HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing

fucktards

Warning, the following rant is full of bad words, so read on at your own risk

The decision by First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, and Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, to release the only person convicted for the Lockerbie bombing in 1988, has infuriated me no end. On grounds of compassionate fucking release? Are you fucking kidding me? There were 270 people killed in those attacks, where was the fucking compassion for them?

Alex Salmond is a fucktard

I believe that MacAskill’s and Salmond’s decision to release this evil man, was pure political posturing. He didn’t want to be seen to be kow-towing to US pressure, and so decided to release him despite the public outcry.

alex salmond

Kenny MacAskill is a wanker

I didn’t have any relatives on that plane, but I still have the overwhelming desire to go to Scotland and punch them both in the face for releasing that man. Due process my fucking arse.

Alex Salmond is a twat

Would they have done this if it had been Osama Bin Laden? I ask that question, but to be honest, judging from the mess that they’ve just made of this Lockerbie thing, I have no idea.

Kenny MacAskill is a rat-infested arsehole

And then to see Abdel Basset al-Megrahi given a hero’s welcome, in front of the whole world? Well those TV pictures made me feel sick to my stomach. His release has made a total mockery of Scotland’s justice system.

Alex Salmond is a fuckwit

Salmond and MacAskill have not only fucked up their political career, they’ve also made Scotland a laughing stock, and from the news, I see he’s decided to play this as if England was involved in making this decision. Bloody convenient that.

Kenny MacAskill is an effing fucktard

Well Scotland, you got your own government, the only problem is, you have fucking twat monkeys running the show. Urrrgghh. Fuckwits!!!!!!!

By the way, what if this man doesn’t die? Seriously, what if he lives for another fucking 5 years?

19 Comments »

  • Yep, I agree with all the bad words and probably would have added more. And yeah, he will probably live longer than expected because there is no bloody justice any more.

    ReplyReply


  • Sparkindarkness
    August 24
    9:29 am

    I fully support MacAskill. It’s a relief to see the legal and justice system following well established principles rather than politics and the shock jocks screaming in outrage but with little knowledge of how standard this truly is.

    Compassionate release of the terminally ill is the norm – especially when they are so far from their families. On a practical level, prisons are ill equipped to deal with the terminally ill – nor is it cheap to do so.

    On a compassionate level (and no matter what anyone has done, it doesn’t mean we cannot show compassion) dying hundreds of miles away from your family is unnecessary on any level.

    There is no practical or legal reason to keep him in prison to make sure he dies behind bars away from his family. The only reason we would be keeping him in prison to the death would be vengeance and hate. While the victims’ families have good reason for their anger – we should never make the mistake of allowing anger and hatred to be the basis for our justice decisions. That’s a very short sighted and foolish road to start down

    Well done MacAskill for having the courage to uphold legal principle and practice in the face of such political pressure and bullying

    ReplyReply


  • Lori
    August 24
    2:44 pm

    I did lose a family friend on that flight. I’m profoundly grateful, as is her brother, that her dad is no longer alive because this would surely kill him.

    As a regular citizen, I’m outraged.

    ReplyReply

  • @Sparkindarkness I totally disagree with you of course. In my opinion, when you help commit such a heinous crime, you forfeit your own humanity, and the right to be treated with compassion.

    You can call it vengeance, but at the end of the day, had the man not been ill, he’d have still been in prison, so in my mind, the fact that he’s due to die is an added bonus, not a reason to free him.

    Would you take the same view if the man had been Osama Bin Laden? Really?

    ReplyReply

  • I am very liberal on most things but on this I am pretty Texan. Why does he get to be with his family, his victims don’t get to.

    ReplyReply


  • Myra Willingham
    August 24
    3:52 pm

    My brother came home from Diego Garcia two months before the bombing. That was the plane he would have been on. As a matter of fact, he took a picture of it as it sat on the runway having some minor problem fixed. On the back of the photo he wrote: Just in case this baby goes down. Ha-Ha.

    I thought about that as I watched that asshole being released and cursed the Scottish bastards who allowed it to happen. Cowards. That’s all those fucking dicks are. Those poor innocent people who died had more right than that prick to live. In my opinion, they should have turned him over to whichever state we have that still has an electric chair and fried his putrid ass.

    ReplyReply

  • I don’t really understand the grounds for compassionate release of a killer. As sybil said, the victims didn’t get to say goodbye or see their families again–they didn’t get any compassion, why does the person responsible get it?

    I don’t see justice in that.

    ReplyReply

  • I’m with Sparkindarkness and the Scottish families who lost their loved ones.

    And, Karen, comparing Megrahi to Bin Laden is rather idiotic.

    If you really want to get down to it, we should boycott the US for harbouring prime IRA suspects when the UK needed to interview them about various bombings and such, and for refusing to allow the UK to investigate the financial ties stemming from various Irish-American societies suspected of financing a number of paramilitary units in Ireland and Northern Ireland. This had been happening for decades while Britain had to deal with ongoing bombings that cost lives and wilful murders of Irish and British citizens including journalists.

    The US had its reasons for blocking a number of UK investigations, which we had to respect and uphold. This isn’t the only thing and we still had to respect those decisions.

    With that in mind, it would be fair for the US (and the rest of the world) to respect Scotland’s decision in this case, however distasteful or unfair it may seem to people.

    Well Scotland, you got your own government, the only problem is, you have fucking twat monkeys running the show. Urrrgghh. Fuckwits!!!!!!!

    If you weren’t a friend, I would have said go and fuck yourself. And news flash: Scots are running the English/Welsh government, and have been for a decade or so. Or were you too busy swearing at BB? 😀

    ReplyReply


  • Sparkindarkness
    August 24
    4:54 pm

    Karen
    Yes I would.

    I fully agree with prison when there is a point. I do not think “make him suffer” is a point or purpose I wish to endorse. I sympathise with the victims – but making someone suffer will not change what has happened.

    Now, if we cause him to suffer for a purpose – be it deterrence, protection of society, or the numerous reasons for punishment we have in jurisprudence, then most certainly keep him in prison.

    But if the reason boils down to “because we hate him and want him to hurt for vengeance sake” then that is not something I want in our law or justice system, no matter how justified that hate is.

    And with him terminally ill and riddled with cancer, keeping him in prison (a place that is ill equipped to deal with such and will doubtless run up more of a bill) I cannot see a reason to keep him there OTHER than vengeance.

    We do not remove the necessity of goodness of compassion by expressing it for those who have not expressed it. They are evil – that doesn’t mean we have to be.

    ReplyReply


  • joanne
    August 24
    5:26 pm

    I love the rationalization I keep reading from those who support this release. We are good and compassionate. They are vengeful and bloodthirsty. I’ve also seen plenty on the web about US “interfering” with the Scottish government on this issue. What interference? Condemnation does not equal interference. If it did, the USA would be the most interfered with country in the world. All we get it is criticism and condemnation on all subjects. Much of it deserved, but more of it ridiculous.

    Question for Scots: Are all ill prisoners released for compassionate reasons, without exception; or is it a judgment call? What is the criteria and has anyone ever been refused release on any grounds?

    ReplyReply

  • Actually, I see the rationalization–and my head gets it, and agrees with it. I just can’t see that, were I a judge in charge of ordering it, I would do it.

    The problem is that the victims are silent, and gone, and the prisoner (and his suffering, in case of illness) is there, so people tend to weight that heavier than the victims’ rights, I think.

    ReplyReply

  • The U.S. has certainly released inmates for compassionate reasons. It’s not unique to Scotland.

    BUT that decision is made very carefully and the
    crime(s) the inmate committed are weighed just as heavily as his physical health. And if the crime is a heinous one, I’m sorry, the decision of the original judge and jury who heard the case and saw the evidence should be respected no matter how physically ill the inmate is today.

    Murder is undoubtedly a horrible crime, but I believe there’s a difference between a dumb, desperate punk shooting someone he never meant to kill during a botched robbery, and terrorists intentionally bringing down an entire plane full of people. Both are awful, but (imo) different degrees of awful. While one might inspire some compassion in me if he’d served much of his sentence and would die soon, the other never would.

    Look at Manson family member Susan Atkins who was just denied such release. Given her crimes, you’re darn right I think she should stay where she is. She served twice the number of years as the Lockerbie bomber and killed a small percentage of the number of people. But I am in no way disappointed that she’ll die in prison. She had 40 more years on this earth than Sharon Tate and her unborn child.

    ReplyReply

  • Maili, I don’t see how comparing Megrani to Bin Laden is any different, truly I don’t, because if you would grant compassionate release for one, then surely that rule would apply to all?

    I’m well aware of the Scottish governance in England, but I don’t believe that the justice minister within Gordon Brown’s govt would have taken the same decision. If he had, then he too would be a massive fucktard, and it would be his name up there.

    As for the Americans harbouring suspected members of the IRA, well those people involved at the time were fucktards too, and had I been more politically aware, I’d have been crying boycott USA. I’m consistent that way.

    @SparkinDarkness, I’m liberal about some things, but I totally disagree with you on this. Compassion would have been flying the man’s family out to see him, freeing him was sticking two fingers up to the families of the victims, and the victims themselves. You can argue all day about whether keeping him in prison would have made us no better than him, but I would argue that when you are convicted of murdering 270 people, that high ground becomes a moot point.

    But then again, I’m the kind of person who wouldn’t piss on a paedophile to help him,if he was on fire.

    There are no shades of grey for me with regards to this man being freed, it was utterly wrong in my opinion.

