Liberal Democrats launch petition
February 21, 2007
The Liberal Democrats have launched a petition calling for an inquiry into the ending of the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the Al-Yamamah arms deal involving Saudi Arabia and BAE Systems plc (part of which was formerly British Aerospace).
The decision has been criticised by Liberal Democrats in both Houses of Parliament, was taken in December. The Government claimed it was taken in the interests of national security.
Sign our petition now:
We, the undersigned, call for an independent inquiry into the reasons for the ending of the Serious Fraud Office investigation of the Saudi Arabian export sales and BAE Systems plc.
Posted in BAE |
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:31 am
What about political parties who accept large donations from fraudulent companies, headed up by folk not registered to vote in the UK (and thus personally ineligible to donate to a UK political party)?
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Euan, are you alleging that the Lib Dems knew that Michael Brown was running a fraudulent company when he made his donation and therefore that his donation was impermissable? Political parties get only a few weeks to “investigate” donations and decide whether they can accept them. It’s taken months of investigations to prove allegations about Michael Brown’s companies before court. Political parties don’t have the resources to do this before they have to accept or refuse a donation. And if it was as straightforward as you make out Euan the Electoral Commission would have come down on the party - they certainly haven’t yet. Real corruption is selling honours for loans, pressuring a law enforcement agency to drop its investigations into bribery to get Government contracts, perjury in libel actions and cash for questions.
March 4th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Corruption, indeed, is a crime. As is perjury and obtaining a passport by deception. However, this is what Michael Brown - the largest (not stature wise) donor the Liberal Party has historically attracted - was convicted of in 2006. I look forward to the Liberal’s new perjuryisacrime.com and obtainingapassportbydeception.com sites. Followed by the weprobablyshouldrepaythedonationbutwecantafforditsomaybeitsnotsomuchofacrimeifthetruthbetold.com.
All the best
March 4th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Austin, no one denies that perjury or deception are crimes, but sadly not being possessed of second sight, there’s not really much blame that can be attached to accepting a donation from someone who turns out after months of painstaking investigative work to have done some dodgy deals. If it’s so straightforward then I’m sure the Electoral Commission will call for its return.
I look forward to your calls for the Tories to return all donations from Archer that he made over his entire political career, and for Labour to return money borrowed from various “Lords” as well as your support in opposing the Government’s stance on stopping investigations into bribery in awarding arms contracts.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:19 am
LLL - I’m not disputing that selling honours for loans (etc) is highly dodgy too.
But if you want to take up a moral crusade, it’s surely rather better to avoid the appearance of being rather dodgy yourself?
Since we now know that Michael Brown’s a fraudster, and that the donation in question wasn’t eligible - are you seriously saying that you still think it’s OK for the Lib Dems to hang onto the cash unless the Electoral Commission forces them to hand the money back?
I mean, even Labour managed to return their dodgy-looking loan from Bernie Ecclestone!
March 5th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Euan - it isn’t truee to say “the donation in question wasn’t eligible”.
In fact, the Electoral Commission have said the Lib Dems carried out all the necessary checks - and carried them all out properly. They have never said that the donation wasn’t a legal donation.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Come on guys even for you lot this is a bit rich. Some bloke nicks several million quid and the gives you 2 and a half of it - which you then refuse to return to those who were defrauded even after the fraudster is convicted and sent to prison.
If you are going to start a campaign about fraud you really should ensure that you aren’t implicated in accepting donations of stolen money from crooks.
March 9th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Is it dodgy to have accepted money from someone who it turns out to have been dodgy when we had no real way of knowing? I don’t think it is.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Even if you didn’t know *then* that Michael Brown was dodgy, you know *now*.
So what’s more important - principles, or the Lib Dem bank account?
March 14th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Given back to whom? He was allowed to make those donations.
I repeat again: I look forward to your calls for ‘Lord’ Archer’s donations to the Tories to be returned.
If it was found out that I’d been fiddling my tax or breaking speed limits on a regular basis would you be calling for the Lib Dems to repay my membership fees/donations?
March 14th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Of course not; you just like trying to capitalise out of the misfortune of having accepted donations from someone who turns out to have a bit of an unsavoury past because you oppose the Liberal Democrats.
In doing so, you’re seeking to close down debate on the fact that our elected Government has pressurised a law enforcement agency to drop an investigation into corruption and and has sold peerages for cash, loans and support. The Tories keep quiet because they’re implicated in certain things too.