SFO raids four premises in BAE contracts probe
So those across the pond who are whiter than white and never do any wrong are going to poke their noses into business that is nothing to do with them (oh hold on, nothing new there then). I suppose their pet puppy will roll over and have his tummy tickled when whistled.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps it is more significant for BAE that all their business in the United States will almost certainly be affected. Could be that the Saudi contract is small fry compared with future lost business.
I am inclined to agree, they have achieved quite a large business base in the States. I just wonder if this will also turn out the same way as the SFO investigation: Once again accusations of hiding the truth because of US/British economic interests being compromised when the enquiry is called off due to no evidence, shades of having been down this route spring to mind.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Merry Xmas chaps.
It's over - done, dusted, and AY will proceed. As, like it or not, will BAES US business; do try and appreciate that BAe no longer exists (if you can really grasp the meaning of that). No doubt, however, the more self-indulgent elements of the UK media will continue to pursue their 'campaign'. From all quarters of industrial competition (not just Western), gifts will still be given (albeit perhaps with greater introspection), treats will still be offered, and 'bribes', as ever, will not be made by the more civilised. To all those out there that still imagine that these multi-billion contracts are won through bribery - dream on! Long may the West do business with Arab trading partners; it serves to prosper our all economies, in spades. If, in so doing, you are not able to come to terms with the customs of those countries, tough (IMHO). Let's be altruistic, but let's also be realstic.
It's over - done, dusted, and AY will proceed. As, like it or not, will BAES US business; do try and appreciate that BAe no longer exists (if you can really grasp the meaning of that). No doubt, however, the more self-indulgent elements of the UK media will continue to pursue their 'campaign'. From all quarters of industrial competition (not just Western), gifts will still be given (albeit perhaps with greater introspection), treats will still be offered, and 'bribes', as ever, will not be made by the more civilised. To all those out there that still imagine that these multi-billion contracts are won through bribery - dream on! Long may the West do business with Arab trading partners; it serves to prosper our all economies, in spades. If, in so doing, you are not able to come to terms with the customs of those countries, tough (IMHO). Let's be altruistic, but let's also be realstic.
Last edited by jindabyne; 24th Dec 2006 at 11:11.
jindabyne: I realise now in my haste I typed BAE instead of BAES, I should no better 
. I agree with your sentiments, to all enjoy the festive season.
Regards
Mick
. I agree with your sentiments, to all enjoy the festive season.Regards
Mick
, and have a great festive break.Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And a very merry Christmas to you too, jindabyne.
I doubt if anybody who supports British industry would argue that BWoS should not have been very generous to those who helped them sell to the Saudis but I would hesitate to approve of what are alleged to be very hefty back-handers of the magnitude that even the Mafia or the drug cartels would kill for.
Incidentally, I understand that Gordon Brown is to take 2% of the latest deal as an 'arrangement fee' - sounds like a similar case of 'bribery' to me!
Happy New Year in which nobody gets found out but Blair leaves!
I doubt if anybody who supports British industry would argue that BWoS should not have been very generous to those who helped them sell to the Saudis but I would hesitate to approve of what are alleged to be very hefty back-handers of the magnitude that even the Mafia or the drug cartels would kill for.
Incidentally, I understand that Gordon Brown is to take 2% of the latest deal as an 'arrangement fee' - sounds like a similar case of 'bribery' to me!
Happy New Year in which nobody gets found out but Blair leaves!
Princely price of the ‘slush fund’ girls
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1596756.ece
See today's Sunday Times for yet more allegations concerning BWoS and the Saudis....... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1596693.ece
Far from 'Done and dusted', Jindabyne, methinks, as this brief extract would seem to indicate:
'Last autumn, after the Saudis threatened Downing Street that they would halt the contract and suspend diplomatic and intelligence ties unless it was stopped, Tony Blair intervened to end Britain’s biggest-ever bribery inquiry. Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, told parliament the decision was made “in the national interest”.
Robert Wardle, the director of the SFO, said he had decided that the 2½ year probe could no longer be justified. He had been told that if intelligence links with the Saudis broke down, Al-Qaeda would cause “death on the streets”.
