Harry's Place

What is this gibberish?

Sssh, Gordon. This is SO Muffin’s very hard work at constructing a satire. He must have thought a lot about it, spent a very long time writing it to make sure it all tied up and probably spent quite a long time after he’d finished it admiring how very cleverly he’d done it. Don’t upset him. He may start making comments about how ignorant and hysterical you are. He has given you instructions, as he usually does: discuss. I have a feeling that he may rather enjoy the role of playing an examiner making the pupils at HP take an examination for which he will mark the answers and award marks. Those who spot all the analogies correctly and congratulate him on his opinions and the brilliance of his satire will unhesitatingly be awarded an A*. No barriers here–this is an examination for which you can even be awarded 100% if you write the right things and meet all of SO Muffin’s personally selected criteria. The very highest scoring candidate will get an individual comment congratulating him or her on their achievement (SO Muffin is very sensitive to gender-appropriate language).

Those who fail will be graded accordingly. Or labelled ignorant and hysterical, or if they get the very lowest grades, bigoted.

He means well. Really he does.

Nice one, Muffin. However, is it certain that the School of Conspiracy and the School of Folly are mutually exclusive alternatives? Doesn’t it sometimes happen that those who foolishly dig themselves into a deep hole end up by embracing and endorsing their errors, partly because they’re less embarrassed to be thought knaves than to be thought fools?

Never assign to malice that which more easily explained by incompetence.

Never assign to malice that which is more easily explained by incompetence.

I agree with Eve Gerrard that the School of Conspiracy and School of Folly may not be mutually exclusive alternatives, but outside of that have no qualms with the rest of the post.

However, is it certain that the School of Conspiracy and the School of Folly are mutually exclusive alternatives?

No, not really. And where does the School of Vanity fit? The reluctance of people in the public eye to admit to their blunders or to be seen to take corrective action?

Nobody is perfect, certainly nobody making political decisions. Moreover, such decisions are taken with partial (occasionally wrong) information and based on occasionally wrong assumptions. It is fair to say that a good politician is somebody who gets it right 67% of the time. So, why do people refuse to admit to others (or to themselves) that they have blundered? And why they compound their blunders doing so?

‘So, why do people refuse to admit to others (or to themselves) that they have blundered?’

Partly because we punish them if they do so – we pillory them in public for making mistakes, and we refuse to re-elect them to responsible and prestigious positions.

I fully agree, Eve. But, even given the ferocity of criticism, isn’t the strategy of honestly admitting blunders more effective than trying to cover them up and explain them away in a situation when not just the perpetrator but everybody else knows that they are wrong? Vanity and not losing face must come into it.

Candidates are reminded that their work must be entirely their own and produced under SO Muffin’s examination conditions. Any attempt to re-present previously marked coursework assignments or to smuggle packaged examination cribs onto the examination thread will result in their being reported to the HP Board of Examiners”, and result in automatic disqualification and a zero grade.

Candidates found to be passing information to other candidates which puts an end to supplementary rhetorical examination questions for which the answers are already decided by the Examiner (SO Muffin) may be reported to the Chief International Examiner of the HP Board, will receive public comments of rebuke and may be permanently excluded from answering further examination threads of the HP Board.

“There is absolutely no evidence for the claim, which, however, is an almost-verbatim repetition of a long-standing anti-Ruritanian prejudice, wildly acknowledged as racist”

Trying to decide if ‘wildly’ is a typo?

Greg – why did you post the same comment twice? Are you trying to mess with our heads, or flood the site or what? Hoping that the repetition would make this look like a spamfarm or something and then the googleranking would plummet.

He’s so mauve, we don’t know what he’s planning…

Muffin: yes, you’re right – the role of vanity in human affairs should never be underestimated. But our punitive responses to honest admission of failure also play a role.

I’m a bit confused about No.3, is the question whether Mr Katil is to be used as a “means” to show the world that “Internal cooperation, civil-liberties and rule-of-law frame of mind” can effectively deal with terrorism? Or should he be treated as an “end” in and of himself as a terminally ill man requesting compassionate release to spend his final days with his family? i thought people were ends not means, or is that just people you like?

SOM, I normally agree with a lot of what you write but in this case I have to agree with Judy. Taking question 3 in particular, to take what is a complex issue and suggest that here is one “correct answer” which I guess would coincide with your own views rather smacks of arrogance.
There are arguments both for and against releasing al-Megrahi but to claim that it “will be seen as a triumph to terrorists” is contestable to say the least. The prospect of being released a couple of months early if one has a terminal disease hardly strikes me as a great incentive to carry out terrorist acts, or indeed any kind of criminal activity.
As for the point that it “will close forever the chance of finding those responsible for mass murder”, well the powers that be have shown absolutely no interest in identifying those who gave the orders for the bombing until now. I do think it dubious that his appeal has been dropped (especially as in theory it could have continued after his release, even after his death) as I do think there are grave doubts about his guilt, but even if he had won the appeal is it likely the case would have been re-opened?

As for your final point

what is required according to these voices are acts of exceptional severity that disregard the rule of law and erode civil liberties. Do you prove them right by releasing Mr Katil?

Well that question can be taken in two ways. It could mean “does the act of releasing him prove them right?” or it could mean “releasing him does prove them right so taking this into account should you do so”.

My answer to the former question would be “no”, rendering the latter question a non-sequiteur.

Trying to decide if ‘wildly’ is a typo?

Don’t bother: it is.

You are a cyclops with a dour disposition, a nervous twitch and a creepy smile. You are the non elected leader of a tribe of two eyed bipeds from the north of an Island with a proud history made up of 4 provinces with a proud history. You inherited you position as leader from the previous, elected leader as you are members of the same party. This previous leader finally yielded after you had been plotting for nearly a decade to usurp him.

After you assume the mantle of leadership, it comes to pass that one of your senior confidants and lieutenants with whom you regularly hold meetings, has been undertaking covert smear campaigns in the press against leaders of the opposition party and even members of your own party, who have curried your disfavor for one reason or another – you are known for being truculent and easily put out. Some of these smears consisted of allegations of a sexual nature.

Meantime, the tribe’s economy has gone down the toilet, in part because of the governance failures over your party’s tenure over the last decade, most of which time you have held the chief financier position. Unsurprisingly your party gets trounced in a couple of bi elections and the polls show your party’s electoral prospects are akin to those of Gerry Adams standing for Belfast East.

Additionally, it is revealed that many of the senior cabinate members of your government put in questionable business related expense claims. Claims that if they had been submitted by any businessman against a business with funds generated by his own toil, would result in legal action from the tax authorities and possibly a custodial sentence for fraud.

What is your best course of action to improve your lot?

Andrew, thanks for a thoughtful contribution.

There is certainly not a “unique” answer to any moral question – indeed, the instances when there is only one obvious answer are not terribly interesting. If the alternatives are either to run over a group of children or not, the moral question is trivial. It becomes more interesting if the only means of getting to a nuclear device and disarming it is by running over a group of children.

There might be good and bad reasons to releasing al Magrahi and I wished to highlight one bad reason. Precisely because I strongly believe in civil liberties and in the rule of law, I want them to be robust and to be seen as robust when dealing with acts of mass terrorism and other particularly heinous crimes. The way the criminal system dealt with Lockerby (and the release of al Magrahi is but a last step in an inglorious progression) is a textbook case how neither to be robust nor appear to be robust. If (heaven forbid) tomorrow similar outrage happens over Scotland, do you believe that a country whose aircraft exploded and which accounts for the great majority of victims will be more likely to cooperate with Scottish criminal justice system or more likely to take the law into their own hands unilaterally and waterboard the likely suspects?

No, this is not the only consideration and you are free to decide that compassion toward al Magrahi trumps everything. Or you can decide that compassion toward the families of Lockerby victims trumps everything. Or that fat oil exploration contracts trump everything. Or whatsoever. But you have to admit that this consideration is genuine.

Well in the case of racism there are two kinds of people involved:

A) the self conscious-racist who is too racists to realize how deeply stupid he has to be to hold such opinions, and

B) those who are too deeply stupid to realize how racist their opinions are.

Candidates are reminded that the HP Board of Examiners has set down severe penalties for candidates who combine sound answers with gratuitous and irrelevant insults, particularly those attempting to offer as if relevant references to the ocular endowment and rumoured sexual preferences of the subjects of questions.

Such attempts will be marked below the grade (g) for which the criteria include: answers offer relevant evidence and refrain from offering as if relevant ad hominen arguments based on physical attributes, gender or sexual preferences.

Candidates are reminded that appeals against the award of a (g) grade in relation to the above criterion on the grounds that Examiners and/or other candidates lack a sense of humour or proportion will not be accepted.

Candidates are further reminded that appeals against the award of a (g) grade on the above criterion will be decided by the Chief Examiner of HP on Gender Examination and Assignment regulations, against whom there is no further appeal on matters of Gender Examination and Assignment.

I agree with S.O. It makes us look weak. Quite apart from the fact that the moral case for keeping al-Megrahi in this country (even if in hospital) was in my view unassailable. Also, I thought the piece was rather amusing.

Can I have my A* now, please, sir?

Aren’t you leaving out the political dimension in all this? Morality does not exist in a vacuum, it is part of a culture or society, moral choices relate to how we believe society should be structured. it all depends who you want to impress and suck up to.

SOM,

It’s a fair question and I certainly agree with you that the whole process has been unsatisfactory in a number of ways, and we are left with too many unanswered questions for my liking. But, rightly or wrongly, al-Megrahi was tried and convicted for the bombing so one accusation you cannot make is that the Scottish criminal justice system failed to identify and convict a suspect. Therefore I fail to see why logically in similar circumstances (and this is a unique case anyway) it would be felt neccessary to resort to waterboarding or other unscrupulous methods.
Yes, he will get to spend the last couple of months of his life at home with his family, albeit dying a slow and painful death, instead of in prison. But even if we object to his release this is, as you say, only one in a number of unsatisfactory aspects of the whole process, which as a whole has not been exactly kind to al-Megrahi, whose interests have been given secondary consideration to those of the larger players, including his own country. As it stands he is still the sole person convicted of a monstrous crime which he could not have carried out on his own or of his own initiative and on evidence which many people consider to be questionable. Has the system overall been that kind to him?
I would agree that one lesson we should draw from the affair is the need for proper robustness in investigating terrorist crimes but I would also add that it underlines the importance of respecting the rule of law, the proper juditial process and human rights rather than providing a case for ignoring or downgrading them.

Do you appoint Mr Cicogna as the lead reporter on human right abuses in that part of the world and what does it do to your credibility?

You’re actually talking about Myanmar aren’t you? Although maybe Mr Cicogna thinks of it as “Burma” and his extreme postitions vis a vis the Burmese government would bring about an obvious bias to his work. So, no.

A nonsense which, however, is bound to stir anti-Ruritanian racism and increase further Ruritanian–Zendan hatred?

The Hutus and the Tutsis no longer need that pot stirred (with or without a person inside). So no.

Do you prove them right by releasing Mr Katil?

No, no! Ben is right, the moral case is unassailable (providing he did it).

I don’t understand the fourth question.

But, rightly or wrongly, al-Megrahi was tried and convicted for the bombing so one accusation you cannot make is that the Scottish criminal justice system failed to identify and convict a suspect. Therefore I fail to see why logically in similar circumstances (and this is a unique case anyway) it would be felt neccessary to resort to waterboarding or other unscrupulous methods.

It’s logic 101!

Candidates are reminded that enthusiastic praise of the Examiner (SO Muffin) AND unqualified praise of the Examination Paper, the Examination Questions AND all the Examiner’s supplementary questions, and the aptness and correctness of his or her comments and answers will automatically meet all the criteria for the award of an A* grade.

Andrew: I think we agree on

the importance of respecting the rule of law, the proper juditial process and human rights

but in my case this is in spite of MacAskill’s behaviour – and, to be fair, the fairly scandalous behaviour of all the main actors concerned, inclusive of successive UK and US governments. There is absolutely no doubt that justice has been compromised and `hot’ avenues of enquiry not pursued for reasons of political and economic expediency.

And with regard to al Magrahi, let us make it clear. It is highly unlikely, let’s agree, that he is the linchpin behind Lockerby. However, the evidence in his trial is fairly decisive that he was an essential part of that particular enterprise. The evidence fingered him, others (including those more important than him) managed to flee. All said and done, however, he is guilty (and has been convicted by a court of law – a Scottish one!) of taking part in the Lockerby massacre.

Blowing up a civilian airliner, full of unsuspecting non-combatant passengers, is a uniquely heinous crime. There is no excuse here of a human error, of fog of war, of deeds done in hot blood, of uncertainty insofar as consequences are concerned, even of negligence. Taking part, even a minor part, in this misdeed is thus uniquely unforgivable. The sufferings of Mr al Magrahi in his final months fail to elicit my compassion. He took himself outside humanity, thus outside humane emotions of compassion and forgiveness.

Are you going to take Mullah to task for making a racist joke re cooking pots and Africans?

What an enjoyable post.

I consider myself to be, on the whole, a kind and compassionate person in my personal dealings. Politically, I am of the left and display many vestiges of weeping liberalism. But I cannot understand how people are prepared to take al Magrahi’s suffering into account in terms of what is just. I would be happy ot see him go to a hospital – that is not a question of whether he serves his sentence or not, and, certainly, it would not be humane to deliberately enhance his suffering by refusing respite. But it clearly cannot justify early release. I am concerned by the dictates of justice, and not by anything else. Why would you extend unwarranted compassion to this man when it interferes with the requirement that justice must be done? I find it extraordinary.

Are you going to take Mullah to task for making a racist joke re cooking pots and Africans?

No, I was referring to the fact that rumours of just the kind of thing SO Muffin was talking about have been made about Rwandan rebels (also Ugandan and Congolese too).

We could dismiss them as racist blood libels that shouldn’t be investigated if that turns out to be the most expedient way of dealing with it.

Candidates are reminded that all complaints about alleged racism on any grounds should be referred to the Chief Examiner for Politically Correct Statements (who is also the Chief Examiner of the Trotskyism, Islamism and Stoppers Examination Board) for arbitration.

The Chief Examiner will arbitrarily decide on the basis of the opinions he holds at the time of the complaint whether it is upheld.

Where a complaint on the grounds of racism is upheld, the Chief Examiner will automatically confer the award of (h) (racist bigot). Particularly severe cases may lead to the candidate having his or her racist comments quoted on his Chief Examiner’s Reports as examples of (i) dirty racism, (ii) filthy racism or (iii) utterly disgusting racist trash. The candidate may also penalised for the award of either a (i) racist scum or (it) dirty racist scum or (iii) filthy racist scum designation or, in extreme cases,(iv) Nazi scum. The designation, once awarded will be invoked without exception in response to any future examination thread entries submitted by the candidate.

An award of the designation “Nazi scum” will lead to immediate and instant disbarment from entry on all examination threads of the HP Board of Examiners.

The sole grounds for appeal against instant disbarment of candidates awarded the designation “Nazi scum” is on the grounds that the candidate has been judged by the Chief Examiner for Politically Correct Statements to provide other candidates of appropriate and incontrovertible evidence of the (h) (bigot) (Nazi scum) grade, which may be used for evidence for internal moderation and supporting evidence submitted by candidates or Examiners making complaints on the grounds of racism.

How interesting, Mr Mullah, was merely reminding us of unsubstantiated racist comments made by other persons and he in no way endorses them. That’s alright then.

I want to know were is the School of Complex Realities, that is the one I would join in, the others appear to be a wate of effort.

The School of Complex Realities certainly would point out that the International Human Rights leader would be in place because of political reasons and if he was a person of real integrity would have refused the appointment of the other with threats of resignation, but in reality will not and try and put the person someone else.

The School of Complex Realities would say that the editor of the newspaper would if a journalist of quality write the item up to point out that there are rumours such as this one which he (as an editor he is able to make comments) thinks is BS, what do you think?…. or if his paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch will not only post it but find suitable bloody photos to enhance it, perhaps even sending a journalist to the area for more info.

The School of Complex Realities would say that for those that follow the rule of law would release the Libyan – oops “that terrorist” because that is what the law says and then if a person of moral integrity would write a blistering letter to the parliament asking that the law be reconsidered, or quit in disgust and write a book about how things should be if he was in charge and later use that to promote his poltiical our journalist career.

Candidates submitting appeals against an award of the (h) (racist bigot) grade or whose comments have been identified by other candidates as including evidence of racism may submit appeals on the grounds of inadvertent racism on the grounds of (i) their inability to read and understand the relevant regulations OR (ii) other forms of cognitive disability, including self-evident total stupidity. Medical or qualified expert clinical psychologists’ evidence must be provided in support of such claims.

I wonder if a new syndrome/formulation is emerging. We have the Livingstone Formulation that anyone railing against antisemitism is proof that people use claims of antisemitism to stifle debate that isn’t antisemitic (but is). Hence, people will throw claims of antisemitism at any criticism of Israel.

Now we have “I can make up any claim I like about Israel and its up to Israel to prove its not true – otherwise it IS true”.

I threw this one back today in a discussion about Tutu saying that Arabs have suffered because of the actions of Germany in The Holocaust. I said it was a strange argument when the Palestinians and Arabs had supported the Holocaust at the time of Al Husseini. Prove it – I was challenged. Its like saying “Prove the allies defeated the Germans”.

Prove its NOT true I answered. The now defeated opponent, who won’t even state their Google search string when they said they could find no evidence, then says I have to prove it. Shan’t I said. I’m using the new “Israel always guilty unless proven innocent model” reversed. Seems only fair.

Yes, Sue. The default setting of most allegations at birth is “unsubstantiated”. Deep shame on Reuters and the UN to talk about such things before they are substantiated:

http://www.mail-archive.com/ugandanet@kym.net/msg11259.html

Excellent post, thank you!

But I cannot understand how people are prepared to take al Magrahi’s suffering into account in terms of what is just

I think most reasonable people who on balance agree with the decision to release megrahi will agree that it was not just that he be released. Rather he was released on the grounds of compassion or, if you will, mercy towards a dying man who will spend the last few days of his life in pain.

It is in the nature of mercy that it is opposed to the ends of justice – you cannot be merciful in any real sense to someone who has done no wrong. Megrahi may deserve to die in jail, indeed he may deserve to have been put to death: thats what he did to 270+ innocent people after all, but scottish law allows mercy and compassion to mitigate the demands of the (as Shuggy calls it) “sometimes inexhaustible human desire for vengeance”.

Mr Mullah, nothing in your brief mention of cannabalism suggested that it had a wealth of association behind it. It’s like the ‘quality’ press who report on the gutter press’ report of lurid sexual goings on among soap actors. Who has the moral responsibility for repeating it? As for the matter in hand, erhaps the answer is to Open the Books. It now transpires that we may have been miled over al-Meghari (and probably the other cases cited), that he is not as ill as was claimed. Decisions like this should be made in the full glare of the democratic process. Justice must be done, but also seen to be done.

Mr Mullah, nothing in your brief mention of cannabalism suggested that it had a wealth of association behind it.

Is there a charge here? If so, I don’t know what it is.

It’s like the ‘quality’ press who report on the gutter press’ report of lurid sexual goings on among soap actors.

With me in the role of “quality” and Reuters in the “gutter”? That’s awfully kind of you.

Who has the moral responsibility for repeating it?

I suppose I do. Although you pointed out that I said it so it could be that you represent the superelite press reporting on the quality press reporting on the gutter press.

Just out of interest, if I were to say cannibalism is known among New Guinean tribes would it count as racist or as a blood libel (or blood label as SO Muffin inexplicably calls it)? Or if I had mentioned reports (unsubstantiated as they are) that cannibalism exists in North Korea would it be racist? Or if I mentioned that it even went on in good ole’ Blighty years and years ago, would it be racist?

Candidates are advised to check their answers very carefully for errors and comprehensibility before submission. The “preview” facility has been provided by the HP Board of Examiners for candidates’ use for this purpose.

Candidates are reminded that the criteria for the award of a (d) grade include: (i) statements are comprehensible by other examination candidates (ii) sentences must follow accepted grammatical conventions of the English language (iii) each paragraph should be demonstrably linked to its predecessor, preferably by the use of an appropriate connective such as “On the other hand”.

Candidates are reminded that overlong and complicated sentences may result in examination thread entries being awarded a (d) grade on grounds (i) or (ii) or both, particularly if complaints are received from other candidates or examiners.

Appeals in exceptional circumstances may be made to the External Examiner for Pedantry and Non-Political Correctness, whose judgements on such complaints are final.

In extreme circumstances, candidates may submit a complaint against another candidate on the grounds of “confused thought” AND/OR “unable to string two sentences together”. Clear evidence, in the forms of appropriate quotations from the candidate complained of, together with an appropriate explanatory comments, must be submitted within 24 hours of the examination thread entry complained of being submitted on the examination thread.

For such complaints to be upheld, additional supportive complaints must be submitted by at least THREE further candidates OR one Examiner.

The HP Board reminds candidates that they are not permitted to canvass other candidates outside the examination thread for the purpose of complaining against third candidates by exchanging private emails, SMS messages or Tweets for this purpose.

Candidates are permitted to draw the attention of other candidates on the thread to complaints about third candidates on the grounds of “confused thought” AND/OR “cannot string two sentences together” and invite them to submit supportive complaints to the thread Examiner on the examination thread.

Each complaint on the grounds of “confused thought” or “cannot string two sentences together” must be made solely in relation to examination entries made on the examination thread concerned. Evidence of previous (d) grade awards on the grounds of “confused thought” or “cannot string two sentences together” will not be accepted.

Candidates are advised to check their answers very carefully for errors and comprehensibility before submission. The “preview” facility has been provided by the HP Board of Examiners for candidates’ use for this purpose.

Candidates are reminded that the criteria for the award of a (d) grade include: (i) statements are comprehensible by other examination candidates (ii) sentences must follow accepted grammatical conventions of the English language (iii) each paragraph should be demonstrably linked to its predecessor, preferably by the use of an appropriate connective such as “On the other hand”.

Candidates are reminded that overlong and complicated sentences may result in examination thread entries being awarded a (d) grade on grounds (i) or (ii) or both, particularly if complaints are received from other candidates or examiners.

Appeals in exceptional circumstances may be made to the External Examiner for Pedantry and Non-Political Correctness, whose judgements on such complaints are final.

In extreme circumstances, candidates may submit a complaint against another candidate on the grounds of “confused thought” AND/OR “unable to string two sentences together”. Clear evidence, in the forms of appropriate quotations from the candidate complained of, together with an appropriate explanatory comments, must be submitted within 24 hours of the examination thread entry complained of being submitted on the examination thread.

For such complaints to be upheld, additional supportive complaints must be submitted by at least THREE further candidates OR one Examiner.

The HP Board reminds candidates that they are not permitted to canvass other candidates outside the examination thread for the purpose of complaining against third candidates by exchanging private emails, SMS messages or Tweets for this purpose.

Candidates are permitted to draw the attention of other candidates on the thread to complaints about third candidates on the grounds of “confused thought” AND/OR “cannot string two sentences together” and invite them to submit supportive complaints to the thread Examiner on the examination thread.

Each complaint on the grounds of “confused thought” or “cannot string two sentences together” must be made solely in relation to examination entries made on the examination thread concerned. Evidence of previous (d) grade awards on the grounds of “confused thought” or “cannot string two sentences together” will not be accepted.

Sue, on your other point re: Megrahi, you call for an Opening of the Book. I assume you mean look into it closer. But what evidence do you have that Megrahi is actually not that sick?

RE: How interesting, Mr Mullah, was merely reminding us of unsubstantiated racist comments made by other persons and he in no way endorses them. That’s alright then.

I preferred it before he elaborated on “why” he said it and, of course, its relation to Israel blood-libel affair, which he, of course, believes requires further investigation.

Before the clever anti-Israel elaboration, it reminded me of the former mayor of Toronto — Mel Lastman — a blowhard if you ever saw one, who, when talking about an upcoming mayoral gathering in Africa, stated: “I hope i don’t end up in a pot!”

SOM,

The sufferings of Mr al Magrahi in his final months fail to elicit my compassion. He took himself outside humanity, thus outside humane emotions of compassion and forgiveness.

I have no argument with that sentiment. And whatever doubts there may be about his guilt the decision had to be made on the basis that until it was ruled otherwise he stood convicted of the bombing, and it should be judged on that basis. McAskill says he had no doubts out al Magrahi’s guilt himself.

What I would say is that I don’t believe that the principle of compassionate release as established in Scottish law in anyway undermines the robustness of the Scottish judicial system, even if it was a mistake to apply it in this case. I also think that it is possible to support McAskill’s decision without being in any way sympathetic to the actions of al-Megrahi or any others released in similar circumstances. And I certainly don’t accept that his release undermines international efforts to combat terrorism and bring the purpetrators to justice.

Andrew: His release undermines international efforts to combat terrorism while keeping within the letter and the spirit of the law and not compromising civil liberties. How much it undermines might be a matter for discussion and, as things stand, the honest answer is “we don’t know”. But any impression that law and civil liberties, instead of providing the framework within which we go after international terrorists and punish them, are a soft, wishy-washy, inadequate option is harmful.

And, incidentally, it is almost irrelevant whether you (or me) see the release of al Magrahi in this light. What matters is that enough people (and not just in the States – according to a poll today on BBC, … in Scotland) perceive it in this light.

And now it seems vastly unlikely that al-Megrahi is terminally ill. (see articles in the Times and Telegraph). I knew it all along – I am a hardened cynic. And we cannot bring 270 murdered people back to life even if he were to die in jail. So the whole thing is to do with oil and gas. And don’t we really need those, there’s no getting away from that? Or do you want China to get all African natural resources?

Really liked the article, very satirical.

Well done to everyone for ignoring Judy’s comments here.

Vildechaye: I preferred it before he elaborated on “why” he said it and, of course, its relation to Israel blood-libel affair, which he, of course, believes requires further investigation.

No. I don’t know the ins-and-outs of the particular claims against Israeli soldiers but if the source has no credibility whatsoever then of course the newspaper should not publish the story. It should of course be the journalist’s job to investigate the claim before publishing.

I was responding to Sue’s accusation of racism: the idea that saying African and cooking pots is racist. Unfortunately cannibalism in some of the wars in Africa (particularly in Congo) cannot be so easily dismissed as racist blood libel even though the publishing of such stories may inflame the sensibilities of some.

S O Muffin talked about stirring things up, so I added the word “pot”. It was in bad taste, I agree, so I apologise.

Well done to everyone for ignoring Judy’s comments here.

There’s a well known internet abbreviation, “tl;dr”, It stands for “Too long; didn’t read”

Mr Katil should have been drowned in a butt of Malmsey wine, or have you folks forgotten how to do that?

Interesting. Someone thinks that he or she is being soooo terribly witty by pretending to be me: that first post wasn’t mine (although I can sympathise with the sentiment).
Hilarious, Judy!

Taking part, even a minor part, in this misdeed is thus uniquely unforgivable. The sufferings of Mr al Magrahi in his final months fail to elicit my compassion. He took himself outside humanity, thus outside humane emotions of compassion and forgiveness.

I find it extraordinary that anyone could disagree with this.

I am well aware that cannabalism is a ritualistic activity in some parts of the world; however, the context that you mentioned it in, flippantly and in a discussion about morality, gave no clue to your serious anthropological interest.

RE: Well done to everyone for ignoring Judy’s comments here.

Actually it wasn’t hard. They were incomprehensible, interminable and boring.

RE: “if the source has no credibility whatsoever then of course the newspaper should not publish the story. It should of course be the journalist’s job to investigate the claim before publishing.”

So, Mullah, since the only “source” for this story are unsubstantiated claims and the journalist admits he didn’t investigate the claim before publishing, would you then say that the newspaper was wrong to publish the story and the reporter is an unprofessional hack for writing it without doing any research, especially given how particular accusation resonates among Jews for well-known and longstanding historical reasons?