Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi or not?

release al-Megrahi from prison or not?

  • al-Megrahi should die in a Scottish prison serving his sentence

    Votes: 61 37.4%
  • Transfer al-Megrahi to a Libyan jail to continue his sentence at home

    Votes: 19 11.7%
  • Release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds

    Votes: 83 50.9%

  • Total voters
    163
Gordon Brown
BP
Shell
BG Group
So where does MacAskill come in?

Personally, I don't care if he's released or not. I object to either the naivety or the hypocracy of those who think this has anything to do with compassion.
Personally, I think the right decision was made. I can't see how it is hypocritical to say so. Even if an oil deal was part of the reason MacAskill released him, it was the correct outcome. (Although I wonder what kind of deal would benefit the Scottish govt).
 
Gordon Brown
BP
Shell
BG Group

Personally, I don't care if he's released or not. I object to either the naivety or the hypocracy of those who think this has anything to do with compassion.

It's all about the oil.

The oil deal was tied in with the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, which MacAskill refuted with his decision.
 
So where does MacAskill come in?

He gets to look like a badass by symbolically putting the finger to the Americans.

Personally, I think the right decision was made. I can't see how it is hypocritical to say so. Even if an oil deal was part of the reason MacAskill released him, it was the correct outcome. (Although I wonder what kind of deal would benefit the Scottish govt).

This deal benefits a lot of interests, including US interests. Libya has proven reserves of 41 Billion barrels of oil and 1.49 trillion cubic metres of natural gas reserves. A lot of western countries would love to get some of that.
 
He gets to look like a badass by symbolically putting the finger to the Americans.
Which Americans? You say yourself bringing Libya into the fold is in the interests of very powerful people in America.

I have no doubt he enjoyed his moment in the spotlight. He is, as I say, a bombastic twat. However, he is a bombastic twat who made a decision with the right outcome.

I don't think he was in any way "putting the finger" to any Americans.
 
Except he wasn't. He was neither cautioned nor charged with any offence, nor was he held overnight: which in NOT something that happens if you are "banged up for D&D"...but don't let that stop you....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/535592.stm

Kenny MacAskill, an MSP and the party's transport and environment spokesman, was held on suspicion of being drunk and disorderly.

He spent the entire duration of the match, which Scotland won 1-0 but lost on aggregate, in the cells after being apprehended by the Metropolitan Police
 
Which Americans? You say yourself bringing Libya into the fold is in the interests of very powerful people in America.

I have no doubt he enjoyed his moment in the spotlight. He is, as I say, a bombastic twat. However, he is a bombastic twat who made a decision with the right outcome.

I don't think he was in any way "putting the finger" to any Americans.

You should go and read the comments pages on several of your own newspapers for how this is viewed. They're overjoyed at how he "stood up to America."
 
You should go and read the comments pages on several of your own newspapers.

Seriously, the comment threads on newspapers are the home of semi-literate right wing tossbags who haven't had an original thought in thier entire lives.

Just wanted to make that point.

carry on
 
if he was definitely guilty i would say send him back to libya to finish his sentence, but given this countries track record on miscarriages of justice and the amount of doubt as to whether he is really guilty then i am glad he has been given the benefit of the doubt and am sorry that it wasn't given in time for him to maybe be given the treatment he needed to treat his condition and save his life
 
why should he be shown compassion? he never showed any
If you are referring about lack of remorse, he has consistently protested his innocence. That's quite different from not showing remorse, though regrettably the law thinks otherwise. Indeed, a number of men who after spending many years in jail were proven to be innocent and released, were at the time portrayed by the State as remorseless. Yet they hadn't done what they were serving time for.

Why on earth should an innocent man show remorse for something they didn't do, or admit to it? This is a major flaw in our penal system and one that worries and pisses me off greatly.
 
It does seem to me that he should serve his sentence though, I mean he was the only person convicted of the bombing which killed some 270 people..

Not prepared to read 7 pages but just because he was the only person convicted does not mean he is guilty. There are plenty of people think the guy was a scapegoat.
 
Why on earth should an innocent man show remorse for something they didn't do, or admit to it? This is a major flaw in our penal system and one that worries and p- me off greatly.

If we actually kept people in jail for the length of time the courts had sentenced them for the issue of remorse would be academic. Sorry or not, criminals should serve their full sentences.
 
Why on earth should an innocent man show remorse for something they didn't do, or admit to it? This is a major flaw in our penal system and one that worries and pisses me off greatly.

and can result in innocent people admitting culpability to become eligible for parole rather than face a whole sentence.
 
If we actually kept people in jail for the length of time the courts had sentenced them for the issue of remorse would be academic. Sorry or not, criminals should serve their full sentences.

Particularly those convicted of 270 murders.

Would anyone here have agreed with Harold Shipman's release, had he been terminally ill?
 
If we actually kept people in jail for the length of time the courts had sentenced them for the issue of remorse would be academic. Sorry or not, criminals should serve their full sentences.
But it doesn't quite work like that in all cases does it? In some cases (such as lifers) you're only eligible for parole if you admit to having done the crime and show remorse.

As El Jefe says, this serves no purpose and we end up with innocent people having to lie and admit to something they haven't done. And equally, guilty people lying about showing remorse while not really giving a shit.
 
I suspect most people disagree with you there.

I think you'll find most people would like to see honesty and transparency in sentencing.

If you want to lock up someone for twenty years for murder, give them a twenty year sentence.

If you want to lock them up for life, give them a life sentence and keep them there until they die.

All this complicated nonsense just creates unreasonable expectations, bizarre anomalies and, of course, hundreds of non-jobs for probation officers and other public "servants".
 
I think you'll find most people would like to see honesty and transparency in sentencing.

If you want to lock up someone for twenty years for murder, give them a twenty year sentence.

If you want to lock them up for life, give them a life sentence and keep them there until they die.

All this complicated nonsense just creates unreasonable expectations, bizarre anomalies and, of course, hundreds of non-jobs for probation officers and other public "servants".
That I agree with. The term 'life' is misused often enough and used for a variety of crimes varying in gravity.
 
_46237808_007820810-1.jpg

Nike will be in tears, anyway. :)

The whole thing was a cover-up from start to finish. Tough luck on the yanks if they don't like it...I seem to recall a certain UK hacker about to be extradited after our pleas falling on their deaf ears.

They think they are...it.
 
Agree with untethered about clarity in sentencing.

20 years should mean 20 years ..

life should mean .. the rest of your life / until you are dead...


But there is a question for me about al-Megrahi, I have read that he had a 27 year sentence, but I also heard on the TV news that he had a life sentence, which is it?
 
Agree with untethered about clarity in sentencing.

20 years should mean 20 years ..

life should mean .. the rest of your life / until you are dead...


But there is a question for me about al-Megrahi, I have read that he had a 27 year sentence, but I also heard on the TV news that he had a life sentence, which is it?

He was given life. Minimum of 27 years. He served 8.

2 weeks for each victim.

Bonkers.
 
Back
Top Bottom