But opposition MPs and watchdogs were suspicious. Many in Whitehall, and at the SFO, suspected Blair, Goldsmith and others had simply caved in to Saudi blackmail.
“Goldsmith’s a bastard,” said a friend of Wardle. “This business showed he’s the most political attorney-general in decades.”
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the industrial countries grouping that monitors corruption in trade, smelt a rat. Under a treaty, inquiries cannot be stopped for economic or political reasons.
The OECD is planning to send a team to Britain to interview Goldsmith and officials about the decision'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1596756.ece
See today's Sunday Times for yet more allegations concerning BWoS and the Saudis....... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1596693.ece
Far from 'Done and dusted', Jindabyne, methinks, as this brief extract would seem to indicate:
'Last autumn, after the Saudis threatened Downing Street that they would halt the contract and suspend diplomatic and intelligence ties unless it was stopped, Tony Blair intervened to end Britain’s biggest-ever bribery inquiry. Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, told parliament the decision was made “in the national interest”.
Robert Wardle, the director of the SFO, said he had decided that the 2½ year probe could no longer be justified. He had been told that if intelligence links with the Saudis broke down, Al-Qaeda would cause “death on the streets”.
But opposition MPs and watchdogs were suspicious. Many in Whitehall, and at the SFO, suspected Blair, Goldsmith and others had simply caved in to Saudi blackmail.
“Goldsmith’s a bastard,” said a friend of Wardle. “This business showed he’s the most political attorney-general in decades.”
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the industrial countries grouping that monitors corruption in trade, smelt a rat. Under a treaty, inquiries cannot be stopped for economic or political reasons.
The OECD is planning to send a team to Britain to interview Goldsmith and officials about the decision'
Last edited by BEagle; 1st Apr 2007 at 08:27.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow.
Age: 80
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
12 hours since your last ( unedited) post and no-one is biting so I will, just to humour you.
Your paranoia regarding BWoS really is rather sad especially since you yourself in a previous post ( which I cannot be Arrsed to search for) admitted that you have never had any dealings with BAe. That being the case you seem to have one hell of a chip on your shoulder. Take a break mate and give us all a break.
Sorry for the belated response but some of us have to work weekends.
Jindabyne,
Further our previous PMs..............All signed up and looking forward to year end.
12 hours since your last ( unedited) post and no-one is biting so I will, just to humour you.
Your paranoia regarding BWoS really is rather sad especially since you yourself in a previous post ( which I cannot be Arrsed to search for) admitted that you have never had any dealings with BAe. That being the case you seem to have one hell of a chip on your shoulder. Take a break mate and give us all a break.
Sorry for the belated response but some of us have to work weekends.
Jindabyne,
Further our previous PMs..............All signed up and looking forward to year end.
Last edited by Echo 5; 1st Apr 2007 at 17:35.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard a story (from a very credible source) about BAe paying for two "call girls" to "escort" a very senior officer of an Asian nation. The very senior officer declined the escort and the call girls said "we're paid for....what do we do now?" I wonder if they are the same ladies.....
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what agenda is being pursued by the Times. We know more or less what has taken place and we know why. Whether or not we agree with it the deal is done and is consigned to history.
Time to move on and count the pennies (and jobs) from the Typhoon deal.
Time to move on and count the pennies (and jobs) from the Typhoon deal.
I don't think that The Times has any specific agenda, beyond reporting the facts.
Bliar may have caved in to 'foreign' coercion to direct the SFO to stop its investigations, but the OECD is made of sterner stuff and , it seems, is determined to get to the truth.
If the OECD discover that Bliar lent on the SFO through political or economic reasons, the effect on international trade will be very serious. But if their investigations show that there were no bribes, no slush fund to entertain visiting foreigners with 'escorts' in opulent London hotels and no impropriety then fine. Good news for all concerned.
However, I simply cannot sibscribe to the view that it's OK to stop being concerned about the ethics of any company just because 'British jobs are at stake' or for whatever other lame excuse is trotted out by those who don't want the truth to be known.
Bliar may have caved in to 'foreign' coercion to direct the SFO to stop its investigations, but the OECD is made of sterner stuff and , it seems, is determined to get to the truth.
If the OECD discover that Bliar lent on the SFO through political or economic reasons, the effect on international trade will be very serious. But if their investigations show that there were no bribes, no slush fund to entertain visiting foreigners with 'escorts' in opulent London hotels and no impropriety then fine. Good news for all concerned.
However, I simply cannot sibscribe to the view that it's OK to stop being concerned about the ethics of any company just because 'British jobs are at stake' or for whatever other lame excuse is trotted out by those who don't want the truth to be known.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course the 'truth' counts but there were no facts in the Times article to indicate any breach of the 2002 act - what happened in 2001 might have been as described but does not show that anything illegal happened.
My personal opinion is that there is probably a lot of dirt waiting to be dug up and what I saw in Saudi does not reassure me of the company's innocence.
However, rightly or wrongly, the SFO investigation has been stopped for political reasons and adding fuel to the fire for the OECD is not going to affect Bliar and Co but will adversely affect this country's reputation and could still cost us dearly in jobs and sales.
There are very good reasons right now for retaining those few 'friends' we have left in the Middle East and it must be important to maintain our relationship with the Saudi Royals if we are to stand any hope of dealing effectively with both Iran and Iraq.
My personal opinion is that there is probably a lot of dirt waiting to be dug up and what I saw in Saudi does not reassure me of the company's innocence.
However, rightly or wrongly, the SFO investigation has been stopped for political reasons and adding fuel to the fire for the OECD is not going to affect Bliar and Co but will adversely affect this country's reputation and could still cost us dearly in jobs and sales.
There are very good reasons right now for retaining those few 'friends' we have left in the Middle East and it must be important to maintain our relationship with the Saudi Royals if we are to stand any hope of dealing effectively with both Iran and Iraq.
"....rightly or wrongly, the SFO investigation has been stopped for political reasons."
How can that possibly be 'rightly'. Are you saying that political blackmail is OK if it helps to sell TypHoons or whatever?
No wonder the OECD is breathing down Bliar, Goldsmith and 't Bungling Barons' necks..... But, as I keep saying, if all allegations are false then there's nothing for them to fear.
If.....
How can that possibly be 'rightly'. Are you saying that political blackmail is OK if it helps to sell TypHoons or whatever?
No wonder the OECD is breathing down Bliar, Goldsmith and 't Bungling Barons' necks..... But, as I keep saying, if all allegations are false then there's nothing for them to fear.
If.....
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, please have the good grace to admit that even you do not know what the outcome would be if we lost all co-operation of the Saudis.
If the outcome would have been disaster in our Iraqi misadventure, inability to stop the nuclear maniacs in Iran from trying to annihilate Israel and failure to stop terrorist attacks in this country, then the Bliar brigade was probably right to stop the SFO investigation.
If not, they were wrong.
I don't know the answer and nor do you.
If the outcome would have been disaster in our Iraqi misadventure, inability to stop the nuclear maniacs in Iran from trying to annihilate Israel and failure to stop terrorist attacks in this country, then the Bliar brigade was probably right to stop the SFO investigation.
If not, they were wrong.
I don't know the answer and nor do you.
BAE provided 'support services' in arms deal...
BAE Systems, Britain's biggest defence contractor, has confirmed confirmed to the Attorney General that "support services" were paid for and provided to senior Saudi Arabian officials as part of a major arms deal, according to a report yesterday.
See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/aa91a592-e2e...b5df10621.html
According to the Financial Times, BAE declined to comment on the material published by the attorney general's office, and denied any wrongdoing.
The SFO is reportedly examining BAE Systems' dealings in the Czech Republic, Romania, Chile, Qatar, South Africa and Tanzania.
See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/aa91a592-e2e...b5df10621.html
According to the Financial Times, BAE declined to comment on the material published by the attorney general's office, and denied any wrongdoing.
The SFO is reportedly examining BAE Systems' dealings in the Czech Republic, Romania, Chile, Qatar, South Africa and Tanzania.
UK tries to sabotage BAE bribes inquiry
Attempt to oust legal expert heading European corruption investigation
A very interesting article in today's Grauniad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/...064191,00.html
A very interesting article in today's Grauniad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/...064191,00.html