WTF?! SFO no longer investigating BAE

[gosub]

Jobs cuts if that deal fell through are not a "lie", though I said what thought would happen. The whole thing is a sordid mess most definitely. But how was it allowed to get that far?
Regardless of what happens now Saudi's have been embarressed and the stuff going on over the JSF (ffs BAe got a top flight maintence contract at Farnborough yet the US thinks the UK government cann't be trusted with the most vital component of the aircraft) there is definite agenda going on the US that if Bush hadn't blackballed discussion of certain things they would clearly see isn't in their intrests - regardless of the Saudi contract.


There is clear case for National Security over this and the DIS needs to have a word with Serious Fraud regarding who in the States needs a talking to.




Due to recent changes in planetry classification the Earth is no longer a planet - too many asteroids in the proximity of its orbit.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Jobs cuts if that deal fell through are not a "lie", though I said what thought would happen.

No, the lie is that the reason for closing down the investigation is concern for jobs.

 

[gosub]

If safeguarding jobs had been cited as a reason for stopping the investigation, the UK would be in clear breech of International Treaty obligations. Oddly enough NOBODY is citing that, it would have been one of the knock on ramifications though.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Do you find it acceptable?

Moving the goalposts are we? I find it utterly unsurprising. I accept it in that I know it happens and I have virtually no power to stop it. Whether it's right or not is another matter entirely.

 

[TAE]

Moving the goalposts are we?

'We' are not doing anything at all. I asked you a simple question.

I find it utterly unsurprising. I accept it in that I know it happens and I have virtually no power to stop it.

Of course it does not come as a surprise. Geez, what is it with this "more cynical than thou" posturing ?

Never-the-less I find it shocking and stunning and outragous. And I don't buy it when people say we should just accept this kind of crap as normal.

 

[detective-boy]

I do wonder how many prostitutes and surround sound systems it took to make the SFO go away.

The SFO weren't made to go away by bribes.

They were made to go away by directions from a government Law Officer, the Attorney-General.

Don't blame the SFO if it is not their fault (they may be pretty useless, but if it's someone else's fault this time, blame them)

 

[Brainaddict]

I was always under the impression that the government was not allowed to influence a criminal investigation. How silly of me. And people say that we don't need a constitution. I suspect in a lot of countries where the powers of the executive are more tightly circumscribed this couldn't have happened.

I'm also shocked by the blatantness of it. It has all the appearance of a ringing endorsement of using corruption to sell arms to undemocratic, authoritarian regimes. Just when we think nu-labour can't sink any lower into their moral vacuum, they go and prove us all wrong.

 

[detective-boy]

Listened to Lord Goldsmith on the radio at lunchtime, justifying the decision. Couple of interesting points.

1. He pointed out that there were real evidential difficulties in relation to the case as the alleged offence only became an offence in about 2002 following a law change - the investigation had found lots of evidence up until that point but very little (although there was some) after that. As the law was not retroactive (as most laws are not) this meant that there would be a real problem with getting a conviction.

2. Although the investigation could have proceeded further and more evidence may have been found, the investigators were pessimistic about that happening.

3. He (Lord Goldsmith) had considered the public interest aspect of pursuing a prosecution and balancing the national security interests of the UK with the need to prosecute corruption interests of the UK he had come down on the side of the former. Having advised the SFO investigators of this they mutually agreed that further investigations were pointless as (a) it was very unlikely there would ever be sufficient evidence found anyway and (b) even if there were, a prosecution would not be judged in the public interest as things stood and things were unlikely to change.

4. I'm not sure what the "national security" issues were - I assume Saudi co-operation over terrorist intelligence re- Al Quaeda. National interest issues could include trade.

5. I think there is a wider question over our dealings with dodgy States like Saudi when it suits (because they have oil we want) when we wouldn't touch them with a bargepole if they didn't. I personally think we should move as far away from dealings with them as we can. If it makes life difficult for us, so be it.

6. The Unions were quoted as saying how pleased they were. Very disappointing comments made entirely on the basis of self-interest. I would have expected them to stridently argue that we should not condone, or be seen to condione, any corrupt business practice and that their members would rather be unemployed than in jobs secured on the basis of such activity.

 

[detective-boy]

I was always under the impression that the government was not allowed to influence a criminal investigation.

I'm not sure they have (at least not directly).

The A-G IS entitled to make a decision as to prosecution (on both an evidential sufficiency test and a public interest test). He seemed to be saying that this is what he did (albeit at an earlier stage than normal (he didn't have a good reason for why and kept avoiding the question)) and, on expressing his view to the investigators, they decided to stop the investigation.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

He has not, however, as far as I am aware, given much of a clue as to what that "public interest" was.

Incidentally, am I not right in thinking that while Goldsmith claimed there were no commercial considerations involved, the Prime Minister cited commercial considerations in his mea justificia earlier today?

 

[Brainaddict]

He has not, however, as far as I am aware, given much of a clue as to what that "public interest" was.

Well that's a bit of a tough one, considering he'd have to argue that cosying up to an authoritarian regime is in our interest, and when a certain other country that cosied up to that very same regime essentially got punished for it a few years back in the defining terrorist atrocity of our time.

IMO not enough time is spent dwelling on the fact that the 9/11 bombers were mostly Saudis, who probably felt personally agrieved by the close relationship between the US and the ruling families of Saudi Arabia.

 

[jiggajagga]

Does this mean then if a saudi prince comes over to the UK and gets in a car drunk and kills your child you realise that it is in the best interests of UK jobs that you do not upset this gentleman and let him go if he argues that he will take his money out of the country and cost thousands of jobs??
"For the many, not the few" as it were?
The decline and fall of the British Empire continues. Lower and lower we sink into the mire of fraud, debauchery and deceit.
Yet those in power tell us, the masses, to obey the laws of the land?
From the top down the fall continues.

 

[Brainaddict]

The decline and fall of the British Empire continues.

Surely you mean the British Empire continues as usual Getting in bed with corrupt local despots was a standard method of gaining control in a region for the whole period of Empire.

 

[detective-boy]

Does this mean then if a saudi prince comes over to the UK and gets in a car drunk and kills your child you realise that it is in the best interests of UK jobs that you do not upset this gentleman and let him go if he argues that he will take his money out of the country and cost thousands of jobs??

He wouldn't have to. Most of the Saudi princes (and many others) have some level of diplomatic immunity and couldn't be prosecuted anyway ...

 

[TAE]

Listened to Lord Goldsmith on the radio at lunchtime, justifying the decision. Couple of interesting points.

1. [...] 3.

I was half expecting them to take that line (and it might even be half true) but really ... I think that is putting a clean table cloth over a very messy table, so to speak.

4. I'm not sure what the "national security" issues were - I assume Saudi co-operation over terrorist intelligence re- Al Quaeda. National interest issues could include trade.

Or they could, in theory, be made up. Who is going to check?

5. I think there is a wider question over our dealings with dodgy States like Saudi when it suits (because they have oil we want) when we wouldn't touch them with a bargepole if they didn't. I personally think we should move as far away from dealings with them as we can. If it makes life difficult for us, so be it.

I completely agree.

6. The Unions were quoted as saying how pleased they were. Very disappointing comments made entirely on the basis of self-interest. I would have expected them to stridently argue that we should not condone, or be seen to condione, any corrupt business practice and that their members would rather be unemployed than in jobs secured on the basis of such activity.

Yes that angers & depresses me too. I guess they are looking after their membership, but this shows why the unions need to have an international outlook.

 

[jiggajagga]

He wouldn't have to. Most of the Saudi princes (and many others) have some level of diplomatic immunity and couldn't be prosecuted anyway ...

Ah good old justice! Can't beat it can ya!

No woner Plato asked the question " What IS justice?"

 

[detective-boy]

I was half expecting them to take that line (and it might even be half true) but really ... I think that is putting a clean table cloth over a very messy table, so to speak.

It has that written all over it!

