Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Exactly! Clear as mud !

Much as I prefer DC to the Invisible Man and his sidekick Mandelsnake...

"However, the Tory leader, David Cameron, insists that he would not have taken it if he were prime minister"

Really? Pull the other one.

Plus of course it would still be a Scottish decision even if he was PM. Unless he was saying he would ban it happening (Cue feathers flying up north).

Blimey the least trusted man in britain (bar maybe alistair campbell has stuck his oar in.

But still nothing from the man who now holds his old job?

Personally I don't mind the fact they didn't want him to die in prison. It sends a strong message to the world that compassion is alive in the UK and does defeat terrorism to a certain extent. What I do mind in the extreme is the frankly pathetic manner this has been handled with the slow drip of information and when the facts are fully clear then it is almost underhand. If the PM had just said this from the start then it would have blown over. If he had gone on TV to the UK - his people - and the wider world - and explained as a human being compassion is part of his moral compass then we would have had some respect and been able to hold our heads high. As it was, ministers hid and we finally get to the truth.

This is a shameful episode in a long list that we have had to suffer recently. Whether or not Cameron would have allowed it to happen is debatable, but I hope he has more back bone than Brown when it comes to the treatment of his people and the wider world especially on an issue as emotive as this one.

Some would argue that this is precisely the sort of hard-headed "realpolitik" decision that we elect politicians to take.

Hmmm, what happened to 'an ethical foreign policy' ?

OK, on one hand Libya (not the friendliest of contacts) says if he dies in prison it will jepordise UK business interests -
On the other the UK government says that a committment to the US (our close(ish) ally) no longer matters.
So the UK government make it absolutely clear that releasing him would not be a problem

Pragmatic - yes , Honourable - hell, no

Then why, if this followed all 'due process' does it leave such a nasty taste

207 people died on that flight - I think our moral compass is spinning eound in circles ...

"British ministers advised the Scottish government that there was no "legal bar" to Megrahi's release. They advised them that the commitment made to the American government that he would serve in a Scottish jail was no longer binding. "

Now that's interesting.

Do you have evidence, Nick, that a commitment was made to the US government? If a commitment existed, some department must have official notes. Where are they?

I wonder if such a commitment was actually made with a "sunset clause", maybe depending on Blair (or Bush) leaving office or with some date-limit attached?

If not, how can a "commitment" no longer be "bindng"?

No wonder we are in such a mess.

Nick Robinson:

So, at last, we have it. The British government did not want the Lockerbie bomber to die in prison.

That is a sorry reason with all due respect for the released of the Lockerbie bomber; Because the Government didn't want the Lockerbie Bomber to die in Prison.....

=Dennis Junior=

Come on Nick lets have some accuracy, legally the British Government is the Scottish Government, "them lot" up in Edinburgh are the Scottish Executive.

The Scotland Act 1998 refers.

And Nick you are wrong "It would have been constitutionally improper to intervene in a quasi-judicial decision taken by the Scottish justice secretary."

Power has been devolved to the Scottish Assembly but ultimate power remains in Westminster. Get some legal advice.

5. At 11:26am on 02 Sep 2009, Cardiffopinion wrote:
Some would argue that this is precisely the sort of hard-headed "realpolitik" decision that we elect politicians to take.

Hmmm, what happened to 'an ethical foreign policy' ?

---------------------

We've never had an'ethical foreign policy' we've never even pretended to go througgh the motions of having one - its just a meaningless phrase - we invaded iraq & we've always supported The brutal regime of Saudi Arabia. - we're helping to prop up a rather nasty & corrupt regime in afghanistan at thisvery moment.What politicians say and do are two entirely different things.

For example the phrase 'we don't negotiate with terrorists'. what they mean is 'we always negotiate with terrorists, but only through intermediaries'.

Which brings us back to how this deal was probably set up, and why there won't be a paper trail.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Are we Human or are we dancing here?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Team Blair do not tell us anything new. Like this entire affair we have nothing concrete.

However, absence of proof is not proof of absence, so to speak... But that is no use in a court.

(Unless that would be the Court of Public Opinion, eh Lady HarHar?)

As much as I like David Cameron, his response to all of this is rather lame to say the least.
Is he really saying that he would jeopardise future UK business deals & energy policy to make a sad political point.
Doesn’t sound very Tory to me.
The trouble is that Brown has lied so many times that he couldn’t tell the truth even if he tried.
Come on, this is hardly a story is it,the facts have been in the public domain for years.

