So much for the rule of law ...

*Zaccheus* on 15/12/2006 at 14:32

I don't think this is about jurisdiction or immunity. It was a political decision taken for political reasons.

jay pettitt on 15/12/2006 at 15:30

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

Well, in this particular instance, it depends on whether you think the 'right' thing to do is to stand up for the principle of law, or to cripple your economy to the tune of £6bn.

If it was up to me I'd have also pulled the plug on everybody's favorite talking car and close rival for Michael Knight's set of wheels; the Austin Meastro. No good was ever going to come of it and some jobs aren't worth having.

Paz on 15/12/2006 at 15:56

Well this is a bit shit, isn't it?

BAE being untouchable is hardly surprising, but you'd think the government could be a bit more subtle about it.

Malygris on 15/12/2006 at 17:56

Maybe they thought that subtlety would be misinterpreted as "trying to sneak one by," and that the public would react better to some openness about the sleaze for once. A bit of preemptive damage control, you could say.

SubJeff on 16/12/2006 at 13:33

What has happened to the UK? Seriously, if we weren't considered idiots by the rest of Europe we are now. Why can the government just say "Yes, we did it for political and monetary reasons because we think that outweights the justice angle." instead of this most transparent BS about "security"? I'm actually going to vote Tory next time. TORY. :(

SD on 16/12/2006 at 13:51

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

I'm actually going to vote Tory next time. TORY. :(

Uh, hello? The Al Yamamah arms deal was signed in 1985, when we had a Tory government.

I mean, there are plenty of good reasons for not voting Labour, but voting Tory because the Labour government refuses to follow through with an investigation into Tory corruption seems to be at best incongruous and at worst moronic.

Paz on 16/12/2006 at 14:07

And the person most closely associated with dubious BAE dealings during that period was ... *exciting drumroll* - yes, Mark Thatcher!

A fine, upstanding gentleman with no history of corruption whatsoever.

Fuck knows who I'm going to vote for now. Green or something, I guess.

SubJeff on 16/12/2006 at 16:10

Yes there are plenty of good reasons to not vote Labout STD, and to assume that this is the only reason I'll vote for someone else IS mononic. Especially when I've said that I've always wanted to vote Lib Dem many times, and I've made my views about Blair's Labour well known. This is just the straw.

And I say Tory because 1. I don't think Lib Dems will get in anyway and 2. I'm really still not that sure about them (that tax thing, that I know they've dropped, was sooo out there). Besides, I'm not sure they'd really know what to do if they came into power.

Tories are, at this moment in time, the lesser of two evils. imho.

SD on 16/12/2006 at 16:29

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

And I say Tory because 1. I don't think Lib Dems will get in anyway

Well they won't if people don't vote for them.

Quote:

2. I'm really still not that sure about them (that tax thing, that I know they've dropped, was sooo out there).

What is it you're not too sure about, out of interest.

Oh, and the tax thing was a brief flirtation with socialist/social democratic policies by the way, it was entirely inappropriate for a liberal party which is now back in its proper groove.

Quote:

Besides, I'm not sure they'd really know what to do if they came into power.

I think it's what they wouldn't do which is more important to be honest, which includes turning the country into a police state, taxing people to the hilt and waging illegal wars.

Swiss Mercenary on 16/12/2006 at 17:28

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

And I say Tory because 1. I don't think Lib Dems will get in anyway

So, you're saying that you just want to vote for the most likely winner? :rolleyes: