The emotional grab

That is at times a setting. I got this article two days ago in my sights, but I rejected it for the obvious reasons. But today I had some second thoughts, so I took a hold of it. There are a few settings that I need to explain. When a newspaper needs 7000 words to give you the issues that you could have gotten from 700 words, we usually see that there is something under it all. In this case we see all these ‘emotional’ settings, because there is basically nothing to be seen. This isn’t entirely true, but the gist of it comes to that. The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/07/long-read-british-bribery-britain-arms-deals-saudi-arabia-ian-foxley) gives us ‘Very British bribery: the whistleblower who exposed the UK’s dodgy arms deals with Saudi Arabia’ and the headline gives us ‘dodgy arms deals’ and that takes some explanation. The United Kingdom is a nation, a monarchy no less. As such it can sell weapons to other nations. Saud Arabia is a monarchy too, as such is there something dodgy going on?

And in that story, we see one photo of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which was taken in Riyadh, May 2009. It is the only time that his royal highness is mentioned. There is no mention of him anywhere in the article, I checked. So why is he there? Because of the mention of Saudi Arabia? 

Then we get the wife Emma, she is mentioned four times, and twice by name. What is her involvement? Or is she merely dressing (like a Window) making this story more ‘humane’ The more I read it, the less it makes sense. The first is that it took 7000 words to say nothing, the second that it is lacking a few items. The first is that Declassified (at https://www.declassifieduk.org/britains-secret-saudi-military-support-programme/) gave us a lot more information which was RELEASED in 2019. A simple setting is that the London School of Economics had 24 alumni working there. So at what point did the Guardian interview, or at least try to interview any of them? The 2019 story also gives us “Earlier this year, another US military official, Colonel Kevin Lambert, manager of the US’s own SANG modernisation programme, confirmed that the SANG was “executing combat operations in the Yemen conflict”.” The Guardian article doesn’t even mention Yemen once. In addition, the story is riddled with emotion. Things like “an accountant called Michael Paterson, was “a madman”” this might be true, but what purpose does it serve? If it is about dodgy deals, why is the wife involved? I get that she gets to be mentioned once (at the beginning) optionally twice (at departure), but the other two mentions? As I stated, the more data you see, the less is valued and it is not valued because there is more useless data, at times more data is to hide that you have none. So, then we get the ‘abundance’ of data. In this I refer to “Another time, a colleague casually joked about a Saudi general being willing to sign anything GPT suggested, on account of something called “bought in services”. Foxley didn’t recognise the term and when he began asking about it, he received only vague non-answers about “things we buy in”.” 47 words that could have been set through “GPT used ‘bought in services’ to hide acquisition of Saudi top military signing for services” I simplified it in 15 words, one third and then I would set the situation to evidence, which is massively lacking here. Then we get the word ‘bribery’ used 13 times, but how? Once is to mention the Bribery Act which was passed in 2010. It is important three times. The first is “Foxley could not have known bribery was rife in Saudi Arabia” (i’ll get to this later) and “Not only had the government ratted him out to GPT when he discovered the bribery conspiracy”, so who did rat him out? And is ratting him out the correct phrase here? The third time is “The MoD and the government “had been running the scam, the bribery, since 1978, ever since the project was set up”” So, exactly what scam were they running? A scam implies that criminal acts are being committed by the UK government. What is the scam exactly and who is involved? Then we get the one setting where it is important. It is given with ““Do you know about the Cayman Islands?” Paterson asked. Over the following 90 minutes, the accountant set out a series of discoveries that implicated GPT in years of bribery and corruption. What neither man knew was that the scheme they had stumbled upon had been overseen and authorised for decades, in both Britain and Saudi Arabia, by the highest levels of government.” Here we get the following settings. The Cayman Islands and what evidence is there of bribery and corruption? The setting is given in the article as well. “It doesn’t invalidate the invoices and the payments to Simec” as such, bribery is merely a smudging word and there is no evidence of bribery or corruption. 

As I see it, the United Kingdom needs to walk a fine line to make deals with some nations and these high ranking officials are entitled to a commission, or a consultancy fee and as Generals were mentioned they are most likely allowed consultancy fees. I am using ‘most likely’ because I do not know Saudi law in these matters. In case of Simmer, that is up to the Saudi government. This article is a simple act of slinging mud, see what sticks and I fear it is very little as this article is missing all kinds of connections and evidence. So when we see “Eight Saudis received a collective £10m between 2007 and 2012 alone” and weirdly enough, this article doesn’t name these people as we are also given “the British government had authorised the entire scheme – had won out.” As such 7000 words to fulfill the setting that was decided over a year ago. So, what exactly was the meaning of this? Seems a fair question as there are settings that are not given, too much emotion in the entire article and a massive amount of facts that just aren’t there. 

So what was exactly the call for this article? To smear the Saudi Government? To smear the British government? As such we also get both Cook and Mason were acquitted. Then a mention that one of them is separately convicted for taking kickbacks, while he was a civil servant at the MoD, before he became part of the GPT. A simple unrelated misconduct offence.

In the end I wonder what this article served. It was not the truth (too much emotion and too little evidence for that), was this another anti-Saudi smear campaign? I am not sure but as we see the lack of evidence and no reference to the declassifieduk site, which could have been used to spice up the article. I reckon that this counterbalanced the article and the article would make even less sense. But that is merely my view on the matter.

Have a great day, 360 minutes until breakfast.