
Age: 80
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surprised BEagle hasn't offered his usual input yet. Anyway:
It would be rather remiss of them if they didn't solicit business or push their product. That after all is what any business does no matter what the product.
As for ingratiating themselves with the customer, that is bollox. BAE in its various guises has been trading with the Saudis for decades so where " ingratiating " comes into the equation I do not know.
Does anyone know where this thread is going apart from digging up the dirt ( if there is any dirt to be dug up ).
Is anyone really interested ?
BAE actively solicited the business and pushed the product, ingratiating themselves with the customer in the process
As for ingratiating themselves with the customer, that is bollox. BAE in its various guises has been trading with the Saudis for decades so where " ingratiating " comes into the equation I do not know.
Does anyone know where this thread is going apart from digging up the dirt ( if there is any dirt to be dug up ).
Is anyone really interested ?
Echo
As I said if you re-read my post, BAE have acted exactly as I would have expected them to.
The question that you chose not to address in your highly selective use of a single (and incomplete at that) quote from my post, is whether they broke the law.
As for the direction of this thread, it doesn't have to 'go' anywhere. People are free to contribute their views as they see fit: that is the purpose of these boards.
If you don't care then don't post.
The question that you chose not to address in your highly selective use of a single (and incomplete at that) quote from my post, is whether they broke the law.
As for the direction of this thread, it doesn't have to 'go' anywhere. People are free to contribute their views as they see fit: that is the purpose of these boards.
If you don't care then don't post.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow.
Age: 80
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ewan,
Not having a pop at you, just, how shall I put it, " thinking aloud ".
Bottom line is, the deal is done and that is that, and thousands of jobs are secure whether there was any iffy dealings or not.
Getting back in my box now.
Not having a pop at you, just, how shall I put it, " thinking aloud ".
Bottom line is, the deal is done and that is that, and thousands of jobs are secure whether there was any iffy dealings or not.
Getting back in my box now.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Never far from water
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't I read last week that the Tanzanian govt is in trouble for alleged embezzlement? So when's someone going to ask about that cheap little ATC system that BAe sold them ................
The court was told that Tony Blair, the Prime Minister at the time, applied “irresistible pressure” to end the SFO’s investigation in 2006. It was dropped in December of that year.
Lord Justice Moses said it appeared that Britain had simply "rolled over" instead of trying to make the Saudi government withdraw the threats, (that Saudi Arabia withdraw cooperation in the fight against terrorism) which amounted to criminal offences under British law.
Lord Justice Moses said it appeared that Britain had simply "rolled over" instead of trying to make the Saudi government withdraw the threats, (that Saudi Arabia withdraw cooperation in the fight against terrorism) which amounted to criminal offences under British law.
echo5, good that you're back in your box. Whilst there, perhaps you would care to read this item from today's The Times:
Central to the SFO’s investigation was whether BAE ran a £60 million "slush fund" offering incentives to Saudi officials to secure lucrative orders.
BAE has always maintained that it acted within the law and has said that the arms deals are government to government in the final instance.
Prince Bandar has also denied that he profited from the deal.
The High Court can only determine whether the decision to stop the investigation was legal or not.
It can order the SFO to reconsider its decision if it finds that it was illegal.
An investigation by the US Justice Department over BAE’s arms deals with Saudi Arabia, which was announced last year, is continuing.
It's far from a 'done deal'.......
And, from the Sunday Times of 17 Feb 2008:
Meanwhile, rebel shareholders suing BAE over bribery allegations have won an extension to a court order that in effect freezes the American property assets of Prince Bandar Bin Sultan. The lawsuit centres on allegations that BAE paid more than £1 billion in bribes to Saudi officials, including Bandar, as part of an agreement to supply military equipment to Saudi Arabia.
Bandar has consistently denied the allegations.
BAE has strongly denied making illegal payments.
Central to the SFO’s investigation was whether BAE ran a £60 million "slush fund" offering incentives to Saudi officials to secure lucrative orders.
