So, how do you think it will stand up against other previously (pro Megrahi)
failed petitions and polls such as
this one - I gather that one didn't turn out as hoped. And
this one Wow. Eighteen signatures.
I'll save the embarrassement of posting Charles' poll, which garnered, I think much less than 50 signatures. Which one was it that also failed? I'm losing count. You know, the one on / to which CL was so boasting about posting his name? Maybe it was the one noted above, in the Firm article, on which CL's name doesn't appear, that got snubbed.
And in contrast, have a look at the the number of signatures on
this one and
this one. Hmmmmm..... Can't wait to see how this latest one turns out. Maybe the polls will change as a result of the media that Swire has been [expletive]ing lately. Time will tell.
And by the way, where is the Megrahi / Megrahi family, any other Libyan, or Maltese supporter signature on any of the pro Megrahi petitions? Why are they absent and their absence un-noted here, or anywhere else for that matter?
I was going to put this in the thread where the above post appeared, but on reflection I think Bunntamas is right and the discussion belongs here.
I have had a closer look at the other "petitions" she has linked to. The first is of course a poll on this forum which AndyAndy started in August 2009, asking posters whether they thought Megrahi should have been released. The majority vote was no, as might have been predicted given the make-up of this forum and the timing of the poll. However, there is
another poll which is more congruent with the current petition, which I think Bunntamas must have overlooked. I started it myself in September 2009, asking whether posters believed Megrahi actually committed the crime. The majority vote went to "I'm familiar with the evidence presented and I don't believe he did it." As an aside, none of the 17 posters who claimed to be familiar with the evidence and nevertheless think he did it, responded in the thread to give their reasons - except LongtabberPE!
The second link isn't to a petition at all, but to a letter. The 18 signatories were people who were invited to sign, as being directly connected with the tragedy or otherwise prominent in public life. It includes several bereaved Lockerbie relatives, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. So, "Wow, eighteen signatories!" isn't really a relevant comment.
The contrasting petitions Bunntamas invited us to view are both on web sites that allow anyone to create a petition about anything. The first is entitled "Boycott Scotland for releasing Megrahi, Lockerbie Bomber", but there's no information about who started it or what anyone is going to do with it. It seems to have garnered 1,248 signatures in the few days after Megrahi was released. However, looking more closely at the comments is interesting.
#4 This is not a black and white issue. There are many hidden aspects to this - so piss off America with your boycott! The Scots will not be bullied by you, or any other nation!
#12 This is the same USA who campaigned for Rudolph Hess to be released from Spandau Prison after WW2 on compassionate grounds! You are a joke.
#16 Personally I don't believe [the bomber] was Megrahi.
#17 I am NOT signing the petition. Boycott Scotland because we chose to release the dying Megrahi on compassionate grounds, and because he was welcomed home by Libya? It seems that the USA has no compassion for anyone but itself. It seems to have forgotten the events of July 1988, when an unarmed Iranian Airbus was shot out of the sky by missiles from the USS Vincennes. What happened to the crew of the warship? It was given a hero's welcome, and its commander was given the Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement" and the ability to "maintain his poise and confidence under fire". Fire from an unarmed civilian aircraft?
And so on. Well, I wonder how many signatures would be left if we went through and deleted the ones like
that? However, as the petition isn't being submitted to anyone, it's a bit of a futile exercise to trim it properly.
The other iPetition is entitled "We invite you to petition against the decision to release Abdelbeset Al-Megrahi, and call for Mr MacAskill's resignation." It's standing at 586 signatures gathered over a period of almost a year. I note the first six people to sign are all called Kieran Fergusson. Quite a coincidence, hmmmmm? The petition was started over a year ago, and it's still open if anyone wants to sign it. Quite who is being petitioned and what influence they have is entirely unclear. It's also unclear who owns the petition.
It also seems to me that these petitions might also be described as "failed". Scotland is quite self-evidently not being boycotted, Megrahi is still in Libya, and Kenny MacAskill has not resigned.
As regards the presence of Maltese signatories on the JfM petition, while there were indeed none in the first 24 hours or so, because nobody in Malta knew about the petition, there are now numerous Maltese names present. I'm sure Bunntamas, on more sober reflection, would agree that for Megrahi himself or any of his family to sign this petition would be grossly inappropriate. To infer from the absence of their names that Megrahi is guilty, as Bunntamas seems almost to be doing, is ridiculous.
I don't quite know what relevance any of this has to the strength or otherwise of the legal case against Megrahi, but as it's been brought up, I thought we should set the record straight.
Finally, I would like to register my disappointment at Bunntamas's reference to "the media that Swire has been [expletive]ing lately". Bunntamas was herself bereaved at Lockerbie, and I would have hoped that she would extend the same respect and sympathy to other bereaved relatives that she would wish to receive herself. I don't know Dr. Swire, but in public he has only ever expressed sadness that the US relatives will not, in his opinion, look at the flaws in the evidence against Megrahi. I have never heard him bad-mouth any of them, and Bunntamas's comment saddens me.
Sorry to be so picky, but my main debating interest is in homoeopathy, and it's my habit to look carefully at any publications submitted in evidence to see if they actually support the argument being made. In this case, I don't think they do.
Rolfe.