    ReplyReply

  • Question for Scots: Are all ill prisoners released for compassionate reasons, without exception[…]?

    As far as I know, yes. It isn’t that unusual, uncommon, or exclusive to Scotland. People just didn’t notice until now.

    is it a judgement call? What is the criteria and has anyone ever been refused release on any grounds?

    No idea. But from I understand, prisoners with children are likely to have their cases attended more quickly than those without. I may be wrong, though.

    The problem is that the victims are silent, and gone, and the prisoner (and his suffering, in case of illness) is there, so people tend to weight that heavier than the victims’ rights, I think.

    Suffering is suffering, regardless of who the person is. All this ‘this is bigger/heavier than that’ debate doesn’t make sense.

    In my eyes, all families of those involved suffer and that includes criminals’ families who most likely get the abuse and negative judgements for something their criminal relatives did.

    I just don’t see why children of criminals should have to live with knowledge their parents will die in a prison from terminal illnesses. If their parents have a good chance of being alive when their sentences carried out, let them wait until they are formally released. If their parents have terminal illnesses, I think the parents should be released.

    Yes, it’s unfair that these children can be given a chance to say goodbye while children/families of victims didn’t ever get that chance. But it doesn’t mean we should be just as inhumane as those criminals, towards criminals’ families.

    To see where I’m coming from:

    If we were ever lucky that the police managed to track down the person who stole my sister – who was three – any time during my lifetime, my instinct would be rip the person’s head off, for making my parents suffer for more than twenty years of losing and not knowing where my sister is/was (we still don’t know if she’s dead or alive).

    However, if that person is found to be dying from a terminal illness, I’d let it go. It’d kill me, certainly, but I will definitely do it if he or she told us what happened to her. The mystery solved will allow us to close the chapter and really move on with our lives. If he or she won’t tell us, then while it will hurt deeply, it still doesn’t matter because knowing s/he’s definitely going to die is enough for me. I just hope his or her own family will forgive him enough to spend his or her lasting time with them together.

    It still doesn’t mean I will forgive that person, though. Not now or ever. (My mum – who died five years ago while still not knowing what happened to Morag – was a much better person than I will ever be: she already forgave him/her. I still don’t understand her reasoning, but that’s her choice.)

    In short, I prefer him or her to spend their sentence – read: healthy life – in a prison. Knowing that a person will die from a terminal illness in a prison without spending time with their family won’t give me a sense of satisfaction. But that’s just me, though.

    I really do understand and respect the anger and the outrage of many here, though, and I honestly don’t see anything wrong with people criticising the decision, providing that they understand and accept it’s part of the Scots law. However, I do have an issue with those who are demanding the Scots law to change its clause.

    This will be the last response from me. Thanks.

    ReplyReply


  • joanne
    August 24
    7:11 pm

    Actually, I see the rationalization–and my head gets it, and agrees with it. I just can’t see that, were I a judge in charge of ordering it, I would do it.

    I don’t know if my original post was clear on my intent. By “We are good and compassionate,” I was referring to the Scots’ view of themselves. By “They are vengeful and bloodthirsty,” I was referring to Americans or anyone else who does not agree with the actions of the Scottish government. I was not referring to the perpetrators of the crimes. Seems to me that the Scots’ view of themselves is that they’re infinitely more compassionate and civilized than their US or UK brethren. Of course, compassion for the victims and their families doesn’t count. I suppose they’re unworthy of the same compassion shown to criminals.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon76
    August 24
    7:37 pm

    We are still talking about a man involved in the deaths of 270 people, yes? A man still considered by the guy who freed him as being too dangerous to just release him in Scotland, as per most of the normal procedures? (Been reading the news articles all over the web.)

    So, for Oil and biz contracts (hmm, a dirty little deal that is always attributed to the Americans as being the national policy whenever we do anything) Scotland frees a mass murderer. Hell, even John Wayne Gacey never racked up this guys body count.

    ReplyReply


  • Jen
    August 24
    7:42 pm

    I’m not worried about him not dying so much as wondering, given his “martyred” status…how many innocent people he’ll be taking out when he does. Shouldn’t “compassionate release” be tempered by “how likely is he to do it again?”

    ReplyReply


  • Marianne McA
    August 24
    9:59 pm

    I agree with Sparkindarkness and Maili, I think it was the right thing to do.
    Not the easy thing to do, but the right thing. And I respect Alex Salmond for sticking to his guns.

    ReplyReply


  • Dawn
    September 2
    11:26 pm

    I don’t agree with the decision, the man committed murder so he should have stayed in jail. It now turns out that there were deals made between the British and Libyan governments and the release of this man was part of getting the agreements. It’s all shitty.

    Same goes for the release of Ronnie Biggs by the way – the man should have rotted in jail.

    ReplyReply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment