Perhaps it wasn't a BAe bung after all

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Maxi_77, Jun 13, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. It seems some of the press have cottoned onto the fact the Al Yamama deal was government to government.

    The Guardian 13.06.07 www.guardian.co.uk



    Des Browne yesterday refused to say whether his department's £1bn backdoor payments to Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia for arms deals were still continuing. Visibly uneasy and irritated at a lunch with defence journalists, he claimed "national security" was the reason for his silence.
     
  2. The Guardian and certain others of the pink and fluffy ilk will not rest until this Country makes nothing more offensive than a bad pop song.

    It was Government to Government when Mrs T signed it in 1985 on behalf of the British Government. Would a commercial manufacturer/supplier be able to enter into an agreement where goods and services were paid for in oil? Johnny Foreigner does things that aren't our way but must be accommodated if we are to trade with him. The French or the septics would have needed to do similar things if they'd won the deal. We are so good at judging the customs and morality of other Cultures against our own.
     
  3. Why does this country have to be such a goodie goodie. Anyone believe that the good people of France, Germany or the USA would be shouting about a bit of cash being offered to ensure a deal went through.? Time to realise that many countries do not do businesses as transparently as we do. It is the norm in many countries for gifts to be exchanged, no gift, no deal. So get off your high horses and let the big boys do the business which keeps British people at work and off the unemployment statistics.
     
  4. Al Yamama in all it's guises is a Government to Government deal, that is the way the Saudi's buy, the Septics of course have a more formal FMS system to accomodate such desires and indeed do make many of their foriegn arms sale in this way.

    As for accepting oil or any other commodity in return for your products, this is in fact far more common that you might think in the commercial world. There are specialist companies in London and I suspect other financial centre who will act as you banker and take oil, corn, jam or whatever (I once was involved in a deal that involved taking T64 tanks as scrap) from your customer and converting it into cash, perfectly normal way of trade. The process is called countertrade and I would refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-trade
     
  5. It was Gov - Gov prior to that even when BAe was known as BAC, and at all times was overseen by MOD (RAF) both by civs and uniforms.

    The FMS based supply system was, probably still is, used by BAe to provide the spares backup for the aircraft bought by the RSAF.

    But don't be too sure that all the equipment/spares have actually been paid for by the Saudis, they were notorious in late payment (allegedly about five years when I was there) - of course, it may have all changed by now..... :|
     
  6. Lewis Page described it best, either the Saudis took a bung, or they homestly decided to buy one of the worst fighter aircraft on the market...

    (The bomber tornado is great, but apparently the fighter bastadisation version isn't!)
     
  7. Whoever bunged Bandar they did it using the US banking system. Using the US banking system brings these actions within the remit of the FCPA [Foreign Corrupt Practices Act].

    This is very naughty because the powerful US arms manufacturers will now proceed to throw their rattles, dummies and teddies out of bed.

    Et Voila >

    The sources say that US officials have been particularly concerned by the allegations published in the Guardian that UK Ministry of Defence officials actively colluded in the payments.
    One said: "The image of all these Bob Cratchits in Whitehall sitting at their high stools processing invoices from Bandar has been a startling one to us."

    A senior US source told the Guardian today that the allegation that BAE used the US banking system to transfer quarterly payments to accounts at Riggs Bank in Washington, appeared to bring the payments within the ambit of the FCPA.


    Bummer :thumright:

    RM
     
  8. Dipped into Thatcher's Gold several years ago when it came out ... there is a sequel too...
     
  9. Just shows how little he knows about the system, there are 'commissions' to be paid who ever gets the contract, the promise of 'commissions' does not get you the contract, rather it allows you to remain on the bidders list. It is rumoured that the whole thing was sparked off by either the Frogs or the Septics who wanted to scupper the new deal in the hope of selling their own planes. It is interesting that you don't see the Frog press making similar investigations of some of their arms deals in the region, nor the septic press doing the same about theirs.
     
  10. It is the way of business in any where east of Gib,commissions,gifts graft,call it what you like.We should not judge foreign business practices by our standards,but just get on with it,conform to the customers way of doing business and get the work.A-Y was definately do govt to govt...not a private BAe deal.
     
  11. I don't think our standards are that much different where this government is concerned.. and having worked alongside the US in Saudi Arabia, theirs aren't really that much different either.....!

    as the smiley shows.... :money: counts in the end, not principles...

    :)
     
  12. Etymology: "Buckshee" from the arabic "Bakshish", meaning "backhander".

    While I fully endorse a verification that nothing untoward has happened since the UK signed the relevant treaty in 2002, nothing will be gained by mucking over what took place before that date.
     
  13. Particularly as every contract signed out there by the frogs or septics has had very similar conditions applied to it.
     
  14. I really don't see the problem with this. Why is so much time being wasted in this witch-hunt. Now - dodgy knighthoods ... what ever happened to that story? It all seems to have gone quiet.

    SF
     
  15. 'Kinell - His Royal Highness Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz wants a dodgy knighthood now?????? :thumright: LOL

    RM
     
  16. Well he has probably done more to save British industry than a lot of recipients !!!!!!!
     
  17. The Elmers have got a lot of room to pontificate over backhanders: didn't Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands get his own aeroplane after negotiating for Lockheeds to get a contract with the Dutch Air Force ? Did Lockheed get done ? I don't think so......
     

Share This Page