The Zohan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/...00/9389605.stm

Disgusting really, Mcgrahy was convicted of the bombing and then released on compassionate grounds - smack in the face for those who lost their loved ones!

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Good bit of "payback" news from the Condems.

I am of the thinking this is a retaliation for their own slur camapign - spoutedted by the media allied to Labour, not even they can paper over and play down this one.

Love Straw's interview (outside the commons) hinting at further conspiracies within his own government LOL.

EddScott

Was it not considered that his conviction was "shakey" at best and if tried properly he would have been acquitted and the UK made to look even worse.

If it was a relation to a BP deal, no wonder the US are after blood over the oil spill. Some payback going right there.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

So what if the country looked worse. If he was wrongly convicted then quash his sentence in the appeal court and deal with the backlash that we created by wrongly convicting hm in the first place, if he wasn't then he should have served his sentence.

Labour and particularly the Scottish Parliament (especially that fat little weasel Alex Salmond) have a lot to answer for over this and the relatives of all those killed must be feeling very aggrieved at the whole political pantomime.

Once again we see that poltiical careers come before truth and honesty, but that is modern politicians for you which is why I have no time for any of them.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

The problem here is Labour failed to arrange an "ending" for Megrahi.

You know what I mean, a tragic "accident" or him die of some unknown poisoning. Instead, he's alive and well. Dispite being "diagnosed" with a terminal disease.

So how is this? Has labour also assisted in him having top-level cancer treatments? Or did he even have cancer at all, and was just a ruse to facilitate his compassionate release?

The whole saga stinks.

David Lock

Strictly speaking Scotland were bound to release him on compassionate grounds if they really thought he was on death's door. But I've never been clear why Libya made so much of a fuss about him, after all life is cheap out there?

But there is no doubt Blair closed the deal on some business opportunities for UK by providing a bit of guidance on getting him home. And helped change Libya's attitude to terrorists.

As said above the evidence against him was pretty thin. I don't want to join the conspiracy theorists but I think there is a thought that he was set up. Perhaps Blair knew this?

dl

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

If the original conviction was so shaky or unsubstantiated. Then this should have been shown in a court. Like anyone else who is convicted and wishes to appeal (it is a human right after all).

I would have found this much easier to accept than the underhand means used to sidestep around a retrial using illness as an alternate excuse.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Why? Did he show any compassion to the entire plane load of people he murdered? Assuming he did it of course.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Did ANYONE expect better from Lying Labour?

Spins, lies, deceit, corruption, pocket-filling, nepotism, thy name is Labour.

David Lock

Because, as I understand it, that is what the law in Scotland says. I am not saying I approve of it although it does seem reasonable if someone genuinely hasn't much time left.

dl

Leslie

It was said that his trial was a travesty at the time and he was aimimng to appeal in the light of evidence that had been discovered.

It was said that he was offered the chance of the freedom that he got in the end provided that he did not continue with his appeal. It seemed to me that there was more to it all than meets the eye!

His release was wrong and he should have appealed against conviction instead.

Les

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Yes, sorry it was more of rhetorical question.

However, it doesn't seem reasonable to me. If he really was responsible for the death of all those people then dying in prison be it of natural causes or cancer seems fair enough to me. And if he wasn't responsible then the appeal should have been heard and his conviction quashed.

EddScott

The political damage it would do to the UK in the east by having to admit it made a mistake by locking up one of their brothers for 20 years or so would have done far more damage than a few US relatives getting upset with letting the guy go.

And although the US probably makes all the right noises to its subjects, I'm sure they are more than aware of the reasons behind letting him go - political and corporate.

The cons are just milking it - just as ***** milked the shrinkage of the economy.

Leslie

I think it should all be straight and out in the open whether he was really guilty or not. That is why he should have had to go through the appeal against conviction procedure.

Les

hodgy0_2

it looks very murky

but on the other hand he was about to launch an appeal - with new evidence (now not available as a condition of his release)

which most international legal opinion believe would have cleared him (they did not manage to convict his co accused who was aquitted of all charges and the evidence against Megrahi was very very thin and cirumstantial)

but on the other other hand he is a Muslim -- so better safe than sorry

David Lock

IIRC if he had appealed and lost he would have been back inside for good. If he opted for the compassionate release deal then he agreed to drop any appeal but at least he had his freedom. Not so much of a hard decision to make.

dl