Technology2 mins ago
Should the Serious Farce Office be disbanded?
The SFO, a toothless body of Government and the most incompetent is in trouble.
Judges has ruled that when Blair leaned on the SFO to halt its inquiry into fraud involving selling airplanes and corrupt members of the Saudi Royal family taking bribes, that it acted illegally in dropping its investigation.
The SFO director Robert Wardle was required to satisfy the court that all that could reasonably be done had been done to resist the threat. He failed to do so, and the Judges ruled the case had illegally been stopped.
This is the latest in a long line of SFO failures. It fails continuously to do the job it was set up to do and it should be got rid of immediately and replaced with something better.
Judges has ruled that when Blair leaned on the SFO to halt its inquiry into fraud involving selling airplanes and corrupt members of the Saudi Royal family taking bribes, that it acted illegally in dropping its investigation.
The SFO director Robert Wardle was required to satisfy the court that all that could reasonably be done had been done to resist the threat. He failed to do so, and the Judges ruled the case had illegally been stopped.
This is the latest in a long line of SFO failures. It fails continuously to do the job it was set up to do and it should be got rid of immediately and replaced with something better.
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sorry, here is a link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml =/news/2008/04/10/nsaudi110.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml =/news/2008/04/10/nsaudi110.xml
It seems as soon as anyone tries to put Britain first in steps the law to say its illegal. He was only trying to protect British jobs.
Now we can't deport all these foreign terrorists because of the human rights act and the judges say its illegal. Isn't it time we either made judges more accountable or to change the laws that benefit us all.
Now we can't deport all these foreign terrorists because of the human rights act and the judges say its illegal. Isn't it time we either made judges more accountable or to change the laws that benefit us all.
I think we�re getting a bit confused here.
Yes, it�s true that the SFO halted their investigation into the dodgy dealing. However, they certainly did not take that decision themselves and, as I understand it, Tony Blair ordered the investigation to be halted. The court ruling today simply emphasises the fact that the law is supposed to be independent of the executive and that no member of the government had the authority to halt the investigation and essentially override the law. It may well be that Mr. Blair was seeking to protect British interests. However, that cannot be done at any cost and the integrity of the British justice system was seriously undermined by the action. Effectively we gave in to Saudi threats when it emerged that the rulers there may have to let the SFO have a look at their bank statements.
The unrelated issue of the deportation of foreign nationals convicted or suspected of terrorism is similar. The Labour government, in its wisdom, saw fit to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law in 1998. In the particular recent case to which I imagine you are referring the judges ruled that the Human Rights of terrorist suspect Abu Qatada would be infringed if he were to be deported. That ruling was made in accordance with the 1998 act. So it is not the judges that need accountability, but the politicians who make the laws.
The law did indeed �step in� in both these cases, albeit in different ways. But in both cases the judges interpreted the law and ignored the actions or wishes of the executive.
And that is precisely what makes the UK different from, say, Saudi Arabia.
Yes, it�s true that the SFO halted their investigation into the dodgy dealing. However, they certainly did not take that decision themselves and, as I understand it, Tony Blair ordered the investigation to be halted. The court ruling today simply emphasises the fact that the law is supposed to be independent of the executive and that no member of the government had the authority to halt the investigation and essentially override the law. It may well be that Mr. Blair was seeking to protect British interests. However, that cannot be done at any cost and the integrity of the British justice system was seriously undermined by the action. Effectively we gave in to Saudi threats when it emerged that the rulers there may have to let the SFO have a look at their bank statements.
The unrelated issue of the deportation of foreign nationals convicted or suspected of terrorism is similar. The Labour government, in its wisdom, saw fit to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law in 1998. In the particular recent case to which I imagine you are referring the judges ruled that the Human Rights of terrorist suspect Abu Qatada would be infringed if he were to be deported. That ruling was made in accordance with the 1998 act. So it is not the judges that need accountability, but the politicians who make the laws.
The law did indeed �step in� in both these cases, albeit in different ways. But in both cases the judges interpreted the law and ignored the actions or wishes of the executive.
And that is precisely what makes the UK different from, say, Saudi Arabia.
The SFO, like many government departments today, has serious shortcomings.
However, in this particular case I think the blame for the situation the SFO now finds itself in lies squarely at the door of the government, and in particular the former Prime Minister. I cannot imagine that the decision to end the investigation (effectively perverting the course of justice) was made anywhere other than at No 10 by the man himself.
The SFO has had some noteable successes, but has also suffered a number of ignominious failures. Whether this (or indeed any other) government is capable of replacing it with something better is debateable. Generally the law in this country - and the law on fraud is no exception - is so heavily weighted against the victim. Unless and untill that philosophy is challenged the SFO and other law enforcement departments will struggle to deliver justice.
However, in this particular case I think the blame for the situation the SFO now finds itself in lies squarely at the door of the government, and in particular the former Prime Minister. I cannot imagine that the decision to end the investigation (effectively perverting the course of justice) was made anywhere other than at No 10 by the man himself.
The SFO has had some noteable successes, but has also suffered a number of ignominious failures. Whether this (or indeed any other) government is capable of replacing it with something better is debateable. Generally the law in this country - and the law on fraud is no exception - is so heavily weighted against the victim. Unless and untill that philosophy is challenged the SFO and other law enforcement departments will struggle to deliver justice.
I was unaware when I posted, that the Government is looking at ways the SFO could be got rid of.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/feb/23 /politics.arms
Ironically because they have been a bit of a thorn in the side of the attorney general.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/feb/23 /politics.arms
Ironically because they have been a bit of a thorn in the side of the attorney general.
-- answer removed --
1 to 10 of 10
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.