Maria Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I find it rather ironic that President Obama and the American people generally are so very angry and upset about this man being released back to Libya. If I remember correctly, around the time that he committed his dreadful act of mass murder, Americans were cheerfully funding the IRA, and refusing to extradite known Irish terrorists from their country. They were even going on coach tours in Northern Ireland to see where British soldiers were murdered, as a fun day out. Funny how they only get so upset about terrorism when it affects them. I agree - esp as only a few months before Lockerbie, an American warship shot down an Iranian civilian plane, killing 290 innocent people, inc 66 children Did they offer up the crew responsible for this 'accident' for trial and justice? - no, but when the crew went home they were all awarded military medals I actually suspect Iran was more responsible for Lockerie, as an act of revenge. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathyw Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 It's simple. Ronnie Biggs & co stole lots of money. Lockabie bumbers stole lots of lives. I honestly think Biggs was only released on compassionate grounds because government knew the bomber was going to be released. Loss of money means more to the government than loss of lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I'm wondering how general the practice is of releasing terminally ill prisoners on compassionate grounds. We only hear about the high-profile ones. Does anyone here know? I don't have much tolerance for Biggs either. He and his gang did worse than steal money. While pursuing their greed they were the cause of serious and permanent injury to a rail employee who had months of hospital treatment and never worked again. They have always sanctimoniously claimed no violence was used and he just happened to fall over. As people may well do, when their train has been boarded by robbers taking it over and waving baseball bats in their faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathyw Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I'm wondering how general the practice is of releasing terminally ill prisoners on compassionate grounds. We only hear about the high-profile ones. Does anyone here know? I don't have much tolerance for Biggs either. He and his gang did worse than steal money. While pursuing their greed they were the cause of serious and permanent injury to a rail employee who had months of hospital treatment and never worked again. They have always sanctimoniously claimed no violence was used and he just happened to fall over. As people may well do, when their train has been boarded by robbers taking it over and waving baseball bats in their faces. But was he was not blown up along with a few hundred others. Also they could not have known in advance what resistance if any, they were going to come across and therefore did not know in advance for sure they were going to hurt anyone, whereas the bombers did - that was their purpose. They knew blowing up a plane meant no survivors. To me there is a very, very big difference in the two crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslass Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I'm wondering how general the practice is of releasing terminally ill prisoners on compassionate grounds. We only hear about the high-profile ones. Does anyone here know? I've seen the following stats bandied about in the press over the past few days - I don't have the source, but this quote is from the Guardian - "Compassionate release is an established feature of the British and Scottish judicial systems when a prisoner is near death. According to officials, there have been 30 requests for release on compassionate grounds in Scotland over the last decade, 23 of which were approved. Scotland, which is part of Britain, has a separate legal system." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathyw Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I've seen the following stats bandied about in the press over the past few days - I don't have the source, but this quote is from the Guardian - "Compassionate release is an established feature of the British and Scottish judicial systems when a prisoner is near death. According to officials, there have been 30 requests for release on compassionate grounds in Scotland over the last decade, 23 of which were approved. Scotland, which is part of Britain, has a separate legal system." Allows them to die in their homes or another palce of their choice - something their victims did not have. They should rot in jail. I've seen the following stats bandied about in the press over the past few days - I don't have the source, but this quote is from the Guardian - "Compassionate release is an established feature of the British and Scottish judicial systems when a prisoner is near death. According to officials, there have been 30 requests for release on compassionate grounds in Scotland over the last decade, 23 of which were approved. Scotland, which is part of Britain, has a separate legal system." Allows them to die in their homes or another palce of their choice - something their victims did not have. They should rot in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mop Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 suzeanna, on 21 August 2009 - 04:45 PM, said: I find it rather ironic that President Obama and the American people generally are so very angry and upset about this man being released back to Libya. If I remember correctly, around the time that he committed his dreadful act of mass murder, Americans were cheerfully funding the IRA, and refusing to extradite known Irish terrorists from their country. They were even going on coach tours in Northern Ireland to see where British soldiers were murdered, as a fun day out. Funny how they only get so upset about terrorism when it affects them. I agree - esp as only a few months before Lockerbie, an American warship shot down an Iranian civilian plane, killing 290 innocent people, inc 66 children Did they offer up the crew responsible for this 'accident' for trial and justice? - no, but when the crew went home they were all awarded military medals I actually suspect Iran was more responsible for Lockerie, as an act of revenge. When the Americans shot down the Iranian plane it was all kept very low key and we never found out what happened to them men who shot it down, the Iranians said then that there would be revenge. When the plane first came down at Lockerbie the Iranians were blamed but for some reason they couldn't get them, instead they went for Libya. The alleged Lockerbie bomber was handed over to get sanctions lifted and at the trial there was a lot of doubts he was the bomber including the parents of some of those on the plane when it went down. There is one rule for America and one for everyone else, where did they take the prisoners from Afghanastan, not to America but to Guatamala Bay so they could treat them outside American law and they did. The are bullies and try to bully every other country to do what they say, well done Scotland for not bowing down to the bullies. America has no right to interfer in how other countries are run or who they release from prison and who