Anger over ‘interference’ in Lockerbie appeal Lawyer criticises Scottish ministers’ lack of action THE LOCKERBIE bomber's lawyer has criticised the Scottish government's silence over allegations that foreign secretary David Miliband "interfered" in his client's appeal by demanding to keep secret a document which could potentially clear him of the terrorist outrage.
Tony Kelly said Holyrood's failure to publicly discuss the UK government's attempts to block disclosure on the grounds of national security was at odds with first minister Alex Salmond's comments two weeks ago on a prisoner transfer agreement signed between the UK and Libya over the return of Libyan nationals held in British jails.
Last week, the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh heard that Elish Angiolini, the Lord Advocate, was prepared to reveal the document provided by an unnamed foreign power, which has been uncovered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's (SCCRC) review of the case, but kept from convicted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's defence team at his trial.
However, Lord Davidson, QC, the Advocate General who is Westminster's legal representative in Scottish matters affecting the UK, urged at the behest of Miliband that an immunity be issued so the document is not made public on the grounds of national security.
Miliband and Lord Davidson's desire for the document to remain secret led to an astonishing courtroom claim by Maggie Scott QC, for Megrahi's defence team, that the UK government was involved in unwarranted "interference" in a Scottish criminal case.
Last night, Kelly said: "This is the first time we've ever had a (UK public immunity) certificate signed during a criminal process in Scotland. Why aren't the Scottish ministers jumping up and down and screaming from the rooftops about UK interference?
"What does the Crown Office have to say? How can they make a comment one week and not the next?"
Kelly added that the highly sensitive document at the centre of the dispute is potentially so important that it "could form the winning point of his appeal".
The document, thought to contain information about the electronic timer used to explode the bomb aboard Pan Am Flight 103, that killed 270 people in December 1988, was one of six factors in the SCCRC decision to refer Megrahi's conviction to the appeal courts last May.
Meanwhile, pressure intensified yesterday for the document to be disclosed.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the atrocity, claimed in a letter published in The Herald that Dumfries and Galloway Police, who investigated the attack, already possessed a document from a foreign power which he believes could contain details of the timer.
He said it could show that the one planted on the flight was a Syrian-made fixed-timer, rather than a "multi-adjustable" device manufactured by the now-defunct firm Mebo, as was claimed at Megrahi's trial. If that was the case, Swire added, it could not have originated in Malta, as the prosecution outlined, because it exploded only 38 minutes after the flight took off from Heathrow.
Swire wrote: "Why would a terrorist in Malta use a timer setting that would only clear Heathrow by 38 minutes, when his alleged device was perfectly capable of lasting until the aircraft would be well out over the Atlantic? And in December, just before Christmas, with two changes of aircraft and endless possibilities for delayed flights."
Professor Robert Black, the architect of the Lockerbie trial, said the supposedly secret document was probably too old to be damaging to the UK or the country where it originated.
He said: "If the Lord Advocate thinks this document ought to be handed over to Megrahi's legal team, it's somewhat surprising the Westminster government is saying no. If this document was handed over to the prosecution in the Lockerbie case in 1996, how realistic is it for UK national security in 2008 to be affected?"
Ex-CIA agent, Robert Baer, who worked on the Lockerbie investigation and believes Iran was responsible, said: "There's no reason why it shouldn't be presented to the court, apart from the fact there may be a contract not to reveal co-operation between two
security organisations, such as MI6 and the CIA."
A spokesman for the Scottish government said it "does not offer a running commentary, or indeed, any kind of comment on court cases."
A Crown Office spokesman said: "The Crown made it clear that the lord advocate does not consider the UK government is interfering."
The SCCRC was unavailable for
comment. The judges in the case will publish a decision on the issue at a
later date.
|
|
Posted by: Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO, Zurich/Switzerland on 11:27pm Sat 23 Feb 08
Disgrace, Disgrace for the "Westminster Justice"...
Governmental interference, political intrigues and suppression instead of civil and human rights !!!
The Appeal Court in Edinburgh was reported on(20.2.2008) that the Scottish Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC had agreed to open the secret text about the electronic MEBO MST-13 timer in the document under "national security" which relieves Libya and its official Mr Megrahi.
But the UK Government by Advocate General Lord Davidson QC, blocked the progress and has argued that it is not in the public interest to release the secret document. He claimed: "The national security was at stake"!!!
With the support of the clearty Affidafit,
MEBO is very confident that the Libyan Official Mr. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (political hostage) gets soon back his honour and liberty after the Scottish Appeal Court in Edinburgh, has revised its decision in the "Lockerbie-Affair".
The political hostage and "Lockerbie victim 271" Abdelbaset AL MEGRAHI, suffering since April 6th, 1999 until now
296,675,090 painful seconds,innocent in scottish prisons...
More truth news on:
www.lockerbie.ch
Disgrace, Disgrace for the "Westminster Justice"...
Governmental interference, political intrigues and suppression instead of civil and human rights !!!
The Appeal Court in Edinburgh was reported on(20.2.2008) that the Scottish Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC had agreed to open the secret text about the electronic MEBO MST-13 timer in the document under "national security" which relieves Libya and its official Mr Megrahi.
But the UK Government by Advocate General Lord Davidson QC, blocked the progress and has argued that it is not in the public interest to release the secret document. He claimed: "The national security was at stake"!!!
With the support of the clearty Affidafit,
MEBO is very confident that the Libyan Official Mr. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (political hostage) gets soon back his honour and liberty after the Scottish Appeal Court in Edinburgh, has revised its decision in the "Lockerbie-Affair".
The political hostage and "Lockerbie victim 271" Abdelbaset AL MEGRAHI, suffering since April 6th, 1999 until now
296,675,090 painful seconds,innocent in scottish prisons...
More truth news on:
www.lockerbie.ch
Posted by: red:cliffe62, brisbane on hols on 12:23am Sun 24 Feb 08
Anything to do with weaponry in the middle east is an issue for Westminster.
Whilst various countries demand sancions against Iran, the fact remains that Israel refuses to advise the UN or anyone else of its nuclear position, an action which were it an arab country probably result in some serious action as a threat to peace in the middle east.
If the MEBO timer in Lockerbie is shown to have nothing to do with Libya, and the time line confirms that this was known years ago, then my theory is that the timer may even come from a friendly country, either US, America, Israel or France. Better to claim it was Libyan than it was produced by a country which it is claimed is looking after our interests.
If it was Iranian in 1996, then apart from not being able to incarcerate any Libyans, it would have been good PR to link Iran to the matter. America and London demanded a sacrificial lamb; the only national security that is threatened is that of the politicians who knowingly falsified the gfacts to produce a contrived outcome.
I do not know whether Megrahi was guilty, but I know that the whole story if it were known would contradict the official events.
Anything to do with weaponry in the middle east is an issue for Westminster.
Whilst various countries demand sancions against Iran, the fact remains that Israel refuses to advise the UN or anyone else of its nuclear position, an action which were it an arab country probably result in some serious action as a threat to peace in the middle east.
If the MEBO timer in Lockerbie is shown to have nothing to do with Libya, and the time line confirms that this was known years ago, then my theory is that the timer may even come from a friendly country, either US, America, Israel or France. Better to claim it was Libyan than it was produced by a country which it is claimed is looking after our interests.
If it was Iranian in 1996, then apart from not being able to incarcerate any Libyans, it would have been good PR to link Iran to the matter. America and London demanded a sacrificial lamb; the only national security that is threatened is that of the politicians who knowingly falsified the gfacts to produce a contrived outcome.
I do not know whether Megrahi was guilty, but I know that the whole story if it were known would contradict the official events.
Posted by: Big Wullie, Glasgow on 4:01am Sun 24 Feb 08
The Lockerbie case once again giving cause for concern.
Disclosure rears it's ugly head once again in Scots Courts.
All too often now most cases referred by SCCRC all have a disclosure issue one way or another, Either it wasn't disclosed to the defence or the defence never saw fit to disclose it to their clients.
Our justice Secretary has sole responsibility to see that justice is done and he should certainly be standing on his own two feet and not allowing England to Interfere in matters of Scots Justice.
Holland & Sinclair cases seem apt for Megrahi to claim now
The Lockerbie case once again giving cause for concern.
Disclosure rears it's ugly head once again in Scots Courts.
All too often now most cases referred by SCCRC all have a disclosure issue one way or another, Either it wasn't disclosed to the defence or the defence never saw fit to disclose it to their clients.
Our justice Secretary has sole responsibility to see that justice is done and he should certainly be standing on his own two feet and not allowing England to Interfere in matters of Scots Justice.
Holland & Sinclair cases seem apt for Megrahi to claim now
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 6:21am Sun 24 Feb 08
The polis were too busy looking for miniature vodkas, not to act under instructions from Lonodn.
The polis were too busy looking for miniature vodkas, not to act under instructions from Lonodn.
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 6:21am Sun 24 Feb 08
The polis were too busy looking for miniature vodkas, not to act under instructions from Lonodn.
The polis were too busy looking for miniature vodkas, not to act under instructions from Lonodn.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 8:15am Sun 24 Feb 08
In the Hootsman:
L[quote]abour ministers now claim that, as matters such as energy and defence relate to national security, no devolved government should be able to defy London's will.[/quote]
Personally I'm sick of the "National Security" argument. Don't believe it - naw.
In the Hootsman:
L
abour ministers now claim that, as matters such as energy and defence relate to national security, no devolved government should be able to defy London's will.
Personally I'm sick of the "National Security" argument. Don't believe it - naw.
Posted by: Polis on 8:51am Sun 24 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Donald Anderson[/bold] wrote:
The polis were too busy looking for miniature vodkas, not to act under instructions from Lonodn.[/quote] Back to double posting, Donald? Which possible thefts should the polis not investigate, in your view?
Donald Anderson wrote:
The polis were too busy looking for miniature vodkas, not to act under instructions from Lonodn.
Back to double posting, Donald? Which possible thefts should the polis not investigate, in your view?
Posted by: Astonished, Inverclyde on 8:57am Sun 24 Feb 08
Dear Polis -
How about £950 illegally requested by Charlie Gordon (and his flats ) ?
How about Trish Godman's flat bought from her criminal son ?
How about Wendy's £12,000 obtained by deception ?
How about the Mr Martin's dodgy dealings?
need I go on ?
Dear Polis -
How about £950 illegally requested by Charlie Gordon (and his flats ) ?
How about Trish Godman's flat bought from her criminal son ?
How about Wendy's £12,000 obtained by deception ?
How about the Mr Martin's dodgy dealings?
need I go on ?
Posted by: Polis on 9:01am Sun 24 Feb 08
Tommy Sheridan is quoted in another story in the SH today commenting in some detail on the charges of theft against his wife - if he is making comments on some aspects of the case no doubt he will be happy to answer all questions put to him. I see Mrs Sheridan has retained Aamer Anwar as her lawyer so that's alright!
Tommy Sheridan is quoted in another story in the SH today commenting in some detail on the charges of theft against his wife - if he is making comments on some aspects of the case no doubt he will be happy to answer all questions put to him. I see Mrs Sheridan has retained Aamer Anwar as her lawyer so that's alright!
Posted by: Polis on 9:04am Sun 24 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Astonished[/bold] wrote:
Dear Polis - How about £950 illegally requested by Charlie Gordon (and his flats ) ? How about Trish Godman's flat bought from her criminal son ? How about Wendy's £12,000 obtained by deception ? How about the Mr Martin's dodgy dealings? need I go on ?[/quote] I asked Donald which allegations of theft should not be investigated and you suggest a list of alleged wrong-doing the covering up of which would benefit New Labour. I disrespectfully disagree with you - I think all of the things you list [italic]should[/italic] be investigated by the police.
Astonished wrote:
Dear Polis - How about £950 illegally requested by Charlie Gordon (and his flats ) ? How about Trish Godman's flat bought from her criminal son ? How about Wendy's £12,000 obtained by deception ? How about the Mr Martin's dodgy dealings? need I go on ?
I asked Donald which allegations of theft should not be investigated and you suggest a list of alleged wrong-doing the covering up of which would benefit New Labour. I disrespectfully disagree with you - I think all of the things you list
should be investigated by the police.
Posted by: Joe Mellon, Lodeve, France on 10:39am Sun 24 Feb 08
There is the rule of law, and there is the convenience of the executive (the government).
In this case a possibly innocent person has been sacrificed to the convenience of the government. Bad enough.
Worse: the rule of law has also been sacrificed.
The message to the courts, lawyers and all citizens is: you don't matter chicken sh*t - we have power and for us the courts are just costume theatre.
It is a bit like the Electoral Commission (politicians) deciding whether the law of the land is to be applied or not (to politicians).
Banana Republic!
There is the rule of law, and there is the convenience of the executive (the government).
In this case a possibly innocent person has been sacrificed to the convenience of the government. Bad enough.
Worse: the rule of law has also been sacrificed.
The message to the courts, lawyers and all citizens is: you don't matter chicken sh*t - we have power and for us the courts are just costume theatre.
It is a bit like the Electoral Commission (politicians) deciding whether the law of the land is to be applied or not (to politicians).
Banana Republic!
Posted by: Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO, Zurich/Switzerland on 10:43am Sun 24 Feb 08
Disgrace, Disgrace for the "Westminster Justice"...
Governmental interference, political intrigues and suppression instead of civil and human rights !!!
The Appeal Court in Edinburgh was reported on (20.2.2008) that the Scottish Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC had agreed to open the secret text about the electronic MEBO MST-13 timer in the document under "national security" which relieves Libya and its official Mr Megrahi.
But the UK Government by Advocate General Lord Davidson QC, blocked the progress and has argued that it is not in the public interest to release the secret document. He claimed:
"The national security was at stake"!!!
With the support of the clearty Affidavit, MEBO is very confident that the Libyan Official Mr. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (political hostage) gets soon back his honour and liberty after the Scottish Appeal Court in Edinburgh, has revised its decision in the "Lockerbie-Affair".
This case has shaken us confidence in the British Justice and has cast a dark shadow on the credibility of the international community to transcend politics in the interest of justice.
In the interest of justice, Mr. Al-Megrahi should be let free immediately, if the UK government can not ope the "security documet" and reveal the evidence against him.
The political hostage and "Lockerbie victim 271" Abdelbaset AL MEGRAHI, suffering since April 6th, 1999 until now 296,675,090 painful seconds, innocent in scottish prisons...
More truth news on:
www.lockerbie.ch
Disgrace, Disgrace for the "Westminster Justice"...
Governmental interference, political intrigues and suppression instead of civil and human rights !!!
The Appeal Court in Edinburgh was reported on (20.2.2008) that the Scottish Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC had agreed to open the secret text about the electronic MEBO MST-13 timer in the document under "national security" which relieves Libya and its official Mr Megrahi.
But the UK Government by Advocate General Lord Davidson QC, blocked the progress and has argued that it is not in the public interest to release the secret document. He claimed:
"The national security was at stake"!!!
With the support of the clearty Affidavit, MEBO is very confident that the Libyan Official Mr. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (political hostage) gets soon back his honour and liberty after the Scottish Appeal Court in Edinburgh, has revised its decision in the "Lockerbie-Affair".
This case has shaken us confidence in the British Justice and has cast a dark shadow on the credibility of the international community to transcend politics in the interest of justice.
In the interest of justice, Mr. Al-Megrahi should be let free immediately, if the UK government can not ope the "security documet" and reveal the evidence against him.
The political hostage and "Lockerbie victim 271" Abdelbaset AL MEGRAHI, suffering since April 6th, 1999 until now 296,675,090 painful seconds, innocent in scottish prisons...
More truth news on:
www.lockerbie.ch
Posted by: Kinghob on 12:19pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Tommy Sheridan was cleared in a court of law, and we all detest the News of the Screws, so if he got his nipples tweaked-who cares?
If the verdict still stands, the news of the world 'journalists/editor' (who use their English only edition to slag off Scotland as subsidy junkies at every opportunity) should be investigated for telling lies-that didn't happen.
I think that there has been more made of Sheridan's wife having a few whisky miniatures and a monogrammed paper hanky set with 'BA' on them then Wendy Alexander and all the Labour criminals we have witnessed cocking up what was once a half decent party with a social conscience.
Here is what Ian Hamilton QC had to say on his blog:
[quote]Am I the only person in Scotland who is ashamed? Tommy Sheridan took on a powerful newspaper and won.
Now he and his wife are the subject of a police operation which will end no one knows where. Its aim however is clear. Its aim is the destruction of a couple who dared to challenge the mighty.
What sort of society do we live in where millions of police hours are spent to support only the rich and powerful?
If Tommy Sheridan had lost his case would the police have tried to show that the News of the World witnesses were lying? Such a suggestion is too ludicrous to contemplate. Instead they try to bring down the man who beat Goliath.
Tommy Sheridan has been vindicated by a jury of his peers. A jury heard the evidence and awarded him damages. It is no part of the duty of our police to prove the jury wrong and a newspaper right.
Edinburgh and Lothians Police are conducting a vendetta against justice itself.
Who can curb these officers who are clearly out of control?
Ian Hamilton QC[/quote]
Exactly how is it in the Scottish public interest to see Wendy Alexander claim herself as 'exonerated' and hardly mentioned in two months by our 'Scottish' media and yet having the police in Scotland work so hard on behalf of the News of the World, a paper that, as I mentioned, produces disgraceful articles in their English only editions Like "[bold]Scot-Free[/bold]: Scotland has the highest state spending in the world.......paid for by England" being the opening line and it gets worse from there.
The News of the Screws (appropriate title) is a disgrace and we should desist from giving them any of our money.
Tommy Sheridan was cleared in a court of law, and we all detest the News of the Screws, so if he got his nipples tweaked-who cares?
If the verdict still stands, the news of the world 'journalists/editor' (who use their English only edition to slag off Scotland as subsidy junkies at every opportunity) should be investigated for telling lies-that didn't happen.
I think that there has been more made of Sheridan's wife having a few whisky miniatures and a monogrammed paper hanky set with 'BA' on them then Wendy Alexander and all the Labour criminals we have witnessed cocking up what was once a half decent party with a social conscience.
Here is what Ian Hamilton QC had to say on his blog:
Am I the only person in Scotland who is ashamed? Tommy Sheridan took on a powerful newspaper and won.
Now he and his wife are the subject of a police operation which will end no one knows where. Its aim however is clear. Its aim is the destruction of a couple who dared to challenge the mighty.
What sort of society do we live in where millions of police hours are spent to support only the rich and powerful?
If Tommy Sheridan had lost his case would the police have tried to show that the News of the World witnesses were lying? Such a suggestion is too ludicrous to contemplate. Instead they try to bring down the man who beat Goliath.
Tommy Sheridan has been vindicated by a jury of his peers. A jury heard the evidence and awarded him damages. It is no part of the duty of our police to prove the jury wrong and a newspaper right.
Edinburgh and Lothians Police are conducting a vendetta against justice itself.
Who can curb these officers who are clearly out of control?
Ian Hamilton QC
Exactly how is it in the Scottish public interest to see Wendy Alexander claim herself as 'exonerated' and hardly mentioned in two months by our 'Scottish' media and yet having the police in Scotland work so hard on behalf of the News of the World, a paper that, as I mentioned, produces disgraceful articles in their English only editions Like "
Scot-Free: Scotland has the highest state spending in the world.......paid for by England" being the opening line and it gets worse from there.
The News of the Screws (appropriate title) is a disgrace and we should desist from giving them any of our money.
Posted by: Astonished, Inverclyde on 1:35pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Dear Polis - I am glad you agree that the four instances I mentioned should be investigated, however they are not going to be investigated.
Would you agree that this reveals an appalling double standard and the chief constables involved should be sacked ?
Sorry for the delay - but I would appreciate a reply. I'll check in later.
Dear Polis - I am glad you agree that the four instances I mentioned should be investigated, however they are not going to be investigated.
Would you agree that this reveals an appalling double standard and the chief constables involved should be sacked ?
Sorry for the delay - but I would appreciate a reply. I'll check in later.
Posted by: Astonished, Inverclyde on 1:37pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Kinghob - I agree entirely with you and Mr Hamilton - A great post, Thanks
Kinghob - I agree entirely with you and Mr Hamilton - A great post, Thanks
Posted by: Observer on 1:43pm Sun 24 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Polis[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Donald Anderson[/bold] wrote: The polis were too busy looking for miniature vodkas, not to act under instructions from Lonodn.[/quote] Back to double posting, Donald? Which possible thefts should the polis not investigate, in your view? [/quote] Generally speaking in a civilised society it is a good idea for the Police not to become embroiled in politically motivated with hunts.
Polis wrote:
Donald Anderson wrote: The polis were too busy looking for miniature vodkas, not to act under instructions from Lonodn.
Back to double posting, Donald? Which possible thefts should the polis not investigate, in your view?
Generally speaking in a civilised society it is a good idea for the Police not to become embroiled in politically motivated with hunts.
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 2:57pm Sun 24 Feb 08
I don't like what is being done to the Sheridans but I think we need to bear a few other things in mind too. Tommy won his court case yes but a perjury inquiry was then ordered by the judge, was it not? Perjury is a very serious offence. A person, or persons, lied under oath. I think the NOTW also appealed the verdict didn't they, so there is an appeal too.
I don't object to the Police going ahead with their investigations relating to the perjury investigation or the appeal but it does appear the Sheridans are the ones they are concentrating on and they have done themselves no favours by making such a mess of it. Having BA "property" in her home certainly hasn't helped Gail much either but I think the Police decision to notify BA formally about that and put her job at risk was appalling and certainly suggests there is an element of vindictiveness involved in this whole thing. It is doing a lot of damage to the reputation of the Police.
Elsewhere of course we do have politicians in Scotland who DID break the law and admitted it publicly yet the Police didn't want to get involved in those matters. It is therefore natural that many are highlighting the double standards in operation here and questioning the integrity of the Police when it certainly appears that one Party in Scotland is above the law while others will be hounded. It stinks.
I don't like what is being done to the Sheridans but I think we need to bear a few other things in mind too. Tommy won his court case yes but a perjury inquiry was then ordered by the judge, was it not? Perjury is a very serious offence. A person, or persons, lied under oath. I think the NOTW also appealed the verdict didn't they, so there is an appeal too.
I don't object to the Police going ahead with their investigations relating to the perjury investigation or the appeal but it does appear the Sheridans are the ones they are concentrating on and they have done themselves no favours by making such a mess of it. Having BA "property" in her home certainly hasn't helped Gail much either but I think the Police decision to notify BA formally about that and put her job at risk was appalling and certainly suggests there is an element of vindictiveness involved in this whole thing. It is doing a lot of damage to the reputation of the Police.
Elsewhere of course we do have politicians in Scotland who DID break the law and admitted it publicly yet the Police didn't want to get involved in those matters. It is therefore natural that many are highlighting the double standards in operation here and questioning the integrity of the Police when it certainly appears that one Party in Scotland is above the law while others will be hounded. It stinks.
Posted by: Observer on 3:03pm Sun 24 Feb 08
If the Sheridans get done for perjury then fine, if they did it they can pay the price. But the actions of the Police is seeking out material to add to their (potential) destruction should concern all of us. The Police are supposed to be impartial and not politically motivated. That just doesn't seem to be the case.
If the Sheridans get done for perjury then fine, if they did it they can pay the price. But the actions of the Police is seeking out material to add to their (potential) destruction should concern all of us. The Police are supposed to be impartial and not politically motivated. That just doesn't seem to be the case.
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 3:43pm Sun 24 Feb 08
I can't believe this thread has gone the Sheridan route. This article is about the Westminster Government trying to conceal the truth about Lockerbie. Does no one care about that?
I can't believe this thread has gone the Sheridan route. This article is about the Westminster Government trying to conceal the truth about Lockerbie. Does no one care about that?
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 3:46pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Clares Says "No fair."[quote] Does no one care about that?[/quote]Agent Orange bores me to death.
Clares Says "No fair."
Does no one care about that?
Agent Orange bores me to death.
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 3:52pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Hi LA. I can't get bored about the Lockerbie issue or Al Megrahi either. My belief is the truth about Lockerbie will probably eclipse Blair's lies over Iraq.
Hi LA. I can't get bored about the Lockerbie issue or Al Megrahi either. My belief is the truth about Lockerbie will probably eclipse Blair's lies over Iraq.
Posted by: Jwil, Lanarkshire on 4:45pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Is it not true to say that for any court case, where someone wins and someone loses, then some the witnesses will not have been truthful, and as far as I know these witnesses are not pursued for perjury? So why is it happening in the case of the Sheridans?
Have I got it completely wrong?
Is it not true to say that for any court case, where someone wins and someone loses, then some the witnesses will not have been truthful, and as far as I know these witnesses are not pursued for perjury? So why is it happening in the case of the Sheridans?
Have I got it completely wrong?
Posted by: Polis on 4:55pm Sun 24 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Astonished[/bold] wrote:
Dear Polis - I am glad you agree that the four instances I mentioned should be investigated, however they are not going to be investigated. Would you agree that this reveals an appalling double standard and the chief constables involved should be sacked ? Sorry for the delay - but I would appreciate a reply. I'll check in later.[/quote] Please pay attention - I asked Donald what should not be investigated and you gave those four examples. What he was suggesting, I think though we shall never know as he is incapable of answering a direct question directly, is that allegations of theft involving Mrs Sheridan should not be investigated - do you share that view?
As to your questions - I assume you mean the failure to properly investigate Labour corruption is a double standard when compared to investigating the finding of possible stolen propoerty in Mrs Sheridan's house - I agree, if there is evidence against anyone then it should be pursued. I don't know that having the chief constable fired would help but I would be happy to see any of them go.
So how about it, second time asking, do you agree with DOnald's rather weird post "The polis were too busy looking for miniature vodkas, not to act under instructions from Lonodn."?
Astonished wrote:
Dear Polis - I am glad you agree that the four instances I mentioned should be investigated, however they are not going to be investigated. Would you agree that this reveals an appalling double standard and the chief constables involved should be sacked ? Sorry for the delay - but I would appreciate a reply. I'll check in later.
Please pay attention - I asked Donald what should not be investigated and you gave those four examples. What he was suggesting, I think though we shall never know as he is incapable of answering a direct question directly, is that allegations of theft involving Mrs Sheridan should not be investigated - do you share that view?
As to your questions - I assume you mean the failure to properly investigate Labour corruption is a double standard when compared to investigating the finding of possible stolen propoerty in Mrs Sheridan's house - I agree, if there is evidence against anyone then it should be pursued. I don't know that having the chief constable fired would help but I would be happy to see any of them go.
So how about it, second time asking, do you agree with DOnald's rather weird post "The polis were too busy looking for miniature vodkas, not to act under instructions from Lonodn."?
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 5:49pm Sun 24 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Jwil[/bold] wrote:
Is it not true to say that for any court case, where someone wins and someone loses, then some the witnesses will not have been truthful, and as far as I know these witnesses are not pursued for perjury? So why is it happening in the case of the Sheridans? Have I got it completely wrong? [/quote] JWil, yes you have. I don't know that there is perjury in every court case. People may tell wee lies every now and again but lying under oath is something else again.
In this particular case however it was obvious that perjury had taken place and the judge ordered an investigation. That's what is happening now.
Jwil wrote:
Is it not true to say that for any court case, where someone wins and someone loses, then some the witnesses will not have been truthful, and as far as I know these witnesses are not pursued for perjury? So why is it happening in the case of the Sheridans? Have I got it completely wrong?
JWil, yes you have. I don't know that there is perjury in every court case. People may tell wee lies every now and again but lying under oath is something else again.
In this particular case however it was obvious that perjury had taken place and the judge ordered an investigation. That's what is happening now.
Posted by: Astonished, Inverclyde on 7:16pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Hi Polis - Thanks for the reply.
Firing the chief constables for failing to do their duty would ensure that their replacements would be more likely to properly carry out their duties.
The reporting of Mrs Sheridan to her employers and the newspapers has all the hallmarks of a witchunt. Even you must agree that this smacks of political influence, hence Donald's reference to London.
Finally do you think it is reasonable for Mrs Sheridan to be publicly condemned for a couple of miniatures - yet all the Labour politicians to escape any kind of an investigation ?
Hi Polis - Thanks for the reply.
Firing the chief constables for failing to do their duty would ensure that their replacements would be more likely to properly carry out their duties.
The reporting of Mrs Sheridan to her employers and the newspapers has all the hallmarks of a witchunt. Even you must agree that this smacks of political influence, hence Donald's reference to London.
Finally do you think it is reasonable for Mrs Sheridan to be publicly condemned for a couple of miniatures - yet all the Labour politicians to escape any kind of an investigation ?
Posted by: Observer on 7:25pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Jiwil - it is very unusual to have a perjury investigation as a result of a civil action. The Judge ordered the investigation as it was in the public interest - the same public who were apparently not interested enough to warrant a full examination of Wendygate. But leaving that to the side, the issue I now have is with Lothian and Borders Police acting outwith their remit, using a search warrant obtained to investigate alleged perjury as a basis for reporting to Mrs Sheridan's employers the presence of some trifling articles from her work in her home. She has now been suspended which means she might be sacked. To me the Police action is vindictive and politically motivated which is unacceptable and ought to concern us all.
Jiwil - it is very unusual to have a perjury investigation as a result of a civil action. The Judge ordered the investigation as it was in the public interest - the same public who were apparently not interested enough to warrant a full examination of Wendygate. But leaving that to the side, the issue I now have is with Lothian and Borders Police acting outwith their remit, using a search warrant obtained to investigate alleged perjury as a basis for reporting to Mrs Sheridan's employers the presence of some trifling articles from her work in her home. She has now been suspended which means she might be sacked. To me the Police action is vindictive and politically motivated which is unacceptable and ought to concern us all.
Posted by: Chris, Glasgow on 7:41pm Sun 24 Feb 08
[quote]Jim Swire...claimed in a letter published in The Herald that it could show that the one planted on the flight was a Syrian-made fixed-timer, rather than a "multi-adjustable" device manufactured by the now-defunct firm Mebo, as was claimed at Megrahi's trial. If that was the case, Swire added, it could not have originated in Malta, as the prosecution outlined, because it exploded only 38 minutes after the flight took off from Heathrow.
[/quote]
That has to be the silliest piece of logic to say with certainty that the deficient timer - which it was in either case as the bomb was always meant to explode over the Atlantic - means Megrahi is innocent. Dr Swire is searching for any reason at all to have a yet another public enquiry into his tragic loss despite the most lengthy public trial in Scottish legal history.
There is little doubt that Megrahi and his government bosses assisted the Iranian revenge on the USA by their actions in Malta which allowed a Syrian made bomb to murder these people without leaving a trail to Iran. If that is not so, why did Gadaffi accept responsibility and pay millions of pounds in damages to the families of every victim. Because they were innocent??? Don't think so...
Jim Swire...claimed in a letter published in The Herald that it could show that the one planted on the flight was a Syrian-made fixed-timer, rather than a "multi-adjustable" device manufactured by the now-defunct firm Mebo, as was claimed at Megrahi's trial. If that was the case, Swire added, it could not have originated in Malta, as the prosecution outlined, because it exploded only 38 minutes after the flight took off from Heathrow.
That has to be the silliest piece of logic to say with certainty that the deficient timer - which it was in either case as the bomb was always meant to explode over the Atlantic - means Megrahi is innocent. Dr Swire is searching for any reason at all to have a yet another public enquiry into his tragic loss despite the most lengthy public trial in Scottish legal history.
There is little doubt that Megrahi and his government bosses assisted the Iranian revenge on the USA by their actions in Malta which allowed a Syrian made bomb to murder these people without leaving a trail to Iran. If that is not so, why did Gadaffi accept responsibility and pay millions of pounds in damages to the families of every victim. Because they were innocent??? Don't think so...
Posted by: Polis on 7:52pm Sun 24 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Astonished[/bold] wrote:
Hi Polis - Thanks for the reply. Firing the chief constables for failing to do their duty would ensure that their replacements would be more likely to properly carry out their duties. The reporting of Mrs Sheridan to her employers and the newspapers has all the hallmarks of a witchunt. Even you must agree that this smacks of political influence, hence Donald's reference to London. Finally do you think it is reasonable for Mrs Sheridan to be publicly condemned for a couple of miniatures - yet all the Labour politicians to escape any kind of an investigation ?[/quote] I see, you ask for straight answers to your questions but are incapable of returing the compliment. Sad.
My own view is that I would support Tommy Sheridan over the NoW and the police regardless of whether the allegations are true or not but I'd still like to know what alleged crimes Donald demands must not be investigated - but as neither of you will answer we'll never know.
Bye bye.
Astonished wrote:
Hi Polis - Thanks for the reply. Firing the chief constables for failing to do their duty would ensure that their replacements would be more likely to properly carry out their duties. The reporting of Mrs Sheridan to her employers and the newspapers has all the hallmarks of a witchunt. Even you must agree that this smacks of political influence, hence Donald's reference to London. Finally do you think it is reasonable for Mrs Sheridan to be publicly condemned for a couple of miniatures - yet all the Labour politicians to escape any kind of an investigation ?
I see, you ask for straight answers to your questions but are incapable of returing the compliment. Sad.
My own view is that I would support Tommy Sheridan over the NoW and the police regardless of whether the allegations are true or not but I'd still like to know what alleged crimes Donald demands must not be investigated - but as neither of you will answer we'll never know.
Bye bye.
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 7:54pm Sun 24 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Chris[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Jim Swire...claimed in a letter published in The Herald that it could show that the one planted on the flight was a Syrian-made fixed-timer, rather than a "multi-adjustable" device manufactured by the now-defunct firm Mebo, as was claimed at Megrahi's trial. If that was the case, Swire added, it could not have originated in Malta, as the prosecution outlined, because it exploded only 38 minutes after the flight took off from Heathrow. [/quote] That has to be the silliest piece of logic to say with certainty that the deficient timer - which it was in either case as the bomb was always meant to explode over the Atlantic - means Megrahi is innocent. Dr Swire is searching for any reason at all to have a yet another public enquiry into his tragic loss despite the most lengthy public trial in Scottish legal history. There is little doubt that Megrahi and his government bosses assisted the Iranian revenge on the USA by their actions in Malta which allowed a Syrian made bomb to murder these people without leaving a trail to Iran. If that is not so, why did Gadaffi accept responsibility and pay millions of pounds in damages to the families of every victim. Because they were innocent??? Don't think so...[/quote] Chris I find your post shocking. Your criticism of Dr Swire is particularly offensive. He lost his daughter, he wants the truth! I think many of us want the truth. Furthermore everyone has the right to a fair trial and if paperwork related to bringing that about is being withheld by a government then it is clear it is THEY who have something to hide. Some of us aren't happy with your casual "don't think so" approach. This man was jailed for life and he is entitled to ask for all evidence associated with his defence to be made available. It is called justice!
Chris wrote:
Jim Swire...claimed in a letter published in The Herald that it could show that the one planted on the flight was a Syrian-made fixed-timer, rather than a "multi-adjustable" device manufactured by the now-defunct firm Mebo, as was claimed at Megrahi's trial. If that was the case, Swire added, it could not have originated in Malta, as the prosecution outlined, because it exploded only 38 minutes after the flight took off from Heathrow.
That has to be the silliest piece of logic to say with certainty that the deficient timer - which it was in either case as the bomb was always meant to explode over the Atlantic - means Megrahi is innocent. Dr Swire is searching for any reason at all to have a yet another public enquiry into his tragic loss despite the most lengthy public trial in Scottish legal history. There is little doubt that Megrahi and his government bosses assisted the Iranian revenge on the USA by their actions in Malta which allowed a Syrian made bomb to murder these people without leaving a trail to Iran. If that is not so, why did Gadaffi accept responsibility and pay millions of pounds in damages to the families of every victim. Because they were innocent??? Don't think so...
Chris I find your post shocking. Your criticism of Dr Swire is particularly offensive. He lost his daughter, he wants the truth! I think many of us want the truth. Furthermore everyone has the right to a fair trial and if paperwork related to bringing that about is being withheld by a government then it is clear it is THEY who have something to hide. Some of us aren't happy with your casual "don't think so" approach. This man was jailed for life and he is entitled to ask for all evidence associated with his defence to be made available. It is called justice!
Posted by: Polis on 7:59pm Sun 24 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Clare[/bold] wrote:
I can't believe this thread has gone the Sheridan route. This article is about the Westminster Government trying to conceal the truth about Lockerbie. Does no one care about that? [/quote] I think people care, but what's to say?
The judges gave an irrational judgement by neither convicting nor acquitting both accused. The CIA manufactured and withheld evidence. The British Government were complicit. Almost certainly it was Syrians who blew up the aircraft on behalf of the Iranians in retaliation for the American war-crime of murdering Iranian’s on a civil airliner – the Americans and the British know it was not the Libyans but so what, they do what they like.
Clare wrote:
I can't believe this thread has gone the Sheridan route. This article is about the Westminster Government trying to conceal the truth about Lockerbie. Does no one care about that?
I think people care, but what's to say?
The judges gave an irrational judgement by neither convicting nor acquitting both accused. The CIA manufactured and withheld evidence. The British Government were complicit. Almost certainly it was Syrians who blew up the aircraft on behalf of the Iranians in retaliation for the American war-crime of murdering Iranian’s on a civil airliner – the Americans and the British know it was not the Libyans but so what, they do what they like.
Posted by: Polis on 8:04pm Sun 24 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Chris[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Jim Swire...claimed in a letter published in The Herald that it could show that the one planted on the flight was a Syrian-made fixed-timer, rather than a \"multi-adjustable\" device manufactured by the now-defunct firm Mebo, as was claimed at Megrahi\'s trial. If that was the case, Swire added, it could not have originated in Malta, as the prosecution outlined, because it exploded only 38 minutes after the flight took off from Heathrow. [/quote] That has to be the silliest piece of logic to say with certainty that the deficient timer - which it was in either case as the bomb was always meant to explode over the Atlantic - means Megrahi is innocent. Dr Swire is searching for any reason at all to have a yet another public enquiry into his tragic loss despite the most lengthy public trial in Scottish legal history. There is little doubt that Megrahi and his government bosses assisted the Iranian revenge on the USA by their actions in Malta which allowed a Syrian made bomb to murder these people without leaving a trail to Iran. If that is not so, why did Gadaffi accept responsibility and pay millions of pounds in damages to the families of every victim. Because they were innocent??? Don\'t think so...[/quote] The payment of money by Libya was a simple cost/benefit analysis and they were quite right to do it. They had been held to ransom by America and finally they were clever enough to see the way forward was simply to stump up the cash and then reap the profits after the lifting of sanctions.
Some of the flag-waving, swivel-eyed anti-Arab American families knew this and rejected the deal as they believe their government's propaganda - one can never underestimate the stupidity of the average American patriot.
Chris wrote:
Jim Swire...claimed in a letter published in The Herald that it could show that the one planted on the flight was a Syrian-made fixed-timer, rather than a \"multi-adjustable\" device manufactured by the now-defunct firm Mebo, as was claimed at Megrahi\'s trial. If that was the case, Swire added, it could not have originated in Malta, as the prosecution outlined, because it exploded only 38 minutes after the flight took off from Heathrow.
That has to be the silliest piece of logic to say with certainty that the deficient timer - which it was in either case as the bomb was always meant to explode over the Atlantic - means Megrahi is innocent. Dr Swire is searching for any reason at all to have a yet another public enquiry into his tragic loss despite the most lengthy public trial in Scottish legal history. There is little doubt that Megrahi and his government bosses assisted the Iranian revenge on the USA by their actions in Malta which allowed a Syrian made bomb to murder these people without leaving a trail to Iran. If that is not so, why did Gadaffi accept responsibility and pay millions of pounds in damages to the families of every victim. Because they were innocent??? Don\'t think so...
The payment of money by Libya was a simple cost/benefit analysis and they were quite right to do it. They had been held to ransom by America and finally they were clever enough to see the way forward was simply to stump up the cash and then reap the profits after the lifting of sanctions.
Some of the flag-waving, swivel-eyed anti-Arab American families knew this and rejected the deal as they believe their government's propaganda - one can never underestimate the stupidity of the average American patriot.
Posted by: Chris, Glasgow on 8:08pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Clare - you contributed all day to the diversion of these posts to the Sheridan debate. Now you maintain that Dr Swire cannot be criticised for faulty logic. You have no interest whatsoever in justice.
Megrahi already the benefit of several the best defence that his government's money could buy. He has already had the best again to deal with the first appeal which was dismissed. If that is a miscarriage of justice then there is no point in continuing with any debate as this would appear to be just another forum for the USA haters to throw out wild allegation about the CIA and ignore the evidence so carefully considered by a panel of Scottish judges.
Do you have an answer to my question? Why did Gadaffi pay compensation?
PS Yes this man was jailed for life in his own privately constructed and furnished apartment in a Scottish jail. If I am ever to be the victim of such a miscarriage I hope he leaves me the key to his room.
Clare - you contributed all day to the diversion of these posts to the Sheridan debate. Now you maintain that Dr Swire cannot be criticised for faulty logic. You have no interest whatsoever in justice.
Megrahi already the benefit of several the best defence that his government's money could buy. He has already had the best again to deal with the first appeal which was dismissed. If that is a miscarriage of justice then there is no point in continuing with any debate as this would appear to be just another forum for the USA haters to throw out wild allegation about the CIA and ignore the evidence so carefully considered by a panel of Scottish judges.
Do you have an answer to my question? Why did Gadaffi pay compensation?
PS Yes this man was jailed for life in his own privately constructed and furnished apartment in a Scottish jail. If I am ever to be the victim of such a miscarriage I hope he leaves me the key to his room.
Posted by: David, East Kilbride on 8:19pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Megrahi should be released promply if all evidence isn't allowed..
Megrahi should be released promply if all evidence isn't allowed..
Posted by: Observer on 8:24pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Yeah David that's my feeling also. His conviction is unsound if these papers are not released.
Yeah David that's my feeling also. His conviction is unsound if these papers are not released.
Posted by: T. MUIR, EDINBURGH on 8:24pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Chris,
I despair of people who cannot approach important issues with an open mind although I accept that you are hampered by having only a partial grasp of the subject matter. if you look carefully at the allegations you are throwing around at others maybe your next contribution will be worth reading. Please surprise me.
Chris,
I despair of people who cannot approach important issues with an open mind although I accept that you are hampered by having only a partial grasp of the subject matter. if you look carefully at the allegations you are throwing around at others maybe your next contribution will be worth reading. Please surprise me.
Posted by: Polis on 8:25pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Chris - you ask "Why did Gadaffi pay compensation?" - simple, it was the only way to get out from under the sanctions and it has proved a very clever and highly profitable ploy. Whether or not Libya was involved in the bombing (and the evidence is overwhelmingly against this) no one on the planet thinks the payment was an admission of guilt.
Happens all the time - as I am a lawyer I get friends saying "i wasn't really speeding" or "the parking instructions were not clear, could I not challenge the legitimacy of the penalty notice?" and my answer is always, "yes, you could waste your time and money arguing with the Sheriff, and maybe what has happened is not fair, but save yourself the grief, pay the fine and get over it."
I challenge you to say you are unable to understand this.
Chris - you ask "Why did Gadaffi pay compensation?" - simple, it was the only way to get out from under the sanctions and it has proved a very clever and highly profitable ploy. Whether or not Libya was involved in the bombing (and the evidence is overwhelmingly against this) no one on the planet thinks the payment was an admission of guilt.
Happens all the time - as I am a lawyer I get friends saying "i wasn't really speeding" or "the parking instructions were not clear, could I not challenge the legitimacy of the penalty notice?" and my answer is always, "yes, you could waste your time and money arguing with the Sheriff, and maybe what has happened is not fair, but save yourself the grief, pay the fine and get over it."
I challenge you to say you are unable to understand this.
Posted by: Chris, Glasgow on 8:31pm Sun 24 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Polis[/bold] wrote:
Chris - you ask "Why did Gadaffi pay compensation?" - simple, it was the only way to get out from under the sanctions and it has proved a very clever and highly profitable ploy. Whether or not Libya was involved in the bombing (and the evidence is overwhelmingly against this) no one on the planet thinks the payment was an admission of guilt. Happens all the time - as I am a lawyer I get friends saying "i wasn't really speeding" or "the parking instructions were not clear, could I not challenge the legitimacy of the penalty notice?" and my answer is always, "yes, you could waste your time and money arguing with the Sheriff, and maybe what has happened is not fair, but save yourself the grief, pay the fine and get over it." I challenge you to say you are unable to understand this. [/quote] So, as a lawyer, you don't tell your friends to plead guilty because they were speeding. You tell them the judge will see through their expensively funded diversions so best not waste the money. Thank you for that insight into your value system.
Polis wrote:
Chris - you ask "Why did Gadaffi pay compensation?" - simple, it was the only way to get out from under the sanctions and it has proved a very clever and highly profitable ploy. Whether or not Libya was involved in the bombing (and the evidence is overwhelmingly against this) no one on the planet thinks the payment was an admission of guilt. Happens all the time - as I am a lawyer I get friends saying "i wasn't really speeding" or "the parking instructions were not clear, could I not challenge the legitimacy of the penalty notice?" and my answer is always, "yes, you could waste your time and money arguing with the Sheriff, and maybe what has happened is not fair, but save yourself the grief, pay the fine and get over it." I challenge you to say you are unable to understand this.
So, as a lawyer, you don't tell your friends to plead guilty because they were speeding. You tell them the judge will see through their expensively funded diversions so best not waste the money. Thank you for that insight into your value system.
Posted by: Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO, Zurich/Switzerland on 8:39pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Explanation to Mr. Chris Glasgow
In 2003 the Gadafi Foundation in Geneva - not the State of Libya - paid compensation to the descendants of the victims under explicit objection that the state of Libya had absolutely nothing to do with this terror act and could therefore not be made responsible for eventually commited crimes by any of its citizens not acting on governmental instructions.
In the world press this objection was never mentioned and its widely accepted that Libya's paying compensation is equivalent to a confession. That is absolutely wrong and an infamous lie of the worlds' leading news agencies against Libya by quoting only half of the truth!
The reason why Libya accepted to pay compensation was because of the devastating embargo against Libya since 1993, provisionally lifted 1999 after the delivery of two Libyan Officials accused for the Lockerbie bombing to a court in the Netherlands (Camp Zeist), and defintitely lifted (2003) after Libya's enforced paying compensation for the descendants of the victims of UTA-772 (35 million US$) and PanAm-103 (2.7 billion US$).
The economical damage for Libya because of this unjustly imposed embargo amounts to a minimum of 40 billion US$.
More truth news on: www.lockerbie.ch
Explanation to Mr. Chris Glasgow
In 2003 the Gadafi Foundation in Geneva - not the State of Libya - paid compensation to the descendants of the victims under explicit objection that the state of Libya had absolutely nothing to do with this terror act and could therefore not be made responsible for eventually commited crimes by any of its citizens not acting on governmental instructions.
In the world press this objection was never mentioned and its widely accepted that Libya's paying compensation is equivalent to a confession. That is absolutely wrong and an infamous lie of the worlds' leading news agencies against Libya by quoting only half of the truth!
The reason why Libya accepted to pay compensation was because of the devastating embargo against Libya since 1993, provisionally lifted 1999 after the delivery of two Libyan Officials accused for the Lockerbie bombing to a court in the Netherlands (Camp Zeist), and defintitely lifted (2003) after Libya's enforced paying compensation for the descendants of the victims of UTA-772 (35 million US$) and PanAm-103 (2.7 billion US$).
The economical damage for Libya because of this unjustly imposed embargo amounts to a minimum of 40 billion US$.
More truth news on: www.lockerbie.ch
Posted by: Polis on 8:39pm Sun 24 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Chris[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Polis[/bold] wrote: Chris - you ask \"Why did Gadaffi pay compensation?\" - simple, it was the only way to get out from under the sanctions and it has proved a very clever and highly profitable ploy. Whether or not Libya was involved in the bombing (and the evidence is overwhelmingly against this) no one on the planet thinks the payment was an admission of guilt. Happens all the time - as I am a lawyer I get friends saying \"i wasn\'t really speeding\" or \"the parking instructions were not clear, could I not challenge the legitimacy of the penalty notice?\" and my answer is always, \"yes, you could waste your time and money arguing with the Sheriff, and maybe what has happened is not fair, but save yourself the grief, pay the fine and get over it.\" I challenge you to say you are unable to understand this. [/quote] So, as a lawyer, you don\'t tell your friends to plead guilty because they were speeding. You tell them the judge will see through their expensively funded diversions so best not waste the money. Thank you for that insight into your value system.[/quote] Chris - you deliberately fail to notice that I answered the question you threw at Clare - why ask questions if you refuse to notice when they get answered?
As to your fantasy about my speeding friends you did not read what I wrote but rather imposed your own knee-jerk reaction. If they were speeding then they should certainly plead guilty and I'd be p*ssed off at them for putting themselves and other people in danger. I have one friend in particular who is a barrack-room lawyer and always wants to challenge things on a technicality (some complicated thing about whether or not what he was pulling was a trailer) – he may or may not be right but as he is not rich there is no chance of convincing the Sheriff.
So, please stop thinking that what goes on in your head is actually what other people have written – it is not. And now you have a plausible answer to your question why are you so afraid to notice it?
Chris wrote:
Polis wrote: Chris - you ask \"Why did Gadaffi pay compensation?\" - simple, it was the only way to get out from under the sanctions and it has proved a very clever and highly profitable ploy. Whether or not Libya was involved in the bombing (and the evidence is overwhelmingly against this) no one on the planet thinks the payment was an admission of guilt. Happens all the time - as I am a lawyer I get friends saying \"i wasn\'t really speeding\" or \"the parking instructions were not clear, could I not challenge the legitimacy of the penalty notice?\" and my answer is always, \"yes, you could waste your time and money arguing with the Sheriff, and maybe what has happened is not fair, but save yourself the grief, pay the fine and get over it.\" I challenge you to say you are unable to understand this.
So, as a lawyer, you don\'t tell your friends to plead guilty because they were speeding. You tell them the judge will see through their expensively funded diversions so best not waste the money. Thank you for that insight into your value system.
Chris - you deliberately fail to notice that I answered the question you threw at Clare - why ask questions if you refuse to notice when they get answered?
As to your fantasy about my speeding friends you did not read what I wrote but rather imposed your own knee-jerk reaction. If they were speeding then they should certainly plead guilty and I'd be p*ssed off at them for putting themselves and other people in danger. I have one friend in particular who is a barrack-room lawyer and always wants to challenge things on a technicality (some complicated thing about whether or not what he was pulling was a trailer) – he may or may not be right but as he is not rich there is no chance of convincing the Sheriff.
So, please stop thinking that what goes on in your head is actually what other people have written – it is not. And now you have a plausible answer to your question why are you so afraid to notice it?
Posted by: T. MUIR, EDINBURGH on 8:40pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Chris,
Thanks for the surprise.
Chris,
Thanks for the surprise.
Posted by: Polis on 8:59pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Silly Chirs has had his question answered more than once now - of course he doesn't have to agree with the content of the answer but he seemed to think his question was unanswerable so he should be big enough to admit he has, to his surprise, been supplied with an answer.
I wish there was somewhere I could place a bet on "Chris is not too daft to admit his question has been answered" - I wouldn't hesitate to put £100 down against that proposition regardless of the odds.
Now a question of my own - why is it always the reactionary flag-waving clowns who fire questions at others but never answer a straight question themselves or acknowledge any answer they receive?
Silly Chirs has had his question answered more than once now - of course he doesn't have to agree with the content of the answer but he seemed to think his question was unanswerable so he should be big enough to admit he has, to his surprise, been supplied with an answer.
I wish there was somewhere I could place a bet on "Chris is not too daft to admit his question has been answered" - I wouldn't hesitate to put £100 down against that proposition regardless of the odds.
Now a question of my own - why is it always the reactionary flag-waving clowns who fire questions at others but never answer a straight question themselves or acknowledge any answer they receive?
Posted by: Chris, Glasgow on 9:34pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Polis wrote about his friend the speeder :
[quote]he may or may not be right but as he is not rich there is no chance of convincing the Sheriff[/quote]
Presumably you believe the Libyan government is rich enough to deserve someone to fight on their behalf.
[quote]Some of the flag-waving, swivel-eyed anti-Arab American families [/quote] and
[quote]one can never underestimate the stupidity of the average American patriot[/quote]
You leapt to the defence of your friend Clare who thought I should not in any way question the logic of Dr Swire even though his judgement could have been clouded by his grief. You do not appear to extend that simple courtesy to the American bereaved families, who are obviously beneath contempt in some cases.
[quote]why is it always the reactionary flag-waving clowns who fire questions[/quote]
I can well understand you believing that it is OK to say the Libyans paid compensation "without prejudice" as you lawyers would say, but didn't you notice that they only did it after they had exhausted all of the legal opportunities that our justice system afforded them. And still our judges - not our politicians or police officers or flag waving zealots, but our judges - found that there was sufficient evidence to believe that Megrahi was involved. And so did the even greater number of our judges at the Appeal.
So if you can brush off the compensation question with the glib answer that it was a "cost/benefit analysis", then forgive me if I brush off your hatred of Americans as being sufficient to cloud your judgement.
Polis wrote about his friend the speeder :
he may or may not be right but as he is not rich there is no chance of convincing the Sheriff
Presumably you believe the Libyan government is rich enough to deserve someone to fight on their behalf.
Some of the flag-waving, swivel-eyed anti-Arab American families
and
one can never underestimate the stupidity of the average American patriot
You leapt to the defence of your friend Clare who thought I should not in any way question the logic of Dr Swire even though his judgement could have been clouded by his grief. You do not appear to extend that simple courtesy to the American bereaved families, who are obviously beneath contempt in some cases.
why is it always the reactionary flag-waving clowns who fire questions
I can well understand you believing that it is OK to say the Libyans paid compensation "without prejudice" as you lawyers would say, but didn't you notice that they only did it after they had exhausted all of the legal opportunities that our justice system afforded them. And still our judges - not our politicians or police officers or flag waving zealots, but our judges - found that there was sufficient evidence to believe that Megrahi was involved. And so did the even greater number of our judges at the Appeal.
So if you can brush off the compensation question with the glib answer that it was a "cost/benefit analysis", then forgive me if I brush off your hatred of Americans as being sufficient to cloud your judgement.
Posted by: Polis on 10:03pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Chris - you very nearly get to the point of admitting you got an answer, well done you, I might have lost my £100!
You make a very fair point about the role of the judges in the case. All I can say is that I have spoken to two Scottish judges who were staggered not that there was a conviction or an acquittal but that one accused was convicted and one acquitted when they were charged with acting in concert. It is a conundrum but even honest judges sometimes get things wrong - a weak repost I know, as I said you make a very fair point.
One last thing - again you make the mistake of reading what you want to read rather than what is there - I made my comment about America [italic]patriots[/italic] (I hold British Nationalists in the same low regard) - I did not refer to Americans as you claim. Some of the most outstanding intellectuals of the C20th have been American and James Baldwin is one of my favourite authors with Paul Robeson a particular hero. So again Chris, read what is there in front of you, not what you think is there.
Chris - you very nearly get to the point of admitting you got an answer, well done you, I might have lost my £100!
You make a very fair point about the role of the judges in the case. All I can say is that I have spoken to two Scottish judges who were staggered not that there was a conviction or an acquittal but that one accused was convicted and one acquitted when they were charged with acting in concert. It is a conundrum but even honest judges sometimes get things wrong - a weak repost I know, as I said you make a very fair point.
One last thing - again you make the mistake of reading what you want to read rather than what is there - I made my comment about America
patriots (I hold British Nationalists in the same low regard) - I did not refer to Americans as you claim. Some of the most outstanding intellectuals of the C20th have been American and James Baldwin is one of my favourite authors with Paul Robeson a particular hero. So again Chris, read what is there in front of you, not what you think is there.
Posted by: Polis on 10:06pm Sun 24 Feb 08
Sorry, Chris - one last one last thing (I know!) - I must admit I didn't fully understand all of Clare's post but if she was meaning that Jim Swire can not be mistaken and shoudl not be challenged then I would disagree with her.
Sorry, Chris - one last one last thing (I know!) - I must admit I didn't fully understand all of Clare's post but if she was meaning that Jim Swire can not be mistaken and shoudl not be challenged then I would disagree with her.
Comment | Read Comments (44)
Print this story
Email to a friend
