SFO raids four premises in BAE contracts probe
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we really want Saudi to get Typhoons?
Is it REALLY in our long-term interests for Saudi to get Typhoons? Who knows who they might be used against in 1o or 20 years time? Maybe us. Remember the Iranian F14's?
Secondly I really don't think it's in our long-term interests to cancel a criminal investigation because of economic blackmail, which is what the Saudi threats amount to. If we did that then we'd be no better than the French
Secondly I really don't think it's in our long-term interests to cancel a criminal investigation because of economic blackmail, which is what the Saudi threats amount to. If we did that then we'd be no better than the French
Untitled
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article on this on the BBC today.
link.
link.
Defence firms fear Saudi fall-out
One of the largely untold stories about the cooling of relations between Saudi and the UK is the extent to which it has engendered near-panic in leading industrial and defence companies.
One of the largely untold stories about the cooling of relations between Saudi and the UK is the extent to which it has engendered near-panic in leading industrial and defence companies.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Magnetogorsk
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all the Guardian's fault. Again.
There is a depressing drift in this thread towards blaming the Guardian and the liberal enemy within for undermining the Saudi deal and/or BAE Systems. Somone even cited George Monbiot for Gawd's sake.
Before too long I'm sure some sensible Ppruner will get around to blaming the Kosovar asylum-seeking dole-scroungers too...comin over 'ere, stealing our defence contracts, depressin our shareolder value...we're only barely into Page 3 of this thread, after all.
If BAE is really unhappy with the reporting of this story has it gone to the PCC or even to Alan Rusbridger's office and at least made a complaint?
I would also suggest stepping back from all this for a moment to wonder what's really going on.
The Saudi regime is not deflected or affected one bit by public opinion or legal rulings in other people’s countries. IF a case, or even prosecutions, are brought against BAE in the UK the Saudis will shrug and say "that's your problem (infidel), we couldn't care less."
So is Saudi really concerned with the SFO case – or is the whole thing a giant negotiating ploy to push down the seemingly ridiculous price that the KSA is being charged for these aircraft?
Now I know the ridiculous price is one that the Saudis agreed to themselves – Saudi government spokesmen have even acknowledged prices in public, which is unprecedented...but maybe now they see a chance to save a few billion and perhaps also get an even better price out of Dassault at the same time.
The potential for a Rafale order in the KSA was on the cards before, during and after the much-celebrated 'deal' with BAE. Arguably, Rafale is an even better aircraft for the RSAF as it will deliver operational capability into service sooner than Eurofighter will...so is this whole Eurofighter fuss actually a giant smokescreen to do a better deal with Rafale, or to secure a bargain basement split order between Eurofighters and Rafales?
I just wonder if there is more going on here than injured Saudi pride.
VC
Before too long I'm sure some sensible Ppruner will get around to blaming the Kosovar asylum-seeking dole-scroungers too...comin over 'ere, stealing our defence contracts, depressin our shareolder value...we're only barely into Page 3 of this thread, after all.
If BAE is really unhappy with the reporting of this story has it gone to the PCC or even to Alan Rusbridger's office and at least made a complaint?
I would also suggest stepping back from all this for a moment to wonder what's really going on.
The Saudi regime is not deflected or affected one bit by public opinion or legal rulings in other people’s countries. IF a case, or even prosecutions, are brought against BAE in the UK the Saudis will shrug and say "that's your problem (infidel), we couldn't care less."
So is Saudi really concerned with the SFO case – or is the whole thing a giant negotiating ploy to push down the seemingly ridiculous price that the KSA is being charged for these aircraft?
Now I know the ridiculous price is one that the Saudis agreed to themselves – Saudi government spokesmen have even acknowledged prices in public, which is unprecedented...but maybe now they see a chance to save a few billion and perhaps also get an even better price out of Dassault at the same time.
The potential for a Rafale order in the KSA was on the cards before, during and after the much-celebrated 'deal' with BAE. Arguably, Rafale is an even better aircraft for the RSAF as it will deliver operational capability into service sooner than Eurofighter will...so is this whole Eurofighter fuss actually a giant smokescreen to do a better deal with Rafale, or to secure a bargain basement split order between Eurofighters and Rafales?
I just wonder if there is more going on here than injured Saudi pride.
VC
Those BAE jobs in the Magic Kingdom - I remember a sizable PPRuNe-M thread about the number of instructors who had quit and (under the terms of Al-Yamamah) been replaced by RAF secondees, presumably at taxpayers' expense. What is the current situation?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Abroad:)
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Streamchicken
There have been a few instructors quitting but not a significant number. VERY few secondees - not costing taxpayer though as BAe Sys pick up their tab. RAF have no interest in sending crews to KSA and are under no pressure.
Agree with Violet Club - price has been mentioned in Saudi press and is considered to be too high, thus possible bargaining chip.
Lazer sound - I wouldn't worry too much if they're sold Typhoon - will look impressive but tactically utilised to full extent - I think not.
There have been a few instructors quitting but not a significant number. VERY few secondees - not costing taxpayer though as BAe Sys pick up their tab. RAF have no interest in sending crews to KSA and are under no pressure.
Agree with Violet Club - price has been mentioned in Saudi press and is considered to be too high, thus possible bargaining chip.
Lazer sound - I wouldn't worry too much if they're sold Typhoon - will look impressive but tactically utilised to full extent - I think not.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome to the real world of multiculturalism. The Anglo-American view of law is that it overrides custom and requires government officials to act in a disinterested fashion. The Saudi view of law is that the formal law must co-exist with the customary form of government. In other words, the giving of gifts to powerful people when seeking their favor is customary, and the idea that a government official may not profit while serving his country -- while undoubtedly the Anglo-American view of law -- is simply not theirs. There is, throughout the world, a profound tension between a wide variety of cultural norms. What is bribery in London is simply good manners elsewhere.
I once saw this quote by a business from that neck of the woods: 'Don't regard this as a bribe, but as a thank you gift for considering our proposal.'
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: N/A
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6180945.stm
Fighter planes fraud probe ends
The Serious Fraud Office has ended its corruption inquiry into a £6bn fighter planes deal with Saudi Arabia.
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said the SFO was "discontinuing" its investigation into Britain's biggest defence company, BAE Systems.
The probe had related to the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia. BAE has denied any wrongdoing.
Lord Goldsmith told the Lords he thought that a prosecution "could not be brought".
So that's that then. Incidentally, Lord Goldsmith (who gave sizable donations to the Labour Party and was subsequently made a life peer, nominated by Tony Blair) is also the man who gets to decide whether the Prime Minister is guilty of any Cash-For-Honours type dealings. I wonder what he will find?
Fighter planes fraud probe ends
The Serious Fraud Office has ended its corruption inquiry into a £6bn fighter planes deal with Saudi Arabia.
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said the SFO was "discontinuing" its investigation into Britain's biggest defence company, BAE Systems.
The probe had related to the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia. BAE has denied any wrongdoing.
Lord Goldsmith told the Lords he thought that a prosecution "could not be brought".
So that's that then. Incidentally, Lord Goldsmith (who gave sizable donations to the Labour Party and was subsequently made a life peer, nominated by Tony Blair) is also the man who gets to decide whether the Prime Minister is guilty of any Cash-For-Honours type dealings. I wonder what he will find?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: ISK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surprise surprise, SFO investigation into BAe dropped....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6180945.stm
Not surprising, really 
Buisness must go on, or the Saudis might buy French....
The Serious Fraud Office has ended its corruption inquiry into a £6bn fighter planes deal with Saudi Arabia.
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said the SFO was "discontinuing" its investigation into Britain's biggest defence company, BAE Systems.
The probe had related to the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia. BAE has denied any wrongdoing.
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said the SFO was "discontinuing" its investigation into Britain's biggest defence company, BAE Systems.
The probe had related to the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia. BAE has denied any wrongdoing.
Buisness must go on, or the Saudis might buy French....
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I don't know why they blinked - the Saudis would never have bought from the French, as they certainly wouldn't trust them to run a long term project of the type required. Only the US and the UK will stand by the Saudis.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only peron who doesn't have a problem with bribing in countries that require bribes to trade? The only difference between a bribe and commision is timing.
As far as I am concerned, our Foreign Office should be doing this sort of thing all the time in the interests of British trade.
Keep business honest within our borders, but screw the rest of the world.
If we don't, the French, Russians etc certainly will.
And before some of you get on your high horses, how many of the rest of you, like me, have had to grease a few palms to get airborne in Africa/Balkans?
As far as I am concerned, our Foreign Office should be doing this sort of thing all the time in the interests of British trade.
Keep business honest within our borders, but screw the rest of the world.
If we don't, the French, Russians etc certainly will.
And before some of you get on your high horses, how many of the rest of you, like me, have had to grease a few palms to get airborne in Africa/Balkans?
BEags'..
'reported in the press'....
Which all it ever was...
Tch...
T'Bungling Baron obviously needs peeps the likes of you lot to run his company..... Not!!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SFO could have been told to put up or shut up. Were they? no!. Very theatrically they have been told to drop it for the Public Good. The stain of implied guilt now remains without the means of removing it. In the background, the Fabians and bleeding heart Liberals will be busy chipping away at other aspects of our very successful arms industry; until they actually break it.
GBZ,
“The stain of implied guilt now remains without the means of removing it”..??
How, if (after how many years...??) the establishment can still not bring charges,... can any-one be tainted with guilt??....
BSJ"...will BAe have a case for claiming damage to its business through contiunued and unsubstantiated allegations against it?..."
Now that's worth a thought for shareholders.
Long may the 'Fabians and bleeding heart Liberals' continue chipping away.... Keeps us all on our toe's does it not?
Should have kept them shares Beags'
“The stain of implied guilt now remains without the means of removing it”..??
How, if (after how many years...??) the establishment can still not bring charges,... can any-one be tainted with guilt??....
BSJ"...will BAe have a case for claiming damage to its business through contiunued and unsubstantiated allegations against it?..."
Now that's worth a thought for shareholders.
Long may the 'Fabians and bleeding heart Liberals' continue chipping away.... Keeps us all on our toe's does it not?
Should have kept them shares Beags'
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been advising in this (not on the SFO side) for some time and, if I was to be completely mercenary (yes, I know all lawyers are assumed to be), I'd be disappointed the investigation has been terminated.
In fact, I think it was the correct decision.
The investigation has been going on for about 2 years and I estimate it would be about a further 18 month/2 years before the SFO would have been in a position to decide:
(1) whether there was any evidence of illegal payments,
(2) if so, whether there was sufficient evidence to prosecute anyone,
(3) if so, whether a prosecution was likely to be successful, and
(4) if so, whether it was in the public interest to bring a prosecution.
Bear in mind that it wasn’t until 2001 that UK corruption law was extended to include bribing foreign officials. Whatever did or didn’t happen before 2001 could not be an offence under a law which didn’t exist at the time.
This is only a hunch, but I think it unlikely there would have been sufficient (even if any) evidence to mount a prosecution.
Even if there was, I have very serious doubts whether it would be in the public interest to rake up old matters.
Given that there was no suggestion of personal gain, but allegedly things happened to obtain contracts for the benefit of this country, I suspect a jury would have been very reluctant to convict - even if there was evidence of illegal payments.
In fact, I think it was the correct decision.
The investigation has been going on for about 2 years and I estimate it would be about a further 18 month/2 years before the SFO would have been in a position to decide:
(1) whether there was any evidence of illegal payments,
(2) if so, whether there was sufficient evidence to prosecute anyone,
(3) if so, whether a prosecution was likely to be successful, and
(4) if so, whether it was in the public interest to bring a prosecution.
Bear in mind that it wasn’t until 2001 that UK corruption law was extended to include bribing foreign officials. Whatever did or didn’t happen before 2001 could not be an offence under a law which didn’t exist at the time.
This is only a hunch, but I think it unlikely there would have been sufficient (even if any) evidence to mount a prosecution.
Even if there was, I have very serious doubts whether it would be in the public interest to rake up old matters.
Given that there was no suggestion of personal gain, but allegedly things happened to obtain contracts for the benefit of this country, I suspect a jury would have been very reluctant to convict - even if there was evidence of illegal payments.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 14th Dec 2006 at 21:43.
EW comments:
If people are breaking the law then they need to be dealt with. If we are to start allowing - or even supporting - selective application of the law, then where do you draw the line?
But this happens all the time in the UK, with regards to all manner of offenses from speeding to fraud etc, how the law/courts deal with you is dependant on who you are. Would you or I been treated like Jeffrey Archer for the same crime, I doubt it very much, how many others like him in Lincoln prison would of been allowed to wine and dine in Zuchinis most days. How many in power or in the entertainment or royalty who have actually been found guilty and still not been dealt with like the rest of us. Additionally BAES has not even been found guilty of any wrong doing and no proof exists so are we now just going to come out with the stock phrase 'no smoke without fire' and treat them as guilty anyway, trial by newspapers that allways get the facts and do not have hidden agendas. We have a hypocritical/inconsistent law and government in this country, what about Cherie BLiar she was found gulity in the newspapers of wrongdoing, how come she never ended up in court, oh I know one rule for one and one for those we don't like.
If people are breaking the law then they need to be dealt with. If we are to start allowing - or even supporting - selective application of the law, then where do you draw the line?
But this happens all the time in the UK, with regards to all manner of offenses from speeding to fraud etc, how the law/courts deal with you is dependant on who you are. Would you or I been treated like Jeffrey Archer for the same crime, I doubt it very much, how many others like him in Lincoln prison would of been allowed to wine and dine in Zuchinis most days. How many in power or in the entertainment or royalty who have actually been found guilty and still not been dealt with like the rest of us. Additionally BAES has not even been found guilty of any wrong doing and no proof exists so are we now just going to come out with the stock phrase 'no smoke without fire' and treat them as guilty anyway, trial by newspapers that allways get the facts and do not have hidden agendas. We have a hypocritical/inconsistent law and government in this country, what about Cherie BLiar she was found gulity in the newspapers of wrongdoing, how come she never ended up in court, oh I know one rule for one and one for those we don't like.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Middle Drawer
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arms to Arabia
Seems that our illustrious leader has done something useful for once by his intervention into the SFO's inquiry pertaining our supply of Typhoon to the Saudi government.
Many jobs saved, red faces spared and good news for Baes shareholders no doubt.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...14/ubae114.xml
regards,
TW
Many jobs saved, red faces spared and good news for Baes shareholders no doubt.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...14/ubae114.xml
regards,
TW
selective application of the law
Exrigger
“But this happens all the time in the UK…”
Quite right, and particularly in the MoD it seems. At one of those mandatory “management” courses we get sent on we had a discussion on this. People listed real “offences” they knew about that had gone unpunished, or were even condoned. The ones I could remember included fraud (multiple examples), theft, GBH, taking drugs, arson (or at least wilful fire raising), wheelman on a robbery, sexual assault on a minor, as well as the common everyday ones like maladministration and bullying/harassment. And some humourous ones as well, like the guy who was carpeted for being drunk on duty and while getting his bollocking threw up on the boss’s desk. Then got told he was being promoted the following week but would he clean up the mess first.
I'm afraid anyone who doesn't think his kind of thing goes on is very naive. Common knowledge in MoD. But, to paraphrase one Labour Party employee "It was a good day to try to bury this news".
“But this happens all the time in the UK…”
Quite right, and particularly in the MoD it seems. At one of those mandatory “management” courses we get sent on we had a discussion on this. People listed real “offences” they knew about that had gone unpunished, or were even condoned. The ones I could remember included fraud (multiple examples), theft, GBH, taking drugs, arson (or at least wilful fire raising), wheelman on a robbery, sexual assault on a minor, as well as the common everyday ones like maladministration and bullying/harassment. And some humourous ones as well, like the guy who was carpeted for being drunk on duty and while getting his bollocking threw up on the boss’s desk. Then got told he was being promoted the following week but would he clean up the mess first.
I'm afraid anyone who doesn't think his kind of thing goes on is very naive. Common knowledge in MoD. But, to paraphrase one Labour Party employee "It was a good day to try to bury this news".
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Somerset
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can concur with that.
Having worked at a rather large aerospace testing establishment about 10 years ago I was very surprised to discover that bungs were being made to very senior managers concerning contracts made to UK companies!!
How about a bung for supplying software which turned out to be on delivery (get this) shareware software!!
It even had the shareware logo on startup!!
I left very shortly afterwards after querying this practise and was told, in no uncertain terms, to keep my mouth shut.
Then a few years later, this time working for a 'French' defence contractor based in UK, we were bidding for a contract with a NATO partner only to lose an almost certain contract because we hadn't bribed the right official. And the gauling thing was, the Yanks got the contract 'coz they had!!
Of course this sort of thing goes on. If anybody thinks it doesn't then they are in cloud cuckoo land.
The only difference is that in this country we try and keep it under the carpet. At least in other countries (Mediterranean ones for example) it's above board. Perversely that seems more honest.
Having worked at a rather large aerospace testing establishment about 10 years ago I was very surprised to discover that bungs were being made to very senior managers concerning contracts made to UK companies!!
How about a bung for supplying software which turned out to be on delivery (get this) shareware software!!
It even had the shareware logo on startup!!
I left very shortly afterwards after querying this practise and was told, in no uncertain terms, to keep my mouth shut.
Then a few years later, this time working for a 'French' defence contractor based in UK, we were bidding for a contract with a NATO partner only to lose an almost certain contract because we hadn't bribed the right official. And the gauling thing was, the Yanks got the contract 'coz they had!!
Of course this sort of thing goes on. If anybody thinks it doesn't then they are in cloud cuckoo land.
The only difference is that in this country we try and keep it under the carpet. At least in other countries (Mediterranean ones for example) it's above board. Perversely that seems more honest.
Last edited by BattlerBritain; 15th Dec 2006 at 09:39.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keeping us on our toes is one thing and, as you say, not necessarily bad. I believe, though, that these people have malicious intent and won't rest until our defence industries have been destroyed. It's easy to lapse into paranoia these days but I also believe that Noo Labour still contains some old fashioned Labour Party activists. These people would be happy to work on the inside to further the "swords to plough-shares" Socialist aims.