Deal done to get Megrahi to drop appeal

[What follows is the text of an article that appeared on the Channel 4 News website on this date in 2010:]

How does an ex-spy link BP, Libya and Lockerbie bomber? Who Knows Who investigates the key players at the heart of a growing transatlantic rift - from deals in the desert to the boardroom, via MI6.

The only man convicted in connection with the 1988 Lockerbie plane bombing over Scotland, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, was released in 2009 on compassionate grounds. He is terminally ill with prostate cancer.

He returned home, personally escorted by Saif Gaddafi, son of Libya's leader Colonel Gaddafi, to a hero's welcome in August 2009.

The celebrations sparked fury around the world and were condemned by President Obama and then prime minister Gordon Brown. Nearly a year on, al-Megrahi is still alive in Libya and his name is back in global headlines.

Thousands of miles away in the US, a group of senators has called for an inquiry into an admission by British energy giant BP that it lobbied UK ministers to get them to speed up the signing of a prisoner transfer agreement, in order to rescue an oil deal with Libya. BP insists it never lobbied about Mr al-Megrahi personally.

The witnesses the US politicians call could include Scotland's Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, former justice secretary Jack Straw, Lord Browne, the former BP chief executive, and Tony Blair.

So who sped up the process which may have led to al-Megrahi's release? What did Tony Blair agree at the "deal in the desert"? And what is the BP connection?

Shortly after al-Megrahi's return home, Britain's former "man in Tripoli" Sir Oliver Miles told Channel 4 News he believed a deal had been done between the UK and Libya, to get al-Megrahi to drop an appeal against his conviction.

The former UK ambassador to Libya said: "I think Tony Blair originally thought that he could deal with it quite simply by [sending] al-Megrahi back to Libya under the prisoner transfer agreement. It turned out it wasn't as simple as that."

One man who knows more than most about what took place is Sir Nigel Sheinwald - Britain's ambassador to the US since 2007. Once Blair's right-hand man, he has been at David Cameron's side throughout the new prime minister's first official US trip.

Sir Nigel previously served as an adviser on foreign policy to Blair. Libyan ministers and diplomats are said to refer to the "Nigel and Tony" double act.

In 2003, with US approval, he chaired the secret meetings in London with the Libyans that led to an easing of international relations with Colonel Gaddafi.

Intriguingly, Mr Cameron's coalition partner also has a connection to Gaddafi. Before entering parliament, Deputy PM Nick Clegg worked for a lobby firm called GJW. One of its clients was Libya and a key project is said to have been "improving the reputation" of its controversial leader.

Sir Nigel Sheinwald was at the heart of this rehabilitation of Libya in the eyes of the West. He was sitting next to Tony Blair at the now infamous meeting in Gaddafi's tent in 2004.

Sir Nigel was again at Blair's side in 2007 when a prisoner transfer agreement was struck. On the same day Blair looked on as BP boss Tony Hayward signed a provisional agreement over $900m gas and oil exploration rights in Libya. Both deals later stalled and al-Megrahi's ill-health was the official reason for his release.

Another key player, and a name which should interest the US senators, is Sir Mark Allen. He was in charge of the Middle East and Africa department at MI6 until he left in 2004 to become an adviser to BP.

It is known Sir Mark lobbied then justice secretary Jack Straw to speed up an agreement over prisoner transfers to avoid jeopardising a major trade deal with Libya.

He made two phone calls to Mr Straw - who later let slip Sir Mark's involvement to a select committee. He said: "I knew Sir Mark from my time at the Foreign Office - he has an extensive knowledge of Libya and the Middle East and I thought he was worth listening to."

Sir Mark, an Oxford graduate and a fan of falconry, has been credited with helping to persuade the Libyans to abandon development of weapons of mass destruction in 2003. He is said to have "charmed" Gaddafi out of his international isolation.

But has BP's influence been overplayed? Sir Oliver Miles, the former British ambassador, believes so. He says that the US senators, angry at the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster, are trying to "kick BP while it's down".

He said that Libya had signed deals not just with BP, but also with Shell and ExxonMobil - the three biggest energy firms in the world.

Speaking to Channel 4 News he added: "Libya knows the only way it can achieve a boost in oil production is by bringing in the world's biggest oil companies.

"You don't have to look for any dirty business to explain why they're doing business with BP."

First media hints of neutral venue Lockerbie trial

[On this date in 1998 a report headlined Lockerbie Suspects May Be Tried at World Court was published in The New York Times. It reads as follows (with a correction added online three days later):]

The United States and Britain may agree to allow a trial in the Hague, under Scottish law, for two Libyans accused of blowing up a Pan-Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, a United States Government official said tonight.

The official, who has followed international negotiations over what to do with the suspects, and who spoke on condition of anonymity, said talks about trying the suspects in the Hague, more formally known as the World Court, have been under way.

The United States and Britain have previously insisted that the suspects, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, be tried in Scotland or the United States. When Libya refused to allow the two to be extradited in 1992, Britain and the United States successfully pushed for United Nations sanctions against Libya. But support for the sanctions has withered in recent months, especially among African nations, and in February the World Court ruled that it had the authority to decide whether Libya had to surrender its two citizens for trial in another country.

Given the court's decision, a softening of positions in both London and Washington would not appear to be surprising, and The Guardian of London reported on Tuesday that a joint announcement by the British Foreign Office and Secretary of State Madeleine K Albright could come within a few days.

James P Rubin, a spokesman for the State Department, declined comment tonight on the report. The department's position is still that ''Libya must comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions and surrender the suspects for trial before United States or Scottish courts,'' he said. ''We continue to look for ways to achieve our objective. Beyond that, I can't comment on discussions with other governments.''

Mr Rubin's comments were remarkably similar to those of a British Foreign Office spokesman, who said, ''Our policy remains unchanged, and that is Libya must surrender the suspects for trial in Scotland or the US.''

The bombing of the Pan Am 747 jetliner over the tiny village of Lockerbie on Dec. 21, 1988, killed 270 people, including 11 villagers. An investigation concluded that the bombing was carried out by Libyan agents who put the explosive in a suitcase.

The Guardian reported that Britain and the United States may agree to a trial in the Hague, under Scottish law, with an international panel of judges presided over by a senior Scottish jurist appointed by London.

If that is indeed the arrangement, then the standoff would appear to be nearing resolution in Libya's favor, given its insistence on such terms.

Correction: July 24, 1998, Friday An article in some copies on Tuesday about a possible trial of two Libyans accused of blowing up a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 misstated a possible site for it. The men might indeed be tried in The Hague but not at the International Court of Justice, which is in that city.

[RB: The official announcement of the Lockerbie trial came just over one month later, on 24 August 1998.]

Stumbling along

[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined Stretched to the limits by John Forsyth that was published in The Scotsman on this date in 2009:]

In the courts, the second appeal by the man convicted of planting the bomb on Pan Am 103, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, appeared to stumble earlier this month. A decision was expected on grounds 1 and 2 of Megrahi's appeal on 7 July. Instead the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, stunned everyone present when he announced that one of the five judges, Lord Wheatley, had undergone heart surgery and would not be able to participate further until September.

Lord Hamilton was asked by defence counsel Maggie Scott, QC, to consider appointing a "shadow" judge to the bench in consideration of Megrahi's deteriorating health. It is understood he will nominate a "shadow" shortly.

The problem has been that even with 36 Senators of the College of Justice, its highest-ever membership, it is difficult to find another judge who has not been "cup tied" by participation in a previous Lockerbie-related case – the original Camp Zeist trial, the five-judge bench that rejected Megrahi's first appeal, a role in the original prosecution or involvement in the 1990-91 fatal accident inquiry.

Professor Robert Black says there is an alternative solution available to the Lord President founded in normal Scots law: "The statutory quorum of judges for hearing criminal appeals is normally three. There was never any technical reason why Megrahi's new appeal had to be heard before five judges. They obviously chose to do so because the original trial was before three judges and the first appeal before a bench of five. That was in itself unusual because the number was specified in terms of a special Order in Council. But that Order in Council no longer applies. It expired at the end of the first appeal."

Prof Black's solution is to nominate the junior of the remaining four judges on the bench as the "shadow" in case of further misfortune, allowing the original schedule to be resumed. In parallel to the appeal, there is a separate process initiated by the application lodged by the government of Libya under the prisoner transfer agreement signed with the UK government in November 2008.

Scottish ministers are bound by the agreement and required to consider transfer applications made under it. Megrahi is the only known Libyan presently in jail in the UK. The Scottish Government received an application from the Libyan government in respect of Megrahi on 5 May. Responsibility for considering the application has fallen to justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, who has to carry out a quasi-judicial role in assessing the merits of the competing arguments.

As part of the exercise, MacAskill invited families of the US victims to take part in a video link consultation last week. The president of US Victims of Pan Am 103, retired lawyer Frank Duggan, says about eight family representatives were present in Washington and a similar number in New York. (...)

[Mr Duggan said] "It was very, very difficult and we were all blubbering. I got the impression Mr MacAskill was listening very carefully. Of course, he couldn't make comments, as that would compromise his role, but he was clearly going about his job properly."

Stephanie Bernstein, a recently-ordained Rabbi in Washington, says: "This decision for Mr MacAskill is very difficult, but very important."

Mr Duggan dismisses stories that said the US families had taken legal advice that would underpin an application for immediate judicial review should Mr MacAskill decided to grant the Libyan government application. "That is completely wrong," he says. "We haven't sought such legal opinion, nor do we intend to. There's no suggestion of us raising judicial review – as a group we don't have standing in the Scots jurisdiction. It's not an option.

"Don't get me wrong: if Megrahi is sent back, we will raise hell. It was clear in all the correspondence between the US, UK and the United Nations, if anyone was convicted (at Camp Zeist], they would serve the whole sentence in Scotland. That was the deal."

In terms of the prisoner transfer agreement, Mr MacAskill has 90 days from the date of the Libyan application, 5 May, to reach a decision. The application cannot proceed while legal proceedings continue; Megrahi would have to abandon his appeal to activate the transfer.

The key decision might not be a legal one, however. Megrahi's medical condition might cut across both the appeal and prisoner transfer agreement. If medical opinion were to establish that he is seriously ill and close to death, Mr MacAskill could order his release on compassionate grounds. On that basis, Megrahi would be deemed to have served his sentence in terms of Scots law.

Mr Duggan says: "There are thousands of prisoners in US jails with cancer who serve many years with it. We don't want a horrible death in jail for anyone, but at his bail hearing, it was said he could live for another five years. I think we have more faith in the Scottish legal system than you appear to over there."

Lockerbie priest to retire

[This is the headline over a report in today’s edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

The Catholic priest who found himself at the centre of the Lockerbie disaster has been ordered by doctors to step down from the pulpit or permanently lose his voice.

Canon Patrick Keegans was the parish priest in the town in 1988 and lived on Sherwood Crescent, which was destroyed as sections of Pan Am flight 103 fell from the sky killing 11 people in the street, as well as all those in the plane.

His house was the only property on the street to be left largely unscathed. He later campaigned against the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. But in recent days the administrator of St Margaret’s cathedral in Ayr has been told by his consultant to rest his voice completely with immediate effect.

A statement on the cathedral website states: “The Canon’s vocal cords are damaged and he will lose his voice permanently if he does not follow the doctor’s advice. With rest his voice will heal, but it will not recover enough for him to engage in any public speaking. Canon Keegans, therefore, will be retiring from parish ministry.”

[What follows is taken from a report published this afternoon on the website of The Press and Journal:]

The Catholic priest of Lockerbie who survived when 11 neighbours were killed in the Pan Am 103 atrocity has been ordered by doctors to step down from the pulpit – or permanently lose his voice due to a throat problem.

Canon Patrick Keegans, 70, was widely praised for the tireless help he gave bereaved families in the aftermath of the disaster but is sadly now having to retire on health grounds. (...)

Canon Keegans was at home with his mother when the wreckage of the bombed flight obliterated nearly every other property in the Sherwood Crescent area of Lockerbie in December 1988. (...)

As Lockerbie’s then newly-appointed parish priest, the young Canon Keegans had the grim task of helping police to identify the bodies of dead parishioners in the days after the disaster.

In an act of defiance, he soon moved back into his home in the street to show that the people of Lockerbie could cope with the effects of the tragedy.

Like many of the families of those on board the flight, he later opposed the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi for carrying out the attack and believed him to be an innocent scapegoat.

Canon Keegans is still in regular touch with the families affected by the disaster.

He said: “Lockerbie has always been and will remain part of my life forever. I’m still involved with the families both here and in America.

“I was very keen to see justice done but I think the authorities were so desperate to convict Megrahi and were too quick to dismiss other avenues of investigation.

“I love Lockerbie but I couldn’t live there forever, the disaster would have controlled my life and I couldn’t allow it to do that.”

Feraday’s legacy

[On this date in 2005 Hassan Assali’s explosives conviction was quashed by the English Court of Appeal. His conviction in 1985 was founded on evidence given by Allen Feraday. What follows is a comment that appeared during the Zeist trial on the website edited by Ian Ferguson and me:]

As one of the Crown's key witnesses gave his testimony this week in Camp Zeist at the trial of the two Libyans accused of the bombing of Pan Am 103, one man, Hassan Assali watched news reports with interest as Allen Feraday took the witness stand.

Assali, 48, born in Libya but who has lived in the United Kingdom since 1965, was convicted in 1985 and sentenced to nine years. He was charged under the 1883 Explosives Substances Act, namely making electronic timers.

The Crown's case against Assali depended largely on the evidence of one man, Allen Feraday. Feraday concluded that the timers in question had only one purpose, to trigger bombs.

While in Prison Assali, met John Berry, who had also been convicted of selling timers and the man responsible for leading the Crown evidence against Berry was once again, Feraday. Again Feraday contended that the timers sold by Berry could have only one use, terrorist bombs.

With Assali's help Berry successfully appealed his conviction, using the services of a leading forensic expert and former British Army electronic warfare officer, Owen Lewis.

Assali's case is currently before the [English] Criminal Cases Review Commission, the CCRC. It has been there since 1997. Assali believes that his case might be delayed deliberately, as he stated to the Home Secretary, Jack Straw in a fax in February 1999: "I feel that my case is being neglected or put on the back burner for political reasons."

Assali believes that if his case is overturned on appeal during the Lockerbie trial it will be a further huge blow to Feraday's credibility and ultimately the Crown's case against the Libyans.

There is no doubt that a number of highly qualified forensic scientists do not care for the highly "opinionated" type of testimony, which is a hall mark of many of Feraday's cases.

He has been known, especially in cases involving timers to state in one case that the absence of a safety device makes it suitable for terrorists and then in another claim that the presence of a safety device proves the same, granted that the devices were different, but it is the most emphatic way in which he testifies that his opinions are "facts", that worries forensic scientists and defence lawyers.

In his report on Feraday's evidence in the Assali case, Owen Lewis states, "It is my view that Mr. Feraday's firm and unwavering assertion that the timing devices in the Assali case were made for and could have no other purpose than the triggering of IED's is most seriously flawed, to the point that a conviction which relied on such testimony must be open to grave doubt."

A host of other scientists, all with vastly more qualifications than Feraday concurred with Owen Lewis.

A report by Michael Moyes, a highly qualified electronics engineer and former Squadron Leader in the RAF, concluded that "there is no evidence that we are aware that the timers of this type have ever been found to be used for terrorist purposes. Moreover the design is not suited to that application."

Moyes was also struck by the similarity in the Berry and Assali case, in terms of the Feraday evidence.

In setting aside Berry's conviction in the appeal Court, Lord Justice Taylor described Feraday's evidence as "dogmatic".

This week in the Lockerbie trial, Feraday exhibited that same attitude when questioned by Richard Keen QC.

Keen asked Feraday about Lord Justice Taylor's remarks on his evidence, but Feraday, dogmatically, said he stands by his evidence in the Berry case.

He was further challenged over making contemporaneous notes on items of evidence he examined. Asked if he was certain that he had made those notes at the time, he said yes. When shown the official police log book which showed that some of the items Feraday had claimed to have examined had in actual fact been destroyed or returned to their owner before he claimed to examined them, his response, true to his dogmatic evidence was the police logs were wrong.

Under cross-examination though, it did become clear that Feraday completed a report for John Orr who was leading the police Lockerbie investigation and in that report he stated he was,  "Completely satisfied that the Lockerbie bomb had been contained inside a white Toshiba RT 8016 or 8026 radio-cassette player", and not, as he now testifies, "inside a black Toshiba RT SF 16 model."

