Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who was convicted in 2001 of murdering 270 innocent people in the Lockerbie bombing, has been released on ‘compassionate grounds’ and has returned to his home country of Libya.
Mr al-Megrahi was convicted in a British court of having been responsible for the worst terrorist atrocity this country has ever seen. Some people question whether that court was right in his decision and many protest that Mr al-Megrahi is innocent; if that is their opinion then it is for them to pursue the matter in the courts and try and have the conviction overturned. Until that happens, al-Megrahi is a guilty man and should have spent the remainder of his life in prison, in the United Kingdom.
In a letter to the Scottish Justice Minister, al-Megrahi says “my continued incarceration is not conducive to my well-being as my life nears its end” and goes on to describe his wish to die with his family, a comfort Mr al-Megrahi never gave to his victims. I believe in a compassionate society but why should we show compassion to a man who showed no compassion to the 270 people he murdered? Some crimes are unforgivable and this is one.
The decision by the Scottish un-Justice Minister to release the Lockerbie Bomber is simply wrong. A measly eight years in jail is nothing compared to the 270 lives that he took, the plane he is on should be turned around and he should be put behind bars where he belongs.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Alcohol may well become the preserve of the wealthy
There has been a lot of talk in the news recently about banning cheap alcohol sold in supermarkets in order to tackle the nation’s apparent binge drinking problem. The idea is that because alcohol is more expensive people will buy less and in turn drink less.
I am extremely uncomfortable with this proposal.
Alcohol is legal in the United Kingdom and until such a time that it is made illegal, people should be free to consume whatever amount of alcohol they wish. If they choose to drink excessively they will have to deal with the health consequences and the risk they’ll make a complete fool of themselves and end up getting arrested.
The price of alcohol in pubs and bars is quite high. The average price of a pint of larger in the United Kingdom is £2.68 (higher in Newcastle at £2.80); that compares with £1.95 in the USA and just £0.40 in the Philippines. For the wine-drinking, middle class establishment, £2.68 for a pint is affordable. But for low-income families, the price of alcohol in pubs is too high. That's why many stay in and drink at home. They can quite easily go down to Asda and buy 15 cans of Fosters for £10.00 on special offer; the maths is simple.
The risk of minimum unit pricing and banning special offers on alcohol in supermarkets is that enjoying a drink on a regular basis becomes the preserve of the wealthy. It's very easy for the people who can afford to buy their wine from upmarket wine merchants to say they're thinking of the nation's health, when in fact they are ignoring the fact that those on low-income have as much right to drink alcohol as them.
Monday, 17 August 2009
Why we need to stay the course in Afghanistan
As British deaths in Afghanistan reached 200 over the weekend, we were once more reminded of the harsh fighting our troops are engaged in overseas. Although every single death in Afghanistan should cause us to reflect on why we’re there, the 200 mark is logically a point where we have to start asking ourselves some hard questions.
As we watch the pictures of our troops being brought back from Helmand on our television screens the easy thing to do is to say let’s bring them home and end our mission in Afghanistan. The hard thing to do, yet the right thing, is to recognise that our mission in Afghanistan is one of great importance and one we mustn’t lose.
The mission in Afghanistan is important for two groups of people: the British Public and the people of Afghanistan.
For us, our security depends on creating a stable and peaceful Afghanistan without the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We should not forget that it was the Taliban Government that financed and encouraged the September 11th attacks on the United States and trained Islamist terrorists that were dispatched to numerous other countries across the world. That threat has not diminished. I recall an interview I saw several weeks ago on television where the father of a solider who was in Afghanistan was talking about the contents of an email his son had sent. In the email his son had said: “if we don’t fight them here, we’ll be fighting them in the streets at home.” I think that puts it all in to perspective.
For the Afghan people, the end of the Taliban’s regime means and end to several years of brutal oppression and abuse at the hands of one of the harshest regimes the world has seen. Next week the Afghan people will take part in Presidential elections which is an important milestone in the country’s transition to a democracy. This is a stark contrast to the days of the Taliban; days when women were regularly flogged and stoned in public as half-time entertainment in football stadiums, where primary school education was virtually non-existent and Sharia law was enforced in its most barbaric form. It’s so the Afghan people don’t have to suffer the same again that we must succeed and we must stay the course.
The next few months will no doubt be as bloody as the last and our mission may go on for many years to come, but it is in our own security interests that we stay in Afghanistan and complete our mission.
As we watch the pictures of our troops being brought back from Helmand on our television screens the easy thing to do is to say let’s bring them home and end our mission in Afghanistan. The hard thing to do, yet the right thing, is to recognise that our mission in Afghanistan is one of great importance and one we mustn’t lose.
The mission in Afghanistan is important for two groups of people: the British Public and the people of Afghanistan.
For us, our security depends on creating a stable and peaceful Afghanistan without the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We should not forget that it was the Taliban Government that financed and encouraged the September 11th attacks on the United States and trained Islamist terrorists that were dispatched to numerous other countries across the world. That threat has not diminished. I recall an interview I saw several weeks ago on television where the father of a solider who was in Afghanistan was talking about the contents of an email his son had sent. In the email his son had said: “if we don’t fight them here, we’ll be fighting them in the streets at home.” I think that puts it all in to perspective.
For the Afghan people, the end of the Taliban’s regime means and end to several years of brutal oppression and abuse at the hands of one of the harshest regimes the world has seen. Next week the Afghan people will take part in Presidential elections which is an important milestone in the country’s transition to a democracy. This is a stark contrast to the days of the Taliban; days when women were regularly flogged and stoned in public as half-time entertainment in football stadiums, where primary school education was virtually non-existent and Sharia law was enforced in its most barbaric form. It’s so the Afghan people don’t have to suffer the same again that we must succeed and we must stay the course.
The next few months will no doubt be as bloody as the last and our mission may go on for many years to come, but it is in our own security interests that we stay in Afghanistan and complete our mission.
Saturday, 15 August 2009
Sorry George - Yes they should be paid bonuses
George Osborne told the Guardian today that the Tories would put a stop to bonuses in the banking sector. He described bonuses paid to bankers as "unacceptable" and suggests that the Conservatives would legislate to stop them.
Although I agree with George Osborne's plans for reforming the way we regulate the banking sector, abolishing the tripartite system of regulation which allowed us to slip in to this mess in the first place, on this occasion, I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the Shadow Chancellor.
When it comes to banks such as RBS and Lloyds which had to go cap-in-hand to the government for tax-payers' money, I agree there is no room for bonuses. Employees at these banks, especially top executives, should be subject to similar pay restraints that exist in the public sector. But why should staff at Barclays and HSBC have to suffer?
Earlier this month both Barclays and HSBC reported profits of around £3 billion each. Surely, in times of economic hardship, two of our leading banks making profits is a good thing? It seems not; if Mr Osborne were to get his way, they would have to suffer the state's interference too. But why should they?
After all, neither Barclays nor HSBC had to resort to asking the government to bail them out in those dark days when our banking sector seemed on the verge of collapsing. And, despite hard economic times, they're making profit. Why, therefore, should employees at those firms be rewarded with bonuses? Isn't the whole point of bonuses to reward success?
The backlash against Mr Osborne's proposals from the business world has been harsh. And no wonder. There was a time when the Tories were the friends of business. People knew they could trust the Conservatives when it came to supporting our financial services sector. This announcement from Mr Osborne, which stinks of unhealthy state interference, puts that reputation and the Tories' relationship with the City at risk.
Although I agree with George Osborne's plans for reforming the way we regulate the banking sector, abolishing the tripartite system of regulation which allowed us to slip in to this mess in the first place, on this occasion, I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the Shadow Chancellor.
When it comes to banks such as RBS and Lloyds which had to go cap-in-hand to the government for tax-payers' money, I agree there is no room for bonuses. Employees at these banks, especially top executives, should be subject to similar pay restraints that exist in the public sector. But why should staff at Barclays and HSBC have to suffer?
Earlier this month both Barclays and HSBC reported profits of around £3 billion each. Surely, in times of economic hardship, two of our leading banks making profits is a good thing? It seems not; if Mr Osborne were to get his way, they would have to suffer the state's interference too. But why should they?
After all, neither Barclays nor HSBC had to resort to asking the government to bail them out in those dark days when our banking sector seemed on the verge of collapsing. And, despite hard economic times, they're making profit. Why, therefore, should employees at those firms be rewarded with bonuses? Isn't the whole point of bonuses to reward success?
The backlash against Mr Osborne's proposals from the business world has been harsh. And no wonder. There was a time when the Tories were the friends of business. People knew they could trust the Conservatives when it came to supporting our financial services sector. This announcement from Mr Osborne, which stinks of unhealthy state interference, puts that reputation and the Tories' relationship with the City at risk.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
