A very bad decision.
The appeal should never have been withdrawn. But it was. (For that matter, he should have been tried by a jury. But he wasn’t.) So he is legally guilty of 270 murders. People have died in prison, including of horrible conditions, while legally guilty of an awful lot less than that. The Scottish Justice Secretary has now called significantly into question the integrity and reliability of the Scottish justice system. That hardly seems like anything that a Scottish Nationalist should wish to do. It is certainly not anything that a citizen of the United Kingdom, within the fundamental documents of which Scots Law is specifically protected, should wish to do.
Kenny McAskill, and with him necessarily Alex Salmond, has gone feral, doing something like this merely because he can. Downing Street’s view on this matter of the utmost international sensitivity was made perfectly apparent when several of the Prime Minister’s closest American allies signed that letter. That view has been wholly disregarded. Merely because it can be.
Well, two can play that game. There are legion ways in which Whitehall and Westminster, never mind elements broadly classifiable under the Departments of State most directly concerned with this matter, can tread on Holyrood’s toes, if they are so minded. Which, as of this afternoon, they most definitely will be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
However if the whole thing was always a fit up no form of justice is served by keeping him in prison while a judicial system which did it decides whether they did it.
ReplyDeleteCertainly no western form of jurisprudence comes out of this any better than they did over the Yugoslav "trials" or many others but the failure is not in releasing him.
Who got the prisoner transfer deal though? Jack Straw. If the PM was so against it, why did he not kick one of the two routes to let Megrahi out into the long grass?
ReplyDeleteSecondly the Treaty vested the powers in the relevant justice ministers. The UK Justice Secretary has little jurisdiction in Scotland.
Thirdly of course the powers to release on compassionate grounds were provided for in a 1993 statute. I will run that past you again. 1993.
MacAskill carried out due process. Slowly.
Lets remember that in the 1960's that when the Luther King assasin was extradited to the US, it was on the application of the Tennesee government, not the federal one. He was tried and convicted by the state authorities, not by the federal ones. King's assassination was not covered by federal law.
But of course in your world the hick-hayseeds of Tenesee can do this. But the Scots cannot. It says a lot about your Scotophobia and neo-imperialism, whatever your ancestry.
"Who got the prisoner transfer deal though? Jack Straw. If the PM was so against it, why did he not kick one of the two routes to let Megrahi out into the long grass?"
ReplyDeleteI don't think he ever really expected anyone to try and do this. Anyway, the prisoner transfer request was refused.
"The UK Justice Secretary has little jurisdiction in Scotland"
It will be interesting to see quite how long that lasts after this.
"1993"
So it was the Secretary of State. Appointed and removable by the Prime Minister. And sitting round the Cabinet table with, not least, the Foreign Secretary.
I don't know why you are so pleased that the Scottish Justice Secretary has just declared his lack of confidence in the Scottish justice system, never mind poisoned relations with the America, not of George Bush, but of Barack Obama. I'm not pleased. And I'm certainly not a Scottish Nationalist.
Straw completely reversed himself between July & 6th Aug on compassionate release of Biggs. Clearly if Biggs had stayed in it would have been impossible to justify "compassion" for Megrahi.
ReplyDeleteThe whole thing was done & dusted in Westminster weeks ago.
The one thing that people tend to agree on is that this man has less than three months to live.
ReplyDeleteAn "appeal" would take considerably longer and the Man wants to spend the rest of his limited time with them.
I wont second guess him on this......"that the appeal SHOULD have gone ahead" yes I would have liked to see a wider court case as like you I think there is something to hide there.
However I wont condemn the Man for being released on these "cpmpassionate grounds" just because it does not fit my agenda here.
A pity that you see his choices as being lesser than your desire for "justice" and "political embarrassment".
As for the Scottish legal system......well you WOULD say that wouldnt you?
Not exactly an "appalling vista" on the Lord Denning English scale, is it?
Neil, Biggs may or may not have had some sort of hand in the death of one man years after the event. But he was only ever convicted of armed robbery. He is not legally guilty of murdering 270 people.
ReplyDeleteJohn, that last is the point: he is legally guilty. And this is a legal, though also a political, decision. Plenty of people legally guilty of far less have died in prison, including of cancer.
Exactly.
ReplyDeleteThe prime concern for this man......who you believe is innocent........and who I am inclined to believe is innocent.......must be his family.
They will want him home regardless of the stigma of his supposed guilt.
I am surprised that a man like yourself who proclaims himself as "pro family" fails to see that.
Of course they want him home. A lot of prisoners' families want them home, especially when they are terminally ill.
ReplyDeleteAnd they got what they wanted.
ReplyDeleteAnd the implication in the decision "to release a man who has killed 250 plus people" is that he is NOT GUILTY.
A compromise which his family can no doubt live with.
You want it to be much more explicit but that is not going to happen inside three months.
Therefore you should not have a problem.
The British victims families clearly always smelt some kinda rat....and all credit to them for saying so.
"And the implication in the decision "to release a man who has killed 250 plus people" is that he is NOT GUILTY"
ReplyDeleteNot according to Kenny McAskill either in his statement or in radio interviews.
I don't think there are any circumstances in which it would be wise of McAskill to say he was fitted up. However actions do speak louder.
ReplyDelete"Not according to Kenny McAskill either in his statement or in radio interviews".
ReplyDeleteIts a very clear implication.
Man who "killed" 270 goes home to die without ANY sense of outrage except of course in USA.