Among the well-known names that appear on the list of signatories of the Megrahi petition are: Benedict Birnberg, William Gillies, Ian Hamilton QC, AL Kennedy, Hector MacQueen, Aonghas MacNeacail, Stephen Maxwell, Marcello Mega, Len Murray, Tessa Ransford, James Robertson, Kenneth Roy, John Scott, and Jock Thomson QC. There is also a Libyan signatory whose name appears as Khaled Elmegarhi. I believe this to be Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's eldest son.
At around 10am tomorrow, the e-petition will have been online for one week. In spite of almost complete silence from the mainstream media, it should by then have gathered in the region of one thousand signatures. It remains open for signature until 28 October.
Calling all mechanical engineers,
ReplyDeleteWe are on the verge of breaking the sound of the speed of silence. We want to hit the upper atmosphere on this one. Keep oiling the machine.
Robert Forrester (JFM)
As soon as the mainstream media mentions the e-petition, we can expect the number of signatories to soar.
ReplyDeleteRobert's "upper atmosphere" might be a bit ambitious though!
Unfortunately the two mentions that have appeared already (reproduced on this blog below) are worded in such a way as to suggest the petition has already been submitted, and make no appeal for signatories.
ReplyDeleteI hope this can be rectified in future press material.
1,000 signatures as at 17:30 hours on 15 October 2010!
ReplyDeleteme Unka sez mistah robert will retch for de stahs aldeh way to de ctrl-v'heaviside' layah, aye al de way to de dark rum far yial! he lafen he heerdin on de wirelass dem swiss haf been borring far 14 yeahs, dis big tunail ays biga de largs hardonn colida, me frend wid de phisiks - de futyur me frends!
ReplyDeleteThe real question is why is it being ignored by the mainstream media? I know we can blame politicians and the judiciary for this almighty mess but really the role of the media in allowing it to go pretty much unchallenged is quite incredible.
ReplyDeleteThe same media that have published countless articles in the past pointing out the problems with the verdict and even propounding some of the conspiracy theories....
ReplyDeleteHow do you control all the journalists like that anyway? Go for the newspaper proprietors?
I don't find 'the role of the media in allowing it to go pretty much unchallenged quite incredible.'
ReplyDeleteMuch of the media serves the interest of the state; to go into Lockerbie will reveal the deep corruption of the state, its judiciary, its intelligence services and its police forces.
To the state it's better to have 'whispers' than its corruption openly displayed in court for all to see.
Ruth,
ReplyDeleteI agree. It is insidious venom fed to everyone from their earliest days. I don't even think it is necessary to whisper in the corridors of power in any of the 'estates' most of the time. Conformity is an unwritten and unspoken code - just like most of the British Constitution.
Robert.
But when you get articles like this in 2007 (and to be fair Lucy Adams has done well even recently), why is the same paper ignoring it now?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.heraldscotland.com/how-trial-of-the-century-ended-as-our-worst-embarrassment-1.860588
And I found one by Magnus Linklater, of all people.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article582769.ece
I do find it distinctly strange.
Here's another one, from about six months after the verdict.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jun/19/lockerbie.comment
This stuff has been all over the media from 2001 until the spring of 2009. The selective amnesia is astonishing.
Maybe it's less amnesia than context changing. Like two people gossiping about someone suddenly falling quiet when that person walks back in the room.
ReplyDeleteCulturally it seems akin to the JFK assassination in America. Most of the public seem to think the government's account is flawed; the media will countenance the suggestion of it, but they'll be damned if someone gets away with caring about the thing.
ReplyDelete(That doesn't mean they're evidentially comparable, of course. There does at least appear to be some evidence against Oswald.)
Ruth I agree but I, like Rolfe, have seen some brilliant pieces in the media, by prominent journalists in quality newspapers, backing the view that the verdict was a sham.
ReplyDeleteIn recent months there were calls from publications like the Herald and in the Guardian for a full international investigation. Then it all went quiet again.
Bensix, believeing that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy is right up there with believing that the moon landings were shot on a Hollywood soundstage, or the planes that hit the Twin Towers on 11th September were holograms.
ReplyDeleteLet's not bring the Lockerbie scandal down to that level.
Well, that's why I drew a distinction between the reaction to a theory and the evidential basis for it. How a radical idea can be assimiliated to the level of kitsch. Not a similarity that I'd be keen to detail to the world's media, perhaps, but I think we're all smart enough to recognise the difference...
ReplyDelete(By the way - and veering off topic, so apologies - while there's no parallel between Lockerbie/JFK - the former is a clear miscarriage of justice while the latter would make even the best anchored of craniums spin - I don't think it's fair to group it with hologramatic space mutants from the Planet Zion. I certainly don't cleave to any explanation - I know little of it - but the notion that the single gunman theory is flawed is compelling enough for 2/3 of the U.S. public and a governmental body to have adopted it. Doesn't mean they're right, of course, but they're not wearing hats of tin.)
Anyway, sorry for that digression. Let normal programming continue!
Bensix, I know where you're coming from. The whole JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King thing merits attention: the Twin Towers atrocity has thrown up a lot of information too. Megrahi, Lockerbie et al is separate of course. But these other things, well........I think they show that when those in control dictate the agenda the prospect of justice diminishes.
ReplyDeleteLet's leave it to Lockerbie on this forum, Jo. For one thing you never know who's watching, ready pounce and bawl, "Conspiraloons! Lol!".
ReplyDeleteIt was probably going a bit far to drag in the 9/11 no-planers, I admit! However, if you start talking about polls, you have to ask a few questions. Who devised the question and what was the exact wording? Whom did they ask? How were ambiguous replies categorised? How seriously did the participants take the survey?
ReplyDeleteMy point is that you can find polls claiming a similar level of support for the notion that the US government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, and similar ridiculous propositions. Usually, you find that replies which suggest the government was negligent in not picking up on relevant intelligence information were grouped as "doubting the official story", and then added to the group the poll sponsors want to come out on top.
As regards the Kennedy assassination, I think the last question is the important one. People get a frisson from giving credence to conspiracy theories, and will happily accede to all sorts of doubts and suspicions they haven't examined at all. Actually looking at the evidence and continuing to maintain that there's any serious reason to doubt that Oswald did it all on his own is a different matter though.
Fairly precise wording and a, well - shit but not seemingly biased source! The seriousness point is a good one and unknowable. Partly because, as I've said, it's been reduced to level of kitsch.
ReplyDeleteYou could be right on the evidence (again, I've little knowledge of it). It seems a tad implausible to me that experts are just spouting nonsense but there's no particular reason they needn't be.
I'm leery, by the way, of the notion of "conspiracy theories". It's so vague and baggage-laden that it can be swung at anything, however well-attested. Like, well - Lockerbie!
Faux News, not biassed? You jest! And you can find architects, engineers and airline pilots who all believe the Twin Towers were the subject of a controlled demolition. Personally, I find that examination of the evidence is the only thing that really convinces.
ReplyDeleteMy own view regarding Lockerbie is that the contention that the Zeist verdict was perverse and not supported by the evidence is not a conspiracy theory. However, as soon as you get on to the question of why this happened, never mind who actually carried out the bombing - well, I'll happily admit to conspiracy theorising.
PS. That's a really interesting blog post, by the way.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes! But the fact it's biased doesn't mean it's biased in favour of everything. I don't imagine they'd be all that keen on JFK theories, but I could be wrong. If it could somehow be pinned on ACORN...
ReplyDeleteAnd you can find architects, engineers and airline pilots who all believe the Twin Towers were the subject of a controlled demolition. Personally, I find that examination of the evidence is the only thing that really convinces.
True, but I'd assert that significant expert opinion suggests that any idea - including that - is not inherently implausible. But, yes, the evidence is all that's really important. One might argue forever about whether something could occur without actually getting round to seeing whether it has or not...
Agreed on all Lockerbesque counts, and glad you found the piece worthwhile!
True, but I'd assert that significant expert opinion suggests that any idea - including that - is not inherently implausible.
ReplyDeleteActually - a nit-pick aimed right at myself - that's nonsense because some ideas don't lend themselves to particularly specialised areas of knowledge. Just-about-any-concrete-assertion of a theory, perhaps.
Fair enough Bensix. I don't however see the assassination of JFK as a single event. I see connections with the later assassination of his brother Bobby and Martin Luther King.
ReplyDeleteAs you say tho' this is about Megrahi. And you are right there.
Attenuated to 1,029 signatures at 22:30 hours on 16 October 2010.
ReplyDeleteWhere's that blast of mainstream media publicity in relation to the Justice for Megrahi petition?
Attenuated. I'm not sure that word means what you think it does....
ReplyDeleteI totally get Ben's point about the Kennedy parallel. Half the public here, right or wrong, believes or suspects in their woo-ish moments, that the CIA-or-whoever was behind it. But there's a cognitive disonnance that sets in when it's too big to do anything about.
ReplyDeleteWhich half am I in? ... I haven't studied it close enough to say, and will leave it at that. It's not really essential at the moment.
But as a side-note, the glutted field of "JFK researchers" has certainly attracted or spawned hordes of crackpot theories and started the field of conspiratainment that flourished so following 9/11. Just consider Jack White and Jim Marrs, two at least that have made a name in both circuits.