As recently as May [2000], the leading civil liberties solicitor, Ms Gareth Peirce, told the Irish Times that the Lockerbie trial should be viewed with a questioning eye as lessons learned from other cases showed that scientific conclusions were not always what they seemed.

Speaking in Dublin Castle at an international conference on forensic science, Ms Peirce said she observed with interest the opening of the Lockerbie trial and some of the circumstances which, she said, had in the view of the prosecution dramatically affected the case.

She asked herself questions particularly relating to circuit boards which featured in the Lockerbie case and also in a case that she took on behalf of Mr. Danny McNamee, whose conviction for conspiracy to cause explosions in connection with the Hyde Park bombings (another case in which Feraday testified) was eventually quashed. She asked herself whether the same procedures were involved.

Danny McNamee may be the most recent Feraday case to be overturned, Hassan Assali believes his case will be the next.

[RB: As mentioned above, Assali’s conviction was quashed on 19 July 2005. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, stated that Allen Feraday “should not be allowed to present himself as an expert in the field of electronics”.]

Ulrich Lumpert’s recantation

[It was on this date in 2007 that Ulrich Lumpert, a former employee of Mebo Ltd in Zürich who had given evidence at the Zeist trial about MST-13 timers, swore an affidavit to the effect that his evidence had been false. An English translation of the affidavit can be read here. What follows is a comment that I made at the time:]

Ulrich Lumpert, an engineer at one time employed by MEBO in Zürich, gave evidence at the Lockerbie trial that a fragment of circuit board allegedly found amongst the aircraft debris (and which was absolutely crucial to the prosecution contention that the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103 was linked to Libya) was part of an operative MST-13 timer manufactured by MEBO. In an affidavit sworn in Switzerland in July 2007 (available on the website www.lockerbie.ch) Lumpert now states that the fragment produced in court was in fact part of a non-operational demonstration circuit board that he himself had removed from the premises of MEBO and had handed over to a Lockerbie investigator on 22 June 1989 (six months AFTER the destruction of Pan Am 103).

If this is true, then it totally demolishes the prosecution version of how the aircraft was destroyed, as well, of course, as demonstrating deliberate fabrication of evidence laid before the court.

Every delaying tactic in the book

[What follows is an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2008:]

Justice delayed...

More than a year has passed since the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Abdelbaset Megrahi’s case back to the Criminal Appeal Court on the basis that his conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. More than nine months have passed since the first procedural hearing in the new appeal was held. More than six months have passed since the appellant’s full written grounds of appeal were lodged with the court.

Why has no date yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeal? Why does it now seem impossible that the appeal can be heard and a judgement delivered by the twentieth anniversary of the disaster on 21 December 2008?

The answer is simple: because the Crown, in the person of the Lord Advocate, and the United Kingdom Government, in the person of the Advocate General for Scotland, have been resorting to every delaying tactic in the book (and where a particular obstructionist wheeze isn’t in the book, have been asking the court to rewrite the book to insert it). The judges on a number of occasions have expressed disquiet at the Crown’s dilatoriness; but have so far done nothing meaningful to curb it. This must end. The delay is becoming scandalous. The reputation of Scotland’s criminal justice system is being further tarnished in the eyes of the world.

And all the while a man languishes in Greenock Prison. I have never made any bones about my view that the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi on the evidence led at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands is the worst Scottish miscarriage of justice in the past one hundred years, indeed since the conviction of Oscar Slater. But even those who do not share my views, or who are neutral on the issue, would surely accept that the delay in bringing the new appeal to a hearing on the merits is beginning to look cruel and unconscionable.

It is up to the judges to start cracking the whip. The words of Francis Bacon in his essay “Of Judicature” are perhaps worth recalling:

“A judge ought to prepare his way to a just sentence, as God useth to prepare his way, by raising valleys and taking down hills: so when there appeareth on either side an high hand, … cunning advantages taken, combination, power, … then is the virtue of a judge seen, to make inequality equal; that he may plant his judgment as upon an even ground.”

[RB: Had the mills of the Scottish criminal justice system not ground so outrageously slowly, Abdelbaset Megrahi’s appeal could have been heard and his conviction quashed before his prostate cancer was diagnosed. The Crown Office, the UK Government and the High Court of Justiciary have much to be ashamed of over this aspect of the Lockerbie fiasco as over many others.]

