[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
A prominent campaigner last night said he was “not surprised” a cancer specialist who advised the Scottish Government on the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has suggested Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi could live for 10 years or more.
Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the 1988 atrocity that claimed the lives of 270 people, said the fact that al Megrahi had been sent home to his family in Libya would have reduced his stress levels and helped to prolong his life.
His comments came after leading oncologist Karol Sikora, who advised Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, admitted he was embarrassed that al Megrahi had outlived his three-month prognosis after he had assessed him. (...)
Dr Swire told The Herald: “Karol Sikora is one of the people who advised Kenny MacAskill in the first place that there was a 50% chance of this guy living three months.
“But I can’t really find any fault with him because all doctors can do is work around an average for people with an illness at a particular stage.
“What happened to al Megrahi was that he was returned to his family, which reduces stress, and stress also decides how well your immune system fights the cancer.” (...)
Scotland’s chief medical officer, Harry Burns, had earlier refused to be specific about al Megrahi’s health and sought advice from Dr Grahame Howard, a consultant oncologist at Edinburgh Cancer Centre. Howard said: “I don’t think any oncologist would use a number in that way because the science isn’t perfect.
“I assessed his prognosis to be months, maybe many months. It’s an odd disease and many months can spread to years.”
Dr Swire, however, said he did not have any grounds to suggest medical evidence had been massaged to ensure an early release of the man convicted as a terrorist.
He added: “The fact is that going home to his family would firstly be likely to greatly increase his lifespan and secondly he may have received world-class treatment in Tripoli that hadn’t been administered in Scotland.
“We don’t know exactly what was done to him there. So I’m not surprised the guy is doing a lot better than originally predicted and I think that Karol Sikora is very wise to have set a wide range of possibilities.
“All doctors can do is work by the averages of people in that predicament and I’ve no doubt that Karol Sikora did that.”
[The Scotsman's report on the issue reads in part:]
New demands have been made for the Scottish Government to release the full medical reports behind the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber last year.
SNP ministers have been urged to come clean on the medical evidence following two conflicting, unconfirmed reports on the health of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
One report suggested that medical treatment had been withdrawn, which means he has just weeks to live, while another suggested that he might survive for another ten to 20 years.
At the time of justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Megrahi in August last year, a short summary of advice which was made available showed that only a prison doctor believed he had less than six months to live, while four specialists would not commit to the estimate. With Megrahi just a month from celebrating a year out of jail, more questions are being asked over why he was released.
Tory justice spokesman, MSP John Lamont, said: "There are growing suspicions that the SNP decided to release the Lockerbie bomber and then found facts to fit the decision.
"Their refusal to publish the medical reports only adds fuel to the flames of suspicion
"As well as making all the evidence public, the SNP government must publish full details of the regular reports it is supposed to receive from Libya concerning Mr Megrahi's health.
"More and more people are asking, 'Why was the Lockerbie bomber really set free?'."
[The report in The Sunday Times which set this particular hare running can be read here.
A report in today's edition of the Daily Mirror reads in part:]
Claims that cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi might live for another decade have been denied by his family.
They said the Libyan is now being kept alive by alternative medicine "and is unlikely to reach the first anniversary of his freedom".
A relative said: "He is almost certainly on his death bed. He is extremely sick, and surgeons stopped operating long ago.
"The cancer has since spread to his kidneys, liver, pelvis and lymph nodes. There is very little chance of him reaching August." (...)
He is being cared for at the family home in Tripoli.
Monday, 5 July 2010
Sunday, 4 July 2010
Megrahi’s doctors stop treatment
[I am grateful to a reader for drawing my attention to the following report in today's edition of Scotland's largest-circulation Sunday newspaper The Sunday Post. It should be contrasted with the article from earlier today that can be read here. The Post's story reads in part:]
Convicted Lockerbie bomber Abelbaset al-Megrahi is believed to be near death.
The news comes almost 11 months after he was freed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with terminal cancer.
At the time the Scottish Government said he was expected to die within three months. (...)
Reports from Libya claim Megrahi’s prostate cancer has spread to his kidneys, liver, pelvis and lymph nodes.
He’s understood to be bed-bound at home in Tripoli attached to a morphine drip for pain relief.
The date of Megrahi’s death could be politically significant.
Should he survive until August Megrahi would have been free for a year, after Mr MacAskill assured the world he had fewer than three months to live when releasing him.
This could put serious pressure on the Justice Secretary’s position.
Megrahi’s regular visits to hospital for treatment have now stopped. It’s claimed he’s no longer responding to chemotherapy. Doctors now say he’s expected to die within weeks.
The Scottish Government receives monthly reports on his condition and one is expected this week. It’s likely to confirm that treatment to fight the cancer has ended and Megrahi is receiving only palliative care. (...)
He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 27 years, but served just eight before being released on compassionate grounds by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill last August.
When first diagnosed with prostate cancer in autumn 2008 specialists said he was likely to survive 18 months to two years.
Following the Prisoner Transfer Agreement application made on Megrahi’s behalf in May 2009, he was examined by specialists who found his cancer had become “hormone resistant”.
A report from the Scottish Prison Service concluded, “The specialist view is that, in the absence of a good response to treatment, survival could be in the order of ‘months’, and no longer ‘many months’.
“Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist would be willing to say.”
Mr MacAskill’s decision split opinion, with the US government and many victims’ relatives opposed.
However, he received support from some UK relatives, including Dr Jim Swire whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, as well as former South African President Nelson Mandela.
[The full report can, for the time being, be accessed here.]
Convicted Lockerbie bomber Abelbaset al-Megrahi is believed to be near death.
The news comes almost 11 months after he was freed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with terminal cancer.
At the time the Scottish Government said he was expected to die within three months. (...)
Reports from Libya claim Megrahi’s prostate cancer has spread to his kidneys, liver, pelvis and lymph nodes.
He’s understood to be bed-bound at home in Tripoli attached to a morphine drip for pain relief.
The date of Megrahi’s death could be politically significant.
Should he survive until August Megrahi would have been free for a year, after Mr MacAskill assured the world he had fewer than three months to live when releasing him.
This could put serious pressure on the Justice Secretary’s position.
Megrahi’s regular visits to hospital for treatment have now stopped. It’s claimed he’s no longer responding to chemotherapy. Doctors now say he’s expected to die within weeks.
The Scottish Government receives monthly reports on his condition and one is expected this week. It’s likely to confirm that treatment to fight the cancer has ended and Megrahi is receiving only palliative care. (...)
He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 27 years, but served just eight before being released on compassionate grounds by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill last August.
When first diagnosed with prostate cancer in autumn 2008 specialists said he was likely to survive 18 months to two years.
Following the Prisoner Transfer Agreement application made on Megrahi’s behalf in May 2009, he was examined by specialists who found his cancer had become “hormone resistant”.
A report from the Scottish Prison Service concluded, “The specialist view is that, in the absence of a good response to treatment, survival could be in the order of ‘months’, and no longer ‘many months’.
“Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist would be willing to say.”
Mr MacAskill’s decision split opinion, with the US government and many victims’ relatives opposed.
However, he received support from some UK relatives, including Dr Jim Swire whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, as well as former South African President Nelson Mandela.
[The full report can, for the time being, be accessed here.]
MacAskill guilty of criminal abdication of responsibility
Kenny MacAskill will go down in history as the justice secretary who legalised crime; or, at any rate, abolished punishment. Under his beneficent rule it is becoming virtually impossible for a Scottish criminal to enter prison. (...)
MacAskill's priority is to keep as many offenders as possible out of prison. The most notorious example, which has earned this liberal fruitcake worldwide opprobrium, is his release last August of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, on the grounds he had less than three months to live: he is still alive, at home in Libya. Having freed, after just seven years, a man convicted of the murder of 270 people it was hardly likely that MacAskill would willingly be party to the incarceration of lesser criminals.
[From an article in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday by columnist and right-wing ideologue Gerald Warner. The first of the readers' comments following the article reads in part:]
It is deplorable that Warner should echo the clamour of Holyrood's Vichy Tories and other opposition numpties on this issue. His high-level contacts may be political back numbers. Even so, Warner cannot fail to be aware that Megrahi did not commit the crime for which he was convicted.
MacAskill's priority is to keep as many offenders as possible out of prison. The most notorious example, which has earned this liberal fruitcake worldwide opprobrium, is his release last August of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, on the grounds he had less than three months to live: he is still alive, at home in Libya. Having freed, after just seven years, a man convicted of the murder of 270 people it was hardly likely that MacAskill would willingly be party to the incarceration of lesser criminals.
[From an article in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday by columnist and right-wing ideologue Gerald Warner. The first of the readers' comments following the article reads in part:]
It is deplorable that Warner should echo the clamour of Holyrood's Vichy Tories and other opposition numpties on this issue. His high-level contacts may be political back numbers. Even so, Warner cannot fail to be aware that Megrahi did not commit the crime for which he was convicted.
Megrahi 'could live 10 yrs' with cancer
The Lockerbie bomber could survive for 10 years or longer, according to an embarrassed cancer specialist who only last year said he would be dead within three months of his release, a newspaper reported on Sunday.
Professor Karol Sikora, who assessed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi for the Libyan authorities almost a year ago, told The Sunday Times it was "embarrassing" that he had outlived his three-month prognosis.
The Scottish government provoked outrage from the United States when it released Megrahi from prison in August 2009 on compassionate grounds because he is suffering from terminal cancer. (...)
But the newspaper claimed that Sikora, the dean of medicine at Buckingham University in southern England, was the only expert the Libyan authorities could find who would agree to put the three-month estimate on Megrahi's life.
It reported that the advice of two other experts was ignored after they said Megrahi could live for 19 months.
Sikora said: "There was always a chance he could live for 10 years, 20 years... But it's very unusual."
The professor told The Sunday Times that the Libyan authorities made it clear to him that if he concluded Megrahi would die in a matter of months, it would greatly improve Megrahi's chances of being released from jail in Scotland.
"It was clear that three months was what they were aiming for. Three months was the critical point," Sikora said.
"On the balance of probabilities, I felt I could sort of justify (that)."
He denied he came any under pressure, but admitted: "It is embarrassing that he's gone on for so long."
"There was a 50 percent chance that he would die in three months, but there was also a 50 percent chance that he would live longer."
[From an Agence France Presse news agency report published earlier today.
There is also a related report on the BBC News website, a longer report on the Telegraph website and an even longer report on the Daily Mail website.
All of the above reports are based upon an article in The Sunday Times. Because that newspaper's website is now subscription only, and I decline to make any contribution -- however small -- to the coffers of Rupert Murdoch's News International, I was unable to quote from or refer to the original source. However, Frank Duggan, President of the US relatives' group Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc, has sent me the text of the article and I reproduce it below.]
Few people had heard of Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, before he stepped in front of the world's television cameras to announce the fate of the Lockerbie bomber. Yet by the time he had ended his rambling statement, in which he granted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi his freedom and sought to burnish Scotland's humanitarian credentials, he found himself in the eye of a diplomatic storm.
More than 10 months after returning to Tripoli to a hero's welcome, Megrahi is still alive.
Saif Gadaffi, the son of the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, says Megrahi is "very sick" with advanced prostate cancer — but he has far outlived the three-month prognosis accorded to him by the Scottish government that secured his release on compassionate grounds.
Despite assurances from MacAskill that Megrahi, 58, was close to death in August last year, only one British doctor contacted as part of a Sunday Times investigation would admit to having endorsed the three-month prediction.
In fact, the "firm consensus" among medical experts of which MacAskill spoke does not appear to exist.
Approaches to eight key people involved in Megrahi's case now suggest that both the Scottish government and the Libyan authorities selectively chose their information.
The disclosure threatens to reignite the anger that met Megrahi's release. Speculation has been rife that he was allowed to go free — despite being convicted in 2001 of murdering 270 people — as part of an Anglo-Libyan trade deal.
Last year The Sunday Times revealed that Jack Straw, the former justice secretary at Westminster, had written to his Scottish counterpart to say it was "in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom" to make Megrahi eligible for return to Libya.
The letter was written in December 2007 when negotiations with Libya had stalled over a BP oil exploration contract worth up to £15 billion. Announcing Megrahi's release, MacAskill said that "life expectancy of less than three months" could make a prisoner eligible to be freed on compassionate grounds.
The Libyan authorities seemed determined to find a doctor who would provide the three-month prognosis. Early efforts at the start of last year proved unsuccessful. Dr Stephen Harland, a consultant oncologist at University College London hospital, and David Dearnaley, professor of uro-oncology at the Royal Marsden hospital in London, both told the Libyans that Megrahi's lifespan was closer to 19 months. Libya's ambassador to London subsequently turned to Professor Karol Sikora, medical director of CancerPartners UK and dean of the medical school at Buckingham University.
Sikora, who was paid £200 an hour for his services, said: "It was clear that three months was what they were aiming for. Three months was the critical point. On the balance of probabilities, I felt I could sort of justify [that]."
Sikora now admits there was always a chance that Megrahi could live for much longer — possibly 10 or even 20 years. It is understood that he did not mention this in his report for the Libyans. "It is embarrassing that he's gone on for so long," Sikora said.
Last week he denied he had been put under pressure, but indicated he may have been looking for "really bad news". Sikora said he had seen other patients with the same symptoms as Megrahi who had lived for five years: "There was a 50% chance that he would die in three months, but there was also a 50% chance that he would live longer."
When Scotland's chief medical officer sought advice from Dr Grahame Howard, a consultant at the Edinburgh Cancer Centre, Howard refused to commit to a specific timeframe.
"I don't think any oncologist would use a number in that way because the science isn't perfect," said Howard.
"I assessed his likely prognosis to be maybe many months. It's an odd disease and many months can spread to years." A source said: "It wasn't clinical judgment to release him, it was made at a political level."
