Kinda finding myself agreeing with the DEs line on this one, cancer or not we’ve just released a convicted terrorist to live out his final days in peace and comfort, something his victims were not afforded
the problem was that the appeal would have taken so long that he would probably be dead by the time it was finished.
Its better surely to show him and/or the people who put him up to these horrific acts, that the West shows compassion, even to those who have murdered so many. Personally, i would have rather he had his relations visit him here in his final days. Also, i think its unlikely that the people by the plane (all dressed in white you notice) are representative of the majority opinion of Libians, The govenment over there is well known for orchestrating demos for its own political means.
It’s win-win for Gaddafi though. Not only does he get to cock a metaphorical snook at the West, which I’m sure he’s enjoying, he’s also got out of having to put up with Prince Andrew coming to visit. The government should get their own back and send Prince Philip instead. That’ll learn him.
blah blah blah a-levels too easy blah blah blah students missing out on universities blah blah blah a-levels no longer the “gold standard” blah blah blah trendy liberal teaching methods blah blah blah most graduates can’t write their own name blah blah blah it’s the foreigners’ fault blah blah blah.
@Joe
He wasn’t convicted by a jury. It was by a panel of judges in Holland.
I’ve recently discovered this website – http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/
written by Robert Black, QC. Quite an interesting read; essentially his view is if he had been tried by a jury they would not have convicted him on the evidence produced.
There’s also a fair amount of opinion that suggests if the appeal he lodged just before the discussion to free him started was allowed (which it probably would have been), then on the evidence he’d have more than likely been acquited. This compassionate release, which led to him dropping his appeal, gets him free now while at the same time letting Scotland avoid the embarassment of him being judged innocent.
It’s a nice theory that I subscribe to, considering the sheer number of questions over a helluva lot of dubious evidence.
I don’t know the ins and outs of the case but I do find myself drawn to the theory outlined by Gareth. Most of the relatives of the British victims are convinced he’s innocent and most of the relatives of the American victims think he’s guilty.
When the release was first being considered, The Times did a spread with quotes from the British families and the American. It was quite staggering to read the difference in opinion. Still, it must be in a horrible position to be in, and I entirely empathise with all of those who need someone to blame to get closure.
As for the ins and outs of the case, pick up Private Eye in a couple of weeks, no doubt they’ll have a lot to say. They’ve been championing his case for a long time.
Surely its better to carry out an appeal and admit an unfair trial than it is to be perceived as releasing a convicted terrorist?
No matter what your opinion on the whether or not the guys guilty people have to admit the scenes upon his return to Libya were absolutely reprehensible.
And to clarify, the opinions of the victims are not a valid form of evaluating guilt.
Indeed, many also know as well as believe that he was not tried fairly, as his defence council was not allowed to see vital evidence that may have lead to his aquittal. I’ll tell you what an “affront to justice” is, locking up the innocent man while the guilty gets away with it.
While I’d usually agree, I think the timing was somewhat perfect, with the compassionate release of Ronnie Biggs and all. But equally, if the Scottish Government knew they were doomed from the outset, had fair evidence to know he wouldn’ t live through an appeal and the backing of a lot of the British victims’ families, releasing him might be better than “Innocent Lockerbie Bomber Accused Dies In Jail”. But I suppose we’d never see those headlines, given that he’s a brown person.
Again, while I agree that the victims’ families are not a fair way to evaluate guilt, it’s just really interesting the way decision is split. But based on the fact it was trial by judges rather than jury, I may be willing to consider a large number of victims’ families that should be partisan and consider him innocent than a few judges that find him guilty on spurious evidence.
“Surely its better to carry out an appeal and admit an unfair trial than it is to be perceived as releasing a convicted terrorist?”
Not really. This will just be lost in the general tide of the ‘broken britain’ narrative: “convicted terrorist returns to heroes welcome” fits right in with littlejohn’s column this week; “child sex offender recieves viagra on the nhs.” A bit more embarresment for an already discredited government vs having to put all the people who lied at Al-Megrahi’s trial in prison themselves and doing serious damage to our international image.
I only ever read his youtube speech and without the passion of which i was told he delievered it in, it was crap.
Yes we could improve the NHS, but it’s a brilliant system that has saved millions of lives……….by going over to America and slagging it off, you slagged off it’s name, you slagged off the hard workers who work long hours in really stressed enviorments and you basically are what I would call a modern traitor, they shot your lot for alot worse in the past.
It’s just more of the same old same old, the pharma industry is chipping away and have their paid stooges willing to give the NHS a kicking in rags like this & the DM.
Besides their usual typical barely veiled attack the facts are that overall we spend less money than just about anyone in comparable Europe and the USA.
This latest line of attack (cancer “survival” rates) is based wholly on playing with stats.
I read this elsewhere and it is beautifully put and properly linked for sources –
“Survival rates” are intrinsically problematic as international comparators because THEY ARE NOT MORTALITY RATES! They are in large part a reflection of how early cancer is diagnosed and they have been improving, not as cancer mortality is reduced by better treatment, but as it is detected earlier and therefore death occurs longer after detection. Indeed, in the US some cancers have had “improving” survival rates whilst the actual mortality rates have gotten worse! UK mortality rates for cancer have been rapidly improving over recent years, at faster rates than elsewhere, and have now reached a point where there is no statistically significant difference with the US:
On cancer survial rates statistics http://www.otohns.net/default.asp?id=8832
International Cancer Statistics http://www-dep.iarc.fr/
…Gareth…’But I suppose we’d never see those headlines, given that he’s a brown person.’ Maybe, maybe not. But then again dear sir, if he were NOT a brown person or a Muslim, then would you be bothering to defend him? And if he were a white right-wing extremist convicted of blowing up a planeload of pilgrims on their way to Mecca, convicted on identical evidence, then would you doubt his guilt or support his release? Somehow I think I know the answer to that one! In fact, I suspect that in this particular scenario, yourself and most of the other people commenting on this site would have temporarily abandoned your opposition to capital punishment and would all be saying: ‘He should have been sent to the gallows!’
Er… no I don’t think they would, because the people here are sensible and don’t decide to drop principles for certain cases. The guy is being defended because he might not have done it and if so that means the real perpetrators will never be brought to justice. And that’s the real insult to the victims of Lockerbie.
@ Neander – As an ex-law student, it pains me to see what I consider miscarriages of justice at any level, of every race. By that, of course, I mean ACTUAL miscarriages, not just “All these villins get ‘ooman rights. Where’s my ‘ooman rights not ta be fined for speedin’?!”
Leave him Gareth, he’s not worth it. Neander prefers to construct imaginary ethical positions for the users of this site in the context of hypothetical situations of his own creation rather than go up against our actual opinions.
…Antigherkin…’our actual opinions’. Well, let’s see now. You are a person who has ACTUALLY defended Islam on one front page. And on another front page you have ACTUALLY taken the feminist line. And it is ACTUALLY a fact that Islam is a deeply reactionary creed, presently responsible for more misogyny and oppression of women than any other ideology on the planet. My opinions may be anathema to most of those on this site but at least there is consistency to them. Consistency does not seem to be one of your stronger points!
oooh, hunger strikes!
Neander, sweetie, Islam is big enough to have some aspects of it critscised while other aspects largly ignored or tolerated which is why we don’t have stonning in this country. Only a dick would have a go at it as a whole. If it was a definite and tangible whole there wouldn’t be islamists fighting islamists for islam. You could be just as barking for saying Lockerbie was an attack by socialisism.
You’re a bit obsessed with Islam aren’t you? I presume my “defence” of Islam was my comment that criticism of world religions should be informed and accurate rather than the shit-stirring bollocks based on misinformation and stereotypes churned out by the press. A highly rational conclusion.
Perhaps if you were able to let us know which of the major world religions don’t contain elements of violence and oppression, we could all set about converting.
Kinda finding myself agreeing with the DEs line on this one, cancer or not we’ve just released a convicted terrorist to live out his final days in peace and comfort, something his victims were not afforded
Token barely legal totty brandishing A-level certificate again this year then. You always know where you are with the Express.
They’re looking very red-toppy today. I’d accuse them of dumbing down if I thought there was anywhere for them to go.
at a glance i thought the a-level girl looked a bit like princess diana. maybe there are more pictures inside…
Yeah Joe but I thought there is some opinion that the guy was a patsy and is innocent of the crime. But I don’t know all the ins and outs of the case.
Whether hes *believed* to be innocent or not doesn’t matter, a jury of his peers didn’t think so and so in the eyes of the law hes guilty.
If he’s wrongly accused then he should lodge an appeal and hopefully new evidence would clear him.
Just because some people doubt it was him it shouldn’t affect his sentencing- criminal courts aren’t a country wide opinion poll
the problem was that the appeal would have taken so long that he would probably be dead by the time it was finished.
Its better surely to show him and/or the people who put him up to these horrific acts, that the West shows compassion, even to those who have murdered so many. Personally, i would have rather he had his relations visit him here in his final days. Also, i think its unlikely that the people by the plane (all dressed in white you notice) are representative of the majority opinion of Libians, The govenment over there is well known for orchestrating demos for its own political means.
It’s win-win for Gaddafi though. Not only does he get to cock a metaphorical snook at the West, which I’m sure he’s enjoying, he’s also got out of having to put up with Prince Andrew coming to visit. The government should get their own back and send Prince Philip instead. That’ll learn him.
blah blah blah a-levels too easy blah blah blah students missing out on universities blah blah blah a-levels no longer the “gold standard” blah blah blah trendy liberal teaching methods blah blah blah most graduates can’t write their own name blah blah blah it’s the foreigners’ fault blah blah blah.
@Joe
He wasn’t convicted by a jury. It was by a panel of judges in Holland.
I’ve recently discovered this website – http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/
written by Robert Black, QC. Quite an interesting read; essentially his view is if he had been tried by a jury they would not have convicted him on the evidence produced.
Whilst the trial was in the Netherlands (NOT Holland!) it was under Scottish law.
@ Mr Mordon
There’s also a fair amount of opinion that suggests if the appeal he lodged just before the discussion to free him started was allowed (which it probably would have been), then on the evidence he’d have more than likely been acquited. This compassionate release, which led to him dropping his appeal, gets him free now while at the same time letting Scotland avoid the embarassment of him being judged innocent.
It’s a nice theory that I subscribe to, considering the sheer number of questions over a helluva lot of dubious evidence.
I don’t know the ins and outs of the case but I do find myself drawn to the theory outlined by Gareth. Most of the relatives of the British victims are convinced he’s innocent and most of the relatives of the American victims think he’s guilty.
When the release was first being considered, The Times did a spread with quotes from the British families and the American. It was quite staggering to read the difference in opinion. Still, it must be in a horrible position to be in, and I entirely empathise with all of those who need someone to blame to get closure.
As for the ins and outs of the case, pick up Private Eye in a couple of weeks, no doubt they’ll have a lot to say. They’ve been championing his case for a long time.
Surely its better to carry out an appeal and admit an unfair trial than it is to be perceived as releasing a convicted terrorist?
No matter what your opinion on the whether or not the guys guilty people have to admit the scenes upon his return to Libya were absolutely reprehensible.
And to clarify, the opinions of the victims are not a valid form of evaluating guilt.
Indeed, many also know as well as believe that he was not tried fairly, as his defence council was not allowed to see vital evidence that may have lead to his aquittal. I’ll tell you what an “affront to justice” is, locking up the innocent man while the guilty gets away with it.
@ Joe
While I’d usually agree, I think the timing was somewhat perfect, with the compassionate release of Ronnie Biggs and all. But equally, if the Scottish Government knew they were doomed from the outset, had fair evidence to know he wouldn’ t live through an appeal and the backing of a lot of the British victims’ families, releasing him might be better than “Innocent Lockerbie Bomber Accused Dies In Jail”. But I suppose we’d never see those headlines, given that he’s a brown person.
Again, while I agree that the victims’ families are not a fair way to evaluate guilt, it’s just really interesting the way decision is split. But based on the fact it was trial by judges rather than jury, I may be willing to consider a large number of victims’ families that should be partisan and consider him innocent than a few judges that find him guilty on spurious evidence.
“Surely its better to carry out an appeal and admit an unfair trial than it is to be perceived as releasing a convicted terrorist?”
Not really. This will just be lost in the general tide of the ‘broken britain’ narrative: “convicted terrorist returns to heroes welcome” fits right in with littlejohn’s column this week; “child sex offender recieves viagra on the nhs.” A bit more embarresment for an already discredited government vs having to put all the people who lied at Al-Megrahi’s trial in prison themselves and doing serious damage to our international image.
Is that Hannan at the top?
I only ever read his youtube speech and without the passion of which i was told he delievered it in, it was crap.
Yes we could improve the NHS, but it’s a brilliant system that has saved millions of lives……….by going over to America and slagging it off, you slagged off it’s name, you slagged off the hard workers who work long hours in really stressed enviorments and you basically are what I would call a modern traitor, they shot your lot for alot worse in the past.
for a lot less i meant.
The NHS?
It’s just more of the same old same old, the pharma industry is chipping away and have their paid stooges willing to give the NHS a kicking in rags like this & the DM.
Besides their usual typical barely veiled attack the facts are that overall we spend less money than just about anyone in comparable Europe and the USA.
This latest line of attack (cancer “survival” rates) is based wholly on playing with stats.
I read this elsewhere and it is beautifully put and properly linked for sources –
“Survival rates” are intrinsically problematic as international comparators because THEY ARE NOT MORTALITY RATES! They are in large part a reflection of how early cancer is diagnosed and they have been improving, not as cancer mortality is reduced by better treatment, but as it is detected earlier and therefore death occurs longer after detection. Indeed, in the US some cancers have had “improving” survival rates whilst the actual mortality rates have gotten worse! UK mortality rates for cancer have been rapidly improving over recent years, at faster rates than elsewhere, and have now reached a point where there is no statistically significant difference with the US:
On cancer survial rates statistics
http://www.otohns.net/default.asp?id=8832
International Cancer Statistics
http://www-dep.iarc.fr/
…Gareth…’But I suppose we’d never see those headlines, given that he’s a brown person.’ Maybe, maybe not. But then again dear sir, if he were NOT a brown person or a Muslim, then would you be bothering to defend him? And if he were a white right-wing extremist convicted of blowing up a planeload of pilgrims on their way to Mecca, convicted on identical evidence, then would you doubt his guilt or support his release? Somehow I think I know the answer to that one! In fact, I suspect that in this particular scenario, yourself and most of the other people commenting on this site would have temporarily abandoned your opposition to capital punishment and would all be saying: ‘He should have been sent to the gallows!’
Er… no I don’t think they would, because the people here are sensible and don’t decide to drop principles for certain cases. The guy is being defended because he might not have done it and if so that means the real perpetrators will never be brought to justice. And that’s the real insult to the victims of Lockerbie.
@ Neander – As an ex-law student, it pains me to see what I consider miscarriages of justice at any level, of every race. By that, of course, I mean ACTUAL miscarriages, not just “All these villins get ‘ooman rights. Where’s my ‘ooman rights not ta be fined for speedin’?!”
Leave him Gareth, he’s not worth it. Neander prefers to construct imaginary ethical positions for the users of this site in the context of hypothetical situations of his own creation rather than go up against our actual opinions.
…Antigherkin…’our actual opinions’. Well, let’s see now. You are a person who has ACTUALLY defended Islam on one front page. And on another front page you have ACTUALLY taken the feminist line. And it is ACTUALLY a fact that Islam is a deeply reactionary creed, presently responsible for more misogyny and oppression of women than any other ideology on the planet. My opinions may be anathema to most of those on this site but at least there is consistency to them. Consistency does not seem to be one of your stronger points!
oooh, hunger strikes!
Neander, sweetie, Islam is big enough to have some aspects of it critscised while other aspects largly ignored or tolerated which is why we don’t have stonning in this country. Only a dick would have a go at it as a whole. If it was a definite and tangible whole there wouldn’t be islamists fighting islamists for islam. You could be just as barking for saying Lockerbie was an attack by socialisism.
You’re a bit obsessed with Islam aren’t you? I presume my “defence” of Islam was my comment that criticism of world religions should be informed and accurate rather than the shit-stirring bollocks based on misinformation and stereotypes churned out by the press. A highly rational conclusion.
Perhaps if you were able to let us know which of the major world religions don’t contain elements of violence and oppression, we could all set about converting.
I’m no historian, but I bet sexism and misogyny predate Islam by a few million years.