Fraud investigation stopped by Saudi's

[budda]

Its nice to know that a serious fraud office investigation can be stopped by a foreign government isnt it.

In the interests of national security apparently, more like the BAE contract which they threatened to cut.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Stupid thing to investigate anyway. If we have to throw a few quid at corrupt Saudi princes to make billions for this country and safeguard thousands of jobs I'm all for it.

Though good to see our 'allies' France were already sniffing around Saudi Arabia like a dog on heat.

[Kermit]

I'd agree with flashman, sometimes it is necessary to turn a bit of a blind eye to it in order to safeguard financial interests.

Rather than getting angry about this, people should be getting angry about Export Credit Guarantee, whereby if some tinpot African dictator doesn't pay for his guns and planes we get to pay for instead.

[Disillusioned]

Good news. If the investigation had went ahead our relations with Saudi Arabia could have been severely damaged. Continuing the investigation would have handed the contract to the French and created thousands of French jobs - at the expense of thousands of BAE jobs in Britain. There shouldn't have been an investigation in the first place. It's good to have principles and laws on this sort of thing but when British firms are doing business with the likes of the Saudis we have to turn a blind eye - the alternative is to ruin the likes of BAE and give rival foreign firms a massive boost.

[budda]

Stupid thing to investigate anyway.

I'd agree with that, the only way to ever get contracts with the Saudi's is to bribe them.

[budda]

Rather than getting angry about this, people should be getting angry about Export Credit Guarantee, whereby if some tinpot African dictator doesn't pay for his guns and planes we get to pay for instead.

Didnt we effectively give loads of weapons to Saddam free through that system?

[Aladdin]

Poor old BAE, always one failed contract away from having to dismiss "thousands of jobs". You have to wonder how they surive, being in such precarious situation...

What a load of bollocks.

So much for ethical foreign policy. So much for principles.

One day it might even be the case that British soldiers are killed with British-made warplanes owned by a corrupt theocratic regime. An irony that will not be lost on them.

But no matter. Money talks, as always.

[Kermit]

Didnt we effectively give loads of weapons to Saddam free through that system?

Basically, yeah.

And we'll end up giving these weapons to people like Adi Amin for nothing, too, if we write off all this African debt- most of it is though ECGD.

A loss of a £6bn order would threaten any company, Aladdin, and as Saudi Arabia are not a threat to the UK I don't see the issue.

I find it strange how some incentives are fine and others are not. Bribery talks in bug business, and if it brings jobs to the UK then I'm all for it.

[Aladdin]

Since BAE wasn't planning, to the best of my knowledge, to make thousands of workers redundant before this contract came to be, the subsequential loss wouldn't have had any effect.

BAE was doing nicely before this contract was agreed. The deal came as an unexpected bonus. And no jobs would have been lost if the deal had been called off later. Though aparently all companies have to do is to utter the magical words "thousands of jobs will be safeguarded by this deal" for people to accept it without questions or moral objections.

Regarding bribes to win deals, I thought capitalists took great pride in their system and saw fair play and competition between companies as a fundamental part of it. Dodgy deals, illegal transactions and bribes don't look like something to be proud of to me.

To cap it all this is not just any commercial venture but a weapons deals. Arms dealing is a rather unpleasant business at the best of times, and the last thing we need is to make it worse by selling them to nasty regimes through dodgy deals.

But what's new anyway? Those British chaps who got accused of planting bombs by the Saudis and subjected to torture had the pleasure of being electrocuted with British-made batons. Nice to see the government continues to lower its trousers and bend over in front of unpleasant dictatorships for the sake of a quick buck.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Poor old BAE, always one failed contract away from having to dismiss "thousands of jobs". You have to wonder how they surive, being in such precarious situation...

What a load of bollocks.

So much for ethical foreign policy. So much for principles.

One day it might even be the case that British soldiers are killed with British-made warplanes owned by a corrupt theocratic regime. An irony that will not be lost on them.

But no matter. Money talks, as always.

Can you eat principles?

But as an aside selling British weapons to Saudi means we're less likely to be killed by them than if the French did. We after all know the weaknesses of our own weapons pretty well and can stop spares being sold to replace the wear and tear and battle damage. An advantage we don't have if it French weaponary...

[Aladdin]

"Can I eat principles?" I've never tried. But sure as hell I could eat aplenty for thousands of years with the profits BAE generates in a single day.

Let's not pretend the life of BAE and the jobs of thousands of workers depended on this deal. It so clearly didn't.

BAE would say otherwise of course. At the end of the day that is what every company always claims in such cases, regardless of the circumstances.

[Iknowyourmum]

If bribary's not done in the UK and its not UK officials taking money than I dont see the problem.

In fact couldnt it be construed as racist, that we dont trust these forign countries, that arnt run by white people we need to investigate them as their not compitant to run their own affairs.

I bet if this was a so called bribe to an French official for a contract and Jaques Chiraq and the french parliment said they dont want an investigation, their would be no complaints about it being dropped.

Its not our business to go round fixing other countries, we tried that in Iraq and its not working, if they want to have their system that way we shouldnt be concerned.

[Bullseye]

surely BAE are structured to work around set contracts made and planned years in advance, only someone very very naive of how business negotiations work and has no experience what so ever, would say that One contract means nothing to a big company like BAE.

It is actually a good thing in this case to turn a blind eye to some thing that is quite minute a worry to safegaurd thousand of jobs. I am sure anyone with any experience in business would agree as far as jobs and money matters are concerned.

[I'm With Stupid]

In fact couldnt it be construed as racist, that we dont trust these forign countries, that arnt run by white people we need to investigate them as their not compitant to run their own affairs.
It's now racist to point out gross human rights violations and say that you want nothing to do with regimes that carry them out?

Its not our business to go round fixing other countries, we tried that in Iraq and its not working, if they want to have their system that way we shouldnt be concerned.
Does that mean that we have to support them?

[Toadborg]

Why do people want to give money to BAE workers?

Misplaced patriotism?

If you beleive the key to the success of this country is economic success then government subsidisies are not the way to such success.

'Right-wing' people who supposedly support free markets seem to get particularly confused on this point......

[Aladdin]

surely BAE are structured to work around set contracts made and planned years in advance, only someone very very naive of how business negotiations work and has no experience what so ever, would say that One contract means nothing to a big company like BAE.

It is actually a good thing in this case to turn a blind eye to some thing that is quite minute a worry to safegaurd thousand of jobs. I am sure anyone with any experience in business would agree as far as jobs and money matters are concerned.

From BAE's own website:

5 continents


90,000 people


Largest European defence company


Top 10 US defence company


Order book £51.2 billion


£14.8 billion annual sales


£1.2 billion annual R&D spend


100 new inventions a year


Yep, I can see how the very life of the company depends on the Saudi deal...

[Kermit]

If any company lost 20% of its order book it would struggle. That's simple economics.

It's a bit of a misnomer to say that everyone would be sacked- they wouldn't- but I'd rather have the jobs in Britain than in France or the US. And without orders factories close- the Saudis are one of the most important UK arms purchasers, and it isn't a good idea for the only British industry left to go and piss them off.

There's no point being principled when nobody else plays by the rules.

[Bullseye]

From BAE's own website:

5 continents


90,000 people


Largest European defence company


Top 10 US defence company


Order book £51.2 billion


£14.8 billion annual sales


£1.2 billion annual R&D spend


100 new inventions a year


Yep, I can see how the very life of the company depends on the Saudi deal...


A clear example of how naive you are when it comes to business. You went toa website of a company that has shareholders and stockholders and you expected them to point out all their weaknesses? lol, how very naive.

[Aladdin]

You're perhaps even more naive if you are prepared to believe everything corporations say. They have been known to lie, you know...

Do you believe it is possible for a company to lose an order and carry on without major repercussions? It's not that far fetched.

What we know for certain is that a company will warn of terrible consequences whenever an issue that might that threatens any of their profits arises. Doesn't mean it's true of course. Remember all the promises of bankruptcies and massive job losses given by business leaders if the minimum wage was introduced?

[Flashman's Ghost]

The trouble is that whilst stopping selling aircraft to Saudi may not harm the factories who make other things, it certainly harms the factories involved in building aircraft. Now some things might be able to be transfered, but not much. Its not like they're building wooden table legs - they precision engineering specific parts and if those parts are not needed, its not easy or cheap to retool to do something else.

[Aladdin]

I still wish we put principles before profits.

A stupid idealism in today's world, I know.

[Man Of Kent]

Principles tend not to get much food on the table, sadly.

[Bullseye]

You do realise Aladdin that when it comes to jobs BAE do not need to Lie. They employ many thousands of people so cutting a few thousand probably wouldnt mean anything to the company itself, just more bureacracy as it moves away from Britian to another more easy to work in country.
They do not need to lie about cutting jobs because it is in fact true if they lose a £20Billion contract.

[Aladdin]

The contract is for around £6bn.

And there weren't any plans to sack anyone before this deal came to be. The sale was an unexpected bonus, not a life saver.

[Kermit]

The contract is for around £6bn.

And there weren't any plans to sack anyone before this deal came to be. The sale was an unexpected bonus, not a life saver.

That's a very naive attitude to have. And also utterly wrong.

Without a full order book you don't need a full complement of staff. There were no "plans" for redundancies because the order book was full- if suddenly it was not full, redundancies and reduced working hours would quickly follow. Companies plan at least five years ahead with their order books.

The Government has managed to destroy every other heavy industry in the UK (the last shipyard on Tyneside folded this week), lets at least have some industry jobs left.

Principles are great, but they don't keep people in work. There is a time and a place for principles, and whingeing about a slush fund that everyone uses is not the time or the place.

If you want to complain about corruption, leave BAE alone and look at our darling Blair and his New Labour lackeys.

[wheresmyplacebo]

I'd agree with flashman, sometimes it is necessary to turn a bit of a blind eye to it in order to safeguard financial interests.

Rather than getting angry about this, people should be getting angry about Export Credit Guarantee, whereby if some tinpot African dictator doesn't pay for his guns and planes we get to pay for instead.


over the long term, the rule of law works things out to be fine financially in regards to fraud, as it makes for more secure transactions, rather than allow a banana republic way of doing thing, which is what would seperate our country from those many african countries where bribes outdo deal quality.....

then again yes minister shows itself to be true again

[Kermit]

But what's the difference between Persimmon Homes giving a 10% discount in benefits if you complete quickly, and BAE giving a 10% discount in benefits for giving them the order?

[Aladdin]

That's a very naive attitude to have. And also utterly wrong.

Without a full order book you don't need a full complement of staff. There were no "plans" for redundancies because the order book was full- if suddenly it was not full, redundancies and reduced working hours would quickly follow. Companies plan at least five years ahead with their order books. Were there any redundancy plans before BAE knew the Saudis were going to buy 72 planes?

No they weren't. Simply because BAE is already very busy building Eurofighters for Britain, Spain, Germany, Italy and Austria. Not to mention Hawks that they export to many countries and upgrading programs for the RAF's Nimrods.

If you want to complain about corruption, leave BAE alone and look at our darling Blair and his New Labour lackeys. Oh I'm perfectly happy to accuse Labour of corruption- though I don't think companies should be left alone. BAE's track record is not exactly encouraging; they have even paid money into Augusto Pinochet's bank account.

The bottom line is that the laws of the country have been bent for financial reasons. That is a dangerous and worrying precedent.

Here's a good article about it by someone who actually believes the economic damage would have been significant if the Saudis had pulled out- but who still believes the rule of law should be put before profits:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1973296,00.html

[Kermit]

The laws have been bent- the point is that I don't especially care about this law being bent.

There are several questions to ask:
1. Would this criminal investigation prevent further bungs? No.
2. Would this criminal investigation prevent the Saudis getting guns or planes? No.
3. Would this criminal investigation irrevocably damage our diplomatic and economic relationship with the Saudis? Yes.
4. Would that inevitably lead to job losses in a part of the country that already suffers from high unemployment (BAE's biggest factories are in East Lancashire)? Yes.

On balance, I think that the AG has reached the right decision. There would be no benefit to pissing off the Saudis in such a pointless and cack-handed way- either morally or financially- and so I'd rather see British people employed building Saudi weaponry than French people or American people or Polish people.

There are battles to fight and there are battles not to fight. This isn't one worth fighting. Morals don't feed the families of East Lancashire- bear in mind it isn't just the employees of BAE systems who would suffer, its the employees of all the contractors who make the bits for this order too.

[Aladdin]

Regarding points no. 1 and 2, can't you apply it to just about any other crimes?

Why bother having laws?

Point 3: couldn't care less

Point 4: debatable at best. And I'm sorry, but at the end of the day the rule of law should be above profits.

[Kermit]

Should "the rule of law" be above people's livelihoods, though? It's all well and good lambasting BAE Systems profits, but if they weren't getting the work they wouldn't be making the profits, and if they weren't making the profits they wouldn't have the staff.

The crime is victimless, and the benefits of the criminal prosecution would by far be negated by the resultant job losses and damage to the UK economy.

When all said and done, its not as if BAE Systems were raping children in order to get the contract, is it? What's a bit of a bung between friends?

[Man Of Kent]

What's the difference between this and a BOGOF offer?

[Kermit]

I asked the same question, MoK.

Aladdin didn't answer, oddly enough.

For a prosecution to go ahead I believe that there should be a victim- who's the victim in this case? It's certainly no greater waste of money than the loans given to Rover in order to protect jobs.

[wheresmyplacebo]

Should "the rule of law" be above people's livelihoods, though? It's all well and good lambasting BAE Systems profits, but if they weren't getting the work they wouldn't be making the profits, and if they weren't making the profits they wouldn't have the staff.

The crime is victimless, and the benefits of the criminal prosecution would by far be negated by the resultant job losses and damage to the UK economy.

When all said and done, its not as if BAE Systems were raping children in order to get the contract, is it? What's a bit of a bung between friends?


yes it should be above people's lives that's why it is the rule of law....

okay having a law to prevent bribery abroad is kind of stupid and hard to enforce, but in the long run anti-corruption measures help in the long run, since they'll make us a reliable trading partner


should a company director avoid jail for manslaughter for which his direct order caused simply because he helps the economy?

[migpilot]

Question that has to be asked is whether anyone from the government who bent the law has benefited from it financially or in status...
As far as I know, no one has.
If they had, they that would be obviously wrong.

As far as the £6bn plane deal, the £6bn is just for the planes. Now looking at the live expectancy of it and possible future orders, that ammount will increase because those planes need to be maintained, repaired, upgraded etc and all that work will be done by the BAE systems.

But then you can look at it from a different angle. Bungs prevent healthy competition. Bungs mean corruption. Bungs pose a question, where is the line between a harmless bung and a crime?

If you have time, have a look at Nolan's report for the government from 2003 or something.

Anyway, it's hard to stamp out corruption if the enforcers are corrupt. So what is the point in arguing???

[Kermit]

yes it should be above people's lives that's why it is the rule of law...

Should the law of theft be put above someone who is starving to death?

Something should only be illegal if there is a victim.

[Aladdin]

What's the difference between this and a BOGOF offer? Bungs are illegal.

The Prosecution Service certainly thought there were illegal acts commited.

Word in Fleet Street is that there was such monumental amount of dirty shit being uncovered that the government had to pull the plug to avoid a lot of red faces and the loss of contracts.

Frankly I can't believe anyone could possibly have any doubts as to whether any illegal acts might have taken place. It stank to high fucking heaven.

[Aladdin]

Should the law of theft be put above someone who is starving to death? Oh for fuck's sake...

I think I want to become a megacorporation boss. That way I can do whatever the fuck I want, and to justify it all I just need to utter the magic words "thousands of jobs will be safeguarded".

Even if that's not the case at all.

How many thousands of jobs were lost when Britain stopped selling weapons to Saddam Hussein?

Well?

Presumably we should just carried on selling him weapons so he could happily bomb villagers to fuck. At the end of the day, BRITISH JOBS COULD BE AT STAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(for 'British jobs', read 'profits')

[Kermit]

So who is the victim if BAE slip a few quid on the side to some sheikh?

It isn't me, it isn't the sheikh, it isn't BAE systems, and it isn't their staff.

If there's no victim, what's the justification for the prosecution?

ETA: I have absolutely no doubt that there was corruption, and that both BAE Systems and the Saudis have made a canny packet in bungs. Most high-level business has survived on bungs since Jesus was a wee nipper. But who gives a toss?

[Aladdin]

So who is the victim if BAE slip a few quid on the side to some sheikh?

It isn't me, it isn't the sheikh, it isn't BAE systems, and it isn't their staff.

If there's no victim, what's the justification for the prosecution? Have you heard of competition and fair trade laws?

ETA: I have absolutely no doubt that there was corruption, and that both BAE Systems and the Saudis have made a canny packet in bungs. Most high-level business has survived on bungs since Jesus was a wee nipper. But who gives a toss? Anyone who has a conscience?

[Kermit]

Have you heard of competition and fair trade laws?

Yes, I have. Lots of hot air and bullshit.

Who's the victim?

Anyone who has a conscience?

Why is giving some sheikh a hooker in order to secure the deal unconscionable? It isn't.

This explains it quite well. (http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1974169,00.html)

[Aladdin]

Yes, I have. Lots of hot air and bullshit. Well I'm glad to hear you have such regard for large chapters of the Law of the Land.

Who's the victim? Every arms company in Britain and the world which name does not have the initials B, A and E.



Why is giving some sheikh a hooker in order to secure the deal unconscionable? It isn't. Obviously the Crown Prosecution Service, and indeed the laws of the Land think otherwise.

[Kermit]

Every arms company in Britain and the world which name does not have the initials B, A and E.

Are they?

The arms trade, like every other business at the highest level, is one big festival of bungs. Everyone knows that. And compared to what the French and US governments do, this is peanuts.

laws of the Land think otherwise.

I didn't realise that a piece of paper had cognitive thought. Maybe my desk will decide to clear itself tonight...

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, but perhaps if people spent less time getting their knickers in a twist about crap like this, and more time being angry about things that actually matter, then the country wouldn't be in such a mess.

Life's too short to worry about a bit of lubricant that secures a huge contract.

[Man Of Kent]

Bungs are illegal.

So, again, what is the difference between this )which is considered illegal) and a BOGOF offer (which isn't...?

Frankly I can't believe anyone could possibly have any doubts as to whether any illegal acts might have taken place. It stank to high fucking heaven.

Me included. You need to ask if the law in an ass though.

Have you heard of competition and fair trade laws?


Yes. Are you suggesting that BAEs size makes a difference here (i.e. they can offer bigger bribes) or that other companies will not offer bribes and are therefore discriminated again?

[Aladdin]

Are they?

The arms trade, like every other business at the highest level, is one big festival of bungs. Everyone knows that. And compared to what the French and US governments do, this is peanuts. That is an extremely weak argument when it comes to trying to justify breaking the law.

Isn't it?



I didn't realise that a piece of paper had cognitive thought. Maybe my desk will decide to clear itself tonight...

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, but perhaps if people spent less time getting their knickers in a twist about crap like this, and more time being angry about things that actually matter, then the country wouldn't be in such a mess.

Life's too short to worry about a bit of lubricant that secures a huge contract. Is life too short to worry about financial blackmail of a sovereign country's government by a bunch of currupt theocrat nutters, and more importantly by the disgraceful surrender and the worrying contempt for the Law by the said government? I don't think it is.

[Aladdin]

So, again, what is the difference between this )which is considered illegal) and a BOGOF offer (which isn't...? Why are you asking me? I didn't make the laws.

The laws stll exist, and they should not be disregarded for the sake of financial gain.



Me included. You need to ask if the law in an ass though. It might well be but it is not the government's place to flaunt them because there's money at stake.

Regardless of the money at stake, that sets an indescribably dangerous and nauseating precedent.



Yes. Are you suggesting that BAEs size makes a difference here (i.e. they can offer bigger bribes) or that other companies will not offer bribes and are therefore discriminated again? No. I'm suggesting that illegal transactions took place that gave BAE unfair advantage.

It couldn't be simpler in my eyes. Nor in the eyes of the prosecution service I should think.

[Man Of Kent]

Why are you asking me? I didn't make the laws.

No, but you are raising concerns about one and haven't ever raised the other which is clearly made on the same basis. You could include loss leaders into that category too - such as the way that companies like Tesco and Asda will sell their petrol cheaper because it gets people into their stores...

Surely the issue here isn't one about how it is a rich person who has benefitted from an offer rather than Joe Average...?

The laws stll exist, and they should not be disregarded for the sake of financial gain.

Doesn't "public interest" apply for all enforcement of laws?

No. I'm suggesting that illegal transactions took place that gave BAE unfair advantage.

Only if no-one else tried/wanted to take the same stance. If all bidders offered bribes then one would have to ask if any unfair advantage was actually gained.

[Aladdin]

No, but you are raising concerns about one and haven't ever raised the other which is clearly made on the same basis. You could include loss leaders into that category too - such as the way that companies like Tesco and Asda will sell their petrol cheaper because it gets people into their stores...

