The Lockerbie Case: Police officer identified by Bella Caledonia is not "the golfer"

Thursday 8 September 2011

Police officer identified by Bella Caledonia is not "the golfer"

[With his permission, I reproduce here an email that I received this afternoon from George Thomson:]

I follow your blog with keen interest. Normally I remain on the sidelines which can be frustrating. In relation to the allegation that [******] was the Golfer, I am in a position to refute that notion completely.

It was I who first approached the Golfer having been pointed in his direction by another officer. I took the initial statements from the Golfer and was in contact with him for some time.

At our very first meeting I gave him my word that I would never reveal his identity and I have always stood by that promise.

I think that it is fair however to break cover a wee bit in this instance and come to the recue of Mr [******]. I can state categorically that he was not the Golfer.

[The relevant page appears now (after the appearance of this blog post) to have been removed from the Bella Caledonia website.]

1 comment:

Robert Black09 September, 2011
I have removed a comment from Patrick Haseldine because he repeated the Bella Caledonia mis-identification of "the golfer". The person named was NOT "the golfer". The inevitable acceptance of this by the author is the reason, and the only reason, why the Bella Caledonia article was removed from its website.

If Patrick Haseldine continues to spread ill-informed mischief, I shall enforce my previous decision to remove any comment by him as soon as I become aware of it. I am beginning seriously to regret having allowed my good nature to permit him to resume commenting on this blog.
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.