For the record, I NEVER made any comment or insinuation of the sort regarding you or other commenters being "paid" by Libya to voice your opinions. Quite the contrary. I believe Ruth, accused me of this on Black's Blog.
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Scottish Parliament e-Petition 417
- Thread starter Rolfe
- Start date
For the record, I NEVER made any comment or insinuation of the sort regarding you or other commenters being "paid" by Libya to voice your opinions. Quite the contrary. I believe Ruth, accused me of this on Black's Blog.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Well, sorry if I picked you up wrongly. Sometimes your posts are a bit hard to follow when you launch into innuendo and Hmmmmm..... (You did insinuate that Robert Black was being paid though.)
I'm just trying to get it through to you that we're concerned about THE MEGRAHI CONVICTION, because it appears to be perverse, irrational and flying in the face of the evidence.
The indictment on which the conviction was based was issued in 1991, under a Conservative government in the UK, and a good eight years before Scotland even had a government of her own in modern times. The trial and conviction was in 2000-01, while there was a Labour/LibDem coalition in power in Scotland, and a Labour government in Westminster.
The indictment based on the lying testimony of Giaka which was never properly investigated by the Scottish prosecution authorities, and the conviction based on a partisan, biassed and frankly irrational reading of the evidence, are what we're concerned about. None of these things had anything to do with the present Scottish government, which was only elected in 2007.
Rolfe.
I'm just trying to get it through to you that we're concerned about THE MEGRAHI CONVICTION, because it appears to be perverse, irrational and flying in the face of the evidence.
The indictment on which the conviction was based was issued in 1991, under a Conservative government in the UK, and a good eight years before Scotland even had a government of her own in modern times. The trial and conviction was in 2000-01, while there was a Labour/LibDem coalition in power in Scotland, and a Labour government in Westminster.
The indictment based on the lying testimony of Giaka which was never properly investigated by the Scottish prosecution authorities, and the conviction based on a partisan, biassed and frankly irrational reading of the evidence, are what we're concerned about. None of these things had anything to do with the present Scottish government, which was only elected in 2007.
Rolfe.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
That's nearly three days the petition site has been down. What on earth could have happened that would take so long to fix? Just a simple script allowing people to sign a petition, and a short comments thread?
It's not even as if it's the entire Scottish parliament web site that's down. Just the petition part. Very peculiar.
Rolfe.
It's not even as if it's the entire Scottish parliament web site that's down. Just the petition part. Very peculiar.
Rolfe.
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,494
What a distressingly long and awkward crash.
I think it's neither conspiracy nor coincidence. The petition's success and mass interest did cause it to be crashed - most likely without malice by a poorly-run site (by that "crappy government," eh?).
But we're past 96 hours now. Still down, 20% of total time allotted lost.
The last cached version I could see showed 1,444. Is there even a cache of the signatories, or the discussion as they stood? I'm not sure.
I think it's neither conspiracy nor coincidence. The petition's success and mass interest did cause it to be crashed - most likely without malice by a poorly-run site (by that "crappy government," eh?).
But we're past 96 hours now. Still down, 20% of total time allotted lost.
The last cached version I could see showed 1,444. Is there even a cache of the signatories, or the discussion as they stood? I'm not sure.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I can't see that signatures were being added fast enough to crash the server, no matter how crappy it was.
I think it's a lousy coincidence, and that the e-Petitions are such a low priority at the parliament that nobody can be arsed to get a move on and get it fixed.
Rolfe.
I think it's a lousy coincidence, and that the e-Petitions are such a low priority at the parliament that nobody can be arsed to get a move on and get it fixed.
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
The e-Petitions web site is now back in operation, so anyone else who agrees there should be an independent inquiry into the Camp Zeist process should get in there and sign it.
http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/view_petition.asp?PetitionID=417
Rolfe.
http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/view_petition.asp?PetitionID=417
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
It has been announced that the e-Petition is to remain open for an extra few days to comensate (in part) for the five-day crash of the website. It will now remain open until 1st November.
Signatures now stand at 1,582.
It seems a pity that the web site crash coincided with the height of the publicity that was organised to support the petition. How many people will bother to return to the matter after an initial failure? Will many of these people even realise the petition site has been mended?
At least the 1,440 signatures that were added before the crash have not disappeared in a puff of electrons!
Rolfe.
Signatures now stand at 1,582.
It seems a pity that the web site crash coincided with the height of the publicity that was organised to support the petition. How many people will bother to return to the matter after an initial failure? Will many of these people even realise the petition site has been mended?
At least the 1,440 signatures that were added before the crash have not disappeared in a puff of electrons!
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Bump 'cos I'm going to bed. 1,624 at bedtime.
All JREFers with open minds and functioning critical thinking skills are encouraged to add their names.
Rolfe.
All JREFers with open minds and functioning critical thinking skills are encouraged to add their names.
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Update. The petition reached 1,649 before it was taken off-line by the site admins for maintenance very shortly after I made the previous post. Although an extension had been granted due to the five-day crash, this was rendered pointless because for the final three days or so it was impossible to add any names to it.
The eventual number credited was 1,646, after the removal of three signatures which proved not to be genuine.
The petitioners made their presentation to the Petitions Committee at the parliament yesterday afternoon. Read all about it. There is also a full video record of the proceedings available online a the Scottish parliament's web site.
The petition was accepted and will go before the parliament. Several members of the committee expressed serious disquiet about what they were hearing (though that did suggest they hadn't done their homework and hadn't been listening to what some of their colleagues in parliament were saying, but there you go).
It will be interesting to see what the next set of excuses will be for declining to take this matter further.
Rolfe.
The eventual number credited was 1,646, after the removal of three signatures which proved not to be genuine.
The petitioners made their presentation to the Petitions Committee at the parliament yesterday afternoon. Read all about it. There is also a full video record of the proceedings available online a the Scottish parliament's web site.
The petition was accepted and will go before the parliament. Several members of the committee expressed serious disquiet about what they were hearing (though that did suggest they hadn't done their homework and hadn't been listening to what some of their colleagues in parliament were saying, but there you go).
It will be interesting to see what the next set of excuses will be for declining to take this matter further.
Rolfe.
Last edited:
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,494
Bump.
Most of the JFM core members presented their case yesterday to go with the petition.
That closed at 1646 signatures, after being down nearly half its alloted time due to glitches. It had been at 1649 prior to that, suggesting only a final 3 entries were removed as invalid/duplicate.
Rolfe may be typing something up right now, but just in case she doesn't think to bump this, I'll do it.
The video of the presentation is available [bad format WMV], and the thing was quite good. Powerful stuff. Especially around the 20:00-27:00 mark where Robert Black explains how Scotland's refusal to face up to its own actions is blocking the way to the wider international probe some feel is needed rather than a Scottish one. His answer, brilliant, is yes we need that. And first we need to do this. Noth that rather than this. Won't happen.
The committee were moved enough to agree to ask the government if it will conduct an investigation into the verdict. And if they say no (yeah, like that's gonna happen
), press for clear answers citing legal reasons, and report back. As I understood it, anyway, nothing amazing, but about as successful as it could be.
ETA: LOL.
Most of the JFM core members presented their case yesterday to go with the petition.
That closed at 1646 signatures, after being down nearly half its alloted time due to glitches. It had been at 1649 prior to that, suggesting only a final 3 entries were removed as invalid/duplicate.
Rolfe may be typing something up right now, but just in case she doesn't think to bump this, I'll do it.
The video of the presentation is available [bad format WMV], and the thing was quite good. Powerful stuff. Especially around the 20:00-27:00 mark where Robert Black explains how Scotland's refusal to face up to its own actions is blocking the way to the wider international probe some feel is needed rather than a Scottish one. His answer, brilliant, is yes we need that. And first we need to do this. Noth that rather than this. Won't happen.
The committee were moved enough to agree to ask the government if it will conduct an investigation into the verdict. And if they say no (yeah, like that's gonna happen
), press for clear answers citing legal reasons, and report back. As I understood it, anyway, nothing amazing, but about as successful as it could be.ETA: LOL.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
I wasn't at the actual presentation yesterday afternoon because I was at work, but I was invited to meet the rest of the JFM committee "in ra pub" afterwards, as my work is only about 15 minutes away. They were very pleased with how the presentation went, and the reception of the petition. They felt they'd really got through to some members of the petitions committee.
By the way, there was a fair bit of praising of the "Lockerbie Divide" blog going on.
Rolfe.
By the way, there was a fair bit of praising of the "Lockerbie Divide" blog going on.
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Just thought this was worth highlighting.
http://www.holyrood.tv/popup.asp?st...e.lbwa.verio.net/archive/091110_petitions.wmv
Reading back over this thread, I note I was pretty dismissive of the potential of this petition, and indeed the petitions process as a whole. I may have to revise my assessment in the light of the outcome of that meeting.
The petitions committee listened to the petitioners, then immediately resolved to do exactly what the petition requested, AND MORE. To ask the government to set up an independent inquiry into the Zeist conviction, AND IF NOT, WHY NOT?
The chairman took specific note of the rebuttals from the JFM committee to the stonewalling refusals already issued by the government, and declared that the government should specifically take note of these points and respond to them.
They'll still smack it down, but this is a genuine advance, especially with the requirement to provide legal justification for the refusal. Even Bunntamas's group didn't get the US law that prevented them from suing the Libyan government repealed at the first (or second) time of asking. (Even though, as I suspect, they were pushing at an open door.)
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Why is that so interesting? The official position of "Justice for Megrahi", as a group/organisation, is that the verdict is unsafe, and should be re-examined. That is the correct position in law, and for a group such as JFM to appear to anticipate the outcome of such a re-examination would be improper.
It is also much easier, in practical terms, to achieve a reasonable hearing from political and official bodies using the correct, formal position that the verdict is unsafe. The point is to highlight the doubt.
If you think for one millisecond that Jim Swire is not entirely confident that Megrahi had nothing to do with the bombing, then you haven't been listening. And I strongly suspect that goes for the rest of the JFM committee, as individuals. However, when dealing with the law it is wise to take the correct legal approach, which is that the verdict is unsafe.
Rolfe.
It is also much easier, in practical terms, to achieve a reasonable hearing from political and official bodies using the correct, formal position that the verdict is unsafe. The point is to highlight the doubt.
If you think for one millisecond that Jim Swire is not entirely confident that Megrahi had nothing to do with the bombing, then you haven't been listening. And I strongly suspect that goes for the rest of the JFM committee, as individuals. However, when dealing with the law it is wise to take the correct legal approach, which is that the verdict is unsafe.
Rolfe.
Last edited:
Okay, go back and watch the video again. Jim Swire used the word "wrong". So is unsafe different than "wrong" in your vernacular? And if it were worded as: "It is not our position as a group that the verdict against Mr. Megrahi was unsafe" would the meaning be any different?
I have been listening. I didn't say that I thought that Swire wasn't confident that Megrahi had nothing to do with the bombing. Please don't go down the path of twisting my words again. What I said was that I found his statement interesting in that he said it is NOT our position that... the verdict was wrong (or unsafe, if you prefer).
Then why did he use the word "wrong" instead of "unsafe"?
~Bunntamas
Last edited:
And why did he say that it is NOT the position of the JFM group that the verdict is wrong?
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Why don't you ask him? I imagine it must be quite difficult to choose your words absolutely perfectly in a pressurised situation like that. Wrong, unsafe, unsound, miscarriage of justice, lots of different diplomatic nuances that really all add up to one thing - case not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Robert Black was out by two years on Megrahi's age at one point, and at another by four days on the alleged date of purchase of the clothes. I don't think I'd have done any better, being grilled like that. Overanalysing the exact choice of words is probably not going to be especially enlightening.
I have an email address for Jim Swire, so if you want to ask him exactly what he meant, I'll PM it to you. However, he's not a lawyer, and I suspect he was just doing his best to toe the party line on policy - which is that the verdict is unsafe, and don't go beyond that when speaking on behalf of JFM, we're not supposed to say it was wrong.
Rolfe.
Robert Black was out by two years on Megrahi's age at one point, and at another by four days on the alleged date of purchase of the clothes. I don't think I'd have done any better, being grilled like that. Overanalysing the exact choice of words is probably not going to be especially enlightening.
I have an email address for Jim Swire, so if you want to ask him exactly what he meant, I'll PM it to you. However, he's not a lawyer, and I suspect he was just doing his best to toe the party line on policy - which is that the verdict is unsafe, and don't go beyond that when speaking on behalf of JFM, we're not supposed to say it was wrong.
Rolfe.
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,494
Argument by semantics? Or is this even an argument?
As I gather, "unsafe" means it's vulnerable to being shown wrong. It's a softer statement, something short of actually wrong. A bit like the difference between leaving a door unlocked and thus "unsafe" vs. leaving a door unlocked and someone actually entered and stole things.
But I'm no legal person, so if that's wrong, it's my own shortcoming and no reflection on the group's position.
And I suspect they used "unsafe" rather than "wrong" because of the word "isn't." Isn't wrong (necessarily) but is unsafe.
And the context of what came after makes the nature of that unsafety clear - Megrahi could not be the clothes purchaser, for one, based on the evidence given. That alone makes the verdict clearly wrong, but if you want to play it safe and be proper, I guess that's not how you say it. Is there something wrong with being proper and playing it safe?
As I gather, "unsafe" means it's vulnerable to being shown wrong. It's a softer statement, something short of actually wrong. A bit like the difference between leaving a door unlocked and thus "unsafe" vs. leaving a door unlocked and someone actually entered and stole things.
But I'm no legal person, so if that's wrong, it's my own shortcoming and no reflection on the group's position.
And I suspect they used "unsafe" rather than "wrong" because of the word "isn't." Isn't wrong (necessarily) but is unsafe.
And the context of what came after makes the nature of that unsafety clear - Megrahi could not be the clothes purchaser, for one, based on the evidence given. That alone makes the verdict clearly wrong, but if you want to play it safe and be proper, I guess that's not how you say it. Is there something wrong with being proper and playing it safe?
Ahhh.... more hand waving. HA! So, are you saying he was unprepared? Or are you just making excuses for him? My bet would be the latter. Considering how hard and long he has worked for this, I find it very difficult to believe that he wouldn't have chosen his words more succinctly. Add to that, he's in front of a parliamentary committee. Sorry but "the dog ate my homework" excuse isn't flying in my book.
It's more than semantics. He said it is NOT our position that... the verdict was wrong.
And thank you for the offer, but I'd rather not converse with Swire, lest he faint. Or perhaps, considering the semantics debate, the correct word should be feint.
YOU ask him. You're the new secretary of the JFM committee, aren't you? Isn't it the role of secretary to document what is / was said in meetings? Pitty you weren't there.
LOL! Thank you for pointing that out. So it's okay for Robert Black, a lawyer, solicitor, whatever; one whom should be well versed in facts, and evidence to be "out" on Megrahi's age, and alleged date of purchase, but not Gauci, a mere shopkeeper, attempting to recall something that happened more than a decade prior?
Add to that, Black's concocted story about it "pouring" on the date of clothing purchase, and the fact that he had to correct himself for stating Megrahi's name as the person who was (according to Black) running in the pouring rain with the umbrella to the taxi. What a load of crap.
I think you are certainly correct on your previous comment:
~Bunntamas
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator: