B A E Corruption scandal

[drspock]

Is it right that they should be able to cover up these backhanders with government backing ,solely because they claim thousands of highly skilled jobs are at stake.
It's not just the saudi contract but it is alleged that they have given backhanders to Tanzania and Romania amounting to over £50 million.
If anybody else was caught doing the same in this country, say to gain a big contract from the local authority they would be prosecuted.
The argument from Bae is that they add the cost of the backhanders on to the initial quote, so in effect the Saudis are paying for the backhander!
If that is the case what is to say that they are not overcharging the British taxpayer for the planes that we buy from them.
What's the betting that the matter will be quietly pushed under the carpet with the approval of Blair and his gang in order to avoid upsetting the, democratically elected Saudi family.
I am against the export of arms to other countries, per se ,and against the amount of money that this country spends on armaments.
The money saved and the highly skilled jobs could be spent on the design and production of hospital equipment , and instead of being an arms exporter we could actually become a leading exporter of life saving hospital equipment.


Yes I know it is a bit naive, but I can dream can't I.

 

[oilman]

............I can dream can't I.

Yes, now stop dreaming and get over it.

I am against the export of arms to other countries, per se ,and against the amount of money that this country spends on armaments.

There you go, more dreaming. It's one of the ways lots of money comes this way.

 

[plugwash]

xxxx over your own government-bad
xxxx over someone elses government-good buisness

i doubt the backhanders are a significant proportion of the value of the contract......

 

[drspock]

Quote:
I am against the export of arms to other countries, per se ,and against the amount of money that this country spends on armaments.

Oilman said

There you go, more dreaming. It's one of the ways lots of money comes this way.

In that case lets go into the drug business, not as labour intensive and much more profitable.
Morally theres not much difference is there?

 

[Big_Spark]

DR..one reason companies like BaE can get away with such tactics is this..If they didn't do it, then they would not be able to compete with the Big US and Russian companies who recieve HUGE tax breaks from their respective governments to sell arms to friendly powers.

As for the exporting of Arms, yes, tens of thousands of Jobs in the UK alonbe would be at stake, the UK market is not large enough to support the industry in the modern world. Much of the money these compnaies make comes from foriegn contracts, and without making a profit they could not develope newer weapons systems that will keep this country and those who wear a uniform for it, safe from harm as much as is reasonably practicable.

Do these nations not have the right to defend themselves? I would agree we should not supply arms to nations who use the systems against their own people or in an aggressive way against nieghbours unless in self defence, but to ban exports of arms is more than neieve, it is dangerous and smacks of appeasement, and we all know what happened to about 100 million people due to appeasement!!

 

[empip]

Planes and bombs are yesterdays weapons, for some ...

THE NEW ARMADA

IBERDROLA's bid (for Scottish Power) is the latest part of a Spanish corporate invasion of the UK which has been compared to the Spanish Armada of 1588 - except this time it looks like a success.

If the bid goes ahead, Spanish companies will have made £30bn worth of acquisitions in the UK over the past eight years. Germany, the second most enthusiastic acquirer of British assets, has managed only £12bn worth.

Spain's biggest takeovers include the £11bn acquisition by Ferrovial, a construction company, of BAA (which owns Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen airports), adding to its earlier acquisition of construction firm Amey. Last year, Spain's former state telecoms company Telefonica bought O2 for £17.7bn. And two years ago, Banco Santander acquired Abbey, the UK's fifth largest bank, for £8.6bn.

Spain is awash with cash thanks to an average economic growth of 3.6% a year since 1997, and Spanish firms have a secret weapon when it comes to international takeovers. Uniquely in Europe, they can claim 30% of the goodwill resulting from overseas acquisitions in a tax rebate. Analysts believe this gives Iberdrola a bidding advantage of between 85p and £1 per share over potential rivals for Scottish Power, such as Germany's RWE...

(I think Ozbank Macquarie are involved too, they recently reported a 51 per cent jump in net profits to A$730m...)

Bristol International is under Spanish rule ... So much for local jobs, apparently they are importing peeps on minimum wage... whilst seething over 'locals' 'farming cars' in the great car park wars ..

