tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post7374044601867395089..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: SCCRC clear the way for resurrection of Megrahi's dropped appealRobert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-8107641993125117252011-02-19T22:10:09.714+00:002011-02-19T22:10:09.714+00:00And if I'm sounding obsessive about this its b...And if I'm sounding obsessive about this its because it has become like that for me with all I have seen during this almighty mess since the lead up to the release. <br /><br />It is also because I am convinced that Salmond was the only politician who could have taken this issue forward in an honest way, a just way and in the right way. He also would have taken all of Scotland with him had he simply announced that the time had come to get to the truth about Lockerbie and committed his government to leading the way. He could have done it. <br /><br />He was easily the best politician in the UK. This business has tarnished him. I cannot believe he allowed Angiolini to make the bullets. He could have swept her and the Unionist Parties, who were committed to hiding the truth about Lockerbie and denying Megrahi his day in court, aside and made justice the priority. Not for Megrahi, but for Scotland.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-88977501075405760932011-02-19T21:22:58.128+00:002011-02-19T21:22:58.128+00:00"They might have thought about trying it, but..."They might have thought about trying it, but could any Scottish government get away with blocking an attempt to get to the truth about Lockerbie by saying, in effect, we don't care if the investigation of the biggest mass murder in our history was completely off-beam, we just don't want to talk about it any more?"<br /><br />Yes Rolfe, that's exactly what MacAskill did on the day he released Megrahi. Adding with a wee flurry that the original verdict was sound anyway. And he didn't just "think" about "trying it". He did it. And let's face it, he's getting away with it so far isn't he?<br /><br />Plus he went even further than the previous lot and actually started meddling with the SCCRC's remit and whole purpose really. Gagging them, restricting them. And he got agreement to that by spinning a yarn in the Chamber that this change had to be included in "emergency" legislation that simply had to be passed at once. He was also personally responsible for inserting the consents clause which prevented the SCCRC from publishing their findings. <br /><br />The Unionists can rightly point out that it was MacAskill who got rid of the appeal and scuppered the SCCRC. Yes indeed, hasn't Eilish played a blinder leading him by the nose all this time. (Eilish is the one whose "advice" on this issue has now been publicly exposed as plain wrong on various occasions.) Who look like nodding dugs in response to her every command? Salmond and MacAskill. I never thought I'd see the day when Salmond would trust Angiolini on something like this. It was a high risk strategy. She isn't the one being blamed for the big decisions tho is she? He is and MacAskill of course. She has played them like a piano.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-15759097844504968482011-02-18T23:23:01.744+00:002011-02-18T23:23:01.744+00:00I think that is exactly why the "emergency&qu...I think that is exactly why the "emergency" legislation was structured as it was. More fool our Parliament for buying the reasons for rushing it through without proper scrutiny. It is a blatant attempt to neuter the SCCRC. I don't know why he didn't just go the whole hog and dismantle the SCCRC. They are worse than useless under the new plans.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-91616001382665882282011-02-17T22:52:45.213+00:002011-02-17T22:52:45.213+00:00I wonder if that legislation will actually be used...I wonder if that legislation will actually be used to obstruct a new Megrahi appeal, if it ever gets that far? It's a very plausible conspiracy theory, but it's a bit abstract at the moment.<br /><br />It's not impossible that the highlighting of the issue by JFM might pre-emptively cause a few second thoughts. It would be a howling scandal if a new appeal was blocked in that way, especially when the Cadder legislation was specifically about something completely different.<br /><br />They might have thought about trying it, but could any Scottish government get away with blocking an attempt to get to the truth about Lockerbie by saying, in effect, we don't care if the investigation of the biggest mass murder in our history was completely off-beam, we just don't want to talk about it any more?<br /><br />I think they might have trouble getting that one past the court of public opinion.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-7219305338687666832011-02-17T22:37:05.626+00:002011-02-17T22:37:05.626+00:00And who rushed the "emergency" legislati...And who rushed the "emergency" legislation through? Yep, the Justice Secretary, Mr MacAskill.Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.com