User:Ian Pokester2/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saudi Arabia

Both BAE Systems and its previous incarnation British Aerospace have long been the subject of allegations of bribery in relation to its business in Saudi Arabia. The UK National Audit Office (NAO) investigated the Al Yamamah contracts and has so far not published its conclusions, the only NAO report ever to be withheld.[1] The MOD has stated "The report remains sensitive. Disclosure would harm both international relations and the UK's commercial interests."[2] The company has been accused of maintaining a £60 million Saudi slush fund and was the subject of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). In November 2006, Saudi Arabia put pressure on the British government to end the the SFO investigation by suspending negotiations over a new deal for seventy-two Typhoon fighter jets.[3] On 14 December 2006 it was announced that the SFO was "discontinuing" its investigation into the company. It stated that representations to its Director and the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith had led to the conclusion that the wider public interest "to safeguard national and international security" outweighed any potential benefits of further investigation.[4] The termination of the investigation has been controversial.[5] In June 2007, the BBC's Panorama alleged BAE Systems "paid hundreds of millions of pounds to the ex-Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan" in return for his role in the Al Yamamah deals.[6] In late June 2007 the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) began a formal investigation into BAE's compliance with anti-corruption laws.[7] On 19 May 2008 BAE Systems confirmed that its CEO Mike Turner and non-executive director Nigel Rudd had been detained "for about 20 minutes" at two US airports the previous week and that the DOJ had issued "a number of additional subpoenas in the US to employees of BAE Systems plc and BAE Systems Inc as part of its ongoing investigation".[8] The Times suggested that such "humiliating behaviour by the DOJ" is unusual toward a company that is co-operating fully.[8]

A judicial review of the decision by the SFO to drop the investigation was granted on 9 November 2007.[9] On 10 April 2008 the High Court ruled that the SFO "acted unlawfully" by dropping its investigation.[10] The Times described the ruling as "one of the most strongly worded judicial attacks on government action" which condemned how "ministers 'buckled' to 'blatant threats' that Saudi cooperation in the fight against terror would end unless the ...investigation was dropped."[11] On 24 April the SFO was granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords against the ruling.[12] There was a two-day hearing before the Lords on 7 and 8 July 2008.[13] On 30 July the House of Lords unanimously overturned the High Court ruling, stating that the decision to discontinue the investigation was lawful.[14]

  1. ^ Burrows, Gideon (8 August 2003). "Out of arms way". The Guardian. London: Guardian Newspapers. Retrieved 1 October 2007.
  2. ^ Leigh, David; Evans, Rob (25 July 2006). "Parliamentary auditor hampers police inquiry into arms deal". The Guardian. London: Guardian Newspapers. Retrieved 12 August 2006.
  3. ^ David, Wearing (28 November 2018). AngloArabia : why Gulf wealth matters to Britain. Cambridge, UK. pp. P168-169. ISBN 9781509532032. OCLC 1027067212.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  4. ^ "Saudi defence deal probe ditched". BBC News. 15 December 2006. Archived from the original on 9 February 2007. Retrieved 2 March 2007.
  5. ^ "'Great damage' of BAE deal ruling". BBC News. 1 February 2007. Archived from the original on 3 February 2007. Retrieved 2 February 2007.
  6. ^ "Saudi prince 'received arms cash'". BBC News. 7 June 2007. Archived from the original on 7 October 2007. Retrieved 8 September 2007.
  7. ^ Robertson, David; Baldwin, Tom (27 June 2007). "US Justice Department to scrutinise BAE's Saudi deals". The Times. London. Retrieved 7 September 2007.
  8. ^ a b Jagger, Suzy (19 May 2008). "BAE accused of being uncooperative with US investigators". The Times. London. Retrieved 19 May 2008.
  9. ^ "Court to study BAE fraud decision". BBC News. 9 November 2007. Archived from the original on 13 April 2009. Retrieved 4 December 2007.
  10. ^ "SFO unlawful in ending BAE probe". BBC News. 10 April 2008. Archived from the original on 15 April 2008. Retrieved 18 April 2008.
  11. ^ Gibb, Frances; Webster, Philip (11 April 2008). "High Court rules that the halt to BAE investigation was 'unlawful, a threat to British justice'". The Times. London. Retrieved 27 April 2008.
  12. ^ "SFO allowed to contest BAE ruling". BBC News. 24 April 2008. Archived from the original on 29 April 2008. Retrieved 24 April 2008.
  13. ^ Evans, Rob; Leigh, David (9 July 2008). "Government 'did not try' to fend off Saudi inquiry threats". The Guardian. London: Guardian Newspapers. Archived from the original on 12 July 2008. Retrieved 25 July 2008.
  14. ^ "Lords overturn Saudi probe ruling". BBC News. 30 July 2008. Archived from the original on 22 October 2008. Retrieved 30 July 2008.

.[1]

The Gallery's most virulent critic was J. Morris Moore, who wrote a series of letters to The Times under the pseudonym "Verax" savaging the institution's cleanings. While an 1853 Parliamentary Select committee set up to investigate the matter cleared the Gallery of any wrongdoing, criticism of its methods has been erupting sporadically ever since from some in the art establishment.

An 1847 Punch cartoon by John Leech depicting the restoration controversy then ongoing

The last major outcry against the use of radical conservation techniques at the National Gallery was seventy-one years ago in the immediate post-war years, following a restoration campaign by Chief Restorer Helmut Ruhemann while the paintings were in Manod Quarry. When the cleaned pictures were exhibited to the public in 1946 there followed a furore with parallels to that of a century earlier. The principal criticism was that the extensive removal of varnish, which was used in the 19th century to protect the surface of paintings but which darkened and discoloured them with time, may have resulted in the loss of "harmonising" glazes added to the paintings by the artists themselves. The opposition to Ruhemann's techniques was led by Ernst Gombrich, a professor at the Warburg Institute who in later correspondence with a restorer described being treated with "offensive superciliousness" blly the National Gallery.[2] A 1947 commission concluded that no damage had been done in the recent cleanings.

George Bellows: Men of the Docks (1912)






The National Gallery was sponsored by the Italian arms manufacturer Finmeccanica until October 2012. The sponsorship deal allowed the company to use gallery spaces for gatherings and they used it to host delegates during the DSEI arms fair and the Farnborough international air show. The sponsorship deal was ended a year early after protests. [1]

  1. ^ Khomami, Nadia (2018-04-06). "National Gallery's £22 ticket revives debate over exhibition prices". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
  2. ^ Walden 2004, p. 176
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ian_Pokester2/sandbox&oldid=1092640290"