Another happy bunny ... Deutsche Telekom AG will not easily forgive Spanish telecoms giant Telefonica SA...

 

[drspock]

Big Spark said

Do these nations not have the right to defend themselves

I have nothing against us producing arms to defend ourselves.
My gripe is the exporting to other countries.
Our friend today could be our enemy tomorrow, ie Sadam Hussein.
We and the USA supplied him with amongst other things the chemicals which he used on the Kurds and Iranians .
I just wonder how many of the coalition troops were killed or injured by weapons supplied by us and the yanks.
I also think you are wrong in saying that appeasement was to do with this issue, it was the result of a shortsighted and weak government .

 

[Thermo]

yes we did supply him with arms and so did the yanks. We also had the ability to corrupt many of the onboard computer systems when the fighting started. We also knew the capabilities of the weaponry.

does make some sense!

 

[Big_Spark]

Can we leave the Politically motivated liberal kiss arse press dogma out of the discussion.

The US and Britain DID NOT SUPPLY ARMS TO SADDAM HUSSEIN. Yes export licences were granted for chemicals, and these chemicals then wound up being used for the production of chemical weapons, it is lack of forsight by the intelligence community I would agree, but as these chemical also have numerous civilian uses, to ban the export would be silly..as he was a "friend" at the time.

The Iraqi Army and Airforce were eqipped with Soviet era weapons and systems.

 

[oilman]

The US and Britain DID NOT SUPPLY ARMS TO SADDAM HUSSEIN. ...............

Oh yes they did matey!!! I worked at a firm that made them. I'm not moralising, just pointing out your statement is similar to roundish dangly bits.

 

[oilman]

................
Our friend today could be our enemy tomorrow, ie Sadam Hussein.

What friend? What enemy? how about Dubya? Far more dangerous.

I just wonder how many of the coalition troops were killed or injured by weapons supplied by us and the yanks.

Almost all I suspect, and a large amount USED by those forces.

 

[drspock]

What's the betting that the matter will be quietly pushed under the carpet with the approval of Blair and his gang in order to avoid upsetting the, democratically elected Saudi family

Well I told you so!
I always thought that no government ever gave in to blackmailers.
Thats what it basically is, now what are we going to do if the Saudis decide some time in the future we do something else they don't like.
What a bunch of two faced hypocrites, Blair and is cronies are.

 

[Thermo]

drspock wrote:
................
Our friend today could be our enemy tomorrow, ie Sadam Hussein.

i think Churchills phrase of "my enemys enemy is my friend" is more approriate

 

[Big_Spark]

The US and Britain DID NOT SUPPLY ARMS TO SADDAM HUSSEIN. ...............

Oh yes they did matey!!! I worked at a firm that made them. I'm not moralising, just pointing out your statement is similar to roundish dangly bits.

We supplied equipment used by his Military yes, but it was NOT arms.

May be a pedantic point, but there is a massive difference legally and morally..as well as practically..

Obviously some equipment was used for military purposes, possibly not for it's design purpose, but it is a FACT that the UK and the US did not sell the following to Iraq

Ammunition
Guns
Artillery
Armoured vehicles (of any type)
Combat Aircraft/helicopters
Missiles
Tactical Weapons systems
Strategic Weapons systems


What was sold by Britain and the US to Iraq was the following..

Civilian Helicopters and Fixed wing aircraft
Communications Equipment
Data Trfansmission Equipment
Civillian transport vehicles
Civillian wired Telecommunication hardware
Training for Medical Staff (Civillian and Military)
Medical Equipment of all types
Civillian electronics

And a host of other non-military equipment and services.

Why so many people believe that we did is simply because our so called intelligence and security services did supply technical and strategic advice, planning, training and financial support to the Iraqi Military machine, at least from 1979 to about 1986.

 

[JohnD]

I understand that only 2% of UK exports are of arms.

Doesn't make sense to lob big subsidies at the company owners.

We'd get better value by buying arms ourselves from foreigners and letting some other mug taxper subsidise them.