Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
If the're uncertain he's guilty then he should not have been convicted in the first place.
Lockerbie bomber to be released
- Thread starter Conscript
- Start date
If the're uncertain he's guilty then he should not have been convicted in the first place.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 63
Don't forget at the time of the bombing Libya and the UK didn't exactly have a glorious relationship. Libya adopted the "Enemy of my enemy is my friend approach" and was shipping a whole arsenal of weapons to Northern Ireland.
Aren't you forgetting how he came to be tried in the first place? The trial would not even have been possible without Libya's co-operation.
It was Libya which agreed to the extradition of two Libyans for trial (only one of whom was convicted) and it was Libya which set the conditions of extradition:
(a) No-one else in Libya would be pursued as a suspect
(b) The two suspects would not be interviewed by the police
(c) The trial had to be held before three Scottish judges without a jury
Those were Libya's demands, and they were agreed and met by the UK. So, we have two men extradited from Libya on the basis of questionable evidence, who are denied a police interview and denied trial by jury. We also have a neat little clause in the extradition which says that nobody else in Libya can be blamed for the bombing.
Scapegoats ahoy!
Last edited:
Lets have some compassion here people.
Such acts of mercy help elevate us. The man was jailed and is approaching the end of his life. He has served his time on earth and will be passing shortly. Whether or not he was guilty is irrelevant.
He will be dead soon and will meet his maker. ^^
Such acts of mercy help elevate us. The man was jailed and is approaching the end of his life. He has served his time on earth and will be passing shortly. Whether or not he was guilty is irrelevant.
He will be dead soon and will meet his maker. ^^
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
They can do this and yet are unable to think of something else to do with Charles Bronson apart from solitary confinement for 30 years? I find that astounding. I remember reading about Bronson about 5 years ago and was shocked to find he wasn't out of solitary yet recently. And now the Lockerbie bomber is going free.
What else do you think they should do with Bronson? He's a high risk offender whose time in prison has been regularly extended due to the large number of violent crimes he has committed whilst being detained at her Majesty's pleasure. Do you seriously believe he should be unleashed upon the public?
Fixed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,499
- Location
- London, UK
if hes truly guilty sod that! what about the hundreds of innocent lives he ended short and the pain for all families involved. if hes religious the only place hes going is hell.
I don't think he should be released into the public but recent interviews have said that he hasn't had a recorded case of violence in over 10 years. He publishes art and poetry which is clearly a way to express himself, even if it's a bit crude, and he regularly writes back to other prisoners who wrote to him asking for advice. I think he's got to an age where he feels he has nothing left to prove and should at least be given a chance to show it. It wouldn't wind me up so much but there's so many stories of paedophiles and murderers getting ridiculous sentences that I think they should reconsider his circumstance.
But going into the public is not something to consider unless it's proven he's totally calmed down which would be very hard to do.
Back to British Law 101 for you.
I'm tempted to agree with you because the basis for letting him out is supposedly his poor health, nothing to do with saying he's not guilty. However if the basis for letting him out is to do with this appeal that he's not going to live to see, then obviously whether he did it or not is still a point of contention.
innocent until proven guilty, he was proven guilty, so as it stands he is not innocent, until such a time as that original decision is overturned
So?
Yes, he was found guilty - though they had to bend the rules for it. Denied a police interview? Trial without jury? Yeah, that sounds fair.
In any case, Viper²'s post seemed to imply that he is not eligible for release on any grounds whatsoever. Clearly that is not the case, even if he is guilty.
****ing scum, should be made to rot and die in prison! Don't you just love the way this Country's justice system is the laughing stock across the World these days? It used to be held up as a bastion of truth, honesty and integrity, but just look what Labour and it's ****ty left-wing, do-gooding policies have done to it.
I hear Ian Brady is feeling a tad under the weather these days. There are reports that the poor sod was heard to sneeze the other night, and also he apparently has a splinter in his finger.
I hear Ian Brady is feeling a tad under the weather these days. There are reports that the poor sod was heard to sneeze the other night, and also he apparently has a splinter in his finger.
Last edited:
What?
He should be eligible for release when he has served his sentence. He'll probably be about 300 years old though.
