I am not particularly in favour of sucking up to the Saudis, or of political subsidy for the British arms industry; but can someone please explain why this is vicious nasty corriuption that ought to be internaltionally banned even if it is the custom where the deal is done, and this is a UK local government policy raising a mere £2,500 million a year, in extortion bribes grateful contributions from property developers (on top of which HMRC now is trying to arrange to take a further20% rake-off supplement)?
|
|||||
Cui bono?June 8th, 2007 |
 8 comments to Cui bono? |
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Since the BBC report on the Saudi contract says that millions were paid into a bank account in Washington, maybe the US authorities will be interested in pursuing an investigation — as per the Nat-West Three case.
Interesting that Sir Lygo says he didn’t know about any such payments, so they didn’t happen! One wonders how the hundreds of £millions were described in BAE’s accounts and what the auditors’ view was.
I hope we learn a whole lot more. As the government keeps telling us: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
Interesting that Sir Lygo says he didn’t know about any such payments, so they didn’t happen!
Obviously heavily into zen. If a million bucks falls in a bank vault and there is no one there to hear it, did it happen?
What is the sound of one hand shaking on an arms deal?
Ah, good old Section 106, planning gain. I have referred to it as S106 Planning Bribes for the last three years as a Town Councillor, generally in Planning meetings.
In that time I have become increasingly alarmed at how the system has changed from looking for valid reasons to oppose (assumption of consent) towards looking for spurious reasons not to approve (assumption of refusal).
The backdoor powers to local councils for forcing owners to let derelict (i.e. unused but possibly safe and secured) buildings or even doing it on their behalf isn’t quite as bad as US Eminent Domain but it won’t be long I suspect before the checks and balances on compulsory purchase get stripped away.
I was also shocked recently to hear that demolition now requires permission rather than just notification. (& you have to submit a load of bollocks about environmental assessment).
Bribes are a way of life for big business in the Gulf, of course (in a pathetic attempt to drag the comment back on topic.)
No arms sale, I repeat: NO arms sale to a non Western country was ever done without hefty bribes. (I’m not sure that the exception “western country” is correct).
Bribes are a way of life for big business everywhere, where governments are involved. They are surely involved in arms buying, but also in natural resources development, licensing, etc.
Bribes are “business as usual” and it cannot be otherwise as long as governments are involved.
I’m going to guess that somewhere, there’s a country that buys arms strictly on the merits and at the negotiated price, but I can’t name them right now.
And there have been, um, irregularities in how weapon systems are developed and sold in the US. The F-117 had subcontracts in 300 different congressional districts, for example.
Or, there’s been a tempest in a teapot over the replacement of the Army’s M-4 carbine with a gas-piston carbine (Heckler and Koch being the ones most-favorably positioned for the new contract, or so they think.)
H&K has convinced several congressmen to write the Army to demand justification for remaining with a design that’s worked well enough and is derived from the M-16, which (since the Vietnam-era bugs were worked out) has about four decades of being more reliable than anything else we or the rest of NATO has ever fielded. (Well, more-reliable except for the FAL and the AK, anyway…)
Rumors of H&K building plants in certain districts may or may not have been a factor. I refuse to be so cynical as to suggest that sort of improper influence could possibly affect a Congressman’s behavior.
Think back also to when the US Navy was sending the 688-class submarines to sea. Traditionally, fast-attack boats were always named after fish. Admiral Hyman Rickover decreed that the 688’s would be named after cities. The first dozen were named after the home cities of the congressmen who voted to fund the program. When confronted about that, Rickover said, “Fish don’t vote!”
I went to the pub the other day.
I left a two pound bribe on the counter and before you know it, I had a pint of beer in front of me.
Bastards eh?
I’m not sure if it’s even a “bribe” as such. The Saudi royal family don’t rule Saudi Arabia, they own it, hence the name of the state. If you have to pay “commissions” to a Saudi prince to get a deal done, then that’s what you do, or the deal doesn’t get done.
It’s odd that the same sort of people who would normally oppose “cultural imperialism” are quite happy to impose our ethical standards on a completely different society. To my mind, if you have to spend £1billion to get £43 billion of business then that’s what you do, or the business goes to the French.
I watched the Panorama report, and thought it was very thin stuff.
Apparently the Saudis were willing to pay £21 million per Tornado, which were usually priced at £16 million (it already sounds a bit quaint doesn’t it?).
The implication is that the spare £5 million went in “commissions”, when, according to the reporter, it belonged to the Saudi people. Like shit it did. It belonged to the Saudi royal family, because they own the country. We may not like this, and they will probably get kicked out one day, but until they do, if you want to trade with Saudi Arabia you have to follow their mores. Their ways are not our ways, but the customer is always right, if you want to do business with him that is. Guardian and BBC types would probably prefer not to sully their hands with trade with Saudi Arabia, but the thousands of BAE workers are glad that their company will.
I would gladly shit on Tony Blair from a great height, but on this, if nothing else, I agree with him. The SFO inquiry was a farce, poking its nose into the sovereign affairs of a state which wanted nothing to do with it, and the government was quite right to knock it on the head.