Tony Blair and Anti-Corruption Treaties
Tony's political interference if the Saudi Bribe inquiry may come to haunt him. Britain is a signatory to the OECD Anti Bribery Convention who are not happy and threatening an investigation
I sent the following email and will let you know of any replies:
CC: news.contact@oecd.org
Dear Sir or Madam,
I was wondering if the recent decision of the British government to halt an inquiry into bribery is compatible with being a signatory to the OECD Anti Bribery Convention.
I ask because recent statements by the Prime Minister state that the decision wasn't taken on economic grounds but in order to maintain good relations with the Saudi government, which is not the most democratic of regimes.
What message do you think this act sends out to corrupt regimes and to people fighting bribery and corruption?
Many Thanks
More on Blair's corruption
More on Blair's corruption scandals: here.
Applause
Applause
I love the use of "Alleged"
I love the use of "Alleged" in the reports. As was stated on Question time last night, it wasn't "alleged", these payments were standard practice, and were demanded by the Saudis as the price for doing the deal.
Well done quarsan. The
Well done quarsan. The supreme leader must not be allowed to successively pervert the law to his own masochistic leanings and get away with it. I don't know your profession, but it seems like you are doing that thousands of lawyers and numerous human rights groups are apparently fail to do and miserably so! Well done. I only hope they respond.
Well, congratulations at
Well, congratulations at your temerity in questioning the consistency of this Government's 'Ethical Foreign Policy'.
Chances of a reasoned response? I wouldn't bother placing any bets. This is yesterday's news. Today they'll have new and exciting 'initiatives' to announce, which will blind us to the realities.
Yes indeed. Keep shovelling the manure, the golden nugget must be in there somewhere....
MI5 chief quits as full
MI5 chief quits as full story of July 7 is about to emerge
Last updated at 23:47pm on 15th December 2006
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=422970&in_page_id=1770
Stepping down: Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of MI5, who has worked in the security services for 33 years
The head of MI5 has resigned weeks before full details of the role of her agents in a surveillance operation involving two of the July 7 bombers are due to be revealed.
Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, whose organisation has been at the forefront of the war on terror, is leaving after more than four years as director general.
According to this compiled
According to this compiled list of allegations, there are both bribes and fraud. It's a bribe if you put money into someone's pocket so that they give you the government contract. And its fraud of you pocket some of that money first. The latter is easy and tempting to do since the normal accounting practices get supressed to cover for the bribes.
The "public interest"
The "public interest" justification doesn't hold. The damage this has done to respect for the law is quite immense, and goes beyond the supposed damage to international peace had Saudi Arabia bought their jets from France instead of the UK. We're always happy for all our automobile manufacture to go overseas, so what's the problem?
As to Blair's justification: what's Saudi Arabia got to do with Israel and Palestine, any more than with Darfur? He could have mentioned that as justification, and it would have made as much sense.
The allegations themselves are against specific officers and employees of BAE Systems, not against the Saudis. It is up to these directors, such as Steven Mogford, who's signature is on the invoices, to go quietly. Everything would work better if he, for example, resigned and plea-bargained for a nice quite trial and conviction on a couple of lesser charges that posed no embarrassment to the Saudis. The rule of law wouldn't be damaged, international relations would be left intact, BAE could keep the contract, and all the workers the jobs.
But no, the directors of BAE are far too important for that. It's about dishonourable men who have the power and willingness to put themselves above the law, and sacrifice everyone else if anything touches them. Therefore, their continued existance is made into the public interest. Like we give presents to a spoilt child because we can't stand them screaming.