What does everyone think about the pending release of the Lockerbie bomber

[oldbill]

My self it would be an injustice! he showed now compassion for the 200 plus people her killed. I believe it has something to do with big oil. Follow the money trail. Bill

[Midas]

He's not being considered for anything more or anything less than any other prisoner in the same situation would be eligible for. I understand release, or transfer of non-British nationals in prison, is a standard procedure if they're terminally ill; the law makes no distinction on the grounds of what crime they actually committed, which I personally think is correct. There should be just one set of conditions which apply to everyone, not arbitrary rules which can be changed depending on a whole range of ifs and buts.

I certainly don't think that pressure from America should be considered as material to this; he's in prison in Scotland having been tried under Scottish law; their rules apply, period.

[cenydd]

He's not being considered for anything more or anything less than any other prisoner in the same situation would be eligible for. I understand release, or transfer of non-British nationals in prison, is a standard procedure if they're terminally ill; the law makes no distinction on the grounds of what crime they actually committed, which I personally think is correct. There should be just one set of conditions which apply to everyone, not arbitrary rules which can be changed depending on a whole range of ifs and buts.

I certainly don't think that pressure from America should be considered as material to this; he's in prison in Scotland having been tried under Scottish law; their rules apply, period.

The only thing I would add to this is the added factor of the doubts about his guilt, in the sense of his appeal, abandoned on health grounds, which he would not have lived long enough to see through. Given these particular circumstances, I think sending him home to die (irrespective of what Mrs Clinton thinks) is the only civilised thing to do.

[oldbill]

[QUOTE =I certainly don't think that pressure from America should be considered as material to this; he's in prison in Scotland having been tried under Scottish law; their rules apply, period.[/QUOTE]

I suspect you are right, it does make for a fair and balanced system, not like in the USA where if you are rich you would buy your way out of a problem. I think I like the way of Scotland much better. Bill

[oldbill]

The only thing I would add to this is the added factor of the doubts about his guilt, in the sense of his appeal, abandoned on health grounds, which he would not have lived long enough to see through. Given these particular circumstances, I think sending him home to die (irrespective of what Mrs Clinton thinks) is the only civilised thing to do.

I don't know of anyone in Prison that says they are guilty. He was tried in a court of Law in Scotland and found guilty, I guess you can blame it on the Americans right. I have heard rumours that if he is let go free that there is a move in America to try and get the Government to block Americans from travel to the UK like they do Cuba!

Bill

[oldbill]

I watched the bomber of PanAm walk up the stairs to get into the airplane! I have known a couple men who had Prostate Cancer in final stages and I tell you they could not have walked up the stairs. He did not even use the hand rail. Also the Scotish law reads a person MAY be released it does not say he WILL be released for compassionate reasons. I believe it has something to do with oil, follow the money! Bill

[Patriot1]

I respect the fact Scotland followed their own system and did not give in to international pressure. It's good that they apply the compassionate grounds reason to all prisoners. However, I would have felt more comfortable with it if they had flown him in more secretly or people were atleast barred from meeting him.

The fact that people swarmed around him and gave him a "hero's welcome" absolutely sickens me.

[Tantal]

If I ever decide that I'm going to turn to a life of crime, I think I'll move to Scotland. I got a guy sentenced to 20 yrs. for Burglary a few years back. Too bad that plane couldn't have gone down in rural West Texas.

[DTE]

Its just pure politiking from Scotland, the equivalent of shouting "Hey, look at Me!" to the rest of the world. Its got ALOT to do with devolution and the push for Scottish independence, and probably some influence from Libya's Oil reserves. People can argue all day about the lacklustre eveidence against him, but the fact is he was convicted for this crime, and yeah if he's too sick to be in prison then he can go to hospital, but releasing him when he served something like 11 days for each person he killed is just madness.

Did anyone see the statement by the Scottish Justice Secretary?(great name for a band BTW) He said, refering to the man's cancer, that he had been given a sentence by "a higher power". Oh nice, so now we have God in our politics too.

[oldbill]

Well it is History now nothing we can do will change that fact! I do wonder in the long run if there is more to this than meets they eye. I feel like it was a way for the Arab block that supports the terrorist to try and seperate the friendship Americas HAD with the UK, I know a little far fetched but there is a reason for it besides the oil! Remember these people don't care about life themself's as they will make human bombs out of their own. I hate to think that Scotland was used but it sure looked like it! Bill

[Midas]

Well it is History now nothing we can do will change that fact! I do wonder in the long run if there is more to this than meets they eye. I feel like it was a way for the Arab block that supports the terrorist to try and seperate the friendship Americas HAD with the UK, I know a little far fetched but there is a reason for it besides the oil! Remember these people don't care about life themself's as they will make human bombs out of their own. I hate to think that Scotland was used but it sure looked like it! Bill

You might well be right in saying that there is more to it than meets they eye, and that Scotland was used. However I'm sure that all aspects were well considered by the Scottish authorities before Megrahi's release; which of course doesn't imply that the consequences were thought through as well as they might have been, but that's easy to say in hindsight.

I think what we can quite safely say though is that this type of trade goes on day in, day out, throughout the world, and much as we might find individual cases objectionable or incomprehensible, it's simply part of life.

[oldbill]

Convicted Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff is dying of cancer, sources told the New York Post.
Madoff, who is serving 150 years at a North Carolina federal prison after pleading guilty to swindling more than $65 billion, has been telling fellow inmate he doesn't have much longer to live.

Well here we go I know letting the bomber of PanAm would start something. Bill

[LA]

He was allowed to go free...
What I found hilarious is that the Scottish MSPs are saying this could damage Scottish reputation on the international stage

Who the hell cares about Scotland?
Usually, they are included in the all inclusive term Britain.
Or as can be the case (in America and other countries), England.

[Scooby]

I don't normally support the death penalty, but he should have been taken to a field in lockerbie had his face pushed into the dirt and shot, he never showed any remorse, and why should he get to spend his last days with his family, when he denied so many people their lives and deprived their families of their loved ones.

I have been reading that there is supposedly a link between the home office negotiating a trade deal and the release, if this is true this will in my opinion be the lowest point that our government has reached by a long way

[free]

I'm actually in disbelief about the half-hearted support of the Scottish goverment on such a poorly-thought out decision. If this was a statement of Scottish constitutional independance - then well done! They sure as hell did so.

Compassion; There are over a hundred families, who didn't get the chance to live out there lives with the love of their lives, and their children. Some didn't even get to say goodbye. You talk about compassion - and yet dismiss the extreme pain this guy has caused. How we can sit here and feel freedom is justified, for someone who has not only caused the death of numerous people, but inflicted complete misery on 1000's of family members, when their Husband / Wife / Children / Mum / Dad didn't come home.

Shame on the Scottish goverment. Shame on the British goverment .

[Major Sinic]

Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of releasing Magrahi on compassionate grounds, there is little doubt in my mind that the BP 'trade deal' was successfully concluded as a 'quid pro quo'.

As soon as 'Lord Mandy' in refuting the allegation, said he found the suggestion offensive, it strengthened my view that it was was probably true.

[Patriot1]

I have been reading that there is supposedly a link between the home office negotiating a trade deal and the release, if this is true this will in my opinion be the lowest point that our government has reached by a long way

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Straw admits Lockerbie trade link

Sad, sad times for politics.

[SaorAlba]

I think it is fairly obvious that there was no collusion between the Scottish and UK governments. Anybody who takes more than a passing interest in in Scottish politics would know that the likelyhood of these 2 administrations agreeing on anything is impossible.
Labour always adopt a stance which is at complete odds with the SNP as demonstrated by Iain Gray (leader of the Labour party in Scotland); he immediately adopted a polar opposite view, unfortunately for him he did not consult his masters in Londinium who had been busy dealing with the sponsors of convicted terrorists for trade purposes. The SNP's decision was a happy coincidence.
What we are going to see is a crass attempt by the unionistas to link the dirty double dealing of the UK government with the Scottish governments moral and brave decision. They will try to infer that there was a deal betwen the two administrations so that the SNP share the blame.
This slight of hand is designed to appeal to those not willing to engage their brain: I am thinking of the Americans in particular.

[SaorAlba]

If I ever decide that I'm going to turn to a life of crime, I think I'll move to Scotland. I got a guy sentenced to 20 yrs. for Burglary a few years back. Too bad that plane couldn't have gone down in rural West Texas.

What do you think of Lieutenant Calley's sentence?- he was responsible for the Me Lai masacre - he only got 3 years house "jail" and even then an early release.
Also, what do you think of the loss of 290 people when the good old USA shot the Iranian airbus out of the sky. I believe the killers got a medal - I might be wrong, please correct me if I am. What do you think about the USA funding the IRA who were responsible for thousands of people being killed: You embraced IRA killers in the USA as if they were some sort of hereos.

[Major Sinic]

I don't normally support the death penalty, but he should have been taken to a field in lockerbie had his face pushed into the dirt and shot, he never showed any remorse, and why should he get to spend his last days with his family, when he denied so many people their lives and deprived their families of their loved ones.

I have been reading that there is supposedly a link between the home office negotiating a trade deal and the release, if this is true this will in my opinion be the lowest point that our government has reached by a long way

Following Jack Straw's admission that Magrahi's eligibility for release was intrinsically linked with the BP oil exploration deal once again confirms the dishonesty and duplicity of senior cabinet members of this government. So tell us something we didn't already know!!

Is it wrong to put national economic interests before justice and the grief of a couple of hundred relatives? A strong argument could be put forward that it is not. Such a strong argument could not be put forward in defence of the continual barrage of lies put to the electorate by this administration.

[Midas]

Is it wrong to put national economic interests before justice and the grief of a couple of hundred relatives? A strong argument could be put forward that it is not. Such a strong argument could not be put forward in defence of the continual barrage of lies put to the electorate by this administration.

Your last sentence really says it all. Personally I don't believe that in essence it is wrong for us to consider deals like this, after all, it's something which has gone on throughout history and across the world, and whatever people may feel about individual cases, there are times when national considerations become vitally important. But it needs to be done openly, at least once the initial discussions with the country concerned have taken place, so that the electorate can see that it's not just yet more duplicitousness on the part of the government.

[Streetwalker]

The Government of this country never fails does it ?
I can see them sitting there now,the assembled social workers,prisoners rights,Islamic prisoners protection and Mats facing east societies all on the public payroll talking ~#==#^- to each other then comming up with a gem like this.Thats before BP gets involved with oil deals and Brown goes into hiding

What the hell do you think our boys are thinking,when putting their lives on the line in the name of anti terrorism in Afganistan.Whilst back home the worst terrorist in British history is given a free ride home after doing 8 years.

Madness

[free]

It's getting old now isn't it. I'm so tired of being let down over and over again, and being so poorly represented.

*sigh*

[octopus]

Nothing would surprise me about this affair. 270 lives. The bombers sentence was 8 years (about 2 weeks a life). Then home to heroes welcome in Lybia by his boss. They say he"s got cancer. Almost restores my faith in divine retribution.

[Major Sinic]

Nothing would surprise me about this affair. 270 lives. The bombers sentence was 8 years (about 2 weeks a life). Then home to heroes welcome in Lybia by his boss. They say he"s got cancer. Almost restores my faith in divine retribution.

So you actually believe he has got terminal cancer! I suspect that he is perfectly fit, and has gone home to enjoy a well funded retirement which will no doubt last for many years. The cancer story is, I would not be surprised to learn, a government ruse to make a decision wholly unpalatable to public sensitivity, at least partially palatable to some.

I am not even convinced that doing the trade deal in exchange for the release of one terrorist is necessarily against our national economic interests. It is something our hypocritical American 'cousins' ( I do hate the implication of this term, but I couldn't think of what else to call them!) wouldn't have hesitated to do, had the boot been on the other foot. It is our government's continual lies that anger me.

[octopus]

So you actually believe he has got terminal cancer! I suspect that he is perfectly fit, and has gone home to enjoy a well funded retirement which will no doubt last for many years. The cancer story is, I would not be surprised to learn, a government ruse to make a decision wholly unpalatable to public sensitivity, at least partially palatable to some.

I am not even convinced that doing the trade deal in exchange for the release of one terrorist is necessarily against our national economic interests. It is something our hypocritical American 'cousins' ( I do hate the implication of this term, but I couldn't think of what else to call them!) wouldn't have hesitated to do, had the boot been on the other foot. It is our government's continual lies that anger me.

Well as I say, nothing would surprise me about this affair. You could well be right on this. However, If I had my way he wouldn"t have had the chance to develop terminal cancer. A rope around his neck; and a long drop!

[oldbill]

Well it is all history now and history has a way to show what it was all about! But I will say I do not believe America would have let him go just for a business deal not that they are angels as the public outcrys would be heard IN Washington. I have no lost any love for Scotland as it was their decision to make! Do lets all drive on with our lives and do the best we can do after all we are just little sheep in the scheme of things. Bill

[octopus]

He's not being considered for anything more or anything less than any other prisoner in the same situation would be eligible for. I understand release, or transfer of non-British nationals in prison, is a standard procedure if they're terminally ill; the law makes no distinction on the grounds of what crime they actually committed, which I personally think is correct. There should be just one set of conditions which apply to everyone, not arbitrary rules which can be changed depending on a whole range of ifs and buts.

I certainly don't think that pressure from America should be considered as material to this; he's in prison in Scotland having been tried under Scottish law; their rules apply, period.

But a lot of Americans died, and it was an American aircraft; so by the laws of justice, they should have some say. I"m sorry, but 8 years in prison is not justice.

[Midas]

But a lot of Americans died, and it was an American aircraft; so by the laws of justice, they should have some say. I"m sorry, but 8 years in prison is not justice.

OK, it was an American plane and Americans died, however irrespective of that, the crime took place over Scottish airspace and the trial was held in Scotland according to Scottish law. That is how it should be; start allowing the introduction of variable factors and all of a sudden many legal cases could become a cross-jurisdictional nightmare with different countries clamouring to have their say according to their laws. If you've ever had any experience of the legal system you'd realise that's just not on for so many reasons.

[octopus]

OK, it was an American plane and Americans died, however irrespective of that, the crime took place over Scottish airspace and the trial was held in Scotland according to Scottish law. That is how it should be; start allowing the introduction of variable factors and all of a sudden many legal cases could become a cross-jurisdictional nightmare with different countries clamouring to have their say according to their laws. If you've ever had any experience of the legal system you'd realise that's just not on for so many reasons.

I understand what your saying. However, this no ordainary crime; 270 people died; and the majority were Americans. Despite what the "dusty old law books" say, I think the American goverment should have an unofficial say in the treatment of the person who commited this vile crime. As usual in the UK, the victims count for nothing.
I for one prefer the American form of justice; had this happened over New York, the bomber would have been looking forward to 108 years in prison, rather than 8 years; assuming he wasn"t executed of course. As I say, the US goverment considers the victims. I remember George Bush saying in an interview: "And so have the victims got rights, too". How many times does Gordon Brown say that? Never! as far as I can remember. If any of my relatives, or friends are unlucky enough share the fate of those poor devils, let it be in USA; there you will more likely get justice.

[Alba]

Political expediency would have suggested leaving him in prison to die but the SNP decided otherwise.

The evidence against Me-grahi was weak and he shouldn't have been convicted. If he'd had a proper jury trial he wouldn't have been. That's not to say he's innocent but that his guilty verdict is a joke. I would have left him in to die (just in case he was guilty) but apparently my fellow Scots don't seem to be punishing the SNP for this unpopular decision.

Brown must gaze in wonder at the public not blaming the SNP, whereas the public blames Labour for the expenses scandal.

What about PC Yvonne Fletcher's killers?

Those gits could be identified and weren't convicted.

[LA]

Political expediency would have suggested leaving him in prison to die but the SNP decided otherwise.

he evidence against Me-grahi was weak and he shouldn't have been convicted. If he'd had a proper jury trial he wouldn't have been. That's not to say he's innocent but that his guilty verdict is a joke. I would have left him in to die (just in case he was guilty) but apparently my fellow Scots don't seem to be punishing the SNP for this unpopular decision.

Brown must gaze in wonder at the public not blaming the SNP, whereas the public blames Labour for the expenses scandal.

Firstly, he was convicted under the legal system of Scotland. If the evidence was weak, then he should have continued the appeal process.

Secondly, it was an elected politician who decided to release him. That is outrageous. If anyone is to decide to release a convicted criminal it should be the Judiciary.

Politicians should have no say in the application of law. The Judiciary applies law, any release should have been done through the Judiciary.

The British Government should have prevented the release and ordered the case to go through the courts.

[oldbill]

Let's face it no system is perfect so we have to live with what we have or fight to have it changed. Yes I know in the USA there are many persons in jail that are innocent of the crimes they were convicted for but it is the only system there is! Life is not fair but it is the only life we have. Bill

[Alba]

I take your points and was not saying he should have been released.

The evidence was pathetic and he was convicted outside of Scotland by a panel of Scottish judges.

He was convicted on the word of a tailor who recognised him coming into his shop months previously.

The security services showed the tailor a photo and he said that's the man who belongs to the shirt fragment that you found that came from my shop.

The evidence would not have held up in a court of law and Me-grahi was continuing the appeal process... he just got sick and became eligible for compassionate release.

I assure you K McKaskil did not want to have to be put in that position but he was following Scottish law when he released him.

Politicians decide the law and in every country in the world they do have a say in the law. Who should have a say... you... me?

The British government has no authority over the Scottish judiciary and they as it turns out were clearly not unhappy.

[LA]

The evidence would not have held up in a court of law and Me-grahi was continuing the appeal process... he just got sick and became eligible for compassionate release.

He cancelled the appeal process because he was going to be released on "compassionate grounds" - What a load of balderdash that is.

Politicians decide the law and in every country in the world they do have a say in the law. Who should have a say... you... me?

Politicians make the law, The Judiciary applies the law. There should be no deviation from that.

The British government has no authority over the Scottish judiciary and they as it turns out were clearly not unhappy

Yet the British Government could have interfered and prevented his release.

[albannach]

[QUOTE=Liberal Authoritarian;86436]

He cancelled the appeal process because he was going to be released on "compassionate grounds" - What a load of balderdash that is

.

eh?

Politicians make the law, The Judiciary applies the law. There should be no deviation from that

.

meanwhile,back in the real world.......................

Yet the British Government could have interfered and prevented his release.

....but they didn`t!If and but and maybe is the basis of many of your arguments ,especially when it comes to scotland.

[albannach]

"The trial of the “Lockerbie bomber” was worse than a travesty of justice. Evidence that never came to court proves his innocence

The hysteria over the release of the so-called Lockerbie bomber reveals much about the political and media class on both sides of the Atlantic, especially Britain. From Gordon Brown's "repulsion" to Barack Obama's "outrage", the theatre of lies and hypocrisy is dutifully attended by those
who call themselves journalists. "But what if Megrahi lives longer than three months?" whined a BBC reporter to the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond. "What will you say to your constituents, then?"

Horror of horrors that a dying man should live longer than prescribed before he "pays" for his "heinous crime": the description of the Scottish justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, whose "compassion" allowed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to go home to Libya to "face justice from a higher power". Amen.

The American satirist Larry David once addressed a voluble crony as "a babbling brook of bull****". Such eloquence summarises the circus of Megrahi's release.

No one in authority has had the guts to state the truth about the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 above the Scottish village of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, in which 270 people were killed. The governments in England and Scotland in effect blackmailed Megrahi into dropping his appeal as a condition of his immediate release. Of course there were oil and arms deals under way with Libya; but had Megrahi proceeded with his appeal, some 600 pages of new and deliberately suppressed evidence would have set the seal on his innocence and given us more than a glimpse of how and why he was stitched up for the benefit of "strategic interests".

“The endgame came down to damage limitation," said the former CIA officer Robert Baer, who took part in the original investigation, "because the evidence amassed by [Megrahi's] appeal is explosive and extremely damning to the system of justice." New witnesses would show that it was impossible for Megrahi to have bought clothes that were found in the wreckage of the Pan Am aircraft - he was convicted on the word of a Maltese shopowner who claimed to have sold him the clothes, then gave a false description of him in 19 separate statements and even failed to recognise him in the courtroom.

The new evidence would have shown that a fragment of a circuit board and bomb timer, "discovered" in the Scottish countryside and said to have been in Megrahi's suitcase, was probably a plant. A forensic scientist found no trace of an explosion on it. The new evidence would demonstrate the impossibility of the bomb beginning its journey in Malta before it was "transferred" through two airports undetected to Flight 103.

A "key secret witness" at the original trial, who claimed to have seen Megrahi and his co-accused, al-Alim Khalifa Fahimah (who was acquitted), loading the bomb on to the plane at Frankfurt, was bribed by the US authorities holding him as a "protected witness". The defence exposed him as a CIA informer who stood to collect, on the Libyans' conviction, up to $4m as a reward.

Megrahi was convicted by three Scottish judges sitting in a courtroom in "neutral" Holland. There was no jury. One of the few reporters to sit through the long and often farcical proceedings was the late Paul Foot, whose landmark investigation in Private Eye exposed it as a cacophony of blunders, deceptions and lies: a whitewash. The Scottish judges, while admitting a "mass of conflicting evidence" and rejecting the fantasies of the CIA informer, found Megrahi guilty on hearsay and unproven circumstance. Their 90-page "opinion", wrote Foot, "is a remarkable document that claims an honoured place in the history of British miscarriages of justice". (His report, Lockerbie - the Flight from Justice, can be downloaded from www.private-eye.co.uk for £5.)

Foot reported that most of the staff of the US embassy in Moscow who had reserved seats on Pan Am flights from Frankfurt cancelled their bookings when they were alerted by US intelligence that a terrorist attack was planned. He named Margaret Thatcher the "architect" of the cover-up after revealing that she killed the independent inquiry her transport secretary Cecil Parkinson had promised the Lockerbie families; and in a phone call to President George Bush Sr on 11 January 1990, she agreed to "low-key" the disaster after their intelligence services had reported "beyond doubt" that the Lockerbie bomb had been placed by a Palestinian group, contracted by Tehran, as a reprisal for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by a US warship in Iranian territorial waters. Among the 290 dead were 66 children. In 1990, the ship's captain was awarded the Legion of Merit by Bush Sr "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer".

Perversely, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, Bush needed Iran's support as he built a "coalition" to expel his wayward client from an American oil colony. The only country that defied Bush and backed Iraq was Libya. "Like lazy and overfed fish," wrote Foot, "the British media jumped to the bait. In almost unanimous chorus, they engaged in furious vilification and open warmongering against Libya." The framing of Libya for the Lockerbie crime was inevitable. Since then, a US defence intelligence agency report, obtained under Freedom of Information, has confirmed these truths and identified the likely bomber; it was to be the centrepiece of Megrahi's defence.

In 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Megrahi's case for appeal. "The commission is of the view," said its chairman, Graham Forbes, "based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice."

The words "miscarriage of justice" are entirely missing from the current furore, with Kenny MacAskill reassuring the baying mob that the scapegoat will soon face justice from that "higher power". What a disgrace"

[oldbill]

Like I always say: There are a lot of people in the USA jails thast are not guilty also. The systems used are not perefect but I wish they were. Hell in the USA money can buy your freedom in many cases. I wish there were a better eay! Best to you all!! Bill

[Major Sinic]

Political expediency would have suggested leaving him in prison to die but the SNP decided otherwise.

The evidence against Me-grahi was weak and he shouldn't have been convicted. If he'd had a proper jury trial he wouldn't have been. That's not to say he's innocent but that his guilty verdict is a joke. I would have left him in to die (just in case he was guilty) but apparently my fellow Scots don't seem to be punishing the SNP for this unpopular decision.

Brown must gaze in wonder at the public not blaming the SNP, whereas the public blames Labour for the expenses scandal.

What about PC Yvonne Fletcher's killers?

Those gits could be identified and weren't convicted.

Political expediency did exactly what you would expect it to do. It released a convicted terrorist ( I pass no comment on his guilt or otherwise) in exchange for an oil exploration deal by BP. Moral rights and wrongs do not enter into such decisions. Personally I think this commercial contract is of more value to Britain than Megrahi in a UK prison.

[Alba]

He cancelled the appeal process because he was going to be released on "compassionate grounds" - What a load of balderdash that is.



Politicians make the law, The Judiciary applies the law. There should be no deviation from that.



Yet the British Government could have interfered and prevented his release.

Do you always just say things because you think they're right?


The British government has no judicial power in these matters in Scotland following the devolution agreements. It's a fact.

Jack Straw has the power to pardon criminals and he's a politician, and so is K McKaskil.

Me-grahi was told if the appeal continues you cannot apply for release on compassionate ground and so suddenly his appeal was halted. You do the arithmetic.

Laughable that you believe these things without questioning anything.

[LA]

Jack Straw has the power to pardon criminals and he's a politician, and so is K McKaskil.

Neither Jack Straw or K McKaskil should have the power to pardon criminals.

Me-grahi was told if the appeal continues you cannot apply for release on compassionate ground and so suddenly his appeal was halted. You do the arithmetic.

I am aware of that. Like I have said before, there should be no such thing as compassionate grounds. If the evidence against him was weak, he should have continued the appeals process and received a pardon from the Judiciary.

[Alba]

Neither Jack Straw or K McKaskil should have the power to pardon criminals.



I am aware of that. Like I have said before, there should be no such thing as compassionate grounds. If the evidence against him was weak, he should have continued the appeals process and received a pardon from the Judiciary.

He's dying, logic would have it he would get out of prison any way he can.

The evidence against me-grahi was way worse than weak. You or I would not have been convicted in a Scottish court on such grounds and the trial would have been thrown out before it began.

Thus, T Blair (and Brown evidently) have some big questions to answer regarding the 'deal in the desert'.

[LA]

The evidence against me-grahi was way worse than weak. You or I would not have been convicted in a Scottish court on such grounds and the trial would have been thrown out before it began.

If it was that "non existent" an appeal would have been over quickly.

[Alba]

If it was that "non existent" an appeal would have been over quickly.

The situation was complicated and cumbersome but the feelind is that he would have been cleared on appeal.