Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Fraud investigation stopped by Saudi's

Its nice to know that a serious fraud office investigation can be stopped by a foreign government isnt it.

In the interests of national security apparently, more like the BAE contract which they threatened to cut.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Stupid thing to investigate anyway. If we have to throw a few quid at corrupt Saudi princes to make billions for this country and safeguard thousands of jobs I'm all for it.

    Though good to see our 'allies' France were already sniffing around Saudi Arabia like a dog on heat.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd agree with flashman, sometimes it is necessary to turn a bit of a blind eye to it in order to safeguard financial interests.

    Rather than getting angry about this, people should be getting angry about Export Credit Guarantee, whereby if some tinpot African dictator doesn't pay for his guns and planes we get to pay for instead.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good news. If the investigation had went ahead our relations with Saudi Arabia could have been severely damaged. Continuing the investigation would have handed the contract to the French and created thousands of French jobs - at the expense of thousands of BAE jobs in Britain. There shouldn't have been an investigation in the first place. It's good to have principles and laws on this sort of thing but when British firms are doing business with the likes of the Saudis we have to turn a blind eye - the alternative is to ruin the likes of BAE and give rival foreign firms a massive boost.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Stupid thing to investigate anyway.

    I'd agree with that, the only way to ever get contracts with the Saudi's is to bribe them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Rather than getting angry about this, people should be getting angry about Export Credit Guarantee, whereby if some tinpot African dictator doesn't pay for his guns and planes we get to pay for instead.

    Didnt we effectively give loads of weapons to Saddam free through that system?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Poor old BAE, always one failed contract away from having to dismiss "thousands of jobs". You have to wonder how they surive, being in such precarious situation...

    What a load of bollocks.

    So much for ethical foreign policy. So much for principles.

    One day it might even be the case that British soldiers are killed with British-made warplanes owned by a corrupt theocratic regime. An irony that will not be lost on them.

    But no matter. Money talks, as always.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    Didnt we effectively give loads of weapons to Saddam free through that system?

    Basically, yeah.

    And we'll end up giving these weapons to people like Adi Amin for nothing, too, if we write off all this African debt- most of it is though ECGD.

    A loss of a £6bn order would threaten any company, Aladdin, and as Saudi Arabia are not a threat to the UK I don't see the issue.

    I find it strange how some incentives are fine and others are not. Bribery talks in bug business, and if it brings jobs to the UK then I'm all for it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Since BAE wasn't planning, to the best of my knowledge, to make thousands of workers redundant before this contract came to be, the subsequential loss wouldn't have had any effect.

    BAE was doing nicely before this contract was agreed. The deal came as an unexpected bonus. And no jobs would have been lost if the deal had been called off later. Though aparently all companies have to do is to utter the magical words "thousands of jobs will be safeguarded by this deal" for people to accept it without questions or moral objections.

    Regarding bribes to win deals, I thought capitalists took great pride in their system and saw fair play and competition between companies as a fundamental part of it. Dodgy deals, illegal transactions and bribes don't look like something to be proud of to me.

    To cap it all this is not just any commercial venture but a weapons deals. Arms dealing is a rather unpleasant business at the best of times, and the last thing we need is to make it worse by selling them to nasty regimes through dodgy deals.

    But what's new anyway? Those British chaps who got accused of planting bombs by the Saudis and subjected to torture had the pleasure of being electrocuted with British-made batons. Nice to see the government continues to lower its trousers and bend over in front of unpleasant dictatorships for the sake of a quick buck.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Poor old BAE, always one failed contract away from having to dismiss "thousands of jobs". You have to wonder how they surive, being in such precarious situation...

    What a load of bollocks.

    So much for ethical foreign policy. So much for principles.

    One day it might even be the case that British soldiers are killed with British-made warplanes owned by a corrupt theocratic regime. An irony that will not be lost on them.

    But no matter. Money talks, as always.

    Can you eat principles?

    But as an aside selling British weapons to Saudi means we're less likely to be killed by them than if the French did. We after all know the weaknesses of our own weapons pretty well and can stop spares being sold to replace the wear and tear and battle damage. An advantage we don't have if it French weaponary...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "Can I eat principles?" I've never tried. But sure as hell I could eat aplenty for thousands of years with the profits BAE generates in a single day.

    Let's not pretend the life of BAE and the jobs of thousands of workers depended on this deal. It so clearly didn't.

    BAE would say otherwise of course. At the end of the day that is what every company always claims in such cases, regardless of the circumstances.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If bribary's not done in the UK and its not UK officials taking money than I dont see the problem.

    In fact couldnt it be construed as racist, that we dont trust these forign countries, that arnt run by white people we need to investigate them as their not compitant to run their own affairs.

    I bet if this was a so called bribe to an French official for a contract and Jaques Chiraq and the french parliment said they dont want an investigation, their would be no complaints about it being dropped.

    Its not our business to go round fixing other countries, we tried that in Iraq and its not working, if they want to have their system that way we shouldnt be concerned.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    surely BAE are structured to work around set contracts made and planned years in advance, only someone very very naive of how business negotiations work and has no experience what so ever, would say that One contract means nothing to a big company like BAE.

    It is actually a good thing in this case to turn a blind eye to some thing that is quite minute a worry to safegaurd thousand of jobs. I am sure anyone with any experience in business would agree as far as jobs and money matters are concerned.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In fact couldnt it be construed as racist, that we dont trust these forign countries, that arnt run by white people we need to investigate them as their not compitant to run their own affairs.
    It's now racist to point out gross human rights violations and say that you want nothing to do with regimes that carry them out?
    Its not our business to go round fixing other countries, we tried that in Iraq and its not working, if they want to have their system that way we shouldnt be concerned.
    Does that mean that we have to support them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why do people want to give money to BAE workers?

    Misplaced patriotism?

    If you beleive the key to the success of this country is economic success then government subsidisies are not the way to such success.

    'Right-wing' people who supposedly support free markets seem to get particularly confused on this point......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bullseye wrote:
    surely BAE are structured to work around set contracts made and planned years in advance, only someone very very naive of how business negotiations work and has no experience what so ever, would say that One contract means nothing to a big company like BAE.

    It is actually a good thing in this case to turn a blind eye to some thing that is quite minute a worry to safegaurd thousand of jobs. I am sure anyone with any experience in business would agree as far as jobs and money matters are concerned.

    From BAE's own website:

    5 continents


    90,000 people


    Largest European defence company


    Top 10 US defence company


    Order book £51.2 billion


    £14.8 billion annual sales


    £1.2 billion annual R&D spend


    100 new inventions a year


    Yep, I can see how the very life of the company depends on the Saudi deal...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If any company lost 20% of its order book it would struggle. That's simple economics.

    It's a bit of a misnomer to say that everyone would be sacked- they wouldn't- but I'd rather have the jobs in Britain than in France or the US. And without orders factories close- the Saudis are one of the most important UK arms purchasers, and it isn't a good idea for the only British industry left to go and piss them off.

    There's no point being principled when nobody else plays by the rules.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    From BAE's own website:

    5 continents


    90,000 people


    Largest European defence company


    Top 10 US defence company


    Order book £51.2 billion


    £14.8 billion annual sales


    £1.2 billion annual R&D spend


    100 new inventions a year


    Yep, I can see how the very life of the company depends on the Saudi deal...


    A clear example of how naive you are when it comes to business. You went toa website of a company that has shareholders and stockholders and you expected them to point out all their weaknesses? lol, how very naive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're perhaps even more naive if you are prepared to believe everything corporations say. They have been known to lie, you know...

    Do you believe it is possible for a company to lose an order and carry on without major repercussions? It's not that far fetched.

    What we know for certain is that a company will warn of terrible consequences whenever an issue that might that threatens any of their profits arises. Doesn't mean it's true of course. Remember all the promises of bankruptcies and massive job losses given by business leaders if the minimum wage was introduced?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The trouble is that whilst stopping selling aircraft to Saudi may not harm the factories who make other things, it certainly harms the factories involved in building aircraft. Now some things might be able to be transfered, but not much. Its not like they're building wooden table legs - they precision engineering specific parts and if those parts are not needed, its not easy or cheap to retool to do something else.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I still wish we put principles before profits.

    A stupid idealism in today's world, I know.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Principles tend not to get much food on the table, sadly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You do realise Aladdin that when it comes to jobs BAE do not need to Lie. They employ many thousands of people so cutting a few thousand probably wouldnt mean anything to the company itself, just more bureacracy as it moves away from Britian to another more easy to work in country.
    They do not need to lie about cutting jobs because it is in fact true if they lose a £20Billion contract.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The contract is for around £6bn.

