BAE and Bribery

BAE will find out today if it is to be prosecuted on bribery charges. Is anyone of the same thought as me that the one to be prosecuted should be the one who accepted the bribe and not the offerer who should get a bonus for 'enterprise' in bringing in a contract and securing hundreds of UK jobs.

 

If we did that then half the Saudi's Royal Family will end up doing bird at HMs pleasure.

I know that we in the "first world" have ethics, morality blah blah but the bottom line is this:
These defence contracts are worth a fortune to UK PLC
They keep BAE running who then pay tax to the Government
They employ people who pay tax to the Government
They keep people off the dole queue.
And if we didn't pay sweeteners there are plenty of other people who would step in and ensure that they won the contracts instead ...<cough> .... french .. <cough> ...

People may not agree to the above but that is how it is when the bigger picture is involved.

 

In lots of contracts with Middle eastern countries , there is always the expectation that there will be a back hander to the person awarding the contract.
If you want to sell your goods , you have to be prepared to do it.
If it means that by doing this, though it may contravene our business practices, it sells our goods, I say go ahead and do it!!

 

In the developing world backhanders are expected. No backhander equals no contract.
So if the UK insists on this not happening then who will get these contracts, well perhaps France, Germany and many others are not so keen on enforcing what after all are Western morals so their people will continue to work while more UK workers draw jobseekers allowance. :twisted:

 

There is no 'expectation' there is a requirement. In many countries, the middle east is not unique, government contracts are a way of informaly passing government money to government freinds/supporter. To have your bid considered you have to have promised to pay. Thus it is not a bribe to gain special treatment, as who ever wins will pay.

The problem that BAe has is that in France and the US the governments ensure that it is never investigayed, where as here we as ever indulge in self mortification

 

'Sweeteners' are regarded as ordinary business expenses in many affluent parts of the world.

Who gains? The British economy, the British worker, the British taxpayer, the British shareholder... and some faceless foreign rulers and bureaucrats. Indirectly, British Defence gains as well because we can reduce our own R&D and equipment costs owing to the greater volumes involved, sell the necessary training and exploit any facilities for our own use, sell accompanying tactics, publications and training, forge closer relationships with foreign governments and their armed forces, enjoy better system commonality with potential allies, and be privy to the capabilities of potential enemies (eg. Argentineans with the T42s) while keeping some effective countermeasures up our sleeve.

Who loses? Only our foreign business competitors.

 

When I worked with this organisation, they were not classed as 'backhanders', they were 'commissions' earned by the Saudi National Broker specifically employed to smooth the path of any commercial requirement, the fact that these Brokers may have been from the Saudi Royal Family, I would have thought was of no business to anyone else.
IIRC aren't the Americans/French/Germans also involved in supplying 'trade' to the Mid East ?

It was/is standard practice in most of the Mid East countries.

If there was to be any investigation into so-called 'backhanders' - I'm sure there are few Pollies / Senior Officers companies etc in the UK that might be better worth the time, money and effort.

 

P.S. I should declare an interest because a particular foreign government funded me, my four senior rates and a junior rate for four years in the early 1990s although my stint was interrupted for a brief front-line deployment during GW I. Funnily enough, our foreign students (who had remained in the UK thoughout) received their Saudi and Kuwaiti Gulf War medals before I received any of mine.

 

Absolutely spot on. It seems the main whingers over the Saudi deal are the sceptics; I wonder why that is. :roll:

 

Mind you people in glass houses etc

 

You must be mistaken. I was never in DQs. :lol:

 

Maybe we should be looking a little bit closer to home whilst on this subject. I would suggest that some of our MP's are not above feathering their own nests whilst in power, against the day they are no longer in the Houses of Parliament. Both Houses are not immune. A helping hand along the way with the promise of a sinecure when retiring from politics. Am I cynical? Yes.

 

I also think we need to look very closely at those who are manipulating this for their own ends. Much of the campaigning for this action has been by that Campaign against the arms trade, a buch of very nasty pacifists. One gets the impressiopn they have been fed useful info from BAes competitors, mainly the French who really stand to gain the most if BAe is discredited, safe in the knowledge the the French government would never allow a French company to be treated in this way.

 

More news and lots of comments on the BBC website here.

 

It is interesting that the present SFO case seems to be in connection with East European countries rather than Saudi. Is that because the "National security" argument, regards intelligence cooperation, still applies?

 

I’m assuming that the SFO is comprised mainly of University graduates who have never heard the word “Baksheeshâ€. It’s a Persian word for gift.

Personally I’m all in favour of bringing contracts to this country at any price. If British companies will no longer be able to compete using internationally adopted methods then the only alternative is to compete with India and China on a purely financial footing... Hey we’ve just increased the minimum wage but in order to compete on the international market we’re going to reduce it to – what 50p/hour?

 

From the BBC news web site:

"A final decision on whether to proceed with criminal proceedings will have to be made by the Attorney General Baroness Scotland"

Oh, well - she is a fine upstanding individual then ....

 

If the Irish vote yes on the Lisbon referendum then Anthony Lynton Bliar is highly likely to become the first President of the EU.

Unless of course the inquiry into Big And Expensive proceeds and fingers the devious barsteward for Al Yamamah.

No conflicts of interest there for the good Baroness Scotland then.

RM

 

Do keep up Bergen, the Saudi investigation was stopped whilst Bliar was still PM. This is completely different.

An interesting point is that it is clearly not an open and shut case or BAe would have taken the deal on offer. They clearly believe that damaging though a court case would be they have a probably better than even chance of winning, thus the SFO need to soften their stance or take the chance of yet another bloody nose, mind you they are pretty used to the bloody noses in the SFO.

 

Naval Gazer states, and most seem to agree,"'Sweeteners' are regarded as ordinary business expenses in many affluent parts of the world."

Anyone who knows the Middle East, knows it is a deeply ingrained and historic practice.
So we stop doing it then what? Loss of jobs, loss of influence. Who will step in, the Septics, Russians,Chinese, or our closest neighbour's Le Frogs.

I see no difference in being appointed as head of a Quango, given a Job in Brussels, or parachuted into the Lords. Usually as a payback for being corrupt, Mandelson, Failures, Kinnocks or Useless, Martin.

RoofRat