Thread: The Anti-Foreign aiders are harming Britain: They must be delighted.

So what you are saying is we don't bribe (give aid to) corrupt Indian officials sufficiently and should be more like the French. I do recall you condemning Lord Pearson as he tried to do some work in Costa Rica a while back. I can't see the difference, but perhaps you can.

I am afraid people dont understand why we give aid to a country with an £8bn space project.

Originally Posted by rjt

I am afraid people dont understand why we give aid to a country with an £8bn space project.

Maybe this will help, rjt.

Originally Posted by Luigi

To get something in return, but what exactly is Britain getting in return from India for all of its investment? I'd rather the money we give in foreign aid went into improving the lives of everyone living in Britain.

I couldnt agree more Luigi, in these times of neccesary belt tightening this money could be far better used helping in the way you suggest.

Originally Posted by rjt

I couldnt agree more Luigi, in these times of neccesary belt tightening this money could be far better used helping in the way you suggest.

It's a real dilemma. First there is the idea that Britain should do more exporting in order to generate foreign revenue in order to pay the Chinese for all the junk British shoppers buy from them. That's argument number one. Then there is the argument that it is wrong to bribe foreign government officials and that should be stopped. However, many don't see that you can't as a government enact a conflicting policy. It is a fact of life that most governments around the world are as bent as a nine bob note. Britain and America are about the cleanest of the lot, so if we look around us we only see worse. What should we do? If we cut ourselves off from all international trade like the BNP seem to think we should in order to create British jobs then we become poorer. We can't survive as an island. We need to trade internationally just to get certain raw materials. There is not the entire contents of the periodic table under the lands of Blighty. Much of it comes from highly corrupt countries like Saudi Arabia for example. You would have to walk everywhere if we cut off business from these countries. Do we clean them up to our standards? That’s foreign intervention and Bush got a lot of stick for it, including those that drive to protest events.

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov

So what you are saying is we don't bribe (give aid to) corrupt Indian officials sufficiently and should be more like the French. I do recall you condemning Lord Pearson as he tried to do some work in Costa Rica a while back. I can't see the difference, but perhaps you can.

Baron von Lotsov: Is this the best that you can do? I have said on many occasions that I dislike the Arms Trade, and I have also spoken in public about it. However, manufacturing is our second most lucrative foreign currency earner. BAC is the dominant 'player' in the aerospace business and, not surprisingly, they are also major arms suppliers. That is the reality; warts and all. Nations have political and business objectives and the realisation of them often involves persuading and compensating those nations who will co-operate with them. The USA after WW2, for example, imposed physical-controls, as they were called, on exports to communist countries. Their means of realising that objective was with Marshall Aid, capital investment, cheap loans, and import absorbtion. We also, because of our association with nations who formerly had comprised the Empire, acted similarly to the USA, albeit to a lesser extent. These arrangements, which included bilateral aid, were negotiated and concluded with the respective de jure governments in various countries. The Aid Budget is well publicised and discussed. It can be challenged, and subject to legal and political pressures by institutions and the electorate generally.


Lord Pearson's former company in Costa Rica, bribed a government official to allocate insurance business to them to the detriment of others. It was unofficial and illegal in Both Britain and Costa Rica. As a consequence Pearson's CEO was prosecuted and given a custodial sentence of (I think) about ten months. Do you seriously confess that the difference between a government agreement, and an individual criminal act by a corrupt company servant, is a difference which you cannot comprehend? Yes I can see the difference, and any court in the Land would agree its difference to be substantial and indisputable.

rjt: Your statement is not an argument but a confession: confess it to your priest next Friday.

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Baron von Lotsov: Is this the best that you can do? I have said on many occasions that I dislike the Arms Trade, and I have also spoken in public about it. However, manufacturing is our second most lucrative foreign currency earner. BAC is the dominant 'player' in the aerospace business and, not surprisingly, they are also major arms suppliers. That is the reality; warts and all. Nations have political and business objectives and the realisation of them often involves persuading and compensating those nations who will co-operate with them. The USA after WW2, for example, imposed physical-controls, as they were called, on exports to communist countries. Their means of realising that objective was with Marshall Aid, capital investment, cheap loans, and import absorbtion. We also, because of our association with nations who formerly had comprised the Empire, acted similarly to the USA, albeit to a lesser extent. These arrangements, which included bilateral aid, were negotiated and concluded with the respective de jure governments in various countries. The Aid Budget is well publicised and discussed. It can be challenged, and subject to legal and political pressures by institutions and the electorate generally.


Lord Pearson's former company in Costa Rica, bribed a government official to allocate insurance business to them to the detriment of others. It was unofficial and illegal in Both Britain and Costa Rica. As a consequence Pearson's CEO was prosecuted and given a custodial sentence of (I think) about ten months. Do you seriously confess that the difference between a government agreement, and an individual criminal act by a corrupt company servant, is a difference which you cannot comprehend? Yes I can see the difference, and any court in the Land would agree its difference to be substantial and indisputable.

rjt: Your statement is not an argument but a confession: confess it to your priest next Friday.

Yes well it reminds me of the smoking ban, where it is legal to smoke in the House of Commons. Lord Pearson was the equivalent of a non-government smoker. I suppose what you say there is 'Do as I say, not what I do'. It is a fact that companies can't do business without paying bribes. They all do it, including the largest of the lot, such as BP and BAE. Those firms are so large that the government works with them, as we saw with Lady Thatcher and the Al-Yamamah deal, reportedly found to consist of upto £6bn of bribes.