First thing's first. Look at the headline to this story. "Kenny's dogie dossier". The paper version has the correct spelling of 'dodgy' so I'm reasonably sure it's not a pun. If the Scotland on Sunday wants to be a quality newspaper they could at least hire quality proof-readers, particularly for the headlines of one of their main stories.
The two main concerns that the Scotland on Sunday raises are as follows:
- Four prostate cancer specialists were not "willing to say" whether Megrahi would live for more than 3 months. No professional doctor in such or similar circumstances can ever conclusively say how long someone will live or not. Of course they are not going to risk their professional reputations on gambling on whether Megrahi will make a surprise recovery with his illness going into remission.
- SPS guidance requires the authorities to consider type of offence and length of sentence outstanding. The guidance only requires this to be considered which MacAskill surely did. Indeed, it would have been unavoidable.
And that's it, that seems to be the sum total of the 'dodginess' of MacAskill's 'dossier'.
It's ok to disagree with the decision but there needs to be a semblance of dulce et decorum around the objections raised. Politicians of all parties have (more or less) conducted themselves in this way but journalists at Johnston Press seem to be struggling.
Yes, Kenny MacAskill has staked his reputation on whether Al-Megrahi lives for another three months. That is an unfortunate and unavoidable corollary of the decision he took.
However, the Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday are putting their reputations on the line by going after the Justice Secretary so vigiorously. If it transpires that Kenny has indeed played this sufficiently by the book, then Johnston Press has a lot to lose.
12 comments:
When you compare the coverage of this story in the Scotsman/SOS and in the Herald,the differences are astonishing.
And it's not because the Herald give the SNP an easy ride - they don't. But the Herald challenge things, they actually do investigative reporting, and secure interesting interviews.
What I object to with the articles penned by Eddie Barnes and David Maddox et al in the JP papers is that they are actually very boring. They are lazy as journalists - they just nit pick, the articles have no substance.
The opinion pages in the Hootsman are better, they offer a more diverse range of views, but even then they are nowhere near the Herald.
No wonder the titles appear to be going down the tubes.
If anyone has any concerns about Kenny McAskill's decision, they should apply for a judicial review.
If McAskill acted outwith the law, then the decision could be overturned.
But I doubt anyone will be heading to the courts.
As typos go that has to be up there with other SoS classics... the time when the word 'budget' was replaced with 'badger' in a story about Gordon Brown arguing with Blair about TB leaking details of the Budget.
The final edition had Brown shouting at Blair: "You b******, you stole my f****** badger!"
Then there were the bottleneck dolphins in the Moray Firth.
Near misses include the Queen living in Birmingham Castle and the "drone of bombers over Kabul" almost becoming the "drone of Andrew Neil..."
Odd things happen when you're working 15-hour days
Wake up Jeff, The Scotsman / SoS lost their reputations years ago (with a change of ownership).
I used to be a faithful hootsmon reader but as soon the the terrible twins and Neill tok over, I'd left within a few months. The Herald Opinion writter is starting to operate in the same mode despite the usually well researched articles that generally fly in the face of the opnion writters view
How you can conceivably attribute the decision to release the terrorist as an act of "due process" is beyond ridiculous.
Due process would have entailed the far braver and more respectable decision to reopen the case, hear the appeal and review the new evidence.
The decision to release was nothing to do with due process of the law. Between the visit to the prison, the wait of 2 weeks before leak and decision and then the incomprehensible decision to grant mercy to the blood soaked merciless; amounts to the the first real cock up of the SNP administration.
Politico,
It was a fairly standard decision.
Prisoner has terminal disease, prisoner applies for compassionate release, prisoner has application accepted.
It happens month after month, year after year in Scotland.
By all means disagree with the judgement, but at least recognise that it was a fairly standard process that was followed.
I like it Subs Bench, I didn't realise it happened so regularly and there was such a collection.
I think what Kenny McAskill should have done, was put the decision on whether to release Megrahi, to the Holyrood Parliament. That would have given Parliament a collective responsibility on the decision and would have meant that Labour would have either had to vote with the SNP or abstain; voting against what Westminster wanted would have been a no-no. Then we could have maybe had some grown up politics, instead of the poor show that we have had over the past few days.
Kenny MacAskill could not have put the decision to the Scottish Parliament even if he had wanted to and, given the level of party politicking that has gone on about it, that is a good thing.
The last thing we want is judicial matters being decided by parliament. They should not in fact be decided by a politician at all and I would hope the SG would act on the suggestion of Alan Miller that decisions on compassionate release should in future be made by the courts or some kind of tribunal.
>> The last thing we want is judicial matters being decided by parliament.
Or politicians.
>> They should not in fact be decided by a politician at all [...]
There is the rub. This was a political decision.
Post a Comment