Talk:Kenny MacAskill/Archive 1

Possibility of media-related vandalism

I've requested temporary semi-protection on this page, given the possibility of vandalism related to the Lockerbie Bomber decision. GullibleKit (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Its a shame that vandals are unable to accept the sovereign decisions of Scotland's elected government on who should be jailed for life on Scottish soil.It should remembered that Kenny Macaskill is the Scottish Justice Minister, not the American ambassador to Libya. It is not the business of any American official (elected or not) to tell a Scottish elected official what Scottish justice should be. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I posted a short (hopefully) fairly neutral summary of the decision and linked to the Times page detailing the report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.246.45 (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Kenny Macaskill makes me proud to be Scottish, not because hes released a dubiously convicted man, but because he has ignored the hypocritical diatribes of the likes of Hilary Clinton (who recently in desperation to win the Presidential democrat ticket threatened to "annihalate Iran" not the words of an enemy of violence or peacemaker I wouldn't have thought!?). The evidence against a dying man was circumstantial at best and the bottom line is he shouldnt have been in a Scottish prison in the first place any more than Ronald Reagan should have rotted in a Nicaraguan or Tripoli jail for the nineteeneighties bombings and murders that the United States military carried out with using the UK as an airbase in the latter case (In their case the case was clear as the government of Reagan admitted bombing Tripoli and Managua, the case against Megrahi was conflated and remains highly dubious!). I think this has a bearing on the section on megrahi's release because the compassionate release and knowledge of the dubious nature of the case against Megrahi cant really be detached in reality. At least by mentionning it it would offer the reader some clues as to the reasons that the Scottish Justice Minister saw it as in the interests of justice to release him. Kenny has exemplified the best of Scottish justice in the face of hypocritical pressure, so hes guaranteed my vote. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the hypocrisy over the lack of a trial for the bombers of Tripoli, namely Reagan and Thatcher and why no mention of the doubtful versions of "the facts" given by the double agent and CIA paid collaberator [unsigned]

I feel something should be added to this page about how British oil interests have been served by MacAskill's release of the Lockerbie murderer. [1] Gb6491 (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The reaction section could use a little balance. While most of the reactions have been negative, there has also been support for MacAskill's decision from some politicians and media commentators, at least here in the UK. Robofish (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

See Okrent's law. The only "support" I have seen is opportunism by the fringe who still maintain the murderer's innocence.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Fringe"? please substantiate that emotive term. Tam Dalyel is no mre or less a fringe than the head of the FBI. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

At least some support has come from the families of the British victims and the residents of the town the plane fell on, which directly contradicts the claim that the victims' families have been "uniformly" opposed to the release. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/20/lockerbie-bomber-released-reactions http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8212285.stm And quoting Okrent's Law here is in itself an attempt to deny legitimacy to a view you oppose, so don't do that. ...But is this even the right place for documenting the reactions, or should it go on the Lockerbie or al-Megrahi pages instead, to be referred to from this page? And shouldn't there be a "current events" tag on this article? (talk)

Yes, reactions to a unilateral decision made by McAskill on his own authority that have provoked a firestorm of criticism belong in his article. If he didn't want to wear a mark of cain for the rest of his political career - which one hopes will not outlive the week - he should not have released a convicted mass murderer to what even the Grauniad was forced to admit was a heroes welcome.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Since I made my earlier comment, the article has been improved - it now notes 'many British families were more sympathetic to Al-Megrahi's situation.' That seems about right to me. I agree that we shouldn't give spurious weight to one side of an argument to try to create an illusion of 'balance' where there is none; and in this case, the reactions to MacAskill's actions have been overwhelmingly negative. But I just thought we should be fair to him and not make it look like he's the only person in the world who thinks releasing al-Megrahi is a good idea. Robofish (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely despair of neutrality on Wikipedia if one or two of the people expressing views above are setting themselves up as arbiters. I appreciate Robofish's marginally more thoughtful approach but that paragraph is still an utter joke, and doesn't accurately reflect the balance of opinion. Far from being 'overwhelmingly negative', public opinion in Scotland is in fact clearly mixed, and the UK government's silence on this matter speaks volumes when they could easily have joined the US by lobbying for him to stay in jail. At the very least the final sentence should be beefed up to reflect the fact that many relatives have not only shown some 'sympathy' for Megrahi's position, but have in fact given outright support to MacAskill's decision - that's the very least that's required if the preceding avalanche of negativity is going to be retained.Sofia9 (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The only volumes spoken by Downing Street's silence are the moral cowardice of a prime minister who is well-satisfied that relations with Libya have been improved and any blame will fall on MacAskill. Public opinion in the United States, whence the majority of the victmis came, is unanimously hostile. If public hostility in Britain is anything short of unanimously positive - which Sofia concedes it is not, and she could scarcely pretend otherwise with a straight face - it follows that public response has been overwhelmingly negative. I have yet to see anyone other than those few kooks who maintain al-Megrahi's innocence (again, see WP:FRINGE) say a word in favor of this atrocity of a decision. When the public response is overwhelming hostile, when not a single good word can be said in good conscience for MacAskill's choice (you admit as much on the blog linked from your WP profile: "the different approach to Megrahi displayed by many of the UK relatives is based almost entirely on" their bizarre premise that "there is considerable doubt about the Libyan's guilt" notwithstanding his unanimous conviction beyond a shadow of a doubt, see Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 399 (1993)("Once a defendant has been afforded a fair trial and convicted of the offense for which he was charged, the presumption of innocence disappears")), it follows that his article will read as a rebuke. Again, Okrent's law controls here.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Simon, first of all I'm a 'he' not a 'she'. Your rant is beyond risible in places. What does a man who claims that nobody supports the decision do when it turns out quite a few people do actually support the decision? Say, oh it doesn't count because they're all in the UK and only American opinions matter. You haven't seen anyone say a word to support this - except 'kooks'. Not a single word can be said in favour of MacAskill's decision - 'in good conscience'. There's almost a poetic genius to your slipperiness. Most curiously of all, if public opinion is 'anything short of unanimously positive' it is apparently by definition 'overwhelmingly negative'. Have we slipped into a parallel universe where the familiar laws of mathematics do not apply? Yep, this really does seem to be the Bush-style 'you're either with us, or you're with the turrrsts' approach to Wikipedia neutrality.

That said, I'm relieved to see that some much-needed balance has been restored to that section of the article overnight.Sofia9 (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the gender confusion; Sofia is an unambiguously female name when not the capital of Bulgaria. I have no objections to the additions, per se (to tell the truth, I am somewhat amused that the best that can be wheeled out in MacAskill's defense is Tam Dalyell). I have rephrased them a little (the ugly use of "however" to start a sentence is a pet peeve deprecated by Strunk & White and Fowler) and removed the honorifics per WP:MOS. My main concern is that there be no violation of WP:UNDUE. The reaction to MacAskill's action has been overwhelmingly hostile; that a few voices bleat in the wilderness does not require his article to give equal time. As UNDUE puts it, "[t]o give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject" (emphasis in original).

As to the rest. (1) it helps you not at all to thrust at the strawman of "only american views count." No one has said any such thing, and the criticism section that troubles you so much includes numerous British voices criticizing the decision. What has been said, correctly, is that it is a fringe view that MacAskill did the correct thing, a point unintentionally demonstrated by the resort to Dalyell as a source. Who is next, George Galloway? (2) Re "[n]ot a single word can be said in favour of MacAskill's decision - 'in good conscience'." Correct. Even Eric Holder realizes that, saying that there was "no justification" for it. When Eric Holder and I agree on something, you are right to wonder if we haven't slipped into some bizarre alternative universe.

(3) Your mathematical confusion results from not doing all the sums in the equation. It of course does not add up that "if public opinion is 'anything short of unanimously positive' it is ... 'overwhelmingly negative'." But that is not what I said. If public opinion in two countries is at issue (the only two with skin in the game are Britain and America), and public opinion in one is overwhelmingly hostile, it is going to follow that public opinion will be hostile on balance if almost anyone in the other country is hostile. Even if public opinion in the other was unanimously positive, that would at most bring opinion into equipoise. Public opinion in America is overwhelmingly hostile; if the public in Britain are evenly divided, that is half of half, so in whole there are three quarters that are hostile. That, however, is too rosy a picture; I truly doubt that Britain has fallen so far in the five years since I left that as many as half could be so deluded as to approve of this incomprehensible error of judgment, so rather I imagine that public opinion leans towards disapproval. If so, that confirms that public opinion in toto is overwhelmingly hostile. If not, that does not disprove the conclusion, however, for the reasons stated. What is more, all this assumes, arguendo, that Britain and America qua nations are to be treated as the units in determining consensus, rather than people (or, indeed, victims of the atrocity). The picture gets yet more dismal for MacAskill if that fiction is abandoned, although I think it's a proper fiction.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No surprise to see which editor it was who departed from neutral language with that completely gratuitous bit about the Times and the Telegraph 'joining the chorus of condemnation'. That really ought to be removed or rephrased. Come to think of it, as it's such a clear-cut breach of neutrality, I'll just go ahead and rephrase it myself.Sofia9 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in Wikipedia policy requires bland language, it requires a neutral point of view. Noting that those newspapers "joined the chorus of condemnation" is perhaps a touch aureated, but it is not POV in circumstances where there is indeed a chorus of voices condemning the decision.

Perhaps others will correct me, but to my mind 'a chorus of condemnation' is POV because it implies one-way traffic, ie. it suggests among other things that there are no contrary views being expressed in opinion pieces, which is categorically not the case. There have been several pieces supporting Mr MacAskill's decision, one or two from very surprising sources (eg. Alan Cochrane in the Telegraph, politically a sworn enemy of Mr MacAskill's party).

On your broader response, I'm beginning to think life is too short. Clearly to you the definition of a fringe opinion is anything that diverges from your own worldview. You're peddling a circular argument, because no matter how many people are demonstrated to hold a contrary view to the one you insist is 'overwhelmingly' held, they apparently don't count because they're all 'kooks'. And how are we to know they're all 'kooks'? Because they don't agree with your worldview. Superb.

As it happens, though, it in fact isn't just the likes of Tam Dalyell and George Galloway who support this decision. Just off the top of my head, I saw the very mainstream Labour MP Nick Palmer say on a blog yesterday that the right thing had been done. And it may have escaped your notice, but Kenny MacAskill also happens to be an elected politician in an elected government in Scotland. I think we can safely assume that most parliamentarians from his own party also support the decision.

As I say, given you're so obviously determined to peddle your own agenda here, there's very little point trying to reason with you, and fortunately there's slightly less need to bother now because the article is considerably more balanced than it was last night. Although I do still have several misgivings. For instance, I'm not at all sure that the words compassionate grounds should be in inverted commas - that makes it sound like it was a phrase conjured up to justify this individual decision, whereas of course it was simply the long-standing legal basis on which the prisoner was able to apply for release. Would a Wikipedia article state that someone was "acquitted" because the jury had concluded he was "not guilty" of "murder"? Sofia9 (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a few quick responses. It seems unbearably tautological to point out that a fringe opinion is one held only by a small fringe. I hold a few myself; even people in the mainstream on most issues are on the fringe on others. The marker is not whether I agree with it, but whether it's a sub-minority viewpoint among all those in the reference group. That is true of those who cling - inexplicably, see the Herrera reference cited above - to the notion that this man was innocent.

As to "Kenny MacAskill also happens to be an elected politician in an elected government in Scotland." What a response I imagine myself getting from the likes of Tam Dalyell had I told him that his concerns over the Iraq endeavour were misplaced because Tony Blair and George Bush happened to be elected politicians in duly elected governments. That argument would have done me little good then, and it does you little good now. An intervening election is not a sufficient condition for Lady Macbeth to wash the blood from her hands, but it is a necessary one. As to whether his colleagues supoprt the decision - their response is entirely predictable from a public choice perspective. They will figure out what response maximizes their fundraising and chances of reelection and run with it. If they feel that closing ranks is the best strategy, they will do so; if they value American money and connections more strongly, they will throw MacAskill under the bus, as the saying goes. Principles are for those who can afford them; look not for them among the panhandlers of parliaments.

