[What follows is the text of a report on the BBC News website:]
The new US ambassador to Britain, Matthew Barzun, said there remained real anger in America that the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was released from a Scottish prison.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was convicted of killing 270 people when Pan Am flight 103 was blown up over the south of Scotland town 25 years ago, was freed from prison in 2009 on compassionate grounds because of cancer.
But Mr Barzun told BBC Scotland's political editor Brian Taylor that he bonds of friendship between America and Scotland far transcended the Lockerbie atrocity.
[Is it a requirement of obtaining Senate approval of the appointment of an ambassador to the Court of St James that the nominee should be an idiot?
This story has now been picked up in the Embassy Row column of The Washington Times, where a slightly longer version of the ambassador's comments appear.]
The new US ambassador to Britain, Matthew Barzun, said there remained real anger in America that the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was released from a Scottish prison.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was convicted of killing 270 people when Pan Am flight 103 was blown up over the south of Scotland town 25 years ago, was freed from prison in 2009 on compassionate grounds because of cancer.
But Mr Barzun told BBC Scotland's political editor Brian Taylor that he bonds of friendship between America and Scotland far transcended the Lockerbie atrocity.
[Is it a requirement of obtaining Senate approval of the appointment of an ambassador to the Court of St James that the nominee should be an idiot?
This story has now been picked up in the Embassy Row column of The Washington Times, where a slightly longer version of the ambassador's comments appear.]
"Is it a requirement of obtaining Senate approval of the appointment of an ambassador to the Court of St James that the nominee should be an idiot?"
ReplyDeleteOf course not. It is just listed under "preferred" advantages.
- - -
It caused quite a bit of amusement for some of us when the Thai government some years ago in full-page ad in Bangkok Post under "Requirements" for a job description listed the following:
"- The applicant must be completely sane."
Strangely, this completely sensible demand was never repeated.
Some people say that it prevented to many people already working for the government from applying for a new position.
Far beyond Germany's borders, the word "berufsverbot" - job-barring due to e.g. political conviction - is well known.
"On January 28, 1972, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt and the premiers of the states instituted the so-called Radikalenerlass (Anti-Radical Decree). Under this law, people who were considered to have radical views, especially if they were members of such parties, could be forbidden to work as civil servants"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berufsverbot
It is not official, but who'd be in doubt, that expressing any understanding for the problems around Megrahi's conviction effectively would disqualify any candidate for almost any British or American job, short of maybe sweeping the street?
What is worse? A dirty street or dirty justice? Your point of view will make no difference, as the sweepers so badly needed in the latter case are simply not invited in.
What else is new.