Jonathan Aitken's eulogy on King Fahd's death

by **emad** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:31 pm

Jonathan Aitken, former defence minister, hailed Fahd as a "warm, humorous, loquacious" man who would be remembered as a "great king" in the Arab world. Mr Aitken, who dealt with King Fahd as defence procurement minister in John Major's administration, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "I have very good memories of him. He was in personal terms a warm, humorous man. "He was very much a king who ruled. He certainly ran the show. In a way, he was a great king inside Saudi Arabia, because he took the country through this sudden rush of oil money. "Of course, mistakes were made, but if you look at the big picture, in terms of Saudi Arabia's development, its education, its progress, he was a king who took through the most tremendous advance in any Arab country's history. "He will be remembered as a great king in the Arab world." <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/01/ureaction.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/08/01/ixportaltop.html">www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...altop.html</a> AITKEN went to jail for perjury connected with his testimony in the Guardian libel trial where he said he wanted to cut out the bent and twisted cancer of UK journalism. As Tory Minister for Arms Procurement he also procured under age boys between seven and twelve years old as sweeteners for those Saudis involved in negotiating the £20 billion Al Yamammah oil deal. In 1980 the Middle East Economic Digest (MEED) published its Practical Guide to Doing Business in Saudi Arabia (Editor Trevor Mostyn). Among its more colorful anecdotes for visiting Arms Procurement Ministers, Halliburton executives and members of the Bush clan was a 'useful map of Riyadh and Jeddah town centres' pinpointing 'cultural exchange centres and restaurants' suitable for whiling away a few hours of relaxation. Eleven of these turned out to be pedophoile brothels run as Saudi joint venture businesses by sub-contractors of Aramco, the US oil giant. And the source of this invaluable tourist information that was supplied to Mr Mostyn? Jonathan Aitken MP.

by **seemslikeadream** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:39 pm

Should have put that procurement thing in the headline, emad, almost didn't read this! LOL

by **hmm** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:44 pm

as i'm addicted to pointing out these ironies <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> Should have known Emad would have covered this.

by **emad** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:03 pm

Many of us hardened old journos pissed ourselves laughing when John 'tucks-his-shirt-into-his-underpants' Major made him Defence Procurement minister..... His knowledge of Arabian manners, customs and folklore was reputedly legendary. But......some of us remember a more crushing baptism by embarassment in his early parliamentary days: Aitken once came to a MEED conference on "Doing Business in the Gulf States" at the Dubai Hyatt where the top speaker in the morning session had been Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency CEO Shaikh Mohammad Abalkhail. In the evening there was a dinner in the desert thingie in a tented pavillion under the stars. Aitken had been whingeing for a personal intro to Abalkhail and eventually got the host to give him a prominent seat on the man's right hand side. There was a bit of a wait for the food to be brought in to the main dining area where everyone was sitting cross-legged on cushions around a central table. Some nibbles eventually arrived and these were being passed round. Abalkhail was somewhat disconcerted to note that one bowl of delicacies was being hogged by Aitken, who was munching away furiously as if ravaged by hunger and sating his appetite on these little gherkin-looking thingies as if they had been peanuts or olives in a London pub - or "amuse-bouches" in a French bistro. Eventually he wolfed down the whole lot without passing the bowl over to his eminent Saudi neighbor - who then turned his back on him in disgust before moving some cushions away to chat to another invitee. Perpelxed by this snub, Aitken eventually asked the Brit Consul what the problem was and turned thirty shades of sharlett when told that those little 'amuse-bouches' he had hogged were the main star opening dish of the evening - pickled char-grilled lambs testicles, to be sampled one per person before being handed on for everybody else to savor...... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=emad@rigorousintuition>emad</A> at: 8/1/05 11:04 am

by **AnnaLivia** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:21 pm

that's one truly sickening irony, but thanks for the info. what happens to a man to make him unwilling to pass around food, and willing to pass around children for everyone to "savor"? i wish i could believe in hell, i really do.

by **jenz** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:43 pm

could you specify the source for the item about the under age boys procured as part of the deal. also, do you know which companies JA was associated with during, say, 1983-6?

by **emad** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:29 am

Aitken procuring male minors for Saudis involved in Al Yamamah oil deal: UK Defence Intelligence Monitor, March 1989, London. NB Not archived onto internet but available in microfiche form at the British Library in London. Directorships: Aitken Hume Bank, London "He built up a vast fortune as the head of the Aitken Hume merchant bank, dealing in mining and property investments. He was director of Al Bilad (UK), a company owned by Prince Mohammed of Saudi Arabia. His family home, the "White House" in Kent, is registered to a Panama based company. Many of his business interests are disguised by offshore holding companies whose accounts are not open to public scrutiny." From: <a href="http://www.socialequality.org.uk/iw/237/3a237.htm">www.socialequality.org.uk.../3a237.htm</a> BMARC and Saudi-owned firms: "Aitken enjoyed numerous business connections with Middle Eastern regimes before becoming a government Minister in 1992. Prince Mohammed and Wafic Said, a friend of the Saudi monarchy, gave backing to a financial services company that Aitken set up with his cousin in the 1980s. Before becoming Minister for Defence Procurement in 1992, he was a director of Al-Bilad, Fadace and Future Management Services, all Saudi-owned firms. Future Management Services supplied security equipment and weapons made in Britain to the Lebanese government. Until 1990 Aitken was a director of BMARC. In 1992 it was revealed that BMARC had sold weapons to Iraq, Iran and South Africa in defiance of a government embargo. The Aitken affair has exposed a secretive network of connections through which British firms have supplied weaponry and military expertise to some of the most oppressive regimes in the world. That this involves an elected Member of Parliament and a government Minister is testimony to the reciprocal interests tying politicians, government ministries and Parliament to big business." From: <a href="http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/jun1998/mp-j12.shtml">www.wsws.org/news/1998/ju...-j12.shtml</a>

by **emad** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:46 am

Published: 02 August 2005 So the old man will be buried this afternoon on the edge of the Saudi capital, Riyadh, in a desert graveyard of no memorials. The strict Wahhabi tradition - to which, of course, that far more famous Saudi, Osama bin Laden, belongs - demands no statues, no gravestones, no slabs. So Fahd will be laid in the desert sand, his head touching the earth, covered over and left for the after-life. Not a single stone will mark his place <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article303129.ece">news.independent.co.uk/wo...303129.ece</a>

by **jenz** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:17 pm

Thanks emad. where did the children come from, is it known? Also, are any details of the BMarc deals in contravention of the UN embargo known - still looking circa 1984,5,6? appreciate your work on this.

