Friday, 30 October 2009

Peter's Friends

The former US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once famously said that although he might not be able to define pornography, “I know it when I see it.” The same might be said for the definition of “corruption” under laws applicable in the United Kingdom.

Anita Esslinger Bryan Cave March 2007

SIMON FRASER is BERR's new Permanent Secretary. (Press Release April 2009)

Simon said: "It's a great privilege to be joining BERR. British business and the British economy are facing huge challenges. BERR has a vital role in helping the country come through the recession and in building a strong competitive economy for the future; restoring confidence and creating growth and jobs.

"I look forward to playing my part in this effort."

Simon has been director general for Europe and Globalisation in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office since early 2008, and is an executive member of the FCO Board. He has led on European and economic work in the Foreign Office, including the G20, and manages the network of British Embassies in Europe, Africa and the Asia-Pacific region.

Playing his part ?

This included being on Mandelson's Staff, in fact Chief of Staff to the dark Lord in Brussels, following his master to London when he took over BERR.Though he appears to have glossed over working for Mandelson when EU Trade Commissioner in his bio relating to 2007.

Whilst enjoying the European lifestyle, he apparently accepted two free VIP tickets to a Rugby International in 2007 in Paris from Nike and travelled to the match in a car provided by Nike.

Friends of the Earth complained to the Commission, as Fraser and his colleague had been working on anti-dumping cases involving sports shoes made in China and Vietnam. Was there a slight conflict of interest in accepting such hospitality ?

The European Ombudsman charged with safeguarding ethics, Nikiforos Diamondouros, has found that they were wrong in accepting the hospitality-

The ombudsman found - 'a apparent conflict of interest because it could not be ruled out that the two officials would deal with trade decisions relating to sportswear'. The commission has insisted throughout ' that there is no reason to doubt that the officials' behaviour and independence remained unaffected' by the gifts.

What sort of doublethink is this ? Two Officials accepted 'gifts' from a company that could possibly be under threat from the officials investigations and they would not be affected ??

If you give somebody a 'gift' in a business environment, you are expected a pay back. It is inconcievable that anything that these two wrote on the subject of sportswear should not be regarded as utterly tainted !

Where was the integrity expected of a senior public servant like Fraser and his buddy, oh right we will just made him permanent Secretary at BERR/BIS also charged with maintaining the probity of the business environment. This is yet another example of the lowest pondlife as described by 'Lord' Digby Jones.

The Legal Definition of a Bribe

The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.

The principal statutory corruption offences applicable in the UK are contained in the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916. These statutes, aimed at bribery of public officials and of agents (whether in the public or private sector), broadly prohibit “corruptly” giving an advantage as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do something relating to a public body, or to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to the affairs or business of an agent’s principal. Although the corruption statutes prohibit such acts that are done corruptly, they do not define that term.

The Law Commission in its 1998 report noted that judicial interpretations of the meaning of the word “are in ‘impressive disarray’”. It is widely acknowledged that existing corruption legislation in the UK is deficient and needs to be updated, simplified and clarified.

Despite this, the Home Secretary has announced that the Government has decided to drop its 2003 draft Corruption Bill and will ask the Law Commission to undertake a thorough review of corruption legislation – a process that is expected to last up to 18 months.

Anita Esslinger- Bryan Cave 2007

Two years on this Government has failed to upgrade the Corruption Laws in this Country- what a surprise !

If we had an effective anti corruption Law. Fraser would not be sitting in Victoria Street, Mandelson would not be running the Government and a host of MP's would not be 'apologising' to Parliament like Smith and McNulty, they would be consulting Lawyers whilst on bail.

This Government and its acolytes in the Civil Service have destroyed credible Government in this Country. It is just stomach churning that we have to stand for this a day longer.

If the French can charge Chirac after twelve years with corruption, why not Britain hold its criminal political classes to account in Court ?


uniumsi said...

Chirac is former. Blair excepted, these shits are current. They will be replaced with blue shits. The blue shits won't want to ruffle any feathers lest when they get kicked out their collar gets felt too. The judiciary and Police suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

thelunaticarms said...

It's only corruption if we do it. I was once offered a "skim" from a courier firm I was negotiating a contract with. I didn't take it as my work's ability to operate is more important (they only had one biker) so went with the better firm. For if the firm went bust, I may have made a little extra cash but what about my co-workers? These people have no shame.

Imagine if our "Betters" did that, we'd be a step away from Heaven. Instead, we're now knee deep in hell.

We need a Wat Tyler, although this time, we shan't take the Queens' word.

yokel said...

Another thought. And I'd suggest that this institutional bribery is even worse than the one-off commercial stuff that you raise.

Simon Fraser was Chief of Staff to Mandelslime when in Brussels. That must mean he was on the EU payroll. In turn that surely means that he is now on an EU pension, having left their employment. And one of the conditions for receiving an EU pension is that one unfailingly promotes the EU at every turn.

The reason that we do not have an effective anti-corruption law is to permit this kind of EU loyalty amongst those who should have UK loyalty. How else are the EU to hollow out all our institutions with no-one noticing until it is too late?

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails