Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Government halts serious fraud bribe investigation into Saudis"
Britain is a signatory to an international convention that says "national economic interest" cannot stand in the way of stopping corruption.
Article 5 of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.
This says that states should "not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest [or] the potential effect upon relations with another state".
Good point.
However - since when has international legislation ever been an obstacle for Blair - Iraq being one of the most glaring examples of flouting of International Law.
Britain is a signatory to an international convention that says "national economic interest" cannot stand in the way of stopping corruption.
Article 5 of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.
This says that states should "not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest [or] the potential effect upon relations with another state".
in the case of the Cash-for-honours affair there is no definition of what a 'commercial' loan is in the act, so you cannot be found guilty of having a non-commecial loan.
Another law that is so badly written it can't be upheld - did New Labour introduce it?
So the investigation was stopped "in the wider public interest". I wouldn't be surprised if the government comes to the view that continuing the cash-for-peerages investigation might undermine the government and so would clearly not be in the wider public interest.
No in the case of the Cash-for-honours affair there is no definition of what a 'commercial' loan is in the act, so you cannot be found guilty of having a non-commecial loan.
One of the more amusing things about this fiasco is that the Americans put pressure on Blair et al to put this silly little law on the books so that the Yanks could then be given BAe business all the while looking 'lawful'. It now looks like the Saudis were onto this and said they were going French. So another one of Blairs little earners for his retirement isn't going to happen this way. Now he is spinning it as saving British jobs and some think him wonderful. Blessed fools. That Tony Blair is so corrupt it beggers belief, and people keep falling for it.
So the investigation was stopped "in the wider public interest". I wouldn't be surprised if the government comes to the view that continuing the cash-for-peerages investigation might undermine the government and so would clearly not be in the wider public interest.
Yup
Expect more third world style of Government going forward.... ministers above the law, morally bankrupt etc etc
So the investigation was stopped "in the wider public interest". I wouldn't be surprised if the government comes to the view that continuing the cash-for-peerages investigation might undermine the government and so would clearly not be in the wider public interest.
ISTM that investiagting this at a 'local' level is a stupid thing to do.
If one wants to do business in International trade you often have little choice but to give a 'bung'.
The main guilty party here isn't the giver, it's the taker. But under international law our little noddy micky mouse police force have no juristriction over the taker, so they seek to prosecute the giver under some stupidly enacted local law.
But if we are the only people doing this (which it seems is the case) everybody else in the world carries on giving bungs to win business and we freeze our own companies out of the marketplace.
If people want to enforce this rule then the only way to do it is with a world-wide police force with international juristriction.
Leave a comment: