wellyman Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 How do you feel about Who knows. There are lots of deals done behind closed doors for the advantage of our country. I haven't got the details so I won't condemn anyone. I doubt that anyone in government acted in any way that wasn't in our best interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandie Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 How do you feel about this? In 2009 Gordon Brown said Where is the proof and what is your point. You want to look at newspaper reports, come back when you have proof and untill then you can make comments and accusations. "It says India on bus tyres but they dont go there". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Where is the proof In the admission. If someone admits to having done something, that constitutes proof that they did it - unless we're talking someone with severe delusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandie Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 In the admission. If someone admits to having done something, that constitutes proof that they did it - unless we're talking someone with severe delusions. Who has made an admission that Westminster had a hand in the release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordChaverly Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 It would be enough, if that was all the information available. However there are numerous other details that don't add up. Dr Hans Köchler, one of the UN observers at the trial called it a "spectacular miscarriage of justice". Köchler is a philosopher, not a judge or legal expert, and we all know that most philosophers are barking mad. I suspect he is attempting to take on Betrand Russell's role as as a roving peacenik and sage of all good global causes. Everything he writes on global issues reeks of self-importance and of self-promotion. I don't give much credence to anything he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funky_Gibbon Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Are we surprised? Labour dealt with the IRA's mass murderers by releasing some and giving others seats in Parliament. The continuation of 30-odd years of violence and murder was preferable in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Köchler is a philosopher, not a judge or legal expert, and we all know that most philosophers are barking mad. I suspect he is attempting to take on Betrand Russell's role as as a roving peacenik and sage of all good global causes. Everything he writes on global issues reeks of self-importance and of self-promotion. I don't give much credence to anything he says. What has got to you about his comments on the trial that has pushed you to make such vitriolic sweeping generalisations? You almost sound like an anti-intellectual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 If there was any political mileage to be obtained from this by showing Labour had anything to do with his early release, Double-Dip Dave Cameron would be on it like a ton of bricks. He has ruled out a public enquiry. David Cameron has condemned Megrahi's release all along, he's no need to make any political capital, his stance on the issue has not changed and has always been known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 David Cameron has condemned Megrahi's release all along, he's no need to make any political capital, his stance on the issue has not changed and has always been known. If he thinks Labour have are responsible for a serious lack of judgement on the issue why has he ruled out a public enquiry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sausage Dog Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 The report on Radio 4 at tea time said that the Labour Government didn't want him to die here, but had no role in the Scottish Government's decision. It also said that Labour thought that any overtures to the SNP Governement might actually mean he wasn't released, as (I paraphrase) the SNP hate Labour, and would want to do them any favours. So from that angle, Labour ddn't aid his release, even though they wanted him free. I think there's a lot of hypocracy from Cameron on this. British Governments down the age have done this kind of thing in the interest of business, and what David Cameron calls the National Interest. In the days of the Cold War, they used to call it Real Politick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.