The situation with corruption in the UK reminds me of that faced by the British occupiers in the run-up to the United Irishmen's rising in 1798. When violence broke out in scattered rural areas, some believed that these were the strongholds of the United Irishmen, and that the British should concentrate their forces there. Others believed that was not the case, and they were right. The areas where the United Irishmen were most organised and disciplined remained quiet, waiting for the leadership to call a coordinated Rising, a call which unfortunately never came..

Similarly, people believe that the countries about which the media write the most corruption stories, must be the ones with the most corruption. Because no senior British politicians have been tried for corruption, many people believe there is no serious corruption in the UK. However, at their AGM in November, members of the UK Chapter of Transparency International heard a very different view expressed. The Chairman said that the view was growing in international institutions, like the OECD, that the reason why there were no corruption trials in Britain was not because there is no corruption. They believe its impossible to prosecute anyone for corruption because the system is so corrupt! Despite his reference to Transparency International's reports, Hastings is apparently ignorant of this. According to him, “Occasional police and local authority corruption cases make the news. But we still have grounds for congratulation, that our domestic institutions are honest...nobody in this country gets rich out of governing”.

The reality is almost the complete opposite from what Hastings claims. Just about everyone who becomes a government minister gets rich out of it. Most of them held mediocre jobs and were of modest means before they entered politics. Yet, after a spell in government, they are showered with lucrative consultancies and non-executive directorships. Does anyone really believe that most of these drongoes are being hired for their business acumen, rather than as a way of buying influence?

Some years ago I was on a Communications Skills course with others from the same arms manufacturing company. One of my fellow course members introduced himself as a middle manager who had been sent on the course to groom him for promotion. Shortly afterwards, he heard that the company had unexpectedly won a major contract worth hundreds of millions of pounds. He'd played a key role in the contract bid, and he decided he needed to leave the course to take advantage of this. However, before going he confided in me that he expected a senior politician from the ruling party to be rewarded with a lucrative position in the company as a payoff. “That's the way these things are done” he told me.

Hastings also seems to think that bribes are OK as long as they are “ destined for party funds rather than personal enrichment”. As I recall, Douglas Hurd expressed similar views after Willy Claes was forced to resign as NATO Secretary General in 1994. Claes had been implicated in the scandal over alleged bribes to Belgian political parties in return for arms contracts. Hurd said he felt sorry for Claes, because the money went to his party and not to him personally. The Tories have always refused to say where they got the tens of millions of pounds that financed their election campaigns under Thatcher and Major.

“The threat of exposure by a free media and impartial judiciary” Hastings writes “is a ... potent incentive towards keeping our politicians clean”. Well, they might be, if the police, state prosecutors, judges and journalists were really free to pursue corruption.

Through the Attorney General the government controls state prosecutors and can block any prosecution (not just corruption prosecutions). Similarly the Lord Chancellor's office decides who can become a judge, what cases a judge can hear, and whether or not the judge gets any promotion afterwards.

Government arms contracts are perhaps the the most frequent source of fraud and corruption in any country. Britain has the second highest military spending in the world, and an arms industry with decades of experience in using bribery and corruption to gain contracts. All cases of fraud and corruption on UK government arms procurement contracts are investigated by the Ministry of Defence Police. This is part of the Ministry and therefore under the direct control of the government. When I presented the MOD Police with proof that MOD civil servants had committed a criminal offence by lying to their enquiry, in order to conceal fraud costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds, they were completely hostile. They refused to do anything about it (see my Indymedia article “Thatcher gave Pergau Dam arms company “unjustifiable” £300m contract.”, 2nd October 2007).

As for other police forces, the Stalker Affair showed that an honest police officer can be ruined by dirty politicians. People may object that John Yates hasn't suffered a similar fate, despite interviewing Blair during his investigation in to Cash For Honours. However, one must remember that the entire affair was precipitated by allies of Gordon Brown. Blair had already announced his intention to resign, it was just a question of when he would go. There has been a lot of speculation that the Brown camp saw Yates' enquiry as a useful lever to get Blair to go early. Carrying out an enquiry into the Prime Minister in these circumstances is very different from annoying a sitting Prime Minister who has undiminished power and is in a position to strike back at his leisure.

What of the media then? The BBC is the main source of news for most British people. It is firmly under government control, as Andrew Gilligan, Greg Dyke, and Gavin Davies can all attest. The rest of the corporate media are little better. I've posted evidence on Indymedia showing that both Labour and Tory government ministers have lied to cover up evidence consistent with allegations of major fraud on a UK government arms contract. None of the corporate media are willing to publish it.

Hastings was editor of the Daily Telegraph from 1986-95, an excellent position to campaign for a criminal investigation into corruption. However, I can't find any record that he ever used this power to oppose corruption. In October 1994, Labour MP Tam Dyell produced two documents – a US intelligence report and an internal British Aircraft Corporation memo – which claimed that Mark Thatcher, the son of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, received commission payments worth as much as £12 million from Al Yamamah. Hastings mentioned the BAE Systems Saudi bribes scandal in his Guardian article, but failed to mention anything about the Thatchers. In fact, he had the nerve to claim that "Scandals involving British politicians involve relatively small sums of money, usually destined for party funds rather than personal enrichment”. That is a breathtaking lie.

There are many ways in which British people suffer from large scale corruption. Those who pay tax suffer because their taxes are higher than they need be. Those who need help are less lightly to get it, because government spending is limited. Social care is subject to greater rationing than it need be, and the most vulnerable suffer as a result. Care for the mentally ill is under constant pressure. Under New labour legislation, single parents will have to get a job as soon as their children reach the age of seven. The Tories and Labour are squabbling about who can cut welfare payments the most; under either party large numbers of chronically sick people will be deprived of welfare payments if they don't get a job. British people may not be starving, but victims of corruption are suffering and some will inevitably die.

The Guardian is supposed to be Britain's only left-wing, mass circulation newspaper. It is outrageous that Hastings could not only get his lies published by The Guardian, but that he was paid for them too! However, it is not surprising. The fact is, corporate news organisations and professional journalists are more interested in making money than in telling the truth.