The English and Scottish court systems are more separate and different from each other than eg the systems of Ohio and Florida. Libel tourism happens in the English civil system. It is completely irrelevant when discussing a matter of Scottish criminal law and the Scottish court / justice system.
Wearing paisley with tweeds.
Aye, so up ye arse wi a 20lb haggis Rune, ye jumped-up fucking maggot!
Reading Rune’s posts make me glad that browsers do not have a spittle tag. Even via the written word, you can smell the phlegm.
Eh? What the wittering arse are you talking about? What whining about four lettered words? I’ve been throwing them around left, right and centre, what the fucking fuck are you talking about you silly cock?
That’s right. I do indeed mean a man found guilty of mass-murder of 270 people, who was found to have terminal cancer, and released from jail. Sorry if you think that somehow is a terrible injustice, but tough shit. The judiciary here doesn’t agree with you. They’ve explained their reasoning. So just what obligation do you feel is still outstanding?
The level of arrogance really is quite impressive. All other countries should have the same legal system as the US, and punish people as the US would. Failure to comply with this shall result in demands that their officials explain themselves, personally, to the US senate. Any country that fails to do so has failed in some nebulous obligation they have to justice, as defined by the US.
May I refer you to my previous request about shoving it up your arse?
I do of course await your next reply with baited breath, particularly the rather predictable reference to UK libel law.
Then why did SCCRC review his case in an 800 page report recommending an appeal (the same appeal he dropped after an unprecedented visit to him in prison by the Scottish justice secretary)? Why were CIA documents available to the prosecution, but not to the defence?
Why was testimony from a man who failed to identify the accused 19 times before the trial allowed (not just allowed, but formed a centerpiece of the prosecution’s case) to be heard in court? Why was the accused’s legal council imposed upon him, and why was he not free to choose his own defence lawyer?
The whole thing stinks.
Not if you are used to wallowing in bullshit and actually think it’s quite relaxing.
Do you really think it’s a good idea to post something logical where Rune might read it? You could be looking at the cerebral version of the big bang, as logic comes into contact with Rune’s anti-logic His/her entire psyche could be eradicated as a new one explodes into being.
Actually, that’s not such a bad plan. Carry on.
I imagine I’m wasting my time in posting something rational, but I’ll do so anyway.
The Scottish authorities did in fact let the victims down, but not by releasing Al-Megrahi. They did so by convicting him in the first place, knowing he was innocent, and ceasing to look for the actual terrorists. Of course, the main reason they did this was pressure from America in the first place.
Oh, and even if he is guilty, releasing him was the correct thing to do. If you disagree, cite the Scottish law that supports your point.
Let me just remind people that Senator Menendez, the guy who is raising the stink about officials from a foreign government not submitting themselves to congressional testimony, is the same guy who, three years ago, proposed to divert funds from US-Mexican border security efforts to build a fence between the US and Canada.
In short, he will do anything to get in the news, and he’s not taken terribly seriously.
Menendez is currently the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, so he’s not exactly small potatoes.
He is to us.
Oh right. I take it back. You aren’t savvy enough - my mistake.
I mean in American terms. Ravenman’s post makes it sound like he’s the equivalent of a backbench MP or something, which he isn’t.
This silly verbal back-n-forth ejaculation is a proof positive how best way to manage “free thinkers” is to pit them against each other.
My God, what’s in it for you?
Yeah, but that doesn’t preclude him from being an attention-seeker all the same.
He is pretty much the equivalent of a back-bench MP. He’s not a Cabinet member ( not analogous between countries, but I mean in the sense of not being Secretary of State or something). The fact that he chairs some committee is not really relevant. Our parliamentary oversight committees are chaired by backbench MPs. His one just seems like a party-specific political one.
Isn’t Rune Danish? Shouldn’t he be sucking down a pickled herring?
I only ask as Gary seems to think he’s a Yank.
No, he’s not. Remember (or understand), legislators here can’t serve in the Cabinet, unless they resign their elected offices.
He speaks with the weight of, if not one of the important ministers, then certainly a party whip.
Oh and good to read you again Gary. It’s been a while.
He raises money for the Democratic Party and he has a chairmanship of a subcommittee of a committee that very rarely produces legislation. I’m not saying he’s a nobody, but he certainly isn’t particularly influential in terms of policy. I think most in Washington would regard him as being more of a showhorse than a workhorse. That’s why he has the job of raising money – it plays to his strength in politics, not policy.
Fair enough.