Surely the issue here isn't one about how it is a rich person who has benefitted from an offer rather than Joe Average...? The real issue here is bending the law for the sake of financial gain.

This has clearly happened. And it is unnaceptable.



Doesn't "public interest" apply for all enforcement of laws? If only there had been any public interest, rather than financial gain by a private corporation.



Only if no-one else tried/wanted to take the same stance. If all bidders offered bribes then one would have to ask if any unfair advantage was actually gained. We shall never know shall we?

Bottom line is, the law doesn't care for 'what ifs' or 'the others would have done the same'.

BAE by all accounts conducted illegal operations. It was indescribably wrong of the government to halt the inquiry. It makes a mockery of the law and indeed of Great Britain.

How can we look at any regime on earth on the face, no matter how dodgy they might be, and complain about 'corruption' and 'irregularities' remains to be seen. By interfering with the rule of law for the sake of financial gain we're no better than a banana republic.

[wheresmyplacebo]

Are they?

The arms trade, like every other business at the highest level, is one big festival of bungs. Everyone knows that. And compared to what the French and US governments do, this is peanuts.



I didn't realise that a piece of paper had cognitive thought. Maybe my desk will decide to clear itself tonight...

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, but perhaps if people spent less time getting their knickers in a twist about crap like this, and more time being angry about things that actually matter, then the country wouldn't be in such a mess.

Life's too short to worry about a bit of lubricant that secures a huge contract.

so it's okay to bribe?

why not spend that bung money on actually making a product that would be worth buying....

[Kermit]

Lots of laws are ignored- Aladdin for one campaigns regularly for the police to ignore the anti-drug laws and lambasts them when they don't- and I fail to see what the problem with this one being ignored. The saudis get their hookers, BAE Systems get their contract, and the businesses reliant on BAE Systems get their turkey this Christmas.

It's not a matter of the product being "worth buying"- one gun is very much like another- its about the incentives deal being right. People shop at Tesco instead of the corner shop because they give us a "bung" (BOGOF, loss-leading items), and the Saudis shopped at BAE because they gave the best bung. Big deal.

It's only an "unfair advantage" if your competitors don't do it- and they do- so where's the issue? And if the Saudi government are making contractual decisions based on bungs then that is a matter for the Saudis not us.

Yet again the rest of the world is laughing at us for almost letting a stupid bit of trivia destroy one of the biggest business deals we have. The French couldn't wait for us to cock it up again, just like we've cocked up all the other businesses we have.

[Aladdin]

Lots of laws are ignored- Aladdin for one campaigns regularly for the police to ignore the anti-drug laws and lambasts them when they don't- and I fail to see what the problem with this one being ignored. A multi-million, multi-nation corruption scandal at the detriment of countless companies in Britain and abroad is a tad more serious than a lad being caught with a couple grams of charlie, don't you think?

The saudis get their hookers, BAE Systems get their contract, and the businesses reliant on BAE Systems get their turkey this Christmas. And everyone's happy.

Yipee!

Pass me that law book please, I've run out of toilet paper.

It's not a matter of the product being "worth buying"- one gun is very much like another- its about the incentives deal being right. People shop at Tesco instead of the corner shop because they give us a "bung" (BOGOF, loss-leading items), and the Saudis shopped at BAE because they gave the best bung. Big deal. The CPS obviously thought it was a big deal.

It's only an "unfair advantage" if your competitors don't do it- and they do- so where's the issue? And if the Saudi government are making contractual decisions based on bungs then that is a matter for the Saudis not us. Why don't you ask their competitors? You are assuming too easily that they offered bungs.

Besides, a small firm is going to have little chance of competing in equal terms with a mega-corporation like BAE if it all comes down to briefcases stuffed full with money, isn't it?

I can't fucking believe I'm the one who doesn't like capitalism here and find myself one of two people defending the rule of law to ensure fair competition and honest dealings.

Yet again the rest of the world is laughing at us for almost letting a stupid bit of trivia destroy one of the biggest business deals we have. The French couldn't wait for us to cock it up again, just like we've cocked up all the other businesses we have. No. The rest of the world laughs and shakes their head at our spineless government lowering its trousers and bending over in front of yet another dodgy government.

Whether it be imperialistic semi-literate chimps or torturing theocrat dictators, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can be counted upon to break the law for the sake of profits and backhanders.

A fine example we're setting for others.

[Aladdin]

Incidentally, it really makes me laugh when from time to time someone says this forum is left-leaning. Judging by the responses on this thread the balance is so overwhelmingly to the right I'm surprised the whole screen isn't tilted 90 degrees.

[Disillusioned]

I can't fucking believe I'm the one who doesn't like capitalism here and find myself one of two people defending the rule of law to ensure fair competition and honest dealings.

And those things generally apply in the UK. However, business is done differently in other parts of the world and you don't get anywhere in a lot of countries without bribes. Not an ideal situation I admit but would you rather Britain misses out on lucrative trade with the Saudis? Lets be clear, the Saudis aren't the only ones who do business this way...If we demanded all foreign trade is free of bribes and bungs we wouldn't be doing much trade at all.

[Aladdin]

Actually yes, when it comes to dodgy dictatorships and when the trading involved is weapons, I'd rather we didn't deal with them at all.

Labour claimed it had just such aims in 1997. Shame on them for lying.

Saddam Hussein comes to mind. But the lessons of dealing with unpleasant regimes apparently haven't been learnt by many others. People appear to suffer temporary blindness (not to mention conscience failure) when dollar signs flash before their eyes.

[Disillusioned]

Actually yes, when it comes to dodgy dictatorships and when the trading involved is weapons, I'd rather we didn't deal with them at all.

Fair enough. Although, this fraud investigation was not about whether it is right to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia or not.

Labour claimed it had just such aims in 1997. Shame on them for lying.

I guess Labour did promise a lots of things in 1997.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Actually yes, when it comes to dodgy dictatorships and when the trading involved is weapons, I'd rather we didn't deal with them at all.

Labour claimed it had just such aims in 1997. Shame on them for lying.

Saddam Hussein comes to mind. But the lessons of dealing with unpleasant regimes apparently haven't been learnt by many others. People appear to suffer temporary blindness (not to mention conscience failure) when dollar signs flash before their eyes.

What did we learn from Saddam Hussein? We all knew that the Russians would sell to anyone and the French are pretty much the same. We also knew that Russian equipment is crap. We also knew that if you have to smuggle in spare parts under the guise of pretending its the food and medicine you're allowed to buy for your people that you're not going to have enough equipment to fully re-equip.

We also knew that its useful to have regional allies such as the Saudi's using equipment and doctrine which is close to ours.

I'm not sure any of this supports your argument....

[Aladdin]

Well one thing you could learn from the Hussein fiasco is that it ultimately doesn't pay to arm unpleasant regimes as they might one day turn on their masters, or it might become politically convenient to remove them. There is also the moral issue of providing weapons to regimes with poor human rights records.

Let's hope no British soldiers will ever be killed with British built-and-provided Saudi warplanes. Then again British civilians have in the past been tortured abroad with British-built electric batons so I guess we'd only be continuing a time-honoured tradition.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Well one thing you could learn from the Hussein fiasco is that it ultimately doesn't pay to arm unpleasant regimes as they might one day turn on their masters, or it might become politically convenient to remove them. There is also the moral issue of providing weapons to regimes with poor human rights records.

Er, but it was the US and UK who removed him, not those who armed him (ie Russia, France and China)

Let's hope no British soldiers will ever be killed with British built-and-provided Saudi warplanes. Then again British civilians have in the past been tortured abroad with British-built electric batons so I guess we'd only be continuing a time-honoured tradition

If the UK didn't sell them them the French would. So lets say in the future that UK and Saudi look like they're going to war. UK stops selling Saudi the spares - planes grounded. UK and Saudi go to war, France continues to sell spares - more UK soldiers die.

That's the trouble with ethical foreign policy - once you look beyond the headlines it tends to be as ethical as fuck....

[migpilot]

I cannot believe you guys are having a go at Alladin for having principles!!
Ridicilous!

He is absolutely right. Just because everyone does bungs, it don't mean that it should be accepted as a norm.
Yes, everyone knows how things work in some parts of the world, but if a government promises you during an election campaign that it will be "PURER THAN PURE" then you have every right to question their motives for cancelling this inverstigation. My hunch is that the investigation was stopped because someone up high has or will financially benefit from the deal.
Everything else is horseshit.

By the way, when and how will UK ever go into war with Saudi Arabia???
Be realistic...