The Courts finally catch up with Tony Blair

The High Court has ruled that the Serious Fraud Office acted unlawfully when it ended its inquiry into the allegedly corrupt practices employed by British Aerospace in securing a multi-billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia.  Tony Blair and his Attorney General forced the ending of the probe in order to maintain good relations with the desert kingdom.  Time and time again Britain has bent over backwards to appease the Saudis despite the regime's abuses of human rights and the support it has given to the most extreme forms of Islam.  The Tories supported the decision at the time.  The LibDems took the high road from the very beginning and have remained very critical of the whole affair.  Vince Cable fingers Blair today.

Tony Blair's rhetoric in the war on terror has often failed to be matched in reality.  Throughout the Blair years extremist clerics like Yusuf al Qaradawi were allowed into Britain and extremist organisations like Hizb uit-Tahrir were left unbanned.  Just as his Government treated with the most violent representatives of Irish nationalism his Government treated with the least savoury representatives of British Islam.  Our troops were sent into Iraq underfunded and left Basra with 70% of the city in criminal hands.  Today's Times reveals that the British military released leading members of a Shia militia in return for a promise not to attack British troops as they retreated from Basra.  American troops have enough challenges of their own in Iraq but they are being increasingly drawn into the south of the country, in order to provide support for the efforts of Iraqi security forces who are no longer aided by the British.

Comments

[Bill]

Yet another right on decision by the judiciary.

[Umbrella man]

Britain does not begin to realise that we are at war.

Your list Tim should have included Tory unwillingness to fight too.

[Bob]

"Vince Cable fingers Blair"? Sounds like the kind of thing they'd get up to.

[Richard Calhoun]

Welcome though it is to have Blair's duplicity exposed we do need to take stock on our position in the future.

*Do we intervene in the internal affairs of other countries?

*Do we accept that there are different business practices in other parts of the World, India and China particularly.

[Iain]

With the courts rolling on the Belmarsh detainees to say we can't deport them, can't detain them, can't restrict their movements with control orders, other than in the mildest form, with the result many of them absconded, and can do nothing about Qatada, the Judiciary aren't just an impartial implementer of Laws, but a down right liability to the interests and safety of British people.

[Bill]

I agree with Iain. Our right on judges have far too much discretion. A democratically elected sovereign parliament should pass our laws and the judges should apply them. But most of our law comes from the undemocratic EU. And our judges (who are happy to be egged on by activist solicitors and barristers, aided by sundry academics, pressure groups and last but by no means least the Human Rights Act), interpret the law in a way which may please them but leaves the rest of us fuming.

[a lawyer]

Every now and then the Courts do something that makes one proud to be British. This is a stonking judgment that will go down in the books as a classic.

The government decided that it was more important to appease that Saudis than to protect the integrity of the rule of law. The Director of the SFO was sat upon until he agreed to abandon the BAE corruption investigation.

The Court has rightly held that the Director of the SFO neglected his statutory duty to protect the rule of law by giving in to the Saudi threats. Surely the Director should now resign?

[Iain]

"The government decided that it was more important to appease that Saudis than to protect the integrity of the rule of law."

What rule of Law? It was an anti arms industry witch hunt. But as one of the legal profession who inhabit their ivory tower world I am sure you do feel wonderful about it and can afford to indulge in your legal purity of thought, unfortunately the rest of us inhabit a far less rarefied world than the legal professions, where pragmatism rules, and where the loss of 50,000 skilled jobs is something we believe we can't afford. But then that’s the difference between the two worlds we occupy, you think 50,000 skilled jobs are worth sacrificing for some legal grand standing, I don’t!

[Bill]

There as a time (it seems along time ago) when the judiciary did consider the interests of this country. But then again it seems a long time since we saw the rule of law being applied properly in this country.

[A lawyer]

No doubt pragmatism does rule in the business world, in politics too. Nothing wrong with that. But thank God it doesn't rule in the criminal justice system.

Assume (which I doubt) you are right about the loss of 50,000 skilled jobs. Yes that would be a price worth paying for having a criminal justice system which does not cave in to economic or political blackmail on the part of those being investigated for criminal offences.

On your principles (or lack of them), the richer and more influential the suspected criminal, the less we should be willing to investigate or prosecute them.

[Hardcore Conservative]

"...a criminal justice system which does not cave in to economic or political blackmail"

What a shame that it caves in terrorists and political correctness every time. Our so called justice system and many who work in it are a bloody disgrace to their country and humanity in general.

[Bill]

Re pragmatism and a lawyer's opining "But thank God it doesn't rule in the criminal justice system." So I guess that is why prisoners are being let out before their time is up. If the juduciary prefer the rule of law to pragmatism, shouldn't prisoners remain banged up even if there is too little room. The reason they don't is because of pragmatism. Likewise why don't judges send people down for contempt of court when they are disrespectful in court? I am afraid you are making me laugh. The judiciary can be very pragmatic when it suits them (like their terms and conditions of employment) and unbending (like their terms and conditions of employment) when it does not. If our prisons are over-crowded why don't the judges help reduce prison numbers and permit more deportation?

[Iain]

Yes as I said the legal world inhabit a different planet then the rest of us, and just as you think 50,000 skilled jobs are a price worth paying for your legal purity of thought, we also saw the Judiciary in the ruling they made on Abu Qatada, in not allowing us to deport him, that their legal purity was more important than our national interests or personal safety.

But also in the world the legal profession inhabit in their Inns of Court they completely fail to comprehend or try to understand that there are different values and cultures beyond the little world they occupy, and here if you want to do business you have to go some way to accommodate their values and culture, which means striking a compromise , something the legal fanatics wouldn’t do, unfortunately its not the legal profession who would be the first to starve in pursuing a stance of legal purity, other wise they would have a much more pragmatic view of life.

