SFO raids four premises in BAE contracts probe
So what Wasnaemeyeken and GBZ are saying is that it's OK to break the law of the land if it helps BWoS out, is it?
Not only 'liberals' have morals.
Good riddance to 't Bungling Baron's shares - I wouldn't wipe my backside on them!
Not only 'liberals' have morals.
Good riddance to 't Bungling Baron's shares - I wouldn't wipe my backside on them!
So the cops and the SFO are "Old fashioned Labour Party activists who will stop at nothing to destroy our defence industries" (BTW: I reckon there are quite a few (Very) Old Labour activists at BAE Warton, Barrow, Govan, Rolls Barnoldswick, Hucknall, Derby etc, Babcocks Rosyth, Devonport, Vospers in Portsmouth Naval Base. Hint, blokes in overalls) but the Labour cabinet ministers are heroic patriots. Glad we got that one cleared up?
Or did he mean that Swiss Toni, Blair, Beckett and Goldsmith killed the investigation in order to give BAE such a bad reputation they would never get another contract, as part of their secret comsyp plot?
Or did he mean that Swiss Toni, Blair, Beckett and Goldsmith killed the investigation in order to give BAE such a bad reputation they would never get another contract, as part of their secret comsyp plot?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow.
Age: 79
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
Your previous posts starring t'bungling baron and his flatulant pup have been very amusing. However,your persistant sniping at BAe as a whole would suggest to me (and others I believe) that you have a rather large chip on your shoulder. Were you rejected at some time by the Baron ?
As for the shares...........coming along nicely I believe.
Your previous posts starring t'bungling baron and his flatulant pup have been very amusing. However,your persistant sniping at BAe as a whole would suggest to me (and others I believe) that you have a rather large chip on your shoulder. Were you rejected at some time by the Baron ?
As for the shares...........coming along nicely I believe.
Beagle comment:
So what Wasnaemeyeken and GBZ are saying is that it's OK to break the law of the land if it helps BWoS out, is it?
Not only 'liberals' have morals.
Good riddance to 't Bungling Baron's shares - I wouldn't wipe my backside on them!
So you appear to be another person who has an axe to grind about BAES , what part of 'no proof of wrong doing has been found after 2-3 years of wasted tax payers money and nobody has been even hinted at being charged with fraud or any other crime' do you not understand. Also re: have BAES got a case for defamation of character/wrongfull accusation/compensation, probably but I have found them to above stooping to the level of all their deriders.
So what Wasnaemeyeken and GBZ are saying is that it's OK to break the law of the land if it helps BWoS out, is it?
Not only 'liberals' have morals.
Good riddance to 't Bungling Baron's shares - I wouldn't wipe my backside on them!
So you appear to be another person who has an axe to grind about BAES , what part of 'no proof of wrong doing has been found after 2-3 years of wasted tax payers money and nobody has been even hinted at being charged with fraud or any other crime' do you not understand. Also re: have BAES got a case for defamation of character/wrongfull accusation/compensation, probably but I have found them to above stooping to the level of all their deriders.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the SFO had no evidence or indeed chance of bringing any prosecutions why is it in the National interest to end the investigation? The government could quite happily have let it continue until it found nothing and said oh well!
The worrying thing to me is if the Saudi's had cancelled Typhoon we would have ended up with the things!
The worrying thing to me is if the Saudi's had cancelled Typhoon we would have ended up with the things!
"However,your persistant sniping at BAe as a whole would suggest to me (and others I believe) that you have a rather large chip on your shoulder. Were you rejected at some time by the Baron ?"
No.
As for the SFO investigation, I would opine that the issue is 'Not Proven'. Which is an entirely different thing to 't Baron being 'Not Guilty'....
As for Trust-me-Tone's part in the SFO dropping matters? One can only speculate.
No.
As for the SFO investigation, I would opine that the issue is 'Not Proven'. Which is an entirely different thing to 't Baron being 'Not Guilty'....
As for Trust-me-Tone's part in the SFO dropping matters? One can only speculate.
He said his role as prime minister was to advise on what was in the best interests of the country."
The whole thing stinks......who is running this country??
Rileydove wrote:
If the SFO had no evidence or indeed chance of bringing any prosecutions why is it in the National interest to end the investigation? The government could quite happily have let it continue until it found nothing and said oh well!
The worrying thing to me is if the Saudi's had cancelled Typhoon we would have ended up with the things!
Because it would have just continued to be a waste of tax payers money, and the governement wastes enough of it without futile investigations. After putting up petrol and airfares to save the world, when in reality he needs money for his Education, Education, Education plot (as he failed with the billions wasted on the NHS) he needs all the money he can get. As we already have 36 and climbing, and the aircraft is better than anything else around, I dont see your point about us ending up with the things.
Also to Beagle 'not proven' is not the same as guilty and as it never came to court for anyone, then as this is a legal term only a court can pass judgement, oh hold on there is no evidence of wrong doing and nobody went to court and this was not from a governmet directive this came from the SFO itself over the preceding months.
If the SFO had no evidence or indeed chance of bringing any prosecutions why is it in the National interest to end the investigation? The government could quite happily have let it continue until it found nothing and said oh well!
The worrying thing to me is if the Saudi's had cancelled Typhoon we would have ended up with the things!
Because it would have just continued to be a waste of tax payers money, and the governement wastes enough of it without futile investigations. After putting up petrol and airfares to save the world, when in reality he needs money for his Education, Education, Education plot (as he failed with the billions wasted on the NHS) he needs all the money he can get. As we already have 36 and climbing, and the aircraft is better than anything else around, I dont see your point about us ending up with the things.
Also to Beagle 'not proven' is not the same as guilty and as it never came to court for anyone, then as this is a legal term only a court can pass judgement, oh hold on there is no evidence of wrong doing and nobody went to court and this was not from a governmet directive this came from the SFO itself over the preceding months.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if it really was the Saudis who thought of the threat that resulted in the end of the investigation?
Or did BWoS put them up to it when the investigators got too close?
Guess we'll never know the answer but, in any case, it worked.
Or did BWoS put them up to it when the investigators got too close?
Guess we'll never know the answer but, in any case, it worked.
Historically BAES has taken the stance of no action when attacked, so I don't think they would be clever enough, or particulary with the investigation stupid enough to risk getting caught at something as obvious of cooking up this scenerio with the Saudis.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle says - "As for the SFO investigation, I would opine that the issue is 'Not Proven'. Which is an entirely different thing to 't Baron being 'Not Guilty'...."
Heard the Attorney General on BBC 5 Live last night making it very clear that aside from national interest and security considerations, there was 'very little evidence to suggest wrongdoing on the part of BAE' and certainly not enough evidence to consider a court case against it.
With statements like that and BAE's share price rising as reported yesterday, don't thin there is much it needs to do to clear its name. Investors seem to have made their minds up already.
I wonder where The Guardian will turn to next in its long-running campaign against BAE, or whether it might consider looking for real news?
Heard the Attorney General on BBC 5 Live last night making it very clear that aside from national interest and security considerations, there was 'very little evidence to suggest wrongdoing on the part of BAE' and certainly not enough evidence to consider a court case against it.
With statements like that and BAE's share price rising as reported yesterday, don't thin there is much it needs to do to clear its name. Investors seem to have made their minds up already.
I wonder where The Guardian will turn to next in its long-running campaign against BAE, or whether it might consider looking for real news?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exrigger - a few points ! 'Better than anything else around' - erm are you really sure about that? Certainly handy for air displays but helpful to the guys who need air support on the ground I think not! As for the investigation - well you obviously work at the SFO and know exactly what they have been doing for the past few years! Do you think they might have regular progress meetings to see if they actually have a chance of a prosecution? But hey Lord Goldsmith has decided no so he must be right!
Rileydove:
Thanks for your response: With regards to my comment as to the Typhoon being the best thing around, I suppose I better qualify this by saying flying characteristic wise it is superb, but untill it is NATO cleared for weapons loading/firing and the RAF can use it to its full mission capability, also if it is usied in conflict it will then have the opportunity of showing wtat it is capable of doing exactly what it says on the tin. If you look at the Harrier, Jaguar, Tornado all were decried at the beginning but now they have proved themselves in confilcts. Also two incidences with the American Airforce suprised and shocked them (by the way this was there reporting not ours) at the capabilities of the Typhoon.
As to my being part of the SFO, I am not, but I do watch the news, read the reports published by BAES (I know they will obviously lie to their shareholders and staff), read the comments that the SFO leak (of course they will lie as the government and the Saudis told them to), really we cannot argue against the scale of evidence from the newspapers and the knowledgable posters on this forum. With this weight of evidence it is obvious that BAES is a warmongering, fraudulent company with no scruples or ethics and should be burned at the stake and put out of business this instant.
Thanks for your response: With regards to my comment as to the Typhoon being the best thing around, I suppose I better qualify this by saying flying characteristic wise it is superb, but untill it is NATO cleared for weapons loading/firing and the RAF can use it to its full mission capability, also if it is usied in conflict it will then have the opportunity of showing wtat it is capable of doing exactly what it says on the tin. If you look at the Harrier, Jaguar, Tornado all were decried at the beginning but now they have proved themselves in confilcts. Also two incidences with the American Airforce suprised and shocked them (by the way this was there reporting not ours) at the capabilities of the Typhoon.
As to my being part of the SFO, I am not, but I do watch the news, read the reports published by BAES (I know they will obviously lie to their shareholders and staff), read the comments that the SFO leak (of course they will lie as the government and the Saudis told them to), really we cannot argue against the scale of evidence from the newspapers and the knowledgable posters on this forum. With this weight of evidence it is obvious that BAES is a warmongering, fraudulent company with no scruples or ethics and should be burned at the stake and put out of business this instant.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Last edited by Climebear; 16th Dec 2006 at 19:51. Reason: Edited to eliminate the stupidity highlighted by DZ
Plus, we get to stay friends with a group of people that threatened to stop sharing intelligence on Al Quaeda with us if we continued to investigate!
Yep, we certainly did the 'right' thing.
Yep, we certainly did the 'right' thing.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6180945.stm
some exerpts: (underlining and bolding are mine)
"Lord Goldsmith said he thought that a prosecution "could not be brought". He said the decision had been made in the wider public interest, which had to be balanced against the rule of law."
"Lord Goldsmith also told peers that Prime Minister Tony Blair had agreed that the continuation of the investigation would cause "serious damage" to relations between the UK and Saudi Arabia.
"Lord Goldsmith said that both Mr Blair and Defence Secretary Des Browne had argued that carrying on the investigation would harm intelligence and diplomatic co-operation with Saudi Arabia, in turn damaging the UK's national security."
"BBC business editor Robert Peston says that major UK companies - both arms firms and other manufacturers - have voiced fears that they stood to lose other lucrative deals should the probe have continued.
The SFO said its decision had been taken "following representations that have been made both to the Attorney General and the Director of the SFO concerning the need to safeguard national and international security".
It added: "No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest."
"Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman Simon Hughes said: "From the moment investigations began, it was clear that they would not be popular in Saudi Arabia. "But to pull the plug halfway through, and when real progress was just being made, is the worst of all possible outcomes."
"But Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: "We made it clear that because of the commercial issues involved we wanted the SFO to make a rapid decision about whether to continue their inquiry or whether to bring it to an end. "Having decided there is no case to answer, it will be welcomed by all those concerned."
So, just what is the real story... does the Lib Dem voice have a point? Was proof starting to show up?
When "Lord Goldsmith said he thought that a prosecution "could not be brought", does that mean that they weren't finding evidence, or that there would be no charges brought by the Attorney General (see above statements) no matter what evidence was found!
What is clear is that tremendous pressure was brought on the SFO... including representations that the investigation constituted a security risk, and therefore continuing could be considered an "act against National Security".
With that position, could treason charges have been brought against the SFO if they had continued the investigation?
Were they told "stop, or face charges yourself"?
Or was it a recognition of the fact that if there will be no prosecution no matter the findings, why spend time and money continuing?
And power wins over law again!
some exerpts: (underlining and bolding are mine)
"Lord Goldsmith said he thought that a prosecution "could not be brought". He said the decision had been made in the wider public interest, which had to be balanced against the rule of law."
"Lord Goldsmith also told peers that Prime Minister Tony Blair had agreed that the continuation of the investigation would cause "serious damage" to relations between the UK and Saudi Arabia.
"Lord Goldsmith said that both Mr Blair and Defence Secretary Des Browne had argued that carrying on the investigation would harm intelligence and diplomatic co-operation with Saudi Arabia, in turn damaging the UK's national security."
"BBC business editor Robert Peston says that major UK companies - both arms firms and other manufacturers - have voiced fears that they stood to lose other lucrative deals should the probe have continued.
The SFO said its decision had been taken "following representations that have been made both to the Attorney General and the Director of the SFO concerning the need to safeguard national and international security".
It added: "No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest."
"Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman Simon Hughes said: "From the moment investigations began, it was clear that they would not be popular in Saudi Arabia. "But to pull the plug halfway through, and when real progress was just being made, is the worst of all possible outcomes."
"But Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: "We made it clear that because of the commercial issues involved we wanted the SFO to make a rapid decision about whether to continue their inquiry or whether to bring it to an end. "Having decided there is no case to answer, it will be welcomed by all those concerned."
So, just what is the real story... does the Lib Dem voice have a point? Was proof starting to show up?
When "Lord Goldsmith said he thought that a prosecution "could not be brought", does that mean that they weren't finding evidence, or that there would be no charges brought by the Attorney General (see above statements) no matter what evidence was found!
What is clear is that tremendous pressure was brought on the SFO... including representations that the investigation constituted a security risk, and therefore continuing could be considered an "act against National Security".
With that position, could treason charges have been brought against the SFO if they had continued the investigation?
Were they told "stop, or face charges yourself"?
Or was it a recognition of the fact that if there will be no prosecution no matter the findings, why spend time and money continuing?
And power wins over law again!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right to harm bears
Climebear,
when I see phrases such as " I Have saw the evidence" I get a mental picture of a less than honest type with a chainsaw - having worked 'for' BAe ( it was with in J.F. days ) I can only think this telling...
DZ
when I see phrases such as " I Have saw the evidence" I get a mental picture of a less than honest type with a chainsaw - having worked 'for' BAe ( it was with in J.F. days ) I can only think this telling...
DZ