Ex-Defence Chiefs paid by arms industry
R.A.McCartney | 25.11.2007 20:18 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Other Press
Corporate news media ignore fraud and corruption on UK arms contracts, and back call for even higher military spending.
Greedy arms manufacturers have been campaigning to be given even more taxpayer's money. They received a big boost this week when six former Chiefs of the Defence Staff attacked the government for not spending enough on the military. The media reported their claims without mentioning that four of them are on the arms industry payroll. That would seem to give them a personal financial interest in higher military spending. Of course corporate news organisations didn't mention this, because that might have undermined their credibility.
Misleading statistics were used to bolster the claim that Britain's defence forces are underfunded. Viewers were told that the UK spends a lower proportion of its GDP on defence than either Bulgaria or Greece; they were not told that it spends more than either Germany or Japan. Bulgaria and Greece are poor countries. Germany and Japan's economies are much closer in size to that of the UK. Therefore the latter comparison is the more valid one.
Its disgusting that the corporate media refuse to mention fraud on UK government arms contracts, while demanding even higher military spending. I've posted some of the evidence about fraud on Indymedia (see
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/382700.html). Everyone I've talked to has found this quite convincing, yet I can't even get it mentioned on phone-in programs! I was selected as a potential contributor to BBC Radio 4's Any Questions program when I phoned in this week. However, despite being told that I would be next, they ended the discussion on military spending before I was allowed to speak. They broadcast three long diatribes demanding higher military spending, but not one single opposing call.
On Friday Channel 4 News had the nerve to broadcast an interview Lord Gilbert about military spending. In my view he should be charged with aiding and abetting fraud for his written Parliamentary answer to Dafydd Wigley dated 23 June 1997 (D/Min(DP)/JWG/MP/2046/97/M). Gilbert deliberately gave the false impression that the cost of developing BATES had not increased since 1985, and that the 1985 contract price was £187 million. In fact the 1985 price was £100 million. The price of £187 million was secretly agreed in 1988. He claimed the increase beyond this was due to inflation, although of course MCCS were contractually bound to pay for some other company to complete the work, and there was therefore absolutely no excuse for giving them even more taxpayers' money. He said the final price was £300m, but this was in addition to other items, the value of which he did not reveal.
On Wednesday this week (21st November) former French President Chirac was placed under formal investigation for corruption. One often hears British politicians and media commentators saying that “there's remarkably little corruption in this country”. They sneer at countries like France for being corrupt. But the fact that senior politicians can be tried for corruption in other European countries does not mean that they are more corrupt than Britain. Quite the contrary. On Tuesday 20th November the anti-corruption organisation Transparency International (UK) held its AGM. The Chairman said that there was a growing feeling in international institutions that the reason why there were no corruptions cases in the UK was not because there was no corruption, but because the system is so corrupt that its impossible to prosecute anyone for corruption. He also told us the government had torpedoed the new corruption law TI(UK) had been promoting, This was designed to bring Britain's corruption laws up to international standards. He said that TI was losing faith in the government's promises that it was serious about tackling corruption. None of this was reported in the corporate media.
Ends
The following information, about paid positions held by the four former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, is easily turned up by a Google search.
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank
Non-executive Director, Sciens Capital
“Sciens Capital Management has made investments in companies in defense and security”
Lord Boyce
Non-executive Director, VT Group plc
“VT Group plc is a leading defence and civil contractor focusing on technical and other related support services, shipbuilding and marine products”
Lord Inge
Adviser, ICX Technologies
“ICx Technologies develops advanced technologies for effective security solutions for homeland and military security”
General Sir Mike Jackson
Chair of PA Consulting's Defence Advisory Board
Misleading statistics were used to bolster the claim that Britain's defence forces are underfunded. Viewers were told that the UK spends a lower proportion of its GDP on defence than either Bulgaria or Greece; they were not told that it spends more than either Germany or Japan. Bulgaria and Greece are poor countries. Germany and Japan's economies are much closer in size to that of the UK. Therefore the latter comparison is the more valid one.
Its disgusting that the corporate media refuse to mention fraud on UK government arms contracts, while demanding even higher military spending. I've posted some of the evidence about fraud on Indymedia (see
![](/img/extlink.gif)
On Friday Channel 4 News had the nerve to broadcast an interview Lord Gilbert about military spending. In my view he should be charged with aiding and abetting fraud for his written Parliamentary answer to Dafydd Wigley dated 23 June 1997 (D/Min(DP)/JWG/MP/2046/97/M). Gilbert deliberately gave the false impression that the cost of developing BATES had not increased since 1985, and that the 1985 contract price was £187 million. In fact the 1985 price was £100 million. The price of £187 million was secretly agreed in 1988. He claimed the increase beyond this was due to inflation, although of course MCCS were contractually bound to pay for some other company to complete the work, and there was therefore absolutely no excuse for giving them even more taxpayers' money. He said the final price was £300m, but this was in addition to other items, the value of which he did not reveal.
On Wednesday this week (21st November) former French President Chirac was placed under formal investigation for corruption. One often hears British politicians and media commentators saying that “there's remarkably little corruption in this country”. They sneer at countries like France for being corrupt. But the fact that senior politicians can be tried for corruption in other European countries does not mean that they are more corrupt than Britain. Quite the contrary. On Tuesday 20th November the anti-corruption organisation Transparency International (UK) held its AGM. The Chairman said that there was a growing feeling in international institutions that the reason why there were no corruptions cases in the UK was not because there was no corruption, but because the system is so corrupt that its impossible to prosecute anyone for corruption. He also told us the government had torpedoed the new corruption law TI(UK) had been promoting, This was designed to bring Britain's corruption laws up to international standards. He said that TI was losing faith in the government's promises that it was serious about tackling corruption. None of this was reported in the corporate media.
Ends
The following information, about paid positions held by the four former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, is easily turned up by a Google search.
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank
Non-executive Director, Sciens Capital
“Sciens Capital Management has made investments in companies in defense and security”
Lord Boyce
Non-executive Director, VT Group plc
“VT Group plc is a leading defence and civil contractor focusing on technical and other related support services, shipbuilding and marine products”
Lord Inge
Adviser, ICX Technologies
“ICx Technologies develops advanced technologies for effective security solutions for homeland and military security”
General Sir Mike Jackson
Chair of PA Consulting's Defence Advisory Board
R.A.McCartney
Comments
Display the following 4 comments