Thedelldays Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 what a load of namby pamby bollix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 You may see it as namby pamby bollix Delldays, but what the Scottish Justice Secretary has done is completely consistent with Scottish law. Do you believe that he should have bent the rules according to their own justice system just to bow down to what Hilary Clinton wants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Also, it seems like a lot of people think he didn't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 August, 2009 You may see it as namby pamby bollix Delldays, but what the Scottish Justice Secretary has done is completely consistent with Scottish law. Do you believe that he should have bent the rules according to their own justice system just to bow down to what Hilary Clinton wants? not bow down to what hillary clinton wants... I think this is a bit of a special case and would not blink an eye lid if he stayed behind bars till he died.. I was not even aware that the clintons wanted him to stay in jail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 I'm proud of the fact that I live (next to a) compassionate country. Compassion is lacking in the world these days IMO. The fact that we are trying to move away from Russia to Libya for our oil supplies is purely coincidental, I think. I would have thought the Americans would realise that decisions are never made on the basis of where the oil is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Keith Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 You may see it as namby pamby bollix Delldays, but what the Scottish Justice Secretary has done is completely consistent with Scottish law. Do you believe that he should have bent the rules according to their own justice system just to bow down to what Hilary Clinton wants? id bow down to what hillary clinton wants, if she asked me nicely enough edit - oops, sawwee, dis is da lounge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Keith Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 I'm proud of the fact that I live (next to a) compassionate country. Compassion is lacking in the world these days IMO. The fact that we are trying to move away from Russia to Libya for our oil supplies is purely coincidental, I think. I would have thought the Americans would realise that decisions are never made on the basis of where the oil is. what utter bollo(ks compasion? where the **** was the compasion in blowing up 250 people in mid air its people like you that have turned this country to rat**** the last 12 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 August, 2009 I'm proud of the fact that I live (next to a) compassionate country. Compassion is lacking in the world these days IMO. The fact that we are trying to move away from Russia to Libya for our oil supplies is purely coincidental, I think. I would have thought the Americans would realise that decisions are never made on the basis of where the oil is. indeed..compassion is great..but IMO it does not need to be shown to a man that is convicted of the single biggest act of terrorism ever on (or over) the UK.... an appalling act of terrorism IMO... who else should we release on compassionate grounds...rose west? ian huntley..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Also, it seems like a lot of people think he didn't do it. Exactly. I admit I don't know the ins and outs of the case, but it has been suggested for many years that his conviction was about as safe as a taxi ride with a blind driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Exactly. I admit I don't know the ins and outs of the case, but it has been suggested for many years that his conviction was about as safe as a taxi ride with a blind driver. so...if alot of people dont think someone did it...then lets release them...? great... alot of people think michael shields did not do it bulgaria (or where ever) where is our compassion there..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack rill Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Also, it seems like a lot of people think he didn't do it. Hmm at the time it seemed like they didn't have a clue, A case of any pore sucker will do just to get Joe public off our backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesaint sfc Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 law is the law, unless you're rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 what utter bollo(ks compasion? where the **** was the compasion in blowing up 250 people in mid air its people like you that have turned this country to rat**** the last 12 years So you didn't spot the irony in my last paragraph then? Tch. Actually, as Bungle says, many people (including some relatives of some of the victims) believe he was set up as the fall-guy. It's odd that he's changed his mind about appealing. Could it be he was told that if he dropped his appeal (when the truth might have come out) he could go home? I do actually believe in compassion TBH - I think it is an admirable quality and a sign of a civilised society. I like to think that it is possible to rise above 'an eye for an eye .....'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 August, 2009 So you didn't spot the irony in my last paragraph then? Tch. Actually, as Bungle says, many people (including some relatives of some of the victims) believe he was set up as the fall-guy. It's odd that he's changed his mind about appealing. Could it be he was told that if he dropped his appeal (when the truth might have come out) he could go home? I do actually believe in compassion TBH - I think it is an admirable quality and a sign of a civilised society. I like to think that it is possible to rise above 'an eye for an eye .....'. lets say, hindley, huntley, west, bronson all get a terminal illness....should they also be released..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 lets say, hindley, huntley, west, bronson all get a terminal illness....should they also be released..? Is there some doubt about the safety of their convictions then? I believe Hindley died in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 its people like you that have turned this country to rat**** the last 12 years Actually, it's the right-wing "let's send everyone to jail for as long as possible" brigade that are f*cking up this country. Not that this chap shouldn't have gone to jail (if he did it), but when he has three months to live, what is his "punishment" achieving. It's just costing us (well, in this case the Scots) money. (And yes, I appreciate that for some of you costing the Scottish taxpayer money would be a good enough reason to keep someone in jail. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Could it be he was told that if he dropped his appeal (when the truth might have come out) he could go home? It does sound like that he agreed to drop his appeal for the chance to spend 3 months with family (having said that, I think he asked to stay in Scotland, did he not?). I suppose it makes little difference to now to him if he clears his name or not. However, plenty of the victims' families still feel that the wrong man has been jailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickn Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 lets say, hindley, huntley, west, bronson all get a terminal illness....should they also be released..? I think Hindley might have a problem contracting a terminal illness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Is there some doubt about the safety of their convictions then? I believe Hindley died in prison. he was convicted and has not won an appeal...therefore GUILTY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ART Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Sad as the whole story is, I salute the Scottish Justice system for showing compassion despite the man having apparently never having shown compassion to any of his victims. I just feel that the Yanks have missed a wonderful opportunity and how ironic it would have been had they shot the plane returning him to Libya out of the skies. That would have shown the true compassion America shows to the world instead of needless and empty preaching what others should do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 he was convicted and has not won an appeal...therefore GUILTY He hasn't lodged an appeal. He could not, therefore, be adjudged to have not won an appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickn Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 he was convicted and has not won an appeal...therefore GUILTY Knowing the speed the legal system works he would probably have been well dead before any chance of an appeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 He hasn't lodged an appeal. He could not, therefore, be adjudged to have not won an appeal. He did lose an appeal in 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 He did lose an appeal in 2002. You're right - he did. My bad. There must have been new evidence to prompt him to resubmit his appeal (which he has now withdrawn). His 'co-conspirator' was cleared wasn't he? It seems to me that there's a lot a questions that will now never be answered, which is a pity. Weren't there questions about a security lapse at Heathrow (although the bomb was supposedly loaded at Malta's airport)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 (edited) So he was imprisoned for killing 270 people and served 8 years. I make that 11 days served for each life taken. I hope the **** dies slowly in excruciating pain. For once I agree with a Labour politician..... "While one can have sympathy for the family of a gravely ill prisoner, on balance, our duty is to honour and respect the victims of Lockerbie and have compassion for them. The SNP's handling of this case has let down Scotland." IAIN GRAY, SCOTTISH LABOUR LEADER Edited 20 August, 2009 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 he was convicted and has not won an appeal...therefore GUILTY However, it is quite rare to be granted a 2nd appeal, which indicates either new evidence, or a feeling that the past trials were not aatisfactory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 August, 2009 However, it is quite rare to be granted a 2nd appeal, which indicates either new evidence, or a feeling that the past trials were not aatisfactory. but he was found guilty....im all for innocent until proven guilty he was found guilty of the most appalling act of terrorism EVER within the UK... he did not nick a car, or mo down a pedestrian..... what he was convicted of was worse than anything that happened in Northern Ireland, 7/7, nail bomb bloke in london.. IMO, this ruling (right or wrong) shows us to be a soft touch for the case in hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 IMO, this ruling (right or wrong) shows us to be a soft touch for the case in hand... I'm not Scottish so I guess it's nothing to do with me really. If I were Scottish. I'd feel very uncomfortable knowing that anyone dying in a prison in my country wasn't granted some sort of compassion - especially if there was a microcosm of doubt about his guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Is there some doubt about the safety of their convictions then? These sorts of decisions are entirely separate. If there are doubts about his conviction then the appeal process should have been the way out. You shouldn't add a terminal illness to question marks over the conviction to decide on a compassion based release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 August, 2009 I'm not Scottish so I guess it's nothing to do with me really. If I were Scottish. I'd feel very uncomfortable knowing that anyone dying in a prison in my country wasn't granted some sort of compassion - especially if there was a microcosm of doubt about his guilt. but you are not scottish and you never had a plane falling on your head..along with body parts I would be interested to see how many people from lockerbie agree with this ruling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 but you are not scottish which is why I said 'I'm not Scottish and so it's nothing to do with me really' and you never had a plane falling on your head..along with body parts I would be interested to see how many people from lockerbie agree with this ruling A lot of Scottish people (including victims' relatives) are very disappointed that he decided not to appeal again as they believe he was innocent. I guess they're upset that now they'll never know the truth of the matter and the real guilty party will never now be brought to justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 August, 2009 A lot of Scottish people (including victims' relatives) are very disappointed that he decided not to appeal again as they believe he was innocent. I guess they're upset that now they'll never know the truth of the matter and the real guilty party will never now be brought to justice. i bet there are a hell of a lot more than want him to rot in prison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 (edited) A lot of Scottish people (including victims' relatives) are very disappointed that he decided not to appeal again as they believe he was innocent. I guess they're upset that now they'll never know the truth of the matter and the real guilty party will never now be brought to justice. If I was innocent when accused of a henious crime, and had only 3 months to live, I would want to clear my name. I would not want to die a convicted mass murderer. If there were grounds for appeal, which may prove my innocence, I would jump at the chance. I think the appeal and subsequent dropping of it was just playing politics, meanwhile the 270 families affected by this terrible crime continue to suffer. Edited 20 August, 2009 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 i bet there are a hell of a lot more than want him to rot in prison So - hypothetically - if someone murdered your wife / brother / best friend but someone else was erroneously convicted of that crime, you'd want the innocent person to 'rot in prison' and the real perpetrator to go free? How strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 August, 2009 So - hypothetically - if someone murdered your wife / brother / best friend but someone else was erroneously convicted of that crime, you'd want the innocent person to 'rot in prison' and the real perpetrator to go free? How strange. oh...so he was innocent now was he...? last time i checked he was convicted and lost an appeal and dropped another... yes, looks innocent...didnt his country even hand him over..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 i bet there are a hell of a lot more than want him to rot in prison The majority of "local" reaction suggests they believe 1) he shouldn't have dropped his appeal, they feel they don't know the truth of the matter, and victims' families feel like they are short of 'closure', 2) They seem pleased to offer compassion, as he is 3 months from death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack rill Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 oh...so he was innocent now was he...? last time i checked he was convicted and lost an appeal and dropped another... yes, looks innocent...didnt his country even hand him over..? Yes dulldays you are right! At the time his country were taking a bit of stick so they handed this pore sod over, I think his real name in English is scape goat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 August, 2009 The majority of "local" reaction suggests they believe 1) he shouldn't have dropped his appeal, they feel they don't know the truth of the matter, and victims' families feel like they are short of 'closure', 2) They seem pleased to offer compassion, as he is 3 months from death. just been reasing some reaction in the local lockerbie paper web site...it is indeed mixed (even if they are locals or not)... one of the commen themes is that those who are happy to let him go are because it is the opposite of what america wants not what is right or wrong...not all are saying this but is sure is a commen comment by many.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Yes dulldays you are right! At the time his country were taking a bit of stick so they handed this pore sod over, I think his real name in English is scape goat. I think this is all pretty sureal.. he killed (or was behind it) 270 people over the UK...and you call me dulldaze and feel sorry for him for being convicted and losing an appeal etc. THAT is strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 oh...so he was innocent now was he...? last time i checked he was convicted and lost an appeal and dropped another... yes, looks innocent...didnt his country even hand him over..? We don't know and we never will now, will we? Which is kind of the point..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Here you go: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8211596.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 August, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 August, 2009 We don't know and we never will now, will we? Which is kind of the point..... well, we do...he was convicted.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 well, we do...he was convicted.. And so we go round in circles. Read the link I just posted TDD. A lot of people are saying that they don't know for sure that he was indeed guilty or was just a patsy. That's what's worrying some, including me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 One story told by a Tory MP with intelligence links last week is that Megrahi was a patsy for the Lockerbie bombing - which may not even have been a Libyan operation - but that he was positively identified as the gunman in the murder of Yvonne Fletcher. In other words, there's the suspicion that agencies of the British and other governments have sought to kill two birds with one stone - nail Fletcher's killer and make the whole 'who bombed Flight 103' go away. Freeing him keeps the lid on the whole affair - certainly more than allowing the appeal to proceed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 If I was innocent when accused of a henious crime, and had only 3 months to live, I would want to clear my name. I would not want to die a convicted mass murderer. If there were grounds for appeal, which may prove my innocence, I would jump at the chance. I think the appeal and subsequent dropping of it was just playing politics, meanwhile the 270 families affected by this terrible crime continue to suffer. His country gave him up for trial, so he probably felt it was a non starter. There are lots of questions surrounding the conviction and it's worth having a trawl on teh innernet for some Paul Foot archives on it. Some of his views are a bit out there, but his investigation is thorough and he's proabably done more than most to delve into this case. But there are a lot of outstanding issues that can lead you to think the conviction is not safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 I think it's fair to say that he is very very unlikely to be solely responsible for events, he may well be a 'patsy' for those who remain uncaught and unconvicted. If he played any part in what transpired that day though, he deserves to be repatriated in a box. If innocent - well - that's another thing entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff leopard Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 What sickens me the most over this is the attitude of the american relatives. its understandable that they're upset over this development but it highlights the hypocrisy of America in general. It talks the self-rightious talk and yet repeatedly fails at walking the christian walk. The spokes person of the bereaved families was on the today programme last week, spitting feathers over how this man can be released on compassionate grounds when he's displayed none toward his victims. i'm no christian but doesn't the Lord's prayer, the definitive prayer, say something like 'if you forgive the wrongs i commit, i'll forgive those who do wrong against me'. Americans must say this to themselves countless times over a lifetime, and yet their justice system is still based on revenge, picking slogans from the old testiment which we all know contains a lot of very dodgy stuff which has no place in today's world (things about stoning your neighbours for x, and murdering your own children for y, who you can and can't have as a slave). and once again, this spokesman for the american families went on about 'closure' for the victims almost regardless of whether they actually got the right man. which clearly they didn't. its was most likely the Iranians getting revenge for when a US fighter shot down an Iranian airliner in the early 80s. but it probably is a political move for the UK to get comfy with Libya and all its lovely crude oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Complete and utter shambles of a decision, shows how limp wristed the domocracies these days are, especially ones in the UK. Pathetic. What sort of show does this send out to the boys and girls in Iraq and Afghanistan if we are willing to let some c*nt go home who is a CONVICTED TERRORIST ??? I am aware of the devastation Cancer can cause however this is a man who callously aranged the death of 250 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 Is there some doubt about the safety of their convictions then? I believe Hindley died in prison. She did, but why let the facts get in the way of a right wing rant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted 20 August, 2009 Share Posted 20 August, 2009 I wonder what duty free he will buy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now