A simple statement from Brown could read as follows:

For years now the UK Government, with support from our US allies, has actively engaged in diplomatic activities to encourage Libya to return to the International stage.
We have achieved a lot in this time.
Amongst other things, Libya has ceased to support International terrorism & given up its nuclear ambitions.
In return, we have lifted trade sanctions & are actively seeking business & energy opportunities that have now arisen as a result.
Although it was never directly discussed, it would not be in our long-term interests for Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to die in Prison, so the decision was made to return this sick man home for the remaining months on his life.
I realise that this may be difficult for some people to accept, but I am the British Prime Minister & will do what is best for the long-term interests of our country.

Well done Gordon, how difficult was that hey?

It is a function of oppositions to ask questions which governments are unable to answer.
Supposing however the demand for an enquiry is conceded, and an enquiry acquires its own momentum, going beyond the narrow brief of oil for Megrahi to uncover the unacknowledged dynamics of the Lockerbie tragedy?
The destruction of Pan Am 103 was an act of war.The probable instigators,conduits and means are widely known and are not what are publicly acknowledged.
Disclosure would accelerate a latent international crisis,it would be a signal for war!
Oil for Megrahi is safe,the hinterland of extremism,revenge and weaponry is not.That is why the demand to know Mr.Brown`s attitude to Megrahgi`s early release is facile and opportunistic, and leads into unknown territory.

I am not a member of the Labour Party, but I do support the (New) Labour government on most issues. I was therefore appalled when watching the debate in the Scottish parliament today to see the contrast between the measured and reasoned explanation given by the SNP minister and the shambolic and nakedly opportunistic response from the Labour spokesman. Disgraceful.

As for the actual issue, it comes down to whether you think that there should be some measure of compassion in the legal system, and if so whether it was appropriate to apply it in this case. For myself, I wouldn't object to having a government prepared to show compassion, but I don't live in Scotland so in a sense it's none of my business. All the synthetic angst about the UK government's views and comments are really quite irrelevant, and just more political opportunism.

Just one more thought. I'm not a christian, but both Brown and Blair are. My assumption is that nobody who took christian teaching seriously would actively seek anyone's death in prison. But perhaps I'm not reading the sermon on the mount correctly?

This shoddy government. Making compassionate sounding noises about not wanting a man to die in prison and thus pandering to commercial interests, whilst welshing on a committment of sorts to the US. Two faced and double dealing are perhaps the mildest of epithets that could be applied to Mandelson and his deputy, Gordon Brown.

This affair highlights the fact that our Muddled Minded Media cannot differentiate between Scottish due process and UK foreign policy.

At least Nick you got one thing right - No Scottish Nationalist minister would pay any attention to the views of their hated political enemies the British Labour party.

If Brown had just come out and said he was trying to defend Britain's national interest I would have some respect for him. Trying to use some Scottish domestic minister as a human shield is pretty low grade even for him.

I am so bored of Gordon Brown - why can't he just call this election and put us all out of our misery?

Back in 1997 ZANU-Labour campained on a Holly than thou message , that they were whiter than white. That they had ethical policies. Human rights issues , fairness and Equality. And never again would there be any sleaze.

Have they somehow forgotten that campaign or was that the biggest con trick in election History.

Then compare them against there own yard stick which they beat others with?

What deal did Mandy strike with Gadaffi's son in Corfu over this issue?

PS - we know he's got 'form' in doing these types of deals...especially whilst on holiday.

Folks, I have a huge problem with the concept of revenge. Too many people people mistake vengeance for justice.

Is is vengeance that makes people want to see the bomber die in jail, nothing to do with justice. He is no longer a danger to anyone, his life is over to all intents and purposes, and it will no doubt bring some measure of comfort to his friends and family to see him before he goes. I have no problem with him being release, after all, don't we all be blieve we are better human beings than the terrorists? I can't say I blame the families of the deceased for hating this decision, but this is exactly the reason why people with personally involvement are not allowed to be jurors.

As for the protection of the UK's business interests, I am sure we can all see how essential this is. The very people fretting about the release are the very ones suffering from the recession at the moment, and complaining how they can not make ends meet. Everyone must surely realise how much worse it could be. I would ask you if you think it is wise to perpetuate the suffering of many to satisfy a desire for revenge.

The problem here though is that Brown, his predecessor and the whole motley crew have once again tried to pull the wool over everyones eyes. Come out and say to us, yes we wanted him released to protect our business interests (adding some colour around the potential consequences) and we applied pressure to ensure this would happen. I for one would have had no problem with this.

Instead we get pathetic evasion, sidestepping, and self absolution. "It wasn't me, it was them".

Take some responsibility, it is what you were elected for. If people don't like your decisions, they have a right to elect someone else. Making a decision and then trying to convince the electorate you have done something else is grossly deceptive, it it any wonder this lot are viewed with such contempt and disgust?

Nick you wrote "British ministers advised the Scottish government ...." there is no such beast as a Scottish government only a British government and a devolved Scottish executive... in the final analysis Westminster is the power...

Its fine to release someone on compassionate grounds as has been pointed out that does send a good message that maybe we dont need to be bombed. But why not just come out and say yes there was knowledge of this from the start?

DC is losing favour with me with everything he says. He is becoming just purely "anti whatever Labour said even if its the right decision". Its getting boring and worryingly alot more like style than substance, and we all know where that leads.

...but that other well known mass murderer Saddam Hussein died in prison!

Team Blair didn't complain about that too much!

BTW, did you know that Gaddafi's only daughter Ayesha al-Gaddafi, a lawyer, was a member of the defence team of the executed former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein....don't suppose she'll be getting many more defence cases.

This is the same as releasing Irish terrorists. Distasteful though this policy is, it has been very successful. If we don't respond to Gadaffi's withdrawal from the sponsorship of terrorism, what incentive is there for others to cease violence?

It appears as though Gordon has finally been wheeled out to break his silence on the matter!

What I still don't quite get though is why normal court procedure was put to one side on the requests of politicans.

If he was found guilty in court of 270 murders, he should serve the sentence handed to him by the court. If he died before he finished serving that sentence, unlucky.

This whole business of politicans interfering with courts and by-passing normal judicial process is very worrying. The fact that it was motivated by some trade agreement for oil isn't surprising in the slightest - everyone already knows this government is corrupt anyway.

I'm more concerned that we might wind up in future with a situation where political decisions over-rule court decisions as standard, and given the moral cesspit that is Westminster, this doesn't bode well at all.

We also now have a Chain of Command within the UK or GB that is in chaos with Quasi-issues all over the place. That is the other real story
a policy implemented in the usual ZANU-labour fashion like the tri-partate management of the economy and the banks which lead us on to the economic roots. In there wake always follows chaos where in the confusion they try and blame everybody else except themselves.

This is a storm about who said what, when, to whom and with what intention!?
It serves the interest of Pres Obama to decry Megrahi's release; it is in the interest of PM Brown to point the finger at Scotland; SNP's Salmond and his Justice Minister can show their Scottish Citizens they wont be pushed around by anybody: And finally, the opposition Political groupings to all the above are best served by building on the atmosphere of distrust of those in-power, so they can all say, "Leadership is weak... We told you so... It wouldn't have happened if we had been in charge.."

Megrahi was convicted for a heinous terrorist atrocity. Libya has since that time agreed it was involved in the Lockerbie disaster though it never accepted responsibility or that Megrahi was guilty.
Whilst many may not believe the Libyan-Megrahi version there are some inc. families of Lockerbie victims who do think the whole Megrahi trial was a fit-up.

That one man has been jailed and no one else even named as involved is reason enough to doubt anything to do with Megrahi's guilt: How strange that all the Leadership (and by default a wretchedly unquestioning Media) want to concentrate on this 'release' when so many vital issues remain wholly unexamined!?
I suspect we shall never know the whole truth of the awful incident as backers and perpetrators plus the Intelligence services of the west have all muddied the facts until no clear path of responsibility, blame and guilt is possible.

Now we have the Politicians of the UK, USA and Libya joining in with their self-serving eye-on-the electorate: A less straightforward and reliable group is unlikely to be found anywhere.
That said, any reading of the newly released documents and former PM Blair's interview clearly expose the whole messy 'Megrahi-release' affair as nothing but political in-fighting across each nation involved.

