Sunday, 1 November 2009

Dr Swire's reply to Gordon Brown

[Dr Jim Swire has replied to the Prime Minister's letter to him dated 23 October 2009. This letter, and the one from Dr Swire that prompted it, can be read here. Dr Swire's new letter, dated 27 October, reads as follows:]

Dear Prime Minister,

Thank you for your letter dated 23rd October, replying to my letter of 24th August.

I can see how the contents of my previous letter may have misled you into thinking that it was purely questions surrounding the Scottish criminal court case against Mr Megrahi for which I am seeking an inquiry.

That however is not the case.

The Heathrow incident which I mentioned, and to which you naturally referred, was of course located at that airport. So far as I am aware Scotland has no locus in controlling that.

However one thing Scotland did have control over was that since the deaths of the crew (‘in their place of work’) occurred in Scotland, it was mandatory that a Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry be held. It made a number of interesting findings.

It concluded that the aircraft was under the Host State protection of the United Kingdom, not of course Scotland.

It also concluded that the disaster had been preventable. So far as I am aware, the adherence of the United Kingdom to International ICAO aviation security treaties is not devolved. Yet the adherence of Heathrow airport to international treaties was shown in the FAI to have been deficient, even though, unlike the authorities in London, it was not aware of the appallingly irresponsible handling of the break-in there.

Now it is the duty of Fatal Accident Inquiries, as you know, not to point the finger of blame, but to define factors and entities which may have contributed to the deaths. In this case our FAI found that the aircraft, under the Host State protection of the United Kingdom had been loaded from empty at Heathrow airport, and that therefore the loading of the bomb aboard the fatal flight inevitably occurred there, since the incoming aircraft from Frankfurt had been a different one from the 747 which blew up, and every one of the 747’s bags was loaded aboard at Heathrow, some of them having been transferred from the Frankfurt aircraft on the tarmac at Heathrow. What the FAI could not comment upon was the material which I referred to in my previous letter, the Heathrow break-in, since it was not known to that court. It remained hidden for 12 years. Any meaningful inquiry will want to know why. The origins of that mystery too must obviously be sought in London, not Scotland

Instead the FAI was invited (by the late Sheriff Principal John Mowat), to presume that the IED which was said to have caused the disaster had ‘come from Frankfurt’.

A simple inquiry will confirm for you that the Heathrow night security guard (Mr Manley) who had discovered the said break-in had immediately reported it to his superiors and came shortly afterwards (January 1989) to be interviewed by the anti terrorist branch of the Metropolitan Police.

Now so far as I know, neither the state of security at Heathrow in December 1988, nor the activities of the Metropolitan anti-terrorist branch, nor the remarkable fact that the existence of this break-in event lay hidden for 12 years can be attributed to the devolved Government of Scotland, nor her separate legal system. Indeed Scotland’s Crown Office has denied to me in writing that they knew of the break-in during the 12 years it lay hidden.

Yet this is still far from a summary of why any inquiry to be meaningful must focus attention on London, not Edinburgh.

Following the disaster, from various sources (none of them volunteered from within the Thatcher government) we acquired details of a number of extraordinarily relevant and timely warnings. These came from abroad to the UK government either directly or via the US government. None of them came to Scotland.

Why were they not acted upon? The Fatal Accident Inquiry told us the disaster was preventable: why were the warnings ignored or wasted? Surely it is time that we were allowed to know that? The answer to this vital question must lie with the UK Government.

Yes the aircraft was American owned, but the FAI told us that it was the UK Government which had the responsibility for its security. Yes, we are told that the plane was destroyed by a bomb in its cargo hold, but the FAI told us that every suitcase, and therefore the bomb itself had been loaded at Heathrow.

You have now received a much more comprehensive letter requesting a full inquiry from our group ‘UK Families-Flight 103’ I am one of the signatories. I hope that the contents of this letter underline some of the reasons as to why I cannot possibly accept that any inquiry should be limited to Scotland, and I apologise if my previous personal letter of the 24th of August misled you over the main focus that the inquiry will need to address.

That focus lies in London and at the door of the then inhabitant of Number 10 Downing Street.

I look forward to hearing you comments both to our group’s letter and to the contents of this one.

Yours sincerely,

(signed) Dr Jim Swire


  1. MISSION LOCKERBIE, it turns with all article again and again around the same facts, likewise with MEBO, apology:

    A convincing study on the fraud of the PT-35 (MST-13 timer fragment) for the last "non-believers".

    The confrontation between the regular chronology (1989 to 2000) of the MST-13 timer circuit Board (prototype), supposedly discovered in Lockerbie, and the fake and manipulated chronology (1989 to 2000) of the PT-35 (MST-13) Circuit Board, from the expert Tom Thurman (FBI), United States, Thomas Heyes, and Allen Feraday, both from (RARDE) UK and from some person from Scottish Police, is in work in process and will shortly be published.
    Some of the Scottish Officials are the true criminals in the Lockerbie Affair are responsible for manipulating evidence in the Lockerbie Affair and are still protected by the Scottish Justice ! (They are not involved in the PanAm 103 bombing, but responsible for the conspiracy against Libya).

    More information on our website:

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

  2. MISSION LOCKERBIE, that is a computers translation of Babylon, German in English:
    attn. Downing Street 10, London UK:

    Referring to the letter by Dr. Jim Swire at the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Downing Street 10 London UK.

    The same is valid for the timer fragment, circuit board PT-35 (MST-13), which Libya brings in connection with the Lockerbie-Tragedy ! The criminal handling with the manipulation of a piece of crucial evidence, PT-35 (MST-13) was made in the Headquarters of the Royal Armament Research and development establishment (RARDE), near London.

    Mainly, the experts Dr.Thomas Heyes and Allen Feraday carry responsibility for the manipulations at the PT-35 fragment and the falsified forensic datas on the sides of the EXAMINATION of reports etc. By this facts not the Scottish police is responsible accordingly for a criminal investigation over the proof manipulations in a particularly heavy case, but in my opinion, the 'New Scotland Yard', in London U.K.!


    Bezugnehmend auf den Brief von Dr. Jim Swire an Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Downing Street 10 London UK.

    Das gleiche gilt für das Circuit Board PT-35 (MST-13) Timerfragment. Die kriminellen Handlungen mit dem massgebenden Beweisstück PT-35 (MST-13), das Libyen mit der Lockerbie-Tragödie in Verbindung bringt , wurde im "Headquarters of the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment" (RARDE), in der Nähe London's gefertigt !

    Verantwortung für die Manipulationen am PT-35 Fragment und den gefälschten forensischen Daten auf den Seiten des EXAMINATION- Rapports etc. tragen hauptsächlich, die Experten Dr. Thomas Heyes und Allen Feraday. Dieser Tatsache entsprechend ist nicht die "Scottish Police" für eine polizeiliche Strafuntersuchung über Beweis-Manipulationen, in einem besonders schweren Fall zuständig, sondern meiner Meinung nach die 'New Scotland Yard', in London!

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd.,Switzerland

  3. It is absolutely disgraceful that the families have to go suffering and suffering because the UK government fails to hold an inquiry.

    In the case of Baby P the government rushed to hold an inquiry. The government locks up any Muslim on the pretense of terrorism. And yet when such an appalling act of terrorism happens the government does nothing. The government has done nothing about 7/7 when people have testified that the bombs came from under the trains.

    Surely under ECHR Article 3 the Lockerbie families could take the UK government to court for subjecting them to inhuman treatment. In fact I believe they are being mentally tortured and all the more so because the government knows exactly what happened.

  4. ECHR Article 3 prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
    It provides an absolute protection against conduct that has serious physical or psychological effects on individuals.
    The negative obligation under Article 3 is the absolute duty to refrain from subjecting a person to torture, or to inhuman treatment or punishment. The Convention protects the individual against direct abuses of power by the State authorities
    The positive obligation has a protective or deterrent obligation requiring State authorities to protect individuals from proscribed ill-treatment.
    The ECHR has never permitted any ill-treatment that would fall within the scope of Article 3, even for the most pressing reasons of public interest and irrespective of the victims’ conduct
    In Pretty v United Kingdom, 2002 the Court commented that: ‘in light of the fundamental importance of Article 3, the court has reserved to itself sufficient flexibility to address the application of the article in other situations that might arise.’