SFO raids four premises in BAE contracts probe
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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)
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)
Last edited by airsound; 13th Apr 2008 at 11:06. Reason: It's returned!
I think the USA is a bit upset
BAE bosses detained at US airport
I don't think the USA would stoop so low as to offer bribes to buy their aircraft, would they?
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.
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?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The land of prince bishops....looking up
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...............
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...............
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !
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 !
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
http://217.69.43.26/woolf/Woolf_report_2008.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
But, as others have said. This is about the PM leaning on the SFO, not about BAE
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Here
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!