WTF?! SFO no longer investigating BAE
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
The SFO statement:
http://www.sfo.gov.uk/news/prout/pr_497.asp?id=497
An older Guardian article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1039685,00.html
http://www.sfo.gov.uk/news/prout/pr_497.asp?id=497
An older Guardian article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1039685,00.html
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
he was fucking scum. Didn't even try to play the 'we have to balance human rights with our jobs' type line - just a bullish refusal to even get close to answering the questions put to him.treelover said:
Sucking up to the filthy saudi regime destroys just about every claim that liberal democracies make to be superior forms of government.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Why is it that the jobs arguments only applies when it's arms sales? How many hospital jobs have gone in the twelvemonth just finishing?
I have some sympathy with the jobs arguement - I've lived in a community where the only employer closed down and its absolutley devastating.
Thats not to say I think thats a reason for continuing the arms trade - just that if the arms trade were to be discontinued government would have a responsibility to aid those communities.
Re the Saudi thing - nothing surprises me with this government anymore, and yesterday was a good day to bury bad news.
Thats not to say I think thats a reason for continuing the arms trade - just that if the arms trade were to be discontinued government would have a responsibility to aid those communities.
Re the Saudi thing - nothing surprises me with this government anymore, and yesterday was a good day to bury bad news.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Where was that, if I can ask?Belushi said:
I was brought up in Stevenage, where BAE used to be a pretty major employer - don't know if it still is. Manhy of my schoolfriends went into apprenticeships there.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Ah, yes. That would make sense (albeit not economic sense).
gosub
~#
Nope Hatfield went a while ago, Ron Hedges the hatchet man when BAe decided to concentrate on it core business of Nuclear subs retired last week.
So anybody who loses their job 20 years later is fair enough? Though not what|I think would have happened, this order along with carrier planes if the US keep withold source code would go to Dassault. In order not to be overtrading Dassault would have to buy BAe plant (they built it in the first place) and a uber powerful EU defense company would be created, not a direction I would recommend.
Saudi's have a sizeable chunk of BAe, the current deal is I imagine a useful crutch duriong the AIrbus fiasco
mauvais
on reddit or something
devil's advocate here...
I'm well aware of the principle here, and why people are enraged. However I'm left with lots of questions about the alternatives, and the bigger picture in terms of ethics/impact.
First are the practicalities of this a harmless exercise? The Saudis are clearly not a pleasant regime, but this is little to do with their air force. As has been discussed on here many times before, they are not a credible threat/deterrent, and you can't really carry out their flavour of human rights violations with a fighter jet. Does bribery have a victim? Unfortunately weapons are both our main remaining manufacturing industry and a major part in global economics - who would have sold kit to them if not us? Is it objectively better for say, an American military giant to win the deal if they do it in a way that's closer to the law? Again, what did anyone really expect? That this doesn't happen, that this doesn't get discovered, or that this doesn't get aired?
I definitely don't want to be one of those people off for instance the BBC Have Your Say site that champion the arms companies and government. I'm not - I chose not to work for these people for the obvious moral reason. I have no doubt in my mind that if it became profitable to leave this country or go against its interests, BAES would be off. Still, I'm far more concerned about the dodgy arms sales they make without these widely anticipated bungs to Arabs, such as the Hawks to East Timor.
I'm well aware of the principle here, and why people are enraged. However I'm left with lots of questions about the alternatives, and the bigger picture in terms of ethics/impact.
First are the practicalities of this a harmless exercise? The Saudis are clearly not a pleasant regime, but this is little to do with their air force. As has been discussed on here many times before, they are not a credible threat/deterrent, and you can't really carry out their flavour of human rights violations with a fighter jet. Does bribery have a victim? Unfortunately weapons are both our main remaining manufacturing industry and a major part in global economics - who would have sold kit to them if not us? Is it objectively better for say, an American military giant to win the deal if they do it in a way that's closer to the law? Again, what did anyone really expect? That this doesn't happen, that this doesn't get discovered, or that this doesn't get aired?
I definitely don't want to be one of those people off for instance the BBC Have Your Say site that champion the arms companies and government. I'm not - I chose not to work for these people for the obvious moral reason. I have no doubt in my mind that if it became profitable to leave this country or go against its interests, BAES would be off. Still, I'm far more concerned about the dodgy arms sales they make without these widely anticipated bungs to Arabs, such as the Hawks to East Timor.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I think the point is that the "jobs" excuse is a lie. If it were jobs they were concerned about then defence jobs would not be privileged over other jobs. Nor is it, particularly, individuals protecting themselves or other powerful people from investigation, though plainly that must have played a part. It's really about influence. Not contracts, influence. The UK wants to be influential in the Middle East and if you want have influence somewhere, you need to be providing something. The UK provides arms, which means it has leverage. That's what it's all about.gosub said:
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
TAE said:So much for the rule of law and ethical foreign politics. I'm stunned.
What planet do you live on?
When in the last nine years of Labour rule has either of those been a factor they give a shit about?
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
teqniq said:
Well, weren't some of the Sept 11 hijackers Saudi Arabian? Maybe that's what they meant...
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Interesting blog entry on this: http://www.chickyog.net/2006/12/15/the-pariah-sketch/
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I understand the concerns of people about losing the jobs. But there would also be a lot more jobs if many other illegal practises were allowed to carry on. Even though the government are being arseholes and sticking with the Saudi's, they could at least prosecute or get fired the people responsible for the bribery to stop it happening again.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
TAE said:
Planet Earth where us mere mortals have seen this time and time again and are no longer surprised.
Similar threads