 

[TAE]

Today's Financial Times front page makes interesting reading:

The head of the Serious Fraud Office last night disputed government claims that the investigation into the BAE/Saudi Arabia bribery allegations would have been unlikely to have led to charges.

 

[TAE]

It seems quite a few people had already been raising some serious questions:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/071489a2-8bb4-11db-a61f-0000779e2340.html

 

[detective-boy]

If the SFO or anyone else believes that the decision was "illegal" then either ignoring it or Judicial Review are the answer.

 

[laptop]

The government's controversial decision to drop a Serious Fraud Office investigation into allegations that Saudi officials were bribed to win a lucrative order for a British arms firm could be challenged in the high court, it emerged last night.

Anti-arms trade campaigners yesterday instructed lawyers to consider a legal action against Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, after he halted the SFO inquiry into allegations of corruption by officials from BAE Systems when sealing the Al-Yamamah deal in the 1980s.

..
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development also signalled that it would launch its own investigation. Britain is a signatory to the 30-nation grouping's anti-bribery convention.

Yesterday confusion deepened as Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith offered apparently conflicting explanations....

Guardian

Guardian hack David Leigh's been pushing for this investigation for years...

 

[denniseagle]

Am I correct in believing that the investigation concerned monies paid to certain Saudi's way way back in Thatchers time?
I'm pretty sure that it was around '85 or '86 that the 'deal' was done, so how come this government gets the blame for it??

 

[jiggajagga]

Am I correct in believing that the investigation concerned monies paid to certain Saudi's way way back in Thatchers time?
I'm pretty sure that it was around '85 or '86 that the 'deal' was done, so how come this government gets the blame for it??

It isn't getting any blame for the deal at all. Its being blamed for bypassing the law of the land on the whim of one or two men.
The fact that they (Blair & Goldsmith)think they can do this without due process is the disgusting thing.
Just who the feck does Blair think he is? Me and you pay his wages mate!!!

 

[teqniq]

It just gets better (or worse depending on your perspective), this from the Independent:

One senior figure who had been helping the SFO said the investigation's security had been repeatedly compromised. "I was told by detectives that the probe was being bugged. They had reached this conclusion because highly confidential information on the inquiry had been reaching outside parties."

source

 

[detective-boy]

It just gets better (or worse depending on your perpective), this from the Independent:


source

At this level of international business, with associated corruption and dodgy dealings taken as normal, corporate espionage is absolutely de rigeur. If the SFO didn't see that coming - and take appropriate steps to protect against it - then they need their arses kicking.

 

[teqniq]

I suppose you're right. Still totally crap though innit?

 

[laptop]

“The SFO need their arses kicking.”

 

[TAE]

The Prime Minister's determination to stop the SFO investigation has left the detectives working on the case furious. It was the fact that the probe was progressing well that caused its closure, they believe.

Interesting.

At this level of international business, with associated corruption and dodgy dealings taken as normal, corporate espionage is absolutely de rigeur. If the SFO didn't see that coming - and take appropriate steps to protect against it - then they need their arses kicking.

Given that this is so, the SFO would surely have taken 'appropriate steps to protect against it', hence the question is "why did it happen despite these precautions".

 

[gosub]

I don't think the SFO is to blame on this having read Sunday broadsheets. Had heard previously the impetus for the enquiry came fro the US, I think it would be hard to argue that they are not allies in "the war on terror" and the decision to drop the case stemmed for discussions from MI5 and MI6 - was the only purpose of the Hutton Inquiry to give Cherie Blair something to sign and sell copies of on ebay?

To decide the National security considerations should surely have JIC involvement, and had it had such Britain's 3rd Intelligence service the DIS would have been free to brief on the effect damage to BAe could have on the repair, renewal and upgrading of service personnel's kit. Something that at best of times would impact on National Security, but we are a nation at war.

 

[laptop]

but we are a nation at war.

# Bloooooe birds oo-ver the whiiite cliffs of Dover #

And now, an announcement from Mr Churchill. Stand by.