DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix (PDF)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix (PDF) Case 1:11-cv-01527-RLW Document 16-2 Filed 10/31/11 Page 1 of 10 APPENDIX A July 2008 As a result of BacLite’s poor commercial performance and deteriorating market niche, 3M asks Porton and the other Acolyte shareholders for their consent to stop marketing BacLite. In return 3M offers to pay the shareholders $1.07 million which is its estimate of the expected sales of BacLite during the contract period. Porton (together with the other shareholders) refuses to consent. Compl. ¶¶ 47-49.1 August 28, 2008 Instead of engaging 3M in “good faith” negotiations, the Porton Group files a notice of claim against 3M in U.K. Court, alleging breach of contract (the “London Litigation”). They seek more than £24 million (approximately $38 million) in allegedly lost sales, although they knew BacLite could never achieve those sales figures and that, BacLite was actively generating less revenue than 3M was forced to spend on marketing it. Ex. L (claim form) August 30, 2008 In what 3M now understands was the first salvo of Porton’s and Boulter’s efforts to get 3M to pay an amount to settle the London Litigation that he knew was far in excess of BacLite’s true commercial value, Harvey Boulter (“Boulter”) arranges with his friend, Robert L. Hamburger, to threaten 3M. Hamburger, who claims to have influence over several groups of wealthy 3M investors, sends an e- mail to 3M CEO George Buckley, in which he creates the specter that these investors will punish 3M for failing to settle with Porton by selling off large blocks of 3M stock, thus artificially deflating its price. Ex. M (E-mails from R. Hamburger to G. Buckley, dated Aug. 30, 2008) In the e-mail, Buckley was advised that Boulter and Hamburger “have one investor group in [Porton Capital, Inc.] who … control[s] a very material position of 3M stock.” Hamburger goes on to say that the investors had been “informed” of 3M’s position regarding Acolyte, and that as a result those investors “have taken a view that 3M is a dishonest party and have threatened to sell their entire position.” 1 References to Compl. are to 3M’s Original Complaint and Jury Demand, filed in this action. i Case 1:11-cv-01527-RLW Document 16-2 Filed 10/31/11 Page 2 of 10 The e-mail further stated that the foreign-based investor groups at issue controlled so much 3M stock that it constituted an amount greater than “high multiples” of $100 million, and that they were “propping up various U.S. sectors right now.” The e-mail then stated that the unnamed investors could not be relied on to act “in a western rational way,” and that the situation was “a recipe to get a lot worse rapidly.” Thus, “3M’s actions [in discontinuing BacLite] have created one hell of a storm.” Later in the day, Boulter sends a second e-mail ratcheting up the urgency of his earlier threat and threatening that, unless 3M took immediate action, the investors would act—potentially irrationally—to harm 3M. Ex. M (E-mails from R. Hamburger to G. Buckley, dated Aug. 30, 2008) It states that it was “essential that 3M do nothing to further escalate this situation” because it had already “triggered a rather unexpected chain of events.” Boulter states that the foreign investors are a volatile group that was “understandably not very happy” and were “simple people of vast means,” and that Buckley needed to do something to “help me buy some time” with the investors. December 22, 2008 The Porton Group commences the London Litigation against 3M. 3M defends on the ground that, after exhaustive testing and the investment of millions of dollars, it determined BacLite was not commercially viable. Subsequently, Ploughshare Innovations, Ltd. (“Ploughshare”) the civilian technology development arm of the U.K. Ministry of Defense (the “MOD”), also sues. Compl. ¶ 55 2010 Boulter retains Tetra Strategy on behalf of the Porton Group. Ex. J-13 (The Guardian, October 9, 2011, “Revealed: How Lobbyists Were Paid to Facilitate Meeting with Liam Fox.”) March 2011 Tetra Strategy introduces Harvey Boulter to Adam Werritty (“Werritty”) as part of the scheme to exert influence on senior-level officials of the U.K. government—such as the Minister of Defence, Dr. Liam Fox (“Fox”)—in order to interfere with 3M’s business opportunities and, subsequently, to leverage that influence into threats, intimidation, and blackmail of 3M. At the time, Boulter ii Case 1:11-cv-01527-RLW Document 16-2 Filed 10/31/11 Page 3 of 10 was paying Tetra Strategy £10,000 per month (approximately $16,000) to, among other things, arrange some meetings. Werritty is a close personal friend of Fox’s, carrying business cards stating he is “Advisor to the Rt. Hon. Dr. Liam Fox MP” Ex. J-13 (The Guardian, October 9, 2011, “Revealed: How Lobbyists Were Paid to Facilitate Meeting with Liam Fox.”) March 9, 2011 Early in the Defendants’ public smear campaign, Lanny Davis (“Davis”) pens a column for Forbes.com that knowingly, falsely, and misleadingly attacks 3M CEO George Buckley for abandoning a “life saving device.” The allegation against 3M is defamatory, per se, as Davis well knew at the time that BacLite was a commercial failure because there were other MRSA detection tests on the market, and that no lives had ever been lost because of 3M’s decision to stop marketing BacLite. Ex. N (Lanny Davis, “3Ms’ George Buckley Criticizes Obama While Ignoring Good Corporate Governance”, Forbes.com, March 9, 2011) For the column, Davis enlists aid from Peter Hotten of Ploughshare Innovations (a subsidiary wholly owned by the MoD) to issue a statement that Davis can use to create the illusion that the U.K. government was directly involved in the London Litigation. Hotten states, “We [Ploughshare] are disappointed that 3M Corp. failed to get an excellent diagnostic technology into the market through what 3M’s own officials describe as avoidable mistakes . Ploughshare believes 3M’s decision not to reapply for FDA approval is contrary to its obligation to its partners.” April 5, 2011 Tetra Strategy succeeds in setting up a meeting between Werritty and Boulter, the purpose of which was to gain access to Fox and to influence the U.K. government not to do business with 3M. The result of the meeting is a promise by Werritty to “push along” Boulter’s (i.e. Porton’s) interests to Minister Fox. Ex. J-9 (The Guardian, October 9, “Businessman Met Fox’s Friend Two Months Before ‘Chance’ Dubai Meeting.”) Werritty e-mails Boulter following their meeting, which took place in Dubai, “Very good meeting with you in Dubai. Thanks for passing along the below along with the e-info on the two issues we discussed. Please leaeve this with me to push along as discussed. I will revert in the next few days.” Any doubts about whether Boulter and Werritty discussed the London Litigation at their meeting were put to rest by Boulter’s later statement to the press that he iii Case 1:11-cv-01527-RLW Document 16-2 Filed 10/31/11 Page 4 of 10 and Werritty specifically discussed the London Litigation. Ex. J-7 (The Guardian, October 8, 2011, “Harvey Boulter: I Met Adam Werritty In April 2011.”) “My first meeting with Werritty was in early April 2011 (don’t recall the exact date) in the Shangri-la Hotel in Dubai. We had about one hour together where I briefed him on Cellcrypt and the Acolyte litigation. He offered his assistance to help raise these topics to ‘the boss.’ At the end of the meeting he very quickly introduced me to Dr. Fox who had just arrived in the lobby – it was a handshake only.” May 11, 2011 Davis conducts a press conference in Minneapolis with much fanfare. Under the guise of announcing a citizen’s petition that he has filed with the United States Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) demanding that the FDA investigate the BacLite clinical trials, Davis actually creates a media platform from which to make even more knowingly false and malicious statements about 3M. Those intentionally disparaging false statements include claims that 3M’s decision to stop marketing BacLite had put lives at risk, and that 3M had misled the FDA. Special Motion to Dismiss, Ex. 6 During the press conference, Davis or Robert Hopper knowingly, falsely, and maliciously state that: “Tests… were botched in the United States so that American hospitals don’t have the benefit of this product that can detect this deadly superbug that killed more people than AIDS in this last year” “All those who have suffered from MRSA… could have avoided exposure but for the decision by 3M to abandon it and to refuse to seek approval form the FDA” “Thousands and thousands and thousands of people who died might be alive today had there been a BacLite…” Davis even accused 3M of “hiding the technical report” and suggested that this meant 3M must have been “motivated by other things besides selling BacLite under the contract” In order to reinforce the maliciously false statements that he made at the press conference, Davis also issues a press release called, “Allegations Against 3M Corporation of Possible ‘Negligence and Recklessness’ by the Porton Group, The Equity Partner of the British Ministry of Defence, for ‘Botched’ U.S. Testing of Lifesaving Device to Detect the MRSA ‘Superbug’/Staph Infections.” In that release, Davis both reiterates many of his false and malicious claims, and also iv Case 1:11-cv-01527-RLW Document 16-2 Filed 10/31/11 Page 5 of 10 accuses 3M of conduct that is tantamount to federal fraud.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Unclassified Unclassified
    UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED Evidence Number Name E23 Pagoda PR E24 Paul Flynn MP E25 PCRC (Political and Constitutional Reform Committee) E26 PLMR (Political Lobbying and Media Relations Ltd) E27 Political Intelligence E28 PRCA (Public Relations Consultants Association) E29 Ranelagh International Ltd E30 Rowan Public Affairs E31 (SPA) Society of Parliamentary Agents E32 (TPA) TaxPayers’ Alliance E33 Transparency International UK E34 UKPAC E35 Unlock Democracy E36 William Dinan and David Miller UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED E23: Pagoda PR 1. Is there any reason to think that lobbying per se is a problem; and is there any evidence that abuse of lobbying is widespread or systemic, as opposed to exceptional behaviour by a few? Not in itself, although recent evidence would indicate that some parliamentarians may be susceptible to influence on the basis of inappropriate inducements. This does, as the paper suggests, damage the reputation of lobbying and parliamentary engagement more widely. In this respect, there is a risk that efforts to encourage more lobbying/campaigning from wider sections of society – especially young people – are undermined. We need to proactively promote the positive achievements of lobbying if we are to secure the confidence and participation of the next generation, who will otherwise view Parliament with cynicism. Politicians could do more to say when they have been persuaded by well run, well evidenced and transparent lobbying campaigns. 2. How wide should the definition of lobbying be? What activities should be excluded from the definition? This is extremely difficult because the current definitions rely on determining an attempt to ‘influence’. In many cases such intent is very difficult to determine.
    [Show full text]
  • New Hybrid Connectivity Based Approaches
    Appendix C: Hamiltonian Paths with Double Pheromone Ant Colony System Optimisation This appendix contains the full list of topics of the hamiltonian path identified by the algorithm presented on the PhD thesis of David M.S. Rodrigues Reading the news through their structure: new hybrid connectivity based approaches. This appendix is available in digital format at http://www.davidrodrigues.org/pdfs/phd/ and on the accompanying CD delivered with the printed copy of the thesis. As news follow a hamiltonian path the first news in the following list is connected to the last news of the list to complete the path. • Eurozone debt crisis live: Italian senate passes austerity law | Business | guardian.co.uk • Greek leaders agree to unity government as future hangs in balance | World news | guardian.co.uk • Lucas Papademos to lead Greece’s interim coalition government | World news | guardian.co.uk • The euro will survive – and Britain will join, says Michael Heseltine | World news | guardian.co.uk • Eurozone bailout fund falls short of e1 trillion target | Business | The Guardian • Euro debt crisis: Greek PM George Papandreou to resign | World news | guardian.co.uk • Chaos in Greece amid battle to form a ’government of national salvation’ | World news | The Observer • Eurozone debt crisis: EU members line up to demand ECB intervention | Business | The Guardian 1 • Italy passes austerity measures – clearing way for Berlusconi to quit | Business | guardian.co.uk • European debt crisis live: pressure mounts as finance ministers meet | Business | guardian.co.uk
    [Show full text]
  • The Henry Jackson Society and the Degeneration of British
    Tom Griffin Hilary Aked David Miller Sarah Marusek THE HENRY JACKSON SOCIETY AND THE DEGENERATION JUNE 2015 OF BRITISH NEOCONSERVATISM: LIBERAL INTERVENTIONISM, ISLAMOPHOBIA AND THE ‘WAR ON TERROR’ Sponsored by: ISBN 978-0-9570274-4-2 AUTHOR PROFILES David Miller is Professor of Sociology in the Department of Social and Policy Sciences at the University of Bath. He is an RCUK Global Uncertainties Leader- ship Fellow (2013-15) conducting Tom Griffin is a freelance writer and a project to examine the construc- researcher and a doctoral candidate tion, use and impact of expertise on at the University of Bath. He is a ‘terrorism’. He has written widely on contributing editor of OpenDemoc- propaganda, spin and lobbying and racy’s OurKingdom blog and writes for was co-founder of Public Interest Investigations a non profit Spinwatch. He is a former executive company of which Spinwatch and Powerbase are projects. editor and political correspondent of Recent publications include: A Century of Spin: How Public the Irish World. Relations Became the Cutting Edge of Corporate Power (Pluto Press, 2008, co-author); Neoliberal Scotland (Cam- bridge Scholars, 2010, co-editor); Critical Terrorism Studies Dr Sarah Marusek is a freelance since 11 September 2001. What has been learned? (Rout- researcher and writer. She has a PhD in ledge, 2014, co-editor). Researching the Powerful: Public social science from the Maxwell School Sociology in Action (Routledge, forthcoming, co-editor). of Syracuse University. Her doctoral research focused on Islamic activism in Lebanon and was funded by the gener- Hilary Aked is a freelance researcher ous support of the Mellon Foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • Approved Judgment
    Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 1435 (QB) Case No: HQ12X002414 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 04/06/2013 Before : MR JUSTICE BEAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : LIAM FOX Claimant - and - HARVEY BOULTER Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - William McCormick QC and Jonathan Barnes (instructed by PSB Law) for the Claimant Matthew Nicklin QC (instructed by DLA Piper) for the Defendant Hearing date: 15 May 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic. ............................. MR JUSTICE BEAN MR JUSTICE BEAN Fox v Boulter Approved Judgment Mr Justice Bean : 1. The Claimant is the Member of Parliament for North Somerset. From 12th May 2010 until 14th October 2011 he was Secretary of State for Defence. 2. The Defendant is a British businessman principally resident in Dubai (but who, according to the Particulars of Claim, also maintains a residence in the UK) and is Chief Executive Officer of Porton Capital Inc, a Cayman Islands based legal entity which conducts business in the UK, Dubai and other jurisdictions. 3. In June 2011 the Defendant was the subject of widely reported allegations which he has characterised as being to the effect that he was guilty, or there were strong grounds to suspect that he was guilty, of an unlawful campaign of blackmail against the US corporation 3M Co. in an effort to extort millions of dollars in settlement of a hopeless piece of litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Behind the Mask the Taxpayers’Alliance & the War on Public Provision
    Behind the Mask The TaxPayers’Alliance & the War on Public Provision October 2012 Preface Dear friend, Thomas Frank in his recent book “Pity the Billionaire” uses the phrase “a mask for privilege” to describe the US Tea Party movement. He highlights how its populism, while appearing to rail against government and vested financial interests, in reality cloaks the real agenda of its wealthy backers - to ‘free’ business from any kind of regulation and enable the ‘free’ market to ignore social consequences as it maximises profit for business owners and their shareholders. We have our own Tea Party equivalents which work assiduously on behalf of big business and the wealthy under the guise of independent think tanks. Such outfits are the first port of call for the mainstream media when comments are sought on matters of public policy, such as taxation, employment legislation, planning and regulation on business. An organisation with one of the highest public profiles on such matters is the “Taxpayers’ Alliance”(TPA). Their name and public relations may wish to conjure up an image of hardworking, conscientious citizens concerned about whether the ‘ordinary level’ taxes they pay are being effectively used by government but, objectively, the TPA are funded by and represent major interest groups that are far from being ‘ordinary level’ taxpayers. This latest NIPSA research publication exposes the reality of what this organisation actually stands for. Behind the mask of their public concern for the “ordinary guy” and their “non-partisan” self-definition, the TPA is an organisation funded by wealthy individuals and private companies, whose real objective is to promote the interests of a business elite who will benefit most from their extreme anti-public sector, right-wing/‘libertarian’ politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex a LETTER from URSULA BRENNAN, PERMANENT UNDER
    Annex A LETTER FROM URSULA BRENNAN, PERMANENT UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE AT MINISTRY OF DEFENCE TO SIR GUS O’DONNELL 10 October 2011 Dear Gus, REVIEW OF THE DEFENCE SECRETARY’S MEETINGS WITH ADAM WERRITTY You asked me for a summary of my interim findings. Process 2. The information and conclusions in this note are drawn from an analysis of the Secretary of State’s diary and from conversations with some of the key parties. There has not yet been time for a thorough analysis of the evidence; this will be conducted this week. I have commissioned a trawl for the email and electronic evidence on: o Overseas trips: . Details from Dr Fox’s diary for the 18 trips (including holidays) on which it is believed that Adam Werritty was present. Details of who else was present on these trips and who attended which formal and informal event. Emails, diplomatic telegrams, trip reports from the MOD international teams, and Private Office meeting notes from these visits. o Correspondence about diary dates concerning these trips – to establish whether staff from the Secretary of State’s Private Office provided information to Adam Werritty about dates, timings and locations of visits. o Emails between the Private Office and Adam Werritty to establish whether information (other than in connection with the diary) was communicated to Mr Werritty. o Security control logs which will show the dates on which Mr Werritty visited the MOD Main Building. 3. I have also commissioned a series of interviews with past and present members of Dr Fox’s Private Office, including special advisers, staff who travelled with the Secretary of State on relevant visits and the Secretary of State himself to confirm their recollections of the events in question.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2012 Audit
    How Democratic is the UK? The 2012 Audit By Stuart Wilks-Heeg, Andrew Blick and Stephen Crone 2.6. Integrity in public life First published on-line, July 2012, by Democratic Audit, Liverpool. http://democracy-uk-2012.democraticaudit.com/ © Democratic Audit 2012 All rights reserved. Any part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted for non-commercial purposes providing that the source of the material is clearly cited. Our preferred form of citation is as follows: Wilks-Heeg, S., Blick, A., and Crone, S. (2012) How Democratic is the UK? The 2012 Audit, Liverpool: Democratic Audit, http://democracy- uk-2012.democraticaudit.com/ Democratic Audit 2.6. Integrity in public life Executive Summary This chapter reviews the available evidence relating to the five ‘search questions’ concerned with integrity in public life. Our analysis in this chapter identifies a number of changes and continuities since our last full Audit of UK democracy. These are summarised below under three separate headings: (a) areas of improvement; (b) areas of continuing concerns; and (c) areas of new or emerging concern. (a) Areas of improvement 1. The establishment of an independent body to oversee MPs' expenses, pay and pensions. In response to the public scandal over MPs’ expenses, the government announced in May 2009 that it would bring forward legislation to create an independent body to oversee the expenses regime for MPs. The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 established the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) (covering the Commons only). Significantly, the Commons has surrendered its previous ability to make decisions on expenses. The act also gave the independent regulator responsibility for maintaining the register of financial interests and for an accompanying statutory code of conduct on financial interests, to operate alongside the house’s existing non-statutory code of conduct on other issues; and created a new commissioner for parliamentary investigations to investigate breaches of the code of conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • Phone Call: 2009 08 16 - Call to Adam Werritty Page 1 Cf3(0
    Phone Call: 2009 08 16 - call to Adam Werritty Page 1 cf3(0 Phone Call Caller Ascroft, Angela Direction Outgoing Recipient Substantive Query No Call Type Case Enquiry Substantive Query — SF not applicable Reason - Substantive reply Title 2009 08 16 - call to Adam Werritty I called AW. He advised that he had received my email late last night and unfortunately today was not possible as most of the trustees lived outside London. The 27 was also not an option as Dr Fox and himself were travelling to Sri Lanka tommorow, stressed that the trustees were keen and happy to meet with us and he informed me that it was his intention to call me back later this afternoon was some alternative dates. Regarding C-274594-ISVZ : THE ATLANTIC BRIDGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SCHEME E-mail: 2009 08 21 - Charity Commission Regulatory Case CC:03040026 Page 1 of0 s: E-mail" Attachment Yes From Ascroft, Angela Cc To MINFORD, Substantive Query No Substantive Query PATRICK — SF not applicable To (Contact By Bcc Role Lookup) Tltle 2009 08 21 - Charity Commission Regulatory Case CC:03040026 Subject Dear Mr Minford Further to our earlier conversation please find attached a copy of the Commission's letter issued today to each of the trustees of the Atlantic Bridge Education and Research Scheme. Any assistance that you are able to provide in forwarding this correspondence on electronically to your fellow trustees would be gratefully appreciated. Kind regards Angela Ascroft Senior Manager Compliance 0207 6742542 Regarding tit C-274594-15VZ : THE ATLANTIC BRIDGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SCHEME E-mail: 2009 08 2 1 - Charity Commission Regulatory case into the Atantic Bridge Ed..
    [Show full text]
  • The Prime Minister's Adviser on Ministers' Interests
    House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee The Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests: independent or not? Twenty Second Report of Session 2010–12 Report, together with formal minutes, and oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 14 March 2012 HC 1761 Published on 17 March 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £11.00 The Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) The Public Administration Select Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner for England, which are laid before this House, and matters in connection therewith, and to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service. Current membership Mr Bernard Jenkin MP (Conservative, Harwich and North Essex) (Chair) Alun Cairns MP (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan) Michael Dugher MP (Labour, Barnsley East) Charlie Elphicke MP (Conservative, Dover) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Robert Halfon MP (Conservative, Harlow) David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North) Greg Mulholland MP (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West) Priti Patel MP (Conservative, Witham) Lindsay Roy MP (Labour, Glenrothes) Powers The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 146. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Monday Volume 534 24 October 2011 No. 212 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Monday 24 October 2011 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT MEMBERS OF THE CABINET (FORMED BY THE RT HON.DAVID CAMERON,MP,MAY 2010) PRIME MINISTER,FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE—The Rt Hon. David Cameron, MP DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL—The Rt Hon. Nick Clegg, MP FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS—The Rt Hon. William Hague, MP CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER—The Rt Hon. George Osborne, MP LORD CHANCELLOR AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE—The Rt Hon. Kenneth Clarke, QC, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT AND MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND EQUALITIES—The Rt Hon. Theresa May, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE—The Rt Hon. Philip Hammond, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS,INNOVATION AND SKILLS—The Rt Hon. Vince Cable, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS—The Rt Hon. Iain Duncan Smith, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE—The Rt Hon. Chris Huhne, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH—The Rt Hon. Andrew Lansley, CBE, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION—The Rt Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction: Intelligence Cooperation and Professionalization
    Notes 1 Introduction: Intelligence Cooperation and Professionalization 1. Quoted in ‘Douglas Waller’s “Wild Bill Donovan,” on the OSS spymaster’, WP, 27 February 2011. 2. R. Heslop, ‘The modern professionals’, Jane’s Police Review Community, 29 October 2010. 3. See also sources, e.g., ‘“Narrative verdict” at Linda Norgrove inquest’, BBC, and J. Healy, ‘Popular Rage Is Met With Violence in Mideast’, NYT, 15/17 February 2011; ‘England riots: Police could get wider curfew powers’, BBC, 16 August 2011; ‘Foreign Secretary publishes review of consular evacuation procedures’, FCO.gov.uk, 21 February 2012. 4. See also UK Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), ‘Introduction to Intelligence- Led Policing’, ACPO Practice Advice, 2007; ‘Intelligence, Tips Drive Operations in Afghanistan’, US DoD, 17 September 2010; ‘Key role of intelli- gence’ in A. Nicoll (ed.), ‘US intensifies drone strikes in Pakistan’, IISS_SC, 16, 36, October 2010; ‘U.S. Kills bin Laden in Intelligence- driven Operation’ and ‘Brigade Leaders Cite Value of Intelligence’, Defense.gov, 2 May 2011. 5. Naturally a huge body of literature can be referenced here, especially as ‘professionalization’ or ‘professionalism’ elements, or at least strives to those ‘ends’, constitute such a large focus of several business studies texts. Notable examples of most relevant texts for this study, with a strong influence on ‘liai- son’-related concerns, are cited; see also ‘Government to Overhaul Anti- Terror Training By Spring’, WB, 8 December 2011. 6. A. MacVean, ‘What is a professional?’, Jane’s Police Review Community, 18 September 2009; see also ‘Editorial: Police leadership presents a bleak and depressing spectacle’, TO, 11 March 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Corruption in Uk Politics
    CORRUPTION IN UK POLITICS POLICY PAPER SERIES NUMBER THREE www.transparency.org.uk Transparency International (TI) is the world’s leading non-governmental anti-corruption organisation. With more than 90 Chapters worldwide, TI has extensive global expertise and understanding of corruption. Transparency International UK (TI-UK) is the UK chapter of TI. We raise awareness about corruption; advocate legal and regulatory reform at national and international levels; design practical tools for institutions, individuals and companies wishing to combat corruption; and act as a leading centre of anti-corruption expertise in the UK. Acknowledgements We are grateful to Dr Elizabeth David Barrett of Oxford University for researching and drafting this policy paper. We would like to thank the European Commission - Directorate-General Home Affairs for funding this Policy Paper series as part of an EU-wide European National Integrity Systems project coordinated by Transparency International Publisher: Transparency International UK Editors: Chandrashekhar Krishnan & Robert Barrington First published July 2012 © 2011 Transparency International UK. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in parts is permitted, providing that full credit is given to Transparency International and provided that any such reproduction, whether in whole or in parts, is not sold or incorporated in works that are sold. Disclaimer Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All information was believed to be correct as of June 2012. Nevertheless, Transparency International UK cannot accept responsibility for the consequences of its use for other purposes or in other contexts. Policy recommendations reflect Transparency International UK’s opinion. They should not be taken to represent the views of those quoted or interviewed unless specifically stated.This project has been funded with support from Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme European Commission - Directorate-General Home Affairs.
    [Show full text]