The critical factors of 'why' and by 'whom' an airliner was brought down by on-board explosive devices over Lockerbie remain totally unanswered. Unsurprisingly, those 2 key factors, more than any release of a single 'possible' criminal perpetrator, are what the families of victims would most like to have answered. Unfortunately, looking at Obama, Brown, Gaddafi and all the Opposition leaderships it would appear that those 2 factors will remain way down the agenda. Their self-indulgent politicisation of this issue has ensured not one of those Leaders emerges with credit from this despicable political spat. Indeed, it was the first genuine opportunity for Obama especially and to some extent Brown to take the Statesman's route and rise above the hyperbole - - the President by his jump-on-the-bandwagon antics has fallen from the pre-election intellectual pedestal his supporters proclaimed was the 'difference' from Dubya, and, the Prime Minister by his silence continued to give the impression of a nervous political mouse scurrying for cover from the public gaze.

Megrahi will according to his doctors be dead inside 3 months: Will the victims of Lockerbie have justice within 3 decades? One is certain by fate alone and the other to everyone's shame, is completely uncertain!

@ 16

The probable instigators, conduits and means are widely known and are not what are publicly acknowledged

come on, babe, spit it out ...

18. IDB123 wrote:
This shoddy government. Making compassionate sounding noises about not wanting a man to die in prison and thus pandering to commercial interests, whilst welshing on a committment of sorts to the US. Two faced and double dealing are perhaps the mildest of epithets that could be applied to Mandelson and his deputy, Gordon Brown.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, & if we only had a Tory Government that never pandered to commercial interests (LOL).
Come off it, the UK Government supports big business & I’m glad they do.
It’s about time NuLabour supported the countries interests because they haven’t done a very good job so far.

As for the US, who do you think supported the UK’s diplomatic role in all of this?
Yep, the same people who are putting in bids for Libyan work packages as we speak.
The Crocodile tears have already dried & the tail continues to wag the dog.

Isn't it just as interesting to consider the Libyan perspective here?

Why has the Libyan government invested so much of its recently hard won stock of international political capital in an issue which - internationally at least - has only harmed its relations in the UK, the US and elsewhere?

Libya and its leadership did not used to be known for its humanitarianism and I should think it fair to say that Col Qadaffi has only survived his 40 years in power by being exceptionally pragmatic and not letting matters of compassion or individual human rights stand in the way of the Libyan national interest.

So what (presumably domestic) obligation was the Colonel under to force him to make such a big issue over the repatriation of Mr Megrahi?

Brown has found a wonderful new scapegoat, the Scottish Executive. The recession was (is) all america's fault, but now the scots can expect to be blamed for all sorts of domestic decisions. But that will not be enough. Gordon needs to develop a split personality, called Hamish. Hamish will be the bad person who makes all the bad decisions, while Gordon remains totally blameless and even successful.

Blair and Mandelson.

That is one hell of a talented political duo - still.

And still pulling all the strings.

Did anyone else listen to the Meerkat (er..I mean Evan Davis) giving David Miliband a grilling on Radio 4 this morning?

I didn't know he had it in him!...the Meerkat got quite excited at one point.

He didn't quite match up to Eddie Mair though.

Have ANY of the MP`s who fraudulently claimed extortionate expenses for years been prosecuted???????? - will any ever be???? - answer is NO.
WHO are they to comment on anyone else`s actions - stones and glasshouses, never mind Christians and sons of manses, come to mind.

WHAT A MORALLY BANKRUPT SHOWER OF MP`s.

"However, the Tory leader, David Cameron, insists that he would not have taken it if he were prime minister, since justice demanded that the Lockerbie bomber serve his time and, if necessary, die in jail."

"Dave" should shut his damn mouth and think of better ways to impress us than hypothetical posturing to increase his "I'm a really angry bloke, you know?" image. We know who you are Dave, you're a PR man. Please stop insulting our intelligence and go hug a penguin somewhere, preferably with a hoodie on it.

Speaking of intelligence, top marks to those above who mention that the act of compassionate release actually says something which defeats terrorism to a degree. US-style baying for retribution doesn't get anywhere - capital punishment in the US is a hollow, empty affair with witnesses nearly always reporting that they've seen justice done, but they don't feel any better for it.

Brown has not said anything because he is waiting for Mandleson to tell him what to say. The moral compass must be spinning like cazy!

Not very interested in these machinations but do wonder when the Iranian leadership, who apparently authorised the Lockerbie bombing as revenge for the US shooting down an Iranian civilian plane, will get their just deserts.

Maybe it will be soon and by the hand of the Iranian people themselves.

@no.8 the Scottish Government is the called as such the term Executive was used until SNP came to power and declared it the Scottish Government, Note Henry Mcleish Tried calling it a Government too but was slapped down by Labour in London.

As for th issue at hand it would appear that the UK Government Tried to have its cake and eat. In that it want Megrahi released but the SNP to take the flak for it. If Brown had come out in favour of the release then Iain Gary Wouldn't have been able to attack the SNP on the issue. The part I'm still wrestling with is the idea of co-operation between Brown's Labour and Salmonds that's a bit of a WTF?

I wonder if Blair will now have to give his medal back!

PS - The medal awarded was the 'Medal of Freedom'...I promise I'm not making this up!

#16, bryhers wrote:

"Supposing however the demand for an enquiry is conceded, and an enquiry acquires its own momentum, going beyond the narrow brief of oil for Megrahi to uncover the unacknowledged dynamics of the Lockerbie tragedy?
The destruction of Pan Am 103 was an act of war.The probable instigators,conduits and means are widely known and are not what are publicly acknowledged.
Disclosure would accelerate a latent international crisis,it would be a signal for war!"


It's all very well to say that the "instigators, conduits and means" are widely known, but it doesn't help. If you know something real, backed by proof, you should pass it to the UK press. They won't be surprised.
If you have evidence, I'm sure they'd dig around to verify it. If they believe it, they'll probably publish.

It's fairly obvious that Megrahi could not have committed the act alone.

To talk about "revelations" unleashing a war is rather daft. For goodness sake, this UK administration doesn't need EVIDENCE before going to war... And we can barely support our current exposure, anyway.

32:forgottenukcitizen wrote

Oh, & if we only had a Tory Government that never pandered to commercial interests (LOL).
Come off it, the UK Government supports big business & I’m glad they do.
It’s about time NuLabour supported the countries interests because they haven’t done a very good job so far.

As for the US, who do you think supported the UK’s diplomatic role in all of this?
Yep, the same people who are putting in bids for Libyan work packages as we speak.
The Crocodile tears have already dried & the tail continues to wag the dog.
=========================================================================
I think you missed the point. It wasn't about supporting UK's interests - it's about lack of leadership - cowering behind Scottish Ministers rather than speaking out!!

A straight forward public statement my Mandelson (or Brown) to the effect that in his opinion he should have been released/kept in prison and then point out that it's the Scottish Parliament's call was all that was needed.

Heavy shades of Blair and MMR

I do not have a problem with politicians "nudging and winking" on the world stage. Realpolitik has always made sense to me, Churchill believed in it and so has every other politician in history.

Megrahi is one man near the end of his life and not a threat to the UK, the crime was terrible but his release is understandable if it helps bring Libya closer to the free (ish) world. I cannot be sure these were related but the results are visible

My major problem with all this is Brown & Co's attempt to deny, shift responsibility and own up by installment as each bit of information comes to light.

The issue is 'between a rock and a hard place'...























i.e. the oil!

To those wittering on about the semantics of Scottish government or Scottish executive (and Scottish executive is the correct terminology), the fact remains that whilst foreign policy is a reserved matter at Westminster the Scottish executive has control over Scots Law, a devolved matter, and therefore the decision was one solely to be taken by Kenny MacAskill.

To imply that DC could have stopped the decision, or anyone else for that matter at Westminster, is plain bizarre.

If this indeed is what we have to look forward to with DC's view on Westminster Holyrood relations it looks to be interesting times ahead.

ScotInNotts,

It's not semantics, it's constitutional law. The Scotland Act 1998 clearly refers to the Scottish Executive, it is the SNP who unilaterally changed the name to Scottish Government, they had no right to do so and Westminster should insist of calling them the Scottish Executive. If they are the Scottish Government why are there Scottish MP's at Westminster?
That fact that the British and therefore Scottish Foreign Secretary cannot get it right is a reflection of his poor grasp of the law.

Lockerbie bomber, convict, or scapegoat?

In view of the well known doubts about Megrahi's guilt, e.g. as featured recently in the Belfast Times (search engines will take you there), referring to him as the 'Lockerbie bomber' is highly prejudiced. A more neutral term such as 'Lockerbie convict' would be appropriate, while it appears that 'Lockerbie scapegoat' is probably nearer the truth.

His failure to express remorse for the bombing of the aircraft, although held against him by many, is entirely understandable if he is indeed innocent, as are many other aspects of the case.

In view of his ill health I am glad he was released on compassionate grounds, but regret the stated grounds for his release studiously avoided mentioning the doubts as to his guilt. I presume that 'due process of law' prevents Scottish & UK ministers from even hinting at the doubts about the safety of the verdict. That need not preclude the Ö÷²¥´óÐã and other commentators from using a less biassed view, and challenging those who use biassed terminology.

I hope that a formal enquiry will be held. Meanwhile I feel strongly that the Ö÷²¥´óÐã should desist from referring to Megrahi as 'the Lockerbie bomber', and mention why.

#49 skynine

I used the word semantics as in this case the use of Scottish government and Scottish executive is a side show to the issue at hand. As I said in my previous post you are quite right that the correct title is the latter, and the official correspondece from Holyrood still carries this letter head. However, the fact that Holyrood is seen as the government in Scotland (and quite rightly in my voew) by the people of Scotland it is easy to see why the word could be used in this context even in doing so being officially incorrect. As far as the foreign secretaries (and again you are quite correct as foreign office matters are reserved this means Scottish too) grasp of the terminoligy then that really is matter for him. Also, Henry McLeish tried to use the term Scottish government while first minister, but was rounded on by Labour Westminster for doing so and ceased immediately, not just an SNP thing don't you know.

I think you take issue as it gives credence to a legislature you may see as middling at best, and I would've thought that this was the least of old Jack's worries at the moment.

skyinine @ 49

You mention the Scots unilaterally calling the Scottish Executive the Scottish Government.

The Welsh also decided to unilaterally change from the Welsh Assembly to the Welsh Government.

Sometimes I really wonder why my fellow English people are so blind to what is going on - it is simply amazing to witness such political inertia.

Sorry to be a predantic A hole but Government is the correct term in Scotland, the term Exceuitve is incorrect .
Government is made up of 3 branches these being:

The Exceutive : this the 1st Minister and the Cabinet

The Legislature this all the Paraliment at uk level the house of commons and lords

The Judicairy, this means courts
Scotland is independent in all 3 spheres thus Government. Hence in part why Mcleish tried to adpot the term.

Ah, Nicholas. Yes. In Private.

Walking down the hall - I thought - an Oasis of commonsense - perhaps?

Remembering Dirk Bogardes character - Gabriel in that old "Modesty Blaise" film disaster - calling out thirstly "Champagne - champagne" in his desert type distress!

An oasis - or remembering my other "friends" there - several Watering Holes - which hold good old H2O.

I believe - I really do - but one gets fed up with descriptions on how nice, cool and refreshing the water will be when finally quaffed.

I am gasping, mate! lol

I suppose today Cameron would deny that he would give Norman Lamont a Havana Cigar to comfort him cocking up on black wednesday, Cameron would deny anything if he thought it would give him a political advantage, what a sorry state we will be in when this sycophantic whimp takes charge.

While not wanting to rain on Mr Camerons parade... He is a liar. He knows full well that he could not make any decision on Mr al-Megrahi as it has been devolved to Scotland. He is leading the fine people of England up the garden path by making them think that if he was in charge "things would be different". WRONG. he is as helpless as G.Brown on this and should have the Ba*ls to say so.
For the record. A hard decision had to be made...it was made, in my opinion for the correct reasons...but most of all, it was made by a man who has a set of steel Bal*s.
It is a hard one for many to accept but, maybe the UK would be better served by MP'S from up here in Scotland who put the rights of the "wee man first"
An innocent man was freed two weeks ago to die with his family. The people responsible for Lockerbie walk free...but not for long.

Why is the Scottish Parliament being castigated so much for al-Megrahi's release? Surely, all they did was to release him from prison. The decision to allow him to leave the UK must have been made by Westminster as the UK Border Agency is responsible for this function and this is in turn a responsibility of the Ö÷²¥´óÐã Office. Perhaps our PM might comment on this aspect, but I won't be holding my breath.

Jovialmoon and #57.

Thank goodness you're not holding your breath for an answer to your spurious, totally nonsensical and actually downright false comment on the purpose and activity as laid down by Statute for the Borders Agency!

If you cannot make a serious Comment on this serious issue and simply want to bash away at the UK Government without any validity use the Ö÷²¥´óÐã HYS - - it takes unsubstantiated trivia on a daily basis.

Nick:

Yes, there is plenty to chat about, but in private; Is for what reason...Since, they know that there is something sensitive that could be released if it ever came out into the public prevue....

=Dennis Junior=