Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Nikkos

Justice for Scotland - Call for Resignation of Kenneth MacAs

Hi fellow scots!

please check out our Scottish petition against Kenneth MacAskill

http://www.gopetition.com/online/30555.html

Thank you very much for your time.
Dave Coull

This is odd. If you click that link, you get taken to a site which promises "Active petitions in over 75 countries", yet on that site for 75 countries this particular petition is supposedly addressed to "fellow Scots". The petition claims to be in the name of "the Scottish people", but if you look in the top right hand corner it states the number of people who have actually signed this petition so far: ONE........

Since, as well as opposing Kenny MacAskill over the release of Megrahi, the petition ALSO complains about the policing of prostitution in Aberdeen (surely a matter for the local cops, rather than the Justice Secretary), suddenly this begins to look as if it could be the handiwork of a certain very well known Aberdonian raving nutter......
Alasdair

I wholeheartedly support Mr McAskill, so you know, sod off.
skip

I also agree with his decision. Now that various official papers have been published it also looks as though the correct process was followed and that the various parties and experts each got access to the justice minister to state their view.

If people have an axe to grind I think they should target the legal system or try to get the legal system changed if they do not believe compassionate reasons as grounds for early release.  Removing Kenny MacAskill will achieve very little. The same decision could easily have been made again and again and again be his predecessors or successors.
Dave Coull

Quote:
he let Scotland down and embarrassed Scotland in front of the world
In what way is acting in accordance with the laws of Scotland, instead of in accordance with the very different laws of the USA, "letting Scotland down"? The main "embarrassment" was that a couple of Saltire flags were flown at Tripoli airport. You know, I've been wondering about that. Suppose I'm a Libyan citizen, living in Tripoli. Where on earth would I get a Scottish flag from? It's not as if all the touristy shops in Tripoli sell them. I have seen it suggested that these flags were in fact flown by the gardener for the British Embassy and one of his mates. Well, yes, I suppose it's possible the British Embassy might have access to a couple of Saltires. And I suppose, if the British Embassy's gardener wanted to go to the airport, they might let him have these. And it is VERY possible that's all the continually repeated television footage is based on.

A crowd of about a hundred people at Tripoli airport is not an "official welcome". Megrahi's own family is large enough to account for about half of that! Plus a few former workmates, plus word got out and some other folk turned up out of curiosity, plus the media. Hardly a mass reception. If I remember correctly, about as many folk as turned up at the airport when Scottish "terrorist" Stuart Christie was returned from jail in Spain.
Dave Coull

skip wrote:
If people have an axe to grind I think they should target the legal system or try to get the legal system changed if they do not believe compassionate reasons as grounds for early release.  Removing Kenny MacAskill will achieve very little. The same decision could easily have been made again and again and again be his predecessors or successors.
Exactly. That's what is so hypocritical about attacks by MSPs who are members of the Labour Party or the Lib Dems.
THEY  WOULD  HAVE  DONE  THE  SAME  THING. Since the year 2000, under both the present administration and the previous Labour/LibDem one, there have been 31 applications for compassionate release by terminally ill prisoners in Scotland. All but 7 of these were granted. The 7 that were refused, were refused because they did not fulfill the criteria as judged by the relevant professionals (doctors, prison governors, parole board). Megrahi's application was granted because it DID fulfill all of the criteria. There would simply have been absolutely no precedent for refusing an application for compassionate release by a terminally ill prisoner whose application had the backing of prison governors, parole board, and doctors. Kenny MacAskill came under very heavy pressure to refuse the application, including from Hilary Clinton and President Obama, but, in the end, he took the view that justice was supposed to be separate from politics, and his responsibility within the laws of Scotland was clear. If the outcry against Kenny MacAskill were to succeed, if he was forced to resign as Justice Secretary, then any replacement for him would be somebody who, whatever they might say now, would probably have had to do the same thing in the same circumstances.

Under the laws of Scotland,  the Justice Secretary, and the Justice Secretary alone (not the Scottish government as a whole) has to decide on applications for compassionate release. And although MSPs from the Labour, LibDem, and Tory parties carried a motion criticising MacAskill,
NOT  ONE   SINGLE  MSP called for him to resign.

Anybody who disagrees with the idea of compassionate release of terminally ill prisoners should be campaigning to change the laws of Scotland, not campaigning to change the Justice Secretary.
Dave Coull

As well as being about the release of Megrahi, this petition also wants Kenny MacAskill to resign because of
Quote:
'kerb crawling laws' that have harmed Aberdeen as the tolerance zone can no longer be allowed this has pushed prostitute towards the city center and actually increased prostitution and the dangers for prostitutes.
Now, I admit I'm not as familiar with what is happening to Aberdonian prostitutes and their clients as the author of this petition. However, I wouldn't be in favour of anything which makes that already very risky profession more dangerous. But I'm really not sure what, if anything, this has to do with Kenny MacAskill.

Even if it does have something to do with him in some way which isn't clear, it seems stupid to link this with the Megrahi release. After all, there are probably some folk who strongly disagree with the Megrahi release, but are in favour of laws against "kerb crawling". And there are probably some folk who agree with the Megrahi release, but are against  measures which increase the dangers for prostitutes.  So    -    what is the point of linking these two very different things?
Stevie

If Magrahi is innocent, then it's a good decision but in any case KM has a right to take this decision.

I find the celebrations about his release in Libya irrelevant.

I just wonder what the polls will be for the SNP in the wake of his decision.
The Lithgae Jambo

Bravehand wrote:
If Magrahi is innocent, then it's a good decision but in any case KM has a right to take this decision.

I find the celebrations about his release in Libya irrelevant.

I just wonder what the polls will be for the SNP in the wake of his decision.


The latest poll about the decision which was published in the Herald yesterday showed 45% in favour and 45% against.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/n...acaskills_decision_on_megrahi.php
The Lithgae Jambo

There's been a HUGE response to the MacAskill petition - all of FIVE signatories with the last being from R U Serious.  I'm sure Kenny is quaking in his boots.


http://www.gopetition.com/petitio...kenneth-macaskill/signatures.html
Dave Coull

Bravehand wrote:
If Magrahi is innocent, then it's a good decision
Kenny MacAskill's decision wasn't that Megrahi is "innocent". His decision was made on the basis that although this prisoner had been found guilty of a terrible crime, he was now terminally ill, and his application for compassionate release was backed by medical opinion, by the prison governor, and by the parole board. Kenny MacAskill (quite rightly) took the view that he had a legal responsibility to show compassion even if Megrahi was guilty as charged.

Having said that, a lot of people, including many of the relatives of the Lockerbie victims, have very serious doubt about Megrahi's guilt. Oh, he's no saint. He was a secret agent of the Libyan government. Agents of the British government (according to the James Bond books, written by a man who was himself a government agent) are "licensed to kill", and there is no reason to doubt the same applies to Libya. But there is doubt about Megrahi's conviction for this particular crime. And if he didn't do it, that means the real culprits are still at large. Dr Jim Swire and other relatives of the Lockerbie victims have been calling for a full public enquiry into ALL of the events concerned with the Lockerbie outrage. The Scottish Government simply doesn't have the power to hold such a public enquiry, but Kenny MacAskill has said he would gladly take part if the UK (or the USA) held one. The British government isn't keen on the idea, and neither is the USA, but that call for a full public enquiry deserves to be supported.

The accusation has been made publicly that one of the real suspects is alive and well and living in Washington DC. The suspect was named as Basil Bushnaq, alias Abu Elias, an employee of the US schools division. This was stated in the Scottish Parliament by Christine Grahame MSP. The suggestion was that not only was Abu Elias (Basil Bushnaq, nowadays of Washington DC) at one time a member of a terrorist organisation, namely the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (General Command), but that he was also the nephew of the leader of the PFLPGC, Ahmed Jibril, and that he was acting on his Uncle Ahmed's orders. Mr Bushnaq himself was contacted by Channel 4 news, and he told them "It has been brought to my attention that she (Christine Grahame) has been repeating allegations against my name. I suggest that she stops this unless she has solid legal ground. It is not advisable to (go) recklessly slandering others, especially when this comes from MSP".

That accusation may or may not be justified. It most certainly ought to be PUBLICLY investigated. I stress "publicly" because, if, as has been suggested, Abu Elias/Basil Bushnaq later became a CIA "asset", then there will be plenty of people in powerful positions with a vested interest in covering things up.

The PFLPGC was based in Syria, but, significantly, it also had the support of the government of Iran.  So, why would the CIA and others have been keen on investigating a Libyan connection, not a Syrian/Iranian connection? Because, AT  THE  TIME  OF  THE  INVESTIGATIONS, the USA's number one enemy was Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and both Syria and Iran were seen as possible allies in that. So, from a foreign policy point of view, an alleged Libyan connection was more convenient.

As for motive, in July 1988 an Iranian passenger plane containing 290 men, women and children was on its regular, scheduled flight to Dubai, when it was shot down by missiles fired from the USS Vincennes. All two hundred and ninety people on board, including 66 young children, were killed. Despite being described by other American military men as "far too aggressive" and "far too hasty", the Captain who made that dreadful decision had a medal pinned on his chest by the President of the USA when his ship was welcomed back to San Diego, California.

As a result of the murder of so many Iranian children, women, and men, Ayatollah Khomeini himself promised that "the skies would rain blood" in revenge. Just five months later, PAN AM 103 was bombed, killing 243 passengers and 16 crew members, and 11 inhabitants of the small Scottish town of Lockerbie on which the plane fell.
Stevie

Very good post Dave.

And thanks LJ.
calum

I support MacAskill. George Foulkes and his e-petitions can get to...
Dave Coull

The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
There's been a HUGE response to the MacAskill petition - all of FIVE signatories with the last being from R U Serious.
Are You Serious (good question, by the way) didn't give a location, but three out of the other four signatories did. The very first signature was from a Mr Gleeson (son of glee ?) of Luton, Bedfordshire. The addresses of the other two Fellow Scots who gave their location are in Hayes, Middlesex, and Reigate, Surrey.
Aventinian

I think MacAskill is a scoundrel, but in this particular situation I think he did his best after being placed in an awkward position. My only objection over the issue was the cringeworthy speech he gave.
Stevie

Why do you think he's a scoundrel?
The Lithgae Jambo

Bravehand wrote:

I just wonder what the polls will be for the SNP in the wake of his decision.



From  http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2529385.0.macaskill_under_pressure_to_release_megrahi_appeal_files.php

A new YouGov poll commissioned by the SNP suggests the Lockerbie row has failed to dent the party's appeal.

It puts the SNP on 36% and Labour 28% for the Holyrood constituency vote, compared to a one percentage point SNP lead in the 2007 election.

The SNP lead in the regional vote is 30% to 26%, compared to two points in 2007. If a Scottish election was held tomorrow, the SNP lead over Labour would increase from one seat to around five.


OK, it's YouGov obo the SNP, but taken with the 45% in favour / 45% againstg poll, I think it may be reliable.
Stevie

Thanks LJ, every time I try myself to find a poll on the net I never find the right one.

Any Westminster results?
Niall

Hello folks I am back from a long spell in hospital. Three heart attacks and a triple heart bypass operation.  My position is that MacAskill did the right thing in the Megrahi case. I have always had grave doubts about the safety of his conviction. Megrahi was in my opinion a patsy used by the CIA and the British SIS to cover up some nefarious dealings by the CIA. Remember the Arms for Iran and the Contras scandal? Col Oliver North's double dealings?  All at the same time and is it not highly suspicious that 4 CIA agaents who were about to lift the lid on an officially sanctioned drugs running operation were convenientlyon Pan Am 103?  Where the secret services of The US and UK are concerned I have grave suspicions about their activities and would not put it past them to commit such an atrocity to cover their tracks and blame an innocent man for the crime.
Dave Coull

In a discussion on Our Scotland, at the end of May/beginning of June, about the Barnett Formula, I wrote
Quote:
I was rather hoping we would hear from Niall. I think his last post here was in March. I'm getting a bit worried about him.
and today
Niall wrote:
Hello folks I am back from a long spell in hospital. Three heart attacks and a triple heart bypass operation.
Hello Niall, sorry to hear about the heart troubles, but Keri and me are both glad to hear you're still in the land of the living.
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:


Anybody who disagrees with the idea of compassionate release of terminally ill prisoners should be campaigning to change the laws of Scotland, not campaigning to change the Justice Secretary.


Didn't McAskell himself say that he made a 'moral' judgement?  That sort of subjectivity is more than enough to be calling for his resignation.
Aventinian

Bravehand wrote:
Why do you think he's a scoundrel?


Chiefly, his authoritarian views on all of my favourite vices; being a Scottish nationalist certainly does him no favours either.  Laughing
Dave Coull

I wrote:
Anybody who disagrees with the idea of compassionate release of terminally ill prisoners should be campaigning to change the laws of Scotland, not campaigning to change the Justice Secretary.
Fidget wrote:
Didn't McAskell himself say that he made a 'moral' judgement?  That sort of subjectivity is more than enough to be calling for his resignation.
Whether you like it or not, the laws of Scotland provide for the possibility of compassionate release of dying prisoners, and, so far, no political party has suggested changing the law regarding this. The Justice Secretary of Scotland was legally required to make some sort of judgement on an application for compassionate release which had the backing of the prison doctor, the prison governor, and the parole board. What sort of judgement do you think he should have made? Are you suggesting he should have made an immoral judgement? Or an a-moral judgement?
Fidget

I think he should've made the right judgement, not a judgement based on what he perceives as moral.  In fact, his decision to release him was immoral if anything because anybody who feels a moral obligation to release the mass murder of 270 people isn't fit to be Justice Secretary. Maybe he should change his title to Moral Secretary.
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
Didn't McAskell himself say that he made a 'moral' judgement?  That sort of subjectivity is more than enough to be calling for his resignation.
I wrote:
Whether you like it or not, the laws of Scotland provide for the possibility of compassionate release of dying prisoners, and, so far, no political party has suggested changing the law regarding this. The Justice Secretary of Scotland was legally required to make some sort of judgement on an application for compassionate release which had the backing of the prison doctor, the prison governor, and the parole board. What sort of judgement do you think he should have made? Are you suggesting he should have made an immoral judgement? Or an a-moral judgement?
Fidget wrote:
I think he should've made the right judgement
"Right" in what sense?

In the sense of being in accordance with Scottish law? It was.

In the sense of being politically popular? The Justice Secretary isn't supposed to take that into consideration.

The only other possible meaning of "right" that could apply    in this context    is the moral one.
Fidget wrote:
his decision to release him was immoral
See?????????!!!!!!!!!

You're doing it yourself!

YOU  are making a moral judgement!

You are giving us YOUR subjective moral judgement.

You can't criticise MacAskill for making a moral judgement when you do the very same thing yourself!
Fidget

Exactly - I am doing it myself! And that's why I said at first that such subjectivity is enough to be calling for McAskill's replacement, and simply because he shouldn't be doing it! He's the justice sec for goodness sake - he's supposed to be impartial, not basing decision on what he thinks is moral!  Rolling Eyes

Oh.. and the recent Susan Atkins stuff is what the right decision is:

No Compassionate Release for Manson Follower Involved in Killing Spree

California is not Scotland. That’s the message one British newspaper took from Wednesday’s decision by a California parole board to turn down an application for compassionate release submitted on behalf of Susan Atkins, who is serving a life sentence for her part in the 1969 killing spree carried out by followers of Charles Manson.

In London, The Daily Mail contrasted the decision with one taken two weeks earlier by the Scottish regional government to free Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, who was convicted of murder for his role in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The Mail’s headline suggested “Scotland Take Note” of the fact that Ms. Atkins lost her bid for parole “DESPITE Being on Her Death Bed.”
Holebender

Do you have the first inkling of the meaning of a word like "moral"? There is nothing subjective about morality, it is about behaving properly, doing what is right. What sort of an idiot would call for a man's resignation on the ground that he had done the moral thing when considering a case? You are clutching at straws and showing us all your true agenda.
Fidget

Holebender wrote:
There is nothing subjective about morality....

..it is about behaving properly, doing what is right.


'course there's not, and.... 'course it is.


Silly me.  
Holebender

Oh go on then, give us a subjective definition of morality that we can all agree with.
Fidget

Are you struggling with what 'subjective' means?
Alasdair

Personally I think the definition of morality is highly subjective ...

... what an evil b****rd thinks is moral and acceptable (e.g. killing 270 odd folks) is not the same as what a generally good person thinks is moral and acceptable (e.g. allowing a dying man to leave prison when he's no threat to nobody)
Dave Coull

I thought you said you wanted Kenny MacAskill to resign, Fidget?   I  was the one saying, if you want Scotland's laws changed, THAT is what you should be campaigning for, not a mere change of justice secretary to somebody else likely to do exactly the same thing.
Fidget wrote:
The Mail’s headline suggested “Scotland Take Note” of the fact that Ms. Atkins lost her bid for parole “DESPITE Being on Her Death Bed.”
So, the London Daily Mail is saying Scotland's laws should be changed   -   to bring them in line with California's????!!!!! My Californian wife thinks Scotland is more civilised. The London papers can advocate changing Scotland's laws if they like, but I doubt if any outsiders will succeed in changing the law here. The only people who can change the law here are the folk who live here.
Fidget wrote:
He's the justice sec for goodness sake - he's supposed to be impartial
Nobody has claimed he was not impartial. What the Labour Party, the Lib Dems, and the Tory Party have claimed is that the way he handled this difficult decision wasn't wise. But that's not the same thing as claiming he wasn't impartial. Do you actually understand what these words mean, Fidget?
Fidget wrote:
not basing decision on what he thinks is moral
You have absolutely no idea what "moral" means, do you?
The Concise Oxford Dictionary: the foremost authority on current English wrote:
moral (adjective) 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour and the goodness or badness of human character 2. adhering to the code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable.
A terminally ill prisoner appealed for compassionate release, as allowed by Scottish law. That prisoner's application for release was supported by the prison doctor, the prison governor, and the parole board. Legally speaking, there were no grounds for rejecting that appeal. There were POLITICAL grounds for rejecting it (because approval could cost the SNP votes) but the Justice Secretary was required to ignore political considerations. So the only thing that left was a decision on moral grounds. That doesn't mean Kenny MacAskill had to decide the prisoner was good or bad, it means HE had to decide what would be the good or the bad thing to do. If YOU had been Justice Secretary, then your version of morality would have led you to reject the application. But Kenny MacAskill thought "the code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable" was the one written on the Mace presented to the Scottish Parliament by Queen Liz:
Quote:
Wisdom, Justice, Compassion, Integrity
and acted accordingly.

By the way, I see that petition for the resignation of Kenny MacAskill, started by Mr John Paul Gleeson of Luton, Bedfordshire, now has a grand total of 8 signatures, although two of them (including the only one actually from Scotland) seem, from their comments attached to the petition, to be saying they think MacAskill is doing a great job.
Fidget

Alasdair wrote:
Personally I think the definition of morality is highly subjective ...

... what an evil b****rd thinks is moral and acceptable (e.g. killing 270 odd folks) is not the same as what a generally good person thinks is moral and acceptable (e.g. allowing a dying man to leave prison when he's no threat to nobody)


And what would you think the role of the Justice Secretary would be in all of that?
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
I thought you said you wanted Kenny MacAskill to resign, Fidget?   I  was the one saying, if you want Scotland's laws changed, THAT is what you should be campaigning for, not a mere change of justice secretary to somebody else likely to do exactly the same thing.
Fidget wrote:
The Mail’s headline suggested “Scotland Take Note” of the fact that Ms. Atkins lost her bid for parole “DESPITE Being on Her Death Bed.”
So, the London Daily Mail is saying Scotland's laws should be changed   -   to bring them in line with California's????!!!!! My Californian wife thinks Scotland is more civilised. The London papers can advocate changing Scotland's laws if they like, but I doubt if any outsiders will succeed in changing the law here. The only people who can change the law here are the folk who live here.
Fidget wrote:
He's the justice sec for goodness sake - he's supposed to be impartial
Nobody has claimed he was not impartial. What the Labour Party, the Lib Dems, and the Tory Party have claimed is that the way he handled this difficult decision wasn't wise. But that's not the same thing as claiming he wasn't impartial. Do you actually understand what these words mean, Fidget?
Fidget wrote:
not basing decision on what he thinks is moral
You have absolutely no idea what "moral" means, do you?
The Concise Oxford Dictionary: the foremost authority on current English wrote:
moral (adjective) 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour and the goodness or badness of human character 2. adhering to the code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable.
A terminally ill prisoner appealed for compassionate release, as allowed by Scottish law. That prisoner's application for release was supported by the prison doctor, the prison governor, and the parole board. Legally speaking, there were no grounds for rejecting that appeal. There were POLITICAL grounds for rejecting it (because approval could cost the SNP votes) but the Justice Secretary was required to ignore political considerations. So the only thing that left was a decision on moral grounds. That doesn't mean Kenny MacAskill had to decide the prisoner was good or bad, it means HE had to decide what would be the good or the bad thing to do. If YOU had been Justice Secretary, then your version of morality would have led you to reject the application. But Kenny MacAskill thought "the code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable" was the one written on the Mace presented to the Scottish Parliament by Queen Liz:
Quote:
Wisdom, Justice, Compassion, Integrity
and acted accordingly.

By the way, I see that petition for the resignation of Kenny MacAskill, started by Mr John Paul Gleeson of Luton, Bedfordshire, now has a grand total of 8 signatures, although two of them (including the only one actually from Scotland) seem, from their comments attached to the petition, to be saying they think MacAskill is doing a great job.



1.  nope.  I didn't call for MacAskill to resign. I stated his handling of this issue as a "moral decision" was enough for calls for his resignation, and on the basis that he's supposedly the 'Justice' secretary, not the 'Moral' Secretary. But while we're here, given a free vote on it, I'd vote Yes - resign.

2.  The London Daily Mail can say whatever it likes, but it is you who is somehow acting as if MacAskill's hands were tied and he had no choice at all but to release him.  

3.  I am all too aware of what 'moral' means.  A bit too beyond your own comprehension of it I think, mind, seeing as your idea of it is clearly blinkered to.. erm.. your own idea of it.

4.  "A terminally ill prisoner appealed for compassionate release, as allowed by Scottish law".  An appeal that need not be upheld (see note 2, above).
Alasdair

Fidget wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
Personally I think the definition of morality is highly subjective ...

... what an evil b****rd thinks is moral and acceptable (e.g. killing 270 odd folks) is not the same as what a generally good person thinks is moral and acceptable (e.g. allowing a dying man to leave prison when he's no threat to nobody)


And what would you think the role of the Justice Secretary would be in all of that?


Well, I don't think he's bombed anybody ... ?!
Fidget

He has now!  Laughing
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
given a free vote on it, I'd vote Yes - resign
What do you mean, "given a free vote on it"? The expression "a free vote" is a term applied to something that MPs and MSPs can sometimes do. It means, a vote in which they do not have to follow their party's line, as is usually the case. So, by talking about being "given a free vote", you are suggesting that you are an MSP (since Members of the Westminster parliament would have no say in the matter). I find it hard to believe your claim to be an MSP. Even the least knowledgeable of them do not appear to be quite as lacking in understanding as yourself.
Fidget wrote:
I am all too aware of what 'moral' means
I don't think you are. I also don't think you understand the concept of "a free vote". In fact, you use a lot of words and expressions of which you seem to have little understanding.
Fidget wrote:
"A terminally ill prisoner appealed for compassionate release, as allowed by Scottish law".  An appeal that need not be upheld
Legally, although the prison doctor recommended release, and the prison governor recommended release, and the parole board recommended release, Kenny MacAskill could have decided not to release Megrahi. That's not what we were arguing about. We were arguing about the grounds on which a decision could be made one way or the other. You say the decision should not have been made on moral grounds. I say there were no other grounds on which it could be made, either one way or the other, and the reason you have failed to understand this point is that, well, you're a bit slow.
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
Fidget wrote:
given a free vote on it, I'd vote Yes - resign
What do you mean, "given a free vote on it"? The expression "a free vote" is a term applied to something that MPs and MSPs can sometimes do. It means, a vote in which they do not have to follow their party's line, as is usually the case. So, by talking about being "given a free vote", you are suggesting that you are an MSP (since Members of the Westminster parliament would have no say in the matter). I find it hard to believe your claim to be an MSP. Even the least knowledgeable of them do not appear to be quite as lacking in understanding as yourself.
Fidget wrote:
I am all too aware of what 'moral' means
I don't think you are. I also don't think you understand the concept of "a free vote". In fact, you use a lot of words and expressions of which you seem to have little understanding.
Fidget wrote:
"A terminally ill prisoner appealed for compassionate release, as allowed by Scottish law".  An appeal that need not be upheld
Legally, although the prison doctor recommended release, and the prison governor recommended release, and the parole board recommended release, Kenny MacAskill could have decided not to release Megrahi. That's not what we were arguing about. We were arguing about the grounds on which a decision could be made one way or the other. You say the decision should not have been made on moral grounds. I say there were no other grounds on which it could be made, either one way or the other, and the reason you have failed to understand this point is that, well, you're a bit slow.


I have made my point quite clearly.  Sorry chap, but you're all over the place with this.
Dave Coull

I wrote:
I see that petition for the resignation of Kenny MacAskill, started by Mr John Paul Gleeson of Luton, Bedfordshire, now has a grand total of 8 signatures, although two of them (including the only one actually from Scotland) seem, from their comments attached to the petition, to be saying they think MacAskill is doing a great job.
Fidget wrote:
I have made my point quite clearly
In your own mind, no doubt, what you are trying to say is clear to you. But so far as putting things clearly to other people is concerned, you are about as good at that as the person who thought it a clever idea to include the policing of prostitution in Aberdeen in a petition tryng to force the Justice Secretary to resign over the release of Megrahi. I don't think MacAskill has got the slightest thing to worry about from either of you.
Fidget

What, exactly, is unclear about this:

Fidget wrote:
Dave Coull wrote:


Anybody who disagrees with the idea of compassionate release of terminally ill prisoners should be campaigning to change the laws of Scotland, not campaigning to change the Justice Secretary.


Didn't McAskell himself say that he made a 'moral' judgement?  That sort of subjectivity is more than enough to be calling for his resignation.
Holebender

Fidget wrote:
Are you struggling with what 'subjective' means?

Not in the least. What I meant was that you should give a subjective definition of moral which we can all agree is an acceptable definition rather than one you just make up off the top of your head.

One of the requirements the Justice Secretary has to meet is that he act in a consistent manner. As all other applicants for compassionate release who have met the criteria have, in fact, been released it would have been inconsistent and wrong of the Justice Secretary to treat this applicant any differently.
Dave Coull

I wrote:
I see that petition for the resignation of Kenny MacAskill, started by Mr John Paul Gleeson of Luton, Bedfordshire, now has a grand total of 8 signatures, although two of them (including the only one actually from Scotland) seem, from their comments attached to the petition, to be saying they think MacAskill is doing a great job.
Fidget wrote:
I have made my point quite clearly
I wrote:
In your own mind, no doubt, what you are trying to say is clear to you. But so far as putting things clearly to other people is concerned, you are about as good at that as the person who thought it a clever idea to include the policing of prostitution in Aberdeen in a petition tryng to force the Justice Secretary to resign over the release of Megrahi.
Fidget wrote:
What, exactly, is unclear about this:
Fidget wrote:
Didn't McAskell himself say that he made a 'moral' judgement?
Two things. (1) You still haven't grasped the simple point that, given the fact that there was no LEGAL reason why he absolutely had to decide one way or the other, and given the fact that the Justice Secretary is not  ALLOWED  to make a decision on political grounds, the ONLY way of deciding whether to grant compassionate release or not is on moral grounds. (2) You still haven't answered the question which I put to you several posts ago
Fidget wrote:
I think he should've made the right judgement
and I asked
Quote:
"Right" in what sense?
The only possible meaning of YOUR description "right", in this context, is "MORALLY right". Okay, so you would have made a different decision from MacAskill. But, by your own admission, both decisions would have been made on moral grounds. You denounce MacAskill for making a "moral" decision, but you have totally failed to come up with any context other than morality under which the decision could have been made. It is because of this complete failure to make a coherent case for "resignation" this petition which was sent to numerous websites still stands at just  8  signatures  (and two of THEM turn out to be SUPPORTING Kenny!)
Niall

John Pilger in an article in 'The New Statesman' says:

"The trial of the “Lockerbie bomber” was worse than a travesty of justice. Evidence that never came to court proves his innocence

The hysteria over the release of the so-called Lockerbie bomber reveals much about the political and media class on both sides of the Atlantic, especially Britain. From Gordon Brown's "repulsion" to Barack Obama's "outrage", the theatre of lies and hypocrisy is dutifully attended by those
who call themselves journalists. "But what if Megrahi lives longer than three months?" whined a BBC reporter to the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond. "What will you say to your constituents, then?"

Horror of horrors that a dying man should live longer than prescribed before he "pays" for his "heinous crime": the description of the Scottish justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, whose "compassion" allowed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to go home to Libya to "face justice from a higher power". Amen.

The American satirist Larry David once addressed a voluble crony as "a babbling brook of bullshit". Such eloquence summarises the circus of Megrahi's release.

No one in authority has had the guts to state the truth about the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 above the Scottish village of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, in which 270 people were killed. The governments in England and Scotland in effect blackmailed Megrahi into dropping his appeal as a condition of his immediate release. Of course there were oil and arms deals under way with Libya; but had Megrahi proceeded with his appeal, some 600 pages of new and deliberately suppressed evidence would have set the seal on his innocence and given us more than a glimpse of how and why he was stitched up for the benefit of "strategic interests".

“The endgame came down to damage limitation," said the former CIA officer Robert Baer, who took part in the original investigation, "because the evidence amassed by [Megrahi's] appeal is explosive and extremely damning to the system of justice." New witnesses would show that it was impossible for Megrahi to have bought clothes that were found in the wreckage of the Pan Am aircraft - he was convicted on the word of a Maltese shopowner who claimed to have sold him the clothes, then gave a false description of him in 19 separate statements and even failed to recognise him in the courtroom.

The new evidence would have shown that a fragment of a circuit board and bomb timer, "discovered" in the Scottish countryside and said to have been in Megrahi's suitcase, was probably a plant. A forensic scientist found no trace of an explosion on it. The new evidence would demonstrate the impossibility of the bomb beginning its journey in Malta before it was "transferred" through two airports undetected to Flight 103.

A "key secret witness" at the original trial, who claimed to have seen Megrahi and his co-accused, al-Alim Khalifa Fahimah (who was acquitted), loading the bomb on to the plane at Frankfurt, was bribed by the US authorities holding him as a "protected witness". The defence exposed him as a CIA informer who stood to collect, on the Libyans' conviction, up to $4m as a reward.

Megrahi was convicted by three Scottish judges sitting in a courtroom in "neutral" Holland. There was no jury. One of the few reporters to sit through the long and often farcical proceedings was the late Paul Foot, whose landmark investigation in Private Eye exposed it as a cacophony of blunders, deceptions and lies: a whitewash. The Scottish judges, while admitting a "mass of conflicting evidence" and rejecting the fantasies of the CIA informer, found Megrahi guilty on hearsay and unproven circumstance. Their 90-page "opinion", wrote Foot, "is a remarkable document that claims an honoured place in the history of British miscarriages of justice". (His report, Lockerbie - the Flight from Justice, can be downloaded from www.private-eye.co.uk for £5.)

Foot reported that most of the staff of the US embassy in Moscow who had reserved seats on Pan Am flights from Frankfurt cancelled their bookings when they were alerted by US intelligence that a terrorist attack was planned. He named Margaret Thatcher the "architect" of the cover-up after revealing that she killed the independent inquiry her transport secretary Cecil Parkinson had promised the Lockerbie families; and in a phone call to President George Bush Sr on 11 January 1990, she agreed to "low-key" the disaster after their intelligence services had reported "beyond doubt" that the Lockerbie bomb had been placed by a Palestinian group, contracted by Tehran, as a reprisal for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by a US warship in Iranian territorial waters. Among the 290 dead were 66 children. In 1990, the ship's captain was awarded the Legion of Merit by Bush Sr "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer".

Perversely, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, Bush needed Iran's support as he built a "coalition" to expel his wayward client from an American oil colony. The only country that defied Bush and backed Iraq was Libya. "Like lazy and overfed fish," wrote Foot, "the British media jumped to the bait. In almost unanimous chorus, they engaged in furious vilification and open warmongering against Libya." The framing of Libya for the Lockerbie crime was inevitable. Since then, a US defence intelligence agency report, obtained under Freedom of Information, has confirmed these truths and identified the likely bomber; it was to be the centrepiece of Megrahi's defence.

In 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Megrahi's case for appeal. "The commission is of the view," said its chairman, Graham Forbes, "based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice."

The words "miscarriage of justice" are entirely missing from the current furore, with Kenny MacAskill reassuring the baying mob that the scapegoat will soon face justice from that "higher power". What a disgrace"
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
Two things. (1) You still haven't grasped the simple point that, given the fact that there was no LEGAL reason why he absolutely had to decide one way or the other...


That's not what you said a few posts ago:

Dave Coull wrote:
The Justice Secretary of Scotland was legally required to make some sort of judgement....


And...

Dave Coull wrote:
(2) You still haven't answered the question which I put to you several posts ago


I did answer it. The right decision would've been in seeing his sentence carried out and if he happened to die before being released, then that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Dave Coull

Fidget expressed the view that, since Kenny MacAskill had stated he took his decision on "moral" grounds, that was a reason for him to resign. However, Fidget himself  made a moral judgement.
Fidget wrote:
I think he should've made the RIGHT judgement
and, in order to try to get Fidget to understand that he was making a moral judgement, and that anybody in Kenny MacAskill's position would have had to make a moral judgement, I asked
Quote:
"Right" in what sense?
then later I wrote
Quote:
You still haven't answered the question which I put to you several posts ago
Fidget wrote:
I did answer it
No you didn't.
Fidget wrote:
The RIGHT decision would've been in seeing his sentence carried out and if he happened to die before being released, then that's the way the cookie crumbles.
That does NOT answer the question
Quote:
"Right" in what sense?
What you are doing, Fidget, whether you realise it or not, is making a moral judgement. A very Old Testament sort of moral judgement, but a moral judgement nevertheless. Just as ANYBODY placed in the position that Kenny MacAskill was placed in would have had to make a moral judgement.
Dave Coull

I wrote:
there was no LEGAL reason why he absolutely had to decide one way or the other
Fidget wrote:
That's not what you said a few posts ago
Quote:
The Justice Secretary of Scotland was legally required to make some sort of judgement
There is no contradiction between these two statements of mine. Since a terminally ill prisoner had applied for compassionate release, the Justice Secretary of Scotland was required to make a judgement on that application. He did have to make a judgement, but there was no LEGAL reason why he absolutely had to reject the application, and there was no LEGAL reason why he absolutely had to approve the application. Therefore, the only grounds on which it was possible to take a decison were MORAL grounds.
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
What you are doing, Fidget, whether you realise it or not, is making a moral judgement. A very Old Testament sort of moral judgement, but a moral judgement nevertheless.


There is nothing moral in stating that I think a sentence handed down is the sentence that should be served.  I'm siding with the legal sense of things whereas morals veer away from the legal sense of things and are emotionally subjective.
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
I wrote:
there was no LEGAL reason why he absolutely had to decide one way or the other
Fidget wrote:
That's not what you said a few posts ago
Quote:
The Justice Secretary of Scotland was legally required to make some sort of judgement


There is no contradiction between these two statements of mine.




Dave Coull wrote:
Since a terminally ill prisoner had applied for compassionate release, the Justice Secretary of Scotland was required to make a judgement on that application. He did have to make a judgement, but there was no LEGAL reason why he absolutely had to reject the application, and there was no LEGAL reason why he absolutely had to approve the application. Therefore, the only grounds on which it was possible to take a decison were MORAL grounds.


Oh.. he was just required rather than legally required. Ok. So.. he let loose a person convicted of blowing 259 people out of the sky, killing another 11 on the ground, and destroying/affecting the lives of thousands of other people globally in what has got to be the biggest massacre seen in Scotland in living memory... and it's.. "awww bless his cotton socks.. he's got cancer.. I'll just let him out".
landg

i think that cooncilor mcaskill should resign, 1 because he is an idiot and 2 he came to the shameful conclusion that releasing mass murderer's is the right thing to do.
Dave Coull

I see that mass petition for the resignation of Kenny MacAskill has now reached the grand total of NINE signatures. Mind you, the latest one is A. Nother Forkenny. I think the number of signatories genuinely calling for resignation is SIX. And since, from the locations given, most of them probably don't have votes in Scottish elections anyway,  I don't think MacAskill will be too worried.
Fidget wrote:
Oh.. he was just required rather than legally required.
I've been trying to decide if you're really as thick as you give the impression of being, or if it's just an act. I've come to the conclusion you're not just pretending. Kenny MacAskill was legally required to make a decision. But there was nothing in the law absolutely forcing his decision to go one way or the other. Since there was nothing in the law absolutely forcing his decision to go one way or the other, the only grounds on which it was possible to reach a decision were moral grounds. That is what any Justice Secretary, of any political party, would have had to do, in the same circumstances. Oh, some might have reached a different conclusion, but they would have had to at least pretend they were doing so on moral grounds. You gave, as your reason for saying he should resign, that he did the same thing as any other Justice Secretary would have had to do, or at least pretend to do, in the circumstances, take a decision on moral grounds. No MSPs, of any political party, have criticised his decision on  THOSE  grounds, because they all realise that would be stupid. If you can't even understand why that was a really stupid criticism, there's not much point trying to reason with somebody who lacks the ability to think logically.  
Fidget wrote:
he let loose a person convicted of blowing 259 people out of the sky, killing another 11 on the ground, and destroying/affecting the lives of thousands of other people globally in what has got to be the biggest massacre seen in Scotland in living memory
You are saying this man MacAskill did a   BAD   thing. You are making a  MORAL   judgement. But by the very act of making a moral judgement, you are invalidating your  OWN  previous criticism that it was wrong for the Justice Secretary to make a moral judgement.
landg

Dave Coull wrote:
I see that mass petition for the resignation of Kenny MacAskill has now reached the grand total of NINE signatures. Mind you, the latest one is A. Nother Forkenny. I think the number of signatories genuinely calling for resignation is SIX. And since, from the locations given, most of them probably don't have votes in Scottish elections anyway,  I don't think MacAskill will be too worried.
Fidget wrote:
Oh.. he was just required rather than legally required.
I've been trying to decide if you're really as thick as you give the impression of being, or if it's just an act. I've come to the conclusion you're not just pretending. Kenny MacAskill was legally required to make a decision. But there was nothing in the law absolutely forcing his decision to go one way or the other. Since there was nothing in the law absolutely forcing his decision to go one way or the other, the only grounds on which it was possible to reach a decision were moral grounds. That is what any Justice Secretary, of any political party, would have had to do, in the same circumstances. Oh, some might have reached a different conclusion, but they would have had to at least pretend they were doing so on moral grounds. You gave, as your reason for saying he should resign, that he did the same thing as any other Justice Secretary would have had to do, or at least pretend to do, in the circumstances, take a decision on moral grounds. No MSPs, of any political party, have criticised his decision on  THOSE  grounds, because they all realise that would be stupid. If you can't even understand why that was a really stupid criticism, there's not much point trying to reason with somebody who lacks the ability to think logically.  
Fidget wrote:
he let loose a person convicted of blowing 259 people out of the sky, killing another 11 on the ground, and destroying/affecting the lives of thousands of other people globally in what has got to be the biggest massacre seen in Scotland in living memory
You are saying this man MacAskill did a   BAD   thing. You are making a  MORAL   judgement. But by the very act of making a moral judgement, you are invalidating your  OWN  previous criticism that it was wrong for the Justice Secretary to make a moral judgement.



yadda,yadda,yadda. he still made a REALLY bad choice in letting convicted terrorist go home. the man was badly informed but he made the decision to let  a mass murderer go free.
iif he has any shame he should resign.
Dave Coull

landg wrote:
he should resign.


Why?

Because a petition signed by six people says he should?
Aventinian

[quote="Dave Coull]Why?

Because a petition signed by six people says he should?[/quote]

Well, didn't you think a three-man protest would change the Scottish Parliament's approach to the constitution?
Dave Coull

landg wrote:
he should resign.
and I asked
Quote:
Why?
Because a petition signed by six people says he should?
Aventinian asks
Quote:
didn't you think a three-man protest would change the Scottish Parliament's approach to the constitution?
Answer    -    No, I didn't. That four (not three) man protest was just one small part of a continuing movement for a referendum. An online petition for a referendum on independence started by a member of this forum (Holebender) got a couple of thousand signatures. A considerable number of Members of the Scottish Parliament (it still remains to be seen how many) do support holding a referendum. Contrast that with this 6-signature petition and not one single MSP saying MacAskill should resign.
Stevie

Aventinian wrote:
Well, didn't you think a three-man protest would change the Scottish Parliament's approach to the constitution?


Rather drole all the same.
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
I've been trying to decide if you're really as thick as you give the impression of being, or if it's just an act. I've come to the conclusion you're not just pretending.


Just bemused.

Dave Coull wrote:
Kenny MacAskill was legally required to make a decision. But there was nothing in the law absolutely forcing his decision to go one way or the other. Since there was nothing in the law absolutely forcing his decision to go one way or the other, the only grounds on which it was possible to reach a decision were moral grounds.


You're doing it again. So.. he legally had to make a decision.. but didn't legally have to decide on keeping him banged up or let loose. So.. how do we (or you more like), come to the conclusion on that basis, that the only decision left was a moral one, when you're clearly saying that he could've left it alone in not having to make a legal decision one way or the other in the first place?
landg

he did not legally have to release a mass murderer. a typical snp publicity stunt that has backfired, between that and the diageo fiasco their inexpirience to 'govern' is all there for those to see.
Fidget

landg wrote:
he did not legally have to release a mass murderer.


Most of the civilised world understands that.
Dave Coull

landg wrote:
a typical snp publicity stunt
The Concise Oxford Dictionary wrote:
typical: adj. having the distinctive qualities of a particular type.
There is nothing "typical" about this decision. While the SNP under Alex Salmond is certainly capable of publicity stunts, they had absolutely nothing to gain politically from this decision, quite the opposite in fact, and that would have been perfectly obvious to all concerned.
landg wrote:
he did not legally have to release a mass murderer
No, he didn't. But since there had been an application for compassionate release from a terminally ill prisoner, the Justice Secretary did have to make a decision one way or the other. Kenny MacAskill knew he would be criticised WHICHEVER way his decision went, but he did have to take a decision.
landg wrote:
their inexpirience to 'govern' is all there for those to see.
But...but...they are a minority government!!!!! If they are making such a total hash of things, how come the other parties don't vote them out? Come to think of it, how come the other parties didn't even pass a vote demanding the resignation of Kenny MacAskill?
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
he legally had to make a decision.. but didn't legally have to decide on keeping him banged up or let loose
Since there had been an application for compassionate release by a terminally ill prisoner, legally speaking, the Justice Secretary HAD TO make a decision. He had to decide either to still keep the prisoner in prison, or to release him, but there was nothing in law compelling the decision to go either way. A decision was legally required, but there was no basis in law for deciding which way that decision should go. Therefore, the only grounds on which the decision which was legally required could be made were moral grounds.
Fidget wrote:
how do we (or you more like), come to the conclusion on that basis, that the only decision left was a moral one
The reason Kenny MacAskill, as well as EVERY Member of the Scottish Parliament, whatever political party they belong to, and whether they agree with this particular decision or not, reached the conclusion that the only basis for deciding one way or the other was on moral grounds, is because, while their abilities vary, none of them are quite as slow as you. The reason myself and most other folk can see this is because neither are we.
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
But...but...they are a minority government!!!!!


"wisnae oor fault"
landg

Niall wrote:
Hello folks I am back from a long spell in hospital. Three heart attacks and a triple heart bypass operation.  My position is that MacAskill did the right thing in the Megrahi case. I have always had grave doubts about the safety of his conviction. Megrahi was in my opinion a patsy used by the CIA and the British SIS to cover up some nefarious dealings by the CIA. Remember the Arms for Iran and the Contras scandal? Col Oliver North's double dealings?  All at the same time and is it not highly suspicious that 4 CIA agaents who were about to lift the lid on an officially sanctioned drugs running operation were convenientlyon Pan Am 103?  Where the secret services of The US and UK are concerned I have grave suspicions about their activities and would not put it past them to commit such an atrocity to cover their tracks and blame an innocent man for the crime.



ehm, thats not the 'reason' he released the convicted mass murderer, thats nothing more than idle speculation.
Dave Coull

I wrote
Quote:
they are a minority government!!!!!
Fidget wrote:
"wisnae oor fault"
Definitely wisnae MY fault.
I didnae even vote for the SNP at the last election.
But you haven't answered my question   -
Quote:
If they are making such a total hash of things, how come the other parties don't vote them out? Come to think of it, how come the other parties didn't even pass a vote demanding the resignation of Kenny MacAskill?
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
I wrote
Quote:
they are a minority government!!!!!
Fidget wrote:
"wisnae oor fault"
Definitely wisnae MY fault.
I didnae even vote for the SNP at the last election.


You say that as if it troubles you that anybody might think that you did vote for them.

Dave Coull wrote:
But you haven't answered my question   -
Quote:
If they are making such a total hash of things, how come the other parties don't vote them out? Come to think of it, how come the other parties didn't even pass a vote demanding the resignation of Kenny MacAskill?


Whatever reasons the other parties have I doubt 'doing a sterling job' is going to be one of them.  As for McAskill, passing a vote demanding his resignation would be on par with the dismissal of Ireland's vote against ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. It is not an indication that they all secretly agreed with him.
Stevie

Niall wrote:
Hello folks I am back from a long spell in hospital. Three heart attacks and a triple heart bypass operation.  My position is that MacAskill did the right thing in the Megrahi case. I have always had grave doubts about the safety of his conviction. Megrahi was in my opinion a patsy used by the CIA and the British SIS to cover up some nefarious dealings by the CIA. Remember the Arms for Iran and the Contras scandal? Col Oliver North's double dealings?  All at the same time and is it not highly suspicious that 4 CIA agaents who were about to lift the lid on an officially sanctioned drugs running operation were convenientlyon Pan Am 103?  Where the secret services of The US and UK are concerned I have grave suspicions about their activities and would not put it past them to commit such an atrocity to cover their tracks and blame an innocent man for the crime.



Good post.

Glad you're doing better.
Dave Coull

I wrote:
I didnae even vote for the SNP at the last election.
Fidget wrote:
You say that as if it troubles you that anybody might think that you did vote for them.
What might "trouble" me is if anybody thought that ANY political party could take my support for granted. Anyway, getting back to the difficult task of trying to get the slower boys in the class to think, I pointed out to Fidget
Quote:
you haven't answered my question     -     "If they are making such a total hash of things, how come the other parties don't vote them out?"
Fidget wrote:
Whatever reasons the other parties have
Okay, your answer amounts to "I don't know". How fortunate you are to be on a forum where even slow learners just might, eventually, benefit from education. Although the SNP has only one more MSP than Labour, and although Labour, the LibDems and the Conservatives combined could easily throw this government out at any time, they do not do so because they think the outcome would be a Scottish Parliament general election which would result in their parties losing seats.

I also asked
Quote:
how come the other parties didn't even pass a vote demanding the resignation of Kenny MacAskill?
Fidget wrote:
It is not an indication that they all secretly agreed with him.
Of course they don't all agree with him. But you still haven't answered the question. A vote of no confidence would leave MacAskill with no option but to resign. The Labour, LibDem, and Tory parties combined could easily have passed a vote of no confidence in him, yet they didn't. How come? Since you obviously don't know the answer, again, it's fortunate you're on a forum where even slow learners just might, eventually, benefit from education. They don't force MacAskill to resign because they know Alex Salmond would use that as an excuse for  himself and his whole government to resign, and they think this would lead to a Scottish Parliament general election in which their parties would lose seats.
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
it's fortunate you're on a forum where even slow learners just might, eventually, benefit from education..


Quite.
urchurdan

Moralists

I am at a bit of a loss as to where all the 'moralists' were, when the UK Labour Government opened up all the jails in Northern Ireland, and released hundreds of murdering terrorists onto the streets who between them murdered many more people over the years than were killed at the Lockerbie atrocity.
As far as I know, none of them were dying - did anyone take into account the feelings of the relatives from both sides of the divide who lost relatives to these terrorists? No, of course they didn't, it was done for political expediency, I hold no brook for Megrahi, or any other person who commits terrorist acts, but I repeat, where were all the moralistic Journalists then? Where were all the moralists on Internet forums? Oh yes, I forgot - it was the unionist New Labour Government who released the murdering Irish terrorists, thats all right then.....
landg

Re: Moralists

urchurdan wrote:
I am at a bit of a loss as to where all the 'moralists' were, when the UK Labour Government opened up all the jails in Northern Ireland, and released hundreds of murdering terrorists onto the streets who between them murdered many more people over the years than were killed at the Lockerbie atrocity.
As far as I know, none of them were dying - did anyone take into account the feelings of the relatives from both sides of the divide who lost relatives to these terrorists? No, of course they didn't, it was done for political expediency, I hold no brook for Megrahi, or any other person who commits terrorist acts, but I repeat, where were all the moralistic Journalists then? Where were all the moralists on Internet forums? Oh yes, I forgot - it was the unionist New Labour Government who released the murdering Irish terrorists, thats all right then.....


that was wrong as well i have to say.
Dave Coull

Re: Moralists

urchurdan wrote:
I am at a bit of a loss as to where all the 'moralists' were, when the UK Labour Government opened up all the jails in Northern Ireland, and released hundreds of murdering terrorists onto the streets who between them murdered many more people over the years than were killed at the Lockerbie atrocity.
One of the strongest supporters of that process was Senator Edward Kennedy, who died just recently. But it wasn't just Kennedy, the whole American political establishment put very heavy pressure on the British political establishment for those releases, and, as you correctly point out, it wasn't even release of dying prisoners on compassionate grounds, it was just release for political grounds. And all of that happened without a squeek of protest from most of those in the USA and in the UK who are so indignant in this case.
babykitten

Re: Moralists

Dave Coull wrote:
One of the strongest supporters of that process was Senator Edward Kennedy, who died just recently. But it wasn't just Kennedy, the whole American political establishment put very heavy pressure on the British political establishment for those releases, and, as you correctly point out, it wasn't even release of dying prisoners on compassionate grounds, it was just release for political grounds. And all of that happened without a squeek of protest from most of those in the USA and in the UK who are so indignant in this case.

Quite.  It's amazing the similarity between the release of IRA terrorists and how those who have links to terrorism are now sharing power in Northern Ireland with how the west is now talking and dealing with the leader of a formerly terrorist state, who was the leader during the time when that state was supposedly sponsoring terrorism.

And isn't it funny how there's no big outcry about that, yet there's a massive outcry when one single 'terrorist' (the probability that he actually was a terrorist being zero) is released even when he's at death's door.
Shagpile

I thought I might have been alone in supporting the Scottish Justice Minister on this.

Yes it seems odd that a convicted mass murderer is released. Yet his release was in accordance with Scots Law. It bodes well for the future though...... this administration will not make any individual a "political prisoner". To suffer the fate for example of Myra Hindley. IMHO, nothing less than a political prisoner.

The Lybian and Hindly I refer to are scum, and arguably both following orders.

Yet there is this provision in Scottish Law. I understand it to be an interpritation on Human Rights Legislation, could be wrong about that, but as far as I'm concerned; and if it is, IMHO human rights are not negotiable.

Even if the consequences can sometimes be a little unpalatable.

There are prisoners in America in a persistant vegative state denied release to satisfy the public's craving for revege. (The Manson murderess).

That is surely worse.
Fidget

Shagpile wrote:

Yet there is this provision in Scottish Law.


So that'll be that then?   Showing the place up as the biggest joke in modern times under the guise of "It's in Scots law" isn't really funny.  It just shows you up as how keen you are to blame everything and everybody around you instead of accepting the responsibility for decision making for yourself.
Alasdair

Fidget wrote:
So that'll be that then?   Showing the place up as the biggest joke in modern times under the guise of "It's in Scots law" isn't really funny.  It just shows you up as how keen you are to blame everything and everybody around you instead of accepting the responsibility for decision making for yourself.


It only shows up 'the place up as the biggest joke' in certain sectors, given that one of the major sectors values the possession of guns for the masses over healthcare for the masses I don't think many people will be losing much sleep.

Meanwhile amongst other sectors it has caused some, who may have been inclined to consider us heathen scum deserving of death and damnation, to re-evaluate their position, their stereotype, and to now consider the country en masse to be somewhat more compassionate and 'human' than they might otherwise have done.

It's a pity that the massive negative politiking and point scoring and american arse-liking may have undermined such advances.

Regardless of all this though, it remains to appear that a man of no risk to society was released from jail in order to spend his last days at 'home', an entirely compassionate position to take and I return to my original position:

Should we debase ourselves by lowering ourselves to the levels of those who would malign us?  I think not.
Fidget

Alasdair wrote:

Regardless of all this though, it remains to appear that a man of no risk to society was released from jail in order to spend his last days at 'home', an entirely compassionate position to take and I return to my original position:

Should we debase ourselves by lowering ourselves to the levels of those who would malign us?  I think not.


He was convicted of blowing TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY NINE people out of the sky and of killing another ELEVEN on the ground.  

"of no risk to society", he says.

Shocked
The Lithgae Jambo

Fidget wrote:

He was convicted of blowing TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY NINE people out of the sky and of killing another ELEVEN on the ground.  

"of no risk to society", he says.


You obviously have no experience of seeing a man in the final throes of death from cancer.
Alasdair

Fidget wrote:


He was convicted of blowing TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY NINE people out of the sky and of killing another ELEVEN on the ground.  

"of no risk to society", he says.

Shocked


That was the parole boards findings I beleive.
landg

Alasdair wrote:
Fidget wrote:


He was convicted of blowing TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY NINE people out of the sky and of killing another ELEVEN on the ground.  

"of no risk to society", he says.

Shocked


That was the parole boards findings I beleive.



really?
means nothing.
parole boards are mostly made up of PC social worky types.
someone who kills 259 people is a risk.always.
already this killer is being seen as some sort opressed martyr that in  itself is a risk to society from buffoons.
Dave Coull

This is a discussion of a petition which was launched on numerous different websites on Friday the 4th of September to "Call for Resignation of Kenneth MacAskill". I see there are still SIX people supporting that petition. I doubt if MacAskill will be losing much sleep...............In any case, calling for MacAskill's resignation is kinda beside the point. Long before he became part of a Scottish government, compassionate releases of prisoners were carried out by Labour and Liberal Democrat justice secretaries. And anybody who thinks a Labour justice secretary would have reached a different decision in this particular case, if they still held office at Holyrood, is kidding themselves. What's more, even before the Scottish Parliament came into existence, compassionate releases of prisoners were carried out by the Home Secretaries of British governments, under a law passed by the Tory government in 1993. As long as the law remains unchanged, future justice secretaries, of all political parties, will continue to release terminally ill prisoners on compassionate grounds.
Alasdair

landg wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
Fidget wrote:


He was convicted of blowing TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY NINE people out of the sky and of killing another ELEVEN on the ground.  

"of no risk to society", he says.

Shocked


That was the parole boards findings I beleive.



really?
means nothing.
parole boards are mostly made up of PC social worky types.
someone who kills 259 people is a risk.always.
already this killer is being seen as some sort opressed martyr that in  itself is a risk to society from buffoons.


Your assertion here means less.  

The parole board is tasked, not unsurprisingly, with deciding whether or not somebody merits release under parole and there is a very real need for a risk assessment in such cases.  Are you telling me that people like you, who are not in full possession of the facts, are better equipped to make that decision than the appointed persons?
landg

[quote="Alasdair]

Your assertion here means less.  

?[/quote]

it means as much as yours.
good to know that some  here accpet there are people in positions of authority who know more than you and thus make informed decisions.
hoping to hear more of this from you.....................
Dave Coull

Responding to Alasdair,
landg wrote:
good to know that some here accept there are people in positions of authority who know more than you and thus make informed decisions
Personally, I certainly do NOT automatically accept that folk in authority know more than I do, and I certainly do NOT automatically accept that anybody in authority is more qualified to make decisions than myself or anybody else. Having said that, I do recognise that some folk have specialised knowledge connected to their jobs   -  for instance, Niall Aslen probably knows more about accountancy and book-keeping than most folk because of a working lifetime of practicing accountancy as his profession, and Kenny MacAskill probably knows more about the law than most folk because he was a lawyer, and, indeed, a senior partner in a law firm, before he became an MSP.
landg

Dave Coull wrote:
Responding to Alasdair,
landg wrote:
good to know that some here accept there are people in positions of authority who know more than you and thus make informed decisions
Personally, I certainly do NOT automatically accept that folk in authority know more than I do, and I certainly do NOT automatically accept that anybody in authority is more qualified to make decisions than myself or anybody else. Having said that, I do recognise that some folk have specialised knowledge connected to their jobs   -  for instance, Niall Aslen probably knows more about accountancy and book-keeping than most folk because of a working lifetime of practicing accountancy as his profession, and Kenny MacAskill probably knows more about the law than most folk because he was a lawyer, and, indeed, a senior partner in a law firm, before he became an MSP.


and spent a little time behind bars himself.

and that'll be alisdair telt then.
Alasdair

landg wrote:
and that'll be alisdair telt then.


really?
landg

Alasdair wrote:
landg wrote:
and that'll be alisdair telt then.


really?


i would say so, he rubbished your claims about people with knowledge. i rubbish your claims full stop.
Dave Coull

I wrote:
Personally, I certainly do NOT automatically accept that folk in authority know more than I do, and I certainly do NOT automatically accept that anybody in authority is more qualified to make decisions than myself or anybody else. Having said that, I do recognise that some folk have specialised knowledge connected to their jobs   -  for instance, Niall Aslen probably knows more about accountancy and book-keeping than most folk because of a working lifetime of practicing accountancy as his profession, and Kenny MacAskill probably knows more about the law than most folk because he was a lawyer, and, indeed, a senior partner in a law firm, before he became an MSP.
landg wrote:
that'll be alisdair telt then.
Alasdair wrote:
really?
landg wrote:
i would say so, he rubbished your claims
Landg, apparently, finds some element of disagreement between myself and Alasdair here. Well, I disagree with practically everybody about something or other, so I've no doubt there could be things Alasdair and me disagree on. I just have no idea what the disagreement between him and me is supposed to be in this instance.
Dave Coull

I see that world-wide-web-wide petition we are discussing still has six people supporting the resignation of Kenneth MacAskill.
Stevie

landg wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
landg wrote:
and that'll be alisdair telt then.


really?


i would say so, he rubbished your claims about people with knowledge. i rubbish your claims full stop.


Of course you do...
Alasdair

landg wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
landg wrote:
and that'll be alisdair telt then.


really?


i would say so, he rubbished your claims about people with knowledge. i rubbish your claims full stop.


On what grounds are you rubbishing my claims then?  Go on, enlighten me.
landg

''Regardless of all this though, it remains to appear that a man of no risk to society was released from jail in order to spend his last days at 'home', an entirely compassionate position to take and I return to my original position'' - handwringing, PC garbage.

''I wholeheartedly support Mr McAskill, so you know, sod off''.- just funny.

''what an evil b****rd thinks is moral and acceptable (e.g. killing 270 odd folks) is not the same as what a generally good person thinks is moral and acceptable (e.g. allowing a dying man to leave prison when he's no threat to nobody)'' - evil b****rd (convicted mass killer) is in bed with PC handwringers. who is the wrose of those 2 neerdowells, i'm not sure either.
landg

Re: Justice for Scotland - Call for Resignation of Kenneth M

Nikkos wrote:
Hi fellow scots!

please check out our Scottish petition against Kenneth MacAskill

http://www.gopetition.com/online/30555.html

Thank you very much for your time.


signed. keep up the good work.
Dave Coull

Nikkos wrote:
Hi fellow scots!
(Nikkos doesn't intend this greeting, "fellow scots", to be taken in any narrowly geographical sense, you understand. And he certainly doesn't intend it to refer to folk who are on the electoral register here in Scotland. It is just a salutation he uses to address the entire world wide web, to which he sent this petition. After all, we're a' Jock Tamson's bairns. Only two of the signatories of his petition give their location as Scotland.)
Nikkos wrote:
please check out our Scottish petition
(By "Scottish" petition, Nikkos means a petition aimed at getting rid of the Scottish justice secretary. He doesn't mean a petition which originates with, or has support from, people in Scotland.)
Nikkos wrote:
Thank you very much for your time.
landg wrote:
signed.
Really????????!!!!!!!!!

Wow!

So, which of the massive total of nine signatures is yours, "landg"?

Are you Mr John-Paul Gleeson of Luton, Bedfordshire? Could you be Miss Kate Hemson of Hayes MiddleSex? Or indeed Mr Ben Miles of Reigate Surrey?

Could you even be the only "signatory" who gives a Scottish city as their location, Dr. Seoras MacSheorais, who added the comment "Well done MacAskill. Now, lets see an indepenent enquiry so we can find out who really planted the bomb."?

Or could you even be R.U. Serious ?  Very Happy

Or A. Nother Forkenny?  Laughing
Alasdair

landg wrote:
''Regardless of all this though, it remains to appear that a man of no risk to society was released from jail in order to spend his last days at 'home', an entirely compassionate position to take and I return to my original position'' - handwringing, PC garbage.

''I wholeheartedly support Mr McAskill, so you know, sod off''.- just funny.

''what an evil b****rd thinks is moral and acceptable (e.g. killing 270 odd folks) is not the same as what a generally good person thinks is moral and acceptable (e.g. allowing a dying man to leave prison when he's no threat to nobody)'' - evil b****rd (convicted mass killer) is in bed with PC handwringers. who is the wrose of those 2 neerdowells, i'm not sure either.


Your responses really say a whole lot more about you than they do me, both here and elsewhere.  To be honest, your rather boring me now.
Shagpile

landg wrote:
''Regardless of all this though, it remains to appear that a man of no risk to society was released from jail in order to spend his last days at 'home', an entirely compassionate position to take and I return to my original position'' - handwringing, PC garbage.

''I wholeheartedly support Mr McAskill, so you know, sod off''.- just funny.

''what an evil b****rd thinks is moral and acceptable (e.g. killing 270 odd folks) is not the same as what a generally good person thinks is moral and acceptable (e.g. allowing a dying man to leave prison when he's no threat to nobody)'' - evil b****rd (convicted mass killer) is in bed with PC handwringers. who is the wrose of those 2 neerdowells, i'm not sure either.


I kind of believe you are of the oppinion that someone in a persistant vegitative state...... for example, should rot in jail then?

If so, how does that make you feel?

I'll cut to the chase..... it makes YOU; as a person, no better than them at the time of their crime. (IMHO)

Why am I wrong in believing this?
landg

Alasdair wrote:
landg wrote:
''Regardless of all this though, it remains to appear that a man of no risk to society was released from jail in order to spend his last days at 'home', an entirely compassionate position to take and I return to my original position'' - handwringing, PC garbage.

''I wholeheartedly support Mr McAskill, so you know, sod off''.- just funny.

''what an evil b****rd thinks is moral and acceptable (e.g. killing 270 odd folks) is not the same as what a generally good person thinks is moral and acceptable (e.g. allowing a dying man to leave prison when he's no threat to nobody)'' - evil b****rd (convicted mass killer) is in bed with PC handwringers. who is the wrose of those 2 neerdowells, i'm not sure either.


Your responses really say a whole lot more about you than they do me, both here and elsewhere.  To be honest, your rather boring me now.




Your responses really say a whole lot more about you than they do me, both here and elsewhere.  To be honest, your rather boring me now.

could not have put it better myself.
landg

Shagpile wrote:
landg wrote:
''Regardless of all this though, it remains to appear that a man of no risk to society was released from jail in order to spend his last days at 'home', an entirely compassionate position to take and I return to my original position'' - handwringing, PC garbage.

''I wholeheartedly support Mr McAskill, so you know, sod off''.- just funny.

''what an evil b****rd thinks is moral and acceptable (e.g. killing 270 odd folks) is not the same as what a generally good person thinks is moral and acceptable (e.g. allowing a dying man to leave prison when he's no threat to nobody)'' - evil b****rd (convicted mass killer) is in bed with PC handwringers. who is the wrose of those 2 neerdowells, i'm not sure either.


I kind of believe you are of the oppinion that someone in a persistant vegitative state...... for example, should rot in jail then?

If so, how does that make you feel?

I'll cut to the chase..... it makes YOU; as a person, no better than them at the time of their crime. (IMHO)

Why am I wrong in believing this?


not jail, a hospital wing. in jail. a hospice under guard 24hrs per day for less serious crimes. do the crime, do the time, if you happen to die whilst doing the time.tough luck. yeh, that makes me as bad as someone who murdered 270 people when they blew up a plane. get a grip of yourself and talk sense.
Shagpile

landg wrote:
not jail, a hospital wing. in jail. a hospice under guard 24hrs per day for less serious crimes.


Non payment of a fine is a less serious, jailable offence.

Quote:
do the crime, do the time, if you happen to die whilst doing the time.tough luck. yeh, that makes me as bad as someone who murdered 270 people when they blew up a plane. get a grip of yourself and talk sense.


Are you saying that inhumane or degrading punnishment is ok then?
Dave Coull

So, after trawling the entire world wide web for more than two weeks, this petition for the resignation of MacAskill has reached the grand total of   SIX   signatures!!!!!! Very Happy
(I presume we can't count the likes of "Only Eejits Thinkthatkennywaswrong". We can, however, count "landg", who says he signed it, and probably did.)
landg wrote:
if you happen to die whilst doing the time.tough luck.
But if you think that, why are you wasting your time on petty little petitions which would change absolutely NOTHING? Now, I realise MacAskill isn't going to be worried about a petition with half a dozen signatures, but let's just imagine for one second he did resign. You can absolutely guarantee that his replacement as Justice Secretary, no matter which political party they belong to, would be somebody else who would release some terminally ill prisoners on compassionate grounds. Anybody who finds the whole idea of compassion towards dying prisoners wrong should be campaigning to change the laws at both Westminster and Holyrood, instead of chasing after one politician, when any other politician, of any political party, would almost certainly do the same thing. To make things easy for you, "landg", the laws which you need to campaign to change are the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act passed by a Tory government at Westminster in 1993,  and the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act  passed by the Labour/LibDem executive at Holyrood in 2007.
babykitten

landg wrote:
do the crime, do the time

Except he didn't do the crime, now did he?  Have you actually read the judgement in the initial trial?  Have you read any of the other analyses of the case as a whole?

Being convicted of something, sadly, does not equate to actually "being guilty" of something as countless cases in recent history demonstrate.  And unbelieveably some people feel that not even a conviction is necessary nowadays and simple accusations will do.

Regardless of his guilt, however, as Dave Coull points out, the law is that compassionate release has to be considered when it arises.  Sure, he didn't actually need to release him according to the letter of the law, but law is much more that just 'the letter'.  How the law is applied actually effectively BECOMES the law in itself.  The law has consistently been applied that people fulfilling the criteria, as Megrahi does, are released.

So, removal of Kenny MacAskill is entirely futile, because it would change neither this case, nor any future case and it certainly would not have been any different had any other party been in charge.
landg

babykitten wrote:
Except he didn't do the crime, now did he?  

.


well he was convicted, lost an appeal and binned his 2nd appeal. seems pretty guilty to me and pretty much everyone else and of course the scottish legal system.

furthermore this repugnant piece of trash who murdered 270 people is now publishing his 'papers' online. what a doublecrossing slither of slime this terrorist is.but at least he is free to die on tv on compassionate grounds.1,2,3 awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics