I have been reluctant to blog this week for several reasons. Largely because the story dominating the media all week has been the release of the "Lockerbie bomber" and I am no expert on the matter. But it does seem clear there is an unreasonable amount of hysteria and newspaper headlines screaming over the release of someone who is shortly about to die anyway. Whose guilt is by no means certain. And who is supported both by people who lost loved ones in the 1988 disaster and by veteran campaigners like Tam Dalyell.
Were the case against Megahri cast-iron maybe I would feel differently. It doesn't seem that way. Perhaps the truth will only emerge after his death. But, on balance, I think I support Kenny McAskill's decision. It can not have been easy in the wake of serious pressure from the US Government and Downing Street. I doubt anyone would make such a decision lightly and for once a senior politician is listening ot the voice of reason, not the mob. Who, like me, are not in possession of all the facts. But seem to feel entitled to condemn anyway.
Saturday, 22 August 2009
LOCKERBIE AND THE MOB MENTALITY
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Oh dear, Susan, I'm very glad you didn't make it to Westminster, I think you would have been deeply shocked!
Mr. McAskill's decision was not taken alone but in cahoots with his party leadership which, as always, was willing and eager to poke both London and Washington in the eye with a sharp stick and strut their pathetic hour on the international stage. There was no any pressure from Downing Street because the release was exactly what they wanted in order to smooth away the difficulties Gaddafi was throwing up in the way of BP exploration. Happily for your glorious leader, he could divert American ire away from himself and up to Scotland pleading devolution as an excuse.
You disappoint me, without surprising me, by casting doubt on a judicial verdict arrived at by 5 judges and confirmed by the Appeal Court. The habit of those on the Left to constantly subvert any court decision that fails to confirm their own prejudices merely confirms my opinion that such people should never be in charge of our legal system.
David Duff
When is a case ever rock solid or cast iron, we hung to many who were later found to be innocent, you must remember some of those.
But the release and the signing of a deal for Oil and and Gas exploration, the meeting between Madelson and Libyan leaders son is way to much Labour Political intervention to be just nothing
Hi Susan,
the 270 who died on that plane will be a long time dead.
Dave Draycott
How predictable of you Dave. Yes they will. Whether the man is guilty or whether he is innocent.People died horribly and tragically.
The point is that people like Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the air crash, have gone on record many times to say they think he is innocent.
And he was to launch a second appeal. Mistakes, let's face it, have been made many times in the interests of "justice."
Peter Mandelson said on the news tonight it was "offensive" to suggest the Govt had colluded in the decision by the Scottish Exec.
I think it's offensive to suggest that anyone who thinks maybe, and only by listening to the views of those who know far more than they do, just maybe he's been in prison for 10 years for a heinous crime which may have been committed by someone else, from somewhere else, somehow condones violent terrorism. When the FBI start ranting, well, grounds for doubt I'd say.
Let's hope the truth outs one day. Then we can all decide conclusively whether the decision was right or wrong.
I think that's a very sensible approach, Susan. Personally, I think it was a show trial and the Scottish Labour party's reaction just sums up to me why I shall take great pleasure in voting for someone else next time.
A good place to start is always to assume that Americans and their Atlanticist friends , when they make a noise, are usually trying to cover something up. It has always been true in the past. Why should it be any different now?
Hi Susan,
predictable? As DnN has already pointed out in that oh so suave Tory manner of his that's really more your 'bag.'
You're right about Dr. Jim Swire but other British relatives do not agree and they want the government to give them the official version in full. I've read that scientists identified the suitcase that carried the bomb and the clothes packed around it as having come from a boutique in Malta. The owner of the boutique remembered Megrahi buying the clothes. The claims that there was an injustice rest on the argument that the boutique owner's evidence was unreliable.
Still pretty good evidence. But you mention no concerns over the particulars of the case just a generality that he 'might' be innocent. Also Megrahi refused to testify. However you and Robert demand that a case be 'cast iron.' So out goes 'reasonable doubt.'
One of the victim's relatives is calling for the Lockerbie papers to be declassified. That might help everyone understand better what happened.
You talk about the 'mob' response but what about the rather snotty attitude of some to the American relatives who after all only want justice.
When I listened to Megrahi's lawyer on Radio 4 he did not come up with a single specific simply accusing the prosecution of being 'chaotic.' Straight out of the Sue Press School of Jurisprudence. On the other hand the lawyer responsible for the Lockerbie Briefing was very direct and she was confident in the verdict.
I really not understand how you can presume the possible innocence of a convicted mass murderer
(he did one year for every 27 deaths} without becoming a little familiar with the facts.
Oh and DnN don't be too worried about the British legal system. If the far left ever got their hands on it we would all go from being all innocent to being all guilty.
Dave Draycott
Dave, I have been reading in depth today about the case. The key witness you mention has serious question marks.I certainly would want justice.It seems to me there are so many question marks in this case that to ride high horses and start posturing is not either sensible nor just to anyone.
Least of all those who died.
Hi Susan,
can I say first of all that your response is a disgrace. I put forward a reasoned argument based on what background information I had to hand.
You claim that I'm posturing in order to say that's unfair on the dead. That is a disgraceful allegation to make when all I was doing was putting forward a view different to yours. Something which will undoubtedly be banned in your Socialist Republic. You on the other hand hadn't even bothered to make yourself familiar with the facts. Why bother when simple Lefty prejudices like Merseymike and his 'never trust the Yanks' will do.
Let's look at your approach to this serious issue:
form a firm opinion: this man could be innocent.
publish it on your blog.
'Then' do the background reading.
And that's showing respect?
Is that your journalistic training coming through.
You still can't grasp however the idea of specifics. The witness is doubtful? As for mobs the only actual mob we've seen is the one which welcomed Magrahi home.
Dave Draycott
Yes, I have made myself familar with the facts, Dave. Your original response was a throwaway insult.My original post was a cautious suggestion that maybe gung-ho condemnation was not what was called for.
In order to respect the dead, let's respect the truth. Which we don't, none of us, actually know. Yet.
Quite frankly, your recent responses sound like the Daily Mail.
And, whatever you think my "Socialist Republic" might be, I think it would be better than yours.I'm thoroughly sick and tired of your rantings against the left.
And anyone who claims to be on the Left and is not a critic of American foreign policy really does need to take off the rose-tinted specs. Or get their head out of the Daily Mail, whose populist politics Draycott represents so well. Still, their day is coming to an end and then we can discard New Labour in the dustbin of history - where it will be regarded largely as 12 years of failed opportunities and illegal wars
Incidentally, Swire represents the majority view of British relatives, along with Martin Cadman, another critic of the show trial.
Hi Susan and Merseymike,
if you think my views are restricted to the readers of the Mail and Telegraph I'd suggest you both get out more.
As for who has the majority I didn't realise this sort of issue was a game of numbers. The American relatives who you treat with such lofty superiority are also entitled to be taken seriously. As I say prejudice against Americans is one of the few prejudices left to some on the 'left.' I just happen to feel that 9 years for mass murder when the sentence has not been shown to be unsafe is off the wall.
And Merseymike I'll continue to be active on the left in the only Party relevant to progressive politics and working people and leave you spitting blood in front of the telly every night.
And US foreign policy? What point exactly are you making in relation to Lockerbie?
As for rantings against the left Susan. The left is not one lump. On this blog I tend to be debating with you. I think you mean points of view you don't want to hear and struggle to answer. Silence is so much more preferable. I think Orwell had a few points to make on such attitudes. Company I'd rather keep.
Dave Draycott
Dave, when it comes to "lofty superiority" I think you take the biscuit sometimes.
Orwell's six-point programme for socialism , outlined in his famous essay The Lion and the Unicorn, included nationalising lands, mines, railways, banks and industries; slapping down on company tax dodgers;limiting incomes, abolishing public schools, the House Of Lords and other bastions of class privilege. Nearly 70 years on, I agree.
Hi Susan,
you seem to wandered into a different argument. I was talking about Orwells attitudes on democracy and open debate.
Ho hum.
Dave
If you really think that Lockerbie didn't have just a little something to do with America's policies towards the Middle east, then you must be even more naive than you suggest, Dave.
I think, in true Atlanticist style, you appear to think that we should automatically take the side of the US families. I've heard them. And I think they are wrong.
I've voted Labour for the past three elections, once happily, the second reasonably so but without great enthusiasm, and once out of horror of Dracula. But it is blatantly obvious that the electorate has well and truly fallen out of love with Labour and that the 'new' Labour experiment needs to be seen as something from the past - the answers suitable for 1997 sound old and tired in 2009.
Labour will lose next time, I hope not too heavily, but the signs are not good. And then some serious questions need to be answered about where the party is heading - for as it stands, plenty of us see it as having moved away from 'progressive politics' (everyone calls themselves 'progressive ' - its meaningless jargon). It actually needs to be out of power because it doesn't have the ability to govern well any longer
Post a Comment