Sikora now wonders if he was even provided with the correct medical records. When he visited Megrahi at Greenock prison on July 28 last year, he was accompanied by another British expert, Professor Jonathan Waxman, an oncologist from Hammersmith hospital in London, and a hormone specialist from Tripoli.
Waxman refused to concur with Sikora's three-month prognosis or even to put a timeframe on Megrahi's chances of survival. He has told friends he is not "surprised at all" that Megrahi is still alive.
The trio's findings were sent to the Scottish government on August 14, six days before MacAskill announced his decision to release Megrahi. His aides say he based his conclusions on a report by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). This, it was claimed, drew on the expertise of those involved in Megrahi's care. But It is understood that the two doctors closest to Megrahi — Dr Zak Latif, his urologist, and Dr Richard Jones, his oncologist — were not asked for their advice.
A source said: "You can read into that what you want." Both doctors refused to comment.
[All of the above should be compared with this report from The Sunday Post.]
Professor Karol Sikora, who assessed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi for the Libyan authorities almost a year ago, told The Sunday Times it was "embarrassing" that he had outlived his three-month prognosis.
The Scottish government provoked outrage from the United States when it released Megrahi from prison in August 2009 on compassionate grounds because he is suffering from terminal cancer. (...)
But the newspaper claimed that Sikora, the dean of medicine at Buckingham University in southern England, was the only expert the Libyan authorities could find who would agree to put the three-month estimate on Megrahi's life.
It reported that the advice of two other experts was ignored after they said Megrahi could live for 19 months.
Sikora said: "There was always a chance he could live for 10 years, 20 years... But it's very unusual."
The professor told The Sunday Times that the Libyan authorities made it clear to him that if he concluded Megrahi would die in a matter of months, it would greatly improve Megrahi's chances of being released from jail in Scotland.
"It was clear that three months was what they were aiming for. Three months was the critical point," Sikora said.
"On the balance of probabilities, I felt I could sort of justify (that)."
He denied he came any under pressure, but admitted: "It is embarrassing that he's gone on for so long."
"There was a 50 percent chance that he would die in three months, but there was also a 50 percent chance that he would live longer."
[From an Agence France Presse news agency report published earlier today.
There is also a related report on the BBC News website, a longer report on the Telegraph website and an even longer report on the Daily Mail website.
All of the above reports are based upon an article in The Sunday Times. Because that newspaper's website is now subscription only, and I decline to make any contribution -- however small -- to the coffers of Rupert Murdoch's News International, I was unable to quote from or refer to the original source. However, Frank Duggan, President of the US relatives' group Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc, has sent me the text of the article and I reproduce it below.]
Few people had heard of Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, before he stepped in front of the world's television cameras to announce the fate of the Lockerbie bomber. Yet by the time he had ended his rambling statement, in which he granted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi his freedom and sought to burnish Scotland's humanitarian credentials, he found himself in the eye of a diplomatic storm.
More than 10 months after returning to Tripoli to a hero's welcome, Megrahi is still alive.
Saif Gadaffi, the son of the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, says Megrahi is "very sick" with advanced prostate cancer — but he has far outlived the three-month prognosis accorded to him by the Scottish government that secured his release on compassionate grounds.
Despite assurances from MacAskill that Megrahi, 58, was close to death in August last year, only one British doctor contacted as part of a Sunday Times investigation would admit to having endorsed the three-month prediction.
In fact, the "firm consensus" among medical experts of which MacAskill spoke does not appear to exist.
Approaches to eight key people involved in Megrahi's case now suggest that both the Scottish government and the Libyan authorities selectively chose their information.
The disclosure threatens to reignite the anger that met Megrahi's release. Speculation has been rife that he was allowed to go free — despite being convicted in 2001 of murdering 270 people — as part of an Anglo-Libyan trade deal.
Last year The Sunday Times revealed that Jack Straw, the former justice secretary at Westminster, had written to his Scottish counterpart to say it was "in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom" to make Megrahi eligible for return to Libya.
The letter was written in December 2007 when negotiations with Libya had stalled over a BP oil exploration contract worth up to £15 billion. Announcing Megrahi's release, MacAskill said that "life expectancy of less than three months" could make a prisoner eligible to be freed on compassionate grounds.
The Libyan authorities seemed determined to find a doctor who would provide the three-month prognosis. Early efforts at the start of last year proved unsuccessful. Dr Stephen Harland, a consultant oncologist at University College London hospital, and David Dearnaley, professor of uro-oncology at the Royal Marsden hospital in London, both told the Libyans that Megrahi's lifespan was closer to 19 months. Libya's ambassador to London subsequently turned to Professor Karol Sikora, medical director of CancerPartners UK and dean of the medical school at Buckingham University.
Sikora, who was paid £200 an hour for his services, said: "It was clear that three months was what they were aiming for. Three months was the critical point. On the balance of probabilities, I felt I could sort of justify [that]."
Sikora now admits there was always a chance that Megrahi could live for much longer — possibly 10 or even 20 years. It is understood that he did not mention this in his report for the Libyans. "It is embarrassing that he's gone on for so long," Sikora said.
Last week he denied he had been put under pressure, but indicated he may have been looking for "really bad news". Sikora said he had seen other patients with the same symptoms as Megrahi who had lived for five years: "There was a 50% chance that he would die in three months, but there was also a 50% chance that he would live longer."
When Scotland's chief medical officer sought advice from Dr Grahame Howard, a consultant at the Edinburgh Cancer Centre, Howard refused to commit to a specific timeframe.
"I don't think any oncologist would use a number in that way because the science isn't perfect," said Howard.
"I assessed his likely prognosis to be maybe many months. It's an odd disease and many months can spread to years." A source said: "It wasn't clinical judgment to release him, it was made at a political level."
Sikora now wonders if he was even provided with the correct medical records. When he visited Megrahi at Greenock prison on July 28 last year, he was accompanied by another British expert, Professor Jonathan Waxman, an oncologist from Hammersmith hospital in London, and a hormone specialist from Tripoli.
Waxman refused to concur with Sikora's three-month prognosis or even to put a timeframe on Megrahi's chances of survival. He has told friends he is not "surprised at all" that Megrahi is still alive.
The trio's findings were sent to the Scottish government on August 14, six days before MacAskill announced his decision to release Megrahi. His aides say he based his conclusions on a report by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). This, it was claimed, drew on the expertise of those involved in Megrahi's care. But It is understood that the two doctors closest to Megrahi — Dr Zak Latif, his urologist, and Dr Richard Jones, his oncologist — were not asked for their advice.
A source said: "You can read into that what you want." Both doctors refused to comment.
[All of the above should be compared with this report from The Sunday Post.]
Megrahi could spill his secrets in memoirs
Secret documents that could clear the Lockerbie bomber's name will be published in his controversial autobiography.
Sources close to Abdelbaset al-Megrahi have confirmed that his crucial grounds for appeal will be contained in his memoirs.
An investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which lasted three years, concluded that there were six grounds for believing Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
Megrahi has refused to make those public - until now.
Last night, sources close to the team working on the book confirmed it was well under way.
And respected publishing house Mainstream refused to confirm or deny their involvement. (...)
It is understood Megrahi is being helped to write the book by journalist John Ashton.
Ashton is co-author of Cover-Up Of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal Of Lockerbie, published by Mainstream in 2001.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing of PanAm Flight 103, believes the documents could help clear Megrahi's name.
Dr Swire has long believed Megrahi was not involved in the atrocity.
He added: "So long as Mr Megrahi is alive, he has control over the material that was assembled by the defence on his behalf.
"He has his own projects which involve that material, which I am not at liberty to talk about.
"But as long as he is alive and as long as those projects are under way, then certainly the material will not be released.
"What happens after his death, I don't know."
[From a report by Mark Aitken in today's edition of the Sunday Mail.]
Sources close to Abdelbaset al-Megrahi have confirmed that his crucial grounds for appeal will be contained in his memoirs.
An investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which lasted three years, concluded that there were six grounds for believing Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
Megrahi has refused to make those public - until now.
Last night, sources close to the team working on the book confirmed it was well under way.
And respected publishing house Mainstream refused to confirm or deny their involvement. (...)
It is understood Megrahi is being helped to write the book by journalist John Ashton.
Ashton is co-author of Cover-Up Of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal Of Lockerbie, published by Mainstream in 2001.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing of PanAm Flight 103, believes the documents could help clear Megrahi's name.
Dr Swire has long believed Megrahi was not involved in the atrocity.
He added: "So long as Mr Megrahi is alive, he has control over the material that was assembled by the defence on his behalf.
"He has his own projects which involve that material, which I am not at liberty to talk about.
"But as long as he is alive and as long as those projects are under way, then certainly the material will not be released.
"What happens after his death, I don't know."
[From a report by Mark Aitken in today's edition of the Sunday Mail.]
Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi and disclosure of SCCRC documents
It has recently been wrongly reported, that Mr Al-Megrahi refused to give his consent for the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to release documents relating to him, referred to in the Commission’s Statement of Reasons on his case, and its appendices, that he and his lawyers provided, either directly or indirectly, to the Commission.
The true position is that Mr Al Megrahi, through his Libyan lawyer, made it clear to the Commission in a meeting on April 12th 2010 that he was happy for the documents to be released, providing all the official bodies that provided documents to the Commission agreed to the release of all of those documents. These bodies include the police, the Crown Office, the Foreign Office, and the intelligence service, or services, which provided the secret documents referred to in Chapter 25 sources of the Statement of Reasons.
Mr Al Megrahi’s position has always been, and remains, that all information relating to the case should be made public.
[The above is the text of a statement dated 30 June 2010 issued to the Press Association news agency on behalf of Mr Megrahi by his Libyan lawyer, Mr Hamdi Fanoush, to whom I express my thanks for sending me a copy.]
The true position is that Mr Al Megrahi, through his Libyan lawyer, made it clear to the Commission in a meeting on April 12th 2010 that he was happy for the documents to be released, providing all the official bodies that provided documents to the Commission agreed to the release of all of those documents. These bodies include the police, the Crown Office, the Foreign Office, and the intelligence service, or services, which provided the secret documents referred to in Chapter 25 sources of the Statement of Reasons.
Mr Al Megrahi’s position has always been, and remains, that all information relating to the case should be made public.
[The above is the text of a statement dated 30 June 2010 issued to the Press Association news agency on behalf of Mr Megrahi by his Libyan lawyer, Mr Hamdi Fanoush, to whom I express my thanks for sending me a copy.]
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Freedom of information, Shirley McKie and Lockerbie
The father of former policewoman Shirley McKie has welcomed a decision by the Information Commissioner ordering the Scottish Government to release 131 documents relating to his daughter's case and the competence of the country's fingerprints experts. (...)
Iain McKie said: "All that is left is to ascertain what happened in the corridors of power, why it took 14 years to resolve itself, and make sure lessons are learned. (...)
"The culture of secrecy in Scotland is a disgrace, it marks everything it touches. We have a secretive government in Scotland, they don't like giving out information.
"It's important we have a forensic service in Scotland that is up to the job. I don't think we do have." (...)
Mr McKie said: "This might finally help us to find out why the Scottish Government has been determined to hide this matter. Her case was in 1999, the same year as the Lockerbie trial. The last thing they wanted was for the Scottish Forensic Service to be seen in a bad light at that time."
[From a report in today's edition of The Scotsman.
I have been unable to access the internet for just under a week because of (a) commitments at Gannaga Lodge and (b) the local phone lines being down for two days, but there appear to have been no significant Lockerbie-related developments in any event.]
Iain McKie said: "All that is left is to ascertain what happened in the corridors of power, why it took 14 years to resolve itself, and make sure lessons are learned. (...)
"The culture of secrecy in Scotland is a disgrace, it marks everything it touches. We have a secretive government in Scotland, they don't like giving out information.
"It's important we have a forensic service in Scotland that is up to the job. I don't think we do have." (...)
Mr McKie said: "This might finally help us to find out why the Scottish Government has been determined to hide this matter. Her case was in 1999, the same year as the Lockerbie trial. The last thing they wanted was for the Scottish Forensic Service to be seen in a bad light at that time."
[From a report in today's edition of The Scotsman.
I have been unable to access the internet for just under a week because of (a) commitments at Gannaga Lodge and (b) the local phone lines being down for two days, but there appear to have been no significant Lockerbie-related developments in any event.]
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Bid to have Lockerbie bomber's medical condition revealed is rejected
[This is the headline over a report in the Sunday Mail on 20 June. It reads in part:]
A last ditch bid to have the Lockerbie bomber's medical condition made public has been rejected.
Labour MSP George Foulkes appealed to the information commissioner after being told Abdelbaset al-Megrahi 's welfare would remain a secret from the public.
Now the decision to withhold the information has been upheld by Kevin Dunion.
Foulkes said: "I am very disappointed that the freedom of information laws within Scotland don't allow the public access to this information.
"It is clear that Megrahi, through his lawyer, has vetoed it.
"This is matter of not just national interest but also international interest.
"There are relatives of Americans who died who are concerned about it." (...)
As part of the conditions of his release, Megrahi has had to provide East Renfrewshire Council with a regular report on his medical condition.
The council monitor Megrahi because his family lived in Newton Mearns while he was in jail.
A council spokesman said yesterday: "We have had all the contact we have needed to have with him."
A last ditch bid to have the Lockerbie bomber's medical condition made public has been rejected.
Labour MSP George Foulkes appealed to the information commissioner after being told Abdelbaset al-Megrahi 's welfare would remain a secret from the public.
Now the decision to withhold the information has been upheld by Kevin Dunion.
Foulkes said: "I am very disappointed that the freedom of information laws within Scotland don't allow the public access to this information.