BAE has always maintained that it acted within the law and has said that the arms deals are government to government in the final instance.
Prince Bandar has also denied that he profited from the deal.
The High Court can only determine whether the decision to stop the investigation was legal or not.
It can order the SFO to reconsider its decision if it finds that it was illegal.
An investigation by the US Justice Department over BAE’s arms deals with Saudi Arabia, which was announced last year, is continuing.
It's far from a 'done deal'.......
And, from the Sunday Times of 17 Feb 2008:
Meanwhile, rebel shareholders suing BAE over bribery allegations have won an extension to a court order that in effect freezes the American property assets of Prince Bandar Bin Sultan. The lawsuit centres on allegations that BAE paid more than £1 billion in bribes to Saudi officials, including Bandar, as part of an agreement to supply military equipment to Saudi Arabia.
Bandar has consistently denied the allegations.
BAE has strongly denied making illegal payments.
Last edited by BEagle; 17th Feb 2008 at 08:19.
From the Press Association:
Ruling due on BAE Saudi decision
10 Apr 2008
The High Court is due to give judgment on the Serious Fraud Office's decision to drop its investigation into alleged bribery and corruption involving arms deals between BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia.
During a recent hearing it was suggested that the law in Britain was "powerless" to resist threats from Saudi Arabia that it would not cooperate in the fight against terrorism unless the probe was dropped.
The bribery allegations against the arms company arose out of BAE's £43 billion Al-Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia in 1985, which provided Tornado and Hawk jets plus other military equipment.
Lawyers for Corner House Research, which campaigns against corruption in international trade, and the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) are asking two judges to quash the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) decision, made in December 2006.
They argued it was tainted by Government concerns about trade with Saudi Arabia and diplomatic considerations after members of the Saudi Arabian royal family threatened to cancel a proposed order for Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft if the investigations continued.
They also accused the British authorities of unlawfully giving in to blackmail and breaking anti-bribery treaties.
They said the then premier Tony Blair had put "irresistible pressure" on the Attorney General and the SFO.
The judges were told that Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was behind the threats to hold back information about potential suicide bombers and terrorists.
Previously secret documents suggested the SFO had decided not to proceed with its inquiries after being told that "British lives on British streets" were at risk, and fears were raised of "another 7/7".
Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan are due to hand down their judgment at the High Court in London.
Ruling due on BAE Saudi decision
10 Apr 2008
The High Court is due to give judgment on the Serious Fraud Office's decision to drop its investigation into alleged bribery and corruption involving arms deals between BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia.
During a recent hearing it was suggested that the law in Britain was "powerless" to resist threats from Saudi Arabia that it would not cooperate in the fight against terrorism unless the probe was dropped.
The bribery allegations against the arms company arose out of BAE's £43 billion Al-Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia in 1985, which provided Tornado and Hawk jets plus other military equipment.
Lawyers for Corner House Research, which campaigns against corruption in international trade, and the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) are asking two judges to quash the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) decision, made in December 2006.
They argued it was tainted by Government concerns about trade with Saudi Arabia and diplomatic considerations after members of the Saudi Arabian royal family threatened to cancel a proposed order for Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft if the investigations continued.
They also accused the British authorities of unlawfully giving in to blackmail and breaking anti-bribery treaties.
They said the then premier Tony Blair had put "irresistible pressure" on the Attorney General and the SFO.
The judges were told that Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was behind the threats to hold back information about potential suicide bombers and terrorists.
Previously secret documents suggested the SFO had decided not to proceed with its inquiries after being told that "British lives on British streets" were at risk, and fears were raised of "another 7/7".
Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan are due to hand down their judgment at the High Court in London.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One feels it would have been more sensible to have carried on and then said there was insufficient evidence to proceed further.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere between hope and despair
Age: 62
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brown urged to reopen arms probe
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7341925.stm
't Bungling Baron won't be happy, tha' knows.
This also makes interesting background reading:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1596756.ece
't Bungling Baron won't be happy, tha' knows.
This also makes interesting background reading:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1596756.ece