SFO raids four premises in BAE contracts probe
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
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!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
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
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
"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."
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."
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: berlin
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not deaf...
...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
p.s. Does Dick Evans have anything to do with BAE anymore?
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
p.s. Does Dick Evans have anything to do with BAE anymore?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow.
Age: 79
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
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 ? 
Truth, honesty and decency. Old fashioned values they may be, but some of us still hold them dear.
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.....
Who is this Roy Cropper?
Anyway, back to the plot Michael.....
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Close to ABIW
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
'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.
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.
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.
Tax haven link to BAE case
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/new...cle3736572.ece
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/new...cle3736572.ece
Last edited by BEagle; 13th Apr 2008 at 11:39.
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:
When are all these people going to get a life, if this activity was aimed at people it would be classed as harassment.
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.
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:
THAT, if true, is what I call harassment.
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.
“****** 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Exrigger; 13th Apr 2008 at 10:43. Reason: Font character settings removed