sheffield666 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 All I can say is "DISGUSTING" If I had my way he would still be in prison and the end of his life would be made as hard as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Having said all that, he was convicted in an independent court, so I cant find much sympathy for his early release. If he'd been acquitted on appeal fair enough, but he's been released before that eventuality. That's whats so utterly strange about the whole affair. The man has been convicted of carrying out the worst terrorist atrocity in the UK - ever - and he has been released early on compassionate grounds? The whole affair does not add up. I am looking forward to seeing Libyas reaction, and indeed the reaction from the families of the victims (especially the Americans, as they are more in the 'guilty, let him rot' camp) Like I said I will be amazed if this is over.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 That's whats so utterly strange about the whole affair. The man has been convicted of carrying out the worst terrorist atrocity in the UK - ever - and he has been released early on compassionate grounds? The whole affair does not add up. What he was convicted of is an irrelevance. He gets compassionate release because he is dying, not because of what crime he committed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sham.69er Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 What he was convicted of is an irrelevance. He gets compassionate release because he is dying, not because of what crime he committed. what compassion did he show to the 270 people that died due to his actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sham.69er Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 What he was convicted of is an irrelevance. He gets compassionate release because he is dying, not because of what crime he committed. shame poor old myra hindley wasn't released to enjoy her last few years a free woman isn't it :rolleyes::rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 what compassion did he show to the 270 people that died due to his actions? None whatsoever, and how is this supposed to be relevant? The question at issue is our compassion, not his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daven Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 He was convicted of the murder of 270 innocent people and he is shown compassion because his life is near it's end? It beggars belief . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 What he was convicted of is an irrelevance. He gets compassionate release because he is dying, not because of what crime he committed. Of course it is relevant. 270 people died that day. If the Scottish were so keen to see justice done they should have rushed his appeal through, and let any new evidence be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 i saw on the news this morning apparently theres been 30 applications for compassionate grounds in our prisons...and 23 have been freed. the only problem i have with people demanding he be left "to rot" in jail is the fact that theres evidence he COULD actually be innocent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 i saw on the news this morning apparently theres been 30 applications for compassionate grounds in our prisons...and 23 have been freed. the only problem i have with people demanding he be left "to rot" in jail is the fact that theres evidence he COULD actually be innocent Thats what is so interesting though. 270 dead, the Americans "outraged" and yet they release him. If they are so convinced of his guilt, they should have not released him, and adressed any points raised. If they think he could be innocent, they should bring any new evidence to light and do the job properly. Evidence that he could be guilty should NOT be grounds for compassionate release. It should be grounds for a new trial, a pardon, whatever. But not compassionate grounds. Like I said. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.