    And there weren't any plans to sack anyone before this deal came to be. The sale was an unexpected bonus, not a life saver.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    The contract is for around £6bn.

    And there weren't any plans to sack anyone before this deal came to be. The sale was an unexpected bonus, not a life saver.

    That's a very naive attitude to have. And also utterly wrong.

    Without a full order book you don't need a full complement of staff. There were no "plans" for redundancies because the order book was full- if suddenly it was not full, redundancies and reduced working hours would quickly follow. Companies plan at least five years ahead with their order books.

    The Government has managed to destroy every other heavy industry in the UK (the last shipyard on Tyneside folded this week), lets at least have some industry jobs left.

    Principles are great, but they don't keep people in work. There is a time and a place for principles, and whingeing about a slush fund that everyone uses is not the time or the place.

    If you want to complain about corruption, leave BAE alone and look at our darling Blair and his New Labour lackeys.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I'd agree with flashman, sometimes it is necessary to turn a bit of a blind eye to it in order to safeguard financial interests.

    Rather than getting angry about this, people should be getting angry about Export Credit Guarantee, whereby if some tinpot African dictator doesn't pay for his guns and planes we get to pay for instead.


    over the long term, the rule of law works things out to be fine financially in regards to fraud, as it makes for more secure transactions, rather than allow a banana republic way of doing thing, which is what would seperate our country from those many african countries where bribes outdo deal quality.....

    then again yes minister shows itself to be true again
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But what's the difference between Persimmon Homes giving a 10% discount in benefits if you complete quickly, and BAE giving a 10% discount in benefits for giving them the order?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    That's a very naive attitude to have. And also utterly wrong.

    Without a full order book you don't need a full complement of staff. There were no "plans" for redundancies because the order book was full- if suddenly it was not full, redundancies and reduced working hours would quickly follow. Companies plan at least five years ahead with their order books.
    Were there any redundancy plans before BAE knew the Saudis were going to buy 72 planes?

    No they weren't. Simply because BAE is already very busy building Eurofighters for Britain, Spain, Germany, Italy and Austria. Not to mention Hawks that they export to many countries and upgrading programs for the RAF's Nimrods.
    If you want to complain about corruption, leave BAE alone and look at our darling Blair and his New Labour lackeys.
    Oh I'm perfectly happy to accuse Labour of corruption- though I don't think companies should be left alone. BAE's track record is not exactly encouraging; they have even paid money into Augusto Pinochet's bank account.

    The bottom line is that the laws of the country have been bent for financial reasons. That is a dangerous and worrying precedent.

    Here's a good article about it by someone who actually believes the economic damage would have been significant if the Saudis had pulled out- but who still believes the rule of law should be put before profits:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1973296,00.html
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The laws have been bent- the point is that I don't especially care about this law being bent.

    There are several questions to ask:
    1. Would this criminal investigation prevent further bungs? No.
    2. Would this criminal investigation prevent the Saudis getting guns or planes? No.
    3. Would this criminal investigation irrevocably damage our diplomatic and economic relationship with the Saudis? Yes.
    4. Would that inevitably lead to job losses in a part of the country that already suffers from high unemployment (BAE's biggest factories are in East Lancashire)? Yes.

    On balance, I think that the AG has reached the right decision. There would be no benefit to pissing off the Saudis in such a pointless and cack-handed way- either morally or financially- and so I'd rather see British people employed building Saudi weaponry than French people or American people or Polish people.

    There are battles to fight and there are battles not to fight. This isn't one worth fighting. Morals don't feed the families of East Lancashire- bear in mind it isn't just the employees of BAE systems who would suffer, its the employees of all the contractors who make the bits for this order too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Regarding points no. 1 and 2, can't you apply it to just about any other crimes?

    Why bother having laws?

    Point 3: couldn't care less

    Point 4: debatable at best. And I'm sorry, but at the end of the day the rule of law should be above profits.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Should "the rule of law" be above people's livelihoods, though? It's all well and good lambasting BAE Systems profits, but if they weren't getting the work they wouldn't be making the profits, and if they weren't making the profits they wouldn't have the staff.

    The crime is victimless, and the benefits of the criminal prosecution would by far be negated by the resultant job losses and damage to the UK economy.

    When all said and done, its not as if BAE Systems were raping children in order to get the contract, is it? What's a bit of a bung between friends?
Sign In or Register to comment.