"Sent to lie abroad for the good of his country"

[The following is excerpted from an item posted on this blog on this date in 2010:]

Sheinwald: mistake to free Lockerbie bomber

[What follows is an Agence France Presse news agency report:]

The government believes that the decision by Scotland to free the Lockerbie bomber was a mistake, London's envoy to the United States said Thursday.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi is the only person convicted of the 1988 bombing of a US Pan Am jumbo jet over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, which left 270 people dead.

"The new British government is clear that Megrahi's release was a mistake," ambassador Nigel Sheinwald said, stressing that under the country's laws power over justice issues have been devolved to Scotland.

Megrahi was released from jail in Scottish prison in August 2009 on compassionate grounds because he was said to be suffering from terminal cancer and had only three months to live. Reports have now emerged that he could live at least another 10 years.

On Tuesday, four US senators also called for an inquiry into allegations that energy giant BP lobbied the British government to free Megrahi in order to protect a lucrative oil deal with Libya.

[The ambassador to Washington DC, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, was Foreign Policy and Defence Adviser to the prime minister, Tony Blair, from 2003 to 2007. It is a matter for mild cynical amusement that Sheinwald was present at, and intimately involved in, the negotiation of the deal in the desert which was intended to pave the way for Abdelbaset Megrahi's early repatriation under a prisoner transfer agreement. The UK negotiators did not realise that the power to allow transfer would rest, not with the UK but with the Scottish, Government. Or if the negotiators did realise this, they signally failed to inform their Libyan counterparts, to the disgust of the latter when they discovered [RB: from me] what the true position was.]

A domestic and international embarrassment

[What follows is the text of a letter written to Kenny MacAskill, Cabinet Secretary for Justice, on this date in 2009 by Steven Raeburn, editor of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm:]

The Firm magazine recently ran a poll of its readers, which found that 86% of respondents supported a public inquiry into the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie.

A copy of the news story which ran in the July issue of the magazine is appended below for your reference, and a copy of the magazine is enclosed.

I can add that solicitors and advocates, in addition to the general public, have frequently and consistently expressed to me their despair at the damage that has been inflicted upon the law of Scotland by this case. No doubt you are already aware that the Scots legal system was once rightly regarded as among the best and most effective in the world. Regardless of its present efficacy, it is now regarded both domestically and (especially) internationally as an embarrassment, principally because of the damning reflection cast upon it by the passage of the Lockerbie case through it.

On behalf of the readers of The Firm – including over 10,000 solicitors and 500 or so advocates who wish to see the reputation of Scots law restored and be certain the legal system they work for and within is a source of pride to them, and not of shame- I am duty bound to ask for you to address their wishes for a public inquiry. Like them, it is my fervent wish that the legal system of Scotland, and those who work within it, can be certain that the law which is applied in their name is done so honourably and with full accountability, devoid of the stains and shadows that this case has thrown upon it.

The reason this case refuses to go away is simply because the answers provided by the judicial process have failed to satisfy the public interest on one hand, and those directly affected by these events on the other. Whilst one bad case cannot be fairly described as representative of all that goes on in Scots law, that one bad case is nevertheless a valid reflection of what our legal system is capable of achieving, and there is a large constituency of the public who are not satisfied with that conclusion.

For my own part, I will simply state that the first step to repairing any damage is to understand how it was caused. A full inquiry may begin to shed the necessary light that will allow repairs to be effected. In the interests of accountability, and on behalf of the readers of The Firm, I ask you to let me have your response and proposals for action.

As a journalist, I constantly remind myself of the words of the great Edward R Murrow, who noted that just because my voice is amplified to the degree that it reaches from one end of the country to the other, it does not confer upon me greater wisdom or understanding than I possessed when it reached only from one end of the bar to the other. What my journalistic reach does impose upon me however, is a correspondingly amplified duty to use my free speech responsibly, and I therefore cannot in good conscience offer any voice to the readers of The Firm if I do not take forward their legitimate concerns and, where necessary, act upon them. If I felt otherwise, I should simply publish cartoons instead. Justice must be done, even tho’ the heavens may fall. If you and I cannot do our best to achieve that, then both of us are in the wrong jobs.

I, and those 86%, look forward to hearing from you.