Why are 'we' so keen on Gaddafi?
Just a quick thought of a blog today, after all the excitement of the Lib Dems in Bournemouth.
As I watched Colonel Gaddafi (the Libyan dictator formerly known as Mad Dog) harangue the UN general assembly yesterday, calling the Security Council terrorists and ripping up the UN Charter, it made me wonder why our government was so keen to have close and friendly relations with him.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Much diplomatic and commercial wooing has been going on -- we learned just how much during the al Megrahi affair -- allegedly so that Britain gets access to Libya's oil and gas reserves.
But don't we depend more than enough already on unsavoury and unstable regimes for our energy supplies?
Why would adding Colonel Gaddafi to our list of suppliers make us any more secure? Any who would not rather cut back a little on their energy consumption rather than see any of their money end up in this guy's coffers?
I look forward to your answers ....
This blog is open for people to comment about the subject of Andrew's blog - but we reserve the right to delete entries which are excessively long or off-topic.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~01~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Andrew
Wake up mate and smell the coffee, this government would sell their souls to the devil if there was oil in hell.
They don't have any morals, we have been sucking up to Saudi for years, kissing Gaddafi and dealing with the likes of despot Deby.
Complain about this comment
Andrew.
Simple. Politics is a game and as such 'you have to be in it to win it'.
Oil is a global concern, we are global players, 'we' saved the world. Again!
Never has it been our political concern to ensure either fairness or peace on those who we are trading with.
Control! Is all.
"White is right."
Not so much different from...
"Might is right."
Complain about this comment
I think it was Norman Tebbit who commented if you lie down with [mad] dogs, you will catch fleas.
I would say we are well and truly infested.
Complain about this comment
Megrahi is feeling better
THE cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber, far from being close to death, is “getting better by the day”, his family said yesterday.
Relatives claim the health of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, 57, has shown marked signs of improvement and they now hope he could even make a full recovery.
SURPRISE SURPRISE
Complain about this comment
Answer - Gordon Brown. Ever since he became PM he has been on the wrong side of every issue. I don't need to list them here. By trying to be friends with Gaddaffi he has dented our relationship with the Americans, made Alex Salmond look like an international statesman and offended most of the electorate. Most politicians would have to work very hard to achieve a hat trick of own goals, but Brown does it effortlessly.
Complain about this comment
Andrew:
The reason for being keen on Gaddafi is because of his
over the years antics.....
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
...Libya also plays 'host' to many refugees that would otherwise continue their journey to some 'green and pleasant land'.
Gaddafi is also less likely to be obscured by darkness and thus is likely to be openly shaken by the hand.
Complain about this comment
I would have thought the Government would have an energy rajah, (Czar is so last year 8-)) to check the efficiency of the energy use. Perhaps we need to build some more nuclear power plants?
Don't think that our Government can do Realpolitik are all. BBC World This Weekend report that OB, GB and Gaddafi are all on the Security Council this afternoon, how come truth is stranger than fiction?
Just thinking how UK would get the oil back from Libya? Are there in pipelines across the Med? So if we have tankers, then they have to go through the straits off Gibraltar.
What a surprise, the Government is trying to give away British sovereignty and with likely cuts in the Navy. How are we going to defend this 'pipe line'? Sir Mark Stanhope reported in the Telegraph, the lack of capability and then the loss of a secure base to protect.
Complain about this comment
It doesn't matter how unstable the regime is, it's a simple fact that the more sources of oil or whatever, the more stable the supply will be. Spread betting perhaps...
John N
Complain about this comment
Its politics my friend.
We had to attack Iraq to depose Saddam, we just have to hug Gaddafi and release a criminal to get Libya on side.
It must be a bit stressful on the old moral compass however.
Complain about this comment
But surely the answer lies in our relationships in Northern Ireland ??
It was all very well getting on with the SDLP - they were never a threat and were committed to peace from the outset. It was Sinn Fein that needed to change their ways.
If one has a tumour in one's arm, there is little point having radiotherapy on one's leg - that isn't where the problem is.
I suppose it may also explain why Barack Obama didn't have time to see Gordon Brown. Unless I'm very much mistaken it seems unlikely that GB will launching a nuclear attack on the United States anytime soon...
Complain about this comment
Andrew
You yourself have given the answer many times. Its gas. The government has ignored future energy requirements for years whilst it wittered on about "renewables" and now, in a panic about the lights going out, is building more and more gas fired power stations. The depletion of gas is far more imminent than that of oil hence the cosying up to nearby Libya to provide us with the LNG we are going to depend upon for many years.
Vernon E
Complain about this comment
Is it simply that the media doesn't understand or is it that they are the vehicle for the governments agenda. The imbalance between the influence of business interest and the interest of the nation is obvious to almost everyone except the media. When business sets foreign policy expect the worst. It is the business interest that proft from dealing with the petty dictators of the world. It is business interest that push for positions of "engagement", which means they can access either cheap material or cheap labor. The financial crisis is a result of business influence in government. They cared nothing for national well-being, only profits and we all watch has the politicians continue to bow down to the tycoon tyrants and the general working population suffers from their efforts to acquire personal wealth. Politicians are simply heeling dogs at the side of business waiting for the scraps to be thrown their way. Gaddafi is a third rate clown in the Middle-East circus.
Complain about this comment
Andrew. "it made me wonder why our government was so keen to have close and friendly relations with him"
I am sure it is all about trade and seeking lucrative contracts. This government has no scruples, and Gordon BrownNose wonders why Obama is not keen to see him....
Complain about this comment
4. EXXONMOBIL2
It seems al-Megrahi's well-wishers are legion among the gutter press and assorted mindless reactionaries.
Complain about this comment
13. ghostofsichuan
"Gaddafi is a third rate clown in the Middle-East circus."
He does remind me of George Bush.
Complain about this comment
#15 Electric Hermit
I too wish al-Megrahi well.
Far be it for me to condemn an innocent man. Far less to wish another human being ill.
This is the one reason why the death penalty has no place in civilised society.
How cheered the war-mongers will be to see their rhetoric go unquestioned.
Complain about this comment
'We' are not at all keen on Gaddafi but seemingly our foreign office and politicians are.
Our welcome of him into the fold has done nothing to stop him showing his contempt for us and the United Nations. How any of them thought they could deal with this man leaves me completely baffled.
Even worse when politicians actually thought they could blame Scotland and get away with it.
Is it also true that our SAS have been sent to train Libyan 'terrorists'
Unbelievable and an insult to our special forces and all those others who were killed by Libyan weapons in Northern Ireland.
We used to have a foreign office of skilled professionals now it seems to be run by fresh faced amateurs. What a plight.
Complain about this comment
17. Oudeis
"Far be it for me to condemn an innocent man."
He is not innocent until a Scottish court declares him so. Under Scottish law he is guilty. Equally, under Scottish law he is entitled to release on licence on compassionate grounds.
What I was remarking upon was the fact that unthinking hatred of al-Megrahi among the Angry Villagers competes with unthinking hatred of the Scottish government to the extent that the unthinking don't know whether to wish the man dead or alive.
Complain about this comment
#19 Electric Hermit.
If he did not commit / As he did not commit the crime he was charged with he IS innocent.
A court may come around eventually this way or that. BUT the guys reponsible for the crime he was charged with were guilty of it, are guilty of it and ever shall be the guilty partys.
There is, I grant you, a process to undo a process.
IF he had a proper trial IF there had been a jury?
It is a mistake to accept the working of such a court and to give the same weight to it's judgement as if there had been a proper trial.
It is this man today and YOU or any of us, tomorrow.
A slippery slope back to serfdom.
Complain about this comment
20. Oudeis
"A slippery slope back to serfdom."
And disregard for the law would be a slippery slope to anarchy.
Complain about this comment
#21 Electric Hermit
International law has it that he should have faced trial in Libya.
This law was broken.
The law [UK & EU] requires a fair trial. A trial with a verdict delivered by a JURY.
This law ignored.
So, you are entirely correct when you say...
"...disregard for the law would be a slippery slope to anarchy."
It would be cruel to suggest you take the easy option, so I shall not suggest it.
Complain about this comment
It is certainly an intersting point. Britain seems to have extended the hand of friendship to Libya and relations have improved. If only we could make the same sort of progress in other parts of the world, Afghanistan for instance...
Complain about this comment
22. Oudeis
"The law [UK & EU] requires a fair trial. A trial with a verdict delivered by a JURY.
This law ignored."
The format of the trial was accepted by all parties. However questionable the verdict may be in the opinion of some, it is still the verdict of a legitimate court. For all legal purposes al-Megrahi is guilty. His release on licence on compassionate grounds in no way reflects on this verdict or the sentence imposed by the court - both of which still stand.
If you and others want to talk sensibly about the release of al-Megrahi then you really will have to learn to divorce the procedure involved from all questions of guilt and innocence, as well as the entirely separate procedure under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement.
The prisoner, al-Megrahi, was released on licence because he qualified under the provisions of Scottish law. His case was dealt with entirely properly and in the same way as any other such application. The law is the same for everybody. There was no sound legal reason why al-Megrahi's case should be made an exception.
Complain about this comment
94 ElectricHermit
"the law is the same for everybody"
Really?
Complain about this comment
#26 Electric Hermit
"There was no sound legal reason why al-Megrahi's case should be made an exception."
Then why was it made exceptional?
Is it that you think he owes for B&B?
Where does your rule of law end, where does it begin?
If agreement to ignore or to set aside the law is all that is necessary for things to go on; why bother with law in the first place?
All we common folk need to know that all is well is to hear it from those involved perhaps. Is this not serfdom?
Your notion of law IS the same for all of 'us'...but not for 'them'.
I fear being sentenced to another term of 'new-labour'.
Complain about this comment
25. xTunbridge
"94 ElectricHermit
"the law is the same for everybody"
Really?"
Yes. Desperately as some tried to make al-Megrahi an exception, Kenny MacAskill honourably and very properly adhered to this fundamental principle.
Complain about this comment
25 Me (or you even)
Further to Electric Hermit 24, NOT 94
If the law is the same for everybody why are many MPs not now on theft, fraud, pecuniary advantage charges etc ?
How can the police shoot people dead because they are carrying a chair leg to repair or a Brazillian going to work and then say he was doing things all the witnesses say he wasnt.
How can a local man dealing with a big punch up in his pub as he saw fit at the time get two years when a famous footballer who struck before he was hit is innocent?
The Law , ha ha.
Complain about this comment
26. Oudeis
"Then why was it made exceptional?"
It wasn't. The Justice Secretary, and the various authorities which reported to him, treated al-Megrahi's case just like any other application for release on licence on compassionate grounds.
Complain about this comment
28. xTunbridge
"If the law is the same for everybody why are many MPs not now on theft, fraud, pecuniary advantage charges etc ?"
Because, as in every case, they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And, as in every case, this requires evidence. If you have evidence that might convict any of these people then why are you not presenting it to the relevant authorities instead of coming on here to whine.
Complain about this comment
By the way; if I may.
I learned today of another 'populist' campaign to encourage the next house of commons to begin reform. I will say no more about it than it is not the same old stuff you hear from me...
http://www.power2010.org.uk
Complain about this comment
30. Electric Hermit.
Actually one of th eporblems is that the law is different for MPs, as a contractor working away from home I am allowed to claim far less in expenses (form the money i bill my clients rather than the tax payer) than an MP and if an assignment will last longer than 2 years then am unable to claim any expenses at all, also if a full time employee works at two different sites but spends 40% or more of their time at each any expenses paid are taxable however for MPs this does not apply.
Also MPs are allowed to claim (and not pay tax) on a far wider range of expenses than us mortal, food is th emost obvious for everyone else the line is "you would buy food at home anyway" so it cannot be claimed without paying tax on it for MPs its 400 quid a month tax free no questions asked.
Complain about this comment
Good Morning Andrew,
Why would adding Colonel Gaddafi to our list of suppliers make us any more secure?
What exactly do people know about even very basic simple economics. Is there not a 'law' of supply and demand, is there not 'the invisible hand' which brings economies into equilibrium. Short enough for you!
As for banks and the economy. There must be a split between clearing banks, and merchant (investment) banks. Sorry but I used to work for a merchant bank which was 'taken over' by a clearing bank. Never the twain should meet. Same with clearing banks and building societies, a bank is nothing like a building society.
Same with stockbrokers and jobbers. Yes, I used to work for a stockbroking firm before joining the merchant bank. Worst mistake ever made.
As for money, well it makes pimps and whores of us all, ask Shakespeare.
Complain about this comment
32. idonotapprove
"Actually one of th eporblems is that the law is different for MPs"
You are not talking about the law. You are talking about contracted terms and remuneration packages. You may resent that some other group of employees has better pay and conditions than yourself, but inducing your covetous ire is not a crime.
Complain about this comment
MP Expenses scam
I note with a wry smile that the Daily Telegraph have released a new BOOK with MORE information about the MP's expenses scam. My first question, why the book, why did they not continue from their original story??!!
Apparently, their MOLE is/was a former MOD contractor who was angered at the Iraq War and the general ineptness of the MOD to provide proper equipment.
It also transpires that 20 or so private MOD contractors(former soldiers) were recruited by Michael Martin and Co to do all the invoice skullduggery,i.e. POLICING the redactment,hence, that is where we are today.
I have a problem with this latest theory because all the skullduggery was BEFORE the redactment??!!
I think Taggy is brilliant and he should oversee the Expenses SCAM.
Complain about this comment
Electric Hermit welcome to the blog but I must confess your theory about the Law is the same for everyone made me smile. Where have you been for the past 40years mate, there is a rule for the rich and one for the poor.
I am not going to give you one example even, oh, ok then, MP's expenses.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
forst let me say how good it was to have you and the team back on our screens last night. I did manage to stay awake.
However, my comment is actually about Question Time and Harriet Harman. Could somebody please explain why she was actually on the programme. As a government minister I do not comment was a paraphrase of what she said, or so I think. So, if they are not really going to comment why bother to have her or anybody else on the programme. Bizarre, absolutely bizarre. By the way notice the use of 'Patricia' not baroness Scotland, interesting, very interesting.
As the man with a wooden leg would say 'it is a matter of a pinion'.
Complain about this comment
33. T A Griffin (TAG)
"As for money, well it makes pimps and whores of us all, ask Shakespeare."
Sums it up nicely.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Andrew,
Keynes was actually quite famous because of his stance over reparations. As a pacifist Keynes worked in the treasury which upset 'his friends' because by working in the treasury during the Great War he actually helped to fund the continuing war. Reparations payments came about because the Germans must be made to pay for the war. The French valued all the assets destroyed at inflated prices.
Listening to Lamont may I remind people that I have long said that we are on the road to serfdom.
The problem as to why the Great Depression lasted for so long was because people tried to protect asset values, wrong decision, just let it go and equilibrium returns. It really is simple, painful for some, but quite simple, we really are on the road to serfdom! Now about the Black Death!
Complain about this comment
As a result of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the 'new' Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will start work on 1 October, taking over the judicial functions of the House of Lords (i.e. the Law Lords).
The Supreme Court judges will also decide on devolution issues where cases in which the legal powers of the three devolved are questioned.
Am I right then is saying that in future a case like Al Megrahi's release will be ruled on by the new Supreme Court and the final decision taken out of the devolved government's hands?
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
just listened Claire on Radio Five live phone in, Claire seemed to work in the NHS and was very pleased with Gordon Brown. When will people realise it is something called bribery, bribery with taxpayers money. Brown and NuL are just bribing people to vote for them. How can people trust Brown, he is unbelievable. Ah, the Road to Serfdom, sometimes people read the wrong books, sometimes books appear and disappear and the words disappear with the book.
I ask why do we follow orders? Ask yourselves, why do we do as we are told.
Complain about this comment
36. EXXONMOBIL2
"Electric Hermit welcome to the blog but I must confess your theory about the Law is the same for everyone made me smile."
One law for all is the principle. A principle which was upheld in the way Mr al-Megrahi's application for compassionate release was dealt with. Against vehement opposition from the very same people who bleat first, loudest and longest about real and imagined inequities in the law.
Complain about this comment
41. TheBlameGame
"Am I right then is saying that in future a case like Al Megrahi's release will be ruled on by the new Supreme Court and the final decision taken out of the devolved government's hands? "
No, you are not right. The court could only be called upon to make a ruling in cases where there was some question or dispute regarding constitutional authority. There is no such question or dispute in relation to the matters of repatriation under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) or release on licence on compassionate grounds. Both are indisputably matters for the Scottish government, it's ministers and it's agencies.
Complain about this comment
#43
so if Mr al-Megrahi is still alive in four months time? Ask Harman for a comment and see what you get, Balls would appear to have commented, Harman says ministers should not comment, part of some convention or other, so would Balls work in a Harman cabinet?
Complain about this comment
#28 Tunbridge
"How can a local man dealing with a big punch up in his pub as he saw fit at the time get two years when a famous footballer who struck before he was hit is innocent?"
If the local man is the case I am thinking of, the punishment is disproportionate to the crime and the second case was judged by his peers - move the case 20 miles east and an altogether different verdict would have been passed.
The law and its officers see things differently to the general public, our MP's will get away scot free on some technicality or because the DPP says there is insufficient evidence.
Complain about this comment
44. Electric Hermit
Thanks.
So that decision could not be challenged once the Scottish Justice Minister had ruled..
Complain about this comment
45. T A Griffin (TAG)
"so if Mr al-Megrahi is still alive in four months time?"
So what? Do you expect medical professionals to give cast-iron guarantees that a person will die at a specified time? All Kenny MacAskill could do was make a decision on the basis of the best evidence available. All that evidence confirmed that al-Megrahi qualified for release on licence on compassionate grounds.
In the absence of any compelling, legally valid reason not to do so, MacAskill was obliged to grant the application. To do otherwise in the absence of such legitimate cause would be to apply a different standard on the basis of nothing other than prejudice. I would hope all would agree that this would be unacceptable.
Complain about this comment
47. TheBlameGame
"So that decision could not be challenged once the Scottish Justice Minister had ruled.."
As far as I am aware the Justice Minister's decision is final and there is no mechanism by which it can be challenged. Which is only right and proper. The buck has to stop somewhere.
Complain about this comment
46. meninwhitecoats
"...our MP's will get away scot free on some technicality or because the DPP says there is insufficient evidence."
Funny how application of the law becomes a "technicality" only when you disagree with the outcome.
And why is it so inconceivable that "the DPP says there is insufficient evidence" for no other reason than that this is the simple truth?
Complain about this comment
Good morning each & Andrew.
Insufficient evidence.
Clealy this is why this government has given birth to 'the court of public opinion'.
Anybody allowed money without a receipt up to a sum of say £250 who habitually submits claims for £245 is up to no good.
As things stand we have no recourse but to vote him/her out.
As you know I have a scheme that goes a little farther than that. We shall make these 'fraudsters' pay.
Complain about this comment
#50 Electric Hermit
So Patricia Scotland did not commit a "technical offence like not paying the congestion charge" - she actually did break the law?
There is a grey area where the DPP decides on the balance of evidence - sadly we do not have confidence that this grey area ia applied to "the great and good" in the same way it would be applied to the general public.
Why did the police not provide support and take action against the youths who hounded and threatened that poor women who was driven to suicide and took the life of her disabled child - because the police did not deem that one of her children being threatened with a knife was a criminal act?
There is a dislocation between what the police and DPP see as law breaking and what the general public sees as law breaking. That grey area of interpreting the law does not always serve the public well.
Complain about this comment
51. Oudeis
"Clealy this is why this government has given birth to 'the court of public opinion'."
What silliness is this? The "court of public opinion" has existed as long as there have been people with the capacity to hold and express personal views. To imagine it as the progeny of this or any other government is just plain foolishness.
Complain about this comment
51. Oudeis
"Anybody allowed money without a receipt up to a sum of say £250 who habitually submits claims for £245 is up to no good."
In what way does this constitute evidence of fraud, or any other form of wrong-doing?
Complain about this comment
The local government ombudsman states that email ban by the local governments has not caused me significant injustice.
How about that one Electric Hermit for Law equity??
I think Electric Hermit is a government plant??!!
Complain about this comment
Anyone recall the proposals on carbon trading ?
Isn't that the ultimate derivative ? It just shows how close City traders are to our politicians that they should even consider such a proposition. Buying your way out of a statutory responsibility ? Now that really does say something about morality in government. Convert moral responsibility to a monetary value and make it a tradeable comoodity, then you can turn a profit on your failure to adhere to what is enforced on the rest of us.
Is that why the Staffordshire Hospital issue has never been properly investigated ? Were those who suffered deemed to be of too little value ?
What next ? Buy your way out of jail ? Perhaps an economic value can be placed on prison terms and even illegality, and by paying up you avoid another legal obligation. Maybe we're there already.
There are vast dangers, and no small moral risk, in viewing the planet in terms of a profit and loss statement with everything assigned a monetary value. Maybe people wouldn't agree with the value our leaders assign to us individually.
Maybe Gordon, the ultimate bank clerk, cannot understand the world unless it's converted into double entry book keeping, but does he view everything that way ? What about our troops in Afghanistan ?
I am seeing now that this is where Gordon and Nu Labour have managed to pervert Socialism into another form of Capitalism. It's all about money. When Gordon's father recited the 10 commandments from the pulpit did he also quote the going price for avoiding moral condemnation ?
It's not ID cards the government want to give us, it's a monetary value stamped on our foreheads, or maybe that's one and the same thing.
Complain about this comment
Attn Electric Hermit
As you appear to be a Law Expert and advocate of one law for all,can you please explain to me why the Chad/Cameroon Pipeline (owned by Exxononmobil) has been allowed to operate in a legal void for 7years.I say legal void because there are no oil spill plans and environmental protection plans. This is not just my opinion,it is fact and the World bank themselves have reported these two anomalies before they ran away from the project.
Complain about this comment
52. meninwhitecoats
"There is a dislocation between what the police and DPP see as law breaking and what the general public sees as law breaking."
Congratulations on the startling discovery that the law, in common with every other institution contrived by humans, is somewhat flawed. Is it your intention to propose some means of achieving the absolute perfection you require? Or are you content simply to whine about how dreadfully unfair it all is?
Perhaps you might start by developing a basic understanding of what the law is and the purpose that it serves. The suggestion that the law should follow the whims and fancies of fickle and inherently undefinable public opinion is evidence enough that your grasp of such fundamentals is sadly inadequate.
Complain about this comment
55. EXXONMOBIL2
"The local government ombudsman states that email ban by the local governments has not caused me significant injustice.
How about that one Electric Hermit for Law equity??"
I haven't a clue what you are referring to. So how can I possibly comment?
"I think Electric Hermit is a government plant??!!"
Demented conspiracy-nut nonsense, of course. But maybe you should double up on the tin-foil helmets just as a precaution.
Complain about this comment
#54 Electric Hermit
In what way does this constitute evidence of fraud, or any other form of wrong-doing?
For the purposes of this argument the political parties are irrelevant, I could have easily chosen any party.
You don't like Oudeis' example - explain why this this one should not be subject to action.
According to last week's Sunday Times both Clare Short and Rosie Winterton claimed the full cost of their mortgage not just the interest payments..... fraud or "technical error"?
Complain about this comment
57. EXXONMOBIL2
"As you appear to be a Law Expert..."
I have made no such claim.
"...and advocate of one law for all..."
A fundamental principle that surely no-one would dispute.
"...can you please explain to me why the Chad/Cameroon Pipeline (owned by Exxononmobil) has been allowed to operate in a legal void for 7years."
The short answer is "NO". And, frankly, it is rather foolish to expect me to comment on what is evidently a highly complex legal matter with nothing more than your obviously prejudiced remarks to go on.
You give the impression of believing that a fundamental principle of law is negated by any failure to abide by that principle. That because injustices exist, there is no justice. Needless to say, I utterly reject such fallacies.
Complain about this comment
After a while away I have decided to make a return we will see if its welcome or not lol.
I saw Robin Tilbrook of the English Democrats today on the show. I was unsurprised to see that he got to speak oh about 4 sentences.
I wonder if Alex Salmond of the SNP would get such short shrift. Oh no forgot Andrew Neil is a Scot.
Why am I not surprised.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
let us suspend all belief for the next week. Let us say that labour does have an overall majority at the next election, with Brown as the leader. Then what! Will Brown serve a full term with a victory under his belt will he then resign, because surely he can't lead the party for the five years of a government.
So, we must ask the question, what will happen if labour actually win the next election. I remember the old old GLC where there was a labour victory, and then immediately a certain Ken Lovingstone took command, and we know what happened next. So, as this will be the last labour party conference before the general election, then Brown has to tell us what he intends to do.
The trouble is that there is a racheting up by weak politicians of the Iran situation. A senior British General resigns, apparently the former commanding officer of Prince 'we do bad things to bad people' Harry. People talk about the war in Afghanistan, it is not a war, there is no decalaration of war, we are not at war, we are part of a force of occupation, no different to Germany in Holland, Belgium, or France in WWII.
We ended up in WWI because the troops were due to mutiny in Ireland, let us hope that we do not end up in WWIII because the government wants to save Patricia. Remember the War of Jenkins Ear.
Complain about this comment
60. meninwhitecoats
"
For the purposes of this argument the political parties are irrelevant..."
Did I mention political parties?
"You don't like Oudeis' example..."
Whether I "like" it or not is hardly the point. If it was intended as an example of evident criminal conduct then it failed completely.
"...explain why this this one should not be subject to action."
Where did I say it shouldn't be "subject to action"? Has anyone said this? Or have the voices in your head now joined in this discussion?
It really is perfectly straightforward. If there is evidence of criminal conduct such as would be likely to secure a conviction in a court of law, then appropriate proceedings should be instituted. A headline in some disreputable "newspaper" does not constitute evidence of any kind. People cannot be prosecuted just because something they have done happens to have provoked a media-led frenzy of self-righteous indignation among those characterised by a tendency to hypocrisy and possessed of a surfeit of sanctimony absent the mediating influence of factual knowledge and reflective thought.
I call them the "Angry Villagers" - a reference to the old cinematic device of the mindless mob effortlessly induced to take up their torches and pitchforks and march against... well... anything, really.
Complain about this comment
It's bad enough that the UK government should set the scene making it inevitable that this guy would be released for reasons of "national interest".
I am no fan of the SNP, but what really sickens me is to see Brown and his cohorts pulling the "nothing to do with me.gov" stroke and using Salmond and MacAskill as human shields. If Brown believes setting free Al Megrahi was the right thing to do, why can't he be straight and say so? If he doesn't, why doesn't he say so?
Moral compass? You're having a laugh.
Complain about this comment
#62 SA
Nice to see you back, a bit of principled argument is always welcome.
Complain about this comment
In the Lady Scotland issue, it was interesting to note the even-handed approach of the Border Agency. Flat raided, arrested and bailed. Can you guess which offender that applied to ?
I hadn't paid the whole matter much attantion, principally because the whole government is so badly tainted, it's easy to take it as read that they are all up to their greasey elbows in muck. However, the attempt to try and portray it as just an error in omission brings the issue of how this can be the case. If that's so, then surely the documents will evidence that she knowingly allowed the offence, a more serious charge.
A little googling and I found this reference to the matter.
"The agency would not comment on allegations that Ms Tapui had shown Lady Scotland a forged passport and a forged letter from the Home Office."
So is this the means by which the new ruler of Scotland seeks to gain absolution ? A very serious accusation of fraud ? If there is no proof of this and, as she holds not one shred of evidence as legally obliged, how credible is this ?. If she is believed, then the housemaid faces prison.
I foresee another situation where everyone walks free. Labour's answer to everything, giving new meaning to the expression 'getting off Scot free'. Perhaps her choice of title was portentous of her attitude to law in general.
Complain about this comment
RE 66
Why thank you meninwhitecoats for that kind comment. :)
I noted also your comment "A headline in some disreputable "newspaper" does not constitute evidence of any kind."
It is a real shame more people do not think like this. We may get more robust legislation instead of the banal headline chasing codswallop indulged in by the fopdoodles that inhabit the British (Not English) Parliament.
With this might come the return of the civil liberties stolen from us by failing governments of all parties and a proper legal and justice system administered by people more interested in furthering their careers than serving their nation.
Complain about this comment
65. Only jocking
"I am no fan of the SNP, but what really sickens me is to see Brown and his cohorts pulling the "nothing to do with me.gov" stroke and using Salmond and MacAskill as human shields."
You appear to be yet another one of those who simply can't their heads around the plain fact that it was nothing to do with Brown and/or the UK government.
Complain about this comment
62. superAngry
"I wonder if Alex Salmond of the SNP would get such short shrift. Oh no forgot Andrew Neil is a Scot. "
So is Kirsty Wark. What's your point?
Complain about this comment
...Illegality, proof and corruption.
What a man can do a man can undo. I trust we can agree on that.
Where it falls to the 'same' group of people to propose, draft, formulate, enact and police laws; can it be surprising that gaps are found where these 'same' people can wriggle through?
What wrankles is that where there is (personal) profit to be made things can be done and re-done to further the aims of those in power who are set to profit. Alas, where there is a contrary need for action to help the many others who do not profit the gaze of these 'same' people is ever elswhere directed.
A rose can be scented AND smell. So it is with law. It too can perfume and at the same time stink.
The unfairness comes in when effort is not made by those charged to do so when it does not profit them.
That stinks!
Complain about this comment
RE 70
I am not sure I see the significance of Kirsty Wark in relation to either the Daily Politics Show or the interview of Robin Tilbrook from the English Democrats on today’s edition.
The point I was making was when Alex Salmond is on the show being interviewed he is given ample opportunity to express his views and questioned about his policys whereas Mr Tilbrook clearly wasn’t.
Instead Anita allowed the other guests to ridicule him by talking about the election of monkeys. I might suggest that the public would prefer to elect monkeys instead of the fopdoodles we are currently subjected to.
She could have asked him what effect he felt Devolution for England would mean in practice to the people of England and how it would affect the Union as a whole.
Also she could easily have asked about the Barnett Formula that Mr Tilbrook referred to, though didn’t mention by name, in relation to the disparity of funding that exists between the money allocated to the other home nations and England.
Complain about this comment
#69 Electric Hermit "You appear to be yet another one of those who simply can't their heads around the plain fact that it was nothing to do with Brown and/or the UK government."
EH - You really believe that the release of Al Megrahi was uninfluenced by the UK government??? Everybody is entitled to be naive but you're abusing the privilege.
By the way, try telling that to Obama.
Complain about this comment
68. superAngry
"...and a proper legal and justice system administered by people more interested in furthering their careers than serving their nation. "
While not for one moment denying their right to seek career advancement, I suspect I may not be alone in preferring that those administering the "legal and justice system" should be imbued with at least some sense of public service.
Complain about this comment
71 Oudeis
Well put Sir, Shakesperian almost.
Perhaps Electric Hermit will agree?
Complain about this comment
Superangry
You must wonder what you have come back - being attacked so soon.
Assume you have been on twitter again, what are you currently following?
Complain about this comment
Ref 59 Electric hermit
Now now, no need to get personal.
Ref 61 Electric Hermit.
Not just my sayso on the Chad Camerooon Pipeline, there is a volominous amount of evidence produce by the World bank no other, which confirms the pipeline is illegal. I don't expect you to be familaia wirth the technical jargon. The point I am making Exxonmobil are a rich company, hence, don't worry about the LAWS.
Complain about this comment
72. superAngry
You clearly implied that Alex Salmond was given preferential treatment because he is Scottish and so is Andrew Neil. I merely tried to point out, as politely as possible, what a load of carp this is.
Complain about this comment
73. Only jocking
"EH - You really believe that the release of Al Megrahi was uninfluenced by the UK government???"
I don't deal in "belief". I deal in facts. And the fact which you are having such difficulty dealing with is that the UK government had no role or authority whatever in the decision-making process relating to al- Megrahi's release.
Once you come to terms with this fact, I have something to tell you about Santa Claus.
Complain about this comment
73. Only jocking
"By the way, try telling that to Obama."
Obama had no more to do with it than Brown. The ultimate decision on al-Megrahi's release was for the Scottish Justice Secretary alone. Scream and stamp your little footsies as you may, that fact will survive all your petulant tantrums.
Complain about this comment
75. xTunbridge
"Perhaps Electric Hermit will agree?"
Why would I do that? While maintaining a healthy degree of cynicism, I am not foolish enough to allow it such free rein as to warp my world-view.
Complain about this comment
77. EXXONMOBIL2
"The point I am making Exxonmobil are a rich company, hence, don't worry about the LAWS."
Exactly what do you imagine you have just proved?
Complain about this comment
Electric Hermit
When do your batteries run out?
Complain about this comment
83. meninwhitecoats
"
When do your batteries run out?"
Feel free to hold your breath while timing me.
Complain about this comment
Frankly it's naive to think that the UK, let alone Scotland, are operating an indepndent political and diplomatic strategy with such a sensitive and volatile country as Libya.
It suits the US government for the UK and/or Scotland to take the ire of the US public over the release of al-Megrahi, but overall the strategy is dictated by the USA.
Again, it's all about oil, and that's why Gaddafi was allowed to reprise his Tommy Cooper act at the United Nations.
Morality, compassion and justice was nothing to with it.
Complain about this comment
#85 GomerPyle
That is pretty close to it as I see it.
From the prisoner transfer deal to NI police out there doing the training.
More work to help subdue the bottom billions when their (our oil-covetous governments) rhetoric runs out?
Complain about this comment
85. GomerPyle
"Morality, compassion and justice was nothing to with it."
What more was involved in the Kenny MacAskill's decision to release al-Megrahi? And try to restrict your answers to the real world rather than the one viewed through the distorting lens of posturing cynicism.
Complain about this comment
Still a Mad Dog !!!
USA (grab oil/gas everywhere) followed by
the puppets/moppets in the West have bowed
the knee to Mad Dog.
The American "right" forget about when the USA
bombed Libya (Thatcher/Reagan) downed an aircraft,
fighter planes and boats !!!
Lockerbie should not have been "a suprise" !!!
All this double-speak from Capital Hill and Downing St
cannot hide their involvement ?
Megrabbi was a pawn,ok a secret service pawn who was
told by Mad Dog,that he would be home in 10yrs !
because the West would want OIL !!!
Scottish Admin were right in releasing Magrabbi.
Reminds me of "Do on to others -------"(the United States)?
I've read and read and I believe he was a fall guy.
I agree with Dr Squire that his involvment,if at all,
was minimal !
Mad Dog has been here for 40yrs.
Prize for anyone who can name the President or PM then ???
Complain about this comment
My cynicism is deep felt and honestly held Electric Hermit.
It may soothe our egos to imagine that we occupy a place at the top table on merit, but we only remain there as obedient clients to the US. No wonder Gordon comes out in palpatations if President Obama doesn't give him a pat on the head.
To then consider that Scotland can make decisions based on pure justice, untainted by the needs of international politics, is pure fantasy. If Scotland has fanciful notions like that, then I strongly urge them to give up on absurd ideas such as independence.
Is Scotland upset because the Issue is a UK one that the PM of the UK has to handle ? I suspect so, but there's no existence in 'fronting up' to the US without a hand like massive oil reserves to play.
Oh yes, if you aren't a cynic, this must all appear very confusing.
Complain about this comment
89. GomerPyle
Not an answer. But then, having stipulated that you address reality, I didn't really expect one.
Complain about this comment
89. GomerPyle
"Is Scotland upset because the Issue is a UK one that the PM of the UK has to handle ? "
If the "Issue" you refer to is the matter of al-Megrahi's applications for release then you display a level of ignorance that would be remarkable even in the most parochial "Little Englander" or the most stubbornly insular of America's "dumb rednecks".
More striking still is the fact that you take such evident pride in this ignorance. Parading it on a public forum as if it was a badge of honour.
Complain about this comment
I expect some of you enjoy Dan Brown,now consider this as the plot for a conspiracy movel.You can choose to play one of the characters,some of you should not find that too difficult.
A bomb destroys a US airliner over Lockerbie,it is an atrocity and many US and UK citizens die.
The instigators conduits and means are known to the intelligence services but are not what are publicly acknowledged.Mr Gaddafi acceptsa responsibility and Mr Al Megrahi is jailed.
As part of his penance,Mr. Gaddafi renouces his messianic ambitions,talks to Western Governments and renounces his nuclear programme.But his compromises make him increasingly bitter because he he has been made the scapegoat over events over which he had no control.He cannot say this so is reduced to incoherence and anger at the UN.
Meanwhile Iran proceeds with uranian enrichment and treats its critics with contempt.Mr. Gaddafi feels that life is unfair and like Old Lear he rails against an unjust universe.
I said it was fiction,now develop the story.
Complain about this comment
B @ 92
plot question ... so why does this Mr G accept responsibility?
Complain about this comment
Brhyers
Please no more Dan Brown - the one with the Pope's love child finished me off.
Now your story has distinct possibilities - having had the attention of the west lavished on him will Lear be tempted to make on last grand gesture?
Complain about this comment
A good day all round then!
Obama says the world must sort out the issues, and America might join in...so he's backing American isolationism
A Maj Gen quits the army about the campaign in Afghanistan, nothing to do with Macavity?
...and all buried under the price the G7 has had to pay for the credit crunch. Give up places at the top table so that these new comers will finance the debt, but will the former g7 have the political will now to sort out their festering finances?...and all spun as expanding when effectively the g7 is bust without the propping up from these other economies
Complain about this comment
92. bryhers
"I said it was fiction,now develop the story."
I can offer the prequel - going back to 3 July 1988 when the US warship Vincennes shot an Iranian airliner out of the sky over the Persian Gulf slaughtering 290 innocent civilians including 66 children.
Unfortunately, this savage act of mass-murder is not fictional. The perpetrators have the medals to prove it.
Complain about this comment
#85 GomerPyle
Your right to a point.
Morality etc etc is seldomed displayed by the USA.
However you said,
"Morality,compassion and justice was nothing to (do) with it.
Wrong,wrong,wrong!
Scottish morality,compassion and justice are more considerate
than the oil greedy USA and T Bliar's No 10 !
Complain about this comment
97. spinspamspun
"Your right to a point.
Morality etc etc is seldomed displayed by the USA."
This is a pertinent comment. In all of the inane fuss over the Scottish government's handling of the al-Megrahi release, it has been depressingly obvious that the concept of justice tempered with compassion is totally alien to many (most?) Americans. And anathema to a surprising number.
And yet these people seriously imagine that everybody wants to be just like them!
Complain about this comment
Electric Hermit
Looking through your historical postings, it would seem the Libyan issue is your main interest.
We are generally open minded on this blog - if you have a point to make please make it - it is easier to pick other people's arguments apart than to make your own point.
Who knows someone may even agree with you - we are a motley crew.
Complain about this comment
Sagamix/electric hermit.
You tantalizingly dangle some more of the pieces. Now you can continue the story.
Complain about this comment
# Electric Hermit
# Gnome Pyle
Scotland is not upset !!!
For all you south of Berwick/Gretna
and then filtered further @ Watford,
Scotland is a Nation with a legal system
going back over 300 years,dispensing
MORALITY,COMPASSION and JUSTICE.
ps I am not a Scot.
I'm an Ulster(scot)
Complain about this comment
99. meninwhitecoats
"Looking through your historical postings, it would seem the Libyan issue is your main interest."
A false assumption. It just happens that this is a particularly prominent issue at the moment. And I make no apology whatever for "picking apart" the ill-informed drivel being spouted on the subject by so many.
Complain about this comment
93. sagamix
"so why does this Mr G accept responsibility?"
As somebody once said, "Its the economy, stupid!"
Complain about this comment
102 Electric Hermit
Feel free to pick apart my "ill informed drivel" - I couldn't give two hoots.
But please put forward your own.
Complain about this comment
96 Electric Hermit
Hmm, until your post No 96 I thought you were an impolite, arrogant blinkered stirrer.
Now perhaps there is more to you than meets the eye.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Andrew and other bloggers here don't exactly know the truth about UK and US relations with what they call rogue states.
The majority of UK and US alliances were never based on morals or credibility,...they are rather dependent on mutual interests.
Libya isn't any different. However, it's quite strange how the world is making all this fuss out of Libya, describing it as a rogue small fry state,...coming in from the cold after years of isolation,...a former pariah state,...etc
In my opinion, western states aren't nations of angels (that's what they make the world believe !),...Their decision to be friends or foes with 3rd world states is determined by how willing these states are to make concessions and doing what they are being told by the major powers. As the yanks say,...if you can't beat em, join em ! and when you join them, all your sins will be atoned for. What a pity !!
But this is a good opportunity for Libya and it's citizens to be more open to the world. Western media is only presenting the horrible aspect of this issue,...so please don't believe what is said on the news only, don't rely on anecdotes and rumors,....More emphasis should be put on Libya's people and culture instead of just moaning about the ugly past of bombings and assassinations !!
Complain about this comment
Sorry maybe not spot on the point !!!
Here goes !!!
Hope the connection allows comment !
Libya(Mad dog} has weapons of mass destruction(WMD's)
He is bombed etc etc.
Rejoins the West to allow oil to be developed !!!
Colin Powell gives a press conference showing Iraqi vehicles,
capable of unleashing WMD's
wee George Bush declares war, followed by, in Dads Army style,
that great forgotten British leader, T Blair.
How can we believe everthing about Iran ?
If half of it is true,will Israel sit back ?
What is the "peace envoy" doing ?
Who is listening to him ?
Who is he talking to ?
Its the one and only Tony B"lair" !!!
We're safe with his tongue !!!
I hope you allow this comment.Thankyou
Complain about this comment
I like to think that Kenny MacAskill released Al-Magrahi purely on the compassionate grounds that he was terminally ill with less than three months to live.
I also like to think that he is a good and honourable man and did so without any consideration of innocence or guilt, Prisoner Transfer Agreements, possible appeals or any pressure from outside.
The American public are angry with the British because they do not understand compassionate release and think that we have gone soft in the head and released a terrorist.
The American government however is angry with the British government because at the time of the original trial a deal with the Americans was done that said Al-Magrahi would serve his sentence in Scotland and would not be subject to any subsequent Prisoner Transfer Agreement, it is this deal that our government decided to break.
If Al-Magrahi wasn't dying and his appeal had failed then he would have been transferred back to Libya to serve the rest of his sentence in a Libyan jail, this was the essence of the deal in Corfu with Gadaffi's son.
That is why the yanks have the hump.
And now to old 'Mad Dog', King of Kings, trained at the British Army Staff College in 1966, came to power in 1969 in a bloodless coup when Harold Wilson and Richard Nixon were in power, he has seen 6 British Prime Ministers and 8 US Presidents come and go.
Why are 'we' cosying up to him ? It's the oil obviously.
Complain about this comment
108. BobRocket
"If Al-Magrahi wasn't dying and his appeal had failed then he would have been transferred back to Libya to serve the rest of his sentence in a Libyan jail..."
All of which blithely disregards the fact that the UK government had no say in whether al-Megrahi would be released under the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA). As with compassionate release, ultimate authority lay with Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill. And he denied the application for release under PTA on the grounds that this would be contrary to undertakings given to the US authorities by the UK government.
It may well be the case that the UK government intended to renege on these undertakings. But the plain fact is that they had no legal power to do so.
One thing that has become glaringly obvious through all of this is the fact that neither the UK nor the US administrations had any understanding of the constitutional and jurisdictional position - if they had even given it any consideration at all. Both simply took it for granted that their will would be done. Both were wrong.
Thankfully, we have a government in Scotland that knows what it is doing and which is committed to serving the interests of the Scottish nation and people. Can there possibly be any doubt that had the British Labour Party still dominated Scottish politics, they would have been tripping over themselves in their eagerness to betray Scotland's laws and legal traditions at the behest of their masters in London and Washington.
Complain about this comment
108. BobRocket
"I like to think that Kenny MacAskill released Al-Magrahi purely on the compassionate grounds that he was terminally ill with less than three months to live."
There is no rational reason to doubt it.
Complain about this comment
#109 Electric Hermit wrote.
'As with compassionate release, ultimate authority lay with Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill. And he denied the application for release under PTA on the grounds that this would be contrary to undertakings given to the US authorities by the UK government.'
I was unaware that there had been an application to transfer Al-Magrahi under the PTA but if there was an application then why would MacAskill deny it because of an agreement between the UK and USA governments, if as you say the future of Al-Magrahi lay entirely with MacAskill and he was not beholden to such agreements.
Complain about this comment
111. BobRocket
"I was unaware that there had been an application to transfer Al-Magrahi under the PTA but if there was an application then why would MacAskill deny it because of an agreement between the UK and USA governments, if as you say the future of Al-Magrahi lay entirely with MacAskill and he was not beholden to such agreements.
"
You don't have to take my word for it that there was an application for under the terms of the PTA from the Libyan authorities. All the documents are in the public domain.
And your question as to why MacAskill denied the application can be given in one word - principle. An undertaking had been given, and the Justice Secretary deemed it right and proper that he should honour that agreement.
Complain about this comment
The fact is that our 'special relationship' with the US exists for as long as we are compliant.
It would be more interesting to know how many other prisoners have been released on compassionate grounds in Scotland. If it were a more regular occurrence, then I'd be happy to view it as more than just a 'one off' political convenience.
It's one political manoeuvre that Gordon has managed to pull off that he come out ahead on. Scotland takes the blame and it has damaged the SNP in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Good morning GomerPyle
It's yourself again !
You are correct re your comment about the special(Reagan/Thatcher-
Blair/Bush)relationship !!! BE COMPLIANT. Go back in history to WW2
when Yanks charged UK a ransom for every rusting hulk sailed across
the Atlantic !!!
A VERY SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP IN WHICH WE MUST BE COMPLIANT TO ENSURE IT
CONTINUES AND WE KNOW OUR PLACE !!!
Did you hear France today speaking against Iran's nuclear programme !
It was France who defied world opinion in 70's and started Iran's
programme. But suprise suprise that's the ------- for you !
No more Brie here !!!
Getting back to your main point.
Scottish law has a least more than 300 years of compassion over its
southern neighbours.
Magrabbi's release was no "political convenience"
If I can recall the stats :-
75% have been released on compassionate grounds and Magrabbi
was the 7th or 8th murderer to be so.
No wonder G Brown keep quiet.
Did you hear the weasel,slippery "WORDS" of the Home and
Foreign Offices ?
Can still hear and SEE them,those HONEST Politicans !
The Scottish Admin were correct with their decision!
What more can I say,GomerPyle,I'm away for a rest !
Await your reply !!!
Complain about this comment
Ref 82 Electric Hermit
The point I am trying to make is there is a Law for the rich and one for the poor and Iam using the Exxonmobil/Chad Pipeline as a clear example and of course the MP expenses scam.
Ref 82 XTunbridge.
I agree with you about Electric Hermit and I still think he is a government plant and he does write with intelligence on his subjects but he must be the only person on the planet to think there is only ONE rule of Law and the British Gpovernment were not invlved in the Magrahi release.
Complain about this comment
Local Authrority.
On Thurs evening I went along to an Exeter City Council (ECC) Open debate and during the "Open Questions" I asked the two folling questions.
1. Can you please explain to me and the general public at this meeting what measures you have in place to ensure against the repition of 2005 in respect of the contaminated cement being supplied to the South West.
2.Are you aware that the ECC Civic Center has not been provisioned with the proper lightning protection systems (LPS).
The response I got from both questions from the ECC deputy leaders was drivel and he said that the ECC had addressed these issues before to me personally,which is BULL---. He asked me how I knew about the LPS and I waved the waved the LPS Test results for the last 5 years which I obtained under the FOI Act.
I suppose I need to wait until the Civic Center is struck by lightning and kills a copule of Unison members and then they might take me seriously and ditto for the 6 PFI schools.
Here is another example for you Electric Hermit of rules for one and rules for others,e.g. both local authorities AND the HSE have put a lifetime email ban on me because I keep raising issues such as 1&2above.
Complain about this comment
Attn Electric Hermit
I would like to offer you another clear example of TWO different LAWS and it connected to the EU and funding for the Chad/Cameroon Pipeline(CCP)
The EIB informed me they could not investigate my claims of wrongdoing on the CCP because they did not fund the CCP, which, I am sure you will agree is perfectly legitmate answer. However, if you check out the EIB website you will see the EIB DID INDEED fund the CCP to the tune of 150million euro. Try as I might to get the Authorities,e.g. OLAF,EU,EIB I have met a dead end. See what I mean Electric Hermit, there is a definite LAW distinction between rich and poor.
Complain about this comment
Good Morning Andrew,
listened to Milliband on the Radio this morning talking about Iran and sane people. I have to go back again to what happened before the outbreak of WWI. With all the technology, the armaments, no sane person would have gone to war even thinking that it may be over by Christmas. Look at all the available texts about what countries, politicians, and rulers were saying in the period leading up to August 1914.
I sense insanity around me, where countries, people and politicians feel inferior, or threatened, and they must prove themselves. Or distract their voters from the serious situation now enveloping the globe. So, I say be afraid, very afraid, because I honestly think that the lunatics have in fact taken over the asylum. The Dreadnoughts did not ensure peace, they were the equivalents of our nuclear weapons, all that happened is that somebody worked out their achilles heel, same with today, how on earth can anybody defeat the suicide bomber.
What needs to be asked is what clandestine operations have been carried out by 'the west' the identify the second Iranian nuclear facility. Are we not only terrorists ourselves, but now insurgents, fomenting an internal revolution in Iran, where we will have to intervene. In the meantime what about Afghanistan, what about Karzai?
Complain about this comment
Good morning each & Andrew.
The New Labour Conference.
There is one occasion the reaction to which is fairly common among Britons.
No matter how deep the wound no matter how ragged,
The shoulders must be squared,
the visage set,
a deep breath taken,
arrangements made,
buisness settled,
rites observed.
Only; I am not sure which GB is the deceased.
Complain about this comment
okay, I've got the time if you have - let's tease it out, shall we?
bryhers says that rather exciting "Man of the World" stuff about who "really did it" (not Libya and not Al Meg) and about CG agreeing to take the rap
I ask why he'd do that? ... not why Mr B would say it ... why CG would agree to take the blame, I mean
the Electric Hermit bloggerparson breaks off his impassioned defence of Kenny, and chips in with "it's the economy!" ... offers the "prequel" of the yanks blowing a heap of Iranians out of the sky
and Mr B seems to hint that's pretty much on the right lines!
okay? - yes, I think so - so where are we? ... as below I think
Lockerbie was perpetrated by Iran in revenge for the US blowing up their plane in 1988 (dish best eaten cold type thing) but it made sense, for some reason, that CG took the blame - and he agreed to do so in return for some economic benefit - he was bribed in other words
how am I doing?
great, thanks ... next batch of Qs therefore (hope that's okay) ...
(1) why did it make sense for CG to take the blame?
(2) what was the bribe?
(3) why was Al Meg found guilty when this implies he wasn't?
leading to the final question ... the one that's causing tempers to fly ... which is, of course, why was Al Meg released ???
but let's forget about that, for now, and do things in the right order ... answers to my 1/2/3 please ... on a postcard, if you like
logic rules!
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
where is Bob Ainsworth, the wonderful intelligent, well spoken person who now heads up the Ministry of War (oops, sorry Ministry of Defence). Just so looking forward to his speech at the labour party conference. As for Brown, sorting out cancer, only it will take another five years. Spending our money again, money which will have to be cut, he knows it, we knoew, where are the magicians, I know let's go and print some more money.
Complain about this comment
103 Electric rocket.
As a potential script writer I have a question about plot development:
Is Mr. Gaddafi responsible for Lockerbie? and when brought to account,accepted trade with the west as a compromise with his earlier ambition,Or is he innocent? but is unable to give the real reason for his silence?
I note his rancour against what he calls the `Terrorism Council." As if the consensus around Lockerbie is a festering source of grievance.
I would welcome your thoughts, although I find your argument for simple economic motivation unsubtle.As ever I am in your hands.
Complain about this comment
A copy of my email to the South West Unison Branch Secretary in response to his email advising me to contact the HSE ref the PFI irregularities.
This correspondence between myself and Unison must now raise the question, ARE UNISON RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR MEMBERS SAFETY AT THE WORKPLACE.
_________________________________________________________________________
Dear XXXXXX
The HSE are a complete waste of time and in my view a paper tiger and government mouthpeice. Furthermore, the HSE have placed a lifetime ban upon me ,as did the Devon County and Exeter City Council,hence, I am unable to communicate with the HSE.
I now wish to draw you attention to yet another serious issue, which, threatens Unison members. In particular, I refer to the Lightning Protection Systems at the ECC Civic Center in Exeter. I have recently received the Lightning Protection System (LPS) test results for the last 5 years via the FOI Act and these test results confims the Civic Center has NOT been provisioned with the LPS as prescribed by Law.
I raised this matter at Thurs evening ECC Open Forum in the Guildhall and quite frankly, the ECC have NO IDEA what I am talking about. I suggest you obtain a copy of the LPS Inspection Reports for the last five years from the ECC and you will see your members safety and welfare are being compromised. I also suggest you pass the test results to a LPS specialist.
If what I say about the Civic Centre LPS is true, it begs the question how many other Unison members are vulnerable at swimming pools,schools,hospitals,government agency premises ,etc
with thanks
best regards
Exxonmobil2
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
my sister lives in Sterling Illinois and so I sometimes read the local newspaper. This is the headline put in to todays paper (Saukville.com) and it reads:'Obama rattles saber at Iran' as I have said before, be afraid very afrid. Also the picture which accompanies it is quite interesting in that Pbama stands head and shoulders above Brown, who looks the same size as Sarkozy. Brilliant.
Complain about this comment
#120 sagamix
3. The convenience of the death penalty. Even without the Dp there remains the convenience.
2. Some you shake by the hand some you shake by the throat.
1. It is open to anybody to do as the court did. Take what you fancy from the banquet table...and make your own soup.
Complain about this comment
P.S. Oops!
I answered 3 twice, I think.
1.Sense? CG?
I once remarked to an American that the USA informed Pakistan to get on-side or be bombed back to the stone age.
Yea, and? Was the reply.
Complain about this comment
It appears that all political drive is to drive us to distraction. Apart from the definition 'to make crazy', it strikes me that it also is used in the sense to lose 'traction', so that we fail to grip.
Clearly governments that we know fight on two fronts; at home and abroad.
It is hard for to see us as simply as being in the audience at this Wild-Westside Story.
Power. Just what is it?
Merely force?
Is courage only something that the dead have?
Have you ever seen a bully stand alone?
There is easy-cohesion under fire, is there not. Where else but in the face of, imagined-manufactured-possible, threat can we people be seen to stand together?
Is it inevitable that we come to resemble that which we fear and are now but ghosts of what we might have been?
Complain about this comment
113. GomerPyle
"It would be more interesting to know how many other prisoners have been released on compassionate grounds in Scotland."
In the ten years since the Scottish Parliament reconvened more than twenty prisoners have been granted release on licence on compassionate grounds.
Complain about this comment
On the final point to my #127. Put down your cup before reading...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216220/Mothers-banned-looking-children.html
Complain about this comment
120. sagamix
"Lockerbie was perpetrated by Iran in revenge for the US blowing up their plane in 1988 (dish best eaten cold type thing)"
The Lockerbie incident happened less than six months after the US slaughtered 290 innocent civilians aboard Iran Air Flight 655.
Complain about this comment
hi Oudeis @ 125
that sounds more like 3 new questions!
quick recap:
- Iran do Lockerbie in revenge for the US shooting down their plane
- the "powers that be" know that
- but it can't be officially admitted
- so they bribe Libya to carry the can
- and the Colonel agrees (it's a very big bribe!)
- even offers up Al Meg as a scapegoat
- who's tried and found guilty
- and then gets released because he's dying ... returns to Libya
- where he gets a hero's welcome
not yet hanging together, is it? - c'mon guys, help me out!
Complain about this comment
131. sagamix
"not yet hanging together, is it? - c'mon guys, help me out!"
What part of this scenario is giving you a problem?
Complain about this comment
115 Exxon2
On the one law thing. I recall driving through Worcester a year or two back and painted in 2 feet high red letters across the front of Worcester Crown Court was 'ONLY THE RICH GO FREE".
I thought that neatly summed things up.
Complain about this comment
EH @ 132
ah good! - a couple of loose ends is all
just need to know ...
(1) why was it important to suppress the truth? ... i.e. the Iran angle?
(2) what was the bribe to CG? ... not exactly but, you know, in essence?
(3) why was thingymebob found guilty if it was KNOWN he wasn't?
(4) why was he released?
Complain about this comment
"Patients to have cancer tests 'within two weeks' in pledge by Gordon Brown"
After my experiences with Leicester and Rutland Area Health Authority I find such empty promises highly offensive. I have personal experiences of how such targets are achieved, and it's not by providing superior care. It's by juggling the figures.
The reason for delay in my case was put down initially to broken fax machines and the sort of excuse you expect from Easten Bloc Communist state bureacracies. In private industry such faults are recorded s failures, but clearly not in the NHS.
From memory, treatment was envisaged to begin after a year's delay and that's so far removed from Gordon's promises, he must believe the figures he's been given by the NHS. Clearly the figures are effective as a means of triggering bonus payments, but as a measure of care provided, my experience is that they are useless, in the true sense of the word, much like Gordon himself.
Complain about this comment
134. sagamix
"(1) why was it important to suppress the truth? ... i.e. the Iran angle?"
The US could not accuse Iran without throwing a spotlight on their own culpability in the murder of 290 innocent civilians aboard Iran Air Flight 655. Probably not the complete answer, but a very important part of it.
"(2) what was the bribe to CG? ... not exactly but, you know, in essence?"
Normalisation of relations with the US and resumption of trade with the world.
"(3) why was thingymebob found guilty if it was KNOWN he wasn't?"
It is not "KNOWN" that al-Megrahi is innocent. There is a very widely held view that his conviction was unsafe.
"(4) why was he released?"
The simplest question to answer. Mr al-Megrahi was granted compassionate release on licence because he qualified for such release under Scottish law, and there was no valid legal grounds or compelling reason to deny his application.
Complain about this comment
Saga Electric Hermit,Oudeis
It`s motivation isn`t it? that`s the problem for every story teller.
If you believe Iran was culpable, why has it never been officially named?
EH mentions the shame of the USA,but what about other countries who are not bound by the US experience?
Economic determinism as an explanation for Mr.Gaddafi`s actions is vulgar Marxism,i.e.tracing all actions/reactions back to some economic source.It shows a misunderstanding of how the status of Arab leaders is judged.A society for whom Salahaddin is a living presence places great importance on honour.Two generations from the sand and authority is enacted face to face in tents or palaces.Gaddafi didn`t take responsibility because he was short a few bucks but for reasons which only Europeans with local knowledge would understand.
To write a conspiracy script it is important not to believe in conspiracies yourself,it will first confuse and then trap you in a mindset from which it is hard to escape.
Complain about this comment
#136 EH
" Q:what was the bribe to CG? ... not exactly but, you know, in essence?
A: Normalisation of relations with the US and resumption of trade with the world."
I can see the thread of your story - but I am less convinced on the Gadaffi angle.
How long after Lockerbie did the US resume relations and trade with Libya?
Complain about this comment
Electric @ 136
thank you
I'm happy enough with (4) but not really with the rest
because ...
- for our theory to hold, there must have been a conspiracy between the Colonel and the US/UK authorities ... the compo paid by Libya to the victims, for example, and the recent statements by Obama, all that must be For the Birds ... possible, I guess, but let's carry on
- if Iran did it, and we know Iran did it, then aren't we saying al Megrahi must NOT have done it? ... you know, given the Iran angle means it wasn't Libya, and al Meg is a Libyan type of a guy ... went back to Libya, hero's welcome etc
- which would mean the trial was a sham ... guy convicted when "powers that be" know it was Iran, not Libya (and al Meg means Libya remember, as per above) ... and they must have known because they did the deal with Colonel G ... if we assume there WAS a Deal, it follows that it was known it was Iran not Libya, right? ... otherwise, makes no sense
- further implies the Authorities knew the trial was a sham
and we're in a tangle now, aren't we?
... because if the authorities know the trial was a sham, and that al Meg is innocent, it throws real doubt on our (4) doesn't it? - the one conspiracy theory begats the other, if you see what I mean
or put another way:
(1) if you're not a Conspiracy Theory type of person (like I'm not) you will believe none of the CTs - thus, it WAS Libya - there WASN'T a deal - and al Meg was simply released through normal due process - that's me
or ...
(2) if you ARE inclined to go with CTs (not saying that's a bad thing, btw ... just doing a logic tree) then you'll probably believe the BOTH of them - so it was Iran, there was a deal, al Meg is innocent, and ... key point! ... his release had more to it than Kenny is prepared to admit
so, like I say, I'm (1)
and you? - well you're going for a mix and match, aren't you? - you're giving credence to the "Iran not Libya, plus deal with the Colonel" conspiracy theory, right? - okay fine - but then you're shooting down any suggestion whatsoever that there might be something fishy about the release - you seem to be saying that the CT is possible ... nay probable ... in the one case, but is absolutely out of the question in the other
see the problem now?
Complain about this comment
bryhers @ 137
no sorry babe, it's rubbish - pls see 139 above - just a little wild and wacky for me, I'm afraid - a bit too Keynes when I need Newton, if you get my drift
but thanks!
Complain about this comment
139. sagamix
"which would mean the trial was a sham"
The trial itself was not a "sham". It was a genuine attempt to ensure that justice was done. But the prosecution was seriously flawed - largely due to political interference - to the extent that many believe there was insufficient basis for a conviction.
Complain about this comment
Conspiracy - what conspiracy ?
Google this
"Secretary Clinton With Libyan National Security Adviser Dr. Mutassim Qadhafi"
... in April 2009. What do you think Hilary would have discussed with the man who would ostensibly be al_Megrahi's boss - home decor ?
The whole issue of this being a strange quirk of Scottish law is bogus as there is little difference between Scottish and English law in this respect, other than responsibility for making the decision, which was perfect to enable Gordon to avoid one custard pie at least.
I am now more convinced than ever that this decision was another example of us bowing to the will of the US government and getting them off the hook. Their disapproval was a sham for public show.
Gordon has only one card to play, the Obama card, and he's indebted to the US to an uncomfortable extent.
Complain about this comment
139. sagamix
"and you? - well you're going for a mix and match, aren't you? - you're giving credence to the "Iran not Libya, plus deal with the Colonel" conspiracy theory, right? - okay fine - but then you're shooting down any suggestion whatsoever that there might be something fishy about the release - you seem to be saying that the CT is possible ... nay probable ... in the one case, but is absolutely out of the question in the other"
I am not giving credence to any conspiracy theory. And you are conflating two entirely separate issues.
As far as conspiracy theories are concerned, I tend to disbelieve those who want to convince me of some conspiracy while distrusting those who are equally eager to persuade me that there is no conspiracy.
But the fact is that no actual, formal conspiracy is needed to produce the appearance of one after the fact. A particular outcome may seem to have been engineered by two or more persons working in concert when in reality it is merely the result of small, disconnected decisions made by a sufficient number of individuals wielding sufficient influence and sharing a sufficient commonality of purpose.
To take a prominent example, it is implausible to the point of practical impossibility that 9/11 was the product any conspiracy within the Bush administration. But it is possible - even probable - that a massive terrorist attack so suited the aims and purposes of powerful elements with the administration that myriad individually inconsequential choices made by various persons at different times had the cumulative effect of making such an attack possible or even inevitable. With hindsight and a gross overview it can easily seem as if there was a conspiracy. It is only by examining events at ever finer resolution that the disconnectedness of apparently linked actions is revealed.
The same applies to the "Libya Conspiracy". Normalisation of diplomatic and trade relations between Libya and the US, UK, EU etc. was very much in the interests of so many powerful vested interests that it was bound to happen anyway and certainly required no "cunning plan".
But even supposing there had been some conspiracy going on at some level, this does not so much as suggest, never mind necessarily indicate, that the decision to release al-Megrahi was an element in this devious plot. That's a big part of the problem with conspiracy theories. They inevitably tend to drag all peripheral events into their ambit because unconnected events are anathema to the conspiracy theorist. This, and the fact that ever more and increasingly convoluted "explanations" have to be tacked on, is why these conspiracy theories tend to grow to such ludicrous proportions.
Ladies and gentlemen! I give you, Occam's Razor! The explanation given for the release of al-Megrahi embraces the necessary and the sufficient. Additional assumptions are superfluous - and illogical.
Complain about this comment
143. Electric Hermit
"The whole issue of this being a strange quirk of Scottish law is bogus..."
What is "bogus" is your representation of the process as a "strange quirk of Scottish law". Medical parole or some similar equivalent to Scotland's legislation is common to many jurisdictions throughout the world. There is nothing strange or quirky about it. Applications for release under licence on compassionate grounds are a perfectly normal, if somewhat uncommon, procedure in Scotland and elsewhere. The fact that you are unaware of these procedures does not make them extraordinary.
Neither was there anything strange or quirky about the manner in which al-Megrahi's application was processed. Kenny MacAskill was under considerable pressure to treat this case as an exception to the norms and standards of Scottish law. He resolutely and honourably resisted all such interference in due process. The al-Megrahi case was dealt with according to the rules and in precisely the same way as every other such application.
Live with it!
Complain about this comment
142. GomerPyle
"Gordon has only one card to play, the Obama card, and he's indebted to the US to an uncomfortable extent."
Huh? In what way is Brown "indebted" to the US?
Complain about this comment
121. At 09:37am on 26 Sep 2009, T A Griffin (TAG) wrote:
Andrew,
where is Bob Ainsworth, the wonderful intelligent, well spoken person who now heads up the Ministry of War (oops, sorry Ministry of Defence). Just so looking forward to his speech at the labour party conference. As for Brown, sorting out cancer, only it will take another five years. Spending our money again, money which will have to be cut, he knows it, we knoew, where are the magicians, I know let's go and print some more money.
----------------------------------
Bob is probably in hiding. This article written by the excellent Michael Yon (former Green beret) is entitled "Bulls**t Bob" excorciates the Minister in no uncertain terms where he describes the surprise discontinuation of his embedment with 2 Rifles. Michael tends to go out on patrol with the soldiers he is embedded with, and so is able to report on the real story as opposed to what is doled out by the MOD PR office. In effect he has been censored.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/bullshit-bob.htm
Complain about this comment
Andrew:
Also, the reason for being keen on Libya and its leader is that
we want to know of the stuff; he has to offered to the world....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
# 145
Obama is Gordon's only fan, apart from the foundation who awarded him his 'World Statesmand Trophy', though apparently he won it in March and clearly wanted to wait for a good photo opportunity where someone might notice.
If you look at the foundation's aims it has nothing to do with economics, but it suited both I presume. Amusingly the previous winner, the President of Brasil, specifically blamed the economic crisis on blue eyed Anglo Saxons. Credit where credit's due.
Complain about this comment
148. GomerPyle
"Obama is Gordon's only fan..."
You just make it up as you go along, don't you?
Complain about this comment
hermit @ 143
yes, I get (and agree with) most of that - I'm a real "Occam's Razor" type of a guy ... oh yes! ... and so I've no great problem in taking the release of the "LB" on compassionate grounds at face value - go for the simplest explanation which does the job, right? - right - no, I'm not big on "more to this than meets the eye" type stuff - there normally isn't - I'm even one of the few people on the planet who thinks that Lee shot Kennedy and he acted alone - and so, yes, I quite like your position on The Release - but you're spoiling it for me by saying you reckon it was Iran, and not Libya, behind the bombing and (because this then follows) that Colonel G only agreed to take the rap, and offered up al Meg, in return for ... well it doesn't matter what for ... in return for something desirable - so a Deal we can call that, a deal involving grand subterfuge by the Authorities, by them - now if that's not a good old O's Razor flouting Conspiracy Theory then I don't know what is, so I don't want you to believe it - can we perhaps say you don't believe it, now I've put it like this? - that way, we get a nice clean ending to what's been an interesting and enjoyable (for me anyway!) meeting
look ...
for Libya to take the blame and pay compensation: what is the simplest explanation?
... that they DID do it and then they 'fessed up in response to a mix of Stick (if you don't admit it, we'll ...) and Carrot (if you DO admit it, we'll ...)
Occam, see?
the "Iran thing" doesn't fit and has to go
Complain about this comment
gomer @ 148
blamed the economic crisis on blue eyed Anglo Saxons
yes I loved that ... if you took it as what he really meant, rather than completely literally, it stands to this day as the most accurate one liner on record, as regards what caused the Crunch
Complain about this comment
150. sagamix
"the "Iran thing" doesn't fit and has to go"
The "Iran thing" fits rather too well to be rejected in this way. And assuming that Libya must be behind the bombing simply because Gaddafi accepted responsibility is a little too simplistic. Occam's Razor is fine. But we have to be careful that, in our determination to reject redundant assumptions, we do not also throw out perfectly valid assumptions based on our understanding of human nature and the influence of realpolitik.
Gaddafi may be a bit of an oddball, but he could not have survived as long as he has without being possessed of a certain political nous. There was simply no advantage in him continuing to protest his innocence. Libya was suffering economically and the US in particular was not going to relent. Think of it like a plea bargain. Pragmatically speaking, it was better for Libya to take the hit in the short term in order to gain in the longer term. Especially when there was good reason to expect that al-Megrahi would be acquitted.
Listening to Gaddafi now one gets two distinct impressions. On the one hand, his rant at the UN suggests deep resentment of the US and all those who he sees as having been instrumental in perpetrating this injustice against Libya. While on other occasions (see for example) what comes across is resignation and a desire to draw a line under the whole affair. Which is now possible for him as a result of al-Megrahi's release.
Frankly, nobody comes out of this looking good. With the notable exception of Kenny MacAskill, of course. He is the only one to have acted honourably and with untainted regard for the interests of justice. Everybody else - the US, UK and Libya - has been devious, dishonest and conniving.
Complain about this comment
electric @ 152
okay, I like that too ... a plea bargain, as you say ... but both the innocent and guilty do those so it could apply either way, couldn't it? - anyway, sounds believable - I don't (on balance) believe it myself, but perhaps it's true ... certainly not in the "Charles killed Diana" league
but here's the problem ... and another question for you, I'm afraid ... last one, I promise
if you're open to that ... all the Iran, not Libya, stuff ... why are so 150 pc adamant that the LB release has no more to it than Kenny says? - even to the extent of ridiculing the idea ... almost as if that one IS in the "Charles off'd Diana" category
only way I can make sense of you is if you KNOW it's the case ... you work in Kenny's office, or something ... because otherwise, why is it so incredible for someone to think that, in addition to the official "compassionate" reasons stated, he very possibly took certain other "considerations" into account?
Complain about this comment
I don't believe in conspiracies but the rapprochement with Libya began with the USA, and Hilary Clinton enthusing over the Libyan security boss. Do you need the link to believe it Electric ? There's a photograph.
Conspiracies are usually concluded in private. This was performed with the finesse of an arthritic hippopotamus.
I take Gordon's award as an international equivalent to the 'Crackerjack Pencil'.
Complain about this comment
Electric Hermit. #79 , 80 et al
Sorry about my delay in responding but I have a life which I have been busy living.
I admire your generosity in relying on facts which are in the public domain. I wonder, however, if you allow for the possibility that politicians may not always provide all the facts and might even - heaven forbid - spin those facts that they do provide.
Amongst the facts that we do know are that our Government (a) agreed, over strong objections from the Scottish government, to extend the PTA to apply retrospectively to prisoners convicted before the agreement existed, saying that this was in our national interest. nb As the Scots pointed out at the time, the only Libyan prisoner being held in Scotland was Al Megrahi. (b) advised Kenny MacAskill that they, contrary to the contention by the USA, had not given the USA government any assurance or undertaking to the effect that Al Megrahi would serve out his sentence in Scotland and that there was no legal impediment to prevent the release under the PTA and (c) that Bill Rammell, then a Foreign Office minister,told the Libyans that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary did not want to see Al Megrahi die in jail.
Pretty consistent stuff - all pointing in one direction. I think you are right that MacAskill came under heavy pressure when he was left holding the baby at the time of the need to make a decision. I'm not so sure that all the pressure was overt or pushing him in one direction.
I guess it is possible that the Brown and Straw thought it was in the national interest to do everything possible to facilitate Al Megrahi's release, and hint at the likelihood of it happening, but not in the national interest to see him actually released. Conversely, I guess it is just possible that they did see it in the national interest to see him released and put covert pressure on the Scots to do what needed to be done.
I am and was aware of the published basis and reasons for the decision. I just beg leave to doubt that it tells the whole story. Incidentally, you seek to paint this case as the 'norm' in terms of the Scottish legal process. Did your research turn up any previous Scottish case where a convicted terrorist/mass murderer was released on compassionate grounds ?
Final point. I repeat my earlier question. If Brown thinks the release was the wrong thing to do - why doesn't he say so, doubtless pausing to explain all the earlier actions to facilitate it. If he thinks it was the right thing to do, why doesn't he say so?
Instead, he prefers to keep his head down, shelter behind the human shield of his fellow Scots and let them take all the flak. That might sit ok with you. It doesn't with me.
Complain about this comment
154. GomerPyle
"Do you need the link to believe it Electric ?"
Why should I disbelieve it? Although it is hardly likely that the "rapprochement" started at such a high level in the US administration. History is not a series of events, it is a process. There is always lots of stuff going on behind the scenes.
Complain about this comment
electric @ 152
oh, lost my 153, not sure why - was just a (last!) question
which was ... if you are open to the "Iran, not Libya" thing, how come you are 150 pc adamant there's no more to the release than is officially admitted, even to the extent of ridiculing the idea? - seems an odd position - surely it's not incredible for someone to postulate that certain "other considerations" were maybe taken into account ... you know, in addition to the compassionate angle - can't Scottish politicians go in for a bit of the old Real Politique too? - no, only way I can make sense of your certainty is if you KNOW it to be true because you work in Kenny's office, or something - would that be it?
Complain about this comment
155. Only jocking
"I am and was aware of the published basis and reasons for the decision. I just beg leave to doubt that it tells the whole story."
Just so long as you realise that this is a matter of belief, rather than a rational analysis of the facts.
"Incidentally, you seek to paint this case as the 'norm' in terms of the Scottish legal process. Did your research turn up any previous Scottish case where a convicted terrorist/mass murderer was released on compassionate grounds ?"
Since 2000 there have been 30 applications for release under licence on compassionate grounds, of which 7 were denied.
"Final point. I repeat my earlier question. If Brown thinks the release was the wrong thing to do - why doesn't he say so..."
That's the nature of modern politics. Everybody is so afraid of saying the wrong thing that they and up saying nothing at all - or nothing meaningful
"Instead, he prefers to keep his head down, shelter behind the human shield of his fellow Scots and let them take all the flak. That might sit ok with you. It doesn't with me. "
What Brown does is of no real interest to me. I am more concerned about how my own government behaves. And I am well pleased in that regard. In the matter of al-Megrahi's release, Brown's views are totally irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
# 156
I'm sorry Electric Hermit but your comment
"Although it is hardly likely that the "rapprochement" started at such a high level in the US administration."
........is rather daft. The nature of relations with a country like Libya will be devised and formed at the highest level, and careful calculations as to the political damage such action could cause.
Within her effusive welcome were these words
"We have many opportunities to deepen and broaden our cooperation. And I’m very much looking forward to building on this relationship."
We all know what Gadaffi wanted above all else to complete his anniversary party. The more you deny it, the more persuaded I am by the evidence.
Complain about this comment
Saga.
I sympathize with the frustration which your blog reveals.I can only reiterate the brief I have maintained over our several exchanges.
The instigators,conduits and means are widely known, but are not what are publicly acknowledged.
Al Megrahi was a low grade intelligence operative and not the principal.His degree of involvement is uncertain.
The destruction of Pan Am 103 in British airspace was an act of war.
Disclosure of the real actors and agents would signal an attack by the west or its agents was imminent.
Mr. Gaddafi`s motives in not denying responsibility can only be explained with reference to the leader and his circle at that time.
Complain about this comment
159. GomerPyle
"The more you deny it, the more persuaded I am by the evidence. "
What do you imagine I am denying?
What do you imagine to be "evidence"?
What do you suppose this "evidence" proves?
Complain about this comment
160. bryhers
"The destruction of Pan Am 103 in British airspace was an act of war."
Get it right. The aircraft was destroyed in Scottish airspace. Jurisdictional issues in this case are far too important to be treated in such a cavalier fashion.
Complain about this comment
B @ 160
oh no!
okay, against my better judgement ...
disclosure of the real actors and agents would signal an attack by the West or its agents was imminent
attack by the West on who? - just type it out for me
Complain about this comment
# 162
Steady on Electric Hermit. Scotland isn't independent just yet, and your statement presupposes the existence of a Scottish airforce to defend this airspace they've just acquired.
"The Directorate of Airspace Policy is responsible for the planning and regulation of all UK airspace".
If Scotland wants a charismatic leader we'll have one going spare soon enough.
Complain about this comment
The reserves of oil and gas (and other natural resources) are finite.
It is most unlikely that there will be in the forseeable future an alternative to hydrocarbon aviation fuel so security of supply in the very long term is a national priority
When it has been in our national interest we have dealt with regimes far worse than the Gaddafi one.
China is busy signing up raw material sources and markets across the globe especially so in the African continent.
Does anyone now seriously doubt that Iraq's oil reserves were at the root of the decision to invade?
A prime responsibility of the American president is the protection and promotion of US interests. I see nothing wrong in having the UK government protecting and promoting our own interests.
Complain about this comment
164. GomerPyle
"Steady on Electric Hermit. Scotland isn't independent just yet, and your statement presupposes the existence of a Scottish airforce to defend this airspace..."
Complete nonsense, of course. Evidently, the point about jurisdiction went way over your head.
Complain about this comment
You almost have to pity Brown, Polly Toynbee has written a resignation speech for him, Darling says the Labour hierachy have lost the will to live and even Mandelson has not ruled out working with a future Conservative government.
..bit hard to rally the troops in the circumstances.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I am beginning to worry greatly about my superiors. For example, let us accept that Baroness Scotland got some references. Now then, if Scotland has had to pay a fine for her administrative error, then surely what about the previous employer who must have had employed this Tongan person. Have they been investigated. Also, can we please be told what security clearance has to be done by anybody working for a minister. Has the minister claimed expenses for employing this person.
What on earth is going on where we are told that tax and national insurance has been paid, well when I was self employed I had to pay tax and national insurance, and there were reference numbers, so what reference number was the tax paid on, surely there are checks being made to ensure valid numbers are being quoted, there must be a system that says that this number does not exist, or that mulktiple payments are being made against one reference number. Will the tax and national insurance be repaid, or will the illegal worker actually be entitled to a pension of some sort. Will the state refund the deductions to the illegal worker.
I mean seriously Andrew, what has been going on, what sort of system is actually in place. Are any other ministers employing illegal workers because I think I am beginning to ask myself there does not seem to be security checks, we have a Prime Minister who is saying with one hand that we are in Afghanistan to fight terrorism, yet we would seem to have a minister who breaches rules to keep illegals from working. Is this another reason why Scotland really must go, it is like employing illegals in security, or in airports, or in the ports. This isn't about Scotland anymore, this should be about national security. Scotland must resign, or even sacked, well that's what I think, and nobody has given me one good reason why she should not be, not unless there would have to be resignations by others in a similar position.
Complain about this comment
I reckon that Electric Hermit is a computer,(possibly govt), programmed to respond in a confrontational manner to whatever is put to it.
Technophobes, solution please.
Complain about this comment
Please, Electric Hermit cannot be a computer, especially one programmed by anything to do with the labour 'government'. I put government into quotation marks because that is the last thing which labour can be accused of, that is, being a government.
In earlier comments I have said that I feel sad for Brown, no more, the man is a pathetic excuse for a PM, we have become the laughing stock of the world, I mean statesman of the year, from Henry kissinger of all people.
As for Obama I wish that people would read again his inaugaration speech, references to burning down the White House are for all to see, and furthermore there are still references to to what happened in Kenya during the MauMau insurgency. Did we, the British actually torture his father? It would explain an awful lot if we were told the truth.
In the meantime Brown ought to be asked directly about the Afghan elections, it is not only about MacGarvey it is about Karzee and fraudulent elections. The whole problem with Mr Mousa being murdered, after being tortured, sorry suffering enhanced interrogation techniques, and when are the soldiers who served with such distinction in Iraq going to get their parade. As for the Iraq inquiry I expect that to take longer than the Bloody Sunday inquiry. There should also be a statement from the Prime Minister as to why it looks as though the report from the bloody Sunday inquiry will not be available to the public until after a general election. Keep rattling that sabre Brown, only I don't think that you know where to rattle it.
Complain about this comment
Gordon is going to enshrine in law that he will make cuts.
Mmmm - that probably sums up how much respect Gordon has for the law, or evidences how much confidence he feels we have in his ability to tell the truth. What will the penalty be for breaking this law ? If failure merited a worthwhile penalty and the electorate decided success or failure by means of a referendum (oops forgot, Labour don't do referendums), then I'd go for it, otherwise it's just using the law to perform a party political trick. Take a bow Lord Minky.
Is his word not good enough ?
Will he be using his own distorted calculations from his army of bureaucrats to prove himself on track ? Having promised to achieve some miraculously impossible cancer treatment target, and believe me I know the reality, the NHS is preparing Armageddon plans to meet the coming crisis in funding. In Leicester and Rutland NHS, you can expect an urgent scan to take a month. Treatment within a week is laughably implausible. His problem is, that having employed administrators to provide comforting statistics, he's fallen into the trap of believing them.
I'd love to live within Gordon's fantasy creation, but it's not reality, and his version changes depending on his last cabinet meeting that decided to paint disaster as success. Gordon's problem is simple, he can'r face the truth and worse, he thinks we believe him.
There are fundamental problems with Lady Scotland's version of events which don't appear to have been investigated. If she did view her housekeeper's documents, why didn't she notice they weren't in order ? It is her claim that she saw them, though there are reports that it has been alleged that she was shown forged documents. If that is correct, then the housekeeper is in serious trouble and should be facing serious charges of forgery and deception, which we now hear is being disputed. No matter, I have every confidence in our World Statesman of the Year to resolve this issue. Perhaps he'll pass a new law on this too.
This government lives in some alternate reality, where responsibilities are the burden of the tax payer alone, not something to trouble the 'PolitBuro' who live on Goverment Gold Cards. I love to hear how well Gordon, David and Peter are treated by the NHS, but are they so stupid as to believe that they aren't getting special treatment ? If not, then we really are promoting the stupid gene within mankind.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I am just going to listen to Andrew Marr interviewing Brown. I will not do a running commentary, I will just listen attentively. Trouble is during the interview I will probably suspend all belief and think of the emperor who has no clothes. Maybe Brown ought to go for a swim in the beautiful sun lit sea. Ah well off we go Terry, this should be brilliant. Mind you just listening to 'Fat Boy Slim' talking about being in progessive Brighton and then going off to see Brown at Downing Street, so Brown by association is progressive.
Mind you I do notice that Brown shakes hands with old people, but stops to talk to young people, especially those in primary school. Now dare he actually not talk with somebody who just might dare to tell the old boy that he is finished.
Complain about this comment
Good morning each & Andrew.
Are we to be denied our 'protest' vote at the next general Election?
Is it that UNLESS we intend to vote for the usual suspects OUR votes will not count?
The last twelve years?
YES let it be the last.
Complain about this comment
..."all of us did not realise..."
I say ALL of them knew they would do very well out of this no-matter what.
They were NOT watching for fear that they would not like what they might see.
Clearly the public purse is there to be emptied. A Mary Poppins like bottomless 'giver'.
They, the government, took off-balance-sheet spending to mean off-public-radar self enrichment.
"Vote for option 4 or more."
Complain about this comment
well Andrew,
I listened to Brown, now after questioning I really do think that he does have medication, that his eye-sight is failing and that he really does not have a clue about the issue of Patricia Scotland and Gaddaffi, and as for our soldiers in Afghanistan, neither a question nor anything about democracy and why our soldiers are dying for a president who will have no legitimacy. He did not say anything to us about the losses, no doubt we will have his list of the dead at PMQs when parliament does decide that the holidays have been too long. Nothing about General Motors and factory losses. Where is the evidence that 500,000 jobs have been saved, no eviddence whatsoever.
As for comments about what would have happened if action taken by his chancellor had not taken place, how does he know this. Bonuses from bankers, on which substantial taxes were paid, should have been regulated, but then where would his tax revenues have been.
I am sorry Brown, but you seem to have any sense of reality. You would not think that he has been in power for twelve years, that an election must be held by the middle of next year. He lacks legitimacy, he has always lacked legitimacy, he was a good number two to Blair, Brown will always be a number two, I would never follow him over the top in the front line. I personally do not trust him. However, I think that the great British public are actually going to fall for this stuff, everything about tax rises will not hit peoples pay packets until the end of April, or May. They will re-elect labour, and actually i want labour to be there when the proverbial hits the fan, they must not get away with having the conservatives being tarred when it is labour who have got the country iun to this mess. but then what, will Brown serve a full term what will he do if labour have a majority. For just as the emperor has no clothes, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
Complain about this comment
just watched Gordon announce to Andrew Marr that he's going to bring in a bill before Christmas which will legally cap bank bonuses - if that's true ... and it's a "hard" bill, not a "soft" one, if you know what I mean ... then that single measure is enough for me not only to vote for him, but to slash my finger, run to the polling station, and do so in my own blood
Complain about this comment
#176 sagamix
Are you not in danger of emulating your near name sake 'Getafix'?
With so much reliance on some magic potion?
What, Gaul! :)
Complain about this comment
#169 Tunbridge
..I wondered what Alistair Campbell was doing
Complain about this comment
176. sagamix
How many policy announcements have been made over the last few years only to be dumped, quietly forgotten or made unenforceable. How many targets have been missed?
Methinks you're looking for any excuse to wriggle out of your 'floating' claim and declare the obvious.
It was reported that France and Germany wanted more severe action than either Britain or the US, but it's conference time and Brown is jumping onto the bandwagon.
Complain about this comment
...I read that the noble Lord will take a job in a Conservative administration (if such it be) in order to serve the country.
Is this not reason enough to elect our leaders for LIFE? Gaddafi style.
Then we could each get on with other things. Democracy is just too complicated for the likes of we, the people.
"What kind of fool am I..."
Complain about this comment
# 176
I'm sorry sagamix, but at the moment Gordon is promising anything, even the impossible for the one purpose of winning back popularity. It's really quite distasteful.
I find him totally untrustworthy and dishonest. What he's promising is unattainable, unless he's going to achieve it with a new set of bonus funded administrators to feed him manufactured statistics again.
My experience in the Leicester and Rutland NHS is that they are nowhere near complying with current requirements, and any further cranking up of demand would be irresponsible. I'd prefer to hear some honesty about what's being achieved, rather than having to listen to promises based on selfish political and personal greed.
I concur that this is not Gordon's problem alone, but he's tops at self-deception and wishing us to join him in his personal fantasy.
The Brighton Conference is going to be litte more than the prospective leadership candidates throwing their hats in the ring for when Labour lose the election. My interest will be at how humiliating Gordon will find this as he continues to pretend he's trying to mount a serious election campaign, and what his reaction will be.
Complain about this comment
76. At 10:17am on 27 Sep 2009, sagamix
I too watched Mr. Brown on the Andrew Marr show.
I must confess that slashing, burning and blood also sprang to mind, but I guess I will have to wait... and wait... and wait, until he has worked his magic on every last vestige of chance this country has, along with my kid's futures in it, until I too get to the polling station.
To paraphrase LBJ, 'If he's lost Marr, then he's really lost the plot'.
But, Yoda-like, there is still Nick Robinson, so the Empire may yet have a voice.
Complain about this comment
no, well, I know it's probable he's just posturing on the issue (and so a bill with teeth will NOT be forthcoming) but if he's serious ... and if the relevant legislation is framed in the near future ... then that's great, and it's better late then never, and it's clear blue water
Complain about this comment
If it was 1st April I would think it was a gag but according to the papers JobCentre staff are to be given powers to order claimants to have drink and drug testing with a 26 weeks benefit ban for non cooperation.
What with the UK Border Agency staff able to act as judge, jury and executioner , people are siezed of the street, fined and or deported without a court in sight, I do wonder what this country is coming to.
Ever day I read of new powers to curtail our rights and freedoms.
Oh and the UK is to sign some agreement to get speeding etc tickets issued in other countries pursued here. This is supposed to be a reciprocal arrangement. Oh yes, the French Police will be doing dawn raids to chase a British parking fine on a French national. Dont laugh our police will , or they might farm it out to the Border Agency , they like kicking doors in as well..
Complain about this comment
# 184
The trouble is xTunbridge, I no longer see any point in deriding Labour's stupid ideas.
I do however foresee their conference as being thoroughly good TV, in the Big Brother mould. It'll be hilarious, fascinating and gruesome all at once. Interpreting the motives of those who stand closest to their leader, and those who show separation, should enable us to see who wants what, and who has the subtle skills to support their leader and yet remain untainted by his reign.
Complain about this comment
Ref 133 XT. "Only the rich go free" that' par the course.
Ret 169 XT
I don't think Electric Hermit is a computor, he's a government plant??!!
Complain about this comment
Exon2,Gomerpyle
It goes on, just been on the news that as a result of a tip off to Offsted about two mothers who had a personal reciprocal arrangement to look after each others kids whilst they did their respective halves of a job share, all people who look after someones kid for 2 hours a week will have to register as childminders with all the resultant prying into their lives etc.
Orwell only scratched the surface.
Complain about this comment
187. xTunbridge
"...all people who look after someones kid for 2 hours a week will have to register as childminders..."
What exactly is your objection to having childminders vetted and registered?
Complain about this comment
188. At 5:08pm on 27 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:
What exactly is your objection to having childminders vetted and registered?
That's not the problem... we're talking about parents who have possibly known each other for some time, maybe even close family friends, making a reciprocal arrangement to look after the other's kids.
It's the parents responsibility to meet and assess their friends parents, not that of the government. Would you have every parent who has their children's friends over to visit for more than 2 hours go through a vetting and registering process?
Complain about this comment
Does that also apply to relatives ?
Presumably if the care of kids is reaching such an extreme, those found wandering the streets without supervision should be rounded up by the council child catcher.
It would be ridiculous to maintain that those footloose on our streets are in less peril than those being cared for by unvetted and unregistered relatives.
I do approve of the current government initiative where they get a minister to road test legislation to discover how workable it is. The results are quite comic. It highlights that our government wants to regulate everything but itself.
Complain about this comment
Sorry but I couldn't let it pass without comment
"Gordon Brown: voters will see I led world during financial crisis"
The downside is that you were leader before too.
QED
Complain about this comment
188 Electric Hermit
You are without doubt a computer programmed to be confrontational and without an iota of common sense, Sir.
Complain about this comment
189. TheBlameGame
"Would you have every parent who has their children's friends over to visit for more than 2 hours go through a vetting and registering process? "
Is that a legal requirement? If not, why bring it up? Why not just stick with the facts?
Complain about this comment
190. GomerPyle
"Does that also apply to relatives ?"
No.
Complain about this comment
191. GomerPyle
"Sorry but I couldn't let it pass without comment
"Gordon Brown: voters will see I led world during financial crisis"
The downside is that you were leader before too."
I noticed that too. It seems that there was a complete absence of leaders going into the financial crisis.
Complain about this comment
192. xTunbridge
Was the question too difficult for you? What is your objection to having childminders vetted and registered?
Complain about this comment
193. Electric Hermit
Is that a legal requirement? If not, why bring it up? Why not just stick with the facts?
I'm not sure. This latest Ofsted incident had two neighbours who reciprocate with babysitting committing an illegal offense. I'd better check the statute books before we have my child's friends around after school.
Complain about this comment
197. TheBlameGame
"This latest Ofsted incident had two neighbours who reciprocate with babysitting committing an illegal offense."
Their arrangement fell within the legal definition of childminding. Are you suggesting that they should be exempt from the regulations? On what grounds?
Complain about this comment
194,195,196,198. Electric Hermit
Are you really the automaton you sound like?
Doctors, teachers, childminders etc, all registered . Does it stop a number of them transgressing with their patients/charges every year ?
Of course not. Dog licences never stoped cruelty or dogs biting , its all about control and income.
Had a quick look at the offsted site for registration fees. Anything between £30 and £300 depending on how many bodies have their finger in your pie, Offstead, Council, CRB etc. Next door neighbour will be happy to cough that up to keep an eye on Johnny whilst you do a half day at the shop.
Fortunately the Minister appears to have more sense and is urgently looking at this draconian interpretation of rules intended to apply to commercial nurseries.
Interestingly most abuse occurs in the home from family. Electric Hermit will have the entire population registered and it still wont stop it but think of the income for the Govt and all the info on its data bases.
Electric Hermit is right on everything , must do as he says.
Complain about this comment
199. xTunbridge
"Electric Hermit is right on everything , must do as he says."
When you are done having your little tantrum, perhaps you might like to try thinking about the matter rationally. Childminders have to be registered so that they can be vetted and the premises they use can be inspected. In order for there to be a registration scheme it is necessary that there should be a legal definition of what constitutes childminding.
If your petulant rant is any indication of your "thinking" then it seems you would abandon all efforts to safeguard children and simply trust to luck that nothing goes wrong. Of course, when something does go wrong - as it inevitably will - you will be among the first and loudest protesting that "somebody should have done something".
Quite pathetic, really.
Complain about this comment
199. xTunbridge
"Electric Hermit will have the entire population registered and it still wont stop it but think of the income for the Govt and all the info on its data bases."
I find it quite distasteful that you commend allowing children to be put at risk just to save a few pounds.
And you are foolishly mistaken, of course. Whatever the voices may be telling you, Electric Hermit has no powers to require anyone to register for anything. Except the forum, of course. But you'll be delighted to know that, unlike protecting children, registration won't cost you a penny.
Complain about this comment
#200 Electric Hermit
You are right about xT in your final para.
More power to him, I say. His reaction is quite human and humane, as you describe it.
Yours is the 'Brave New World' sort of world.
-watching does not bring safety.
-watching often alters the things watched.
Far better that a community fails while it tries another for a community to fail while trusting official vigilance.
bla-bla-custodies. Or similar.
Complain about this comment
Electric Hermit, many, many posts.
Other contributors have tried to reason with you.
I long ago learned there is no hope or point trying when the subjects mind is closed so that the wood and the trees are both lost in the fog of certainty.
Please continue to plough your self righteous furrows on all subjects whilst myself and others use a modicum of common sense perhaps summed up by the old addage that "Rules are for the guidance of the wise and the observance of fools."
Complain about this comment
199. xTunbridge
"Fortunately the Minister appears to have more sense and is urgently looking at this draconian interpretation of rules intended to apply to commercial nurseries."
Silly exaggeration. There is nothing "draconian" about the regulations. The way you bang on about it you'd think there were men in long brown leather coats scouring the streets looking for anyone doing a bit of babysitting. The rather more prosaic reality is that nobody was in the slightest bit bothered about this until a neighbour reported it. Once such a thing is reported, the authorities have to act. And they have to act in accordance with the law as it exists. Not as some reactionary whinger wants it to be.
It may even be that those involved deliberately set out to make this a kind of test case so as to have the legal definition refined. Which would surely be a good thing. It has certainly brought the issue to the attention of the relevant government department. Although to say that the Minister is "urgently" looking at it is yet another silly exaggeration. He is "speaking to Ofsted about the interpretation of the word 'reward' in this particular case". Not everybody is as melodramatically exercised about this as yourself.
Complain about this comment
203. xTunbridge
As artless an evasion as ever I've seen.
Complain about this comment
Sounds as if it'd be easier to leave them out on the streets.
It must be a programme by the WWF to ensure that ferrel children don't become endangered.
Complain about this comment
202. Oudeis
"His reaction is quite human and humane, as you describe it."
You are seeing things. The notion of abandoning all efforts to protect children is neither human nor humane. And I certainly did not describe it as such.
Complain about this comment
Come on EH my friend admit it. You are a computer arent you?
You know all the correct details on every subject and you know what is right and proper in all circumstances.
You must be a computer because you display no fallibilty, nay no soul.
But you are fun.
Complain about this comment
207. Electric Hermit
In your opinion, if you're allowed one, should this have been a case where common sense was allowed to prevail? And do you think the law should be amended to avoid such further incidents?
Complain about this comment
208. xTunbridge
"You are a computer arent you?"
You seem to have convinced yourself.
"You know all the correct details on every subject..."
I have regard for the facts and the capacity to distinguish them from fabrication and fantasy. I make no apology for that. Especially given your illustration of the alternative.
Here's a novel idea! Instead of indulging in these frankly rather feeble personal attacks, why not have a bash at adressing some of the substantive points made.
Complain about this comment
208. xTunbridge
"You must be a computer because you display no fallibilty"
Being pronounced infallible by yourself is a bit like being declared sane by a man dressed as Napoleon Bonaparte.
Complain about this comment
209. TheBlameGame
"In your opinion, if you're allowed one, should this have been a case where common sense was allowed to prevail? And do you think the law should be amended to avoid such further incidents?"
There is no such thing as "common sense". If you are asking whether some civil servant or bureaucrat should have been empowered to decide whether or not to abide by the law, that is something of a slippery slope. And a truly draconian way of addressing something which isn't even a serious problem. It's not as if the official to whom this was reported has the final say in the matter. There is something called due process. I'm quite certain that, had matters followed their normal course, the case would have been thrown out long before it ever reached court. But such decisions should not be made by relatively low-level functionaries.
As to amending the law, why? Nobody has shown that there is anything wrong with the existing definition. All that has happened is that a couple of people who would not normally have fallen foul of the regulations did so because somebody reported them. How often is that going to happen? Not that I'm necessarily criticising the person who reported this. Better a dozen false alarms than that one mistake should be made which might result in serious harm to a child.
I'm not saying that the law shouldn't be amended. Only that such tinkering tends to be a bad idea. And I'm not convinced there is sufficient cause here.
Complain about this comment
#208 Tunbridge
A computer can only obey rules, so everything has to be logical.
This leads to the conclusion that if EH is correct the law is an ass.
...but that is my ill informed drivel
Complain about this comment
213. meninwhitecoats
"...but that is my ill informed drivel"
Precisely.
Complain about this comment
212. Electric Hermit
That sounds all well and good, EH. But I recently heard of an alleged assault case that went all the way to court and was thrown out as the magistrate quite rightly saw it as a trumped up charge over an ex-boyfriend; the state prosecution's witness, on whose testimony the charge was based, basically admitted she had not seen the incident. The time and taxpayers' money wasted, including an identity parade in which all the participants knew each other(!?), could have been avoided if the police had questioned the individuals a little more thoroughly, come to an obvious conclusion, with the prosecution service if necessary, and given the parties some appropriate advice.
I'm sure there are many instances like this where time and resources are wasted. If common sense isn't the right word how about responsible action?
You say better a dozen false alarms, I agree... but as we know with Haringey council, if the system is staffed by incompetents, it doesn't matter how many alarms you have.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear EH it is much against my better judgment that I enter into discussion with one as dogmatic as you, or your programmer, appear to be.
On the child care matter I would agree that a commercial set up catering for a number of children needs to be checked for fitness for purpose, safety etc and the ability and propriety of the staff. Not that this is any guarantee that all will be well but it is a basic and welcome check.
To seek to apply these rules to a private personal arrangement between
friends based on an interpretation of the word "reward", an interpretation which I and others find outside
the intention of the law, is not just over zealous it is the State interferring far to deeply into private lives.
To expand on "reward" , any reasonable person, and the Law is above all else a test of reasonablness, would surely consider it to mean payment for looking after the child and not that by so looking after in a reciprocal arrangement you were rewarded by being able to work. That Sir ,I submit, is the Law being the proverbial ass.
Complain about this comment
214 EH
I don't doubt your credentials
....so the law is an ass.
Complain about this comment
215. TheBlameGame
I sense you may be trying to make some kind of point.
Complain about this comment
212. Electric Hermit
Further to my 215.. the point being that "due process" can cost the taxpayer large sums of money and may be in part completely unnecessary. (e.g. the identity parade mentioned in my post 215) We should always be open to questioning and challenging these laws to see if they stand up to scrutiny.
Complain about this comment
216. xTunbridge
"On the child care matter I would agree that a commercial set up catering for a number of children needs to be checked for fitness for purpose, safety etc and the ability and propriety of the staff."
And how do you legislate for this without defining what constitutes a "commercial set up"? There has to be a definition. And it has to be such as to encompass any possible "commercial set up". As a reactionary whinger you would be the first to indulge one of those fits of posturing righteous indignation if some pervert slipped through a legal loophole.
Rest those knees. You'll want them in good jerking condition for the next time the media presses those big shiny buttons marked "OUTRAGE".
Complain about this comment
216. xTunbridge
"To expand on "reward" , any reasonable person, and the Law is above all else a test of reasonablness, would surely consider it to mean payment for looking after the child and not that by so looking after in a reciprocal arrangement you were rewarded by being able to work. That Sir ,I submit, is the Law being the proverbial ass."
Please feel free to give HMRC the benefit of your self-declared expertise in this matter. They will doubtless be sorely chastened to realise how wrong they have been in the matter of payment in kind.
Complain about this comment
As I said EH much against my better judgement.
May you live in peace and harmony in you world governed by perfect Law.
Complain about this comment
219. TheBlameGame
"Further to my 215.. the point being that "due process" can cost the taxpayer large sums of money and may be in part completely unnecessary. (e.g. the identity parade mentioned in my post 215) We should always be open to questioning and challenging these laws to see if they stand up to scrutiny."
Abandoning due process just to save a few bucks seems a bit reckless to me.
When you generalise from the specific it always looks as if the specific has been specially selected in order to support the generalisation. It doesn't produce an argument which will withstand any kind of scrutiny.
The law is organic. It is always changing. Always evolving. Don't fret about it. It is not a process anyone could stop even if they wanted to.
Complain about this comment
222. xTunbridge
"May you live in peace and harmony in you world governed by perfect Law."
A ludicrous notion. (Does that give you a full set?) The law is no more "perfect" than any other human contrivance. Perhaps when you learn this you will also learn to be more tolerant of its occasional aberrations.
Complain about this comment
EH You know my friend I find it helps if I read your posts in a Dalek voice.
Complain about this comment
225. xTunbridge
"EH You know my friend I find it helps if I read your posts in a Dalek voice."
Seems to me that you and the other Angry Villagers are the automatons. As unthinking reactionaries you will always respond in an entirely predictable way. Those in power are aware of this. People who are predictable are also easily manipulated. Just as you have been in relation to this case. Just as so many were in the matter of MP's expenses.
I don't like being manipulated. I will continue to think for myself while you perfect the voice of the obedient drone to go with your mindset.
Complain about this comment
taping off the radio, that used to be an offence - or did it? - perhaps it's just my memory playing tricks
Complain about this comment
Of course if one parent performs a service for another, which is rewarded by a similar or equivalent service in return, then surely this is good cause for prosecution by HMRC for tax avoidance.
Sling both parents in prison and put the children into care.
Job done - children protected.
Complain about this comment
223. Electric Hermit
Abandoning due process just to save a few bucks seems a bit reckless to me.
***
Not just for a few bucks... but for allowing resources to be used more efficiently, where they are most needed. Also making laws that are not open to interpretation by jobsworths may be a good idea.
If questioning the reaction of Ofsted and the law in this latest 'childminding' incident between the two friends makes me an "Angry Villager" or a reactionary, in your opinion, then so be it, doesn't bother me. I generally try to avoid name-calling on these blogs, unless it's light-hearted banter between posters.
ps Glad to see the Justice Minister is to review this law, perhaps common-sense will prevail, if it does indeed exist. Not holding my breath though, when we have the AG not complying with a law she passed through the House. (You saw that one coming didn't you...just helping you justify the stereotyping so everything is neatly packaged, no loose ends)
Complain about this comment
223. Electric Hermit wrote:
Abandoning due process just to save a few bucks seems a bit reckless to me.
Last point. I don't recall saying we must "abandon" due process.
I quote my post @219:
Further to my 215.. the point being that "due process" can cost the taxpayer large sums of money and may be in part completely unnecessary.
"in part" doesn't equate to "abandon", especially if taken in the context of the assault incident I mentioned.
Sounds a bit reactionary on your part.
Complain about this comment
Good Morning andrew,
I hope that we do not allow labour to get away with this bash the nakers, not the clearing bankers, but the investment bankers.
Now this may well be a contentious comment but i used to work for a merchant bank in the City, it became known as an investment bank, although it did not change very much, a new name, same business. Now what I will say is that I was baptised a Roman Catholic. I had no problem in getting a good job in that bank. Yet, it was very much what can be called a jewish bank, owned and operated by jewish families. It was well known that many of the succesful banks in the City were jewish.
Now I hope that in getting at the banks and the bankers we are not in danger of being anti-semitic. I think that there is a danger that some people may well be operating to a different agenda. As for the proposals which I have heard then Darling really ought not to play fast and loose with how banks operate. He is proposing that banks themselves should do this, limit bonuses. Well bonuses are paid based on profits, now if we actually want to increase the profits of the banks then they will be very pleased to increase their profits, but will the chancellor, any chancellor be able to get at those profits and tax them? Somehow the banks are better paying bonuses and then at least we can get some tax in.
Complain about this comment
I also hope that the two mothers have photocopies of each others documents, and with such rap sheets I doubt they could remain in employment with the police.
They could always hope for compassion, but that would appear more likely to apply if they had significant oil reserves and their crime weren't so heinous.
Complain about this comment
Good Morning Andrew,
listening to Flint and Straw on Radio 5 Live this morning being interviewed. Apparently, if you listen to Starw we are now 'folk' just as hitler and the Nazis had their 'folk' now we are apparently 'folk'. I know that some may say this is like the Amnerican 'folk' but I have quite a good knowledge oif 'folk' where it is not ata ll pleasant. By the way so looking forward to Starw going on to Question time against Griffin, a most interesting debate. Labour will fear the BNP in some areas of England rather than the conservatives.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
when anybody from labour wants to talk about investment and manufacturing can 'folk' please refer to the reoprt on the fiasco of MG Rover, a company which was bailed out just before the last election.
Also Cash for Honours, Loans to a Political Party, the Bloody Sunday inquiry, the inquiry in Dr David Kelly, Baroness 'Patricia' Scotland, the inquiry into the war in Iraq, the need for an inquiry into all aspects of our involvement in extra-ordinary rendition, enhanced inetrrogation techniques, the fact that the chancellor had a mortgage with Northern Rock, that's all for now folk, oh forgot the non referendum, the fact that nobody in England has voted for Brown, that Lord Mandelson holds such a prominent position, yet has not been elected, that parliament has been 'on holiday' for years, oh and that they keep talking about four years for a parliamentary term when we know that it is still five years, unless I fell asleep of course, Rip Van Winkle Griff, oh and finally folks how many other former British soldiers have High Court injunctions preventing them from speaking in public.
Complain about this comment
232. GomerPyle wrote:
I also hope that the two mothers have photocopies of each others documents, and with such rap sheets I doubt they could remain in employment with the police.
=
Shouldn't question these things, GP. After all, the law is organic. It is always changing. Always evolving.
How does it evolve? Oh yes, by being questioned and challenged.
Complain about this comment
228. GomerPyle
"Sling both parents in prison and put the children into care."
Seems a bit excessive to me.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I wonder if anybody can help me with my typing. I notice that I am making some shocking errors, not what I used to be at all, maybe I am either getting old, or more likely getting very angry with all, and I mean all the politicians.
Paint a picture of the future, ah illusions.
Complain about this comment
229. TheBlameGame
"Also making laws that are not open to interpretation by jobsworths may be a good idea."
But that is exactly what you and the other Angry Villagers are demanding. That some low-level functionary be empowered to decide whether or not the law should be applied.
"Glad to see the Justice Minister is to review this law..."
He's not. He has asked for a review of this particular case. Because, to his credit, he does not indulge in the kind of emotional over-reaction we see from the pitchfork waving mob. He realises that this is an exceptional case which can be dealt with as such and without re-writing the entire legal code. Let his good sense be an example to you.
Complain about this comment
232. GomerPyle
"and with such rap sheets I doubt they could remain in employment with the police."
You're really on a roll there! They'll be strapped to a gurney with a needle in the arm before you're done.
Complain about this comment
#238
I see absolutely no pitchfork waving mob anywhere. Where is your evidence that there any such folk. You have absolutely no evidence, you are just making an unsubstantiated assertion. You are using the very emotive language which you accuse others of making.
When I started working in the City I was responsible for the calculations of peoples Capital Gains Tax, the manual I used was very thin, very thin indeed. By the time I left the City there was a whole library of books about CGT, the problem we have is to identify the exceptional cases, and then to codify those exceptions. Lady Scotland shows the difficulties of 'laws' which no doubt should be looked at as an exceptional case. By the way whatever has happened to Ms Smith, who used to be Home Secretary.
Complain about this comment
You have to love Lord Minky. When questioned this morning he told us that the electorate would be voting on the future, which is pretty arrogant to tell us what we're voting on. It's also a pretty clear admission that if we vote on their record, they're stone dead, and we can only judge the future based on their past record.
The bonus business is a charade. Only two weeks ago Gordon was facing completely the other way and I doubt any legislation will be very effective, to judge by Labour's legislative record so far.
Labour's record at keeping their word is so abysmal they're even having to enshrine what they say in extra legislation, perhaps because they find it so easy to dance round it when it suits them.
Labour's reneging on the Lisbon Treaty referendum is enough to condemn them in my books, and the first lie always makes subsequent ones so much easier. The Tories should condemn them, if only for their dishonesty.
Complain about this comment
Gosh Andrew,
just listened to Yvette Cooper at the labour party conference. The same Yvette Cooper who is married to Ed Balls, so who is really Yvette Balls, but I digress.
i listened to her speech, how she marched with her father over jobs in the terrible eighties. She recalled the Jarrow marches, the plight of the disadvantaged. Absolutely inspiring, in fact I am so inspired that even now in my sixtieth year I have been inspired to realise that all is not lost, that I should not despair, and that I can get a job. There is hope, in the meantime if I do get a job then surely I am depriving a young person of the very job that they are being trianed to do.
So, I think that I will be going down to the Jobcentre and will sign on, I will then of course also boost the figures of the unemployed. There is hope, thank you Yvette, I may actually get a job as a housekeeper for baroness Scotland. By the way I must join Unison and be one of the million voices, not 999,999 but a million, not 499,999 jobs saved, but 500,000 I could sit around doing nothing, instead of being continually on your blog. What would I do without you Andrew, thank you, forward to victory. Gordon saved the world, oh hallejulah.
Complain about this comment
240. T A Griffin (TAG)
"I see absolutely no pitchfork waving mob anywhere."
The fact that you are commenting at all is evidence enough of the ludicrous over-reaction.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
saw Jeremy Paxman at the labour party conference. His face was picture with his head resting on his hands.
Recovery will be under way by the turn of the year, ah but like the war will be over by christmas, by which year. Has nobody told him about the exchange rate. More effective regulation, so regulation brought in by labour has been, or was not effective. Step back, not step in, ah, wonderful 'the invisible hand' look back at my contributions, 'the invisible hand' Andrew labour just read my comments on various, not only your own, blog.
Rhetoric Darling, just rhetoric. Off welfare and in to work. Unemployment is a serious loss to that family, more than half off job seekers allowance, only because many can't get it, and many others are getting pensioners credit. I'm getting angry again.
Complain about this comment
Just a quick comment here guys as I have been following the discussion on Megrahi with interest, although I have too little time to contribute at present.
What Hermit is not telling you, in his effort to protect the SNP, is that it is a requirement under Scottish Law that a prisoner has to be proved to have less than 3 months to live to be released on compassionate grounds.
Mr. MacAskill has refused to release the documents which would prove that he would die within the required time. In fact it seems suggestions are being made that he relied on the word of a expert employed by the Libyan Government. The prognosis it seems recently is that Megrahi has been assessed as, that he shows a lack of the symptoms associated with his claimed illness.
It is taken as fact in oil circles that Megrahi was released for oil deals and that Alex Salmond wanted this as much as Brown. The Scottish Government I am afraid is not innocent in this. It was a done deal on all sides.
Most of the Scottish people it seems were against Megrahi release as well.
Complain about this comment
238. Electric Hermit
"He's not. He has asked for a review of this particular case. Because, to his credit, he does not indulge in the kind of emotional over-reaction we see from the pitchfork waving mob."
=
Point taken, he's reviewing the case, my mistake. However Ofsted are quoted as saying:"We are currently discussing with the DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families) the interpretation of the word 'reward' in the legislation to establish if we might be able to make a change."
I wasn't aware I was getting emotional btw, compared to your emotive language I would consider myself fairly restrained.
"But that is exactly what you and the other Angry Villagers are demanding. That some low-level functionary be empowered to decide whether or not the law should be applied."
Not really. In regard to the assault charge example I mentioned earlier (215), the public prosecutor is hardly a low level functionary. He/she could have decided not to pursue the case IF the police had been a bit more thorough in their questioning. How do you justify an identity parade where all the parties are by their own admission, known to each other? If that is not a waste of time and money then I'm not sure what is.
Referring to my example you say: "When you generalise from the specific it always looks as if the specific has been specially selected in order to support the generalisation. It doesn't produce an argument which will withstand any kind of scrutiny."
We can only comment on what we experience or are told by those who have experienced something like this.
I would not claim such cases are widespread but given the fact that a trivial incident based on petty jealousy got all the way through to a magistrate's court does suggest there is a problem. How common, I do not know, but that is not to say it shouldn't be investigated or at the very least, criticised.
In this Ofsted case the law does not allow for reciprocal baby-sitting between friends - sounds absurd in my opinion. Obviously I can see the need for checks and licensing for professional or 'part-time' childminding. I am questioning the law as it stands now... does that make me reactionary?
243. "The fact that you are commenting at all is evidence enough of the ludicrous over-reaction."
As predictable as the Daily Mail headlines you probably despise.
Complain about this comment
245. Susan-Croft
"...it is a requirement under Scottish Law that a prisoner has to be proved to have less than 3 months to live to be released on compassionate grounds."
Completely untrue. And fairly typical of the lies and disinformation being spread by the Tory/BLP alliance at Holyrood. Section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 does not specify any grounds for compassionate release. And it certainly does not stipulate that a person must be guaranteed to die within a certain time. The sheer idiocy of such a suggestion will be perfectly obvious to our more intellectually acute readers.
"Mr. MacAskill has refused to release the documents..."
Another blatant lie from the Tory/BLP alliance's little band of pathetically amateurish propagandists. The Scottish government has released all documents relating to both the application for release under licence on compassionate grounds and the application for repatriation under the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement. The only exception being certain communications from the US administration for which permission to publish was refused.
Other than that, the documents are all in the public domain and readily accessible to anyone who is interested in the truth rather than the despicable dishonesty of the unionist cabal.
Complain about this comment
#245 Susan
Nice to see you back, albeit briefly
Hope you are ready for the response!
Complain about this comment
246. TheBlameGame
"In this Ofsted case the law does not allow for reciprocal baby-sitting between friends - sounds absurd in my opinion."
And still you stubbornly refuse to understand the situation. The regulations do not prohibit reciprocal baby-sitting arrangements. It is only the particular arrangements of these particular friends which has placed them within the legal definition of childminding. It is an exceptional case. An anomaly.
It is certainly not sufficient reason for getting all in a lather of outraged indignation as so many are doing.
Complain about this comment
Good afternoon each & Andrew.
The New-Labour conference...
...begings looking more like Marriage Counselling.
Mr. and Mrs. Britain are urged...
Let's put the past behind us, no matter the oversights and errors of yesterday, let us move on.
Yes Darling lets.
The unfortunate 'floating voter', Ms Taken.
Has still to choose between her violent boy-friend or go back to her oppressive exhusband.
Not all that is brown is tanned.
Talking of tan; hello again Sue.
Complain about this comment
Sorry EH but it appears that the fallacy belongs to Mr MacAskil
"He (Mr MacAskil) said Scottish law provided for release on compassionate grounds of prisoners with terminal illnesses whose life expectancy was less than three months."
Are you saying that Mr MacAskil didn't apply Scottish Law correctly ?
Complain about this comment
...
Savage cuts might not be to everyone's taste; but Poland is ahead of the game...
With the news.
"Poland okays forcible castration for paedophiles..."
Will the shrill voice of protest be silenced?
Complain about this comment
249. Electric Hermit wrote:
"And still you stubbornly refuse to understand the situation. The regulations do not prohibit reciprocal baby-sitting arrangements."
=
As reported in the media:
"The regulator stressed that people who baby-sit for one another's children for more than two hours at a time or on more than 14 days per year should be registered.
This applies where parents receive a "reward" for the childcare - which can include money or simply FREE BABY-SITTING IN RETURN. (my caps)
Detective Constable Leanne Shepherd from Milton Keynes was warned by Ofsted to END A RECIPROCAL ARRANGEMENT (my caps) with her friend DC Lucy Jarrett."
Who is misunderstanding the above, you, me or the press?
Apologies if I appear stubborn, but when accused of being a pitch waving angry villager I like to know that the accuser has their facts right.
Complain about this comment
251. GomerPyle
"Sorry EH but it appears that the fallacy belongs to Mr MacAskil"
The claim made was that "...it is a requirement under Scottish Law that a prisoner has to be proved to have less than 3 months to live to be released on compassionate grounds.". This is a lie. There is no such legal requirement. What Kenny MacAskill referred to was the guidelines which have customarily been followed.
If you only stop to think about it for a moment then you will realise ho completely nonsensical it would be to have a legal requirement that could never be met. No medical professional would ever commit to such a specific prognosis of death.
Complain about this comment
245. Susan-Croft
Hi Susan
Hope all is well with you.
ps I didn't realise you were in the habit of quoting despicably dishonest unionist cabals.(@247) Shame on you.
Complain about this comment
253.
In case I'm pulled up by EH on another technicality...
2nd last line should read "pitchfork waving", although I have waved a few pitchers around in my student days I have never waved a pitch. Or strangely enough, a pitchfork.
Complain about this comment
meninwhitecoats 248
Yes I was prepared for the answer and it was exactly what I expected, I needed to know who I was talking to, now I know and I will not get involved with them. Seen it before.
MacAskill has never produced the medical evidence to prove that Megrahi is about to die. Next it is a requirement under Scottish law that a prisoner may die within 3 months, of course that does not mean he will die we know that, that is why it is a requirement and not set in stone. Therefore the important issue is the medical evidence on which he was released. Now Hermit has told us that it is a Tory/BLP conspiracy to discredit the SNP, we see where his/her alliance lies. Interesting.
Complain about this comment
One fundamental problem with Labour and their attacking of the Tories, is that most people see Labour as having become too Tory.
People will recall that Gordon came late to the 'banker bashing' party, indeed after Cameron, so this just appears like a lot of superficial posturing, and one thing people have learned is that Labour are past masters of wriggling out of undertakings and 'cooking the books' to suit their own needs.
It's not about fairness or equality of opportunity, and if it were, Labour would be in trouble. It'a about trust, and Labour have squandered that without a backward glance. I admire their brazen and selfish arrogance, but it's not a winning attitude for a political party in a democracy.
The problem with Gordon's current strategy is that it's only confirming that he isn't to be trusted. From ignoring mainstream opinion, it appears that banner headlines in The Sun are now being immediately implemented as policies, without a care as to whether or not they are mutually exclusive. Appearing to lie again is worse than admitting to cuts. The enshrining of cuts into legislation only appears to be an admission that they do not trust themselves, not that putting it into law will make a fig of difference. It's rather a naff party trick of no substance. I'd be more impressed if Gordon had it tattooed on his chest, but it's an infantile commitment.
Let's face it, even his Attorney General sees her legal obligations as ranking alongside the congestion charge in significance, but with his drivel on the statute book, he can promise no cuts until the economy explodes after the election, then we get the truth, or more lies. It's cyclically predictable, and that just about sums up Labour. The same ol' same ol'.
Without credibility Gordon - you don't have a viable argument.
Let me advise Labour on how they should end the conference and regain popularity. Play 'Things Can Only Get Better' and have the camera pan in on Lord Minky clapping along out of time, alongside Gordon. As the music cuts with the sound of a needle being dragged across the record, trapdoors open beneath Gordon and Minky, and as they fall through them an echoing voice proclaims the end of Nu Labour to the audience. There follows rapturous applause.
Labour are stuck with Gordon and election defeat. They must learn to 'get over it'.
Complain about this comment
253. TheBlameGame
"Who is misunderstanding the above, you, me or the press?"
You, apparently. There is no prohibition on reciprocal baby-sitting arrangements. It just happens that the arrangement in question fall within the formal definition of childminding. Ordinarily, reciprocal baby-sitting would not. This case is an exception. An anomaly. To draw conclusions about the legislation as a whole from this "freak" case - which is what many are doing - is just plain daft.
You and the rest of the Angry Villagers are incensed that the law applies in this case. But you give no good reason why it should not. If childminder registration is to be required - which only a fool would deny - there has to be a defined point at which registration is required. The only alternative, if you bother to think it through, is that everybody who ever does any baby-sitting must be made to register. Plainly ridiculous.
So, it then becomes a question of precisely how one defines the point at which registration is required. The silly mistake you and others are making is in leaping to the conclusion that the definition must be wrong because it has produced this one anomaly. Take the trouble to examine the facts and you find that there is actually nothing unreasonable about the definition at all. If it was any "looser" then it would risk leaving a loophole by which unscrupulous individuals mught avoid registration.
And consider the matter in a calm, analytical manner and you will realise that there will tend to be anomalies regardless of how the definition is drawn up. To say that this means the "law is an ass" - which is what many are doing - is just hysterical claptrap. All it means is that there is an anomaly which must be dealt with. It is being dealt with. It would have been dealt with absent all the pitchfork waving.
Nobody died. Nobody went to jail. Nobody even faced any serious threat of legal sanctions. Calm down, dear! It's not a big deal.
Complain about this comment
Susan!
are you back? ... or just teasing me with a quick in and out?
Complain about this comment
Oh guys I really miss you all, things are going well thank you. Yes Oudies I do have a heavy tan.
I have not had chance to see the Labour Conference, but I can well believe Labour are using heavy spin again. Like Browns claims in America, that in the interests of peace, he was cutting our Trident subs from 4 subs to 3 when this had already been decided in 2006 in the defense White Paper of that year. Brown gave nothing away, he is trying to fool people again.
Complain about this comment
257. Susan-Croft
"MacAskill has never produced the medical evidence to prove that Megrahi is about to die. Next it is a requirement under Scottish law that a prisoner may die within 3 months, of course that does not mean he will die we know that, that is why it is a requirement and not set in stone."
And still you persist in the lie. All the documents have been released. They have been in the public domain for a month. Either you are too lazy/incompetent to access them, or your purpose is to perpetute the lies of the unionist cabal.
In a spirit of generosity that will stand in contrast to your own meanness of spirit, I am happy to help you out with the research which is evidently beyond your abilities. Here is a link to a copy of the [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] Medical Report which you so dishonestly claim MacAskill refused to release.
Links to all the other documentation can be found here.
Moving on to your other lie, there is no requirement in Scottish law relating to the life expectancy of a terminally ill prisoner. None! The relevant legislation is Section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. It states precisely this -
3 Power to release prisoners on compassionate grounds
(1) The Secretary of State may at any time, if satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, release him on licence.
(2) Before so releasing any long-term prisoner or any life prisoner, the Secretary of State shall consult the Parole Board unless the circumstances are such as to render consultation impracticable.
(3) The release of a person under subsection (1) above shall not constitute release for the purpose of a supervised release order.
No mention of prognosis or any other specific grounds.
Finally, you seem to be as vague about the meaning of "requirement" as you are about the nature truth. I will leave you to consult a dictionary for yourself, however, as you evidently need to brush up on your research skills.
Complain about this comment
Good afternoon Andrew,
'The fact that you are commenting at all is evidence enough of the ludicrous over-reaction'.
How wonderful your blog is and the contributions from other commenteers, the one above beig from somebody who unlike me dare not reveal thier real name, namely Electric Hermit'.
To what are we meant to over-reacting to. The problem which many people have in these corrupt despicable days is that somebody in the government, or the public services, or the blogosphere will say something which nobody will ask questions about, or comment upon. Those words then become a truth and are acted upon. For example, not all bankers are as bad as they are painted to be.
When the four heads of banks were inetrviewed by one of the select committees they had to confirm that they were not actually bankers. had they sat any of the professional banking exams, what qualifications did they actually have to be 'bankers'. How many bankers are actually bankers. Do they belong to the Institute of Bankers, have they sat any exams at all, or were they just interviewed.
Same with politicians, if you describe yourself as a politician what qualifications do you actually have. What qualifications for example does Brown actually have. What has he actually 'done' in his life.
So Electric Hermit, I look forward to your response, but please have your committee meeting first, agree on a strategy and then let rip. looking forward to any response. As for you Andrew surely time for a new subject, although I doubt if it will relate to the really important issue of our continued occupation of Afghanistan, the inquiry into the death of Mr Mousa, or getting me ajob to keep from contributing to your blog. can't wait for the Brown speech tomorrow which will no doubt be well trailed, this is what Brown will be saying, 'progressive' 'fair' and totally lacking in transparency. As for dull as dishwater, surely not, I will be just so inspired, not!
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I am hearing that Sgt Smellie of the Met Police is being charged. What I want to know about now is the investigation into the death of Mr Tomlinson.
Our soldiers have taken part in some very serious breaches of international law in both Iraq and Afghanistan, trials have been heard but only one person was actually convicted. There really must be an urgent debate in parliament before any more of our soldiers are sent to Afghanistan. Brown funded the war and occupation of Iraq, he really must explain fully to the British people, in parliament, why we think that our presence in afghanistan will do anything but make a disgraceful episode worse. When will he pronounce on the Afghan elections, quick enough to congratulate Merkel, well tell us what you think of Karzai. Or will he stay silent just like in repsect of the convicted Libyan terrorist. Not good enough for the British Prime Minister.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#259 Electric Hermit
I tend to agree that the reaction to this case has been a bit overdone - albeit no more so than one has come to expect from the media. What it has done is to illustrate that the regulations, as intepreted by the relevant authority, need to be reviewed in light of the daft result in this case. Given that there is to be a review, I agree with your implication that there is no need to panic or get too excited in the meantime.
What I don't understand is your characterisation of the case as one which is so anomalous as to render it a 'freak'. As I understand it, the reasons for the arrangements being caught here are is that reciprocal arrangements are said to constitute reward in some circumstances and are deemed to have done so in this case because the care was for more than two hours or involved more than 14 days per annum.
It seems to me that where friends or work colleagues have a regular, reciprocal childminding arrangements it will be more the rule than the exception that it will involve more than 2 hours at a time or more than 14 days per annum. Indeed, one of the reasons this case has caused a fuss is that there are a lot of people who fear they are breaking the law, as interpreted in this case. I guess that is why the minister concerned has called for a review - or is he too being hysterical in your view?
The law of unintended consequences looms large over the affairs of governments generally and this one is no exception - with reams of well intentioned but hastily legislated, poorly debated and inadequately scrutinsed laws and regulations.
Complain about this comment
263. T A Griffin (TAG)
"How wonderful your blog is and the contributions from other commenteers, the one above beig from somebody who unlike me dare not reveal thier real name, namely Electric Hermit'."
What a remarkably foolish comment. How does anybody know that "T A Griffin (TAG)" is your real name? How do you know that Electric Hermit is not my real name? Without a means of confirming identity we are all anonymous. The only difference is that I am honest and explicit about my anonymity.
Complain about this comment
259. Electric Hermit
So this is an anomaly? A one-off? No-one else in the UK could find themselves in this situation?
I'm not "incensed" about it, merely questioning the logic of it. There are neighbours I would trust and neighbours I wouldn't. If the state needs to determine to whom I can trust my child, regardless of the relationship, then perhaps they should vet all couples wanting to start a family. After all, what's the difference between a potential spouse you have been dating for say a couple of years, and a neighbour who you have known and socialised with for say five years? How many spouses turn out to be unfit parents?
Anyway I'll let you be. The regulations are just in your opinion, I and others may happen to differ in our opinions... doesn't necessarily make me "incensed", a "pitch-fork waver" or an "angry villager" now, does it?
EH@226
"I don't like being manipulated. I will continue to think for myself while you perfect the voice of the obedient drone to go with your mindset."
Sums you up nicely.
Complain about this comment
266. Only jocking
"It seems to me that where friends or work colleagues have a regular, reciprocal childminding arrangements it will be more the rule than the exception that it will involve more than 2 hours at a time or more than 14 days per annum."
Perhaps so. I guess we'll never know because the chances of such arrangements coming to the attention of the authorities is remote at best. If there is a "problem" it may be with the definition of "reward". But I say again that we should be wary of tinkering with the legislation in an effort to accommodate every conceivable circumstance. Better that somebody should occasionally be inconvenienced than that we weaken the procedures designed to prevent inappropriate persons gaining access to vulnerable children.
Complain about this comment
EH @ 267
oh come on babe ... NOBODY'S really called Electric Hermit !! ... bad enough when your parents christen you "Sagamix"
Complain about this comment
268. TheBlameGame
"So this is an anomaly? A one-off? No-one else in the UK could find themselves in this situation? "
An anomaly is not a "one-off". It is a deviation from the normal or common order or form or rule. Hope this helps.
Complain about this comment
270. sagamix
;¬D
Complain about this comment
TheBlameGame 255
Blame, everything is fine thank you.
You are right the law is an ass and anyone with an once of commonsense knows it.
It is does not matter how many people have to register for child minding or how it is applied nothing will change with child protection. No one will as usual use the information correctly until the Police and Social Services do a better job, and tougher sentences are handed out by the law for offenders. The innocent will always come under suspicion and the guilty will go free. The end result will be that no one of merit will want to work with children.
The same is true for the wasted money on appeals for the guilty and illegal immigrants who stay in this Country on appeal after appeal for years. Money is also wasted on cases that should never come to court because there is not enough evidence collected because of the ineptitude of the police. The law now is always on the side of the guilty and not the innocent. It is an ass.
Everyone sees the injustice in our system everyday and know it needs reform, however who has the will to make the changes. Let us hope the Conservatives stick by their promise to do so.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 260
I just do not know how to answer that one, hope you are well.
Complain about this comment
273. Susan-Croft
Oh! How I laughed and laughed!
Complain about this comment
Bit busy today and haven't read all the blog but I am DELIGHTED to see Susan Croft back.Welecome back Susan and I do hope all is well with you.
Talk more when I get time.
Complain about this comment
275. Electric Hermit
"273. Susan-Croft
Oh! How I laughed and laughed!"
Just to clarify, it was the reference to Conservatives keeping promises that caused me such amusement. The rest of the whingeful jeremiad just made me boak.
Complain about this comment
271. At 6:06pm on 28 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:
An anomaly is not a "one-off". It is a deviation from the normal or common order or form or rule. Hope this helps.
=
Thanks for the lesson but I wasn't conflating the two. "One-off" refers to your term "freak case" which implies it will be highly unusual. (Unless you are ready to dispute that as well) It seems Only jocking @266 made a similar assumption. Jumping to conclusions is becoming a trademark of yours.
Still, it's fun being patronised by the self-righteous.
Complain about this comment
#269 Electric Hermit
Circumstances of the kind involved in this case are not 'freakish' or even uncommon. The frequency would be more than occasional and the impact more than an inconvenience making, as it does, lawbreakers of those impacted. As for those types of arrangement not coming to the attention of the authorities, it was never intended that they should. If you look at the background to the regulation you will find that a childminder is defined as someone who:
•looks after one or more children under the age of 8 for more than a total of two hours a day on domestic premises (normally a childminder’s own home) for reward;
•is registered and inspected by Ofsted - demonstrating the quality and standards of their care;
•is self-employed, runs their own business and provides a service to the families whose children they care for.
People who provide childcare in the child’s home (home childcarers) are not regulated by Ofsted and therefore are not required to register.
In other words, the regulations were intended to cater for people providing childminding as a service for payment. Hopefully the review will result in Ofsted revising their interpretation to one more in line with the intention of the regulations. Obviously the regulations cannot provide complete protection for children from inappropriate or incompetent childminders or from less than ideal premises, otherwise they would need to extend to parents and other relatives and to the homes of all children.
This case has thrown up an isssue which does need to be addressed and I would sugggest that your lofty dismissal of people's concerns is a bit facile and simplistic.
Complain about this comment
SC @ 274
I just do not know how to answer that one
face value Susan, as always! - I'm good thanks, you too I trust - hey, so have you changed your mind on anything in the last few weeks - anything at all - favourite sandwich filling, even?
Complain about this comment
245 and others Croftie
Hello again. I see you are bandying words with our new resident dalek/computer E H.
Dont waste your time darling, whatever point you make the Dalek rubbishes it and or you,or just puts the opposite forward as Holy Writ.
You busy later, 10.15 down the pub?
Complain about this comment
278. TheBlameGame
""One-off" refers to your term "freak case" which implies it will be highly unusual."
It will be. It is. It has been. The regulations have been in place for more than three years. There hasn't exactly been a flood of cases like this, has there?
Complain about this comment
279. Only jocking
"Circumstances of the kind involved in this case are not 'freakish' or even uncommon. "
How many such cases have come to light in the past three years?
Complain about this comment
EXXONMOBIL 2 276
How have you been, hope you are well, busy as always I see, talk to you soon.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 280
I have had to move to something more exotic in the sandwich line, things just are not the same, however change is good you know saga.
Complain about this comment
#282 and 283 EH
You are being obtuse - deliberately I suspect. I note you choose to ignore the backround to the regulations - as outlined by Ofsted incidentally - preferring to attempt a bit of sophistry. You must know that the fact that this case has come to light is much more likely to do with the 'freakish' view of the Ofsted official who dealt with it than it's 'freakish' circumstances.
I fear you may be incapable of acknowledging that there might be something in the views expressed by others, or at least unwilling to do so.
Complain about this comment
Susan Croft et al re: Megrahis release.
Just in cased you missed this post on NR's Why Did They Do It? thread, originally posted by scotslawyer. I hope this helps.
"82. At 10:29pm on 03 Sep 2009, scotslawyer wrote:
As a Scottish lawyer I'm becoming increasingly bemused by the bizarre conspiracy theories being peddled around this story.
There's one strand relating to the UK government (which seems to underpin the Cameron critique):
The UK government negotiated a prisoner transfer agreement which included Scotland when only 1 Libyan prisoner was in Scotland. The PTA was signed to further commercial interests. The PTA would allow the UK government to transfer the prisoner to Libya. The commercial deals would follow megrahi’s transfer. Problems with this theory? (a) the decision lay with the relevant minister responsible for criminal justice – in Scotland the Justice Secretary in the Scottish government. The UK government could not intervene in the decision. (b) while empowering the government of Scotland to make a decision Article 3 of the PTA precluded any transfer when there were outstanding appeals (and given one appeal was from the Lord Advocate (Scottish leading prosecutor) for an unfairly lenient sentence) nothing could be done until those appeals were dealt with – so even if Megrahi dropped his appeal (as he did) the Crown appeal continued (it was only dropped after the application for compassionate release was granted). Any suggestion that the UK government could promise release is suggesting that they would interfere with the independence of the Scottish prosecution service. (c) The idea that the Uk government could force an SNP minister to do something for Uk interests when the SNP were against the PTA (they even had an emergency statement in the Parliament on it when it was originally suggested) is laughable. The governments hate each other. (d) in any event the Uk had a formal undertaking in the run up to the Camp Zeist agreement that meant any sentence would be served in Scotland. See the comment appended to an excerpt from the Times article by professor Robert Black QC, the architect of the Lockerbie trial arrangement in his blog at http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/08/britain-accused-of-breaking-promise-to.html (it gives references to the international material).
If as they appear to allege the UK government did have a deal with Tripoli then it’s the worst negotiated and drafted deal in legal history – because all of the powers to transfer lay in the hands of third parties over whom they had no power: the Scottish government to make the decision; the prisoner if there was an outstanding appeal (where Art 3 of the PTA precluded transfer); and the Crown office in Scotland whose own appeal was outstanding meaning the PTA could not operate in relation to Megrahi (and Crown Office only dropped the appeal against an unduly lenient sentence following the release of Megrahi on compassionate grouonds because such an appeal is pointless if the prisoners is going to die). If Cameron and the Conservatives are suggesting that the independent Scottish prosecution service in the Crown Office could be pressured by the Westminster government to facilitate the PTA (which is the implication of their comments) that is a very serious allegation. Would they ever dream of making a similar allegation about the DPP? Of course not, because for the Conservative party at Westminster Scotland is a far away country of which they know little.
The alternative set of conspiracy theories which seem to form the basis of this post relate to the SNp and Mr MacAskill. There was something in it for the SNP. While you go through a number of theories which stem from purely political motives) there is a further theory which runs in anonymous parts of the legal system in Scotland (& is largely ignored down south). Megrahi's conviction was dodgy. There was going to be an appeal that Megrahi would definitely win because the Scottish Criminal cases review Commission had clearly shown flaws in the reasoning underlying the decision of the 3 judges and had identified other grounds - including new evidence which was not before the court during the trial. In Scotland where the appellant in a criminal case dies, the appeal continues. The propsect of Megrahi dying in Scotland and the appeal then showing that (a) the judges screwed up in the original case; and (b) that an innocent man died when imprisoned for something he did not do thereby embarrassing the whole legal system was something that could not be countenanced by MacAskill - a liberal lawyer - or the legal establishment. Therefore Megrahi had to be persuaded to drop his appeal (if released on compassionate grounds his appeal could continue, but not if that appeal was dropped). And the price of dropping the appeal was his release. This theory has been backed by some because MacAskill went to see Megrahi in prison, and the appeal was dropped days later (when both before & after release Megrahi was protesting his innocence - although dropping the appeal admitted guilt). [I should say I think MacAskill was wrong to visit megrahi, and I think this rendered his decision potentially challengeable by judicial review].
The problem with this theory is that a decision in support of compassionate release was almost inevitable whatever the position on the appeal (see the position of one senior Scottish QC, Jonathan Mitchell at http://www.jonathanmitchell.info/2009/08/24/megrahis-release-kenny-macaskill-was-right/ and his second post at http://www.jonathanmitchell.info/2009/09/02/compassionate-release-in-scotland-the-actual-policy-and-the-law/ ), & Megrahi's decision to drop his appeal may have been tied to his government's view of the PTA.
Of course the media actually bothering to speak to Scottish lawyers within the system who could inform accurately on the legal background against which MacAskill was operating (and which render his decision virtually inevitable without the need for paranoiac conspiracy theorising) would be rather a big step for the London based media who seem to prefer speaking to English QCs about a far away system of which they know little.
Megrahi was tried under Scottish law. He was imprisoned under Scottish law. He appealed under Scottish law. And his application for release was decided applying the precedents applicable under Scottish law. There is no conspiracy. It's just how the law works.
As Jonathan Mitchell QC put it
"on the published facts of Megrahi’s case, had the Scottish Government refused to allow compassionate release in terms of a policy which had been applied by it and its Lib-Lab predecessors, and before them by Labour and Conservative Secretaries of State alike, it would have been open to legal challenge with excellent prospects of success. That’s the way the law works; it doesn’t suddenly cease to operate because the person claiming its benefits is criminal, or a foreigner, or because release is politically undesirable."
Still, the simple answer doesn't suit the political agenda of various politicians and commentators. But, as someone that was at Lockerbie and whose family was profoundly affected by the decision I wish that you would stop using this whole process for political point scoring and show the victims, and the people of Lockerbie who survived some respect and have some dignity."
Complain about this comment
xTunbridge 281
Remember, I have a long way to come so you will have to get them in, however you are worth it.
Do not worry I know exactly who EH is and your assessment is spot on.
Complain about this comment
282. At 7:22pm on 28 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:
It will be. It is. It has been. The regulations have been in place for more than three years. There hasn't exactly been a flood of cases like this, has there?
Refer to Only jocking @279 & 286.
Lack of (reported) cases probably down to most neighbours/parents being sensible and keeping their noses out of other peoples' affairs.
That doesn't alter the fact that many parents will now be wondering whether they are breaking the law.
I'd like to move on now, maybe to discussing those despicably dishonest unionist cabals you mentioned earlier or whatever the reactionary term you used was. Are you an Angry Independent?
Complain about this comment
286. Only jocking
"You must know that the fact that this case has come to light is much more likely to do with the 'freakish' view of the Ofsted official who dealt with it..."
What is "freakish" about applying the law as it stands?
How many such cases have come to light in the past three years?
Complain about this comment
287. ScotInNotts
Excellent post. Unfortunately, all of this has been said many, many times before. It doesn't stop the lies.
But it is still good to see someone else challenging those lies. Having witnessed the abusive responses to my own challenge, you will be aware of what awaits you. Do not be deterred.
Complain about this comment
291. EH
Having witnessed the abusive responses to my own challenge, you will be aware of what awaits you.
=
Your 'name-calling' first crops up in post 19, unprovoked, unless I missed something. The tone gets progressively worse from thereon in. Spare us the victimisation bit. If you dish it out expect some to return the favour.
I'm sympathetic towards your stance on al-Megrahi, but not the attitude.
Complain about this comment
288 Susan Croft
The drinks are as good as in. Is the gang coming?
Cant believe its ony a bit over 24 hours since I posted the Child Care nonsense as a latest example of the Orwellian state we are in. Since then it has just run and run with EH countering the voices of reason again and again.
I dont think anyone has said that coz some Ofsted official has said it is so it aint necessarily so.As the mothers afflicted by this nonsense are serving Police Officers I am amazed the Police Federation did not fund a judicial review on a point of clarification or an abuse of process challenge. Perhaps they thought with their connections a few words in the right places via the|Home Offfice would get the nonsense sorted either by a sensible interpretation of "reward" or an order laid on the table in the Commons to clarify any (vexatious) confusion.
You back for good Girl or is this just a visit?
Complain about this comment
Under the leadership of Gordon we are well aware that the due process of law and technical niceties are no obstruction to him.
We've been duped too many times to believe that the small print in any law is defence against Gordon's ulterior motives. We've had the Lisbon Treaty wheeze and clear warning that when all else fails, he'll initiate anti-terror laws (rather ironic isn't it) to circumvent any legal obligation.
Even Gordon doesn't trust himself, finding the need to put policy on the statute book, or perhaps he's using statute law as an aide memoire. The reality is that it's something he can ignore any time he likes, but he feels that passing a law makes it a more believable mirage.
The USA and Gordon got what they wanted and Scotland took the blame. You only have to read a little of the pandemonium and farce going on before the application for release on compassionate grounds, to know the pressure Scotland was under.
No wonder Obama likes Gordon.
Complain about this comment
292. TheBlameGame
"I'm sympathetic towards your stance on al-Megrahi, but not the attitude."
I have a low tolerance for dishonesty. I make no apology for that.
Complain about this comment
292 TheBlame Game re 291 EH
Amongst other "interesting" descriptions EH has applied to me in his posts was one likening me to Napoleon Bonaparte. I quite liked that even if he did mean in the cartoon nutter mode.
Complain about this comment
It just occurred to me - when Andrew interviewed Darling and pressed him on the point of what would happen with this legal obligation to make cuts in the budget deficit if economic circumstances prevented it. He gave the telling response that they'd change the law.
That reveals that Labour are using the law for dramatic effect, as a party political electioneering device not to be taken seriously.
Lying over the Lisbon Treaty was unforgivable, on ethical grounds alone, but using the law as a pretence that they have an immutable policy is disreputable and a mockery of the law. I'd give it more credence if Gordon put on a straw hat and sang it on X Factor.
Complain about this comment
Child Care Fiasco
Just had a thought. If both the ladies concerned signed bits of paper to become tenants in common of each others properties then they would both "own" both houses and any "childminding" would be taking place in their own homes and so qualify for the exemption.
A stupid length to have to go to ? Yes but if Ofstead wants to play stupid.......
Complain about this comment
298. xTunbridge
"Yes but if Ofstead wants to play stupid..."
What is "stupid" about applying the law as it stands?
Complain about this comment
299 EH
Off to the pub for some sensible common sense responses. You should try it my friend.
Complain about this comment
288/293
Hope that's an open invitation?
Susan you still know how to get people going, may your white wine be nicely chilled where ever you are.
XTun I would not waste your time arguing you git it right at #281
Complain about this comment
#301
.... you even got it right
Complain about this comment
300. xTunbridge
"What is "stupid" about applying the law as it stands?"
Question too difficult for you?
What is "stupid" about applying the law as it stands?
Complain about this comment
295. At 9:35pm on 28 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:
292. TheBlameGame
"I'm sympathetic towards your stance on al-Megrahi, but not the attitude."
I have a low tolerance for dishonesty. I make no apology for that.
Nor should you. Now please refer me to where I was being dishonest.
Complain about this comment
304. TheBlameGame
"Nor should you. Now please refer me to where I was being dishonest. "
I was referring to the lies about the circumstances surrounding the decision to release al-Megrahi. It's not all about you, you know.
Complain about this comment
305. Electric Hermit
I was referring to the lies about the circumstances surrounding the decision to release al-Megrahi. It's not all about you, you know.
=
Absolutely. It appears to be all about you.
Have a nice day now.
Complain about this comment
306. TheBlameGame
"Absolutely. It appears to be all about you."
Nice of you to say so. But you are wrong. Of course! It is about challenging the lies continually spewed by unionist propagandists. But there are two of us here attending to that task. So you can afford to concentrate on the playground silliness.
Complain about this comment
307. Electric Hermit wrote:
It is about challenging the lies continually spewed by unionist propagandists. But there are two of us here attending to that task.
Intriguing.
So are you on the graveyard shift?
Complain about this comment
308. TheBlameGame
"So are you on the graveyard shift?"
Evasive.
Complain about this comment
309. Electric Hermit wrote:
308. TheBlameGame
"So are you on the graveyard shift?"
Evasive.
=
Is that coded talk? You mean negative?
Complain about this comment
310. TheBlameGame
"You mean negative?"
Buy a dictionary.
Complain about this comment
Good evening (morning ?) friends. Just got back from returning a damsel home from the pub.
I see nothing has changed .
Just one point I would like to proffer. "It" is not the Law. It is written Statute or Regulation. The case inquestion arises due to an Ofstead opinion on that Statute. We are all entitled to such an opinion. Me, TheBlameGame,MeninWhiteCoats and ,God help us,Electric Hermit. It becomes Law when it has been tested in Court before Judges and if necessary through to, now, the Supreme Court. Only then is it definitive Law.
So at the moment we have all been expending our energies on the opinion of some Ofstead zealot. But it passed the time and exercised EH's bile.So no harm done eh?
Complain about this comment
311. Electric Hermit wrote:
310. TheBlameGame
"You mean negative?"
Buy a dictionary.
=
Evasive. adj. tending or intended to evade.
evade. v. To escape or avoid by cleverness or deceit
To avoid fulfilling, answering, or performing: evade responsibility.
Yes, yes, know all that... not sure what I'm evading. I asked you the question, remember. I know it's late but keep up.
Who's the other guy you referred to, btw?
Complain about this comment
312. xTunbridge
"So at the moment we have all been expending our energies on the opinion of some Ofstead zealot."
It is a bit extreme, even for an Angry Villager, to label someone a "zealot" simply for applying the regulations as they exist. But what can we expect from a reactionary whinger? Only the consistency of reactionary whingeing. Had there been some unfortunate consequence of the Ofsted employee not doing their job, don't we just know that you would be there, in the van of the mindless mob, pitchfork aloft, baying for blood.
And the word "hypocrite" would never so much as enter your head.
Complain about this comment
312. xTunbridge
"exercised EH's bile"
Bile!? You've misread that by an astronomical margin. I'm laughing at you. Have been all day. The hysterical antics of the Angry Villagers are always an excellent comic turn.
Complain about this comment
312. xTunbridge
Hi xT, we've moved on from there...bygones and all that.
We were going to discuss challenging the lies continually spewed by unionist propagandists (not my words) before you came along. I'm not sure he trusts you though.
EH has pulled the short straw and is on the graveyard shift. Long story, I think. Anyway, I have to go now, I'll leave you two to chat but don't mention the O word.
Complain about this comment
314/315
Too late, see what you've done now, xT...
I'm off before I get called an Angry Villager again and that'll be another 20 posts!
Complain about this comment
316. TheBlameGame
"EH has pulled the short straw and is on the graveyard shift."
You just can't help being wrong. I enjoy this. No question of a "short straw". If I'm doing something it's because that is what I want to be doing. And baiting Angry Villagers is my idea of a bit of sport in between working on various bits and pieces.
You make the mistake of taking more out of these posts than was ever in them in the first place. I call it "creative reading".
Complain about this comment
The set-up for the Brighton interviews on Breakfast AM had Alan Johnson framed with the burnt out wreckage of the old pier in the background. Nice touch.
***
315.Electric Hermit wrote:
312. xTunbridge
"exercised EH's bile"
"I'm laughing at you. Have been all day."
That's good EH, because they say laughter is the best medicine.
Although in this instance they may be wrong. :-)
ps All quiet on the dawn patrol.
Complain about this comment
Good Morning Andrew,
so today is the day of the great speech, the speech not to the labour party but to the country, the speech in the week in which the Irish will be allowed to vote in their referendum. The week in which Angela Merkel won an election where the country is in the Euro, the same Euro which is now for those going on holiday is now at or very close to parity with the glorious pound. The very same pound which is being devalued every day by those who really do understand the parlous state of the economy. Not long before we have to call in the IMF!
The speech which will be about whether or not he (Brown) will tell us if we are to have a television debate, do not know when or the format but he will apparently be willing to participate in a tv debate, seriously with our soldiers supposedly dying in Afghanistan for democracy, to keep terror off the streets of Britain, in other words for young people to so terrorise a mother and her child that they commit suicide rather than continue one more day.
If Brown tries to tell us that he wants to change our society, a society which he and his kind have allowed to develop, then when he talks about it remember president elect Karzai, remember Dr David Kelly, Harold Shipman, Mr Tomlinson, remember the Brown funding the illegal war in Iraq, the no more 'boom and bust' the this is about 'labour investment (spending) and Tory cuts', next thing you know we will have the Whigs being brought up.
What I want from Brown is more about provision for the elderly, about care for the elderly, about not closing care homes, not so much like we get from Johnson about we will have to wait twenty or thirty years before we start to see the results for what NuL has done. What they have done is to put in place the possibility of a police state. My reasoning, they have not repealed the anti union laws, they have allowed the appalling growth in the use of CCTV cameras, they have undermined the electoral process with postal voting, they have destroyed social mobility, they have supported illegal wars, supported the soldiers when they should have come down on them like a ton of bricks. They have lost control of the best parts of our society but allowed the worst parts to grow and flourish.
What I want from Brown is an admission. That he is not the great leader who has saved the world, he cannot be a meglomaniac as well as his other faults, which are too many to list. I can imagine Hitler in the trenches at the end of the Great War, I will save Germany, I will save the world, then everybody will love me, I know I can't paint, but I the ends justify the means, nothing will stop me me!
What I want is that when the election is held, a democratic election as far as we know, which in all likelyhood he will lose, then he will fully support the next government. That he will support the elected government when they do not allow the unions to bring down any government by striking against the 'cuts' which will need to be made. That he will not support wild cat strikes, that he will allow the democratically elected government to continue the occupation of Afghanistan, that he will support any action by the police in respect of demonstrations like that held in London during the summer when Mr Tomlinson died, and many have the evidence to support the allegations that the police were heavy handed. I want the leader to tell labour and their supporters that he is for Britain, the rule of law and order, that he apologises for the wars and occupations, that we are going to be in crisis, and that the whole country must come together, a government of national unity, which will have been elected for five years, not four.
Complain about this comment
xTunbridge 293
Could not answer last night as I was on my way. Its such a long way. However I had a great time as usual.
My aim in my posts was to show EH in their true colours which worked perfectly well. Knowledge is power, and you now have it by the responses given. Nothing is what it seems but I always recognise the tone of posts and from whom they are sent. Think of the opposite of what is being portrayed by EH in work and life and you have the answer.
My thoughts on the Ofstead decison is that I have never heard anything so ridiculous in all my life. As most children are abused by close relatives and these people will be excluded from the register, this is just a bureaucratic exercise to prove they are doing something to solve a growing problem. The net result of which will be that people who have the knowledge and ability to work with children will shy away from doing so.
Complain about this comment
321. Susan-Croft
"My aim in my posts was to show EH in their true colours which worked perfectly well. "
So you now want us to believe the dishonesty was some kind of ruse? Sounds a bit squirmy. Fact is, you were peddling the same tired lies that the Tory/BLP alliance has been trotting out for weeks. You didn't expect those lies to be challenged and now you try to cover your embarrassment by attacking me.
Seen it all before! What it shows is the utter contempt that the unionist parties and their servants have for the truth and for voters. They actually seem to believe that they have a right to lie and deceive. and they get sorely upset when anyone questions that "right".
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
with reference to #247 may I humbly suggest that you look at the 'rules' which are used to allow elderly people to be placed into either a hospice or a care home. I think you will find that because of the costs involved people who are placed in care homes are very expensive to support. Accordingly, care home should only have access to people who have a life expectancy of no more than six weeks. If somebody lives for longer than the six weeks then there will be some sort of inquiry into how this has happened. Now if they can do this for our elderly folk then the same applies to others. Ronnie Biggs is still alive, and I think that the convicted libyan terrorist will also still be alive, I am not able to say the same for those in society who enter state care homes. Are there any figures to show how long after admission to a care home a person actually lives, or are returned home to be cared for by family members.
Complain about this comment
# 320
TAG - I'm sure Gordon has sheafs of doctored statistics ready to prove to us how much better things have been under his watch. Gordon is nothing more than a scrupulous book keeper who has gone over to the dark side. He believes that everyone believes in figures the way he does, and that by making the figures right, then we'll be comforted.
It's only when you try to use any of his barely existent services that you realise how insufficient they are. Most people, never making serious use of the NHS, taking for granted that its there to take care of sickness. The reality can be a shock. My own experience evidences that any statistics coming from the NHS should be treated with the utmost suspicion. Bonuses exert enough pressure to ensure that Gordon gets suitably reassuring figures to use in Parliament.
Of course the problem is, that as more scandals come to light and more examples of failure keep hitting the headlines, people get to realise that it's all smoke and mirrors, with Gordon's overpaid bureaucrats being rewarded for good figures, no matter the reality.
Gordon's credibility is shot to pieces and the more outrageous his promises become, the less trustworthy he appears. What has Gordon done about the 'money pit' we used to call our banking system ? He's just thrown more money at it until it staggers under the load of taxpayer cash. Paying it out in bonuses is probably the only use they can find for it.
We know that Gordon has impressed Obama, but that's not for anything he's done for the British public. I don't vote for a British PM to cosey up to and accomodate the wishes of a foreign leader.
Gordon needs to be cautious with his speech today, or he may do himself more harm than good if he makes more unbelievable claims and promises.
Complain about this comment
323. T A Griffin (TAG)
"with reference to #247 may I humbly suggest that you look at the 'rules' which are used to allow elderly people to be placed into either a hospice or a care home."
I don't see the relevance. But I will happily look at these "rules". Where are they?
Complain about this comment
Good morning each & Andrew
There is nothing quite like a good wake.
The one thing to increase tension and be assured of a great send off is to talk of the undead, or leastwise to talk of the deceased as if still alive and among us.
But where would Scrooge be now but for the visit of 'Xmas-past'?
It is all well and good for those with a trail of ordure in their wake to keep their eyes on the road ahead.
If only it were so, that two 'wakes' make a 'forthright'; alas no.
Tis the season also of calls from within for more democracy at conference.
I hope that the electorate will see 'one person one vote' as our way out of the farce that is the present Parliament.
"All empty stables are to be fitted with state-of-the-art bolts, as soon as can be afforded."
To gain a real shine there is a lot more to it that 'pledge'.
Complain about this comment
EH various
You now my friend you do evoke the most glorious picture of what you are like.
My first one was a Dalek. The only true versions spat out in an electronic bark.
Now I have moved to the Jaberwock who did everything with such ferocity but it was all nonsense.
Please keep up the entertainment.
Complain about this comment
#325
enquire of your local council and Primary Care Trust. The relavance is with regard to the convicted Libyan terrorist (CLT) who was released on compassionate grounds to spend time with his family, who have previously visited Scotland, and accordingly could have been released, but to a care home, where his family could have visited him.
My point would be that in respect of care homes people are only given access if it can be shown that they have a maximum of six weeks to live, maybe the problem is that when the CLT lives for longer than three months we will again be asking the question why not access for our elderly to care/nursing/hospices for three months rather than six weeks.
Complain about this comment
327. xTunbridge
Thank you for posting to let us know that you have absolutely nothing to say.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
to assist EH may I also point out there is a document available with regard to 'Fair Access to Care Services, Guidance on Eligibilyt Criteria for adult Social Care' which is issued by the Department of Health, and is available on the following:-
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
now as this is an official government document I hope that the moderators will allow this link. Some of us do I think know what we are talking about, and I am not a council employee, neither do I work within the health service, I am just an independent folk, or is it citizen, subject, comrade, socialist, Englishman, or Briton, I just don't know how I am to describe myself. Get out the pitchforks, on to the streets eh!
Complain about this comment
ScotInNotts 287
Hello Scot hope you are well.
I must confess that I have no axe to grind on the release of Megrahi, because I am not a Unionist and do not follow any party slavishly, as it seems many do the SNP. I am an English democrat by policy, therefore I wish Scotland well if it wishes to go independent.
However honesty in politics is very important and to this end I believe Alex Salmond is culpable. It is widely accepted in oil circles that the release of Megrahi was a done deal by both the Scottish Government and the UK Government well before Megrahi was released in order to obtain oil deals. Salmond looking to the days when Scotland may become Independent most probably wanted these oil deals as much as anyone else, because despite the propaganda by the Scottish Government the oil industry in Britain is on the decline. Many large oil companies are now looking to selling off assets in the expensive UK for much greener and cheaper pastures. You may believe this or not that is your choice. By helping these large companies such as BP to obtain deals elsewhere the Scottish Government hoped in turn for them to earn the revenue to keep the oil industry in Scotland alive.
Furthermore we have moved on since the post you present on the 3 September and MacAskill has still not produced the evidence to my knowledge, to prove that he had the medical advise as a requirement under Scottish law, that would suggest Megrahi was expected to die within the 3 months required. This evidence is very important for Megrahi to have been released on compassionate grounds. This is not a conspiracy it is the facts as most people see them.
One must always keep in mind the people who died in this disaster and Megrahi from what I have read is most probably, though a low operative in this, guilty. This case should have gone to appeal and then maybe we would have got to the truth. It seems however where there is oil there are no scruples. Now we have to put up with the sad sight of this dreadful despot Gaddafi allowed to take his place in the World. Is oil really worth that, in my opinion it is not.
This release has done much harm to Scotlands standing in the World for which Brown has allowed Scotland to take the entire blame.
May I also be so bold as to suggest you have a much better candidate for leader of the SNP in Nicola Sturgeon. I think she would do a much better job and does not suffer from the very colourful past of Alex Salmond.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
327. xTunbridge
A town in Essex springs to mind.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I don't know if many people know this but there are limits on the maximum pensions which can be taken from local authority pensions. I think that for my local council that figure is GBP50,000. I think that there should be a maximum pension payable to anybody. No national insurance is paid on pensions. So, let me say that I would vote for any policy which said that the maximum pension payable to anybody, no matter how much that they have put in that pension, is GBP50,000. Any pension payment above that figure will be taxed at 100%. Anybody argue with that proposal. I think that some of the pensions now being paid are actually obscene, and are not for purpose, there must be a restructuring of the whole pension system. Comments please.
Complain about this comment
EH 322
Madam as it is alien usually to answer people of your calibre, it is my duty to the others to say I stand by my original post about Megrahi. This post had the double advantage of bringing out your true colours and informing others of my thoughts on the subject in question.
Furthermore I am not a Unionist, so the argument on which you base your last post is completely false.
There is no shame in being beaten at your own game, however there is shame in belittling others for your own amusement. You do much better when you stick to co-ops and Scottish history according to the SNP. You unfortunately did not do your homework this time and the ruse was all too obvious for the very intelligent posters on this site.
Complain about this comment
#324
you have a term which I have been thinking about for some time but have not used 'smoke and mirrors' everything would seem to be an illusion. We live in the age of the magician, or the illusionist.
I have been reminded of the use by Brown last conference of 'this is no time for novices' also 'British jobs for British workers'. it is no wonder that the world is going into protectionism, they are following the advice of Brown, as for Obama well he is a 'novice' it is no wonder that he really does not want to be seen with Brown, who actually is the novice, for Brown has only been PM for a very little time, who has never actually been elected in England, who lacks legitimacy, who says nothing on Karzai. Careful TAG you're going to angry again.
Can't wait for the son of the Manse, who is responsible for thousands of deaths in Afghanistan, because nobody will tell us the truth as to the numbers of not only our soldiers but more importantly the local Afghan people who are fighting for their freedom rather than seeking asylum in the one of very country's which occupies them.
Complain about this comment
331. Susan-Croft
"Furthermore we have moved on since the post you present on the 3 September and MacAskill has still not produced the evidence to my knowledge, to prove that he had the medical advise as a requirement under Scottish law, that would suggest Megrahi was expected to die within the 3 months required."
Again you repeat the same lies. As you have been told, but seem incapable of grasping, all the documents are in the public domain and there is no three month requirement in Scottish law.
Complain about this comment
331. Susan-Croft
"However honesty in politics is very important..."
Then why do you persist in peddling the same untruths?
Complain about this comment
331. Susan-Croft
"It is widely accepted in oil circles that the release of Megrahi was a done deal by both the Scottish Government and the UK Government well before Megrahi was released in order to obtain oil deals."
Rubbish! If this foolishness is "widely accepted" at all it is only among the most desperate conspiracy theorists. I realise that facts bring you out in a rash, but nonetheless the facts are that the Scottish government had no direct dealings with the Libyans over "oil deals". And the UK government, which was negotiating with Libya, had no power to influence the release of al-Megrahi.
Complain about this comment
335. Susan-Croft
"I stand by my original post about Megrahi"
You stand by lies. There is no requirement in Scottish law such as you have described. It simply does not exist. And all the documents relating to al-Megrahi's release have been in the public domain for a month or more. They can be found at the UK and Scottish government website and there is a page on the BBC news website with links to the complete collection.
I have tried to post links to the documents but these have been disallowed by the moderators. As was the link to Section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 which exposes the lie about the three month requirement.
While these lies are published repeatedly and with impunity, every attempt to rebut them is being referred to the moderators.
Complain about this comment
I will try once again to post links to the documents which expose the lies being told about the circumstances surrounding the release of Mr al-Megrahi.
The legislation -
Power to release prisoners on compassionate grounds.
The documents -
BBC NEWS | Scotland | Read the Lockerbie files
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
sorry but why has one of my comments been referred to the moderators, namely number 330. I think all I was doing was to give the address of the DoH document which went under the name of Fair Access to Care Services Guidance on Eligibility Criteria for Adult Social Care, or that is what I think I posted. I know that it related to England and not Scotland, but would the convicted Libyan terrorist have met any of the criteria.
Complain about this comment
The al-Megrahi situation was a triumph for Obama, though only the long term will prove whether it was worth it, I suspect not.
If the US hadn't been seeking a rapprochement, Gaddafi wouldn't have got near to the UN, much less be allowed to deliver a performance there. Gordon just did as required by Obama and was content to leave the 'custard pie' situation with Scotland.
Perhaps our insignificanc is such that we must slavishly follow America's foreign policy and allow ourselves to be dragged through their wars and intrigues, no matter the cost.
I'm not naive enough to believe that foreign policy is determined by honour and justice. Self interest and gain are the prime forces at play. The question is whose self-interest is being served ?
Complain about this comment
...He is home, we are home.
Democracy now is kept off-shore,
Vote for option 4 or more.
Home is the sailor, home from sea:
Her far-borne canvas furled
The ship pours shining on the quay
The plunder of the world.
Home is the hunter from the hill:
Fast in the boundless snare
All flesh lies taken at his will
And every fowl of air.
'Tis evening on the moorland free,
The starlit wave is still:
Home is the sailor from the sea,
The hunter from the hill.
All Each Houseman? You.
Not if you vote for Red or Blue.
Complain about this comment
T.A.Griffin (TAG) 334
I am afraid I do not agree TAG the reason is that throughout life people should have choices that are not made by the state. In private pensions if people are prepared to save and pay into their pension and go without other things to this, so they can enjoy a good retirement they should be allowed to do so.
Also 50,000 pounds now seems a lot, however as the years pass this may very well prove to be not enough and if the Government is deciding at what levels pensions should be paid and the rest collected in tax at 100% we would soon see it used to keep pensions artificially low. Also people would stop paying into pensions as this policy would lead to mistrust and a disincentive for people to do so.
People who save hard for retirement are already punished enough by their private pension pots being raided by Brown for tax as it is, without further intervention by the state.
Also of course people would only pay in up to 50,000 in time to come to accommodate that amount of pension provision so there would be no tax to collect therefore no benefit to the idea.
Furthermore it would once again be an incentive for high earners and skilled workers to move abroad where they would be able to work for a company who has no limits to its pension pot and when the pension is received it is taxed at low rates or not at all.
However there may be some value in this policy for those pensions provided by the overburdened tax payer as in public sector pensions.
Complain about this comment
335. Susan-Croft
I've done the spadework SC, believe me, whatever the rights or wrongs of the al-Megrahi case are, it's not worth it.
You can hear the rivets popping with each email.
Complain about this comment
346.
SC: read post for email (currently going through a spate of work emails)
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
posting number 341.
Now I have taken the time to go the BBC site to which you refer. Now the trouble is that I have read the letter from Lord Falconer dated 12th June 2007.
In it he refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Now nothing makes any sense without having access to the MoU, so where is it, probably under lock and key like the MoU signed with the government in Iraq at the time of the occupation.
Can we see the minutes of the meeting held on the 29-30 May 2007 which is referred to in the letter. I would hope that foreign office inetrpretors were there and that full details were kept with regard to the whole conversation.
The letter also refers to the Darfur situation, which is still not resolved, what was said about darfur and have any of the committments been met.
There is also reference to prisoner transfers 'individual transfer requests may well be refused', now I would have thought that there would be a reference there to the fact that they may well be refused but that Scotland has the ability to allow a prisoner transfer on the grounds of compassion. Had it been the case that it would have been pointed out to the Libyans that do not attempt a prisoner request on the grounds of the agreement but keep it in your locker to request the release of the prisoner, because the convicted Libyan terrorist was not transferred he was actually released, freely, and he then chose to go home to Libya.
I am sorry AH but by giving the English people the opportunity to view these documents without a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding then the full picture is not revealed, still smoke and mirrors. All the minutes of all the talks must be revealed, I do not trust Brown. I do not trust the current system of government.
For precedence I refer to the documents which were published very soon after the outbreak of the Great War by many of the great powers. The situation is unacceptable, just like the situation over Baroness Scotland. how many others have paid the type of fine which 'patricia' has paid. What are the conviction rates for the offence?
Complain about this comment
Hermit
a little tip for you - you're trying to "argue" with someone (SC) who thinks mega bonuses in the banking sector are a jolly good thing and should be increased - who thinks that abolishing the minimum wage will be good for the low paid - who wants to end all immigration because the country is "full up" - and a whole raft of other ridiculousities which I haven't the time to type out - she does not do "debate" she is more a "just restate the same thing using pretty much the exact same words" type of blogger - she also has a slight "Queen Bee" complex as regards this particular site - I love her to bits, despite all that, and the really great thing is she WILL change her mind based on logic, facts and reason ... I've got her to change her minds LOADS of times, for example ... haven't I, Susan? ... but she will NEVER tell you she has - you just have to assume it
Complain about this comment
EH 338
There is a requirement in Scottish law that a prisoner has to be judged to have less than 3 months to live to be eligible for compassionate release. To say otherwise would call MacAskill inept as he was the one who made this clear in his statement. To my knowledge this has always been true in recent times for release of prisoners on compassionate grounds in Scotland. A prisoner may well live extra time after the 3 months that is why it is a requirement rather than set in stone as I have said.
The medical evidence although released shows that no doctor except one, was prepared to commit themselves to the 3 months rule. The one who did is suspected of working for the Libyan Government. MacAskill is now under pressure to give the name of this person which he has refused to do.
Now this is not a conspiracy by Unionists or anyone else, and no amount of saying such will make it so. The oil industry knew this was a done deal long ago.
Please do not accuse me of untruths again.
Complain about this comment
EH
While I share your impatience with misinformation, I think you weaken your powers of legal argument by accusing your opponents of being part of a `unionist cabal`
One thinks if only! Their arguments lack substance and merely reiterate prejudice lifted from reactionary tabloids which use the oil for Megrahi story to attack Labour in England.
Perhaps you are generalizing from Scotland where the older parties combine in opposition to the SNP,but here there is no Con-Lab unionist cabal.I am sure however there are angry villagers on both sides of the border.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 349
Well thanks a bunch saga, you know very well none of what you have said is true. As to Queen Bee I have been gone for some time in case you did not notice, so that cannot be true either.
You will therefore be pleased to know that this was my only free day so I will be gone again and Hermit Herman will have a free run.
Sorry to say I have agreed with you only once in all this time, over the war in Iraq etc.
The art of debate is to put forward your point of view and even though you do not agree (because we all think differently) accept that difference, not resort to insult or belittle people because their ideas are different. I have found I learn a lot that way. Therefore if you on more occasions just accepted that I have a different point of view instead of wanting me to agree with you, I would not have to repeat myself so much.
Complain about this comment
#331 Susan-Croft
Hi Susan, I'm good thanks. Hope you are keeping well also.
I agree there are those that slavishly follow a party of whatever creed, happily I'm not among them. As you know from our previous discussions I favour an independent Scotland, just so happens the SNP furthers that aim at the moment. It would appear you favour an end to the union also, granted from a differing perspecetive.
"However honesty in politics is very important and to this end I believe Alex Salmond is culpable. It is widely accepted in oil circles that the release of Megrahi was a done deal by both the Scottish Government and the UK Government well before Megrahi was released in order to obtain oil deals. Salmond looking to the days when Scotland may become Independent most probably wanted these oil deals as much as anyone else, because despite the propaganda by the Scottish Government the oil industry in Britain is on the decline. Many large oil companies are now looking to selling off assets in the expensive UK for much greener and cheaper pastures. You may believe this or not that is your choice. By helping these large companies such as BP to obtain deals elsewhere the Scottish Government hoped in turn for them to earn the revenue to keep the oil industry in Scotland alive."
I would agree that Salmond would be culpable if what you claim is indeed true. I'd be intrigued to see any documentation or evidence from the oil industry to suggest that this was the case. As it stands, NuLab have claimed they were going to make a deal, why not smear the SNP with that at the same time if it was true, simultaneously discrediting the SNP, and by association independence? I'll admit I don't know the figures for Lybia's oil reserves versus our own, perhaps you could enlighten me. You are right in that I disagree with your assessment of our own industry, although they are selling up at present due to the current economic conditions.
Perhaps NuLab were trying to secure oil when Scotland becomes independent? :)
"Furthermore we have moved on since the post you present on the 3 September and MacAskill has still not produced the evidence to my knowledge, to prove that he had the medical advise as a requirement under Scottish law, that would suggest Megrahi was expected to die within the 3 months required. This evidence is very important for Megrahi to have been released on compassionate grounds. This is not a conspiracy it is the facts as most people see them."
The facts of the post still stand whatever the date it was originally posted. The law does not stipulate that the prisoner is required to die within three months. Also, it was my understanding that, at the discretion of the Justice Minister, a terminally ill prisoner could be released on compassionate grounds if he indeed had longer than three months to live. However, I'm sure MacAskill knew when he made this decision that there would be those wiating for Megrahi to live longer than the three months widely publicised. As we all know, giving an estimation of how long someone has to live is exactly that, an estimation. Maybe he'll live longer, maybe he won't, either way I'm not comfortable speculating on anothers demise.
I'm not sure that is how most people see the facts, however releasing medical records obviously isn't an option to assuage your doubts. The way things stand it appears that only the mans death will satisfy those that hold your doubts on the matter.
"One must always keep in mind the people who died in this disaster and Megrahi from what I have read is most probably, though a low operative in this, guilty. This case should have gone to appeal and then maybe we would have got to the truth. It seems however where there is oil there are no scruples. Now we have to put up with the sad sight of this dreadful despot Gaddafi allowed to take his place in the World. Is oil really worth that, in my opinion it is not."
I agree, as things stand he is a convicted mass murderer involved in a terrorist attack. Regardless of the doubts surrounding the case, his involvement and conviction, that is the fact of the matter. We may yet get to the truth if the UK and US governments allow a full public enquiry, as per the call of some of the berieved relatives. With regards to appeals, please see my previous post regarding the law.
You are right, oil is most definitely not worth the discarding of srcuples and principles, or to suffer men such as Gaddafi. I sincerely hope that you are mistaken in your assumption of Scotlands complicity in the matter.
"This release has done much harm to Scotlands standing in the World for which Brown has allowed Scotland to take the entire blame."
Could you please show me evidence that shows this has done much harm to Scotlands standing in the world , as it has been oft repeated, especially by some in the media. As far as I'm aware there is a single boycottscotland website which has had little effect. The US State department certainly doesn't think so this is the case, whilst many have lauded the decision, seen as holding true to principles and the rule of law.
"May I also be so bold as to suggest you have a much better candidate for leader of the SNP in Nicola Sturgeon. I think she would do a much better job and does not suffer from the very colourful past of Alex Salmond."
:) Yes Susan, suggest away. Salmond is one of those personalities that can polarise peoples opinions on him, and I know you're not his greatest fan. He appears to have done well thus far, although you're probably right in that wee Nicola will probably be party leader one day, whether she'll have another title to go along with that remains to be seen.
Complain about this comment
29.9.09
>AN
You said 'I look forward to your answers ....'
Here! Here!
It is time to stand up and exercise our moral and ethical clout. There is no place in decent society (and by inference world society) for the condoning of the antics displayed by Colonel Gaddafi (the Libyan dictator formerly known as Mad Dog), and which you describe so succinctly. [A propos Mad Dog, the word guttersnipe springs to mind.]
Must we continually demean ourselves in pandering to the antics of pathologically deviant despots? The answer must be a resounding NO!
You also say
'Why would adding Colonel Gaddafi to our list of suppliers make us any more secure?'
I fear that the very opposite would result from this action: This would signal an open invitation for all pathological recidivist deviant depots or would-be despots, around the world and at home, to spring into action. The potential which may be unleashed is too horrific to contemplate!
We must heed the numerous warnings which history has taught us.
Perhaps it may be apposite timing to not only withdraw from the current scenario with Libya, but to break off all diplomatic links for the foreseeable future until Mad Dog is no longer a threat.
We must acknowledge that WE OWE IT TO HUMANITY, AND ESPECIALLY THE OPPRESSED CITIZENS OF LIBYA AND OTHER TYRANNICAL REGIMES, THAT WE ACT WITH COURAGE AND DECENCY TO ASSERT OUR MORAL AND ETHICAL CLOUT.
We do NOT need Libyan oil - we have trusted oil suppliers, and the technology in place to supply additional energy resources. And coupled with the will to halt our wasteful energy use, and the overt encouragement by the next government to change our ways (some simple straightforward moral guidance - not nannying - perhaps?) there is really no need to panic. The current scenario is based on pure and simple greed and selfishness.
Zarathustra's sibyl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://scotsvernacular.blogspot.com/
TAKE GUARD ARCHANGELI, 'THE TIME IS NOW!'
Oraculum/a/O
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Complain about this comment
Some of todays recent head-lines.
"...chief refuses to apologise..."
"...We'll change world again..."
"...Runaway driver admits killing..."
Do one, none, all apply to Gordon?
Complain about this comment
SIN @ 353
the law does not stipulate that the prisoner is required to die within three months
well no, it wouldn't do that would it? ... too uncertain ... but does the Law say the prisoner should be (on good medical advice etc) be expected to die within three months?
can we please clear that up?
Complain about this comment
susan @ 352
as to Queen Bee I have been gone for some time in case you did not notice, so that cannot be true either
your aura lives on, babe, don't you worry about that - hey listen, you were telling everyone about EH (weren't you?) so I just thought I'd tell him about YOU - anyway you take care, see you next time - counting!
Complain about this comment
107. At 01:28am on 26 Sep 2009, spinspamspun wrote etc.
Comment:
Observations and logic - well-founded and impressive. Spot-on.
I would like to see you take your thoughts a step nearer to today's scenario.
I look forward to reading more ..................
Complain about this comment
hi Andrew,
I listened with great interest to Brown, and why I feel the same towards him as I do Gaddaffi. Brown has not been elected.
Now we are told that after years we are to get something on the completion of the reform of the House of Lords, which is where Lord Mandelson is. So, let us say that we do get an elected second chamber, so why not an elected prime Minister, why not a Prime Minister from the second chamber.
What I thought most interesting however, where his wife had given him such a gushing introduction. He goes to bed at night and wakes up in the morning thinking only of Britain. Well excuse me, but what does that say about their relationship, sorry darling, I'm too busy thinking of England. Furthermore, I did not like his macho comment about being 'a guy who does not take no for an answer', is this really we should be giving to our young men, don't take no for an answer.
In the meanwhile we have to ask who will be doing the supervising in respect of these homes for the young women who have children! Next thing we will have the return of the work house.
Detest this National Care Service, how will it be funded, it is something I heard before, and I would refer people to my earlier posting with regard to the eligibilty criteria. Middle of next year, after the election, we are being told by Burnham. I'm getting angry again, better sign off before I explode, remember, it was Darling who used the term 'pissed off' when talking about labour. I can only hope that my comment is allowed on the basis that the words were used by the individual and I am quoting him.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
'the finest in the world' when talking about our soldiers in the world'. That surely is really going to get the rest of the worlds governments supporting the soldiers in Afghanistan. If they are so good then why do we need even more of them. What are we seriously saying about the soldiers from other countries in the NATO alliance, that they are not the finest, they are second to ours. I saw the return of the Italian soldiers being given their State funerals, is Brown seriously impugning those dead soldiers, from Canada, America, Italy.... If ours are the finest, then Wooton Basset is not enough, outside parliament with all the MPs lining up to doff their hats, showing respect, State funerals for all the dead, now that would show that Brown does nothing other than rhetoric. Maybe Harry 'we do bad things to bad people' would like to go again on active service in Afghanistan where he can call in air attacks!
Complain about this comment
Nice coverage of the conference and you almost got Mandy today. I fear he may be even more slippery than your technique can counter. Maybe if he is removed from government some of the confidence will evaporate
Guido has it that the policy on young mums being locked up and educated is actually a BNP policy
Any chance we can get an airing of that on tomorrow's programme or a slightly more robust outing on Thursday night?
Complain about this comment
...Brown's speech.
I was busy and could not watch the whole thing. The promise, during La Brown's gush, of videos put me right off.
I did pop back now and again and would have liked the beeb to have put the date on-screen for I was and am unsure whether I was watching todays' speech or last years or the year before.
"Be he 'live' or be he dead?"
Complain about this comment
ScotInNotts 353
There is much I agree with you over Scot.
Questions on this issue of Megrahi will continue and only time will tell whether this was a necessary release or one simply one of expediency. The question still remains as to what evidence was given from the medical profession that prompted MacAskill to release Megrahi. As I understand it the 3 months requirement has always stood for a bench-mark for compassionate release, indeed this is the very reason MacAskill gave for the release of Megrahi, that he had this short time to live. Yet it seems the 4 doctors consulted were not prepared to give this assurance, 1 did who is suspect as I have said.
I understand that BP have actually admitted already that the deal had been agreed with Libya and Gaddafi has confirmed this, that it was very dependent on the release of Megrahi. However this may well have been something Blair and Brown agreed originally and later by the Scottish Government. Whatever the truth there are questions to be asked of the Scottish Government.
The big oil companies will now go wherever the oil is to be found and Libya is a good new source and of course massive in comparison to the UK though not the largest. Your belief that the UK oil industry is not in decline is at odds, I am afraid of every expert in the field, but if that is your belief so be it.
It will forever be Scotlands cross to bear in the future that they hold responsibility for releasing Megrahi who is deemed a mass murder for oil deals. The Scottish will always have to have the image of the Scottish flag being flown in celebration of the release of this man. America at the moment wants Gaddafi on side, but in time when things turn sour this will come home to roost I am afraid. Across the World they do not understand this compassionate release and it is moral standing Scotland has lost in spades. The eventual outcome for Scotland I cannot predict of course.
However to a brighter side, I still believe the SNP will stay in power, because if I were Scottish I would dislike Brown a heck of a lot more than Alex Salmond and I cannot see the Scottish voting Conservative can you?
Complain about this comment
How peculiar - I was at the gym and had the benefit of seeing Gordon's speech in silence, but what puzzled me was that after a long delay, when I expected Gordon to appear, I saw his wife speaking, and for one glorious moment I dreamed the dream.
I got a whiff of his rubbish. Threatening 'yobs' (John Prescott take note) that if they ignore their ASBO's their parents will get notice (?) and if they ignore it, they'll pay the price. Absolute piffle.
I can test the Leicestershire police interpretation of anti-social behaviour by trying the same on one of their police stations and seeing how long it takes for them to arrest me. That would prove that they already have the powers, just not the will.
I caught mention of lots of giveaways but nothing to say how he'll pay for them. I don't know where Gordon's getting all this money from. Just imagine what he could have done if he'd had all this money before.
It's amazing how an economic catastrophe can make the country so rich.
I can't wait to get full details. Maybe we'll all get year round free entry tickets to Disneyland too, and travel on windmill powered reindeers, and I had to laugh at Gordon's tough action against banks.
Wait for it - banks have to repay the money they've been lent. Do you think they might have thought it was a gift Gordon ? I hope that they understand the concept of lending - or maybe not.
Complain about this comment
..."...and to serve."
I have certainly heard that one before. To my cost!
NuL are entitled to their views and to have them heard...but why Blair? As in Tanoy (reg TM).
Oh!
Foolish me, I have the news on.
"A ban on cluster weapons"
This is so much bull.
Ban on cluster weapons which have more bomblets than ours have ever had. NO CHANGE there.
Complain about this comment
A strong performance by Brown at first consumption but one which, on reflection, would have been more credible if it was being delivered against the background of 12 years of Tory rule rather than 12 years of Labour rule.
I fear that once the dust settles it will be seen as more of the same. A mix of broad brush responses (some inherently improbable) to focus group fears and emotions, with contrived dividing lines and lots of reheated policies and themes.
That said, Brown is a shrewd party political operator and the Tories had better be careful in their response to his rhetoric. They can't win the next election at their conference next week, but they could make a start on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Complain about this comment
#363 Susan-Croft
As I said, it's difficult to know exactly what his exact condition is or his prognosis without seeing his medical records, which are confidential. I am unaware of the credentials of the medical experts, suspicious or otherwise. That being said, you may be correct in that the other four opinion sought did not agree that Megrahi had only three months to live, perhaps they only said that he was terminally ill and could not give an accurate estimate to the length of time left to live? Again, this is speculation.
The way I understood it, the trade deal had been negotiated through Westminster. Even if reliant on Megrahis release Westminster had no power in ensuring this. I think you may rely on this fact to lend some credence to the fact that the SNP must have obtained something in exchange for complying with Westminsters wishes. Others have also tried to presuade me that politicians are politicians, and no matter if the SNP and NuLab are bitter opponenets that perhaps a deal could have been reached. Perhaps I am being naive, but I honestly cannot see how the trust could be maintained by either of these parties not to 'whistle blow' on the other before it got this far.
Also, why didn't they just release him under PTA in that case? It just doesn't hang together for me.
No doubt oil companies will look out for the best opportunities and bring their influence to bear. I honestly can't see why Scotland would require Lybias oil.
Fortunately Scotland didn't release Megrahi for an oil deal, and those that understand compassion are generally those that we call friends, those that do not tend to be the target of the US and UK's interventionist policies. I'm quite happy with the outcomes from this matter.
The SNP will most probably stay in power at the next Holyrood elections in 2011. Of course we have the independence referendum in 2010 before then.
Regarding the GE, things also look good for the SNP, and believe it or not there will be a few Tories in there too :)
Unfortunately some parts of Scotland remain heavily ingrained when it comes to voting for Labour. That is slowly but surely changing, as the old party faithful realise that the party they previously voted for no longer exists.
Interesting times indeed Susan.
I see Labour are looking into introducing PR, there's a turn up for the books. Wouldn't have anything to do with not having a chance under FPTP in the next GE would it?
Do you think it would help parties like the English Democrats if PR was introduced, or lead to further problems, as some see it as the reason the BNP got elected during the recent Euro elections (a view I disagree with, other factors were responsible for that).
Complain about this comment
Reports indicate that Gordon ddn't give any hint of how he was going to pay for all these 'goodies'. Rather a waste of time then. He has already admitted that there would be cuts, so his speech appears to have been more of a wish list than anything substantive.
The idea of trying to mess with the hospital/local care arrangement worries me, as the pressure will be put on GP's to handle more work themselves, which without major investment in technology, won't happen, or will result in GP's being pressured to fob patients off.
Complain about this comment
348. T A Griffin (TAG)
"I do not trust Brown."
Understandably. But try to get your head around the incontrovertible fact that, whatever they might have told the Libyans, the UK government had no powers in relation to the al-Megrahi case. None. Absolutely none. I'm desperately seeking a form of words which will convey the reality to those whose every instinct is to deny it. The UK government had no say in Mr al-Megrahi's release. None. Nil. Nought. What does it take to make you people understand?
Complain about this comment
356. sagamix
"but does the Law say the prisoner should be (on good medical advice etc) be expected to die within three months?"
No it doesn't. I've provided links to the legislation. I cannot help those who actually prefer to remain in ignorance of the facts.
Complain about this comment
363. Susan-Croft
"The question still remains as to what evidence was given from the medical profession that prompted MacAskill to release Megrahi."
No it doesn't. The fact that your blatantly obvious prejudice prevents you from seeing the evidence does not mean that the evidence does not exist. All the documents have long since been placed in the public domain. It remains for you to explain why you so stubbornly deny the existence of material which everybody with a computer can access.
Complain about this comment
I fully agree EH, Gordon and England are insignificant, but the USA isn't, and Gordon doesn't prance after Obama like a puppy because he has a crush on him.
Perhaps the Scots are unique in world politics and live in a vacuum. Perhaps you are an innocent soul and shouldn't trouble yourself with things that may shock you.
Skullduggery and double dealing are commonplace. Whole countries were duped and double crossed in the Second World War, with many people dying over secret deals agreed in private.
I don't seek to persuade you EH, and I won't comment on Father Christmas just in case, but I'm content that there was only ever going to be one outcome, whether justified or not.
No one mention weapons of mass destruction or we're sunk.
Complain about this comment
369. At 6:42pm on 29 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:
348. T A Griffin (TAG)
"I do not trust Brown
Your write: What does it take to make you people understand?
Suggestion:
Would an additional brain cell be the answer? Do you know how to engineer this? I for one, haven't got a clue. Meelie Pooden says its cos I only have an inferior collective Mozartian gene (canine variety). (I objected to being called inferior, but he shot me down in flames before I had even opened my jaws and bared my gnashers, and so I schkulked off in despair).
And my old Daddy told me once that sometimes the only answer is biting - but I am a pacific doggie, and I just can't do it!
Maybe you could bear your gnashers at them? It would be better coming from you. Or better still reply to each of them in turn with the single word 'Gnashers!'
Hope this helps you EH,
wursthund in angst
Complain about this comment
EH @ 370
I cannot help those who actually prefer to remain in ignorance of the facts
yes, you can - you can tell me the following please
(1) is there ANY mention of 3 months in the guidelines?
(2) if not, where has this 3 months thing come from?
I really want to nail this
Complain about this comment
#369
'But try to get your head around the incontrovertible fact that, whatever they might have told the Libyans, the UK government had no powers in relation to the al-Megrahi case. None. Absolutely none'.
So are you saying that the UK government might haver misled the Libyan government. If you are, then are you agreeing that we cannot trust the UK government to tell the truth, in the same way that I cannot trust Brown to tell the truth. In other words that we need to see what the UK government actually did tell the Libyans. We are slowly getting you to see the real truth. The UK government is seen to be duplicitous, they are saying one thing to one side, and then saying something else to somebody else. There is no change then to all current and previous governments.
Complain about this comment
372. GomerPyle
Your posturing cynicism does not constitute evidence. It doesn't even constitute an argument. 'Though it break your heart to hear it, there is no conspiracy here. There is not even the plausible suggestion of a conspiracy.
Unfortunately, the very nature of inane conspiracy theories is that less evidence equates to more proof.
Complain about this comment
374. sagamix
"(1) is there ANY mention of 3 months in the guidelines?
(2) if not, where has this 3 months thing come from?"
That is not what was claimed. What was claimed was that the law stipulated a three month life expectancy as a requirement for compassionate release. This is a blatant lie. There is no such requirement. Internal Scottish Prison Service guidelines suggest an estimated life expectancy of three months as a broad indicator. In law, there are no defined grounds whatever. The only requirement is that the Minister be satisfied that compassionate release on licence is justified.
As to where this "three month law" came from, it is just one of many lies being promulgated by those whose sole interest is to attack and undermine the Scottish government at whatever cost to truth or their own honour.
You have to understand that the British Labour Party genuinely believes that it has a divine right to rule in Scotland. It has never recovered from electoral defeat and cannot even accept that it was defeated. For these political zealots anything is justified as they lash out at their imagined nemesis, the SNP. What they do not realise is that their nemesis is not their political opponents, but their own hubris.
Complain about this comment
375. T A Griffin (TAG)
"We are slowly getting you to see the real truth."
Don't get an over-inflated opinion of yourself. I have never been in any doubt regarding the duplicity of the UK government. What you and others among the ranks of the ill-informed appear unable to grasp is that the UK government is totally irrelevant in all of this. The UK government had no say. The UK government had no authority. The UK government had no authority. It is of not the slightest consequence what they promised the Libyans, they had no capacity to deliver on such promises. That they may have been stupidly, arrogantly unaware of their impotence is irrelevant. Their impotence is an incontrovertible fact.
Some people need to be asking themselves why they have such profound difficulty accepting this incontrovertible fact. But the facts are not affected by their deficiency.
Complain about this comment
I didn't say it was evidence EH, did I ?
Are you a flat earther too ? Do you dismiss Darwin as a fantasist ? Have you ever seen a Quark, possibly because you've never read Lord of the Rings, and therefore don't believe in them ?
Physics must have been fun for your teacher. I bet you still had qualms even after he went to the trouble of building a Hadron Collider for you.
My hobby is to confound and outwit internet scammers. I have a very elastic mind and would love to play poker with you. The real world is much more complex than you can comprehend EH.
I wish you well.
Complain about this comment
379. GomerPyle
"Are you a flat earther too ? Do you dismiss Darwin as a fantasist ? Have you ever seen a Quark, possibly because you've never read Lord of the Rings, and therefore don't believe in them ?"
My compliments to your supplier. That's some good stuff!
Complain about this comment
electric @ 377
the relevant legislation, the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, has no mention whatsoever of 3 months or indeed anything of that nature - just says release on compassionate grounds is at the discretion of the Secretary of State - not a hard legal requirement then - not totally irrelevant either, however, since there are the internal prison service guidelines (which you mention) and, I guess, precedent as it evolves - anyway great, understood, tick - I've lost interest in the 3 months now - red herring
here's what I am still interested in ... it's a logic thing again
you say as I italicise below:
The UK government had no say. The UK government had no authority
two separate statements - two distinct meanings
in reverse order:
the UK govt had no authority
easy - they didn't - it's TRUE
the UK govt had no say
not so easy because we don't know the following 2 things - we don't know if:
(1) Westminster gave a steer to Kenny pre the decision?
if NO we can conclude that the UK govt had no say - and q2 is Not Applicable (N/A)
if YES, move to q2
(2) was Kenny influenced at all by the steer? - either to do as Westminster wanted, or indeed to do the opposite?
if NO we can conclude that the UK govt had no say
but if YES then they DID
now for you to be so adamant about what you're saying, you are climbing the logic tree (q1 and q2 respectively) with either a NO plus N/A or a YES plus NO - that's right, isn't it?
so, here we go ... 2 last (I think!) questions for you:
(a) are you NO N/A or YES NO on the logic tree?
(b) how sure are you on a scale of 1 to 100 pc?
and if your answer to (b) is higher than say 90 pc, pls justify
Complain about this comment
381. sagamix
I rest my case on the wisdom of William of Occam.
Complain about this comment
381 Saga
Got him !
Complain about this comment
383. xTunbridge
"Got him !"
You amply illustrate the truism that prejudice is father to fallacy. All it takes is some evidence nonsense dressed up as "logic" and you are convinced. How sad!
More intellectually acute readers will have observed the following...
"(2) was Kenny influenced at all by the steer? - either to do as Westminster wanted, or indeed to do the opposite?"
...and noted that, according to this "logic", the supposed prejudice is "proved" regardless of the outcome.
Pathetic amateurs!
Complain about this comment
I loved Gordon's proclaimed list of achievements delivered with growing emphasis. It's a good thing he ran through it quickly (on a rising tidal wave of applause) because most of the claims were bogus.
'The cancer guarantee' ??? Is that the last one the NHS don't achieve or the new one they'll never achieve. I also recall a claim that Gordon had saved 19 million jobs. How did he work that out ? He missed out on saving us from a Mars invasion.
Unlikely claims and impossible promises, all delivered without a quotation as to cost. What's happened to the cuts he owned up to ? Has he double backed on himself or is this election to be judged on impossible promises - riches for all.
What are we going to get from Cameron ? He can't match Gordon's impossible dreams, so that must be where Gordon will attack.
Complain about this comment
#374 sagamix
Section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 gives the Scottish Ministers the power to release prisoners on licence on compassionate grounds. This process is akin to the system of medical parole that exists in many other jurisdictions.
The following links provide a layman’s view of the process and also links to documents provided by the Scottish Government with regards the Ali-Megrai release on grounds of Compassion. Please also note that this decision did not set precedence, in fact it followed the decision of around 30* previous applications for release on the same grounds.
*I believe its 30 but I am open to correction if that’s not the case.
The Compassionate Release Process.
The SA (1993) process guidelines state the following:
Those suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period.
1. Compassionate Release.
2. Medical Report.
3. Advice to Justice Secretary.
4. Release Process Documents.
5. Release Licence.
Saga I am rather surprised that a Hard Leftie like you is a member of the ‘Right wing - Hang em and flog em brigade’. Even the Tories, god bless them, included this provision in the 1993 Act.
By the way I am with EH on this one.
Complain about this comment
386. Roll_On_2010
"Please also note that this decision did not set precedence, in fact it followed the decision of around 30* previous applications for release on the same grounds.
*I believe its 30 but I am open to correction if that’s not the case. "
Since 2000 there have been thirty applications for release under licence on compassionate grounds. Only seven of these have been refused. MacAskill's decision was soundly based on law and precedent. If this were not so, then the unionist cabal would have no need to lie about what the law is.
Complain about this comment
386. Roll_On_2010
"By the way I am with EH on this one."
It would be more appropriate to say that you are "with" the truth.
Complain about this comment
#386 Correction to my previous post
followed the decision of around 30* previous applications for release on the same
‘decision’ should have been ‘same process’
Complain about this comment
389. Roll_On_2010
"‘decision’ should have been ‘same process’"
A very important point. The anti-Scottish government/anti-SNP lobby are desperately trying to create the impression that al-Megrahi was somehow treated as a "special case". He wasn't. His application was dealt with in precisely the same way as every other such application.
Complain about this comment
roll on @ 386
you're off the pace, babe - pls read my 381 where I cover all your stuff and also put things in a nice logical framework, on which we can all now move forward to a satisfactory conclusion
you like a bit of logic, I'd imagine ... really bright guy like you
Complain about this comment
electric @ 382
rest my case on the wisdom of William of Occam
no dice - try again?
a) are you NO N/A or YES NO on the logic tree?
b) how sure are you on a scale of 1 to 100 pc?
and if your answer to (b) is higher than say 90 pc, pls justify
come on, don't be scared - I'm on your side
Complain about this comment
391. sagamix
"a nice logical framework"
There is no "logic".
"(2) was Kenny influenced at all by the steer? - either to do as Westminster wanted, or indeed to do the opposite?"
Heads I win! Tails you lose! That is not logic. It is nonsense.
Complain about this comment
XT @ 383
I know ... brilliant, aren't I?
seriously though, I'm kind of with the Hermit on this and I'm not trying to "nail" him (as you put it) I'm trying to nail "it" - the "it" being why he's so adamant about this - I'm happy, on balance, to accept the Release at face value ... I'm really (unlike you, for example!) NOT a Conspiracy Theory kind of guy ... it's just I want to understand why he's so certain there was no Westminster influence - you know my thing with certainty, right? (SC et al)
Complain about this comment
392. sagamix
"come on, don't be scared - I'm on your side"
In that case, I am scared.
Complain about this comment
EH @ 393
q1 first please
Complain about this comment
More important than the discussion around al-Megrahi's release is the question of his innocence (or guilt).
Are you on the graveyard shift again EH? Your mate you referred to @307 isn't much help. Not pulling his/her weight.
Complain about this comment
394. sagamix
"it's just I want to understand why he's so certain there was no Westminster influence"
Because there is no reason to suppose such influence in the first place. Clearly, you do not comprehend the relationship between the UK and Scottish governments. Like all to many others you appear to think of the UK government as somehow "superior". Understanding will continue to elude you as long as you entertain this fallacy.
If you seriously want to postulate some influence that the UK government may have exercised over Kenny MacAskill, then instead of faffing about with kiddy-on "logic" try describing the nature of this influence and the way it might have been exercised.
A thing does not become real, or even possible, just because you can imagine it.
Complain about this comment
The Brown conference speech...
1. I want to talk with you today about who I am, what I believe, what I am determined to lead this party and this great country to achieve
2. And so I want to answer your questions directly, to talk with you about how amidst all the present difficulties we should be more confident than ever that we can build what I want to talk to you about today
3. And where I've made mistakes I'll put my hand up and try to put them right
4. Now because this is a time of greater than ever change around us, it must be a time of higher ambition from us
5. But you know, when it comes to public spending you can't just wave a magic wand to conjure up the money - not even with help from Harry Potter
And so there are tough choices and I have to say that as a result of the events of recent weeks there are going to be tougher choices we will have to make and priorities we will have to choose.
And just as families have to make economies to make ends meet, so this government must and will ensure that we get value for money out of every single pound of your money that is spent.
People feel their communities are changing before their eyes and it's increasing their anxiety about crime and anti-social behaviour.
And so we will be the party of law and order.
And so today I announce my intention to introduce ground-breaking legislation to enshrine in the law of the land Labour's pledge to end child poverty.
6. And we want to enable all families to use the internet to link back to their children's school - and so Jim Knight is announcing that we will fund over a million extra families to get online, on the way to our ambition of Britain leading the world with more of our people than any other major economy able to actively participate in our broadband and internet future.
7. This is our country, Britain.
Brown 2008, that is.
Source...BBC
Complain about this comment
396. sagamix
"q1 first please"
Already answered. Your inability to grasp and/or reluctance to accept this answer is entirely your problem.
Complain about this comment
#391 and #394 sagamix
Read your dead tree logic at #381. It was rather puerile to me.
You’re really off the pace babe!
I believe, 100%, that the decision to release of Ali-Megrahi by the Scottish Justice Minister was his decision and his decision alone.
By the way I also believe conspiracy theories with regards Ali-Megrahi release and oil deals, start and end at Westmidden.
You want answers for the oil/business link go ask Teflon Tony and Duff about the PTA. Afraid the Scottish Government cant help you they disagreed with it, they kicked that option out!
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
there is something not understood by many people, if any at all. The Great Depression of the thirties did not start in 1929, it started earlier in 1928, with the problems of 1928 actually coming from the end of the Great War. The Great Depression ended only with the start of the second Great European Civil War which ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The second Great depression will be seen to have started in 1987 with the stock market collapse of that year. Since 1987 there have been various attempts to prevent another Great Depression but each time the truth has been hidden, that the big game is over, that there will be slight improvements along the road, but the long term trend is for decline, followed by attempts to prevent the decline, but it really is over. Many millions in America have seen no improvement in their conditions, particularly in middle America, where all the shinanigins in markets have just passed them by, their has been no growth for them, just slow inexorable decline.
Sorry guys but you are all just whistling in the wind. It really is over and done with, just sit back and enjoy the ride, you will not know where you are going, you may make some stops on the way, and then carry on, and when you eventually stop you will probably say that this is where you were going all along, delude yourselves for all you like, but it really is time to unhitch those wagons, time to stop. We've been here before, the invisible hand has us in its grip, let asset values fall, just let it go, it may hurt for a while, but I see the four horsemen gathering on the horizon, trust me, the politicians will seek salvation in the deaths of millions. All for the best of intentions of course, the ends justify the means, and we should really be very grateful, the greater good, and the happiness principle, but the worst one is 'I was following orders, from a higher authority' we have nearly completed the journey, the long journey on the road to serfdom.
Complain about this comment
401. Roll_On_2010
"By the way I also believe conspiracy theories with regards Ali-Megrahi release and oil deals, start and end at Westmidden."
Correct! There simply is no link to Kenny MacAskill. The decision was "clean". But resign yourself to the fact that there are people who are totally incapable of acknowledging this. They simply can't. It is like a matter of religious belief for them. They are beyond help.
Complain about this comment
I got this from the Barrhead News
"A spokesman for East Renfrewshire Council confirmed criminal justice staff would conduct monthly interviews with Megrahi via video conferences to Libya."
They're obliged to check that he is behaving himself, to ensure he doesn't move address without informing them first, hasn't left Libya and to check his state of health.
Sounds like a job for EH if you ask me. They're a little peeved at the cost, but what price justice ?
Complain about this comment
roll @ 401
that's my exact point ... you believe it but you (and EH) are presenting it as if you know it ... all I'm doing is trying to explore where your certainty is coming from - look, I reckon on balance you guys are probably correct but I'd have thought (given the hinterland to the decision ... the oil angle, the doubt over guilt, the appeal, all that) that there MUST be a non negligible element of doubt that it was stand alone "no more than meets the eye" decision - why are you so sensitive about it? - what's so terrible about admitting an element of doubt?
(see I can do the word thing as well as peurile logic trees!)
ps: you probably think I'm just messing around but I'm not ... I am genuinely interested as to why you guys have no element of doubt on this
Complain about this comment
394 Saga
Yes you are. And he rose to my bait beter than any trout I have ever fished for.
I am being unkind. EH's style is just out of order. He and he alone has the true position on everything. In his world there are no shades of grey.
From life I know that what is absolute certainty to me is, from anothers position, absolute nonsense and both opinions have validity.
To reach a position where we agree, or agree to differ, we discuss with respect to our differing opinions and perspectives. EH seems incapable of this.
On the current subject I tend to agree that Westminster, or the UK Govt as EH calls it, either called in favours , issued dire financial threats or just used the art of diplomacy to persuade the Scottish Govt to exercise its authority in a way advantageous to UK oil interests.
Of course I have no proof. But on the balance of probabilities it seems a reasonable explanation. I mean how many people hold religious beliefs for which there is no tangible proof whatsoever ? It is their right and should be respected.
If only EH would change his style so that he does not come over as being the only person with the absolute truth. Nobody has that.
And I still find the delivery, phraseology whatever you want to call it of EH's post "mechanical" or computer speak. They lack humanity. Also the sheer number of posts produced is impressive even if they are all so dogmatic as to be outside the parameters of normal blog debate.
Phew, time for bed.
Complain about this comment
404. GomerPyle
""A spokesman for East Renfrewshire Council confirmed criminal justice staff would conduct monthly interviews with Megrahi via video conferences to Libya.""
Those of us who trouble to inform ourselves are well aware of this. It is hardly "news". It is all set out in the Release Licence, which is readily available for anyone who is interested.
Complain about this comment
#403 Electric Hermit
I followed the Ali-Magrahi release closely throughout, on the BT and other blogs and followed and read most of the links provided by both sides of the divide.
One of my after thoughts, a silly one I admit, was that the Scottish Government could have used the PTA to release him, that would have been much easier and they could have turned round and said it was part of the due process and laid that fact at the door of No 10. It would, I feel sure, have bolstered the case for Scottish Independence.
But back to reality, Kenny MacAskill took the harder decision to release on the grounds of compassion.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
watched Milliband being inetrviewed by Paxman tonight and I thought the bit about the 16/17 year olds being supervized as a new policy was most interesting. Apparently these places are already up and running and actually Milliband is correct. For a new policy it definitely is not, it is up and running, and has been for a few years now in the constituency of the new golden boy, Ben Bradshaw.
You see on exeter Quay their is a group of homes with key entry, and it is known as the Foyer, this is what Brown was talking about. An experiment here in Exeter which now going to be rolled out. trouble is that Exeter is currently having a little problem with the County Council because Bradshaw supports a policy of making exeter a unitary Authority, just like Plymouth down the road. Now Plymouth is over twice the size of Exeter and is havving serious problems. the solution in many cases for those problems is to go in to joint partnerships with Devon County Council, the very same DCC which it was expensively split from many years ago now. It is exactly the same with Torbay, same happening.
So look up Exeter Foyer anbd see the policy in action.
Complain about this comment
405. sagamix
"I am genuinely interested as to why you guys have no element of doubt on this"
As a rational human being I require a reason to doubt that which is obvious according to the evidence of my own senses. There is no evidence to so much as suggest that the al-Megrahi decision was anything other than precisely what it appears to be.
If you want to postulate some influence on Kenny MacAskill from the UK government then the onus is on you to state the nature of this influence; the manner in which it was exercised; the intended effect; and the actual effect. You're not doing very well so far. Up to now your entire case rests on your undoubtedly well-developed capacity to imagine a conspiracy.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
further to my earlier posting about the Tonight interview conducted by jeremy Paxman I thought that readers might be interested in Exeter Foyer, run with the charity the Guiness Trust, can't believe that the government is going in to a project with a charity connected with a drinks firm, but there you have it, twenty four hour drinking, and charitable work, which will suffer as a result of changes to drinking laws but hey, I'm as pragmatic as the next man, or woman. Anyway here it is from their website:-
Foyers are integrated learning and accommodation centres providing safe and secure housing, support and training for young people aged 16 - 25.
With over 130 Foyers operating in urban and rural communities throughout the UK, the Foyer Network provides safe, quality assured environments where experts reconnect around 10,000 young people every year with personal development opportunities, and back into education, training and employment.
In exchange for services tailored to their needs, young people entering a Foyer are expected to actively engage in their own development and make a positive contribution to their local community. The nature of this exchange depends very much on the individual, where they have come from, the barriers they are facing and their aspirations for the future.
It often means picking up the threads of education, developing skills for independence and encouraging greater resilience to overcome barriers. It can also mean rebuilding family relationships, overcoming mental health issues or developing stronger self confidence and self belief.
In placing young people at the heart of a flexible 'deal', which in the case of Foyers is expressed through a formal contract, it affords them the tools they need to take responsibility for their future and helps them to secure lasting personal and social change.
Complain about this comment
408. Roll_On_2010
"One of my after thoughts, a silly one I admit, was that the Scottish Government could have used the PTA to release him..."
If the UK government had been exercising the influence imagined by the inane conspiracy theorists, this is what would have happened. The PTA was, after all, the UK government's baby. It was surely some part of whatever "deal" they made with the Libyans. But with characteristic unionist arrogance they neglected the fact that they had no way to deliver.
If MacAskill had not denied the PTA application then there might have been some small cause to suspect UK government influence - although it would remain to be shown how such influence was exercised. The fact that he did deny it completely eliminates any such possibility.
The UK government did not influence the decision because it had no way to do so.
Complain about this comment
EH @ 403
it is like a matter of religious belief for them
I agree, and I can understand why you want to be forceful in rebutting that - trouble is you're coming over a little bit yourself as having a near religious belief in the integrity of Kenny - as I say, I reckon you're probably right, I'm on your side on the fence ... so yeah, be scared! ... but I simply do not understand the certainty
pls see below:
on my logic tree, okay, I get that you're answering NO to q1 and N/A to q2 - which is excellent since you don't like q2, do you? - good that we don't need it
q1 - NO - i.e. you are saying that Westminster did not even attempt to influence the decision, right?
great so we're nearly there, aren't we? - all that's left is for you to tell me
- how sure are you (as a percentage) that Westminster didn't try and influence the decision?
- and if that's a number close to 100 pc, pls justify
so YOU maybe do that for ME - and pls see below for a couple of answers the other way
EH Q:
a thing does not become real, or even possible, just because you can imagine it
SX A:
I agree - but that particularly applies to things which are patently absurd - are you therefore saying that the idea of Westminster trying to influence the decision is absurd - guess that IS what you're saying - you must be - but why? - unlikely maybe, but absurd ??
EH Q:
try describing the nature of this influence and the way it might have been exercised
SX A:
phone calls, maybe - dunno - I'm not saying it DID happen, remember, we're just probing your certainty
(sorry if this is painful but I'm, you know, interested)
Complain about this comment
#405 sagamix
Sagamix here is a simple questionnaire for you.
Individual/personal decisions are best arrived at by the following process:
1. Experience and Core beliefs learned over a lifetime. Those aspects of your individuality you have to dig deep down for.
2. Progressive and logical thinking
If your answer is both, or/and you want to add another, I believe its time you took a sabbatical, did some clear progressive thinking, and came back refreshed.
My decision was based on both of those parts of the process listed above. And I admit a dose of trust after watching Kenny MacAskill delivering his release statement and his other subsequent appearances.
By the way Trust is not on my list, although it can be argued that it would fit into 1 above. Trust can’t be quantified or calculated, it is down to the individual.
Complain about this comment
413. sagamix
"since you don't like q2, do you?"
Nothing to do with whether I "like" it. The "question2 was a logical nonsense in that the hypothesis was assumed to be proved regardless of the answer. If you want to play logic games, first learn the basic rules.
Complain about this comment
413. sagamix
"try describing the nature of this influence and the way it might have been exercised
SX A:
phone calls, maybe - dunno"
Wax effigies and hat-pins, maybe. Pardon me while I scoff.
Complain about this comment
413. sagamix
"sorry if this is painful"
Why should it be "painful" to me? You're the one making a fool of yourself. Instead of posing these puerile, pointless questions to others, try asking yourself some meaningful questions. Ask yourself, for example, what would have been the UK government's preferred decision in this matter. If you have the faintest clue what is going on you will realise that the UK government would have wanted al-Megrahi's PTA application granted. That was the only sure way to deliver on their "deal" with the Libyans and guarantee that there would be no second appeal.
In case it escaped your notice, the PTA application was denied.
What you are suggesting is that the UK government exercised some totally mysterious influence, by completely unknown means, to achieve no effect.
Here's some simple "logic" for you. Three times zero equals zero.
Complain about this comment
#413 sagamix
You really beggar belief. You say:
I reckon you're probably right, I'm on your side on the fence ... so yeah, be scared! ... but I simply do not understand the certainty.
Then follow it with what I can only describe sales pitch.
You sound more like a telephone answering tree not a logic one.
Complain about this comment
roll @ 414
right, good - like pulling teeth! - so, we get a combination of some logic (like that 408/412 exchange between you guys, for example) and some faith in your own personal judgement on such things, plus a sprinkling of trust in your SNP government and in the person of KM - and all that adds up to a near certainty that the decision was not in any way influenced by Westminster
have I got that right now?
and (supplementary) ... is there quite a bit of anger up there (with people who think as you do) at any suggestion otherwise because it smacks of UK big brother paternalism? ... or condesension maybe ... you know, that you're not really a proper "grown up" country who can handle their own affairs? - is that a big part of all this?
Complain about this comment
419. sagamix
"is there quite a bit of anger up there"
Most of the anger "up here" is directed at the Tory/BLP alliance in Holyrood which purports to be the opposition and which has behaved so despicably over this issue. And there's a fair bit of anger left over for the media, including the BBC, which has helped the unionist cabal peddle its lies and distortions.
Complain about this comment
419. sagamix
"and all that adds up to a near certainty that the decision was not in any way influenced by Westminster"
The logical approach is to start from the assumption that a thing is exactly what it appears to be or claims to be and then entertain arguments against this assumption.
Your approach is totally illogical in that it turns this process on its head. It starts from the assumption that nothing is what it appears to be until empirical proof is provided.
If human beings operated in this way there would be no human beings. Because our ancestors would have starved to death waiting for conclusive proof that those sweet, juicy berries were really edible.
Complain about this comment
EH
it's okay, I think I get why you're so angry about this particular issue - it's that thing, isn't it? - pls see 419 above
it was worth going through it, though (well, for me anyway) ... as I say, I'm not in the "it was a stitch up" camp ... was mainly wanting to explore the "why so certain?" and "why so livid?" angles ... and (flash of blinding insight!) they're one and the same, aren't they?
you're CERTAIN there was no Westminster in it for the same reason that you're LIVID about any (particularly English) suggestion otherwise!
understand now
(and thanks to you too, Mr R)
back to my knitting
Complain about this comment
#419 sagamix
Link.
Funnily enough I was answering a similar question you ask in the second part of your comment.
Complain about this comment
419. sagamix
"you're not really a proper "grown up" country who can handle their own affairs?"
We're handling our own affairs quite nicely, thanks. Better than ever this past couple of years. Kenny MacAskill proved that.
Complain about this comment
422. sagamix
"I think I get why you're so angry about this particular issue"
You "get" nothing. I am not angry about this issue. Why do you need so desperately to believe that? I am fully satisfied that Kenny MacAskill acted with propriety, integrity and even honour in this matter. If I am irked at all it is by the petty politicking of the Tory/BLP alliance and the lies that go with it. I would not characterise that as anger, however. It is something more akin to disgust.
Complain about this comment
#424 Electric Hermit
By the way I watched the opposition charade ‘No Confidence’ meeting at Holyrood after the decision on Ali Megrahi.
If my memory serves me correctly as AS was winding up he was handed a piece of paper by a cleric, from Jimmy Brown saying he agreed with the decision.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Complain about this comment
#424 Electric Hermit
Or was he having a poke at the Gray man. It was shortly after the information that the UK government did not want Megrahi to die in a Scottish prison.
Complain about this comment
426. Roll_On_2010
I haven't heard anything about this. Who is Jimmy Brown?
Complain about this comment
#428 Electric Hermit
James Gordon Brown PM
Complain about this comment
Saga, Roll-On and others
Just further comment with regard to Megrahi.
Gaddafi has said 'In all commercial contracts for oil and gas in Britain (Al Megrahi) was always on the negotiating table.' Gaddafi has always made it clear that if Megrahi died in prison all deals were off.
Libya is well known for gaining political concessions in exchange for oil deals. Russia being an example.
BP has always had very close ties with the Labour Government and has said it lobbied the UK Government on the subject of Prisoner Transfer for oil deals in Libya. BP has also admitted that it had raised concerns with the Scottish Government because it had powers on a range of issues independent of the UK Government, including judical matters. Jack Straw has admitted oil interests played a role in the Prisoner Transfer agreement.
BP began work in May 2008 in Libya and has admitted that they continually reminded the UK Government of its Prisoner Transfer agreement as it had a big exploration deal in Libya.
Now will someone tell me how BP could have known in 2008 that Megrahi would be released in order to secure their contracts.
Next in Scotland the 3 months rule for compassionate release has always applied as far as I know. It cannot be written into the law, just in case someone does not die within the given time, so it is classed as an essential guideline. Why then would it suddenly be changed for Megrahi as is being claimed by some. Why was only one experts (and it is alleged he worked for Libya's Government) advice taken for the release on medical grounds as the other 4 would not commit themselves to the few weeks to live assurance normally applied as the bench-mark.
It is an open secret in oil circles that Megrahi was released for oil deals.
Now forget all this talk of legal matters which only cloud the issue by MacAskill and others the case is all too clear.
Complain about this comment
Good morning each & Andrew.
Gordon on the Today Prog...
"We are the insurgents not the incumbents."
Is this a plea for 'free' cash or to be brought in from the cold?
Complain about this comment
Good Morning Andrew,
listened to Brown on the Today programme this morning. What struck me again was his reference to his upbringing and his family. He is the politician yet he gets his wife on the stage to introduce him. I'm sorry you really can't have it both ways. He is not a president, not a head of state, and she is not a first lady.
The question we have to ask of him with regard to the loss of his eyesight was what would you have done if you had not lost the sight in one eye, and the other eye threatened. Would he have the same opinion of the national health service if he had not benefited himself. Does he not understand that others might not have benefited in the same he has, you cannot use your own personal life to support your ideals. You have to stand back, you have to look from the outside, you cannot justify anything because you have benefited, just like the death of his child, the NHS was not very good there was it. His sight was saved, his child was not. Is he on painkillers, has he had his children immunised with the MMR jab? Does he say one thing then do another.
I can't vote for Brown, he is not president, he knows it, he acknowledges my argument. He does not even live in my country! This is sad, it will be brilliant to hear the Queens speech, you know the woman who is the real head of state, when she utters the words 'My government will...' not the Suns government, not Browns government, not anybody elses but her own. We are not citizens, we are still subjects of the Queen, our soldiers do not sign up to fight and die for Brown, they are there to defend their Queen and country, not to keep terror off the streets of Britain, that is the job of the police, who also take an oath, who manifestly failed in that task, not only the sad family in Leicester, but Mr Tomlinson, Dr David Kelly, Blair Peach, there are so many names which could be added to the list, but it is also those insurgents who are being killed in their country, to end the occupation. How dare Brown 'we are the insurgents not the encumbants' just how dare he, our soldiers kill insurgents, just who is writing his speeches. Our troops the finest...how insulting can you be to the soldiers of other countries whose soldiers are also paying the ultimate price. I'm getting angry again.
As for the issue of Libya and the release of the convicted Libyan terrorist, it is the same as Baroness Scotland, due process, she has paid the fine, she did nothing wrong, MacGarvey, nothing to do with me, only thing which upset him was the reception he got on his release, shame about the British hostages in Iraq, not much of a home coming for them was it. As for Karzai, still nothing on fraudulaent elections, bit like here really, what did some judge say about us and a banana republic. Ah well back to the Foyer.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
just listening to the wonderful Lord Kinnock on the Radio 5 phone in.
As they say in Liverpool, calm down, calm down, talking about aspiration. He then referred to bribery in respect of the Inheritance Tax changes proposed by the conservatives. What an absolute cheek, what does he think tax credits are, what does he think that increases to public spending are, what does he think of a chancellor who actually took away the ten pence tax rate. Who was being bribed then Kinnock, a man who is the son of a miner, who went to university at taxpayers expense and is part of party that brings in tuition fees, and deprives thousands of Brits access to universities so that the universities can be filled with foreign students who pay higher fees. I'm getting angry again.
Complain about this comment
422. At 01:37am on 30 Sep 2009, sagamix wrote:
"... was mainly wanting to explore the "why so certain?" and "why so livid?" angles ... and (flash of blinding insight!) they're one and the same, aren't they?
you're CERTAIN there was no Westminster in it for the same reason that you're LIVID about any (particularly English) suggestion otherwise!"
=
Saga...I stayed up 'till the wee hours for THAT??
I could have told you we're not exactly dealing with open minds or dispassionate opinions here ages ago. As you say I tend to believe in the integrity of the decision (or would like to), supported by the process, but I'm also not naive or obstinate enough to believe that when oil and a $900 deal are involved, the potential for trade-offs cannot be entirely ruled out... despite written procedure, laws and legislation, treaties and whatever appears on the internet. Unless someone on this blog is Kenny himself or was directly involved in the process, no-one can be 100% sure of the facts.
What interests me more are the irregularities and inconsistencies in the trial evidence that secured al-Megrahi's conviction in the first place.
Complain about this comment
Ref 430 Susan Croft
I agree with you 100% that the Megrahi deal was on the back of the BP Oil deal. No doubt the government plant a.k.a Electric Hermit will be screaming at you in a minute. Take no notice of him Susan,he tends to get very agressive and personal.
Complain about this comment
425. At 01:49am on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:
I am fully satisfied that Kenny MacAskill acted with propriety, integrity and even honour in this matter...........................
Here! Here!
PROPRIETY, INTEGRITY AND HONOUR have been absent from our psyche for decades. It takes MORAL COURAGE to exercise these positive attributes. The corollary; corruption, self-interest and cynicism, will be manifestly present for some time; and, as human traits, will never leave our consciousness. It is therefore understandable that those who have been conditioned to the latter path, and those who have and do utilise it for their own ends, will not lie down quietly; there will be many bitter pills to swallow.
We are on the cusp of A NEW GOLDEN AGE with ethics and natural order at centre-stage.
We choose not to seize this opportunity at our peril.
We must choose between ENLIGHTENMENT and FOLLY.
Did the government of the day engage with those at the heart of the crucible of the last Scottish Enlightenment?
Today we have an added dimension. Today we have two governments - with the potential for healthy competition One has manifestly demonstrated MORAL COURAGE. The other may or may not chose to follow this lead.
A continued demonstration of PROPRIETY, INTEGRITY AND HONOUR is encouraged and the new Scottish Enlightenment applauded.
The BRITISH ENLIGHTENMENT is an exciting prospect!
Scotsvernacular
UK
Complain about this comment
ref 406 XT
I agree with you ET that EH is in your face and V agressive but we are are motely crew here and have managed to agree/disagree in a respective manner.
He needs to learn to dissagree without being dissagreeable??!!
Complain about this comment
EH is adamant that OIL was NOT involed in the Magrahi release and he believes the rule of law is the SAME for everyone. OK, he is entitled to his opinion especially on the Oil deal but he has obviously led a V sheltered life if he believes the same rule of Law applies to us all.
Not doubt, EH believes the BAE/Saudi Government deal was aboveboard and legal??!! Yeah,right.
Complain about this comment
TheBlameGame 434
Blame I admire you integrity and to be honest I would love to think as you do.
However these deals go on everyday with oil companies and their like and no one bats an eyelid. If you asked a Russian he would know his Government does deals with despots. The difference is they believe in what is good for Mother Russia and their Government is honest about it. The same with other Countries. All over the World deals are going on which are much worse than this but they are not high profile.
My intention was not to score points against Scotland or EH but the facts are there. This was a done deal. How could BP have know Megrahi would be released. There was no deal with Gaddafi if Megrahi died in prison. Do you think an oil company would lay out such huge sums of money on less than a certainty.
What the UK and Scottish Government did not anticipate was the outcry that would occur if they used the compassionate card to release Megrahi. They thought this would be seen by the World as fair. Unfortunately in other Countries they do no understand compassionate release for mass murders. Furthermore Scotland and Salmond could not have foreseen what happened at the airport when the Scottish flag was flown in celebration when Gaddafi broke his promise to keep the return low key. This was Gaddafi saying he is in charge and letting us all know it. He will do what he wants. In time as with other oil states Gaddafi will boot BP and the like out after they have used their dollars to secure oil and nationalize the industry in Libya as Russia did.
Its a hard pill to swallow for people who want to believe their Government is clean. However it is alleged that members of the Libyan Government met with Scottish representives to discuss the release of Megrahi well before the release was talked about.
Salmond only has one card to play in Scotland and that is oil which is on the decline in Britain. If he wants to go Independent he needs the oil companies, do you seriously believe he would alienate the likes of BP.
Doubts about Megrahi's guilt have been used to further the interests of getting his release secured. There is no doubt that he may well not be a big player in the disaster however the evidence is there that he is guilty.
Plans by Governments are made over long periods of time to secure deals with the likes of Libya. They are planned well in advance so that they slip the eye of ordinary mortals until something like this occurs when the end game becomes all too obvious.
I took time out to write to you because I wanted you to understand where I was coming from. EXXON could probably give you many examples of this sort of thing in action.
Complain about this comment
430. Susan-Croft
"...the case is all too clear. "
It seems "clear" only if you are ignorant of the facts. Or prejudiced enough to disregard them. You appear to qualify on both counts.
But I see you are frantically back-pedalling on one of your lies, at least. I suspect you've already convinced yourself that you never made the dishonest claim in the first place. Allow me to dispel that delusion,
"...it is a requirement under Scottish Law that a prisoner has to be proved to have less than 3 months to live to be released on compassionate grounds." (#245)
Now! If you could only bring yourself to admit that you also lied about MacAskill refusing to release the medical report...
Until then, what does your "analysis" amount to? A patchwork of gossip, concoction and confabulation stitched together into a contrived conspiracy theory by someone whose tendency to be dishonest in the matter has already been thoroughly exposed.
The case against MacAskill falls, not least due to the incompetence of the prosecution.
Complain about this comment
435. EXXONMOBIL2
"I agree with you 100% that the Megrahi deal was on the back of the BP Oil deal."
Then prove it. Or even offer some evidence or reasoned argument to support the allegation. Simply repeating it at every opportunity does not make it true.
Complain about this comment
436. scotsvernacular
"PROPRIETY, INTEGRITY AND HONOUR have been absent from our psyche for decades. It takes MORAL COURAGE to exercise these positive attributes. The corollary; corruption, self-interest and cynicism, will be manifestly present for some time; and, as human traits, will never leave our consciousness. It is therefore understandable that those who have been conditioned to the latter path, and those who have and do utilise it for their own ends, will not lie down quietly"
Very well said. It is indeed regrettable that so many people have become so conditioned to "corruption, self-interest and cynicism" that they cannot recognise straight dealing when they encounter it. Nor, in some cases, even acknowledge the possibility that a man might do something simply because it is right and lawful.
Such people are to be pitied. But they are also to be despised. Because, wittingly or otherwise, their posturing pessimism and warped world-view help create and perpetuate the very condition they purport to abhor.
In some small way, Kenny MacAskill put back into politics some of the qualities that even the most cynical among us claim to want. And what has been his reward? To be castigated and vilified by the ignorant, the dishonest and the self-serving.
It is incumbent on those of us who truly aspire to a "new politics" to applaud even the smallest manifestation of propriety, integrity and honour. And to condemn the mindless reactionaries who would crush such promise for no better cause than to have reality conform to their dour imaginings.
Complain about this comment
438. EXXONMOBIL2
"EH is adamant that OIL was NOT involed in the Magrahi release"
EH is "adamant" only that neither you nor any of the other malicious chatterers have offered either evidence or reasoned argument to support the case that the decision to grant al-Megrahi's application for compassionate release was influenced by anything other than a concern for justice and the proper application of Scottish law.
Complain about this comment
439. Susan-Croft
"it is alleged that members of the Libyan Government met with Scottish representives to discuss the release of Megrahi"
Once again you display your ignorance of the facts and/or your eagerness to distort them. It is not "alleged" that MacAskill met a delegation from the Libyan government. It is a matter of public knowledge. The meeting was even referred to in the Justice Secretary's statement announcing his decisions.
Your effort to fabricate a conspiracy where none exists is becoming more comically frantic by the minute.
Complain about this comment
EH or whatever 440
I think you have difficulty in reading the word 'requirement' it was indeed for this particular difficulty you have, I chose to explain it.
I have also said MacAskill has released medical reports however they still do not explain why he chose to take just the verdict of one expert who remains unknown. Read what is on the written page.
As we all know that you are not a legal expert, please stop pretending, its beginning to look rather pathetic. I know and so do others you spend night and day looking things up matters pertaining to the SNP.
It is time to answer some questions yourself.
Is it or is it not a requirement under Scottish law that a guideline/requirement the 3 months rule for compassionate release.
How would BP know a year earlier that Magrahi was to be released when it was a decision for the Scottish Government only.
Complain about this comment
439. Susan-Croft
"What the UK and Scottish Government did not anticipate was the outcry that would occur if they used the compassionate card to release Megrahi."
In this you reveal just how ignorant you are of both the legal position and the political reality. The UK government had no authority and no influence in the matter of compassionate release. Had Scotland's government still been in the slimy grasp of the British Labour Party, things might have been different. But the notion of collusion between the SNP government and the UK administration is so far-fetched as to go beyond mere fantasy and into the realms of insanity.
And such collusion is not even suggested by the outcome. Had the UK government exercised the influence you imagine over Kenny MacAskill (not Alex Salmond) then the PTA would have been used to secure al-Megrahi's release as per the UK government's "deal" with Libya.
What you completely fail to realise, or are pathologically incapable of accepting, is that the UK government made whatever deal it made having no capacity to deliver on its side of the bargain. They completely failed to take account of the constitutional position. Like you, they simply took it for granted that the UK government was "superior". They were wrong. And so are you.
Complain about this comment
EH 444
You really do have difficulty reading what is written, I never mentioned MacAskill or a delegation that is public knowledge we all know that. I said it is alleged representatives of the Libyan Government met up with members of the Scottish Government well before the release was discussed in public.
No conspiracy thats your word, as to frantic I think your posts are proof that you win that prize.
I do not spend my time supporting any political party with such zeal. I hope Alex is grateful.
Complain about this comment
Electric Hermit
Before the pitch fork waving, unionist propagandist, Angry Villager, only-when-it's-a-full-moon cabal drives you completely around the bend, try looking at the problem philosophically.
"I think, therefore I am."
"I think there is a conspiracy.. therefore there is."
See. It works.
Invoice in the post.
Complain about this comment
445. Susan-Croft
"I think you have difficulty in reading the word 'requirement' it was indeed for this particular difficulty you have, I chose to explain it.
"
Back-pedal as frantically as you can. It does not alter your original lie.
"it is a requirement under Scottish Law"
Nothing ambiguous about that. It is demonstrably untrue.
"I have also said MacAskill has released medical reports..."
What you actually said,
"Mr. MacAskill has refused to release the documents which would prove that he would die within the required time."
"...however they still do not explain why he chose to take just the verdict of one expert who remains unknown."
A whole new lie! Or, to be precise, regurgitation of one of the old lies put about by the Tory/BLP alliance. The "one expert" to whom you refer is not "unknown". It was Dr Andrew Fraser, the Director of Health and Care for the Scottish Prison Service. And he was not presenting his own "verdict". His report summarised - for the benefit of a Justice Secretary who is not medically qualified - the conclusions of two consultant oncologists and two consultant urologists as well as the findings of the Scottish Prison Service's own medical experts and the assigned palliative care team.
You must be terminally gullible if you believe the demonstrable misinformation being peddled by the unionist cabal and its media lackies. Either that, or you are a willing collaborator in the campaign to deceive the public.
Complain about this comment
445. Susan-Croft
"How would BP know a year earlier that Magrahi was to be released when it was a decision for the Scottish Government only. "
The man's name is al-Megrahi. Seems you can't even get that simple fact right. If you ever had any credibility it is long gone.
And still you persist in the puerile error of imagining that the actions of the UK government are the actions of the Scottish government. You don't seem to have grasped the simple fact that these are two entirely separate entities with entirely different agendas.
Also, like the British Labour Party, you have failed to grasp, or refuse to accept, that Scotland's government is no longer in the hands of those whose first loyalty is to their own party and the union. We now have a government committed to serving the interests of Scotland and its people. Things have changed. It is time you and those like you got used to that fact.
Complain about this comment
448. TheBlameGame
Post of the day! So far....
Complain about this comment
EH 446
Oh I see you think Alex Salmond would have made a deal but not MacAskill. A bit thin that one do you not think. Also it would have been all too obvious and would have needed more explanation if Megrahi had been released on just Prisoner Transfer. How would you explain that one to the families or America. Sorry we did a deal of Prisoner Transfer for oil deals. No far better to add a bit of smoke with compassionate release.
Complain about this comment
447. Susan-Croft
"I said it is alleged representatives of the Libyan Government met up with members of the Scottish Government well before the release was discussed in public."
I see! So you were not referring to what really happened. You were referring to some vague rumour that you imagine you may have heard somewhere that you can't quite recall. It doesn't even qualify as gossip. Truly pathetic!
Complain about this comment
EH
I think you`re a hoot but so do you, so I shall move on to a matter of substance.
Do you think a Conservative victory at Westminster would help a Scottish referendum on independence? If so ,this possibility should be made clear to Scottish voters in the forthcoming election so whoever they vote for it should not be Labour?
Complain about this comment
447. Susan-Croft
"
I do not spend my time supporting any political party with such zeal."
another one of your trademark failures of comprehension. This is not a party political matter. It never was. Only the despicable Tory/BLP alliance at Holyrood has tried to turn it into a "political football". And you and your ilk tamely follow their agenda.
Those of us still capable of thinking for ourselves always recognised that this was a quasi-judicial decision. A matter of law and justice. An issue of principle and due process, rather than political partisanship. Which is why so many people in Scotland and beyond are disgusted by the petty politicking of your masters in the unionist cabal.
Complain about this comment
EH 449
you are like a merry-go-round I said to you requirement you cannot read.
Now answer the questions.
Why did MacAskill have five experts 4 of which would not commit to the 3 months rule requirement one did who is suspected of working for the Libyan Government whose name we do not know. We know Fraser did the summary that means nothing.
Is it true or not that a 3 months requirement/guideline is used in Scottish law for compassionate release.
Why did BP know a year before that Megrahi would be released as this was the only way in which Gaddafi would agree to oil deals.
Complain about this comment
452. Susan-Croft
"Oh I see you think Alex Salmond would have made a deal but not MacAskill."
More of your dishonesty. I did not say this or anything remotely like it. I merely made an apparently futile effort to correct you foolish error in referring to Alex Salmond as if it was he who made the decision regarding the release of al-Megrahi. As surely everyone but you is aware, the decision lay entirely and exclusively with Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill.
Complain about this comment
EH 451
Oh dear does not even recognise irony.
Complain about this comment
bryhers 454
Thanks bryers it was getting tedious asking the same questions and getting no answers.
Of course the big joke is I am not a Unionist.
Can you explain to EH we do not have a unionist Cabal in England. We are free thinkers.
Complain about this comment
blame @ 434
yes sorry, what can I tell you? - hey but have to say I quite like your post - maybe me and you can stake out our own "camp" ... you know, somewhere between the "It's all about the Oil, innit?" and the "Kenny is my Rock!" brigades ... wouldn't that be something?
Complain about this comment
454. bryhers
"Do you think a Conservative victory at Westminster would help a Scottish referendum on independence?"
I think everyone bar the fantasists at Brighton is pretty much resigned to a Tory victory in the next UK general election. I also think that voters in Scotland no longer make the same distinction they once did between the two main unionist parties. The election of an SNP government in Scotland, and that government's highly creditable performance, has opened people's minds to the extent that they are less easily swayed by the British Labour Party's one and only appeal to the Scottish electorate - vote for us to keep the Tories out.
"Hold on!", I hear you say, "That might affect the way they vote in the Scottish general election, but how does it relate to the referendum on secession from the union?"
Well, I don't think the two can be entirely separated. Once voters have accepted the feasibility of an SNP government it becomes very much easier to persuade them to take the next step. Whether it will be easy enough remains to be seen.
While a Conservative government elected in England and imposed on Scotland will, understandably, never be welcome, I really don't think the prospect has quite the impact it once did. Not because the Tories are any more popular. But because the British Labour Party is now at least as unpopular.
Complain about this comment
EH @ 425
I am not angry about this issue
you are ... and, as I say, I understand why
Complain about this comment
EH 453
Oh it happened alright only on here you have to allege everything as you should know.
So sorry for calling him Megrahi however I am sure he is so grateful to the Scottish and UK Government he will forgive me. As to credibility you never had any.
Complain about this comment
EH @ 424
we're handling our own affairs quite nicely, thanks. Better than ever this past couple of years. Kenny MacAskill proved that
that's pretty much what I mean when I say the reason you're angry (if anyone raises a scintilla of doubt as to the integrity of the decision) is the same as the reason you're certain (that there IS no doubt) - it means such a lot, doesn't it? - or put another way, if it transpired that there WERE other considerations (over and above what KM says) taken into account, then that would be gutting
Complain about this comment
456. Susan-Croft
"...I said to you requirement you cannot read."
You referred to "a requirement under Scottish Law". There is no such legal requirement. That remains a fact regardless how much you scream and stamp your feet.
"Why did MacAskill have five experts 4 of which would not commit to the 3 months rule requirement..."
There is no such requirement.
"one did who is suspected of working for the Libyan Government..."
Which one? Suspected by whom?
"...whose name we do not know."
The consultants are perfectly entitled to have their confidentiality respected. Especially when there are all these conspiracy nutters out there.
"We know Fraser did the summary that means nothing."
A couple of posts back you were saying exactly the opposite. That's the trouble with lies. After a while, it gets difficult to keep track of them
"Is it true or not that a 3 months requirement/guideline is used in Scottish law for compassionate release."
It is a well-known fact that Scottish Prison Service guidelines on compassionate release in the event of terminal illness suggest a life expectancy of around three months as a rule of thumb. There is no "requirement under Scottish Law" as you so stubbornly and dishonestly insist.
"Why did BP know a year before that Megrahi would be released as this was the only way in which Gaddafi would agree to oil deals."
I have only your word that they did. And, given performance so far, that carries no weight at all.
The fact is that BP could not have known in advance that al-Megrahi would be released. At most they might have accepted the UK government's assurances that al-Megrahi would be eligible for repatriation under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA). The UK government may even have lied to both BP and the Libyan government about its ability to secure such release. And the lie might well have been believed. But that does not alter the fact that it is a lie.
This is one of the many ways in which your inane conspiracy theory falls flat on its face. The Scottish government was not party to any of this "deal-making". The UK had no power to deliver what it was promising. And, ultimately, it failed to do so.
That the final outcome happens to suit the purposes of the UK government is purely coincidental - occasioned solely by al-Megrahi's entirely personal and somewhat baffling decision to drop his appeal. Something which nobody could have predicted or engineered other than by means of granting repatriation under the terms of the PTA.
Let me remind you that the Libyan government's PTA application was refused.
Complain about this comment
It would seem those still reaching for the conspiracy theory regarding Megrahis release are determined to link the actions of the UK governemnt at Westminster to those of the Scottish governement at Holyrood, over whom they had no power to influence in this matter.
The crux of the arguement for the conspiracy theorists would be to insinuate with speculatrion and inuendo that the Scottish government was complicit in the actions of the UK government to satisfy that theory. There are always firsts I guess, but the published facts do not bear this out, nor the previous actions of both administrations.
I accept that we in the public domain are never party to all of the available information, however it still remains that those who wish to see the conspiracy no matter what will still insinuate and speculate to convince themselves and others that this is the case.
Perhaps it would be better not to try and convince those that do not wish to be convinced in this case.
On an aside, Scotland does not 'require' oil to become independent Susan.
Anyway, on to new matters.
Complain about this comment
460. sagamix
"the "Kenny is my Rock!" brigades"
I realise that you are exaggerating for what you imagine to be humorous effect, but yopu only succeed in making yourself look comical. Whay is it so difficult for you to accept that MacAskill did no more or less than his job. He made a quasi-judicial decision, as he was required to do. And he simply followed due process and made that decision entirely on the basis of the laws and legal traditions of Scotland.
There really is no more to it than that.
Complain about this comment
462. sagamix
"I am not angry about this issue
you are ... and, as I say, I understand why"
As one with evident ambitions to be a clown, you will be delighted to know that your arrogant presumption raised a hearty laugh.
Complain about this comment
464. sagamix
"that's pretty much what I mean when I say the reason you're angry"
You would do well to learn to distinguish between reality and the products of your febrile imagination. Trust me on this! Your career as a mind-reader is going nowhere.
Complain about this comment
EH @ 415
the "q2" was a logical nonsense in that the hypothesis was assumed to be proved regardless of the answer. If you want to play logic games, first learn the basic rules
sorry, can't let you get away with that !
once again
you are CERTAIN that there was no W influence on the K decision - that in addition to having no formal powers relating to the decision (which is clearly right) W also had zero actual influence or, as I think you put it, were "completely irrelevant" - yes?
okay, to be certain of that one must be certain of at least one of the following 2 things:
either: W did not even try to influence K
or: even if they did, it had NO influence on K
okay so the q1 - did they try? - guess one has to say that's very possible - certainly can't rule it out
so we get to the problematical q2, yes?
if W did try to influence K, did it actually influence him? - did it make him MORE likely or LESS likely to do what W wanted (either of which means W had an influence) or was he completely unmoved?
and so to get to where you are, it's necessary to be completely sure that, even if Westminster tried it on, Kenny Mac remained impervious and took no other factors into account, in making his decision, than those he's told us about
which is fine, the logic works perfectly - because you DO believe that, don't you? ... don't you?
Complain about this comment
electric @ 421
your approach is totally illogical in that it turns this process on its head. It starts from the assumption that nothing is what it appears to be until empirical proof is provided
no - I'm starting from the assumption that (generally speaking) with a highly sensitive decision ... potentially affecting many different, important and conflicting interests ... taken by a politician (any politician, forget about Kenny) ... there usually remains an element of doubt that the "on the record" official reasons given (the factors taken into account) for taking said decision give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Complain about this comment
EH
Sorry to open up another front but out of interest, where do you stand on the West Lothian question?
Complain about this comment
electric @ 469
your career as a mind reader is going nowhere
empathy - but okay, sorry if I'm off and you're NOT hacked off with people who are determined to see an oil related conspiracy around every corner - would be very big of you because even I get a tad annoyed with them (and it's not even a close to the bone issue for me!)
Complain about this comment
This could become the longest-running dispute in the history of blogging. Mods, please leave it open, I want to see who has the most stamina.
I'm opening a book:
I've got EH just shading SC (1/2) at 1/3
Saga is a solid bet at 4/1
TAG and EXXON could spring a few surprises at 49/1
The rest of the field trail at 100/1
If Mike_Naylor joins the field all bets are off.
Complain about this comment
EH 465
No matter how much you say lies, and how much you distort posts it does not change the situation that niether you or MacAskill can answer the questions to anybodies satisfaction except those that truely are blind. I have asked you the 3 main questions now over and over again and all you come back with is insults and a total inability to debate in a decent manner.
I will not point out your obvious untruths in your last post. Including I never at any point said Fraser did not do the summary.
I do not stamp my feet in fact as I write I am having a bit of a smile to myself. I leave stamping of feet and lack of reason to you.
Sagamix once said to me you can never be that sure of anything and of course he is right. You can discuss your belief and how you see it but you can never be certain. Zeal for one particular party such as you display is both unhealthy and pointless.
You need to grow up I am afraid and see the World as much bigger than Scotland because if Scotland becomes Independent it will have to deal with many Countries that are less than perfect. All Governments make decisions which they believe are in the interests of their Countries, unfortunately this was a bad one on behalf of Scotland.
Complain about this comment
470. sagamix
"you are CERTAIN that there was no W influence on the K decision"
Correct. Because I have been given no reason to suppose otherwise. The UK government may have tried to influence the decision. But I doubt it. Such interference would almost certainly have been exposed. And they could have absolutely no expectation of success. So why take a chance on being caught acting improperly if there was nothing to be gained?
From the UK government's perspective, they were better off staying out of it completely. They already had whatever deal it was that they wanted with the Libyan government. Even if that deal was secured on the basis of false promises.
Sure! The UK government also wanted the appeal dropped. But so did a substantial part of Scotland's legal and political establishment. On that, the interests of the two parties coincided to a very considerable extent.
As to the suggestion that MacAskill may have opted for compassionate release just to thumb his nose at the UK government, I honestly hope for your own sake that such an outrageously fantastical notion does not represent a true reflection of your mental well-being. I prefer to think of it as one of your more limp efforts at humour.
It really isn't complicated. Why would the UK government seek to exert pressure in a way that would surely be seen as improper if not illegal when there was nothing in it for them?
And why would the Scottish government submit to such pressure when there was nothing in it for them?
The conspiracy theories simply make no sense. But that should not be surprising. They are not contrived for the purpose of actually persuading anybody (other than the most credulous dullards, of course!) that there actually was a conspiracy. The sole purpose of all this nonsense is to smear the Scottish government and the SNP. While conspiracy theories can sometimes be quite sophisticated, smear campaigns are invariably crude affairs. This one is no exception.
Complain about this comment
ScottInNotts 466
Scot, sorry I have been meaning to answer you all day but never got the time. Swinging between computers is difficult. Nearly wrote some work stuff in my posts.
Anyway I do not see this oil deal issue with Libya as a conspiracy as I said earlier it is just what Governments do around the World usually without the result that has happened this time. It does not make it right of course.
It was in fact Alex Salmond who said Scotland needed the oil, in his Arc of Properity you know like Norway, I have no reason to doubt him.
Complain about this comment
472. meninwhitecoats
"Sorry to open up another front but out of interest, where do you stand on the ?"
The West Lothian question is irrelevant to an independent Scotland. For the time being, I am content that SNP MPs voluntarily "opt out" of debates on English matters.
In reality, there is no West Lothian question. There is only the Westminster question. That question will shortly be answered.
Complain about this comment
TheBlameGame 474
Blame very good.
Without doubt if Saga stays with it he will be the outright winner.
Complain about this comment
473. sagamix
"sorry if I'm off and you're NOT hacked off with people who are determined to see an oil related conspiracy around every corner - would be very big of you because even I get a tad annoyed with them"
There is a substantial difference between "hacked off" and "tad annoyed" on the one hand and "angry/livid" as you insisted on earlier. Of course I am irked by the malicious dishonesty of some and the wilful ignorance of many. But anger is the enemy of rationality. And rationality is never to be abandoned when discussing politics.
Complain about this comment
475. Susan-Croft
"I have asked you the 3 main questions"
You have asked what you suppose to be the "main" questions. And I have answered.
The rest of your time has been spent frantically trying to plaster over earlier lies and errors.
Complain about this comment
477. Susan-Croft
"Anyway I do not see this oil deal issue with Libya"
What "oil deal" has the Scottish government made with Libya. In the real world, I mean. Not the world of your inane conspiracy theories.
Complain about this comment
#478 EH
I cannot argue with your logic. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
#477 Susan-Croft
"It was in fact Alex Salmond who said Scotland needed the oil, in his Arc of Properity you know like Norway, I have no reason to doubt him."
I believe he mentioned Norway to highlight what Scotland could have achieved with an oil fund, similar to that of Norways.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6240671/North-Sea-oil-gave-Scotland-massive-budget-surplus-say-Government-records.html
Even now oil could play a significant part in Scotland's future. However, it is not the clinching factor that will determine Scotland's future nor whether it gains independence, there is after all more to Scotland than oil at present, and certainly will be in future. We have plenty of potential in other industries.
I see you remember the much pilloried Arc of prosperity, I thought this link might be appropriate.
Country, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
Norway, $52797, $52855, $53761, $55140, $56830, $58610
Iceland, $35758, $35485, $36799, $38626, $40752, $43127
Ireland, $39383, $38253, $38746, $39926, $41404, $42947
UK, $35286, $34881, $35402, $36541, $37838, $38808
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2009&ey=2014&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=142%2C176%2C178%2C112&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=&pr.x=60&pr.y=10
These are the IMF projections for GDP based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) per capita.
Complain about this comment
blame @ 474
you can't have TWO odds on favourites, that's terrible value ... talk about ripping off the punters!
Complain about this comment
EH 482
Any error or lies are yours alone I am afraid. However I admit to being, as saga would put it, a tad bored with you. You never answer questions and nothing new comes into your contributions. All we get is you love the SNP and they can do no wrong and there is some Unionist cabal that does not exist in England.
I am not putting a plaster on anything, I stand by every little detail I have written.
Complain about this comment
electric @ 476
good, thanks for that - read it, followed it, liked it a lot!
(well, apart from you saying you hate all my jokes)
we are there, I think - "logic" thing clarified @ my 470 and your 476 - context stated at my 471 - "anger" point nicely covered at my 473 and your 480
gee whizz
and I guess it's slightly bad taste to say it but when he pops his clogs will be not totally irrelevant to how this ends up being viewed - sooner the better from your point of view, I suppose - hey not that I mean! ... oh you know
Complain about this comment
486. Susan-Croft
"Any error or lies are yours alone I am afraid."
Point to one error or lie in anything I have posted. I will admit to having lost count of yours.
You lied about the three month "requirement in Scottish law".
You lied about the medical report not having been released.
You lied about the author of the medical report being anonymous.
You lied about the medical report relying on the verdict of a single medical professional.
Need I go on?
The question then becomes one of why you feel compelled to lie in this way. And I stress that you are far from being the only one. You are just a bit more persistent than most of the unionist cabal's amateur propagandists. Most give up when they are confronted with proof of the untruths they are peddling. You seem incapable of doing so. I wonder why that is.
Oh! While I remember! Most of the drivel you have been pushing with regard to the medical assessment submitted to the Justice Secretary seems to be based on the deplorable distortions published by a certain doctor who also happens to be one of the British Labour Party's placemen in Holyrood. His lies and distortions are comprehensively debunked here.
I expect you will ignore this as you have ignored all the other authoritative material which makes a mockery of your silly conspiracy theories. But you can't deny that you have been shown it. Or can you...?
Complain about this comment
Electric Hermit, you require me to show proof that multi million pound deal for BP had nothing to do with the Al-Magrahi release. Surely, you don't expect me to produce documents do you? Lybia,BP, Tony Blair ,GB and the rest of them are far TOO cute to leave a document trail and therefore, nearly impossible for me to prove my point. Likewise, can you disprove my theory. However,Jack Straw is on record that the Megrahi release WAS connected to the UK Oil/Gas Business Interests.
If Jack Straw feels strong enough to change his mind and admits the Oil connection, why are you being so obstinate.
It's oil stupid and that's my favourite quote.
I am not even going to try and disprove your theory/belief that we have only ONE rule of Law in the UK. You need to get out more mate and smell the coffee.
I also find your tone quite offensive when you resort to calling Susan Croft a LIAR.
Come on EH, do try and dissagree with us WITHOUT being so dissagreeable
Complain about this comment
Ref 474 The BlameGame
Nice one TBG,can I have 100pounds please at 49to1.
Complain about this comment
ScotInNotts 484
I have said before I believe that if Scotland wants to go Independent if they handle their economy correctly and cut back on the public sector (I can hear saga sigh at that) many small Countries have managed to do it quite successfully.
However there is a new problem to face, that of Government debt. Scotland will not be able to walk away without bearing responsibility for their share of the banks debt. Had Scotland been independent at the time of the RBS and HBOS fall they would have had to bail these banks out themselves as the parent Country always pays. This problem I do not know how it can be resolved.
Personally as I have said I am an English democrat by policy, although we are small at the moment, it is growing just as the SNP did North of the border. Therefore nothing would suit me better than Independence for Scotland.
You asked me if PR would be on the cards in the future. To be honest if Labour do happen to win the next election and nothing is certain that they will not, we will hear no more of PR. If they do not they will push with the Lib/Dems for reform.
I personally do not want to see PR in England because I fear the BNP getting a real foothold in our Government.
May I apologise for my ignorance in not answering you straight away and allowing myself to get caught up in a much less interesting debate than you have proposed.
Complain about this comment
487. sagamix
"and I guess it's slightly bad taste to say it but when he pops his clogs will be not totally irrelevant to how this ends up being viewed"
It is not bad taste to say it. It is merely recognising what we must surely expect from the unionist cabal. If they are prepared to use the corpse of a murdered toddler as a political bludgeon it will take no effort at all for them to stoop to using the death of al-Megrahi in a similar way.
Personally, I do not wish Mr al-Megrahi dead. Although, having seen people die of prostate cancer, I suspect he himself may come to long for an early release. I recognise that, in a civilised system of justice, the seriousness of the offence is reflected in the judgement of the court and the sentence imposed, not in the way the individual is treated after being found guilty.
It is ironic, however, that some of those who harbour most ill-will for al-Megrahi also tend to be the among those hoping most fervently that he enjoys a long and healthy life. Such is the demented hatred that they have for the Scottish government and the SNP. I find such people sad and disgusting.
Complain about this comment
485. sagamix
Rip you off? Who me, Honest Blame, the punter's friend?
490. EXXONMOBIL2
Sorry, EXXON, you know the rules, can't take bets from the runners and riders.
Complain about this comment
489. EXXONMOBIL2
"you require me to show proof that multi million pound deal for BP had nothing to do with the Al-Magrahi release."
No. I require that those who allege the Justice Secretary was influenced in his decision by factors other than those declared offer some evidence or reasoned argument in support of such scurrilous accusations. Your posturing, generalised cynicism does not count as evidence any more than the lies, fabrications, distortions, rumours and gossip offered by others.
"Surely, you don't expect me to produce documents do you?"
I expect nothing. You do not disappoint. That is precisely what you have offered.
"Lybia,BP, Tony Blair ,GB and the rest of them..."
No mention of the Scottish government. Is it possible that you have at last come to realise that they were not involved in any of these dealings. Take a quick glimpse at reality. The UK government so jealously guards its power that it will not even allow the Scottish ministers to participate in a climate change forum. And yet you imagine it might defer to the Scottish government in behind-the-scenes, under-the-table oild deals! I believe the phrase I'm looking for is, "Get real!"
"...are far TOO cute to leave a document trail and therefore, nearly impossible for me to prove my point."
Ah! The last resort of any conspiracy theorist worthy of his anorak.
"Likewise, can you disprove my theory."
No more than I can disprove the theory that Elvis is alive and driving a bus on the moon. I promise I'll get around to it when I have nothing more important to do. Those sock drawers won't tidy themselves, you know.
"However,Jack Straw is on record that the Megrahi release WAS connected to the UK Oil/Gas Business Interests."
Here we see the source of your confusion. Your total inability to distinguish between the UK government and the Scottish government. And your insistence on imagining the actions of the former to be the actions of the latter. Until you learn that these are two entirely separate entities, with barely any contact far less overlap, you will never be able to comment sensibly.
Complain about this comment
I received an email today from #10 Downing Street and my immediate reaction was that GB had seen the error of his ways on the Chad/Cameroon Pipeline or the PFI schools but no, it was just a confirmation from #10 that they had received my signature to the Daily Mirror petition against the use of ASBESTOS and if anyone is interested just do a search under Daily Mirror campaign against asbestos.
It beggars belief that the 6 PFI schools just commissioned STILL have asbestos materials within the Building,ditto for the super tanker on the Chad Cameroon Pipeline??!!
Complain about this comment
CORRECTION
In my post at #488 I referred to Calum Cashley's excellent piece on the misrepresentation of the medical report submitted to the Justice Secretary as part of Mr al-Megrahi's application for compassionate release. I now find that I posted the wrong link. Although the article linked to is well worth a look, the one alluded to is here.
My apologies for any confusion.
Complain about this comment
Ref 494 Electric Hermit
Well EH we will have to agree to disagree on Megrahi Oil situation but at least your response was less hostile than usual right until your last paragraph.
By the way, you made no ref to my comments about rule of Law?
Complain about this comment
497. EXXONMOBIL2
"Well EH we will have to agree to disagree on Megrahi Oil situation..."
We don't get to have opinions on facts. And the fact is that there is nothing to support the silly conspiracy theories you and others are bandying about. It is merely a matter of belief. Something I prefer to leave to the religiously deluded.
"By the way, you made no ref to my comments about rule of Law?"
As I recall your comments didn't seem to relate to any view I have expressed. So I just ignored them.
Complain about this comment
497. EXXONMOBIL2
"but at least your response was less hostile"
You shouldn't imagine that anyone who corrects or contradicts you is "hostile". Doing so makes you appear paranoid.
Complain about this comment
#491 Susan-Croft
No need to apologise on timely replies Susan, you usually respond when you can which is fine by me. Work, life and all that.
I agree we will have to take on our share of the national debt come independence, I can imagine the discussions on that issue becoming a hot bed of contention! However, I don't see why we couldn't come to an amicable separation. We will never know what would have happened to both banks had Scotland been independent at the time. Perhaps it is also a shame that while both institutions have cosmetic HQ's in Scotland most of the business is done in London rather than Edinburgh, heyho, part of the UK system at present.
Previously I did have you pegged as someone with Tory leanings, however I'm glad that, like JohnConstable, you're seeking to gain legislative power if not independence for England again. I can only hope that more of the electorate will become aware of the situation with regards to Westminster and that there are alternatives out there. For your sake I also hope it doesn't take you as long to get to where the SNP are now from where they began! Shifting times and political climates I guess.
I should say that apparently it is not PR that NuLab want to introduce, but a form of it called AV. As I understand it this system still amounts to FPTP in essence with regards to the result.
I agree with you that if NuLab win then we will see and hear no more of this policy. It probably is plan B for them that in the event they lose the GE they, with the help of the UnLib UnDems, can 'reform' the voting system to regain power quicker. Albeit as part of a coalition government.
I can see why you would dislike any form of PR if it meant groups like the BNP getting elected. However, surely that is not the fault of the voting system but the electorate? Perhaps it would be better identifying the reasons which cause some to vote for such a party and address them, negating the BNP's power base.
FPTP allows majority governments to be formed by parties that do not have the majority of the electorates vote. The election is basically decided by a few thousand voters in a few swing seats. This allows the 'majority' governments to steam roll their agenda through parliament and there is nothing any of the opposition can do about it but voice their dismay across the ballot box.
In essence the significant majority of the electorate become disenfranchised as there views are never taken into account at any stage in the process during the full parliamentary term. Then we repeat again with the revolving door politics of the UK.
Minority government has worked well in Scotland so far, the SNP administration having to make concessions to opposition parties in order to pass the budget, thereby accommodating the various views of the electorate on certain issues, which is more than FPTP provides for such groups.
Coalition government also encompasses a greater scope of views on issues.
Unfortunately coalition government does become ridiculous when there are multiple parties involved and nothing ever gets done, such as that seen in Italy. Although, I believe modern day Germany provides a reasonable example as to the benefits of coalition rule.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS