What on earth do these clowns expect - do they really expect the members of another country to stand before a senate committee and justify their actions?
BBC News - US Senate Lockerbie bomber inquiry 'may visit UK'
They've been told the facts of the case and that should be enough for them.
Don't much like salmond but at least he's not caving in to ludicrous demands like this.
But he said there was "no way on Earth" Scottish ministers would formally give evidence to a committee hearing of a foreign legislature, even if it was held in the UK.
"It's a point of principle that you're not responsible to the committee of another parliament," he said.
"I don't think there is a recorded case in history of a serving American secretary going to another jurisdiction to give evidence to a committee of another parliament. That applies to the Chilcot Committee, it applies to coroners' inquests in England, it applies to extraordinary rendition and all the other controversies the US has been involved in.
"You shouldn't ask other people to do things that your own government would never dream of," he said.
Cheeky buggers
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Cheeky buggers
gmc;1326435 wrote: What on earth do these clowns expect - do they really expect the members of another country to stand before a senate committee and justify their actions?
BBC News - US Senate Lockerbie bomber inquiry 'may visit UK'
They've been told the facts of the case and that should be enough for them.
Don't much like salmond but at least he's not caving in to ludicrous demands like this. I have to agree. I can empathise with the American man wanting Justice for Lockerbie however, we are not answerable to the Senate and more than they are answerable to Westminster.
It seems a similar story to the now emerging proof that Obama has used the BP oil Spill as nothing more than a PR exercise to drum up waning support.
BBC News - US Senate Lockerbie bomber inquiry 'may visit UK'
They've been told the facts of the case and that should be enough for them.
Don't much like salmond but at least he's not caving in to ludicrous demands like this. I have to agree. I can empathise with the American man wanting Justice for Lockerbie however, we are not answerable to the Senate and more than they are answerable to Westminster.
It seems a similar story to the now emerging proof that Obama has used the BP oil Spill as nothing more than a PR exercise to drum up waning support.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Cheeky buggers
If this was the same kind of committee that the 'outgoing' BP boss Tony Hayward was questioned by a few weeks ago I wouldn't go within a million miles of them. They were a bunch of bullies in my opinion.
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Cheeky buggers
Bez;1326531 wrote: If this was the same kind of committee that the 'outgoing' BP boss Tony Hayward was questioned by a few weeks ago I wouldn't go within a million miles of them. They were a bunch of bullies in my opinion.
The more that emerges about the spill, the more It shows Obama looking for support. What amazed me was the Anti-British rants yet he failed to recognise that BP Is predominantly a US company with 28% being held by Kuwait. The US side of BP employs 30,000 people yet the threats were all directed at Britain... Not very bright Is he ???
The more that emerges about the spill, the more It shows Obama looking for support. What amazed me was the Anti-British rants yet he failed to recognise that BP Is predominantly a US company with 28% being held by Kuwait. The US side of BP employs 30,000 people yet the threats were all directed at Britain... Not very bright Is he ???
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Cheeky buggers
oscar;1326533 wrote: The more that emerges about the spill, the more It shows Obama looking for support. What amazed me was the Anti-British rants yet he failed to recognise that BP Is predominantly a US company with 28% being held by Kuwait. The US side of BP employs 30,000 people yet the threats were all directed at Britain... Not very bright Is he ???
If they think they are entitled to call members of another nation's government liars and call them to account in the senate we should do the same with Bush and cheney - let's call them before the chilcott inquiry. That would be fun.
If they think they are entitled to call members of another nation's government liars and call them to account in the senate we should do the same with Bush and cheney - let's call them before the chilcott inquiry. That would be fun.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Cheeky buggers
gmc;1326691 wrote: If they think they are entitled to call members of another nation's government liars and call them to account in the senate we should do the same with Bush and cheney - let's call them before the chilcott inquiry. That would be fun.
What a brilliant Idea !!!! Absolutely.... Let us see the Bush Admin at the Chilcott enquirey.
Let us just Hope Salmond and Cameron have some back-bone In telling the Senate where they can shove their 'Special relationship'. To me, It Is sour grapes that Scotland did not ask the US for permission to release him.
A little pot, kettle, black I feel when they accuse us of his release for Oil deals, like they have never considered such Malarky, Iran/Contra springs to mind. Funny how Obama has not got the balls to go after Kuwait for the oil spill as they own 28%... could be due to Bin Laden's father-In-Law being one of the Royal Household.
The oil spill Is certainly showing Obama's true colours at least.
Love It...
What a brilliant Idea !!!! Absolutely.... Let us see the Bush Admin at the Chilcott enquirey.
Let us just Hope Salmond and Cameron have some back-bone In telling the Senate where they can shove their 'Special relationship'. To me, It Is sour grapes that Scotland did not ask the US for permission to release him.
A little pot, kettle, black I feel when they accuse us of his release for Oil deals, like they have never considered such Malarky, Iran/Contra springs to mind. Funny how Obama has not got the balls to go after Kuwait for the oil spill as they own 28%... could be due to Bin Laden's father-In-Law being one of the Royal Household.
The oil spill Is certainly showing Obama's true colours at least.
Love It...
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Cheeky buggers
Ok...first of all, I completely agree that the people of one country should only be held accountable to that country's legal system.
That said, put this show on the other foot. Let's say we had a vicious english criminal like John Christie or the Kray Brothers in our jails and we let them go for an oil deal. Are you guys realistically telling me you wouldn't be upset and indignant? Then there's the problem of a country who's legal system is a joke like Libya or Nazi Germany...or England?
PS: Please prosecute Bush and Cheney. Please? Pretty please?
That said, put this show on the other foot. Let's say we had a vicious english criminal like John Christie or the Kray Brothers in our jails and we let them go for an oil deal. Are you guys realistically telling me you wouldn't be upset and indignant? Then there's the problem of a country who's legal system is a joke like Libya or Nazi Germany...or England?
PS: Please prosecute Bush and Cheney. Please? Pretty please?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Cheeky buggers
Saint_;1326696 wrote: Ok...first of all, I completely agree that the people of one country should only be held accountable to that country's legal system.
That said, put this show on the other foot. Let's say we had a vicious english criminal like John Christie or the Kray Brothers in our jails and we let them go for an oil deal. Are you guys realistically telling me you wouldn't be upset and indignant? Then there's the problem of a country who's legal system is a joke like Libya or Nazi Germany...or England?
PS: Please prosecute Bush and Cheney. Please? Pretty please? Saint... England did not release the Lockerbie bomber and the English Government had no say It.... It was the Scottish Parlement who released him on humanitarian grounds. Scottish Parliment has nothing to do with Westminster and the English Government.
Further-more... It is ludicrous to even try to suggest that Scotland was after an Oil deal.... Scotland has It's own Oil... And the nucleur weapons...
At least England does take their corrupt leaders to account... hence the squirming of Blair right now.
That said, put this show on the other foot. Let's say we had a vicious english criminal like John Christie or the Kray Brothers in our jails and we let them go for an oil deal. Are you guys realistically telling me you wouldn't be upset and indignant? Then there's the problem of a country who's legal system is a joke like Libya or Nazi Germany...or England?
PS: Please prosecute Bush and Cheney. Please? Pretty please? Saint... England did not release the Lockerbie bomber and the English Government had no say It.... It was the Scottish Parlement who released him on humanitarian grounds. Scottish Parliment has nothing to do with Westminster and the English Government.
Further-more... It is ludicrous to even try to suggest that Scotland was after an Oil deal.... Scotland has It's own Oil... And the nucleur weapons...
At least England does take their corrupt leaders to account... hence the squirming of Blair right now.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Cheeky buggers
Well, now I'm completely confused. Still, the point stands...I think we have the right to be incensed that another country, supposedly an ally of ours, released a vicious mass murderer.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Cheeky buggers
Saint_;1326707 wrote: Well, now I'm completely confused. Still, the point stands...I think we have the right to be incensed that another country, supposedly an ally of ours, released a vicious mass murderer.
What I will say about his release Is that It was all a little Iffy but not for oil as the US Is accusing Scotland. It had much more to do with the fact that he was about to launch an appeal and his lawyer had damning alleged evidence against the CIA.
I have never believed for one moment that he was guilty so I welcomed his release.
The facts Is, there were two alleged bombers on trial... In both prosecutions, the exact same evidence was put forward. One was found not guilty on the same evidence as the one who was found guilty. That just can not happen and the appeal would have exposed far more.
What I will say about his release Is that It was all a little Iffy but not for oil as the US Is accusing Scotland. It had much more to do with the fact that he was about to launch an appeal and his lawyer had damning alleged evidence against the CIA.
I have never believed for one moment that he was guilty so I welcomed his release.
The facts Is, there were two alleged bombers on trial... In both prosecutions, the exact same evidence was put forward. One was found not guilty on the same evidence as the one who was found guilty. That just can not happen and the appeal would have exposed far more.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Cheeky buggers
So you are telling me that this guy was an innocent white lamb that was sacrificed? I find that hard to believe! But as for the CIA stuff...heck I'd believe anything about them.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Cheeky buggers
Saint_;1326714 wrote: So you are telling me that this guy was an innocent white lamb that was sacrificed? I find that hard to believe! But as for the CIA stuff...heck I'd believe anything about them.
He was not an Innocent white lamb for he had come to the attention of Interpol long before Lockerbie however, you can not find a terrorist Not guilty and then find the co-defendant guilty when the exact same evidence was presented by the prosecution. Without going Into this chapter and verse... his conviction was In the main on a witness testomony who allegedly saw him buying clothes In a shop... However, that witness changed his testimony 7 times before picking out the Lockerbie bomber. The rest was purely circumstancial evidence.
As for the CIA Involvement... Do you not find It odd that 10 key CIA agents were on that plane?.... All but 3 have been Identitfied by their remains. Now that Is some co-Incidence... 10 CIA agents on the same plane flying over Scotland.
The evidence that the bombers lawyer was set to produce In an appeal would have seriously Under-mined the CIA as It Is alleged that the CIA was still doing deals with Iran and using flights to transport huge amounts of heroin from Iran as pay back for the CIA Iran hostage deal. It appears that the bomb was planted on the plane due to the CIA having clearance to flights, boarding with-out checks. The theory Is that the bomb was put on board In a suit-case but was given clearence due to It being a CIA flight.
The wreckage of Lockerbie yeilded not only 10 key CIA agents bodies but a vast amount of heroin and a suitcase containing millions of dollars.... Now tell me all of that Is co-Incidence?
Lockerbie and the conspiracy theories - Telegraph
He was not an Innocent white lamb for he had come to the attention of Interpol long before Lockerbie however, you can not find a terrorist Not guilty and then find the co-defendant guilty when the exact same evidence was presented by the prosecution. Without going Into this chapter and verse... his conviction was In the main on a witness testomony who allegedly saw him buying clothes In a shop... However, that witness changed his testimony 7 times before picking out the Lockerbie bomber. The rest was purely circumstancial evidence.
As for the CIA Involvement... Do you not find It odd that 10 key CIA agents were on that plane?.... All but 3 have been Identitfied by their remains. Now that Is some co-Incidence... 10 CIA agents on the same plane flying over Scotland.
The evidence that the bombers lawyer was set to produce In an appeal would have seriously Under-mined the CIA as It Is alleged that the CIA was still doing deals with Iran and using flights to transport huge amounts of heroin from Iran as pay back for the CIA Iran hostage deal. It appears that the bomb was planted on the plane due to the CIA having clearance to flights, boarding with-out checks. The theory Is that the bomb was put on board In a suit-case but was given clearence due to It being a CIA flight.
The wreckage of Lockerbie yeilded not only 10 key CIA agents bodies but a vast amount of heroin and a suitcase containing millions of dollars.... Now tell me all of that Is co-Incidence?
Lockerbie and the conspiracy theories - Telegraph
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Cheeky buggers
Saint_;1326696 wrote: Ok...first of all, I completely agree that the people of one country should only be held accountable to that country's legal system.
That said, put this show on the other foot. Let's say we had a vicious english criminal like John Christie or the Kray Brothers in our jails and we let them go for an oil deal. Are you guys realistically telling me you wouldn't be upset and indignant? Then there's the problem of a country who's legal system is a joke like Libya or Nazi Germany...or England?
PS: Please prosecute Bush and Cheney. Please? Pretty please?
Well how would you feel if we refused to extradite terrorists to the states for trial - for fear they wouldn't receive a fair trial or were allowing an organisation to openly fund a terrorist organisation in the states. But that's exactly what the states did when it came to the IRA. Not one single IRA suspect was extradited to the UK despite numerous requests and it wasn't until AFTER 911 it finally dawned on you that maybe you should take action to proscribe certain terrorist groups and even then Noraid and the IRA wasn't among them until later. It was after the money stopped flowing that the peace process started in northern ireland. Not to mention funding right wing terrorists, sorry freedom fighters, in south america and trying to turn a blind eye even when they killed american citizens.
To describe the attitude of the senators over this as hypocritical doesn't really do it justice. I can only asume they think it does them some good with their electorate. But if you don't know what I am talking about try searching under Noraid or IRA terrorists sheltering in the US and as another american soldier gets killed by a roadside bomb - sorry Improvised explosive device - ponder the links international terrorists had and have and why the ied's used in palestine, south america and elsewhere bear striking similarities to those used by the IRA.
Scotland has a differnt legal system from england, (and to be quite blunt no american is in a position to criticise either of them) and the westminster government cannot tell the scottish one what to do in this matter. It's not like federal law taking precedence over state law, it's more like akin to US law doesn't take precedenence over canadian law in canada. Were cameron daft enough to try and ride roughshod over it the resulting surge in support for the SNP would result in the scots becoming independent and since we have all the oil (well a large chunk of itl) that is something he can't risk. The prospect terrifies both labour and the tories. Cameron is probably quite pleased that salmond and macaskill have refused to attend. It saves him having to find a backbone and tell them to f___k off himself. The sight of UK ministers standing to give an account of themselves like wee boys in front of an american senate commitee would, I suspect, **** off most of the electorate.
That said, put this show on the other foot. Let's say we had a vicious english criminal like John Christie or the Kray Brothers in our jails and we let them go for an oil deal. Are you guys realistically telling me you wouldn't be upset and indignant? Then there's the problem of a country who's legal system is a joke like Libya or Nazi Germany...or England?
PS: Please prosecute Bush and Cheney. Please? Pretty please?
Well how would you feel if we refused to extradite terrorists to the states for trial - for fear they wouldn't receive a fair trial or were allowing an organisation to openly fund a terrorist organisation in the states. But that's exactly what the states did when it came to the IRA. Not one single IRA suspect was extradited to the UK despite numerous requests and it wasn't until AFTER 911 it finally dawned on you that maybe you should take action to proscribe certain terrorist groups and even then Noraid and the IRA wasn't among them until later. It was after the money stopped flowing that the peace process started in northern ireland. Not to mention funding right wing terrorists, sorry freedom fighters, in south america and trying to turn a blind eye even when they killed american citizens.
To describe the attitude of the senators over this as hypocritical doesn't really do it justice. I can only asume they think it does them some good with their electorate. But if you don't know what I am talking about try searching under Noraid or IRA terrorists sheltering in the US and as another american soldier gets killed by a roadside bomb - sorry Improvised explosive device - ponder the links international terrorists had and have and why the ied's used in palestine, south america and elsewhere bear striking similarities to those used by the IRA.
Scotland has a differnt legal system from england, (and to be quite blunt no american is in a position to criticise either of them) and the westminster government cannot tell the scottish one what to do in this matter. It's not like federal law taking precedence over state law, it's more like akin to US law doesn't take precedenence over canadian law in canada. Were cameron daft enough to try and ride roughshod over it the resulting surge in support for the SNP would result in the scots becoming independent and since we have all the oil (well a large chunk of itl) that is something he can't risk. The prospect terrifies both labour and the tories. Cameron is probably quite pleased that salmond and macaskill have refused to attend. It saves him having to find a backbone and tell them to f___k off himself. The sight of UK ministers standing to give an account of themselves like wee boys in front of an american senate commitee would, I suspect, **** off most of the electorate.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Cheeky buggers
gmc;1326731 wrote: Well how would you feel if we refused to extradite terrorists to the states for trial - for fear they wouldn't receive a fair trial or were allowing an organisation to openly fund a terrorist organisation in the states. But that's exactly what the states did when it came to the IRA. Not one single IRA suspect was extradited to the UK despite numerous requests and it wasn't until AFTER 911 it finally dawned on you that maybe you should take action to proscribe certain terrorist groups and even then Noraid and the IRA wasn't among them until later. It was after the money stopped flowing that the peace process started in northern ireland. Not to mention funding right wing terrorists, sorry freedom fighters, in south america and trying to turn a blind eye even when they killed american citizens.
To describe the attitude of the senators over this as hypocritical doesn't really do it justice. I can only asume they think it does them some good with their electorate. But if you don't know what I am talking about try searching under Noraid or IRA terrorists sheltering in the US and as another american soldier gets killed by a roadside bomb - sorry Improvised explosive device - ponder the links international terrorists had and have and why the ied's used in palestine, south america and elsewhere bear striking similarities to those used by the IRA.