Finally, I continue to fnid it amusing that people are so ready to cast around claims that other editors are "obviously determined to peddle [their] own agenda here." As ever, the chosen hymn is "everyone is biased and here to peddle an agenda, except me." It is not persuasive. We all come here with biases and agendas; if we did not, we could write the perfect encyclopædia simply by slinging out all those other agenda-driven bums. Only catch is, they say the same about us! Whodathunkit.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. It is simply not factually accurate to state that America and Britain are the only countries with 'skin in the game' (what an utterly vile choice of phrase). There were citizens of many, many other countries that died. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself more thoroughly with the facts of this case before being so ready to leap on your soapbox. For one thing, if we're going to do a mathematical calculation to determine the balance of public opinion in all the countries with 'skin in the game', that requires information that neither you nor I have. Sofia9 (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was an unfortunate choice of words, and I regret it. My response had gotten too lengthy already and I sought a quick way to convey what had seemed a simple and unexceptional predicate before building my main point on it. It was nevertheless a poor selection and I apologize. Poorly-phrased though it was, however, the broader point that I sought to convey remains sound.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How on earth can you say it remains sound? The whole basis of your lengthy explanation of why public opinion could be deemed 'overwhelmingly' hostile to MacAskill's decision seemed to be that only America and Britain suffered a loss in the tragedy, and therefore it was the aggregate balance of opinion in those countries that was the crucial factor. I've just pointed out to you that citizens of many other countries died at Lockerbie. Are you disputing that? If not, I'd suggest that to be logically consistent you'd have to concede the aggregate of opinions in those countries is also rather significant.

You appear to have also completely misunderstood my point about MacAskill being an elected politician. I was not suggesting for a moment that this means the people who voted for him automatically support his decision. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of your implication that the only parliamentarians who support this decision are a very small number of fringe figures like George Galloway. MacAskill is the Justice Secretary because the SNP won the 2007 elections with more a third of the members of the Scottish Parliament - and contrary to your assertion, yes, the vast bulk of those parliamentarians will be fully supportive of the decision made. You displayed your total ignorance of British political norms by lazily imposing American assumptions onto your analysis - governments in this country are viewed collectively, and 'throwing MacAskill under a bus' would not make a jot of difference, it would still be seen as the SNP government's decision. And that's why the vast bulk of the SNP parliamentarians are defending - and will continue to defend - both MacAskill and the decision he has taken to the hilt.

As for all Wikipedia editors coming to the table with biases, yes indeed we do. That's why it's so important to possess the capacity to recognise where neutrality ends and where our biases and agendas begin - that's where your approach to this matter has given severe cause for concern. Sofia9 (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How can I say it remains sound? Well, because it does. 232 of the 270 victims were from Britain and America, and the remaining 38 were from a diffuse collection of 19 countries. It makes total sense to focus on Britain and America, a fortiori - and this is the point you seem to have missed - for the purpose of illustrating the point. That point was simple: public opinion in America is close to unanimously hostile. given that America forms at least half (if not more) of the reference group, public opinion in the remainder of the reference group would have to be all-but unanimously in favor of the decision to counterbalance the near-unanimous rejection in the United States. By contrast, if Britain is evenly divided, public opinion in a reference group including Britain and a unanimously hostile America is obviously on balance considerably hostile. Of course it is true that using a model including only Britain and America is an oversimplification - but so is the theory of how objects fall in a vacuum. Simplification doesn't void a model unless the process of simplifying omits something that is at least material if not critical to the analysis. Unless you can show that public opinion in the remaning countries materially affects that analysis, it remains sound.

Your second and third paragraphs do little work (although provide some amusement) because of the false assumption that underlies it and the lack of self-awareness it reveals. I lived in Britain for two decades (indeed, I was there when devolution was being implemented - applauded it, frankly), and I am fully aware of how its political institutions operate. Talk about biases! You simply assumed that an American must be clueless abuot the matter at hand. You, by contrast, "display[] your total ignorance" of public choice theory by "lazily" assuming that it is an "American assumption[]" with no applicability to "British political norms." Not so, see, e.g., Mark Pennington, Planning and the Political Market: Public Choice and the Politics of Government Failure (2001). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Simon, there's a rather big false assumption that underlies your own last paragraph, and it's this - that I didn't thoroughly read everything you'd written both on this talk page and in your edit summaries before I entered into this discussion with you. You had in fact revealed your previous UK residence earlier, so I was fully aware of that - indeed, I then checked your user page just to double-check you were actually American, although it always seemed highly likely. In my experience, it's quite possible for Americans who have lived in the UK (or other foreign countries) to remain clueless about many aspects of the country - certainly it's political system - and you've rather neatly proved that point with your comments here. As for my "lack of self-awareness"...hmmm. I thought Americans didn't do irony.

As for the points in your first paragraph, I suspect even you now realise you're talking gibberish. It's quite clear from your original 'skin in the game' comment that you were at that stage unaware - or had simply forgotten - that there were many victims from outside the US and Britain, and now you're trying to gloss over that and pretend your argument had taken that into account all along.

Incidentally, thanks to whoever semi-restored the allegedly 'turgid' phrase of mine that Simon deleted. I must say it's an interesting (dare I say amusing) experience to be told my phrase is turgid, only to have it replaced with one that includes the word 'whence'! Sofia9 (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I must say Sofia, where do you get it from? --Cyber Fox (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I exhort anybody with terribly strong feelings about the recent news items to hold off editing this for a while. I'd remind contributors or potential contributors that WP:BLP is a bright line here, and BLP reverts are exempt from 3RR. For any negative material regarding living people, the very best of sources are required and a careful tone must be adopted. Repeated failure to edit with this in mind is highly likely to lead to removal of editing privileges. --John (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong feelings there are on both sides. </yoda> The problem with your warning is that it's all-encompassing: anyone who's here making anything other than drive-by edits clearly has terribly strong feelings about the subject or they wouldn't be here. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

yet again MORE reasons for release

On BBC news i heard words from a british father of one of the pan am flight victims, who certainly seemed more informed than the american relative interviewed before, who was ironicly a prosecuter's wife before his death.Heathrow airport was broken into in the days preceding the bombing, and what happenned during the break-in still remains sketchy.It would seem that this suspicious information was not passed on by the goverment in London to the Scottish goverment until AFTER Megrahi had been sentenced.I feel that this information is balanced, and may have played an important part in his appeal, had he enough time left to fight for innocence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.142.27 (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that MacAskill expressly repudiated any notion that the release was based on the murderer's guilt vel non, and that the decision was purely a result of the medical condition, such material doesn't belong in this article, although it may have a place in other articles.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

To al or not to al?

Is he al Megrahi or just Megrahi? I've seen both used in reporting, and I'm wondering if the "al" functions the same way that "von" functioned in some German names (e.g. "Henning von Tresckow" - "Henning of [the family] Tresckow." If so, I would think that it would be just Megrahi (it makes little sense to speak of someone as "of so-and-so" absent a reference to what it is they are of), just as our article on Tresckow refers top him as Tresckow not von Tresckow.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe 'von' in German to be a good analogy, though I am not an expert in Arabic usage. I do know it means "the" and is present in our English words alkali, alcohol, algorithm, algebra and Aldebaran. I suggest not using it and standardizing on 'Megrahi', though I would bow to someone with better knowledge. --John (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Victims' reactions

This section was cut yesterday; it should not have been at the time, but the case for replacing it has become acute overnight. New matieral has been inserted favornig MacAskill's decision, creating a serious WP:UNDUE problem. I am accordingly replacing the section dealing with victims' reactions; if the small minority that supports the decision is devoted space, the reactions of the victims' families, as a proxy for the outrage of the civilized world, belongs here all the more.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree; the article seems reasonably well-balanced as it stands. --John (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's because I already put them back in. If they were removed, it would cease to be balanced. Public eraction has been overwhelmingly hostile. We cannot write an article that implies that reaction is in equipoise, still less one that implies that reaction is generally positive. That's the UNDUE issue. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I say, I think the article is reasonably well-balanced at the moment. --John (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I see America is still the world to some people.GideonF (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing problem

We say that Megrahi "is terminally ill with prostate cancer." I have fact-tagged this; do we have any reilable sources for the statement? We certainly have reliable sources that MacAskill claims Megrahi has terminal-stage cancer, and we have reliable sources that Megrahi is widely thought to have it, largely based (I suspect) on MacAskill's assertion. Do we have any reliable source for the fact itself, though? Is there any source, primary or secondary? If not, we should say something like Megrahi "is thought to be terminally ill with prostate cancer" or is believed to have it, etc. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Scotland's Justice Minister is a reliable source. Its also the basis under Scots Law for his decision on compassionate grounds to release him.

" For 16 years now, our statutes have given us leave to release from prison anyone who is deemed by competent medical authority to have three months or less to live. It was a concession rooted in compassion, pity and forgiveness."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/23/kenny-macaskill-decision-megrahi-release

92.235.178.44 (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Associated Press states he was diagnosed by British doctors. Through that, they likely have confirmed the details of their story like most reputable news agencies. Mkdw^talk 19:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Read more closely. The link you posted is precisely what I said in my earlier comment: it supports the statement that MacAskill claims Megrahi has terminal-stage cancer. If that is what the source supports, that is what we should say. If we want to say that this man HAS cancern, we need a reliable source that states he HAS cancer.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this good enough for you? The actual fact of the matter is that MacAskill held off on the decision as late as possible, until it became quite clear that he only had a limited time left. MacAskill has been criticised in Scotland for prevaricating about the decision. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's good enough. On a side note, I find it amusing that Mandelson, Milliband et al have gotten far hotter under the collar for themselves, reacting with anger to suggestions of impropriety by the government, than for the victims' families that 11.5 MacAskill's decision wounded. I would hope that the prevarication you mention is because they couldn't understand why it was even being considered, and that 11.5 should hurry up and tell the little wretch he would die in jail. Alas, I fear that is not what you are implying. But we're wandernig from the topic.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It was criticism both ways. Some people were concerned that if he didn't make the decision soon, Megrahi wouldn't have been able to return to Libya. See the report of Dr. Sikora's concerns in the Herald. I think the background to the decision needs to be explained further in the article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize that we're skating on thin ice, but I have to say: I find it utterly incomprehensible to read that anyone in their right mind would be concerned that the decision had to be made in time for Megrahi to Libya. I can think of 259 people who would have liked to have made it home - their families and friends would have liked it, too. (The other 11 were already at home when this man murdered them.) I sometimes think that Britain is suffering from a kind of nationwide post traumatic shock syndrome after the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six. Those were intensely formative experiences for me that profoundly influenced the way I think about legal process, but I get the feeling that for some, they instilled a kind of pathalogical unwillingness to believe that the courts ever get it right. I don't know how else to explain the otherwise incomprehensible refusal of some people to accept trial, conviction, and denied appeals.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I will indulge a bit further regardless in the interests of trying to inform. Ronnie Biggs was released on similar grounds recently. Lesser crime I know, but there is a visceral hatred of Biggs, and Jack Straw similarly prevaricated over the decision to release him. The other factor in the whole thing is the geopolitical scenario. It's not as if Megrahi is Iranian, for example. The process is basically as follows: prisoner says he is dying - that is verified - application to parole board - if it is successful it is passed to the justice secretary (MacAskill in Scotland, Straw in England or Wales). He basically has to have a very strong reason to politically override the decision of the justice system, or he is open to challenge in Europe. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the process (although your characterization of the Justice Minister's role is a little off, as I understand it, insofar as you imply he has a veto over the board's decision whereas I had thought the decision his to make, merely advised by the board). That isn't the issue. I've seen a lot of op/eds the last few days that try very hard to subvert American reaction by focussing on the process: gee, the Americans aren't going to understand this issue of devolution and forth. Y'know, as if the Americans, who invented federalism, aren't going to understand federalism - or that we don't understand the concept of executive clemency, despite its having been in continuous existence throughout our history.

We get the process. We understand that MacAskill had the power to do this. What we find incomprehensible is the use of that power in this case. In America, clemency tends to be reserved for those who deserve it - not unrepentent mass murderers. Should Myra Hindley have served a life sentence - or three weeks, eleven and a half days for each victim? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC) I've wandered too far afield from NOTFORUM and will back up.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's review exactly what was said in the article:

“ Mueller sent a scathing letter to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who cited compassionate grounds in his decision to let Abdel Baset al-Megrahi return to Libya because he has prostate cancer and was given only months to live by British doctors. ”

Mueller sent a letter to MacAskill in response to him releasing al-Megrahi on compassion grounds because he had cancer. The "because" he had cancer part in no way implicates that it was MacAskill that gave that diagnosis, nor that MacAskill is the source. Rather it was a detail that had been confirmed (in July that he would be well aware of) and MacAskill's decision had been made off those known facts. You could essentially rewrite that sentence, "Mueller objected to MacAskill's actions to release al-Megrahi over the diagnosis of British doctors that he had prostate cancer and only months to live". However, thank you Jmorrison230582 for finding an article that literally spells it out in full with more depths and fervor. Mkdw^talk 19:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Extraneous?

Seems unnecessary to say that "Mueller took the unusual step of writing a highly disparaging open letter to MacAskill.[12]" It's imoprtant to note Mueller's reaction, and it's important to note his involvement in the investigation, but I don't think it sheds any light to say that it was an open letter. I'd support removing that line if there's a second.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Just quote him, if it's essential.--John (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote him briefly. An editor put in a really lengthy quote from his letter earlier, and I support the decision of the editor who removed much of that (as I hope others support my removal of lengthy quotes from various British newspapers). It suffices to give the flavor of Mueller's remarks (and that of the editorials), see WP:DETAIL.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. A fair and proportionate summary is all we need here, not an exhaustive collection. --John (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Reaction

Surely there should be a section about the Scottish reaction. After all, hes the Scottish Justice Minister and it was a Scottish decision, not a UK one. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a section called British reaction, and Scotland is part of Britain. You might as well ask why there isn't a section called "New Jersey reaction" distinct from "American reaction."- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The British reaction section is misleading. If you examine the positive and negative reactions, the Scottish ones outside of opposition parties (particularly New labour) are more positive than the UK reactions as a whole and this reflects the opinion in the country that elected Mr Macvaskill as their Justice Minister. The comparison to New Jersey is better fitted nto the Westminbster UK lacvkey's as they are more in line to a 51st state ;p 92.235.178.44 (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinions, with all respect, are not relevant here, anonymous poster from Telewest Broadband. What new sources do you bring to the table? Suggest your proposed change and your evidence for making it, and we can talk. --John (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, Scottish reaction rto a Scottish domestic decision is more relevant than the opining of anyone about anyone else typing on wikipedia, as they reflect on the reaction in his home country to the subject of the article. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't agree. This is an international encyclopedia. We do not automatically focus on Scottish opinion, although we do include it as appropriate. --John (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the bulk of the victims were American. That does not mean, of course, that non-American victims should be sidelined - but it does mean that attempts to sideline American concerns or to claim that American reaction to the decision is somehow inappropriate or interfering with Scottish affairs - are erroneous and in very poor taste.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Scottish reation to a Scottish government decision can be covered in an internationally focused article on a Scottish elected Justice Minister in Scotland. otherwise, the American reaction to Benjamin Franklin's views on France would be irrelevant for similair logic. The condemnantion of Kenny for releasing him on compassionate grounds is in very poor taste if you bear in mind how dubious the evidence was and the effect this has had on the relatives. I know Mr macaskill to talk to and have no doubt that he is aware of the nuances of the case and the questions hanging over the reliability of the shopkeeper's testimony and the concerns of Robert Black. I have more trust in his judgement than that of any FBI appointee and see the unsubstabtiated whiplash being organised by the pr machine of interests in Washington lobbies and Mandelson's luxury yaght against him as being in far worse taste than my sidelining them. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah... Now it comes out. The condemnation of "Kenny" and you "know [him] to talk to"... See WP:COI and, mutatis mutandis, WP:AB. The same rationale that discourages editors from editing articles about themselves also applies - with marginally diminished force - to editing articles about personal friends or relatives. As to the rest - it's nice that you "trust" MacAskill's judgment, but all the relevant facts are public, and we can assess the decision for ourselves. It was a monstrous, callously cold-blooded decision, as brainless as it was heartless. What this man has done should end his career. But we're straying from the topic again. More on-topic is your challenge to the inclusion of American reaction, but enough has already been said about that. The decision directly bears on the families of the victims, the lion's share of whom are Americans; it was an American plane that this man blew up; the idea that this is some kind of internal Scottish matter is fatuous. It doesn't even rise to the respectability of being wrong.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a Scottish matter whether a man should die in a Scottish prison not an American one. Kenny Macaskill should is not responsible for the dodgy prosecution of Megrahi, his job is to decide whether a man should stay in prison on Scopttish soil. He has every right to decide on that and no state has any automatic right to condemn him for doing his job and showing compassion where a man has been prosecuted in highly dubious circumstances. The doubt over Megrahi's guilt add weight to the moral sense of his decision. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone, anywhere, with any connection to the incident has an automatic right to criticize him. And those criticisms belong in this article. If MacAskill was uncomfortable with the idea of this man dying in a Scottish prison, he should have sent him to the United States to die in prison, not Libya to die in a manner he denied so many. And you are wrong: he had the power to do whatr he did. Never confuse that with having the right to do it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"What this man has done should end his career"

That sentence lost you any moral high ground as to objectivity. What he has done was decide who should be in prison in Scotland as Scottish Justice Minister, and I know him to talk to as hes my local MSP not a personal friend. I know him in relation to his work which relates to the article. I would have to move house to avoid that innevitablity and my dealings wth him have been legitemately relevant to an objective opinion on a talk page, especially if you can make biased statements against his justice decision to decide when a prisoner gets released within the country that elected him despite criticism by unelected foreign powers. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Every editor comes to Wikipedia with a point of view. Few come with a conflict of interest. If you are saying that you don't have a conflict of interest, that you have the requisite emotional distance from the subject to weigh the evidence without being affected by your personal attachment to the man, I'll take that in good faith. Just try to get into (and stay within) the bounds of what's relevant to the article.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Im saying its rather funny to see how you think Megrahi got a fair trial and the Scottish Justice Minister should be sacked and then collapse any response to that. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Im also saying that the following emotional rant from you was the reason I provided you with sources relevant to your rant about macAskill and megrahi et al.

"He got a fair hearing. He lost. Then he had a fair appeal, and he lost that, too. And let's not forget, these weren't charges that were invented in 2001 - he was indicted a decade before that, after an extensive investigation, and remanied under scrutiny throughout the nitervening time. I don't know what to make of this "oh no he didn't" panto routine. Again, one cannot help but suspect that this is a post-traumatic reaction go the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six - a kind of paranoia that the courts can't get it right. Again, this was as much a crime aganist the United States as it was against Scotland; it is readily apparent that we can add to the list of Bush administration blunders the willingness to have Britain try this man. We should have demanded his extradition and tried him here. But that's water over the dam, and its only relevance to the article is to underline that this is not a purely Scottish matter, and it would be idiotic to pretend otherwise.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC) "

Not exactly on topic now is it? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Lengthy off-topic WP:NOTFORUM-problematic thread hatted

"Your jejune sniping is of no relevance to the article, but of course American reaction is relevant to the situation. The bulk of the victims were American, and the only reason we allowed you to try him in the first place, rather than in insisting he be tried stateside, was assurance that this sort of thing wouldn't happen.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)" [2] surely "allowing us" to try him and "disallowing us" from deciding on Scottish justice matters are presumptions that encourage the sentiment of "sidelining American reaction to Scotland's domestic sovereign justice decision by a democratically elected member of its parliament, that mr Dodd complains about. There is a strong sense of injustice from the Church of Scotland and Scottish legal experts that Mr Megrahi was at least not given a fair hearing, and this should be given its own section in my view, as the subject of the article is specifically Scottish in his role and how he got the votes to carry it out.92.235.178.44 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC) He got a fair hearing. He lost. Then he had a fair appeal, and he lost that, too. And let's not forget, these weren't charges that were invented in 2001 - he was indicted a decade before that, after an extensive investigation, and remanied under scrutiny throughout the nitervening time. I don't know what to make of this "oh no he didn't" panto routine. Again, one cannot help but suspect that this is a post-traumatic reaction go the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six - a kind of paranoia that the courts can't get it right. Again, this was as much a crime aganist the United States as it was against Scotland; it is readily apparent that we can add to the list of Bush administration blunders the willingness to have Britain try this man. We should have demanded his extradition and tried him here. But that's water over the dam, and its only relevance to the article is to underline that this is not a purely Scottish matter, and it would be idiotic to pretend otherwise.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC) "Vienna, 14 October 2005/P/RE/19402c-is The Austrian professor who was appointed by the United Nations as international observer at the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands today commented on reports in the Scottish and British media about new doubts on the handling of the case by the judicial authorities. Dr. Hans Koechler said that the dramatic shortcomings and errors in the conduct of the trial that have been brought to the attention of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) confirm his earlier assessment that the Lockerbie trial resulted in a “spectacular miscarriage of justice.” (BBC News, 14 March 2002) Dr. Koechler pointed to the following information that transpired in the media and that puts in doubt the very integrity of the judicial process in the Lockerbie case: 1. The credibility of a key forensic expert in the trial, Mr. Allen Feraday (UK), has been shattered. It was revealed that “in three separate cases men against whom Mr. Feraday gave evidence have now had their convictions overturned” (BBC, 19 August 2005). Mr. Feraday had told the Lockerbie court that a circuit board fragment found after the disaster was part of the detonator used in the bomb on board Pan Am flight 103. In the first case where Mr. Feraday’s credibility had been questioned the Lord Chief Justice had stated that Mr. Feraday should not be allowed to present himself an expert in electronics. 2. A retired Scottish police officer has signed a statement confirming that the evidence that found Al-Megrahi guilty was fabricated. The police chief, whose identity has not yet been revealed, testified “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan” for the bombing of the Pan Am jet (Scotland on Sunday, 28 August 2005). The fragment was supposedly part of the timing device that triggered the bomb. The circumstances of its discovery – in a wooded area many miles from Lockerbie months after the atrocity – have been mysterious from the very beginning. 3. Much earlier, a forensic specialist of the American FBI, Tom Thurman, who was publicly credited with figuring out the fragment’s evidentiary importance, was later discredited as a forensic expert. A 1997 report by the US Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General found “that in a number of cases other than Lockerbie, Thurman rewrote lab reports, making them more favorable to the prosecution. The report also recommended Thurman be reassigned to a non-scientific job because he lacked a background in science.” (American RadioWorks / Public Radio, March 2000) 4. The most recent revelation relates to a mix-up of forensic evidence recovered on the ground in Lockerbie with material used during a series of test explosions in the course of the investigation. In one case, a garment which was damaged in a test explosion was presented as if it was the original garment found on the ground (which was completely undamaged). This garment was supposedly placed in the suitcase containing the bomb. “It casts serious doubts over the prosecution case because certain items that should have been destroyed if they were in the case containing the bomb are now known to have survived the blast.” (The Observer, London, 9 October 2005) All these facts – which are now before the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission – confirm the serious doubts about the Lockerbie proceedings originally raised by the UN-appointed observer, Dr. Hans Koechler. In his comprehensive reports on and evaluation of the Lockerbie trial (2001) and appeal (2002) as well as in his statement on the compensation deal made between the US, UK and Libya in 2003, Dr. Koechler had criticized the highly politicized circumstances in which the case was handled and drew the attention of the international public to the possible interference of intelligence services from more than one country." http://i-p-o.org/nr-lockerbie-14Oct05.htm 92.235.178.44 (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC) In Robert Black's judgement, he remains innocent as the conviction was unsound, and Im afraid I pay more serious heed to his judgement than to yours. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC) 92.235.178.44, this is not a forum for a general discussion. Such detail would be appropriate on Megrahi's own article, not here. --John (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC) The shopkeeper described a 50 year old man of around 6 foot. The other main witness was a double agent who was paid a substantial amount by the CIA. There was suppressed evidence of Iranian and Syrian involvement such as the same explosive s sold to the Syrians in the eighties and an a terror group that were arrested in Germany a few weeks previously. Robert Black and hans Koechler seem to find serious fault in the validity of the convenient scapegoating based on circumstantial evidence. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC) "A Libyan "double agent" who was central to the CIA's investigation into the Lockerbie bombing exaggerated his importance in Tripoli's intelligence apparatus and gave little information of value, yet is still living at the US taxpayers' expense in a witness protection programme, according to previously unseen CIA cables. Five months before the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988, 27-year-old Majid Giaka turned up at the US embassy in Malta and "expressed a desire to relocate ... in return for sensitive information on Libya", in the words of a cable sent by a CIA case officer to his headquarters in Langley, Virginia, the same day. Mr Giaka claimed he was an agent of Libya's feared Jamahiriya security organisation, but it later turned out that he worked in the agency's garage. More than 60 cables, uncovered in a BBC investigation, detail the relations between the Americans and a man later described in court as a real-life Walter Mitty. Mr Giaka, who said that he worked for Libyan Arab Airlines at Malta's Luqa airport as a cover, told the CIA that he wanted to remain in Malta. He promised he would co-operate fully with the CIA – in return for money. At the time Libya was public enemy number one. But the CIA had few sources of information on the country, and Mr Giaka was put on the payroll. In return for information about Libyan officials coming and going from Malta, he received $1,000 a month and gifts. His handlers even agreed to fund $6,000 of fake surgery on his arm, so that he could avoid military service back home." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-memos-reveal-doubts-over-key-lockerbie-witness-913918.html 92.235.178.44 (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Lockerbie case expert Professor Robert Black has added his name to a growing school of thought that prescribes Malta should demand a separate enquiry into the Lockerbie bombing so as to clear its name as the bomb’s point of departure. Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only person to have been found guilty of the 1988 terrorist attack that brought down a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland – killing 270 people in the process – was freed from a Scottish prison on Thursday on compassionate grounds, a move allowed under Scottish law for terminally ill prisoners. But before his release and his subsequent return to Libya was approved, Mr al-Megrahi had dropped an upcoming appeal against his conviction – an appeal that he himself as well as many observers felt he would have won, had it been heard. But now that the appeal has been dropped, it appears increasingly likely that the victims’ families will never know the truth behind the attack, nor could Malta expect to have its name cleared as the bomb’s staging post. Contacted by The Malta Independent on Sunday, Professor Black, a former Scottish judge and the architect of the original Lockerbie trial, stressed his conviction that Malta should be demanding a separate enquiry into the bombing so as to remove the blemish on the country and its airport security. Such an enquiry, he suggests, could be carried out by the European Union at Malta’s behest. “I think the Maltese government should be pressing very hard within the EU for an enquiry into Lockerbie,” Professor Black comments." http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=93038 92.235.178.44 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC) All interesting enough, but nothing to with MacAskill. --John (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Lesley Riddoch in the Guardian

This article by Lesley Riddoch on Kenny Macaskill would be an informative link for any readers unfamiliar with the political and social climate in Scotland at the time of the Megrahi release. Id suggest adding it to the external links. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/21/megrahi-lockerbie-scotland-macaskill

Congratulations

I read this article a couple of days ago, and was quite frankly horrified by the blatant breach of WP:BLP. Well done to those editors responsible for the current version, which shows a good attempt at balance (and sanity).

By the way, I feel that it would be appropriate to include the quote by Iain Gray, which went something like "If I had been First Minister, he would not be going back to Libya" (was in the Daily Record, and several other papers). --Mais oui! (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Channel 4 News referred to an earlier letter from the American Embassy

Ill have to watch Channel 4 plus 1 to hear the details precisely, but Channel 4 News mentionned a letter that Kenny Macaskill got from the US Ambassador seeming to be in favour of the release. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Channel 4 news, a source from the Scottish government has stated that a month ago the Justice Minister recieved a letter from the US Embassy reasuring the Scottish Govt that they would "far prefer a release on compassionate grounds than the prisoner transfer option". 92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC) (possibly available to read on Channel 4 news website)

Scots Law and the Decision of Scotland's Justice Minister to release on the grounds of compassion

"For 16 years now, our statutes have given us leave to release from prison anyone who is deemed by competent medical authority to have three months or less to live. It was a concession rooted in compassion, pity and forgiveness"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/23/kenny-macaskill-decision-megrahi-release

I would argue that this is relevant to the release section in the article on Kenny Macaskill as it is the justification given by both himself and the First Minister for the release of the ill Megrahi to return home to his family. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's unnecessary because no one challenges MacAskill's authority to release that man. The linked story notes that "MacAskill could have washed his hands of this issue and simply had a terminally ill man spend the few remaining days of his life in a Greenock prison cell." Just so. He had the authority; no one challenges that. The power can be applied equitably in some cases; no one challenges that. The division is over the wisdom of exercising that power in this case, and the self-congratulatory self-righteous story you link to isn't probative as to that.

The only argument for including the link is this: "Did anyone ever truly believe that there would be no fanfare for a man who swears that he is blameless and whom the country believes is innocent?" But I would be surprised if you wanted to include that in the article, given your persistent defense of the man it incriminates. It concedes, in effect, that the outcome was the entirely predictable result of MacAskill's decision, which strengthens the link between criticisms of the welcome and MacAskill.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is "incriminated" by the act of compassion within Scotlands Law Code. Rather a seriously ill man is spared the cruelty of not seeing his family again. The reasons for his decision not to pursue a second hearing are complex and still frankly murky, but here is not the place to discuss such off topic irrelevencies. Please stick to the topic of Kenny MacAskill. cheers :-D 92.235.178.44 (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A cack-handed attempt at turnabout that gets you nowhere. My comment was directed to whether or not to include in the article a citation to a link that you provided. The article had limited utility, I noted, and moreover, since the link incriminates MacAskill as having engendered an entirely predictable grotesquery, it would be surprising if you wanted to include it in the article. You may certainly disagree that this incriminates MacAskill, but the comment was assuredly on-topic since it related directly to the inclusion in the article of a link you asked if we should include. Nice try.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A cack handed attempt at a response gets us nowhere. Mr MacAskill is no more incriminated by this than he would be were he to ignore the evidence of the medical experts and other experts that urged him to show compassion to the dying Mr Megrahi. He not only followed due process, he followed the expert advice of those that Scotland's arrangements have in place to advise him in coming to the right best consensus conclusion. It was certainly off topic, as the link I provided to be added for the help of outside readers was an example offered as an introduction to the streams of thought which are not only current in modern Scotland, but highly relevant to the judgements, statements and pronouncements of Scotland's Justice Minister on various occasions (regarding youth crime, alcoholism and football hooliganism). What you read into them your business. Nice try though ;p 92.235.178.44 (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure he is. If we don't have a reliable source saying that the hero's welcome was entirely predictable, it's harder to justify including criticism of the hero's welcome in the MacAskill article. I realize that one would have to be a total clot not to have foreseen that, but the threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability not truth. If reliable sources confirm that the welcome was predictable, that confirms that it was predictable by MacAskill, and that in turn allows us to treat the reaction to the hero's welcome MacAskill engendered in more depth than might otherwise have been permissible. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"For 16 years now, our statutes have given us leave to release from prison anyone who is deemed by competent medical authority to have three months or less to live. It was a concession rooted in compassion, pity and forgiveness" This meets the wikipedia verifiabilty and relevance criteris. The opinions of the writer aside, it makes the link relevant to the interested reader. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It has no relevance because it's a strawman. It misses the point completely. It assumes, mistakenly, that the criticism is rooted in whether 11.5 Mac had the power to order the release, which no one challenges, rather than being of the wisdom of exercising that power in this case.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It would only be a strawman if it was seen as a justification. It is a relevant explanation as to the entitlement under Scots Law that the Justice Minister has to release any prisoner on Scottish soil under compassionate grounds. It demonstrates that he was acting in accord with Scottish constitutional practise and this is not only relevant, but informative and helpful to the reader from elsewhere. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You're just not getting it, are you? It's a strawman because no one challenges his "entitlement under Scots Law ... to release any prisoner on Scottish soil under compassionate grounds." How many times must you be told that before it registers? Everyone understands that he had the power to do it. He has been criticized for doing it, not for merely having the power to do it. I'm starting to wonder whether you understand that not everything that can be done must be done.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW }

The entitlement and the reason for the entitlement are important aspects of Scottish politics and the role that Kenny plays within Scottish Justice at present. Thats the relevance that gave me the idea of adding the link and something about the recent amendment to the availibilities to him in his role. Whether he should have decided to use it is another seperate question which you seem to be conflating with its underlying relevance and informative value to the reader outside of Scotland. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• sigh* Whether he should have decided to use it is the only question that is relevant, unless you really believe that readers outside Scotland are too dim to understand the concept of executive clemency.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

|Relevant and informative information being in one article saves the reader from reading three or four via links and allows them to have a rounded reading of what actions and decisions may be covered in that article or article section. If being obvious was the reason to exclude information from articles, then wikipedia would have to delete quite a lot now wouldnt they. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, when I read articles here, I like to follow a number of themed links and find it very useful to have mention of background information and links, as it allows me as a wikipedia reader to cover a general area of either closely or loosely related topics. The recent changes in Scotland and its political institutions are closely related to an article on a Scottish politician and some mention of them would be a useful addition to the lay reader wanting to know more. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether a politician should have used available legaslation is not the only reason for its mention in an article about them in a section covering them using it! In fact its the particular aspect of them using it that shouldnt be covered... Its recent addition to Scottish government and state is the bit Im suggesting and that is important to get mentionned. : D 92.235.178.44 (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a reaction from the Convener of the Church of Scotland Council that gives a similair attitude.

Rev Ian Galloway, Convener of the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland said: “This decision has sent a message to the world about what it is to be Scottish. Mercy “We are defined as a nation by how we treat those who have chosen to hurt us. Do we choose mercy even when they did not chose mercy? “This was not about whether one man was guilty or innocent. “Nor is it about whether he had a right to mercy but whether we as a nation, despite the continuing pain of many, are willing to be merciful. “I understand the deep anger and grief that still grips the souls of the victims’ families and I respect their views. But to them I would say justice is not lost in acting in mercy. “Instead our deepest humanity is expressed for the better. To choose mercy is the tough choice and today our nation met that challenge.” Defining “We have gained something significant as a Nation by this decision. “It is a defining moment for all of us.” However Scottish Tory Bill Aitken MSP, the Shadow Justice Secretary, was furious. He said: “I deeply regret this decision by Alex Salmond’s Government. “It now has a duty to recall and explain to Parliament why it has decided to release Mr. Megrahi and why he is being allowed to return to Libya when it is perfectly possibly for him to stay in Scotland. “As recently as December 2008, his family lived here in a house that was security cleared by the police. “Alex Salmond’s Government has mishandled this whole affair and has been found wanting on the international stage. “He now needs to show some political dignity, recall Parliament and answer a growing list of unanswered questions.”

http://deadlinescotland.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/lockerbie-bomber-freed/

92.235.178.44 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• The Rev. Galloway had better hope that he is wrong: if the world decides that this action reflects on Scotland rather than on one misguided politician, poor Scotland. Iain Gray is closer to the mark.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Toom Tabard Gray is the Fox News John Baliol. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Now now, the Kirk has a long history of being "in somebody's bad books". Doesnt the world contain more than the American sphere? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I will find some more material regarding the thought of the Justice Minister and other Scottish bodies (such as the Church of Scotland) on the theme of compassion and justice, as these form an obvious background into the values that inform his decisions as a politician. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The reaction in Libya and its causes are a matter for debate and interpretation. You might equally say that the bombing of Tripoli by the Reagan administration were the basis for the cheering. Either way, it would POV to suggest who was the cause for Libyan sentiment. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

By giving the full facts to the reader, we allow them to make up their own mind from a better informed position. Colleagues of the Justice Minister believe (like as you say myself and the law professor Robert Black who first arranged the trial at Camp Zeist and persuaded Colonel Gaddaffi to allow the innocent Mr Fihma and his co accused by the FBI Mr Megrahi to attend)in their innocence (both of the original accused that is to say) and by allowing them access to a rounded picture as to the legal, political and moral culture of a move towards earlier releases and lower tarrifs that have been a marker of the period in office of Kenny as Justice Minister, we help them (the wikipeda readers)have a better grounding in where to start forming a judgement from :D 92.235.178.44 (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Its relevant to the legal customs in Scotland in which Kenny has succeeded to become Justice Minister. Also it would be of interest to non Scottish readers possibly unaware of the aspects of Scots Law that have influenced Scottish interpretation of compasion in legal terms. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The key term in Scots Law is compassion. The onus would have been on him to justify the vindictiveness when his title is Justice Minister, not Vengeance Minister (I think it also mentions the general trend, which he has taken to follow the Scandinavian model more than the American in his decisions. This includes his dealings with far less serious crimes where he veers away from retribution as a response). 92.235.178.44 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It would give some extra information to the non Scottish reader on the values and goals thatScots Law of late has been seeking to aspire to and how this may differ from other cultural interpretations in various legal codes. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The relatively new addition of the legislation and statements by macaskill prior to this case regarding social problems like alcoholism and his general approach, are better understood in relation to each other. Just as the death penalty and rendition may have a bearing on the thinking of a governor in Texas, there part of the cultural atmosphere in which decisions of high import are reached, and the more the reader can know about the details of legal changes, the more informed they can be as to what next to read in making up their own mind on the right or wrong of it. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The view of the Church of Scotland

The role of the Scottish Kirk should be mentionned in the article. Their opinion has been historically influential (take for instance the poll tax debate and Margeret Thatcher).

The Church of Scotland has intervened in the case of the Lockerbie bomber, urging the government to free the man convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity in British history.

The Kirk claims it is unchristian to keep Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, in jail and has urged Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, to free him on compassionate grounds.

Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Kirk’s church and society council, appealed to the government after medical reports suggested the Libyan may only have weeks to live. His intervention comes just weeks before the justice minister is due to rule on the case.

“We have to continue to feel hugely for the families of those who died in the Lockerbie bombing. Nonetheless it would seem that the compassionate response would be to release Mr Megrahi to his family for the remaining days of his life,” said Galloway.

“The Christian faith places forgiveness and compassion close to its centre and while the justice system rightly always includes an element of punishment, in the current circumstances we have to be able to lay some of that aside.

“In other words, to err on the side of compassion and forgiveness is where on balance we believe society should seek to lean.” (...)

The intervention by the church, which has 600,000 members, will put pressure on MacAskill, whose decision to meet Megrahi was widely criticised and prompted accusations that the convicted terrorist was being given preferential treatment.

Megrahi’s supporters have grown hopeful that he will either be handed over to Libya or freed, believing it would be a severe embarrassment to the government if he were to die in a Scottish jail. Last week Jack Straw, the UK justice secretary, freed Ronnie Biggs, the Great Train Robber, on compassionate grounds after being told he is severely ill with pneumonia and is unlikely to recover.

http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/08/curch-of-scotland-free-lockerbie-bomber.html

This view is in line with the recent change in Scots Law that was used by the Scottish Justice Minister. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is already mentioned in the article, under "British reaction": "Ian Galloway, the convener of the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland, said that "justice is not lost in acting in mercy"- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the Kirk has an important historical place in Scottish society and the changes that have taken place (like the Reformation and Devoloution). But thanks for mentionning them. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the campaign within the Kirk to free Megrahi started prior to MacAskill's decision to release him and therefore I would suggest that this is mentionned somewhere other than in the reaction section, as it may have had a bearing on the decision that the Justice Minister came to. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Church of Scotland is committed to its ‘distinctive call and duty to bring the ordinances of religion to the people in every parish of Scotland through a territorial ministry’ (Article 3 of its Articles Declaratory). In practice this means that the Kirk maintains a presence in every community in Scotland – and exists to serve not only its members but all Scots (the majority of funerals in Scotland are taken by its ministers). It also means that the Kirk pools its resources to ensure a continued presence in every part of Scotland. The Church played a leading role in the provision of universal education in Scotland (the first such provision in the modern world), largely due to its desire that all people should be able to read the Bible. However, today it does not operate schools - these having been entrusted into the care of the state in the later half of the 19th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kirk

Bearing the relevance of the Kirk to and influence they continue to have in Scottish society, a section on their part in the grass roots campaign to release him prior to Kenny's decision should be considered surely? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Chisholm first prominent Labour MSP to back Kenny?

Just heard Malcolm Chisholm commend the Justice Minister for his decision on Megrahi. Has this been mentionned in the article yet? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Precedent for Scottish decision?

Does the Scottish decision have a precedent? - For example; the case of 2nd. Lieutenant William Calley -see Wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.232.146 (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point! 92.235.178.44 (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Define the level of generality at which you want a precedent. You mean precedent for executive clemency? Precedent for executive clemency on compassionate grounds? Precedent for executive clemency on compassionate grounds for a murderer? Precedent for executive clemency on compassionate grounds for a mass-murderer? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You make some good definitions there Dodd. Maybe precedent for American emotional spasm at a legal outcome inversely proportionate in its indignation to the ethnicity and nationality of its victims? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Or even precedent for the US government sticking its nose into scottish justice affairs. --Cyber Fox (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Except it isn't merely a "Scottish justice affair[]," and it would be immaturely simple-minded to pretend otherwise. David Aaronovitch gets it right: "Scotland wasn’t the target of al-Megrahi’s bomb — Americans were. Had the bomb gone off two minutes earlier then the plane would have fallen in England; ten minutes later, in international waters. Scottish jurisdiction was a complete accident following a deliberate atrocity ... [and] of the 270 dead, 52 were British citizens but 180 were from the US. It was an American plane. ... The idea, therefore, that the decison was no business of Mr Mueller’s is far more stupid and arrogant than anything the Americans have so far done or said concerning Lockerbie." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you are simply wrong. This is a matter for Scotland. The incident happened over Scottish soil, the Scottish Police ran the investigation and the Scottish courts determined the case. Oh! so you know that the 'Americans' were the target, I wonder how? I take it that it is the USA you are talking about here and not Peru, Bolivia etc etc...

It makes no difference where the bomb (if there was one) went off. It occurred over English soil and fell on Scottish soil killing Scottish people making it a Scottish matter. Maybe the US and Pan Am should be accountable for their neglect in allowing unaccompanied bags onto the aircraft in the first place which resulted in Scottish deaths? The decision is no business of Mueller, does he work for the Scottish government...no! --Cyber Fox (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Did the British authorities go poking their nose into the 911 terrorist attacks which killed British citizens? --Cyber Fox (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. There's no point in wasting pixels arguing with someone so brainless as to resort to the hackneyed "America shouldn't be used to describe people from the United States" cliche. Mindless NUS Conference fringe blather.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The crime took place over Scottish soil, whether it was designed to or not. Scottish crime scene necessitates Scottish justice. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case, "jurisdiction" and "justice" are not coterminous.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats a matter of cultural interpretation (interpreted differently under Scots Law and in accordance with the Scots Kirk's attitude to justice and compassion)and an American sentiment which was the point of the precedent suggestion of the editor who started this section I guess. Also jurisdiction and justice could have been noncoterminous here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

All this partisan jousting may be diverting, for some, but it adds little to the quality of the Wiki article. To return to the original question - Is there a precedent for the Scottish decision? If there is a comparable precedent (or precedents) should this be noted in the main article.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.232.146 (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Kenny MacAskill answers questions about precedent.

Blitzer: Are there precedents where murderers, just regular murderers, someone who killed someone in cold blood and served only a very small portion of his or her sentence, has been free to go home and spend the rest of his life with his wife and kids because he or she is suffering from cancer?

MacAskill: Well, each and every compassionate release that has been granted, and there have been 30 granted since the year 2000, is done under individual circumstances. And as we were seeing, in Scotland, justice is equally tempered with mercy. Those who commit an offense must be punished and have to pay a price. [3]

Hope this helps. --Cyber Fox (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Scots law is deductive and less concerned with (quasi-)judicial precedent than the more inductive common law systems. Lachrie (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Scots law is quite an interesting article, for those who wish to learn more about this. --John (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are we duplicating articles?

It seems to me that the duplication of everything Megrahi related is a waste of resource. The edits are for the most part, simply rehashed comments taken from the Megrahi article itself. Could we not simply put a note referring editors to the main article ie Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi??

If and when there are serious developments which undermine MacAskill and the SNP government, then appropriate edits can be made to this article. --Cyber Fox (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• The decision to release Megrahi was MacAskill's alone to make, and the choice he made is far and away, the most significant act of his career thusfar. It should receive appropriate coverage in his article. That said, I agree that the coverage should be focused on MacAskill's decision to release and responses to that decision (e.g. unless it can be shown that the hero's welcome was manifestly predictable at the time the decision was made, the connection between the subject and responses to the hero's welcome--as opposed to the decision to release--are too attenuated to be included here). Unless the release is so significant in the grand scheme of things as to merit a standalone article, we are doomed to a little overlap.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• The solution to that would be to split the material from both the MacAskill and Megrahi articles to something like release of (insert his full name here) Megrahi. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheering in Libya could equally well be as a predictable consequence of American policy throughout the eighties and nineties. It is impossible to verify either assertion. AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is the longer we let this go on the harder it will be to separate cojoined articles. --Cyber Fox (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift comments guys before this gets out of control. I think we will wait and see what contributions there are from other interested editors and maybe we can achieve some sort of concensus to keep the edits concise and relevant. --Cyber Fox (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I did quite a bit to this article a while ago for the sake of balance. I don't think I took or rehashed anything directly from the AAMaM article. In fact, I consider the section in this article actually to be better than the respective section in that article. It may even be more true that this article has affected that article more than vice-versa. In the perfect world, maybe it would be ideal if both sections were identical; but even then I don't have a problem with duplication. The section is valid in both articles. Mannafredo (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mannafredo, I understand your views completely Mannafredo but just about everything notable about MacAskill will probably relate to Megrahi. The man (Megrahi) will either make or break him. I have contributed much to the Megrahi article since just before his release and didn't even visit the MacAskill article until a few days ago so there is definitely no direct copying there.

Can you at least agree that it is stupid and wasteful to have the same edits in both articles? --Cyber Fox (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Stupid is too strong a word and does not assume good faith, and a little bit of time and effort is all that is being wasted - although only if edits are reverted by another - and no one is being forced to make these edits. The 'release' section is valid to both articles, but I'm not bothered enough to duplicate my KMacA edits in the AAMaM article. It would be interesting to see what uproar might be caused by cutting and pasting the whole section from one of the articles over the other's. But, hey, I ain't gonna do it. Also, there is more to Kenny than just the Megrahi release. There's been a reasonably decent sized article on him for quite a while now.Mannafredo (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Plain silly to have two or more articles with the same content. It is much better to add...See main article or See Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi...for example with a link. And as far as MacAskill goes, watch this space cause his resignation will no-doubt be next! --Cyber Fox (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you that editors who disagree with you on this are 'silly'. Should Shiloh not appear in this article because he already appears in another? Mannafredo (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Scottish reaction

Scottish reaction should take precedence. The Scottish government is accountable to the Scots. What's more, their reaction shouldn't just be subsumed into that of the United Kingdom. Relations are more complicated than that. It's a matter of national sentiment as well as jurisdiction.

I'm also a little concerned that partisan attacks by Scottish opposition politicians are being emphasised without any qualification or explanation. Parliament has since backed off a no-confidence vote in the minister.

Some polling data have come out:

Poll finds independence support fallen since Lockerbie decision

Most Scots say MacAskill wrong on bomber release

They're a better indication of public reaction than the interested opinions of political opponents or the media, and should lead the section on reaction. Lachrie (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Although these come from a blogspot, they were taken from various regional papers in Scotland and seem to tally closely...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_szELJE9lyYo/SpWPlUQ4RJI/AAAAAAAAAV8/TZYccTwowQI/s1600-h/Hamilton+Advertiser.JPG

(the Hamilton Advertiser 67% agreed with release on compassionate grounds)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_szELJE9lyYo/SpWQS-XCBnI/AAAAAAAAAWE/r96AGW5pqJ8/s1600-h/Oban+Times.JPG

(The Oban Times 91% agreed with release on compassionate grounds)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_szELJE9lyYo/SpWO0O4JL0I/AAAAAAAAAVs/rhb_r03TAq0/s1600-h/D%26G+poll+on+Lockerbie+bomber.JPG

(The Dumfries Times 85% agreed with release on compassionate grounds)

AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

whats interesting here, is that the more traditinally Church attending areas seem to be more in line with the Church of Scotland statements in favour of the decision. AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that's interesting. We probably can't include it though as the results of an online poll aren't scientific. Lachrie (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. However yougov's methodology is internet based and does have its critics. IE the difference between it and the online polls isnt as black and white as might be presumed by some. (Im just reading the article on them at the moment) AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Founded four years ago, YouGov has Bell Pottinger, the PR firm, and Radio 4 Today presenter John Humphrys among its shareholders. Its meteoric rise has sparked resentment from traditional pollsters, but its ability to predict events with a fine degree of accuracy has won plaudits from blue-chip clients. And YouGov is inexpensive. Traditional opinion poll firms charge about £900 per question, using 2,000 respondents. YouGov charges just £300 for the equivalent service.

But Sheerman is questioning whether YouGov's links with Bell Pottinger, which retains a stake of about 3 per cent in the firm, can lead to research tailored to meet the requirements of Bell Pottinger's clients - a charge vehemently denied by YouGov chairman Peter Kellner.

'Certainly nothing has ever happened to us that's compromised our independence,' he said. But he added: 'There are clearly issues with PR firms where they own polling firms or buy research.'

Kellner did say he was approached by a prospective client - with no links to Bell Pottinger - asking YouGov to load questions to guarantee a result, but he sent them packing. They hired another, unnamed, rival to do the work.

One Bell Pottinger senior director said: 'I can understand why people are making the link, but I have never been asked to push clients into using any polling [from YouGov].'

There are also criticisms of internet polling's methodology, which critics say is far from transparent.

Kellner again vehemently denies that his firm is guilty, saying that the level of respondents and the way results are broken down are beyond reproach and set new standards for the industry.

In the bitchy polling world, attention has been drawn to the involvement of former Conservative Party Central Office staff. Internet poll firm Populus is headed by an ex-Central Office pollster Andrew Cooper. Populus has now replaced Mori as the Times polling firm. Working at the Times is Daniel Finkelstein, former adviser to William Hague and one-time colleague of Cooper. In fairness, such proximity often occurs in the closed world of Westminster.

Meanwhile at YouGov, the director of public opinion research is Stephan Shakespeare, former adviser to Jeffrey Archer. Until recently, YouGov was retained by the Tories.

'The whole industry is like an octopus, with Central Office at its heart,' said one industry insider.

Meanwhile, doubts have emerged about whether the Marketing Research Society, the industry's professional body, is up to the job. Critics say that leading firms have left the organisation, making it powerless to enforce codes of conduct. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/jun/06/marketingandpr.polls

AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC) "

Furthermore, the yougov poll was carried out for (and presumably financed by?) the Daily Mail. A paper that has been accused of anti Independance bias in Scotland. (and of anti scottish sentiment)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-391729/The-McMafia-threatening-UK.html

AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Mail takes an anti-EU, anti-abortion view, based upon "traditional values", and is pro-capitalism and pro-monarchy, as well as, in some cases, advocating stricter punishments for crime. It also often calls for lower levels of taxation. The paper is generally critical of the BBC, which it argues is biased to the left.[30]

In the late 1960s, the paper went through a phase of being liberal on social issues like corporal punishment but reverted to its traditional conservative line.

It has Richard Littlejohn, who returned in 2005 from The Sun, alongside Peter Hitchens, who joined its sister title the Mail on Sunday in 2001, when his former newspaper, the Daily Express, was purchased by Richard Desmond, the owner of a number of pornographic titles. The editorial stance was critical of Tony Blair, when he was still Prime Minister, and endorsed the Conservative Party in the 2005 general election"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Libel_lawsuits

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-347259/However-vote-Mr-Blair-bloody-nose.html

In light of all the sources for the STV poll findings, Im not sure how reliable the scientific difference between them can be claimed with any certainty to be. AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Arab reaction

If we're going to include international reaction maybe we should also try to find something from the Arab world. Lachrie (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you have sources? --John (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. We've got to exercise a little care with the political context, as a lot of Arab media outlets are state-operated. Unfortunately I can't read Arabic but it's probably best to stick to English-language sources anyway. I'll have a look and see what I can find. Lachrie (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not much so far. Reaction from Gaddafi:

"Gaddafi didn't miss the chance to rub more salt in the wounds by hailing MacAskill and his team for a 'sound, courageous and humane decision'." SOURCE: Charles Lavery, "Mad Dog's Betrayal", Sunday Mail (23 August 2009), p. 5.

Reaction from the Arab League:

"The Cairo-based Arab League welcomed Megrahi's release, the Egyptian MENA news agency reported. 'The Arab League welcomes the Scottish court decision to release Megrahi, taking into consideration his serious health condition,' Assistant Secretary-General Ahmed Bin Hilli said." SOURCE: “Huge crowd greets Megrahi in Libya”, Plus News Pakistan (23 August 2009).

Arab sources seem to have been crediting Arab lobbying for the release, rather than saying anything about MacAskill personally:

"Saad djebbar, member of the team of defence lawyers representing the Libyan side in the Lockerbie case, told Al-Sharq al-Awsat that the rapid and big deterioration of Al-Miqrahi's health prompted the Scots and with them the British government to discuss releasing him next week "so as not to die in jail." He added that the intensive contacts by the Libyan government and with it Arab contacts following the Arab summit held in Doha in March played a major role too. He pointed out that Qatar sent after the summit its Minister of State for International Cooperation Khalid Bin-Muhammad al-Atiyah to Scotland to discuss Al-Miqrahi's case, adding that Al-Atiyah met the Libyan prisoner during this visit." SOURCE: "Sources credit Libyan, Arab efforts for Al-Miqrahi's release 'next week'", BBC Monitoring Middle East (15 August 2009).

The only opinion piece mentioning MacAskill I've found published in a Middle Eastern newspaper is written by a Western syndicated columnist. It has a conspiratorial tone and labels MacAskill "a fall guy" for the US and UK:

"The knives are out for Libya simply because the Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill made the decision to release the only person convicted in connection with the 1988 Lockerbie bombing on compassionate grounds, ignoring US government representations to keep him locked up. ... It seems to me that such US hysteria is unwarranted and contrived. US officials, senators, governors and mayors are playing to the gallery in hopes of impressing voters and constituents. At the same time the British government is attempting to squirm away from accusatory fingers by pointing its own at poor Mr. MacAskill, who is nothing more than a hapless fall guy. But it will be Libya that will suffer most from the flack. … It’s time that those faux holier than thou individuals were reminded of another 1988 man-made air disaster. On July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 55 while flying within Iranian airspace killing 290 passengers and crew, including 66 children. ... The double standards are glaring. ... Mr. Al Megrahi, who may or may not have done the crime, gets a 27 year sentence for bringing down a civilian airliner while for doing the same thing Capt. Rogers was praised and rewarded. It’s evident that Libya can’t win. President Qaddafi will have to decide whether to postpone his trip to New York until the dogs quit barking. "The barking of a dog does not disturb the man on a camel" goes an old Egyptian saying. But will it upset the man in a tent?" SOURCE: Linda S. Heard, "Lockerbie: hypocrisy, double standards and secrets", Daily News Egypt (28 August 2009).

I'll have another look later. Maybe other people can find more, hopefully online sources. Lachrie (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be useful if we had any fluent Arabic readers here. Im sure there are sources that remain unusable simply due to the language there in. Dr Carol Hillendbrandt of Edinburgh University Islamic department has written about this problem in academia regarding sources for the Crusades, where medieval historians can only read latin or French but not always Arabic. AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a comment above about the Arab media being State 'operated'. Are the British and US Press not also State puppets when it suits them ? --Cyber Fox (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

US and Uk versus Scottish and Arab reactions?

If we are dealing with a Scottish decision to release a Libyan, then it adds weight to the seeming bias of covering UK and US reactions as sections within the article and ommiting Scottish and Arab. Generally speaking, I dont think that the nationality of victims is the only factor with regards to reaction to events sections in articles (the Mai Lai Massacre for example?)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Mai_Lai_Massacre#Court_martial

Either all the reactions should have their own sections, or a culturally subjective picture of the reaction to Mr MacAskill's decision will be presented. AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi mate or what can I call you as a nickname cause your username is so long!

I mentioned in the section above that the duplication of content is plain silly. I suggest that it is much better to add...See main article or See Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi...for example.

Is there not already an Arab comment section in another article..duplication again! --Cyber Fox (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok no worries (just call me Alba as in MG Alba) I got carried away :D AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• You have already made this argument above, and it was rejected. Sections on US (including New Joisian) reaction and a section on British (including Scottish) reaction are appropriate. Further subdivision is unnecessary and will serve only to confuse. As to whether there ought to be additional sections - I could see there being an "other" section, but it's unnecessary to have a separate section for each country covered. The prominence of reaction in the United States and Britain over response from other countries is reasonable, reflecting the due weight of those countries' interests (the target was America, the situs was Britain) in Megrahi's punishment. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats not exactly the full picture. Libya's sanctions were lifted thanks to their agreeing to admit responsibility in the case, and this is of great import in the Arab world's media opinion Im sure. Furthermore, Scottish opinion, and overall UK opinion can divide sharply on matters of moral interpretation of justice and international situations. Scottish opinion has been traditionally more left of centre than UK opinion as a whole and the Scottisness of positive and negative sources in the UK should at least be seen as a significant section Its difficult to see how anyone can say that Libya will be effected less by this decision than either the UK or US and Scottish politics could very well be effected more than UK politics (especially bearing in mind the near silence from Gordon Brown). AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If the argument about Scottish-British divergence is well-taken, and I'll assume so, the question would be whether there is enough to say on either side of the dividing line to justify a division into two subsections. I'm not convinced. Wikipedia has an unfortunate habit of excessive subdivision, and it should be resisted. Here, I don't see enough material to justify such a split. The points about Libya seem too remote from MacAskill's rôle to be considered here.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Libya and Scotland have become less remote from each other precisely due to this case (why else the Saltire in Tripoli of late?) Scotland being treated seperately would simply clarify the reaction in the political environment in which Kenny operates, rather than the UK as a whole. It is the Scottish Parliament after all. AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added an "other reaction" section, and added Gadaffi's reaction to MacAskill's decision. I would reiterate, however, that this is an article about MacAskill and his decision to release Megrahi, so responses added to this section should be rationally related to those two subjects. It isn't a venue for general statements about Megrahi or his guilt vel non.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The deadline

Megrahi was released a week ago. It was necessary, we were told, because he had only three weeks to live. His death has not yet been announced; should we start considering what language (if any) will be added here when if two more weeks tick by with no announcement?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Months. Not weeks.[4] --John (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

My recollection was weeks; if it's months, that makes the decision to free him all the more reprehensible. Either way, however, the question stands, mutatis mutandis.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The false statement here that Megrahi's release was taken on the grounds that he only had three weeks to live is yet more damning evidence that Simon has been utterly ill-informed and clueless on this whole topic from the word go, even as he's sought to sanctimoniously lay down the law to the rest of us. He also unforgivably inserted a quote into the article that he stated was from Colonel Gadaffi when in fact it was no such thing. Do yourself and all of us a favour, Simon - please acquaint yourself much more thoroughly with the actual facts of this case before you either a) make another major edit to the article or b) resume your place in the pulpit on this talk page. Sofia9 (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

i guess it just demonstrates, along with the scots Kirk reaction, a specifically Scottish take on compassionate release. In some countries, it could indeed be three weeks, but the Scottish consensus would be three months. AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

polling

A poll taken revealed that a majority of Scots opposed the decision, so I added it. John removed it, complaining that "43 to 51% is quite an even split." 51 to 43 is indeed a fairly even split (not that that's stopped people from claiming that an almost identical split was a "landslide" when it elected Barack Obama, but there we are), but the poll is directly relevant and well sourced, so merits inclusion. To the extent John's concerns were valid, they were concerns about wording not inclusion, and since they could have been addressed through editing, the revert was inappropriate under WP:REVERT ("revert a good faith edit only as a last resort"). I have added the poll back with the added caveat that a narrow majority of Scots supported the decision. That addresses John's stated concerns, and it's what you should have done, John, if your reason for removal really was what you said in your edit summary. If it's removed again, we'll know that there is another, unspoken concern lurking under the decision.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an AfD. I am being entirely candid when I say that a poll of undisclosed methodology from a newspaper with a well-deserved reputation for anti-nationalist bias is close to worthless on this article. Nevertheless I have replaced it with a more accurate description of the poll. Polls are not inherently notable on Wikipedia, and that you compare this poll with the United States presidential election is either unworthy hyperbole or worrying ignorance on your part. Let's now see what others think about the issue. See also Talk:Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi#Times poll relevance?. --John (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the article again: On 28 August 2009, the Times newspaper released a poll showing that 61% of the British public thought that Kenny MacAskill had made the wrong decision in returning Megrahi to Libya on compassionate grounds while 45% thought that the release had more to do with oil than Megrahi's terminal illness. Seems 61% is quite a bit more than evens!

Different poll. Sheesh. --John (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So why are you reverting my edit of the Times poll in favour of your Scotsman poll to make your argument for an even split look good?? Isn't that against wiki policy? --Cyber Fox (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem confused. I suggest stepping back from this and looking over the article history before you make any more of a fool of yourself. --John (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you didn't add the edit but you certainly reedited it later. --Cyber Fox (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk about burying the lede

After two polls showing majorities opposing MacAskill's decision, we now have a statement that "A BBC/ICM poll found, however, that 56% of Scots believe that MacAskill should continue in his post." The source for that statement has to be seen to be believed. To be sure, that was one finding of the poll. But read on: the same article notes that "60% thought the Scottish Government was wrong to release Megrahi, against 32% of respondents who believed it was the right decision," and that "[a]lmost three quarters of those polled (74%) said the affair had damaged the standing of the Scottish Government in the eyes of voters, with the same proportion believing the release of Megrahi had damaged Scotland's reputation." What's more, "68% - thought the decision was influenced by factors other than Megrahi's health, while only 20% believed it was made purely on compassionate grounds." It won't do to cite this poll as if it was a ray of sunshine for Mr. 11.5.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is why we don't cite polls. Polls are not reliable sources. --John (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Polls are often contradictory and nonsensical, pollsters know perfectly well that they can get the answer they want if they ask the right question. They take no account of the strength or depth of opinion. I would also question the legitimacy of polls within Scotland specifically, because Scotland is rarely polled as a separate unit. "Scottish" opinion polls are often just subsets of wider British opinion polls, which usually means that only about 100 Scots are actually sampled. How anyone can determine a legitimate result from that is beyond me. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing contradictory in believing someone made a mistake but not wanting them to resign over it. You couldn't throw a handful of frozen peas into a crowd in America and not hit several people who thought that President [ideological opponent] made a dreadful hash of [pet issue], but who didn't want them to resign over it. There are plenty who didn't want Nixon to resign because they wanted him impeached instead! So there's no contradiction here. And John's reply does not warrant response.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John, poll results and especially those made by telephone and including a very small sample are a waste ot time. I have removed the section on polls because it is becoming a nonsense. --Cyber Fox (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And I've put it back because it's perfectly valid and no credible objection has been raised against its inclusion. I will also request a third opinion on this matter; please leave it where it is while that's pending.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if this chap "Dodd" is some kind of deliberate self-parody. Polls are absolutely reliable and worthy of note...except for any results that "have to be seen to be believed", which can only be cited if done so in line with the officially sanctioned Dodd interpretation of the numbers. Well, YouGov also showed a big majority against MacAskill resigning, and MORI today has shown Scots almost split down the middle on the decision itself, so if we're going to keep such an absurdly long section on the dubious science of single-issue polling, I'm certainly going to update it to reflect those facts. Sofia9 (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't perfectly valid as Simon puts it, it is an unrepresentative poll taken under dubious circumstances in a very amateurish way in Scotland. The poll does not even related to Scots as those interviewed could be of any nationality. Just because they are in Scotland doesn't make them Scots. The small numbers involved in the poll render it a bit of a farce really and only has a value as Press sensationalism. --Cyber Fox (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are really strong reasons for keeping it, I suggest its immediate removal yet again. --Cyber Fox (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The polls give the reader nothing at all, they are opinionated and worthless and I support removal. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Really, an opinion poll is opinionated? What penetrating insight.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Because the WP:3O project addresses two-editor disagreements and there are at least a half dozen involved here, I removed a recent request for a third opinion. Other avenues of dispute resolution such as a request for comment remain open. — Athaenara ✉ 07:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this the release of Magrahi page or the bio of a living person?

This article was better at this edit, [[5]] it is a bio and the Ma-gra-hi story is coatracking totally, it mostly requires removing, why such a big section about what america thinks about the release? It actually looks like an attack page to me, all that and I havn't even seen the polls yet. Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, the decision to release Megrahi and the subsequent reaction (particularly the latter) is given far too much weight in the articles of both individuals, particularly MacAskill. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi and everyones opinion about his release could take up a couple of lines here, basically this scotish politician let him out on medical grounds as is the law and the americans didn't like it much as thats enough. Isn't there a page specifically for this release? Anyway this is not it, this is a biography of Macaskill. Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone who objects to the removal of the majority of the excessive comments regarding the Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi release? Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a spin-off article should be created first before there is any wanton deletion of content. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a spin off article will be good, as far as wanton deletion of content goes, it is all available in the history. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggested a few days ago that the duplication was unnecessary and indeed was distorting the original article about MacAskill. [6] There is no need for a spin off article as all the facts are already available within Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi --Cyber Fox (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Agreed it is all there, so it does not belong in this bio and is very excessive here.Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I also think that it is no longer a current event and the template can be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove the template and trim the Magrahi-cruft. Those stupid opinion polls need removed as well; we are not a service for opinion pollsters to publicize their dubious results. --John (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've summarized the info and removed most of the quotes. There was a bit of coat-racking going on and we must be mindful of WP:BLP here. I also removed the tag; feel free to replace it if you feel this is still a hot and developing story. I don't. --John (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely unacceptable. This is far and away the most significant event in this politician's career, and it follows that it will get due weight in his article. It would be like spending the entire article on John Major explicating his backbench career in mind-numbing detail and then announcing, offhandedly at the end, "Major was Prime Minister during the 1990s." Trimming is one thing, although I oppose that too. Removing that material altogether isn't going to fly (particularly in favor of so distorted and anæmic a picture as the version you tried to overlay).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

First, the consensus here is against you and thus your reversion is against consensus. Secondly, no "material" was removed, mainly direct quotes which are still present in the references and summarized in the article. I urge you to revert to the consensus version. --John (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Simon, as I presume (I think this is a safe presumption) that you do not follow devolved Scottish politics closely, you really are not in the best position to judge the exact weight this matter should be given in relation to other aspects of MacAskill's career. Your absurd analogy that this single decision is the rough equivalent in his career of John Major's seven-year stint as PM just goes to prove the point. This is admittedly the only incident in MacAskill's life that has brought him to international (or indeed even UK-wide) attention, but if he survives the current storm his career as a minister will have been marked by a number of controversial policy drives and decisions, of which this is simply the single most important one. His penal reform agenda is very extensive and controversial, for instance, as have been his proposals for tackling the binge drink problem. None of these are of the remotest interest to people outside Scotland - but I'd venture to suggest that is not the criterion for determining the respective weight that should be given to them in relation to the Lockerbie decision in the bio of a devolved Scottish politician. Sofia9 (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You have essentially conceded the point. Compare WP:LOCAL with your concession that "[t]his is admittedly the only incident in MacAskill's life that has brought him to international (or indeed even UK-wide) attention...." This isn't an article about Scottish politics, it's an article about Kenny MacAskill. Consequently, the material relating to the decision that brought him to prominence is going to receive far more coverage in the article than his earlier and less notable career.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just read WP:LOCAL at your request (sigh), and I can therefore confirm that it has no relevance whatosever to the matters we are discussing here. Kenny MacAskill is the Justice Secretary of a nation (or jurisdiction if you prefer) of some five million people, which is somewhat different to a 'community' containing "churches, historic buildings, breweries, malls, masts, neighborhoods, parks, schools, stations, highways and streets, that may be well-known locally, but little-known outside the community in question." I take it by your idiosyncratic reading of that, no US politician's bio should ever give equal weight to domestic decision-making, because the US is just a 'local community', and only decisions made that 'transcend that locality' can be considered noteworthy enough to justify expanding the article?

More generally, on this constant spurious (not to mention tedious) recourse to "section 2435, sub-section B4" of the 'Wikipedia rule-book' - if you keep this up we'll have to start calling you Arnold Rimmer. Given that you lived in the UK for two decades you should get the reference. Sofia9 (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I get the reference, but the similarly rule-oriented Saavik is a better analog. At any rate, your problem here is that you have no argument to address the fact that MacAskill's decision to free Megrahi is by far the most significant aspect of his career, and the only event to catapult him onto the broader stage (that's where LOCAL comes in - and if you don't like being told to read and understand Wikipedia policy, you're in the wrong place - What Ignore All Rules does not mean with WP:PIMP), which in turn leaves you bereft of a serious argument against his biography reflecting that fact. I offered a comparison to Lewinsky below, but COATRACK offers another apt example: we expect an astronaut's biography to devote most of its coverage to their being an astronaut - not their five year stint in the Air Force or the summer job they had at burger king as a teenager. I'm not saying that before this incident MacAskill was no more notable than a parish councillor, but it is abundantly clear that this incident is going to dominate his article, at least until he does something equally stupid and notorious.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to your main points in the 'request for wider discussion' section below. I'll be interested to see how your contention that MacAskill's decision simply has to dominate the article because it was so 'stupid and notorious' will go down with those who come in to arbitrate. I admire your dogged persistence, by the way - I'm sick of hearing about "section 2435, sub-section B4", so immediately you turn to "section 48795, sub-section C28" which deals with unacceptable mockery of section 2435, sub-section B4. That'll teach me! Sofia9 (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the comment from Mandela.

How many people think that this comment .. A letter in support of MacAskill's decision was sent to the Scottish Government on behalf of former South African President Nelson Mandela.[20] .. from Mandela is notable enough regarding MacAskill's biography for inclusion in this article? Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I inserted that sentence. It is noteworthy on the basis that Mandela played a crucial role in brokering the deal that brought Megrahi to trial in the Netherlands. That is to say, it is noteworthy on exactly the same basis that Saif Gadaffi's quote might be considered noteworthy, it is commentary on MacAskill's decision by a prominent public figure who was intimately involved in the case (indeed, Mandela is clearly a more prominent figure than Saif Gadaffi). I would suggest if Mandela's comment is to be removed for being non-noteworthy, it logically follows that Gadaffi's quote must go too.

Off2riorob remarked on my own talk page that Mandela's comment could be deemed less noteworthy because we didn't 'see him on TV'. That's a complete red herring and a fairly bizarre one at that. He's a man in his 90s, who chose to make his views known in this letter not via the airwaves. I fail to see how that makes his views any less important or influential. Indeed, let's get real - of all the people who have commented on MacAskill's decision, with the exception of Obama and possibly Hillary Clinton, no-one's words will be regarded as of more public interest than those of Nelson Mandela's. Sofia9 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

EC. This is not a list of comments from people around the world, Mandela's not notable in the release and what he thinks about it is irrelevent to this biography. Has mandela's comment been widely quoted? Is it really relevent to MacAskill? I would say, no, it is not. What does it add? you can say, ow look, mandala agreed with the decision to release magrahi, but this article is not a list of people who agreed with the release or the people that disagreed with it. Mandela was not actively involved in the release at all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In the literal sense, no-one was actively involved in the release apart from MacAskill himself. However we have seen fit to include commentary from a range of people with an involvement in the case - including Robert Mueller, for instance, whose only direct involvement precedes that of Mandela's. I dare say the whole section could be trimmed down, but if so the process should start with the comments that are considerably less notable than Mandela's. I'm slightly getting the impression here that Off2riorob is taking a 'last in, first out' approach to this matter for the sake of convenience. Sofia9 (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, who is this Mueller? sounds like a yoguht. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Muller has to stay, he was heavily involved in the investigation and if you go to his article you will see there is a comment on his article regarding the letter he sent, I would say muller is worth a comment. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)here is the link Robert_Mueller to muellers article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

On the same basis any comment by Mandela should stay, as he played a significant part in arranging the deal for the two Libyans (one was acquitted) to stand trial in Holland. I would also say there needs to be a balance of reaction, there is a lot of stuff from random Americans and minor British politicians but little from elsewhere. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree to the removal of minor politicians comments. This is not a list of comments from people regarding the release of megrahi. Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)I have removed the random americans already. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The fact that mandela played a big part in the deal is totally irrelevant to the biography of McAskill Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I could just as easily say that Robert Mueller's personal comments as head of a foreign law enforcement agency are completely irrelevant to a biography of MacAskill. Anyway, to further respond to one of Off2riorob's earlier objections, Mandela's comments are now being given prominent coverage by the BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8229338.stm Sofia9 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO mandela's comments add nothing to the biograpy of MacAskill, however the article is a lot better than it was, I can live with it, the list of uk polticians could do with a trim but some of them are scottish and I am unsure how valuable their comments are. That whole section is still a bit bloated, but at least is a bit better.Off2riorob (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the Mandela article, there is a section there about the pan am story but no one has yet added it there. Me I would rip a bit more out, including the mandela comment... look at it like this..McAskill releases Magrahi and does it really add anything to this bio that mandela said he agreed with it. no. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob, give it a chance, the story about Mandela's letter has only just broken. If there's a section on Pan Am 103 on Mandela's bio then it's inevitable it will be updated to reflect this latest intervention.

Does it add anything to Kenny MacAskiill's biography to add that a middle-ranking ex-minister from the 1990s (Brian Wilson) disagrees with a decision that he took? No. And yet it's there. Brian Wilson's comments more notable than Nelson Mandela? Let's get real. Sofia9 (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A nice clean-up guys, all that duplicated chaff did noting for the article. Now all we have to do is wait 3 months for the proverbial to hit the fan! --Cyber Fox (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added the comment to the mandela article and added the bbc citation here, all in all it is not looking too bad now. I am out of here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Is consensus for the new version or the old version

I prefer the new version, there was excessive detail about events that did not belong here, those have been removed, the section has lost nothing of value. Off2riorob (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know what valuable information has been removed? Please point it out and we can put it back. Off2riorob (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the things to remember when editing a bio of a living person is at all times keep in mind who the bio is about, here it is about MacAskill, so keep him in mind and keep on topic, if you start focusing on something else like has happened here then perhaps that subject needs a page of its own. The only thing that McAskill has actually done is sign a release paper for a terminally ill person, all of the other stuff is not to do with him, all the other stuff is different peoples opinion as to whether they think it is a good or bad thing and the list of poll figures as to what the general public thought about whatever the pollster asked them are of no value here at all. This page has not been whitewashed at all, it has been improved and there was a general consensus amongst the half dozen editors for the changes. Please assume good faith. Off2riorob (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, a whitewash is totally unacceptable. The version as it stands right now could be improved but is generally fine; suggestions that it's a coatrack betray unfamiliarity with WP:COATRACK. It is perfectly obvious that the most notable thing a person has done will have a commanding place in their biography - that's why virtually all of the article on Monica Lewinsky is about that incident and not her store in the DC suburbs. That's not a COATRACK, it's due weight. Quite obviously, a highly visible decision that causes major controversy belongs in MacAskill's article; so, too, does enough context to explain that decision and even-handed (which means NPOV, not "balanced" - see Okrent's Law) coverage of the response, unless a standalone article is merited. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You are the only person who I can see that prefers your revert. I asked you to show me what info was removed that was worthwhile keeping and you simply revert peoples work. Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:REVERT ("revert a good faith edit only as a last resort"). Here, the new version was too fundamentally flawed to fix bit-by-bit, so a revert across the board was necessary. Note that I did not revert Sofia9's changes, because they were salvagable. I'm perfectly happy to file an RFC and solicit broader input from the community; what I'm not willing to do is to allow partisans for MacAskill to get the article whitewashed, which (intentionally or not) is the upshot of the version preferred by you and John. That isn't satisfactory.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I ask you again to show good faith, there has been no whitewash as you are calling it, show me anything of real value or that whitewashes anything has been removed. I am totally partisan about this guy and mahgrahi, I came here as a third opinion from that page and simply set about improving the article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell me exactly what iyo has been whitewashed from the article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Broadly-speaking, everything that is in the left hand column that isn't substantively in the right hand column in this dif. It isn't necessary to go line-by-line when the change is objectionable in toto. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Not broadly speaking, you are saying repeatedly that there has been a whitewash , exactly what has been whitewashed? Are you suggesting that POV editing has removed or enhanced MaCaskill's position? Off2riorob (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. For example, the statement that the decision met with "a degree of hostility" and that "political figures including Hillary Clinton sp[oke] out against it" utterly fails to capture the depth, breadth, and magnitude of the response. The decision met with white-hot condemnation from virtually all sides. The families of Megrahi's victims, with I think one exception, were utterly horrified by the decision (their reactions, too, have been whitewashed in John's version). To be sure, it is within the literal meaning of the language to say that "virtually everyone" constitutes "a degree" of the whole - 100%, after all, is still, literally, "a degree"! But that is not the sense of the language. It is not the meaning that an ordinary speaker of English will take from the words. "A degree of hostility" implies a limited amount of hostility, or hostility among a limited section of the population. That is utterly false. That's just one example (or a cluster of closely-related examples), but it'll suffice for now.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is your view that everyone is bothered, a lot, the majority of people couldn't care less, and there was a degree of comdemnation, you feel it too strong, as I would say you yourself have strong feelings about it and you want your feeling to be reflected in your version. Of course people dutifully said how horrified they are and then they went off and forgot about it, opinion amongst people is divided but all that is coatracking on this bio, all Mcaskill did was agree that this guy should be released on compassionate grounds, It is not utterly false to say there was a degree of hostitity at all. that is exactly what it was, it's a storm in a teacup, has anyone applied any sanctions? no, has any diplomatic response been put into place? no, have any sanctions been implemented? no...You talk about the depth, breath and magnitude of the situation..I suggest you take a step back and look again...a man was released on compassionate grounds as he has a few months to live, it is not even what you would call a diplomatic incident. Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A mass murder who performed an attack on the United States, in the process of which he killed dozens of people of other nationalities, and who by sheer coincidence ended up in Scottish jurisdiction (ibid.), is released on soi-disant "compassionate" grounds by a politician who has authority to do so. Polling finds that no one believes him, and the response, from virtually all concerned, is nuclear. Are we to present this as if this was a run-of-the-mill release, no different to any other? That would grossly distort the record. It would be a whitewash. It would be only slightly less so if we present reaction as diffident opposition; although you're correct, as I've already explained, that calling the response a "degree" of hostility is technically within the meaning of the word, it is manifestly not the ordinary sense of the term as it will be understood by people reading the article. Lastly, as I've already said, to claim that this is a coatrack problem betrays an unfamiliarity with the policy you're trying to invoke. You should read WP:COATRACK - particularly, but by no means limited to, the section captioned "What is not a coatrack." By your standards, the afore-mentioned Lewinsky article is also a coatrack; that peculiar result should have warned you away from invoking the same standard here.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you show me some lines of text that were removed that you feel were of real value to the article. Or some text that was removed that could be reasonably described as whitewashing. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already done exactly that. Read the dif. -Simon 12:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No you haven't, that was editing not whitewashing. Show me exactly what comment that was removed that you say is whitewashing, if you can't show me something you should take back the accusation. Off2riorob (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have already given you examples; claiming WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not a strategy that strengthens your position. I will reiterate. The sanitization (and distortion) of the scale of the U.S. reaction. The redaction of reactions from a number of high-profile political figures, hidden behind the elliptic line "including Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama" (a peculiar ordering, by the way: ladies first, sure, but he is, after all, the President); the complete removal of the victims' families' reactions. Those are just the ones that I've already mentioned, but we could press on. The removal of opinion polling showing time and again broad public opposition in the UK generally and Scotland particularly, and media response, both supportive and opposed. The removal of reactions by Cameron.

Those are specific examples, but the most troubling part of all is the cumulative effect: the article as John would have it suffers desperately from a problem of undue weight. Undue weight is more often given by overemphasis, inflating a trivial point, but it can also be violated (WP:UNDUE makes very clear) by underemphasis, trivializing a vital point. John's version fails to provide adequate coverage of this, the most high profile decision MacAskill has ever made, and (as even Sofia admitted above) the only thing in his career to date that boosts this article above localism. What's more, the section proposed then fails undue weight a second time, presenting a deeply distorted picture of the response to MacAskill's decision. In all, this is unacceptable, both in particulars, but also in whole. That was why a revert was necessary: because the problems were so intractable that they were beyond fixing line-by-line. It was necessary to expurge the entire change, a change that (if it stood) be an exoneration by means of a perfunctory investigation or biased presentation of data - which, it is no coincidence at all, is the first line of our article on whitewashing.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't talk to you anymore, you should show the good faith edits of other editors a bit more respect. I support the version that myself and the other editors here worked to improve.Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In case it's missed, I've responded above to the bit about 'localism'. Suffice to say, Simon's point is a completely spurious one that can be safely ignored. Sofia9 (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User Dodd has reverted again, please take this as your warning, you are close to a report at 3r.Off2riorob (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC) There is a consensus amongst editors here for the version that User Dodd keeps reverting. Off2riorob (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• There is no consensus for the whitewashed version. I have reverted, filed a request for full protection on the page, and proposed an RFC to see what the broader community thinks. Your position is untenable, being both counterintuitive and against policy, so I have every confidence that the more input we get, the stronger the consensus to reject the redacted version will be.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus to the new version, you are the only person reverting to the old version, you are simply freaking out in the desire to keep the article at your favoured position. Take a step back. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The editors who are trying to make the article worse aren't taking a step back ([7]). When they do, I will.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)