Libya & Lockerbie

[Rob W 0]

There is so much false posturing over this its making me ill....................

 

Total silence from Whitehall - the Yanks claiming they had "assurances" but not coming up with a shred of paper to prove it, the Scots playing silly buggers and de Mad Lunatic w** Ghaddafi (defnition from old Private Eye's) laughing his head off.........................

[Park Life 71]

There is so much false posturing over this its making me ill....................

 

Total silence from Whitehall - the Yanks claiming they had "assurances" but not coming up with a shred of paper to prove it, the Scots playing silly buggers and de Mad Lunatic w** Ghaddafi (defnition from old Private Eye's) laughing his head off.........................

 

He loves his tents and his bitches...

[Guest alex]

Immortalised by Jackie Wilson.

[Fop 1]

There is so much false posturing over this its making me ill....................

 

Total silence from Whitehall - the Yanks claiming they had "assurances" but not coming up with a shred of paper to prove it, the Scots playing silly buggers and de Mad Lunatic w** Ghaddafi (defnition from old Private Eye's) laughing his head off.........................

 

He loves his tents and his bitches...

 

It's bizarre that the hero's of the Islamic world, are usually about as distant from an Islamic ideal, as Gemmial is close to donkeys.

[Happy Face 29]

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.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-...megrahi-justice

[Guest alex]

Shows how inept Brown is when he couldn't even fully shift responsibility for this btw

[NJS 4446]

I always thought the conviction was dodgy to say the least but had actually been lulled into thinking his release was a pretty decent act by the Scots - the angle of it preventing his appeal hadn't occured to me - my cynicism must be waning - shit.

[Guest alex]

I always thought the conviction was dodgy to say the least but had actually been lulled into thinking his release was a pretty decent act by the Scots - the angle of it preventing his appeal hadn't occured to me - my cynicism must be waning - shit.

Even before his release there were some mentions in the press / on the radio etc. about the prevention of the appeal. What is absolutely disgusting though is how this wasn't sorted out years ago.

[Happy Face 29]

I always thought the conviction was dodgy to say the least but had actually been lulled into thinking his release was a pretty decent act by the Scots - the angle of it preventing his appeal hadn't occured to me - my cynicism must be waning - shit.

 

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal.

 

What a precedent to set.

 

Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later.

[Fop 1]

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.

 

 

 

Thing is this is basically a moon conspiracy.

 

 

You can bet without a doubt if some palastinian had been convicted of doing it on behalf of Iran.... there'd be a billion and one people lining up to say "oooo but it was the Libyans".

[Guest alex]

I always thought the conviction was dodgy to say the least but had actually been lulled into thinking his release was a pretty decent act by the Scots - the angle of it preventing his appeal hadn't occured to me - my cynicism must be waning - shit.

 

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal.

 

What a precedent to set.

 

Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later.

Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't.

Edited September 3, 2009 by alex

[Happy Face 29]

I always thought the conviction was dodgy to say the least but had actually been lulled into thinking his release was a pretty decent act by the Scots - the angle of it preventing his appeal hadn't occured to me - my cynicism must be waning - shit.

 

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal.

 

What a precedent to set.

 

Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later.

Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't.

 

 

Aye, poor choice of words.

 

I can't believe there's no connection though. In July Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would be going nowhere as he was unrepentant.

 

I might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion like, I don't know how many unrepentant convicts are released on compassionate grounds each year on average, but it seems strange to have 2 such high profile cases in close proximity.

 

EDIT: I realise Megrahi is different as he's always maintained innocence but agreed to drop his appeal.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

I always thought the conviction was dodgy to say the least but had actually been lulled into thinking his release was a pretty decent act by the Scots - the angle of it preventing his appeal hadn't occured to me - my cynicism must be waning - shit.

 

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal.

 

What a precedent to set.

 

Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later.

Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't.

 

 

Aye, poor choice of words.

 

I can't believe there's no connection though. In July Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would be going nowhere as he was unrepentant.

 

I might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion like, I don't know how many unrepentant convicts are released on compassionate grounds each year on average, but it seems strange to have 2 such high profile cases in close proximity.

Sorry, I get you now. You may be right as I heard Straw saying the same thing, about Biggs being unrepentent. I'd say that it's a case of preparing the way perhaps, in terms of public opinion, i.e. you can imagine the Sun brigade wanting Biggs out if this 'evil terrorist' type was allowed out first. I don't think it's setting a precedent for anyone other than high profile robbers who capture the public's imagination though, if you see what I mean. I don't think it'll change the situation for the likes of the Yorkshire Ripper.

[Fop 1]

I always thought the conviction was dodgy to say the least but had actually been lulled into thinking his release was a pretty decent act by the Scots - the angle of it preventing his appeal hadn't occured to me - my cynicism must be waning - shit.

 

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal.

 

What a precedent to set.

 

Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later.

Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't.

 

 

Aye, poor choice of words.

 

I can't believe there's no connection though. In July Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would be going nowhere as he was unrepentant.

 

I might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion like, I don't know how many unrepentant convicts are released on compassionate grounds each year on average, but it seems strange to have 2 such high profile cases in close proximity.

 

EDIT: I realise Megrahi is different as he's always maintained innocence but agreed to drop his appeal.

 

What was Biggs convicted of anyway?

 

These days he'd never get a 30 year sentence for for robbery + GBH (was he convicted of the GBH?).

[Happy Face 29]

I always thought the conviction was dodgy to say the least but had actually been lulled into thinking his release was a pretty decent act by the Scots - the angle of it preventing his appeal hadn't occured to me - my cynicism must be waning - shit.

 

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal.

 

What a precedent to set.

 

Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later.

Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't.

 

 

Aye, poor choice of words.

 

I can't believe there's no connection though. In July Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would be going nowhere as he was unrepentant.

 

I might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion like, I don't know how many unrepentant convicts are released on compassionate grounds each year on average, but it seems strange to have 2 such high profile cases in close proximity.

 

EDIT: I realise Megrahi is different as he's always maintained innocence but agreed to drop his appeal.

 

What was Biggs convicted of anyway?

 

These days he'd never get a 30 year sentence for for robbery + GBH (was he convicted of the GBH?).

 

http://www.wikipedia.org/

[Jimbo 175]

Immortalised by Jackie Wilson.

 

Remember this epic failure on Top of the Pops ?

 

 

They put a picture of Jockey Wilson the darts player up instead of Jackie Wilson

 

[Fop 1]

I always thought the conviction was dodgy to say the least but had actually been lulled into thinking his release was a pretty decent act by the Scots - the angle of it preventing his appeal hadn't occured to me - my cynicism must be waning - shit.

 

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal.

 

What a precedent to set.

 

Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later.

Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't.

 

 

Aye, poor choice of words.

 

I can't believe there's no connection though. In July Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would be going nowhere as he was unrepentant.

 

I might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion like, I don't know how many unrepentant convicts are released on compassionate grounds each year on average, but it seems strange to have 2 such high profile cases in close proximity.

 

EDIT: I realise Megrahi is different as he's always maintained innocence but agreed to drop his appeal.

 

What was Biggs convicted of anyway?

 

These days he'd never get a 30 year sentence for for robbery + GBH (was he convicted of the GBH?).

 

http://www.wikipedia.org/

 

Already looked, it doesn't say what exactly.

 

 

 

Do you think Biggs should have served his full 30 years (if he was going to live that long)?

 

Where as Megrahi would have been eligible for parole in 20 (assuming he was guilty)?

[Guest alex]

Funnily enough I was thinking of that when I posted that Jimbo

It was a deliberate piss-take on their part though I think.

Edited September 3, 2009 by alex

[Happy Face 29]

I always thought the conviction was dodgy to say the least but had actually been lulled into thinking his release was a pretty decent act by the Scots - the angle of it preventing his appeal hadn't occured to me - my cynicism must be waning - shit.

 

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal.

 

What a precedent to set.

 

Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later.

Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't.

 

 

Aye, poor choice of words.

 

I can't believe there's no connection though. In July Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would be going nowhere as he was unrepentant.

 

I might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion like, I don't know how many unrepentant convicts are released on compassionate grounds each year on average, but it seems strange to have 2 such high profile cases in close proximity.

 

EDIT: I realise Megrahi is different as he's always maintained innocence but agreed to drop his appeal.

 

What was Biggs convicted of anyway?

 

These days he'd never get a 30 year sentence for for robbery + GBH (was he convicted of the GBH?).

 

http://www.wikipedia.org/

 

Already looked, it doesn't say what exactly.

 

 

 

Do you think Biggs should have served his full 30 years (if he was going to live that long)?

 

Where as Megrahi would have been eligible for parole in 20 (assuming he was guilty)?

 

I think to get parole you should be contrite and/or have behaved well for a large portion of your sentence. Neither of those are really the case for Biggs who escaped and went on the run for 30 years enjoying the fruits of his crime, rather than pay his debt.

 

Not sure why there's a question mark on the last line

Edited September 3, 2009 by Happy Face

[Fop 1]

I always thought the conviction was dodgy to say the least but had actually been lulled into thinking his release was a pretty decent act by the Scots - the angle of it preventing his appeal hadn't occured to me - my cynicism must be waning - shit.

 

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal.

 

What a precedent to set.

 

Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later.

Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't.

 

 

Aye, poor choice of words.

 

I can't believe there's no connection though. In July Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would be going nowhere as he was unrepentant.

 

I might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion like, I don't know how many unrepentant convicts are released on compassionate grounds each year on average, but it seems strange to have 2 such high profile cases in close proximity.

 

EDIT: I realise Megrahi is different as he's always maintained innocence but agreed to drop his appeal.

 

What was Biggs convicted of anyway?

 

These days he'd never get a 30 year sentence for for robbery + GBH (was he convicted of the GBH?).

 

http://www.wikipedia.org/

 

Already looked, it doesn't say what exactly.

 

 

 

Do you think Biggs should have served his full 30 years (if he was going to live that long)?

 

Where as Megrahi would have been eligible for parole in 20 (assuming he was guilty)?

 

I think to get parole you should be contrite and/or have behaved well for a large portion of your sentence. Neither of those are really the case for Biggs who escaped and went on the run for 30 years enjoying the fruits of his crime, rather than pay his debt.

 

Not sure why there's a question mark on the last line

 

So you think a guilty and unrepentant thief should server longer than a guilty mass murderer that played the system?

 

Very strange view.

[Happy Face 29]

I always thought the conviction was dodgy to say the least but had actually been lulled into thinking his release was a pretty decent act by the Scots - the angle of it preventing his appeal hadn't occured to me - my cynicism must be waning - shit.

 

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal.

 

What a precedent to set.

 

Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later.

Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't.

 

 

Aye, poor choice of words.

 

I can't believe there's no connection though. In July Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would be going nowhere as he was unrepentant.

 

I might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion like, I don't know how many unrepentant convicts are released on compassionate grounds each year on average, but it seems strange to have 2 such high profile cases in close proximity.

 

EDIT: I realise Megrahi is different as he's always maintained innocence but agreed to drop his appeal.

 

What was Biggs convicted of anyway?

 

These days he'd never get a 30 year sentence for for robbery + GBH (was he convicted of the GBH?).

 

http://www.wikipedia.org/

 

Already looked, it doesn't say what exactly.

 

 

 

Do you think Biggs should have served his full 30 years (if he was going to live that long)?

 

Where as Megrahi would have been eligible for parole in 20 (assuming he was guilty)?

 

I think to get parole you should be contrite and/or have behaved well for a large portion of your sentence. Neither of those are really the case for Biggs who escaped and went on the run for 30 years enjoying the fruits of his crime, rather than pay his debt.

 

Not sure why there's a question mark on the last line

 

So you think a guilty and unrepentant thief should server longer than a guilty mass murderer that played the system?

 

Very strange view.

 

As always Fop, your patented change of subject amuses me.

 

If you want to discuss the discrepancies of sentencing, we can, but Megrahi got life, Biggs didn't.

[Fop 1]

I always thought the conviction was dodgy to say the least but had actually been lulled into thinking his release was a pretty decent act by the Scots - the angle of it preventing his appeal hadn't occured to me - my cynicism must be waning - shit.

 

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal.

 

What a precedent to set.

 

Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later.

Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't.

 

 

Aye, poor choice of words.

 

I can't believe there's no connection though. In July Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would be going nowhere as he was unrepentant.

 

I might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion like, I don't know how many unrepentant convicts are released on compassionate grounds each year on average, but it seems strange to have 2 such high profile cases in close proximity.

 

EDIT: I realise Megrahi is different as he's always maintained innocence but agreed to drop his appeal.

 

What was Biggs convicted of anyway?

 

These days he'd never get a 30 year sentence for for robbery + GBH (was he convicted of the GBH?).

 

http://www.wikipedia.org/

 

Already looked, it doesn't say what exactly.

 

 

 

Do you think Biggs should have served his full 30 years (if he was going to live that long)?

 

Where as Megrahi would have been eligible for parole in 20 (assuming he was guilty)?

 

I think to get parole you should be contrite and/or have behaved well for a large portion of your sentence. Neither of those are really the case for Biggs who escaped and went on the run for 30 years enjoying the fruits of his crime, rather than pay his debt.

 

Not sure why there's a question mark on the last line

 

So you think a guilty and unrepentant thief should server longer than a guilty mass murderer that played the system?

 

Very strange view.

 

As always Fop, your patented change of subject amuses me.

 

If you want to discuss the discrepancies of sentencing, we can, but Megrahi got life, Biggs didn't.

 

"Justice" is all about sentencing surely?

 

 

 

 

Although clearly Megrahi didn't get "life" in any context.

 

But you brought it up as an example, not Fop, so how much time has Biggs served now?

[Craig 6701]

I always thought the conviction was dodgy to say the least but had actually been lulled into thinking his release was a pretty decent act by the Scots - the angle of it preventing his appeal hadn't occured to me - my cynicism must be waning - shit.

 

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal.

 

What a precedent to set.

 

Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later.

Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't.

 

 

Aye, poor choice of words.

 

I can't believe there's no connection though. In July Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would be going nowhere as he was unrepentant.

 

I might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion like, I don't know how many unrepentant convicts are released on compassionate grounds each year on average, but it seems strange to have 2 such high profile cases in close proximity.

 

EDIT: I realise Megrahi is different as he's always maintained innocence but agreed to drop his appeal.

 

What was Biggs convicted of anyway?

 

These days he'd never get a 30 year sentence for for robbery + GBH (was he convicted of the GBH?).

 

http://www.wikipedia.org/

 

Already looked, it doesn't say what exactly.

 

States what his involvement in the robbery was though:

 

The robbers now encountered a problem. They needed to move the train to a location where they could load their ex-army dropside truck with the money and had decided to do so at bridge No.127 (known as 'Bridego Bridge') approximately half a mile ((about 800 m)) further along the track. One of the robbers had spent months befriending railway staff and familiarising himself with the layout and operation, but it was decided instead to use an experienced train driver to move the train from the signals to the bridge after uncoupling the unnecessary carriages. However the person they chose (later referred to as "Stan Agate") was unable to operate the English Electric Class 40 diesel locomotive as the model had only recently been introduced and was different to the local trains he was familiar with. It was quickly decided that the original driver Jack Mills would move the train, the stopping point near the bridge being indicated by a white sheet stretched between poles on the track. Stan Agate's participation in the robbery was Ronnie Biggs's only task and when it became obvious that they were useless they were banished to the waiting truck to help load the mail bags.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Train_Robbery_(1963)[/source]

 

Given that information, a 30 year sentence is harsh in anyone's eyes. IMO the sentence was handed out due to the noteriety of the crime rather than the crime itself.

 

When you consider that the kids who murdered James Bulger were set free after 8 years it makes a fucking mockery of the system tbh.

[Happy Face 29]

I always thought the conviction was dodgy to say the least but had actually been lulled into thinking his release was a pretty decent act by the Scots - the angle of it preventing his appeal hadn't occured to me - my cynicism must be waning - shit.

 

The worst part of all this is that they've pardoned a rightfully convicted criminal like Biggs, just so they can use it to say "oh aye, if anyone falls ill we let them out", rather than allow an appeal.

 

What a precedent to set.

 

Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe will be on 60 bines a day hoping to contract lung cancer sooner rather than later.

Biggs was released on compassionate grounds wasn't he? Rather than pardoned. But this case falls under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law whereas Biggs's didn't.

 

 

Aye, poor choice of words.

 

I can't believe there's no connection though. In July Jack Straw was adamant that Biggs would be going nowhere as he was unrepentant.

 

I might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion like, I don't know how many unrepentant convicts are released on compassionate grounds each year on average, but it seems strange to have 2 such high profile cases in close proximity.

 

EDIT: I realise Megrahi is different as he's always maintained innocence but agreed to drop his appeal.

 

What was Biggs convicted of anyway?

 

These days he'd never get a 30 year sentence for for robbery + GBH (was he convicted of the GBH?).

 

http://www.wikipedia.org/

 

Already looked, it doesn't say what exactly.

 

 

 

Do you think Biggs should have served his full 30 years (if he was going to live that long)?

 

Where as Megrahi would have been eligible for parole in 20 (assuming he was guilty)?

 

I think to get parole you should be contrite and/or have behaved well for a large portion of your sentence. Neither of those are really the case for Biggs who escaped and went on the run for 30 years enjoying the fruits of his crime, rather than pay his debt.

 

Not sure why there's a question mark on the last line

 

So you think a guilty and unrepentant thief should server longer than a guilty mass murderer that played the system?

 

Very strange view.

 

As always Fop, your patented change of subject amuses me.

 

If you want to discuss the discrepancies of sentencing, we can, but Megrahi got life, Biggs didn't.

 

"Justice" is all about sentencing surely?

 

 

 

 

Although clearly Megrahi didn't get "life" in any context.

 

But you brought it up as an example, not Fop, so how much time has Biggs served now?

 

You think justice starts and ends at sentencing? Should there be no incentivisation for good behaviour or rehabilitation?

 

What about the context of the court issuing him a life sentence with a recommended 20 years before parole eligibility?

 

I didn't bring it up "as an example" I'm not comparing or contrasting the jail terms they were issued or have served (that's you changing the subject). I'm saying (and i'm not the first) that the two are inextricably linked. That the U-turn Jack Straw did on Biggs in the space of a month was directly related to the impending release of (what the state have judged) a mass murderer. As John Snow says in the article linked above "it would have been untenable politically for Biggs, whose release had been so recently rejected and who had killed no one, to stay in prison whilst Megrahi who had allegedly killed 270 people was freed."

[Fop 1]

States what his involvement in the robbery was though:

 

The robbers now encountered a problem. They needed to move the train to a location where they could load their ex-army dropside truck with the money and had decided to do so at bridge No.127 (known as 'Bridego Bridge') approximately half a mile ((about 800 m)) further along the track. One of the robbers had spent months befriending railway staff and familiarising himself with the layout and operation, but it was decided instead to use an experienced train driver to move the train from the signals to the bridge after uncoupling the unnecessary carriages. However the person they chose (later referred to as "Stan Agate") was unable to operate the English Electric Class 40 diesel locomotive as the model had only recently been introduced and was different to the local trains he was familiar with. It was quickly decided that the original driver Jack Mills would move the train, the stopping point near the bridge being indicated by a white sheet stretched between poles on the track. Stan Agate's participation in the robbery was Ronnie Biggs's only task and when it became obvious that they were useless they were banished to the waiting truck to help load the mail bags.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Train_Robbery_(1963)[/source]

 

Given that information, a 30 year sentence is harsh in anyone's eyes. IMO the sentence was handed out due to the noteriety of the crime rather than the crime itself.

 

When you consider that the kids who murdered James Bulger were set free after 8 years it makes a fucking mockery of the system tbh.

 

 

Indeed.