Scotland has a differnt legal system from england, (and to be quite blint no american is in a position to criticise either of them) and the westminster government cannot tell the scottish one what to do in this matter. It's not like federal law taking precedence over state law, it's more like akin to US law doesn't take precedenence over canadian law in canada. Were cameron daft enough to try and ride roughshod over it the resulting surge in support for the SNP would result in the scots becoming independent and since we have all the oil (well a large chunk of itl) that is something he can't risk. The prospect terrifies both labour and the tories. Cameron is probably quite pleased that salmond and macaskill have refused to attend. It saves him having to find a backbone and tell them to f___k off himself. The sight of UK ministers standing to give an account of themselves like wee boys in front of an american senate commitee would, I suspect, **** off most of the electorate.
Damn that was good... Well said Auld Yin...Perfect Post !!
Can I just add to that the one-sided Extradition treaty between the US and England??? The US persecute Gary Mckinnon to try him by US law yet fail to meet our demands to Extradite know IRA Terrorists.
To describe the attitude of the senators over this as hypocritical doesn't really do it justice. I can only asume they think it does them some good with their electorate. But if you don't know what I am talking about try searching under Noraid or IRA terrorists sheltering in the US and as another american soldier gets killed by a roadside bomb - sorry Improvised explosive device - ponder the links international terrorists had and have and why the ied's used in palestine, south america and elsewhere bear striking similarities to those used by the IRA.
Scotland has a differnt legal system from england, (and to be quite blint no american is in a position to criticise either of them) and the westminster government cannot tell the scottish one what to do in this matter. It's not like federal law taking precedence over state law, it's more like akin to US law doesn't take precedenence over canadian law in canada. Were cameron daft enough to try and ride roughshod over it the resulting surge in support for the SNP would result in the scots becoming independent and since we have all the oil (well a large chunk of itl) that is something he can't risk. The prospect terrifies both labour and the tories. Cameron is probably quite pleased that salmond and macaskill have refused to attend. It saves him having to find a backbone and tell them to f___k off himself. The sight of UK ministers standing to give an account of themselves like wee boys in front of an american senate commitee would, I suspect, **** off most of the electorate.
Damn that was good... Well said Auld Yin...Perfect Post !!
Can I just add to that the one-sided Extradition treaty between the US and England??? The US persecute Gary Mckinnon to try him by US law yet fail to meet our demands to Extradite know IRA Terrorists.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Cheeky buggers
oscar;1326733 wrote: Damn that was good... Well said Auld Yin...Perfect Post !!
Can I just add to that the one-sided Extradition treaty between the US and England??? The US persecute Gary Mckinnon to try him by US law yet fail to meet our demands to Extradite know IRA Terrorists.
No wonder americans get confused, the extradition treaty is between the US and the UK not the US and england.
It's ironic, we can't allow abu hamza to be extradited to the states because it might breach his human rights but gary mckinnon is fair game. You would think anyone who can hack in to the pentagon from a laptop would be offered a job by them pretty quickly, perhaps it's embarrassment that makes them so vindictive. Maybe Gary should convert to islam and take sanctuary in a mosque.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... n-to-us.do
Give you an example of where makes scots law is better than English. wheel-clamping on private land is illegal. Our high court ruled clamping a car and demanding money for it's release was tantamount to extortion and theft and therefore illegal. Private clamping firms disappeared overnight.
Can I just add to that the one-sided Extradition treaty between the US and England??? The US persecute Gary Mckinnon to try him by US law yet fail to meet our demands to Extradite know IRA Terrorists.
No wonder americans get confused, the extradition treaty is between the US and the UK not the US and england.
It's ironic, we can't allow abu hamza to be extradited to the states because it might breach his human rights but gary mckinnon is fair game. You would think anyone who can hack in to the pentagon from a laptop would be offered a job by them pretty quickly, perhaps it's embarrassment that makes them so vindictive. Maybe Gary should convert to islam and take sanctuary in a mosque.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... n-to-us.do
Give you an example of where makes scots law is better than English. wheel-clamping on private land is illegal. Our high court ruled clamping a car and demanding money for it's release was tantamount to extortion and theft and therefore illegal. Private clamping firms disappeared overnight.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Cheeky buggers
gmc;1326782 wrote: No wonder americans get confused, the extradition treaty is between the US and the UK not the US and england.
It's ironic, we can't allow abu hamza to be extradited to the states because it might breach his human rights but gary mckinnon is fair game. You would think anyone who can hack in to the pentagon from a laptop would be offered a job by them pretty quickly, perhaps it's embarrassment that makes them so vindictive. Maybe Gary should convert to islam and take sanctuary in a mosque.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... n-to-us.do
Give you an example of where makes scots law is better than English. wheel-clamping on private land is illegal. Our high court ruled clamping a car and demanding money for it's release was tantamount to extortion and theft and therefore illegal. Private clamping firms disappeared overnight.
Now you're just being bloody picky :wah:
It is Ironic Indeed In Hamza's case... when we can not wait to get shot of one, we get held up In Brussels Red tape. :-5 And the Tax Payer foots the bill for the never ending appeals.
I have to agree about McKinnon.... although by accounts he Is a genius, If he got Into the Pentagon then he would be an asset... If he did Indeed convert to Islam he would be safe In the knowledge that he would never have to leave Britain.
I have actually noticed a few things re: Scottish law that are for the better although I believe Westminster Is also on the case of clampers.
It's ironic, we can't allow abu hamza to be extradited to the states because it might breach his human rights but gary mckinnon is fair game. You would think anyone who can hack in to the pentagon from a laptop would be offered a job by them pretty quickly, perhaps it's embarrassment that makes them so vindictive. Maybe Gary should convert to islam and take sanctuary in a mosque.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... n-to-us.do
Give you an example of where makes scots law is better than English. wheel-clamping on private land is illegal. Our high court ruled clamping a car and demanding money for it's release was tantamount to extortion and theft and therefore illegal. Private clamping firms disappeared overnight.
Now you're just being bloody picky :wah:
It is Ironic Indeed In Hamza's case... when we can not wait to get shot of one, we get held up In Brussels Red tape. :-5 And the Tax Payer foots the bill for the never ending appeals.
I have to agree about McKinnon.... although by accounts he Is a genius, If he got Into the Pentagon then he would be an asset... If he did Indeed convert to Islam he would be safe In the knowledge that he would never have to leave Britain.
I have actually noticed a few things re: Scottish law that are for the better although I believe Westminster Is also on the case of clampers.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Cheeky buggers
I have actually noticed a few things re: Scottish law that are for the better although I believe Westminster Is also on the case of clampers.
That was brilliant at the time. It helps that the laws of trespass are quite a bit different as well - the owner can ask someone to remove their car and use such force as is reasonable to get them to leave but just being there is not an offence like it is in england and wales, hence clamping and asking for money to release it is extortion. The clamper is committing a criminal offence they disappeared from the scene literally overnight. Scots MP's should not be voting on english legislation because it's bloody annoying when it's the other way round and we get laws foisted on us that are inappropriate to the scottish system - like these daft home reports.
This still rumbles on it seems.
YouTube - A Call for Answers Year After Lockerbie Release
You can't prove something didn't happen you can only prove it if it did. If they have evidence let's see it. Whatever you think about the decision I hope Salmond and MacAskill sticks to their guns, It's appalling that the US senators think they can call another government to answer to them. There was one interview I saw with John Bolton where a bbc reporter asked him if he understood what compassion is and he couldn't answer. Personally I think the reasons given are just what they are given as being.
It's the sheer hypocrisy of it all, after the shooting down of the Iranian airliner they gave medals to those that did it and promoted the captain. Can you imagine the outrage if someone shot down an american airliner and not only was no one held to account the perpetrators get promotion and medals.
Too bad he didn't die as expected and that would have been the end of it
That was brilliant at the time. It helps that the laws of trespass are quite a bit different as well - the owner can ask someone to remove their car and use such force as is reasonable to get them to leave but just being there is not an offence like it is in england and wales, hence clamping and asking for money to release it is extortion. The clamper is committing a criminal offence they disappeared from the scene literally overnight. Scots MP's should not be voting on english legislation because it's bloody annoying when it's the other way round and we get laws foisted on us that are inappropriate to the scottish system - like these daft home reports.
This still rumbles on it seems.
YouTube - A Call for Answers Year After Lockerbie Release
You can't prove something didn't happen you can only prove it if it did. If they have evidence let's see it. Whatever you think about the decision I hope Salmond and MacAskill sticks to their guns, It's appalling that the US senators think they can call another government to answer to them. There was one interview I saw with John Bolton where a bbc reporter asked him if he understood what compassion is and he couldn't answer. Personally I think the reasons given are just what they are given as being.
It's the sheer hypocrisy of it all, after the shooting down of the Iranian airliner they gave medals to those that did it and promoted the captain. Can you imagine the outrage if someone shot down an american airliner and not only was no one held to account the perpetrators get promotion and medals.
Too bad he didn't die as expected and that would have been the end of it