they don't. His treatment when he arrived back in Libya reinforces to me that he was given up for politics and may not be the bomber, if he had died in prison he would then have been hailed as a martyr and go down in Libyian history as that. To me that is a lot worse than what has happened when he was released. I would hate to live in a world that had no compassion, the amount of fighting that we have now would be a lot worse if ther was no compassion. If everyone treated others they way they wanted to be treated themselves, our world would be a much better place to live in, unfortunately they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 But was he was not blown up along with a few hundred others. Also they could not have known in advance what resistance if any, they were going to come across and therefore did not know in advance for sure they were going to hurt anyone, whereas the bombers did - that was their purpose. They knew blowing up a plane meant no survivors. To me there is a very, very big difference in the two crimes. No, he wasn't. But they meant their victims to believe that they would carry out violence, and they were well aware that if you rob a train someone is very likely to get hurt because anything can happen when people are scared out of their wits. Then they ended up being glamorised in the press and finally looked at as some kind of loveable rogues, not the downright villains which they were. Of course there is a very big difference in the two crimes, I didn't say there wasn't. But serious crime is serious crime whatever the degree. To be fair, I think the Scots were caught either way in a lose-lose situation. He went home as a hero and will have a hero's funeral. If he had died in prison he would have been a martyr. And now Gaddafi's son has alleged that it was part of a trade deal brokered by Blair, so it doesn't look like compassion at all if you listen to him (which I am not inclined to, but many will). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Thanks for the quote, scotslass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslass Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Allows them to die in their homes or another palce of their choice - something their victims did not have. They should rot in jail. Allows them to die in their homes or another palce of their choice - something their victims did not have. They should rot in jail. I was quoting the figures (from the Guardian) only in response to Owl's question about statistics, Kathy. It doesn't say that all those released early on compassionate grounds are murderers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackmagic Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Kathy Would you feel differently about the person who instituted the death of your husband, son , daughter or other relative depending on whether they blew up the plane they were on, or they were battered by a train robber? A death is a death to the family left behind, whether it is only your relative or lots of other people as well. Briggs also absconded from prison and lived the high life in Brazil, until he could not afford medical treatment. He was open about the fact that he came back to Britain to get free medical treatment. What contribution had he made to this country towards this? Had he not absconded he would have been free years ago. We are still picking up the tab for Briggs care, at least we are no longer paying for al-Megrahi's medical care. And I do think he was the fall guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathyw Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Kathy Would you feel differently about the person who instituted the death of your husband, son , daughter or other relative depending on whether they blew up the plane they were on, or they were battered by a train robber? A death is a death to the family left behind, whether it is only your relative or lots of other people as well. Briggs also absconded from prison and lived the high life in Brazil, until he could not afford medical treatment. He was open about the fact that he came back to Britain to get free medical treatment. What contribution had he made to this country towards this? Had he not absconded he would have been free years ago. We are still picking up the tab for Briggs care, at least we are no longer paying for al-Megrahi's medical care. And I do think he was the fall guy. No I would feel the same about anyone who hurt someone I loved - I would want revenge -simple and if able I would like to administer it myself. But I see a very big difference in blowing up a plane and hitting someone over the head however hard. The poor man who got whacked over the head may have died a year later but could have survived - the people on that place and the people in the homes where it came down had no chance whatsoever and the bombers knew that. I see terrorism as a totally different act to any other crime. I am not defending biggs and co but to me, their crime pales in comparison to the acts of terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mop Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 What I would hate to see more is him made a martyr because he died in a prison in Scotland, much better to release him on compassionate grounds. I haven't seen any outcrys about the plane that the Americans shot down or what happened to the people who shot it down, probably given medals so why the difference in that plane and the one at Lockerbie? Inocent people were murdered both times. We have to be true to ourselves and we are a lot more compassionate that the Americans which I am thankful for. As I said in a previous post, I would hate to live in a world were there was no compassion, cruelty to both people and animals is horendous now, just think how bad it would be if there were no compassion in this world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 I don't think anyone is particularly supporting the American government in this discussion here, or saying it was acceptable for them to shoot down the Iranian plane. But there wasn't a lot we could do about that, it didn't happen on UK territory. I also find the USA attitude unacceptable in that they are acting as if they have a right to decide how the judicial processes of other countries should be run. It certainly doesn't work the other way round! Even though I don't agree with the release, I accept the right of the Scottish authorities to make that decision. With respect, we are hardly arguing for a world with no compassion. I'm sure there are many cases where compassionate release is the right thing. I think I will leave this discussion now and just beg to differ with one or two people. I'm not very good at arguing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathyw Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 I was quoting the figures (from the Guardian) only in response to Owl's question about statistics, Kathy. It doesn't say that all those released early on compassionate grounds are murderers. I only meant for murders and child molesters to rot in prison whatever ails them. For all other crimes then I have no problem with release on compassionate grounds. btw did you send my some photos in an email? I am sure I saw one but them it disappeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts