Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Eric Blair

Al-Megrahi Is Innocent, Right?

Recommended Posts

always thought he was innocent

was very proud of the Scottish parliament to release him

especially in the face of US aggression

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deirdre Rashid was innocent too, but the Scottish Parliament did nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deirdre Rashid was innocent too, but the Scottish Parliament did nothing.

I think Coronation St is outside their area of influence

if only she had been in "take the high road"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He probably had nothing to do with the actual attrocity but he is guilty by association. He allowed/agreed to become a pawn and therefore obstructed justice. That was my opinion way back and this was cemented in my mind by the heroic welcome he received when he stepped off the plane and was paraded by government officials in a way that thanked him for taking one for the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He probably had nothing to do with the actual attrocity but he is guilty by association. He allowed/agreed to become a pawn and therefore obstructed justice. That was my opinion way back and this was cemented in my mind by the heroic welcome he received when he stepped off the plane and was paraded by government officials in a way that thanked him for taking one for the team.

He was thrown to the wolves by his own Govt

a sacrificial lamb

Yes ,he was a Libyan agent but not a bomber

He took one for the team as you say

but I don't think he had much choice in the matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Coronation St is outside their area of influence

if only she had been in "take the high road"

"No-one escapes the Caledonian Mafia!

Our chief weapons are:- "

..... no, I'd better not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even some of the parents of the Lockerbie victims acknowledge it.

http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/almegrahi.html

some days (today is one such) the disconnect between the way i see things and how they are presented in the public domain make me almost doubt my sanity.

If he is innocent, and Libya didnt have anything to do with the bombing, then everyone would have to do the right thing.

That would include, criminal proceedings in the UK to find out how the prosecution had been corrupted to go after this man.

Similar for the US.

All compensation paid by Libya would have to be returned.

Senior politicians and ex-politicians would be looking at jail sentences.

The Scottish courts would have to formally acquit him of all the crime he was sentenced for, and pay huge compensation.

And that would just be the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

always thought he was innocent

was very proud of the Scottish parliament to release him

especially in the face of US aggression

Here's a third leg to it.

Make of it what you will.

The US leant on Blighty to get him TF out of there before his appeal was launched.

UK leans on the Parly and Kenny McAskill* (as SNP he's easily passed off as a loose cannon, any excuse to poke Westminster in the eye, chippy Sweaties etc.)

All this cark about BP (did Mel Gibson write this script?) and Libya is the most epic misdirection.

Why not revisit the original investigation's likely suspects? Before it was *ahem* revised.

The problem is that the appeal risked a whole sewer-full of stuff being raked over, possibly by vaguely competent briefs this time.

It all boils down to evidence, presented or withheld.

Too much of a risk of exposure of the crew of hanging judges who sent him down on the basis of SFA.

For reasons best known to themselves.

The same gang who consented to Lothian & Borders Polis' stitching up of daft wee Luke Mitchell on the basis of absolutely no evidence.

And which is why his appeal also had to be made to fail. How better than giving responsibilty for his defence to a notorious clown and bigot?

I fully expect a right old flaming for this. Hard to credit, isn't it? This is Britain, not some South American dictatorship!

OK. Let's have a wee review of the evidential clinchers in both Megrahi's and Mitchell"s case?

If it's facts you're after, you could do worse than take a tour of Prof. Robert Black's blog or if you can navigate the appalling guddle, Colin Bowman's board (I think he has Asperger or something. He's the boy for facts, though. For they are chiels that winna ding.)

I was intrigued to hear DC's careful phrasing when he was bumping his gums about this at his new bezzie Barack's place yesterday. "Convicted of". Not "is" a mass-murderer.

It's all a hideous embarrassment to most of the Scots I've ever bothered to discuss it with, exposing as it does our bizarre and unaccountable judiciary and our absolute subjection in these matters to various foreign powers.

*not much time for Oor Kenny myself, in thrall to some extraordinary interest groups and individuals.

[P.S. : Oh there you go, needn't have bothered. While I was bolting this screed together everybody else has piled in and made the points. Rather more succinctly, as usual.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he is innocent, and Libya didnt have anything to do with the bombing, then everyone would have to do the right thing.

That would include, criminal proceedings in the UK to find out how the prosecution had been corrupted to go after this man.

Similar for the US.

All compensation paid by Libya would have to be returned.

Senior politicians and ex-politicians would be looking at jail sentences.

The Scottish courts would have to formally acquit him of all the crime he was sentenced for, and pay huge compensation.

And that would just be the start.

just so, and it brings to mind lord denning's memorable 1980 quote in refusing to allow the appeal against their convictions of the (later acquitted) birmingham 6:

" Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further." "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he is innocent, and Libya didnt have anything to do with the bombing, then everyone would have to do the right thing.

That would include, criminal proceedings in the UK to find out how the prosecution had been corrupted to go after this man.

Similar for the US.

All compensation paid by Libya would have to be returned.

Senior politicians and ex-politicians would be looking at jail sentences.

The Scottish courts would have to formally acquit him of all the crime he was sentenced for, and pay huge compensation.

And that would just be the start.

So what happened to all those Irish terroristsnot terrorists, like those convicted of the guildford and birmingham bombings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lockerbie bombing is suspected to have been retaliation by the Iranians for the deliberate

shooting down of Iranian Airbus 655 by the U.S., back when America was actively involved in helping

Saddam win the Iran/Iraq war.

It wouldn't do to blame Iran, because it was just tit for tat & the U.S. had struck first.

Blaming Libya helped demonize Gaddafi & there was little need to find more to demonize Iran

over it, since the Western press had previously scored a propaganda victory by presenting the

Iranian hostage crisis as unprovoked & by neglecting to inform people that it was done to stop

the CIA (most of whom work through embassies) keeping their puppet regime that they

installed back in '53 in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just so, and it brings to mind lord denning's memorable 1980 quote in refusing to allow the appeal against their convictions of the (later acquitted) birmingham 6:

" Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further." "

I wasnt aware of that quote. It clearly shows that Lord Denning had no respect for the Law at all. It was just a bunch of words to him to corrupt power, so that it could be used against whoever they chose, and to favour whoever they chose. At least he revealed his contempt for the law.

Now as he was Lord of the Rolls, was he not, a Law Lord, then it really shows what a sham the whole process of law in this country is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think it shows that.

If those guys were still in jail it might show that but their release suggests the opposite.

I think it does show that Denning (highly thought of in his day) was a psycho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasnt aware of that quote. It clearly shows that Lord Denning had no respect for the Law at all. It was just a bunch of words to him to corrupt power, so that it could be used against whoever they chose, and to favour whoever they chose. At least he revealed his contempt for the law.

Now as he was Lord of the Rolls, was he not, a Law Lord, then it really shows what a sham the whole process of law in this country is.

it does serve to rather neatly expose the elites & sheeple setup that is our sham democracy (perhaps all democracies) as does the al-megrahi affair.

the elites (in britain, USA and libya) were well-aware from the start that al-megrahi was innocent but deemed it expedient to enact a charade* for the Greater Good.

while the sheeple** sucked up the newspaper headlines (like in today's express) about "Evil al-megrahi".

*charade. i could have said "conspiracy". yes, they exist, clearly.

**sheeple. if you don't like that term then you can blow me. anybody fulminating against "evil al-megrahi" is either a sheeple (propaganda-target) or a propagandist themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasnt aware of that quote. It clearly shows that Lord Denning had no respect for the Law at all. It was just a bunch of words to him to corrupt power, so that it could be used against whoever they chose, and to favour whoever they chose. At least he revealed his contempt for the law.

Now as he was Lord of the Rolls, was he not, a Law Lord, then it really shows what a sham the whole process of law in this country is.

Anybody who has been through the appeals process will confirm this.

The law is intentionally written to be ambiguous and wide open to interpretation.

How else can you explain one group of judges finding one way only to be overturned on appeal and then reversed again at the next level to then be overruled in the ECHR or European Court of Justice.

Almost none of this is as a result of incompetence or badly drafted laws. It may look that way but it is, in fact, intentional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who has been through the appeals process will confirm this.

The law is intentionally written to be ambiguous and wide open to interpretation.

How else can you explain one group of judges finding one way only to be overturned on appeal and then reversed again at the next level to then be overruled in the ECHR or European Court of Justice.

Almost none of this is as a result of incompetence or badly drafted laws. It may look that way but it is, in fact, intentional.

Yes, a lot of law is very odd.

The Lord Denning quote though, was really something else. He had no regard at all for the lives of the men caught up in the mis-carriage of justice, only for the crooks who committed the crimes against them. And I guess that he only had concern for them, as they were the law and order people who supported the pyramid that he sat so proudly atop.

Someone called him a psycho. I dont doubt it. You would need to have no concern at all for the lives of others to spout such evil.

I guess we need laws of some sort to deal with the problems in society. I feel though that they are sadly lacking and lie idle when the powerful get caught for anything other than speeding offences. The Parliamentry expenses scandal was one such incident. They could have put half of Parliament up in court on what we had learned. Any MP who signed off for any expense, that wasnt needed in pursuant of their Parliamentary duties, was committing fraud. I dont think that a Duck Island is in pursuance of any Parliamentary obligations that I know of, but the claimant wasn't charged, I would like to know why.

And on this board, we frequently talk about liar loans. It seems that the growth of HBOS was based upon said loans, and yet we have seen no prosecutions, nor a sniff of an enquiry, against the wrong doers that perpetrated this fraud, against their own shareholders, and subsequently against the taxpayer and Lloyds-TSB shareholders.

Instead we spend millions pursuing Al-Megrahi, and when the stitch-up job that we foisted against him comes undone so badly, that a court would have to release him, given that the evidence would be put in the media spotlight, we let him go, quietly, with a lie about his health as an excuse. And this allows so many real crooks, who have committed perjury and perverted the course of justice, to walk around freely, probably the richer for it, without deterring anyone from committing the same crimes again.

Instead we have many people who have lost loved ones from a terrible event, wondering what happened, who did it, and why so much effort was wasted trying not to find the real perpetrators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Megrahi, convicted by a Scottish court in accordance with Scottish law.

Wrongly? Possibly.

Released by a Scottish government.

Wrongly? Probably.

Not a happy file for the Scots.

Still, I suppose it's all the fault of the English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errr ... so it is the fault of the English then but you would rather not say so in terms?

Eh whit? After we'd lashed out all that coin on setting up Gadaffi's Cafe in the Bar-L ?

Who gives a shite whether he carks it in the jail ?

As for Wee Kenny and Wee Fat Eck his gaffer moving hand or foot without the consent of their "mortal enemies" the JockLaba Coalsack mafia, Gogsy Broon, The Foreign Office, The Home Office, M.I.99, and every damn' building on the Potomac ... the very idea is ... :lol:

What's upset the scotchlanders is that once again they've been shown that their own domestic gangmasters are liars, lickspittles and utterly, utterly irrelevant to those who make the decisions. And that the world kens it. We're the bitchez bitchez.

In fact the bitchez, bitchez bitchez.

McAskill was told to let him out. And to come up with a (barely credible) reason that might stand enough scrutiny to get the bu55er on the 'plane and awa' tae ******.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 276 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.