Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Further consideration of Justice for Megrahi petition
The Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee will consider the Scottish Government's response to the Justice for Megrahi petition and the petitioners' written observations on that response at its next meeting on Tuesday, 25 January. The meeting starts at 2pm, but this agenda item will probably be reached at around 4pm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As one of the 1,646 signatories of the JFM e-petition, I fully endorse Monday's written observation by Dr Jim Swire and wish to have Dr Swire's views properly taken into account by the Public Petitions Committee on Tuesday 25 January 2011.
ReplyDeletePatrick Haseldine
As a sharp British diplomat, you should know the difference between signatures and signatories. The e-petition, which was submitted by JFM after convening with Gaddafi, drew a certain number of online signatures. However, the presumed equality of signatures to signatories is unverifiable under e-circumstances where a single person can vote many times using multiple fake names. Those who are sticklers for differentiating between "bomber" and "convicted of bombing" should certainly understand that they are dealing in myth when equating signatures and signatories. Then again, it is all par for the course in a wannabe-state where dignity is undifferentiated from greed.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Suliman, for what I take to be a compliment!
ReplyDeleteDuring my 18-year career as a 'sharp' British diplomat, I never did manage to append my signature to any important agreements or international treaties. However, I did sign a number of letters to The Guardian which brought my diplomatic career to an abrupt end nearly twenty two years ago.
Now that I'm a signatory to the JFM e-petition, I fully endorse last Monday's written observation by Dr Jim Swire, and I wish to have Dr Swire's comments properly taken into account by the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee when it convenes next Tuesday 25 January 2011.
Patrick H.
Oh, no problem Patrick. Are you clear on the difference between sigantures and signatories? Let me know, if you are still having trouble with that. I know you have no trouble with JFM being co-founded and supported by the Gaddafi regime, at least you don't seem to have trouble. It is remarkable how low people stoop to advance their political cause, remarkable but not surprising. The surprising aspect to me is the lack of any Scottish public scrutiny that's actually worth a rat's ass. I don't even think it is up to the standard of a banana republic, maybe "whiskey republic" would be more appropriate?
ReplyDeletePresumably you mean "whisky republic", Suliman, since whiskey comes from Ireland!
ReplyDeleteI'm not interested in who founded (or funded) the "Justice for Megrahi" campaign. All I want is for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's wrongful Lockerbie conviction to be overturned and for a thorough investigation to be made into the targeting of Bernt Carlsson on Pan Am Flight 103.
And before any aspersions are cast, I have never been offered any inducement to hold those views nor (unfortunately) have I received any reward for promulgating them. I do however live in hope!
Patrick Haseldine
Suliman, I assume you meant whisky? "Whiskey" is the Irish version.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I did mean the Scotch stuff. And Patrick: Yes, of course, the ends justify the means with you. I never doubted your or JFM's Machiavellianism!
ReplyDeleteI have the Jesuits to thank for those ends justifying the means, Suliman!
ReplyDeleteOn Tuesday, the Public Petitions Committee decided to keep the JFM petition open until a new committee is formed after the Scottish Parliament general election on 5 May 2011. My hope now is for Lockerbie to become the dominant political issue at the election, so that whichever party forms the next Scottish Government will be forced to act and discover who really was responsible for the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103.
Although written nineteen long years ago, my letter to The Guardian of 16 March 1992 seems surprisingly relevant to the present situation, don't you think?
Patrick Haseldine