Wycombe Fox Posted 21 August 2009 Posted 21 August 2009 For each person this scumbag killed he served 2 weeks in jail.fooking disgrace!! That puts into disgraceful perspective...but then again, what price oil?
Gaffer Posted 21 August 2009 Posted 21 August 2009 Sorry im young, What was the lockerbie bombings? never heard of that one? Wiki =D
Shrenchel Posted 21 August 2009 Posted 21 August 2009 It wasn't even him that did it anyway so I couldn't really give a shit.
LCFC-ARAB Posted 21 August 2009 Posted 21 August 2009 For each person this scumbag killed he served 2 weeks in jail.fooking disgrace!! thats unreal whenyou think of it like that
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 22 August 2009 Posted 22 August 2009 I'm one of the few that can see reason in releasing this man, and I'm quite proud that although there was a lot of external pressures the man with the power could show compassion to this man. I can appreciate that to many, especially the families of the victims this seems a stupid thing to do to let this man out, and I don't agree with the almost hero's welcome he received, but by showing compassion the judge chose to show that in his decision we are bigger in thinking than an eye for an eye, a life for a life. I am also suprised that for such a religous country as the USA, they have not chosen to show 'forgivness' to this man, and instead are looking to condem him. Surely part of their faith should tell them to forgive those who trespass against you and teach them that what ever wrongs someone does in this life they will face up to in the afterlife. (For god is the ultimate judge.) There is also the other question on whether this man was truely guilty, and although he could have appealed (and i think he was intending too) it seemed highly unlikely that he would survive long enough to see its outcome. So although he may be a free man in the strictess sence of the meaning, he is not free from the Reaper's sword over his head, and if he truely did kill these people the guilt that he has to carry - because by showing him compassion, he has to question why he did not show compassion to all those lifes he effected. Sometimes the hardest punishment is no punishment at all. (Can I point out I am not a religous nut - in fact I am more of antheist.)
Guest nathan. Posted 22 August 2009 Posted 22 August 2009 It wasn't even him that did it anyway so I couldn't really give a shit. Peoples relatives on here could have died you insensitive ****! keep those opinions to your self
Fox Shagger Posted 22 August 2009 Posted 22 August 2009 Peoples relatives on here could have died you insensitive ****!keep those opinions to your self The man was falsely imprisoned and rightly released. Here are some articles that may cast a doubt in your mind. Why don't people do a bit of research before making comments like the one above? Crown fights to keep 48 pieces of Lockerbie trial evidence secret Lockerbie evidence was faked Lockerbie Bombing Case Faces U-Turn after Perjury Confession New forensic evidence could free Libyan convicted of Lockerbie bombing
Guest Posted 22 August 2009 Posted 22 August 2009 Peoples relatives on here could have died you insensitive ****!keep those opinions to your self It's a valid opinion, the guy was in the process of appealing against the sentence, although this has now been dropped. Unfortunately releasing him like this means that we will never know if he really did do it, or whether it was a huge set up after all.
Webbo Posted 22 August 2009 Posted 22 August 2009 I'm always surprised with these conspiracy nuts that they don't believe evidence that has been tested in a court of law but they'll believe any crap posted by some loon on youtube.
Guest Posted 22 August 2009 Posted 22 August 2009 I'm always surprised with these conspiracy nuts that they don't believe evidence that has been tested in a court of law but they'll believe any crap posted by some loon on youtube. An appeal against a sentence can only go ahead if there was something wrong with the original trial, or if new evidence has come to light. I don't know either way whether he did it or not, the fact that he was appealing his conviction casts some doubt over the credibility over the original conviction. It may well be that this new evidence would not have cleared his name, it's the fact that we will probably never know what it was, and would it have worked. Like I say, I don't know either way whether he did it or not now.
Jay Posted 22 August 2009 Posted 22 August 2009 my own opinion on this is that he took one for the team as they say his arrest and trial was built around money, trade and politics and by the sound of it his release is all about money, trade and politics.
Webbo Posted 22 August 2009 Posted 22 August 2009 Like I say, I don't know either way whether he did it or not now. Me neither. When somebody pleads not guilty then there is always doubt in the back of your mind. I don't doubt that govt sometimes make deals and act dishonestly but I don't believe that 3 highly respected judges would be part of any conspiracy. Perhaps I'm just niave.
Guest Posted 22 August 2009 Posted 22 August 2009 Me neither. When somebody pleads not guilty then there is always doubt in the back of your mind.I don't doubt that govt sometimes make deals and act dishonestly but I don't believe that 3 highly respected judges would be part of any conspiracy. Perhaps I'm just niave. Juries are funny buggers. I've been visiting the Crown Court regularly, and seen cases that are clear cut yet the jury has found the defendant 'not guilty'. Similarly, I've seen cases where I felt there was a serious doubt over the prosecution case, yet the jury again disagreed. I wonder what goes on in their deliberations at times, I mean, Ian Huntley, for example was found guilty by a majority of 11:1 - someone wasn't convinced he'd murdered those girls!! But would I change the system? I don't think I would.
Zingari Posted 22 August 2009 Posted 22 August 2009 everyone ought to be made to watch "12 angry men" , with henry fonda
Guest Posted 22 August 2009 Posted 22 August 2009 everyone ought to be made to watch "12 angry men" , with henry fonda An amazing film.
Jon the Hat Posted 24 August 2009 Posted 24 August 2009 Talk this morning of the Scottish Government possibly falling over this. Would be very very funny. Very. Bring it on.
stez Posted 24 August 2009 Author Posted 24 August 2009 Talk this morning of the Scottish Government possibly falling over this. Would be very very funny. Very. Bring it on. amusing listening to the scottish justice minister earlier; up the arse of the usa, and could not praise the uk for anything (for example the us and others helped to track down the bomber, we praise them for this (or words to that effect)) but when it came to slagging the uk off, he could easily use the the letters u and k, which stuck in his throat, when the praise was being dished out. i know politics is a murky business, and there's no doubt there's been a bit of hand washing going on regarding this situation, and that the scottish 'government' is snp, but, come on, they said we were supposed to end up as 'good neighbours' once the scottish parliament was set up, not the people who's name dare not be spoken, unless there was a slagging off in the, err, offing.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.