The Lockerbie Case: MacAskill blanks Pan Am 103 relative, but spin doctors come out swinging

Tuesday, 17 May 2011

MacAskill blanks Pan Am 103 relative, but spin doctors come out swinging

This is the headline over a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm, giving the response of the Scottish Government to yesterday's article in the magazine about Matt Berkley's concerns regarding Kenny MacAskill's evidence to Scottish and UK parliamentary committees about the repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi.

There is an interesting post by David Macadam headed Lockerbie: Justice, Oil, Compassion? on The Oligarch Kings blog.

1 comment:

ebol17 May, 2011
MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2011, (google translation, german/english):

For the release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, supported on a questionable medical certificate, was able to take Kenny MacAskill, the responsibility without risk,because he had access including to the Lockerbie files from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) Which said there were six grounds where it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
Al Megrahi and Libya have nothing to do with the "Lockerbie-atrocity" ...
+++

Für die Freilassung von Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, abgestützt auf ein fragwürdiges Arztzeugnis, konnte der "Secretary of Justice" Kenny MacAskill, ohne Risiko die Verantwortung übernehmen, da er u.a. Einsicht in die "Lockerbie Dokumente" der "Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission" (SCCRC) hatte, welche in 6 Punken von einem Fehlurteil ausgehen.
Al Megrahi und Libya haben nichts mit der "Lockerbie-Greueltat " zutun...

by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland. URL: www.lockerbie.ch
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Comments

Readers are invited to comment on blog posts. All comments require to be pre-moderated by me, and I shall reject all (a) that are not related to the Lockerbie disaster or (b) that fail to meet my -- perhaps idiosyncratic -- standards of courtesy towards other contributors. Comments will not be rejected simply because I disagree with them or because I, or other contributors, find them irritating. But comments will be rejected if they distort or misrepresent the evidence; are defamatory; or if they risk embroiling me, as publisher, in defamation proceedings. I am perfectly relaxed about being sued in respect of material which I personally have posted -- but not in respect of material that others wish to post as comments and which, in any case, I often strongly disagree with.

Particularly during my sojourns in South Africa, it may not be possible for me to perform the moderation function speedily. I regret the necessity of moderation but it has been rendered inevitable by the behaviour of a particular commentator whose contributions will always and without exception be rejected.

No correspondence will be entered into regarding moderation decisions.