"It is clear that Megrahi, through his lawyer, has vetoed it.
"This is matter of not just national interest but also international interest.
"There are relatives of Americans who died who are concerned about it." (...)
As part of the conditions of his release, Megrahi has had to provide East Renfrewshire Council with a regular report on his medical condition.
The council monitor Megrahi because his family lived in Newton Mearns while he was in jail.
A council spokesman said yesterday: "We have had all the contact we have needed to have with him."
Semtex mystery
[The text of Peter Biddulph's letter, as published in The Sunday Times on 20 June, is as follows:]
You report that Libyan Semtex “was used in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 at Lockerbie, when 270 were killed, for which Libya has paid more than £5m to each family” (“Gadaffi to pay £2bn to victims of IRA bombs”, News, last week).
As a longtime researcher — jointly with Dr Jim Swire, among others — into the Lockerbie bombing, I have found no mention of the use of Libyan Semtex. Nor does one appear in any associated documents or even allegations by those involved in the inquiry (including the Scottish police, the FBI and the CIA).
The origins of the Semtex used and the explosive enhancer have never been proved or even guessed at. The critical evidence advanced at trial — that the timer that triggered the bomb came from a batch sold to Libya — is itself now subject to deep suspicions that it was manufactured and planted.
You report that Libyan Semtex “was used in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 at Lockerbie, when 270 were killed, for which Libya has paid more than £5m to each family” (“Gadaffi to pay £2bn to victims of IRA bombs”, News, last week).
As a longtime researcher — jointly with Dr Jim Swire, among others — into the Lockerbie bombing, I have found no mention of the use of Libyan Semtex. Nor does one appear in any associated documents or even allegations by those involved in the inquiry (including the Scottish police, the FBI and the CIA).
The origins of the Semtex used and the explosive enhancer have never been proved or even guessed at. The critical evidence advanced at trial — that the timer that triggered the bomb came from a batch sold to Libya — is itself now subject to deep suspicions that it was manufactured and planted.
Saturday, 19 June 2010
Break in transmission
Because of commitments at Gannaga Lodge, which is a telecommunications-free zone, it is unlikely that I shall be in a position to post on this blog until Wednesday, 23 June.
In the meantime, readers may care to keep a look-out for a letter by Peter Biddulph that will probably be published in tomorrow's edition of The Sunday Times. This is in response to last Sunday's article in that newspaper that contained the statement: "It [Semtex supplied by Libya] was used in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 at Lockerbie, when 270 were killed, for which Libya has paid over £5m to each family."
In the meantime, readers may care to keep a look-out for a letter by Peter Biddulph that will probably be published in tomorrow's edition of The Sunday Times. This is in response to last Sunday's article in that newspaper that contained the statement: "It [Semtex supplied by Libya] was used in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 at Lockerbie, when 270 were killed, for which Libya has paid over £5m to each family."
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Britain and Libya become best of friends in business
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Independent. It reads as follows:]
Business ties between Britain and Libya have developed at great speed since the oil-rich North African nation came in from the diplomatic cold.
The thawing of relations has led to a surge in trade, with Libyan now considered a major business partner for a number of well-known British companies. Indeed, several families of the victims of the Lockerbie atrocity argued last year that the release of the bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, was linked to improving business ties, rather than because Megrahi was dying of cancer. He is still alive.
According to UK Trade and Investment, the government body that promotes trade between Britain and other countries, British exports to Libya were worth £423m in 2009 – 51 per cent more than in 2008. The organisation says "many well-known companies are active in the Libyan market", including Marks & Spencer and Rentokil. The Libya British Business Council, which encourages trade between the two nations, lists Barclays, HSBC, BP and the law firm Denton Wilde Sapte among its council members.
BP, for example, and its Libyan partner, Libya Investment Corp, signed a $900m deal to develop onshore and offshore projects in May 2007.
Michael Lacey, the managing partner in Denton Wilde Sapte's Cairo office, said many industries were looking to expand in Libya. "They are all there: construction, airlines, hotels, banks and oil and gas. If British companies are not already in Libya, they are certainly dipping their toes in the water," he added. "Over the past few years it has become clear this is an economy that people want to be associated with."
Business ties between Britain and Libya have developed at great speed since the oil-rich North African nation came in from the diplomatic cold.
The thawing of relations has led to a surge in trade, with Libyan now considered a major business partner for a number of well-known British companies. Indeed, several families of the victims of the Lockerbie atrocity argued last year that the release of the bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, was linked to improving business ties, rather than because Megrahi was dying of cancer. He is still alive.
According to UK Trade and Investment, the government body that promotes trade between Britain and other countries, British exports to Libya were worth £423m in 2009 – 51 per cent more than in 2008. The organisation says "many well-known companies are active in the Libyan market", including Marks & Spencer and Rentokil. The Libya British Business Council, which encourages trade between the two nations, lists Barclays, HSBC, BP and the law firm Denton Wilde Sapte among its council members.
BP, for example, and its Libyan partner, Libya Investment Corp, signed a $900m deal to develop onshore and offshore projects in May 2007.
Michael Lacey, the managing partner in Denton Wilde Sapte's Cairo office, said many industries were looking to expand in Libya. "They are all there: construction, airlines, hotels, banks and oil and gas. If British companies are not already in Libya, they are certainly dipping their toes in the water," he added. "Over the past few years it has become clear this is an economy that people want to be associated with."
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
Megrahi appeal documents to remain secret
[This is the headline over a report by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Hundreds of pages of information pinpointing why the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should be granted a fresh appeal will remain a secret.
The Crown Office, the Foreign Office and police have all failed to give their consent to an official request to disclose the material, as has Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
The revelation that the official Lockerbie papers may never be published is likely to prove embarrassing for those who have not allowed disclosure and the ministers who suggested the papers would be published.
It will also fuel the frustration of the families of the 270 victims who have waited more than 21 years for answers. (...)
There was a clamour from politicians and relatives for the information to be released last year following the controversial early release of Megrahi on compassionate grounds. The Lybian had been sentenced to life imprisonment by a panel of three Scottish judges sitting in a special court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001.
The Scottish Government said it wanted to see as much information as possible made public.
But the information cannot be released without consent from the major parties.
The three-and-a-half-year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) concluded that there were six grounds for believing Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice. (...)
Under the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997, which created the commission to investigate potential miscarriages of justice, material can be disclosed “in any circumstances – permitted by an order made by the Secretary of State” using a simple piece of legislation called a statutory instrument.
Since devolution, the power has passed to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and on December 21 he revealed that the statutory instrument would come into force on February 1.
At the time, MacAskill said: “The order laid today allows the SCCRC to disclose information it holds and it is now for them to decide what, if anything, they release.”
The Herald made a Freedom of Information request for the papers to the commission on February 1 which was rejected and, on appeal, the FoI commissioner upheld the decision because permission has not been granted by the main parties.
It is not known why Megrahi has not given approval. (...)
A spokeswoman for the Crown Office said: “The Crown remains in discussion with the SCCRC and police on this matter, which raises a number of complex legal issues, and the suggestion that the Crown has refused permission is not true.”
[An editorial in the same newspaper reads:]
The questions over how Pan Am flight 103 came to be blown up over Lockerbie in December 1988, killing 270 people, have multiplied over the past two decades, with no definitive answers.
Hopes that information gathered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) in its investigation of grounds for appeal by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan found guilty of the atrocity, would finally shed light on the murky background to the bombing have been dashed by a refusal to disclose the information.
Four months after the Scottish Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill, used a statutory instrument to allow the SCCRC to release the investigation documents, the commission has refused The Herald’s request for disclosure under Freedom of Information legislation because it does not have the consent of the main parties involved: Megrahi, the Crown Office, the police and the Foreign Office.
This latest impasse is all the more frustrating because the SCCRC is willing in principle to consider releasing the Statement of Reasons, and the accompanying 13 volumes of appen dices which were provided to determine whether Megrahi should be allowed to appeal against conviction.
It follows numerous delays to the appeal itself, the most significant one due to the refusal on grounds of national security to release a top secret document from an undisclosed third country thought to contain vital information about the timer that detonated the bomb. The mass of evidence gathered by the SCCRC during its three-and-a-half year investigation cannot now be subjected to examination and challenge in the Appeal Court because Megrahi dropped the case to improve his chances of returning home to Libya. With the commission finding six grounds for believing that Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice, that leaves far too many questions unanswered.
It is not known why Megrahi himself, having previously vowed to clear his name, has refused permission for disclosure. He has lived for longer than expected when released from prison last year and returned to Libya but remains terminally ill and, if he was wrongly convicted, that should be rectified sooner rather than later.
Despite the SCCRC’s continuing discussion on disclosure with the Crown Office, the Foreign Office and the police, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it is keen to avoid re-opening the diplomatic and political issues surrounding the Lockerbie bombing. The UK relatives seeking a public inquiry were told that was not possible while a criminal investigation was continuing. When that concluded, the Scottish Government and Foreign Office each said only the other had power to call an inquiry.
Many of the relatives of the victims are plagued with doubt about whether justice was done at Camp Zeist. For their sake, and to remove the uncertainty that has clouded the case and damaged the reputation of the Scottish justice system, it is essential that the truth is established. After 12 long years, that is the vital lesson of the inquiry into Bloody Sunday which is published today. Lockerbie remains the worst terrorist attack suffered in Britain; it must not remain unfinished business.
Hundreds of pages of information pinpointing why the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should be granted a fresh appeal will remain a secret.
The Crown Office, the Foreign Office and police have all failed to give their consent to an official request to disclose the material, as has Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
The revelation that the official Lockerbie papers may never be published is likely to prove embarrassing for those who have not allowed disclosure and the ministers who suggested the papers would be published.
It will also fuel the frustration of the families of the 270 victims who have waited more than 21 years for answers. (...)
There was a clamour from politicians and relatives for the information to be released last year following the controversial early release of Megrahi on compassionate grounds. The Lybian had been sentenced to life imprisonment by a panel of three Scottish judges sitting in a special court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001.
The Scottish Government said it wanted to see as much information as possible made public.
But the information cannot be released without consent from the major parties.
The three-and-a-half-year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) concluded that there were six grounds for believing Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice. (...)
Under the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997, which created the commission to investigate potential miscarriages of justice, material can be disclosed “in any circumstances – permitted by an order made by the Secretary of State” using a simple piece of legislation called a statutory instrument.
Since devolution, the power has passed to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and on December 21 he revealed that the statutory instrument would come into force on February 1.
At the time, MacAskill said: “The order laid today allows the SCCRC to disclose information it holds and it is now for them to decide what, if anything, they release.”
The Herald made a Freedom of Information request for the papers to the commission on February 1 which was rejected and, on appeal, the FoI commissioner upheld the decision because permission has not been granted by the main parties.
It is not known why Megrahi has not given approval. (...)
A spokeswoman for the Crown Office said: “The Crown remains in discussion with the SCCRC and police on this matter, which raises a number of complex legal issues, and the suggestion that the Crown has refused permission is not true.”
[An editorial in the same newspaper reads:]
The questions over how Pan Am flight 103 came to be blown up over Lockerbie in December 1988, killing 270 people, have multiplied over the past two decades, with no definitive answers.
Hopes that information gathered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) in its investigation of grounds for appeal by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan found guilty of the atrocity, would finally shed light on the murky background to the bombing have been dashed by a refusal to disclose the information.
Four months after the Scottish Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill, used a statutory instrument to allow the SCCRC to release the investigation documents, the commission has refused The Herald’s request for disclosure under Freedom of Information legislation because it does not have the consent of the main parties involved: Megrahi, the Crown Office, the police and the Foreign Office.
This latest impasse is all the more frustrating because the SCCRC is willing in principle to consider releasing the Statement of Reasons, and the accompanying 13 volumes of appen dices which were provided to determine whether Megrahi should be allowed to appeal against conviction.
It follows numerous delays to the appeal itself, the most significant one due to the refusal on grounds of national security to release a top secret document from an undisclosed third country thought to contain vital information about the timer that detonated the bomb. The mass of evidence gathered by the SCCRC during its three-and-a-half year investigation cannot now be subjected to examination and challenge in the Appeal Court because Megrahi dropped the case to improve his chances of returning home to Libya. With the commission finding six grounds for believing that Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice, that leaves far too many questions unanswered.
It is not known why Megrahi himself, having previously vowed to clear his name, has refused permission for disclosure. He has lived for longer than expected when released from prison last year and returned to Libya but remains terminally ill and, if he was wrongly convicted, that should be rectified sooner rather than later.
Despite the SCCRC’s continuing discussion on disclosure with the Crown Office, the Foreign Office and the police, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it is keen to avoid re-opening the diplomatic and political issues surrounding the Lockerbie bombing. The UK relatives seeking a public inquiry were told that was not possible while a criminal investigation was continuing. When that concluded, the Scottish Government and Foreign Office each said only the other had power to call an inquiry.
Many of the relatives of the victims are plagued with doubt about whether justice was done at Camp Zeist. For their sake, and to remove the uncertainty that has clouded the case and damaged the reputation of the Scottish justice system, it is essential that the truth is established. After 12 long years, that is the vital lesson of the inquiry into Bloody Sunday which is published today. Lockerbie remains the worst terrorist attack suffered in Britain; it must not remain unfinished business.
Monday, 14 June 2010
Reviews of "The Families of Lockerbie"
[The following is a review by Libby Purves in today's edition of The Times of the Nottingham Playhouse Theatre's production of The Families of Lockerbie:]
What do you most want from documentary theatre? Information, emotion, enlightenment? During Michael Eaton’s take on the fallout since Lockerbie, set on a bare stage framed in a faint suggestion of twisted metal shards, the question hung in the air like the fumes of aviation fuel remembered too graphically by the families in 1988.
If you want painstaking journalism, here it is. Eaton — who wrote a 1990 documentary when the theory of Syrian guilt prevailed — takes pains. The programme offers a statement of intent, a timeline, and list of the dead. Much is verbatim clipboard-and-lectern work, using evidence and speeches to chart processes and politics which led to the trial of two Libyans by Scottish judges in the Netherlands, acquitting one and convicting Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who was released nine months ago with “three months to live”, fêted in Libya, and is now collaborating on a documentary affirming his innocence.
We knew all this. A dramatist’s question must be different: when does justice become mere revenge? When is mercy an insult to the victims? And when victims disagree, can they still stand together or is a fresh enmity born? We see two fictional families: British parents Geoffrey and Maureen (Robert Benfield and Joan Moon), and Laura (Jennifer Woodward), widow of a US Marine. They are brought together in a TV studio by a host (David Beckford). Other parts are taken by each with neat definition. At first they bond in grief; as years go by Laura becomes a shrill Republican militarist, Geoffrey forensically doubtful about al-Megrahi’s guilt, and Maureen gently grieves without her boy.
They are to some extent caricatures (surely some American families are liberal, some British victims angrier). Before any theatrical judgment I must record that some relatives object to the play. Even if it were an artistic triumph, it is their right to dislike it. This was mass murder. You can argue that such wickedness deserves no better than to die in prison in a strange land. The quandary of compassion and recovery, therefore, should be the engine of the play.
In the last eight of its unbroken 105 minutes, that finally happens. “My husband would want me to fight!” rages Laura. “My son would want the truth” says Geoffrey. And Maureen, “My son would want me to forgive.” Their final, antiphonal speeches are moving and right; the self-exculpatory statement of al-Megrahi a raw coda. But I would have liked more character, more philosophy, more imagined argument and less verbatim prose. A Hare or Frayn or Stoppard propels history into universality. This author remains too much the documentarist. But in the final moments, he showed what he could have done, and maybe will.
[The following is an excerpt from a review by Ian Charles Douglas on the Guide2Nottingham website:]
Some subjects defy criticism. And this act of mass murder is among them. For those of us old enough to remember, we remember it vividly. We remember where we were when we learned of the disaster, who told us, and the cold chill that slipped into our hearts.
Thankfully then, it’s in the safe hands of Michael Eaton, one of Nottingham’s most experienced scribes and well known for television works such as Shipman and Signs and Wonders.
Lockerbie, as he reminds us, was a turning point. The Cold War was ending and a new age of terrorism was upon us. And with it came a new style of international justice, or rather the lack of it. Worse, the ones left behind, the bereaved, became pawns in what Kipling called the Great Game, the struggle for control of the Middle East. (...)
The cast of four have to step into many shoes, not only the families, but journalists, politicians, judges, suspects and diplomats. Full credit then to the actors, jumping from accent to accent, juggling their roles with ease. David Beckford, as the interviewer, does a great job of holding together the threads of the story. Jennifer Woodward is Laura, the American wife who meets Geoffrey (Robert Benfield) and Maureen (Joan Moon) the English parents among the wrecked fuselage.
At first they become companions in sorrow. But as long years pass, a gulf as wide as the ocean separating our two countries opens between them. Anger erupts, following upon the heels of their great loss, numbing the pain and filling the void. Will they reconnect and together make some sort of sense to their loss, however heartrending?
But alongside this question there are so many more. Was there a conspiracy? Were the Iranians involved? Did our noble leaders give into the needs of the oil business? Was the convicted man an innocent scapegoat or a mass-murderer? Should he have faced the death penalty?
These very serious and never more relevant issues are brought to life in a kind of fictionalised docudrama. The production bravely confronts terrible truths, without a single drop of mawkishness or exploitation.
As I walked out of the Playhouse, into crowds happily looking forward to the weekend, I acknowledged a debt of thanks. The cast and crew have reminded me of the suffering of the families of Lockerbie, a suffering that has not yet ended.
What do you most want from documentary theatre? Information, emotion, enlightenment? During Michael Eaton’s take on the fallout since Lockerbie, set on a bare stage framed in a faint suggestion of twisted metal shards, the question hung in the air like the fumes of aviation fuel remembered too graphically by the families in 1988.
If you want painstaking journalism, here it is. Eaton — who wrote a 1990 documentary when the theory of Syrian guilt prevailed — takes pains. The programme offers a statement of intent, a timeline, and list of the dead. Much is verbatim clipboard-and-lectern work, using evidence and speeches to chart processes and politics which led to the trial of two Libyans by Scottish judges in the Netherlands, acquitting one and convicting Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who was released nine months ago with “three months to live”, fêted in Libya, and is now collaborating on a documentary affirming his innocence.
We knew all this. A dramatist’s question must be different: when does justice become mere revenge? When is mercy an insult to the victims? And when victims disagree, can they still stand together or is a fresh enmity born? We see two fictional families: British parents Geoffrey and Maureen (Robert Benfield and Joan Moon), and Laura (Jennifer Woodward), widow of a US Marine. They are brought together in a TV studio by a host (David Beckford). Other parts are taken by each with neat definition. At first they bond in grief; as years go by Laura becomes a shrill Republican militarist, Geoffrey forensically doubtful about al-Megrahi’s guilt, and Maureen gently grieves without her boy.
They are to some extent caricatures (surely some American families are liberal, some British victims angrier). Before any theatrical judgment I must record that some relatives object to the play. Even if it were an artistic triumph, it is their right to dislike it. This was mass murder. You can argue that such wickedness deserves no better than to die in prison in a strange land. The quandary of compassion and recovery, therefore, should be the engine of the play.
In the last eight of its unbroken 105 minutes, that finally happens. “My husband would want me to fight!” rages Laura. “My son would want the truth” says Geoffrey. And Maureen, “My son would want me to forgive.” Their final, antiphonal speeches are moving and right; the self-exculpatory statement of al-Megrahi a raw coda. But I would have liked more character, more philosophy, more imagined argument and less verbatim prose. A Hare or Frayn or Stoppard propels history into universality. This author remains too much the documentarist. But in the final moments, he showed what he could have done, and maybe will.
[The following is an excerpt from a review by Ian Charles Douglas on the Guide2Nottingham website:]
Some subjects defy criticism. And this act of mass murder is among them. For those of us old enough to remember, we remember it vividly. We remember where we were when we learned of the disaster, who told us, and the cold chill that slipped into our hearts.
Thankfully then, it’s in the safe hands of Michael Eaton, one of Nottingham’s most experienced scribes and well known for television works such as Shipman and Signs and Wonders.
Lockerbie, as he reminds us, was a turning point. The Cold War was ending and a new age of terrorism was upon us. And with it came a new style of international justice, or rather the lack of it. Worse, the ones left behind, the bereaved, became pawns in what Kipling called the Great Game, the struggle for control of the Middle East. (...)
The cast of four have to step into many shoes, not only the families, but journalists, politicians, judges, suspects and diplomats. Full credit then to the actors, jumping from accent to accent, juggling their roles with ease. David Beckford, as the interviewer, does a great job of holding together the threads of the story. Jennifer Woodward is Laura, the American wife who meets Geoffrey (Robert Benfield) and Maureen (Joan Moon) the English parents among the wrecked fuselage.
At first they become companions in sorrow. But as long years pass, a gulf as wide as the ocean separating our two countries opens between them. Anger erupts, following upon the heels of their great loss, numbing the pain and filling the void. Will they reconnect and together make some sort of sense to their loss, however heartrending?
But alongside this question there are so many more. Was there a conspiracy? Were the Iranians involved? Did our noble leaders give into the needs of the oil business? Was the convicted man an innocent scapegoat or a mass-murderer? Should he have faced the death penalty?
These very serious and never more relevant issues are brought to life in a kind of fictionalised docudrama. The production bravely confronts terrible truths, without a single drop of mawkishness or exploitation.
As I walked out of the Playhouse, into crowds happily looking forward to the weekend, I acknowledged a debt of thanks. The cast and crew have reminded me of the suffering of the families of Lockerbie, a suffering that has not yet ended.
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Gadaffi to pay £2bn to victims of IRA bombs
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]
The Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi is to pay up to £2 billion to victims of Irish terrorism for his role in supplying shiploads of explosives to the IRA.
About £800m will go directly to victims of the violence. First in line will be the 147 families of those caught in atrocities in which Semtex, the plastic explosive supplied by Libya, was used. (...)
A trade deal between Britain and Libya is also expected to be part of the historic settlement. Gadaffi is seeking to present the payment as a goodwill gesture and is not expected to admit liability.
Semtex supplied by Gadaffi’s regime was used by the IRA in at least 10 atrocities, including the bombing of Harrods in 1983 and Enniskillen in 1987. The Real IRA used it at Omagh in 1998, killing 29 people and injuring 220. It was used in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 at Lockerbie, when 270 were killed, for which Libya has paid over £5m to each family.
The negotiations were given new impetus last September when The Sunday Times revealed that Gordon Brown was refusing to put Britain’s diplomatic muscle behind the victims’ claim against Libya for fear of harming trade.
A source close to the talks said: “Gadaffi can now make a major humanitarian gesture which will end the legal actions and build diplomatic and business relations with the UK.” (...)
An additional £314m could be added if the US government agrees to co-operate. This money is left over from an earlier $1.5 billion compensation package for American victims of Libyan-sponsored terrorism, including the Lockerbie bombing. Families received more than £5m each and it is suggested that similar amounts can be paid to American victims of IRA terrorism, or Irish-born casualties who moved to America.
Politicians will be briefed on Wednesday about progress in the talks. A Foreign Office spokeswoman said: “We believe success can be achieved through the direct contacts which we have helped establish between the campaign and the Libyan authorities.”
The Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi is to pay up to £2 billion to victims of Irish terrorism for his role in supplying shiploads of explosives to the IRA.
About £800m will go directly to victims of the violence. First in line will be the 147 families of those caught in atrocities in which Semtex, the plastic explosive supplied by Libya, was used. (...)
A trade deal between Britain and Libya is also expected to be part of the historic settlement. Gadaffi is seeking to present the payment as a goodwill gesture and is not expected to admit liability.
Semtex supplied by Gadaffi’s regime was used by the IRA in at least 10 atrocities, including the bombing of Harrods in 1983 and Enniskillen in 1987. The Real IRA used it at Omagh in 1998, killing 29 people and injuring 220. It was used in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 at Lockerbie, when 270 were killed, for which Libya has paid over £5m to each family.
The negotiations were given new impetus last September when The Sunday Times revealed that Gordon Brown was refusing to put Britain’s diplomatic muscle behind the victims’ claim against Libya for fear of harming trade.
A source close to the talks said: “Gadaffi can now make a major humanitarian gesture which will end the legal actions and build diplomatic and business relations with the UK.” (...)
An additional £314m could be added if the US government agrees to co-operate. This money is left over from an earlier $1.5 billion compensation package for American victims of Libyan-sponsored terrorism, including the Lockerbie bombing. Families received more than £5m each and it is suggested that similar amounts can be paid to American victims of IRA terrorism, or Irish-born casualties who moved to America.
Politicians will be briefed on Wednesday about progress in the talks. A Foreign Office spokeswoman said: “We believe success can be achieved through the direct contacts which we have helped establish between the campaign and the Libyan authorities.”
Friday, 11 June 2010
BP, the UK Government and Megrahi
[The following is an excerpt from an article in today's edition of The Guardian:]
Lord Jones, a government trade ambassador and former trade minister, has accused David Cameron of failing to stand up for Britain after the prime minister said he understood the US government's frustration over the BP Gulf of Mexico disaster.
BP's shares tumbled almost 7% to a 13-year low on fears that the US department of justice could block the company's dividend due next month.
Speaking to the Guardian, Jones said Cameron should have been more forthright in defending British interests, particularly pension funds, since BP's dividend traditionally makes up more than a 10th of all payouts by UK companies.
"This is not about trying to come to BP's defence but for the US to understand there are more people to blame," he said. "Pension fund beneficiaries will be saying 'Are you standing up for us Mr Cameron?' It's not 'We are hoping for a favour for BP' but '[Are you] standing up for Britain?'" (...)
BP has traditionally had a close relationship with the government. Last year it emerged that ministers had supported the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, following lobbying by BP which was concerned a £500m oil deal with the Libyan government was at risk.
Cameron's refusal to defend BP contrasts with calls from British business leaders and London's mayor Boris Johnson for the White House to tone down its attacks. Johnson accused President Obama's government of "anti-British rhetoric", warning that the near 50% slump in BP's share price since the spill was bad news for UK pensioners.
Lord Jones, a government trade ambassador and former trade minister, has accused David Cameron of failing to stand up for Britain after the prime minister said he understood the US government's frustration over the BP Gulf of Mexico disaster.
BP's shares tumbled almost 7% to a 13-year low on fears that the US department of justice could block the company's dividend due next month.
Speaking to the Guardian, Jones said Cameron should have been more forthright in defending British interests, particularly pension funds, since BP's dividend traditionally makes up more than a 10th of all payouts by UK companies.
"This is not about trying to come to BP's defence but for the US to understand there are more people to blame," he said. "Pension fund beneficiaries will be saying 'Are you standing up for us Mr Cameron?' It's not 'We are hoping for a favour for BP' but '[Are you] standing up for Britain?'" (...)
BP has traditionally had a close relationship with the government. Last year it emerged that ministers had supported the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, following lobbying by BP which was concerned a £500m oil deal with the Libyan government was at risk.
Cameron's refusal to defend BP contrasts with calls from British business leaders and London's mayor Boris Johnson for the White House to tone down its attacks. Johnson accused President Obama's government of "anti-British rhetoric", warning that the near 50% slump in BP's share price since the spill was bad news for UK pensioners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)