Friday, 21 August 2009
not in my name
I am not Scottish, but still - Tom Harris MP, who is (Scottish I mean) has written an excellent post condemning the release of the Lockerbie bomber al-Megrahi, who has returned to a hero's welcome in Libya, predictably. This was a shabby deal to ensure that he dropped his appeal against his conviction for the terrorist murder of 270 people - many of the Lockerbie victims' families believe that there was more to come out about the perpetrators of that terrorist outrage in 1988. Be that as it may, as Tom Harris and others have said, this decision was wrong for justice and wrong for compassion. If al-Megrahi cannot be treated for his prostate cancer in prison in Scotland then that is an indictment of the health care available in Scottish prisons, and the Scottish health minister, whose name temporarily escapes me, should resign. Some have speculated on what this piece of crassness by the Scottish Justice Minister, who I believe is called Kenny McAskill (I've never been able to take seriously anyone called Kenny - Kenneth Williams was Kenneth and never Kenny) might do to UK-US relations. I don't think they need to worry. I watched President Obama on the subject on TV this morning (his voice penetrates the French voice-over better than anyone else's) and he was very clear that it was the government of Scotland which was responsible for that decision. Perhaps there will be US boycotts of shortbread and tartan. Perhaps.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Please do your research; it's not difficult with the internet these days and you do seem to have a lot of time on your hands, his names MacAskill. And the person you seem to be praising to the heavens’ can't possibly be the same Obama you railed against so vehemently before he came to office could it.
I don't think that the release of Mr al-Megrahi, who has always maintained his innocence, prevents further investigation of the Lockerbie bombing. It is unlikely that a single person was responsible for the bombing so other suspects could still be pursued.
Jane, his cancer is said to be aggressive and untreatable. Some of the prostate cancers are like that - it happened to a friend of mine.
And last night it was being reported that al-Megrahi is about to reveal the new evidence about Lockerbie.
If al-Megrahi had been an innocent scapegoat, he or the Libyans (or Syrians or Iranians) should have revealed who the guilty parties were before he could be released. If he was responsible, he should have disclosed his colleagues before any release.
In the same way, Chris Mullins should have revealed the true IRA bombers in Birmingham before he could become a minister.
"praising to the heavens" - huh? I made no comment on President Obama. and "railed against so vehemently" - a bit emotionally immature I suggest, I was clear I preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nomination. That's it.
Here are some useful tips for you on the correct use of apostrophes.
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Apostrophes
"I don't think that the release of Mr al-Megrahi, who has always maintained his innocence, prevents further investigation of the Lockerbie bombing. It is unlikely that a single person was responsible for the bombing so other suspects could still be pursued."
and your point is? I said nothing about any further investigation, which of course must happen if warranted, just that al-Megrahi, a convicted murderer, should not have been released just because he is allegedly ill.
"Jane, his cancer is said to be aggressive and untreatable. Some of the prostate cancers are like that - it happened to a friend of mine."
maybe so, and if so then he needs palliative care, not to be the star in a political game. This is disgraceful.
And last night it was being reported that al-Megrahi is about to reveal the new evidence about Lockerbie.
Good old wiki; the last refuge of the idle.
oh, is that what it is, I thought it was what is known as Largely Bollocks
"many of the Lockerbie victims' families believe that there was more to come out about the perpetrators of that terrorist outrage in 1988". My point is that, as I believe that Mr al-Megrahi is an innocent political scapegoat who was convicted on very flimsy evidence, he has no information to reveal. It is, therefore, up to investigators to search elsewhere for the information. The release, or non-release, of Mr al-Megrahi has no bearing on the matter.
No, Kenny MacAskill was right to release Megrahi. In the UK it's not unusual to let terminally ill prisoners go. It makes sense not to waste public money on people guarding the hospital bed of somebody who isn't going anywhere. The last high profile casee of this kind in England was that og Ronald Biggs. It's true that Myra Hindley wasn't released, but it's doubtful if she had any relatives who wanted to look after her - besides she might have attracted a lynch mob.
It's understandable that the US people and the politicians who represent them don't see it that way; evidently that isn't how they do things. But it's only right that MacAskill should apply the rules consistently here as in other cases.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were worthy antagonists for the nomination - and now work extremely well together in the new administration.
A shame that didn't happen when Gorgon was Chancellor to Tony's PM. Gorgon kept rattling the NO 10 keys at Tony and weakened the Government as a consequence. As PM, he now has to live with the instability that he created.
Hillary Clinotn and Barack Obama have been adult about it .
Post a Comment