The FCO has always insisted that the Iraq War has in no way lead to an increase in terrorist attacks. To an extent that’s fair enough as life is more complicated than that. So how can they justify insisting on this:
In the documents released to the court, Helen Garlick, assistant director of the Serious Fraud Office, was quoted as recalling what the Foreign Office told her about its fears of another bomb attack in the UK.
“If this caused another 7/7 how could we say that our investigation, which at this stage might or might not result in a successful prosecution was more important?,” the notes quoted her as saying.
Perhaps their new motto should be ignorance is strength?
New Statesman, whose political editor last week as you will recall was criticising Ken Livingstone last week for supporting Hugo Chavez, while his magazine was simultaneously attempting to entice new subscribers with Chavez t-shirts, have decided their new best friends are BAE Systems:
BAE Systems would like to ask the readers of the New Statesman a series of questions in order to gain a better understanding of how opinion formers and those with an active interest in current affairs and modern political life perceive BAE Systems and it activities.
Here at the New Statesman, we know that our readers are thoughtful, intelligent and opinionated. We are certain that you will want to share your thoughts and knowledge and so we too look forward to finding out what you think on these issues.
The first participant drawn at random will have Â£1000 donated to a charity of their choice by BAE Systems.
To take part go to: http://www.newstatesman.com/baesystems
Strangely, there is no question about the blocked SFO investigation into arms sales to Saudi – I thought Martin Bright had a thing about tyrannical Wahhabi Muslim regimes. You might want to mention it in their “any other comments” section.
I wonder what New Statesman columnist Mark Thomas feels about taking the BAE shilling?
Simple question: Nick Clegg has repeated Lib Dem calls for an inquiry into the scrapping of an anti-corruption investigation into the Saudi arms deal following revelations that Blair wrote a “who will rid me of this turbulent priest?“-style letter to the Attorney General on the eve of the investigation being dropped. Will David Cameron join this progressive alliance, or not?
Since we are apparently all progressives now, this is surely a no brainer? A basic fundamental tenet of progressivism is the idea of equality under the law, with no exceptions for special status. Who could argue against such a thing?
It is a simple question that demands a simple answer. Perhaps my Tory readers would care to try answering it.