by **emad** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:06 am

The children were mainly foreign workers' kids from Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Korea, Pakistan, Singapore. Parents working mainly as domestic virtual slave labor for Saudis, often selling or hiring out their kids to brothels and sending their sex wages back home. I'm looking up a reference on this from Middle East Monitor circa 1983 that's on microfiche at the British Library and will post when I can find it. A good research site to loo at is: The Arabian Connection: The UK Arms Trade to Saudi Arabia Written and researched for CAAT by Chrissie Hirst (ISBN: 0 9506922 5 5) SNIP: "The precise terms of Al Yamamah were not disclosed, then or later. It was, nevertheless, understood that all or most of the payment would be in oil. In other words Al Yamamah was a barter deal, which would have been contrary to international trade rules if exceptions were not made for military sales. The deal was government-to-government, with the main beneficiary, the recently privatised British Aerospace Company (BAe), in the background to the negotiations. It is evident that the UK government had pulled out all the stops to gain the contract. Whitehall let it be known that the Prime Minister had conducted a "personal sales campaign" (Jane's Defence Weekly, 21.9.85), and Michael Heseltine told the press on 26 September that "one cannot overstate the Prime Minister's contribution". The News of the World, which hailed "Maggie's Bonanza" (29.9.85) was clearly not far from the mark – though a large part was also played by British Aerospace's dedicated salesman, Dick Evans, who has since been rewarded with a knighthood and chairmanship of the company. Doubts and Problems [top] Not all commentators were so enthusiastic. Initial uneasiness was about the means by which the bonanza had been earned. Allegations of corruption were made within weeks of the signing of the memorandum of understanding. The Guardian published a leading article under the headline "Bribes of £600m in jets deal" on the 21st October. The previous day, Labour's front bench defence spokesman, Mr Denzil Davies, had called on the government to confirm or deny reports that it was to pay secret commissions of between £300-600m to secure the deal with Saudi Arabia. The MoD "refused to comment, although officials said negotiations were still going on" (Guardian, 21.10.85). The Guardian cited Arab sources, who alleged that the commission would be shared between two or three leading members of the royal family, two relatives by marriage of King Fahd and a business agent. There were additional doubts over Saudi Arabia's ability to pay. In the early '80s the oil price had collapsed, and Saudi Arabia's oil revenues fell from a peak of $116bn in 1981 to $24bn in 1985. With no sign that either OPEC or non-OPEC producers were preparing to curb production, a further decline seemed inevitable. The Financial Times noted on 29th November 1985 that the country had been in a "deepening depression since mid-1983". Two UK building contractors, John Laing and Wimpey, had just been forced to pull out of Saudi contracts due to non-payment, abandoning projects and flying their staff home. Saudi Arabia's financial situation is never fully publicised, but even from the barest figures made public, Western economists knew that it was already running a current account deficit of $25bn, mainly because of high military spending. It seemed imprudent, to say the least, to enter into a huge new arms commitment." AND "Continued US Concerns [top] In May 1986 the US President suffered a historic defeat on arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Following an adverse Senate vote of 73 to 22, the House of Representatives voted by 352 to 62 against his request to sell $354m worth of missiles. This was well above the two-thirds majority, thus making it impossible for Reagan to override the vote with the presidential veto. The main reason for this was not so much campaigning by the Israeli lobby (which according to The New York Times, a usually pro-Israeli paper, would not have opposed the sale, The Guardian, 8.5.86), but the general feeling in the US that Saudi Arabia had not helped the peace process. In addition there were concerns over Saudi Arabia's public support for Libya after the US air strike, the possibility of the weapons falling into terrorist hands, and the question of whether Saudi Arabia really needed the weapons. By the end of the year yet another issue had emerged: the implication of Saudi Arabia in the complex and covert operations that came to be known as 'Iran-Contra' or 'Irangate' because of the political repercussions for the Reagan Administration. The Saudi government initially funded Iranian counter-revolutionary groups, not only because of the strategic and ideological threat posed to them by Khomeini's Shi'ite Iran but also to secure US approval for the transfer of AWACS surveillance planes in 1981. This was part of an arrangement drawn up by King Fahd, top Saudi officials and the Reagan administration, whereby Saudi Arabia put millions of dollars into 'resistance' movements favoured by the US, for example in Angola and Afghanistan (Guardian, 1.12.86; Financial Times 5.2.87). Colonel Oliver North, a US official involved in these negotiations, now devised a new scheme: sophisticated weaponry would be covertly supplied, not to the opposition, but to the Iranian government, in return for the release of US hostages held by pro-Iranian guerrillas in Lebanon. Deeply involved in this plan, along with retired Israeli and US generals and French, German and Iranian businessmen, was the celebrated Saudi businessman Adnan Kashoggi. Son of a trusted Turkish physician to Ibn Saud, Kashoggi had become invaluable to Saudi royals in their dealings with the West. According to Swiss and US sources, one of the companies that organised the deal, Hyde Park Holdings, was allegedly linked with Mohammed Said Ayas, who ran the financial affairs of Prince Mohammed bin Fahd Al Saud and was a "close family friend" of JONATHAN AITKEN (Harding, Leigh and Pallister 1997). It has been suggested that the Al Saud were aware of the shipments to Iran, even if they did not sanction them directly - as "a well-placed Reagan Administration source" quoted by The Guardian (1.12.86) put it, "Adnan Kashoggi does not raise up to $100m for arms dealings without the backing of the Saudi government". The paper concluded that "the Saudis may emerge as having been as important middlemen as the Israelis." MORE: See: <a href="http://www.caat.org.uk/information/publications/countries/saudi-arabia.php">www.caat.org.uk/informati...arabia.php</a> Aitken fathered Sorayya Khashoggi's daughter Petrina and took over 20 years to admit....and was deeply involved in personal business dealings with Adnan Khashoggi, Saudi Secret Service chief Kamal Adham (also a BCCI director), arms dealer Wafic Said and BAe salesman Dick Evans. I'll have a look at some archives of Middle ast Economic Digest that I have copied to see what specifics there are on him in the years you have cited. Worth looking at archived material on the UK's Scott Enquiry -Parliament's investigation into Aitken in the arms to Iraq inquiry. SNIP from "Dirty trade exposed in Britain's `Iraqgate' " at <a href="http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1996/223/223p22.htm">www.greenleft.org.au/back...223p22.htm</a> "In defiance of UN guidelines, Margaret Thatcher's government in the 1980s, and then John Major's in the 1990s, covertly approved arms sales to Saddam Hussein. These were used in the Iran-Iraq war, against rebel Kurdish villagers and to aid Saddam's nuclear program. However, the report, by High Court judge Sir Richard Scott, has caused a political row which goes much deeper. For the inquiry, established by Major in 1992, had unprecedented powers to question witnesses in public, including Major and Thatcher themselves. It revealed a web of conspiracy, intrigue and profiteering going to the heart of government. Major's Conservative government survived the February 26 House of Commons debate on Scott by a single vote; several Tories voted with the Labour opposition. The origins of the scandal are in the 1980s arms-export drive by Thatcher. Thatcher's son Mark, carrying with him the obvious approval of the "Iron Lady", became an unofficial roaming salesman for British arms companies. Mark Thatcher earned himself an estimated A$160 million in commissions in the process, including up to $40 million from a single deal with Saudi Arabia. While sales to most dictatorial regimes caused no particular diplomatic problems (the only protests being from the political left), sales to Iran and Iraq were a different matter. This potentially huge market was stymied by the UN restrictions on sales to both countries, then in the middle of a war in which 1 million people died. The potential loss of the Iraqi market was keenly felt: between 1970 and 1990 Britain supplied the Saddam regime with a vast array of equipment, from VIP armoured cars to tank spares and sophisticated communications equipment. It is now known that British firms supplied weapons to both sides in the 1980s by the simple device of sending them to intermediary countries, which then re-exported them. The British company BMARC, of which former Tory minister Jonathan Aitken was a director, supplied hundreds of light naval guns to Singapore -- a country not renowned for the huge size of its navy. Those guns found their way to Iran. Favourite staging posts for Iraq-bound weapons were Oman and Jordan. In 1986 Swedish Customs discovered a European cartel, including British firms, supplying explosives via Jordan." Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=emad@rigorousintuition>emad</A> at: 8/3/05 9:22 am

by **jenz** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:23 pm

Thanks again emad. sorry to plague you with questions on this thread, but in your searches, would you have come across any variations of the BMARC name, or indications of an affiliated Swedish company? This may simple be a case of a witness getting it wrong.The sales which were made, especially those to Iran Iraq in their conflict, do we know anything about the negotiations for these, the demonstration facilities, the agents? It has been very useful to read what you have so far posted which fleshes out a story of which I have had, as it were, two fragments. you may have gathered from these pages, I have concerns about r.a. and in the course of hearing survivor accounts, some familiar names come up -

by **emad** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:43 pm

From Hansard - the UK House of Commons official record: "BMARC. BMARC was owned by the Swiss defence contractor Oerlikon until May 1988, when it was acquired by the United Kingdom firm, Astra. After Astra bought BMARC in May 1988, BMARC continued to manufacture equipment to meet orders from Oerlikon. In order to answer the parliamentary questions,I commissioned detailed research into two aspects: first, the intelligence information available to the Government; and secondly, the export licensing history. I shall now answer the question as to the intelligence available to the Government. In 1986, intelligence was obtained that Iran had concluded a contract with Oerlikon for the supply of weaponry and ammunition. The intelligence picture developed in 1987, when it was revealed that naval guns made by Oerlikon had been offered to Iran by a company in Singapore. In July and September 1988, two intelligence reports rounded out the picture by referring to naval guns and ammunition being supplied by Oerlikon through Singapore to Iran. Important detail in one of the 1988 reports was identical to some of that mentioned in the 1986 intelligence. I must emphasise that none of the intelligence reports mentioned BMARC. As to the export licensing history, during the period 1986-88 BMARC, in relation to orders from Oerlikon that were enclosed with the licence forms, sought and obtained United Kingdom export licences for the export of similar naval guns and ammunition to Singapore. Two of those export licence applications by BMARC to Singapore, for naval guns in 1986, which were subsequently approved, referred to a project that had also been mentioned in the 1986 intelligence. Column 596 It is for customs to investigate breaches of export control. However, it does appear that there may be grounds for believing that the final destination of naval cannon made by BMARC could well have been Iran, given that intelligence reports during the period mentioned equipment similar to that for which BMARC secured export licences for Singapore. The events that I have outlined occurred six to nine years ago. I have concluded, however, that connections should have been made between the intelligence reports naming Oerlikon and the BMARC licence applications made in support of orders from Oerlikon. It would not have been possible for officials in my Department to take account of the 1986 intelligence, as it had not been distributed to the Department of Trade and Industry. However, the DTI failed to make a connection between any export licence applications by BMARC and Oerlikon's trade with Iran mentioned in the 1988 intelligence, which was distributed to the DTI. I understand that the relevant intelligence has now been passed to customs, as the investigating authority. Arrangements for the distribution and handling of intelligence, both generally and in the DTI, have been substantially improved since 1988. I now refer to allegations made by the former chairman of Astra, Mr. Gerald James. He made allegations about the involvement of BMARC in a project called Lisi. According to Mr. James's evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee, which was looking into exports to Iraq, that was to supply "medium calibre armaments--ammunition, weapons and tooling to Singapore for onward transmission to Iran". Those allegations were first drawn to my Department's attention in March 1991, when the company inspectors looking into the affairs of Astra informed the DTI of the allegations made by Mr. James. Those same allegations were repeated by Mr. James in his written evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee, and were then passed by my Department to Customs and Excise in November 1991. At that time, customs came to the view that the allegations, which were made in association with a number of other allegations by Mr. James and which it believed to be unsupported, did not justify initiating a full investigation. Earlier this year there were allegations that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was aware of those contracts during his period as a non-executive director of BMARC between September 1988 and March 1990. My right hon. Friend has already made his position clear in a statement to the House during Treasury questions on 30 March, when he said that he was never given any indication or information that could suggest that BMARC's contract with Singapore might subsequently result in components being shipped to Iran. Let me refer to two additional matters raised by the results of the detailed inquiries that my Department has undertaken. First, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement answered two related questions on 25 April 1995 from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North about the export of arms to Iran by BMARC. In the light of the further research that has now been carried out, my right hon. Friend has today written to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North providing supplementary information on the handling within the Ministry of Defence of the available intelligence and BMARC's export licences for Singapore. " --------- BMARC fraud investigation: "Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North): Before the Secretary of State cloaks himself in too much virtue for coming here, will he confirm that this morning, before we were informed that there was to be a statement, I tabled a further written parliamentary question asking why I had not received the letter that was promised to me on 28 April and when the Secretary of State intended to write to me? Does he accept that if we were to believe everything in this statement, the Government would seem to be the classic Government of wise monkeys who see no evil and hear no evil to a quite remarkable extent? Does he accept that, as far back as 1990, the Ministry of Defence seized files from Astra, the owner of BMARC, as part of a fraud investigation? Those files referred to Astra and BMARC trade with Iraq and Iran. Were the files handed to the DTI then? If not, why not? If they were, why have we had to wait five years for this statement? The Secretary of State referred to the fact that the ship of state was not watertight in respect of these issues. Does he accept that that is something of an understatement? It is a distinguishing feature that, until a few minutes ago, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Column 606 the captain of the ship was sitting next to one of the chief saboteurs. Does he also accept that this is not so much a matter for Select Committees, but one of old-fashioned integrity, which requires resignations? Is not the truth that BMARC knew that lethal equipment was being sold illegally to Iran via Singapore, that the DTI knew that arms were being sold illegally to Iran via Singapore and that Ministers knew that the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) knew that such arms were being sold illegally to Iran? May we have a far more wide-reaching inquiry than anything that has been suggested today? The Secretary of State should be absolutely clear that this is not a matter for any previous Government. It is a matter for this Government, including every right hon. and hon. Member who sits on the Treasury Bench." FULL statement: <a href="http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1995-06-13/Debate-1.html">www.parliament.the-statio...ate-1.html</a> NO link to a Sweish affiliate but ASTRA may have had business links there. SOME useful links: From: Institute for Science and International Security: Case Studies of Illicit Procurement Networks Matrix Churchill: "The Matrix Churchill group of companies played a key role in Iraq's military industrialization procurement efforts in the 1980s. These companies made important contributions to Iraq's armaments manufacturing industries, ballistic missile efforts, and nuclear weapons program. -------- Because two of Matrix Churchill's senior officials provided information to British intelligence about Iraqi activities, the British government had considerable knowledge about Iraq's secret military procurement activities.1 However, the British government decided to allow most of Matrix Churchill's sales to Iraq. As a result, a scandal erupted after the Persian Gulf War about the role of the British government in arming Iraq. This scandal reached a crisis when the government's case against Matrix Churchill officials collapsed in November 1992. The government prosecutors developed convincing evidence that Matrix Churchill officials had deliberately deceived export control officials about the true purpose of the items exported to Iraq. However, the case collapsed because the defense was able to show that the government had known the true purpose of the exports at the time and had encouraged the exports.2 Parliament demanded an investigation that was led by Sir Richard Scot. This investigation revealed considerable information about illegal British exports to Iraq in the 1980s and the failure of the British government to stop these exports despite knowing that the companies were lying about the end-use of their exports. Scot released a detailed report on the investigation in 1996, which includes considerable information about Matrix Churchill.3 This section draws upon information in the Scot report. In addition, it relies on documents seized in November 1990 from the offices of Matrix Churchill Corporation, the Ohio subsidiary of TMG, that had been obtained by the U.S. Congress after the Persian Gulf War for its own investigations. For information on how Iraq funded many of these purchases, see BNL." More: <a href="http://www.exportcontrols.org/matrixchurchill.html">www.exportcontrols.org/ma...chill.html</a> ALSO: A-List] UK secret state/defence sector SEE: <a href="http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/2001-November/016578.html">lists.econ.utah.edu/piper...16578.html</a> Hope this is of some use.

by **DrDebugDU** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:34 pm

Hmm. There is no mentioning in the eulogy that the House of Saud crowned themselves King after grabbing the nation. It's always one of those small things which are missing in the story. So the Bushes are probably crying right now. They had such a wonderful relationship with the Saud family. Just the memories of all the great things which they did together to improve the state of humanity . The Soviet-Afghanistan War, The First Gulf War, 9/11, The Second Afghanistan War, The Second Gulf War. Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud will be missed of course by Bushes. The greatest phoney King they had. <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f6/Crown_prince_abdullah_with_bush.jpg/285px-Crown_prince_abdullah_with_bush.jpg"/>

by **jenz** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 6:10 pm

Nice pic doc. Emad, column 601 which you kindly pointed me to, elucidates. Mr. Edward Leigh's helpful constituents were obviously scopalamined, sometime shortly after 1984.

by **jenz** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:46 am

in the blanche bits of the nuit a couple of random thoughts floated. 1st was that I had walked into a room where a radio was tuned to Radio 4 several weeks ago, and an interviewer was saying to an interviewee re a literary festival, what was the most surprising thing you saw - answer was J.A. having tea with the Editor of the Guardian. Did anyone else hear this? 2nd, unconnected, was that I had read in some of those links you kindly sent, Emad, that BMARC had many plantations in the UK. That so, just one MP seems to have piped up to defend the factory in his constituency from any suggestion (implicit, for it had not been mooted in the debate recorded in the preceding paras of Hansard) that they could have known who the end user of the armaments was. The Faldingworth factory was a small collection of concrete huts, buried in the Wolds. (and personnel had a fair idea about the nationality of the agents who visited ) Could it be that the Scott inquiry did not range far enough back in time to bring deals done prior to 1986 into focus, or were these considered unimportant. If the latter, then why was a local MP wheeled out to deny? Its rather puzzling. I don't have a background in politics and could well have missed somethingterribly obvious, in which case, sorry.

Jonathan Aitken's eulogy on King Fahd's death

Jonathan Aitken's eulogy on King Fahd's death

Re: Jonathan Aitken's eulogy on King Fahd's death

Re:Aitken - clicked this story to add criminal past

"that procurement thing in the headline"

power corrupts

aitken procurement

Re: Aitken procurement

Robert Fisk: The terrible legacy of the man who failed the w

JA

Re: JA & BMARC deals

BMARC

Re: BMARC: UK Parliamentary statement/Heseltine

Re: Jonathan Aitken's eulogy on King Fahd's death

lies

Aitken rehab and Leigh smokescreen?

Who is online