[bill]

Iain

You may recall during the 1960s it was unfortunately fashionable to attack the so called Establishment. The problem today is that we have a "New" Establishment occupying the citadels of power. They share the same stupid ideas they espoused as 60s and 70s students and are completely out of touch with the majority of the rest of us. They hold positions of power throughout the public sector and alas in some parts of the private sector.

[C Powell]

The Saudi threat amounted to this: if you don't stop it we won't help you counter the terrorist threat. This sounds like: if you don't stop, we'll allow bombs on the streets of London. In short, terrorism by proxy. Why on earth should we regard such a country as an ally? But there again, the majority of the 9/11 bombers came from Saudi and it is the Saudis who fund the most extremist version of Islam all round the world, including in schools, mosques and madrassas in this country. It is that extremist ideology which is behind so much terrorism, the unintegrated Muslim communities, the anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-Western values all too prevalent in that community. We should stop such Saudi funding. This is something we can do and should do. It's no use bleating about how we cannot deport people. We need to worry about the minds which are being poisoned now by a hostile ideology funded by a so-called ally which threatens us with terrorism if we don't do what they say. Unfortunately, our Government (and I don't suppose the Tories will be any different) do not have the guts to stand up to such disgusting and dangerous countries. That a British Government should have allowed its legal system to be perverted in this way is a disgrace. The rule of law is one of the glories of Western life and it is a great pity that so many commentators do not understand why it is important to defend it. The reason why we have so many foreign terrorists here is that we let them in in the first place, our failure to prosecute and the political decision taken to adhere to the ECH in the first place. Don't blame judges for political decisions and executive/administrative incompetence.

[Bill]

C Powell

I assume you are not suggesting that we shouldn't deport them?

As for the judiciary, when not acting in a purely judicial capacity but merely pontificating to the rest of us, I get enough information to form my own views.

[Iain]

"It's no use bleating about how we cannot deport people."

I would agree the British state should never have allowed Saudi funded wahbism to be spread in our country, but you cannot dismiss the damage done to our security by allowing the likes of Bakri, Hook, and Qatada to feely spread their poison in our communities and unable to do anything about it because the Courts were more concerned with their human rights than our security.

"The reason why we have so many foreign terrorists here is that we let them in in the first place, our failure to prosecute and the political decision taken to adhere to the ECH in the first place. Don't blame judges for political decisions and executive/administrative incompetence."

One would have hoped that if our security forces had known they were terrorists they would never have allowed them into the country, but the fact is they got here, uttered the magic words 'asylum' , and when found to be undesirables uttered the other magic words 'Human rights', which is a trump card to everything and some how means we are stuck with them for good, regardless of the danger they pose, and regardless of the fact that like Qatada they got here with false papers. But I find it a bit rich of the Judiciary to get all righteous about politicians straying into their world, when the Judiciary under the HRA see no problem of meddling in the political world.

[Richard Calhoun]

Iain's comments 15.18 are pretty much spot on and our friend 'a lawyer' and his profession normally take the high ground without any thought to the people of this country.

The politician is the lawyers best friend, he has heaped work upon him and one day this will have to be taken back in the interests of having a society that is productive and making this country wealthy again ---- it will be interesting to hear the views of 'a lawyer' then

[C Powell]

Bill and Iain: Of course, I think Qatada and others should have been - should be - deported. I would like to understand why the same ECHR allows the French and Spanish to deport their undesirables but not us. What I wanted to emphasise is that there are steps we can take now - such as stopping Saudi funding of Islamic schools etc., - which will help in the fight against the roots of terrorism, one of which is the Islamist ideology propagated by Qatada and others. Let's not let the fury we feel (which I share) at the Court of Appeal's judgment against deportation distract us from the steps we can take to defend ourselves. My fear is that by focusing on what we cannot do we fail to take the very real steps that are available.

[Another Lawyer]

The present Government signed the anti-corruption convention and incorporated or intends to incorporate its provisions into
UK Statute Law. All the Courts were doing is applying this. If the Government and Parliament had not done this then the SFO need not have investigated and presumably the Court decision would have been different. Anyone who reads Private Eye knows that the USA prosecutes its large Corporations for corruption overseas (including Middle east) and has done so since 1970's without any adverse effect on US companies winning overseas contracts. I do object to anyone using commercial or any other pressure to interfere with the course of a criminal investigation or the course of justice. The Thatcherites and business junkies have to realise that there are more important principles in life than money grubbing!!! And before anyone asks I am not a High flying human rights Lawyer but our profession generally earns as much if not more for the UK in foreign earnings than manufacturing industry. As for the alleged loss of jobs that would result concerns like that didn't prevent the "restructuring" of the 1980's with the unemployment that then followed, did it? I remain a member of the Tory party which I trust as a governemnt will continue to operate under the rule of law and not allow this to be compromised in any way.

[Richard Calhoun]

Perhaps they have been reckless signing the anti corruption convention??

I don't know about the USA but I do believe that they, as a superpower, are in a much more powerful position than we are.

There is corruption on a huge scale in China and India, we deal with totalitarian states, where does all this stop?

This is not money grubbing, its called being a realist and living in the real World

Our responsibility is not to moralise but to look after the interests of our own country.

[Bill]

We get a post from yet "Another Lawyer" (boring, as if it matters whether the contributor is a lawyer or not, but he/she obviously thinks it does, so for the sake of transparency I for my sins have also practised as a lawyer.

The bit I pick up on is the meat which is politcal not legal: "The Thatcherites and business junkies have to realise that there are more important principles in life than money grubbing!!!" Actually, I agree. National security is more important for example than profit, and it is also more important than the judiciary's obsession with the Human Rights Act which they lobbied for and has simply servd to increase their
powers and diminish democracy.