Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

To think the victims of the Lockerbie Bombing deserve better

42 replies

Mitmoo · 20/08/2011 08:38

It is two years since Megrahi was released as he only had three months to live.

He is convicted of killing 270 people and has served eight years.

Many of the victims families believe he was a scapegoat and not guilty in the first place. He appealed and was still found guilty.

It was always bizarre to release the biggest mass murderer of our time because he was ill, now two years on, he is still alive and we are a bigger laughing stock than ever.

OP posts:

handsomeharry · 20/08/2011 09:20

The cooments at the bottom of the Scotsman article make for interesting reading and imply that the Labour government wanted Megrahi as part of the PTA but the Scottish government disagreed.

Megrahi was eventually released on compassionate grounds by an SNP government and the British Labour government used it to score political points against the SNP even though they had tried to include Megrahi in a PTA a couple of years before.

handsomeharry · 20/08/2011 09:22

Cooments? Comments obviously!

stressedHEmum · 20/08/2011 09:24

UK government cannot legitimately include prisoners convicted under Scots Law in prisoner transfer schemes. The UK government was talking out it's hat in this instance, they had absolutely no jurisdiction. Gordon Brown could not make any decisions in this matter at all, regardless of what Jack Straw says or what memos are leaked. Under Scottish Law, given the evidence available at the time, there was no option but to release him. The same would apply to any other prisoner in the same medical situation regardless of the crime committed.

There is much evidence to suggest that Megrahi was just a fall guy anyway because the world (and U.S.) wanted someone to blame. The fact is that he was granted another, fresh appeal which might have laid to rest the controversy surrounding his conviction but this was abandoned in light of his illness because the Scottish Government was bound by law to release him anyway.

K999 · 20/08/2011 09:24

I would never be ashamed to live in a compassionate country.

stressedHEmum · 20/08/2011 09:28

K999, exactly. Surelt it is the sign of a mature, robust and confident society that we can show mercy even to those who would not show that same mercy to us.

Also, anyone who thinks that an SNP government would somehow kowtow to a Westminster administration is a bit barking. The Labour Party tried to use the release of Megrahi against the SNP, even though they had spuriously and illegally tried to include him in a prisoner transfer scheme.

handsomeharry · 20/08/2011 09:29

I agree K999 -absolutely.

handsomeharry · 20/08/2011 09:31

I think if anything it exposes the manipulation of the British Labour government and their inability to behave with anything approaching integrity.

Yet another reason why I voted SNP!

K999 · 20/08/2011 09:32

One of the many reasons why I voted SNP too!

Original poster

Mitmoo · 20/08/2011 09:35

Asmodeus I don't think it reflects on the Scottish people at all but it just reflect badly on Scottish Justice.

He's guilty of killing 270 people.

He's appealed and failed.

Many of the victims family believe he is innocent.

Scottish law says twice - nope he's guilty.

But we are going to be compassionate and let him free to possibly help others to plot attacks against us because he only has three months to live.

Whoops no he doesn't two years on he is still alive.

Scottish Justice lost when he was released but it might also have been wrong when they convicted him in the first place.

OP posts:

K999 · 20/08/2011 09:40

He was released on medical advice at the time. Am not sure anyone can exactly predict how long someone has left.

Original poster

Mitmoo · 20/08/2011 09:42

Surelt it is the sign of a mature, robust and confident society that we can show mercy even to those who would not show that same mercy to us.

Releasing someone who has been convicted of murdering 270 people makes a society confident and robust? We will definately have to agree to disagree on that one.

OP posts:

stressedHEmum · 20/08/2011 09:48

It doesn't matter what crime he had been convicted of, Scots Law dictated that he be released on compassionate grounds. The Scottish Justice system was upheld by his release and most certainly didn't lose. The decision to obey the law was the only possible one , demonstrating the courage and integrity of the SNP government, which contrasts quite markedly with all the underhanded wheeling and dealing of the Westminster administration.

ChumleeIsMyHomeboy · 20/08/2011 09:54

Mitmoo - brace yourself for a shock. Just because something is Google-able and just because you find results, errr, well - that doesn't mean any of it is true! You would do well to take heed of the sensible posts of stressedHEmum and others like her and try to learn from them.

Original poster

Mitmoo · 20/08/2011 15:33

Chumlee

Facts: He was convicted of murdering 270 people.

Fact: He appealed and lost

Fact: The conviction is believed to be a false one by many of the victims families.

Fact: Other families believe him to be guilty.

Fact: Legally he is a mass murderer.

Fact: Scottish "Justice" released him on compassionate grounds.

Fact: Whatever input Westminster have had, it is the Scottish Justice System that the rest of the world in looking at wondering if they've completely lost the plot.

Now someone please tell me why the victims' families dont deserve better because I'm just not getting it.

OP posts:

stressedHEmum · 20/08/2011 15:57

Mitmoo, regardless of victims families or anything else, Scottish Law says that the government HAD TO release him. If they had not they would have been breaking their own law. What would you suggest the Scottish government had done? Should they have committed a crime themselves by ignoring the law? Should they have changed the law in this particular case? Both these options seet very dangerous precedents. Just because something is distasteful or difficult doesn't mean that it is not governed by the rule of law.

Westminster DIDN'T have input because they couldn't, Megrahi was completely out-with their jurisdiction and influence. He was tried and convicted and held prisoner under Scottish Law which is a completely separate system to English and Welsh law, he was released under that same Scottish Law. As for his conviction, it is very likely that his new appeal would have shown up many of the inconsistencies and weaknesses of his original trial and appeal, but that became irrelevant when he became terminally ill? His release has no bearing on his guilt or innocence, he will always be guilty because he was freed on compassionate grounds not through an overturning of the verdict.

As for what the families deserve, nothing will bring back those who died. Keeping a terminally ill man in prison, whether innocent or guilty, does nothing to change what happened. The long and the short of it is that Megrahi is now a very ill man with a finite lifespan probably wracked with suffering. Our law was upheld by his release and it has absolutely nothing to do with the families, other governments or any one else.

fifitrixibellesmith · 20/08/2011 15:58

oh well, at least we arent paying for his board and food and medical treatment

good riddance to him

he was photographed rebel rousing with gaddafi not that long ago, so obviously made a miraculous recovery

SoupDragon · 30/08/2011 12:14

perhaps not such a miraculous recovery

Flip

1 2