Jack Straw admits oil deal within Lockerbie release

[UKIP]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46325000/jpg/_46325655_007895603-1.jpg


Trade and oil played a part in the decision to include the Lockerbie bomber in a prisoner transfer deal, Jack Straw has admitted.
Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, the UK justice secretary said trade was "a very big part" of the 2007 talks that led to the prisoner deal with Libya. However, Mr Straw's spokesman accused the press of "outrageous" innuendo. Scotland's Justice Secretary granted Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi compassionate release because he was terminally ill.


£550m oil deal

The 57-year-old was serving life in Greenock prison for the 1988 bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, which killed 270 people.
On Wednesday, Prime Minister Gordon Brown insisted there was "no conspiracy, no cover-up, no double dealing, no deal on oil" over his release. But officials admit the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) was part of a wider set of negotiations aimed at bringing Libya in from the international cold, and improving British trade prospects with the country.

I wonder if one of Gordon Browns relatives would of been in that terrorist attack whether this government would see it fit to release the evil scum who did this for an oil deal with a corrupt country, then again how can we name other countrys corrupt when something like this proves we're just as bad as they are.

[Immenseman]

he's going to die. we need oil.

[FlyingJesus]

Letting one old dying man out of prison in order to secure deals that are for the financial benefit of the country - especially in a time such as this - is a pretty fair trade in my view.

[Technologic]

He was old, get over it. Oil is more useful than some dead guy

[Caution]

He's doing what's best for the country, I suppose.

[Japan]

But it doesn't send a good message to all the other terrorists does it?
Kill 270 people, you get out of prison in only a few years time and come home to a heros welcome.

[UKIP]

Oh so oil is more important than the hundreds of his victims, my bad.

[Caution]

Oh so oil is more important than the hundreds of his victims, my bad.
You'd be moaning if he wasn't released and we didn't get the oil. His victims are dead, he's about to be. He should have been left in if there was no deal involved, but there was.

[-WooTWooTWooT-]

Should never have happened.

[UKIP]

You'd be moaning if he wasn't released and we didn't get the oil. His victims are dead, he's about to be. He should have been left in if there was no deal involved, but there was.

I don't think I would, thats why I support him dying behind bars. His victims are dead, thanks to him - therefore he should serve the rest of his mortal life behind bars where he belongs. The oil issue, Libya cannot be trusted with anything like this as shown by the heroes welcome he was given when he returned to Libya, and I have always said we need to move away from oil and gas (so we don't have our hands tied behind our backs when it comes to cases such as this) to nuclear power.

[Immenseman]

Yeah but it's not like he's got much of a life to live anyway. If he hadn't been terminally ill then I would see your point but hey he's got a few months and we've got lots of oil :D You always say prisons are over-crowded, spare cell now! :lol:

[alexxxxx]

it was a shaky conviction anyway. The US and UK needed to find someone so the public saw them as trying to solve it. who cares though tbh, he'll be dead by november, so whatever we can get out of it, we should get.

[UKIP]

Yeah but it's not like he's got much of a life to live anyway. If he hadn't been terminally ill then I would see your point but hey he's got a few months and we've got lots of oil :D You always say prisons are over-crowded, spare cell now! :lol:

Prisons are over-crowded, however that is because this government has failed to build more prisons. There aren't enough people in prison if you ask me, people getting two year sentences for murder is disgusting.


it was a shaky conviction anyway. The US and UK needed to find someone so the public saw them as trying to solve it. who cares though tbh, he'll be dead by november, so whatever we can get out of it, we should get.

..even if it involves letting out a terrorist who killed hundreds so we can gain a shaky oil deal from a nation such as Libya who have proven, as they did with their welcome home for this man, that they cannot be trusted.

If the west carries on with this sort of hypocritical liberalism as was with the invasion of Iraq, then we will and deserve to lose our moral stance in the world which will only mean in the future we then have no moral ground over regimes which will one day threaten us, whereas we did have that moral ground against the Third Reich & USSR.

[alexxxxx]

..even if it involves letting out a terrorist who killed hundreds so we can gain a shaky oil deal from a nation such as Libya who have proven, as they did with their welcome home for this man, that they cannot be trusted.

If the west carries on with this sort of hypocritical liberalism as was with the invasion of Iraq, then we will and deserve to lose our moral stance in the world which will only mean in the future we then have no moral ground over regimes which will one day threaten us, whereas we did have that moral ground against the Third Reich & USSR.

we have no moral high ground. We enslave foreign nations with cheap labour so we can live a comfortable life, we have, in the past, ruled nations under colonial rule, we destroy the environment, we put african countries in debt and keep demanding payments even though the original payments have been paid off. We seem to think it's OK to invade countries (ie Iraq) for its oil under the banner of 'war on terror.' We make our drugs so expensive that it makes poor countries, who often need them more than us, not be able to afford them. We then deny people who wish to seek a better life jobs and opportunities in the west because of borders, when noone really owns the world anyway.

trust me, i don't know what world you're living in, but we don't live in a morally superior nation. The UK probably has one of the worst pasts 'moral-wise' than any other nation.

[UKIP]

we have no moral high ground. We enslave foreign nations with cheap labour so we can live a comfortable life, we have, in the past, ruled nations under colonial rule, we destroy the environment, we put african countries in debt and keep demanding payments even though the original payments have been paid off. We seem to think it's OK to invade countries (ie Iraq) for its oil under the banner of 'war on terror.' We make our drugs so expensive that it makes poor countries, who often need them more than us, not be able to afford them. We then deny people who wish to seek a better life jobs and opportunities in the west because of borders, when noone really owns the world anyway.

trust me, i don't know what world you're living in, but we don't live in a morally superior nation. The UK probably has one of the worst pasts 'moral-wise' than any other nation.

If you knew anything about the British Empire you would know that unlike the empires of the Spanish, Italian, German, French, Dutch & Portugese, the British developed and ran the colonies much better and fairer, and also life standards were much higher, and in most cases higher back then than they are today.

The British Empire invested back in the colonies, meaning that both the Kingdom of England and later the United Kingdom benefitted from the Empire but also that the colonies benefitted from the Empire. If you look at many ex-colonies such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, former British Malaya, Hong Kong & African cities you will see an awful lot of British colonial past remaining such as the buildings, roads, parks and street lamps. If you look at others such as ex-French and Spanish colonies around the world you will see little remains, because the French and Spanish only took from their colonies - hence why millions around the world still remain loyal to the Queen, even if she is not their ruling head of state anymore.

Zimbabwe, South Africa and many others havenn't moved or even worse, have declined seriously since Empire ended and if you had seen the programme that was on recently, many Jamacians even wanted the Empire back which even suprised me, one stated that at least under the British Empire they all had jobs, the country was clean in terms of crime and life had never been better.

The British Empire shaped the world for the good, ended barbaric tribesmanship in Africa and India and introduced the thought of law and state. It spearheaded medicine across the world and worked towards the eradication of disease/s which had plagued many nations for thousands of years.

The British Empire also fought against the Third Reich and at one point stood alone against Adolf Hitler when the United States was unsure about getting involved, meanwhile Winston Churchill predicted the Cold War and the communist takeover of Eastern Europe while the Americans ignored him.

On the case of selling to poorer nations, i'm afraid if we didn't charge these prices then it wouldn't be economically viable to make these goods to sell, basically what you are getting at is that you wish for the world to have a communist system. The case you make about denying people into this country is a joke at the very most, you need border control and if you cant see this then you are just as blinded as the politicians are. The fact is, we have borders and people want immigration control - so yes, we do want it and it makes us no bad nation for wanting that simple control.

It has always amazed me how the left wishes to tarnish the reputation of the United Kingdom despite the fact that this country gives out so much money to countrys around the world and has given more to the world than any other nation has.

History has always been battle of the fittest, and will continue to be so well into this century.

[alexxxxx]

If you knew anything about the British Empire you would know that unlike the empires of the Spanish, Italian, German, French, Dutch & Portugese, the British developed and ran the colonies much better and fairer, and also life standards were much higher, and in most cases higher back then than they are today.

The British Empire invested back in the colonies, meaning that both the Kingdom of England and later the United Kingdom benefitted from the Empire but also that the colonies benefitted from the Empire. If you look at many ex-colonies such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, former British Malaya, Hong Kong & African cities you will see an awful lot of British colonial past remaining such as the buildings, roads, parks and street lamps. If you look at others such as ex-French and Spanish colonies around the world you will see little remains, because the French and Spanish only took from their colonies - hence why millions around the world still remain loyal to the Queen, even if she is not their ruling head of state anymore.

Zimbabwe, South Africa and many others havenn't moved or even worse, have declined seriously since Empire ended and if you had seen the programme that was on recently, many Jamacians even wanted the Empire back which even suprised me, one stated that at least under the British Empire they all had jobs, the country was clean in terms of crime and life had never been better.

The British Empire shaped the world for the good, ended barbaric tribesmanship in Africa and India and introduced the thought of law and state. It spearheaded medicine across the world and worked towards the eradication of disease/s which had plagued many nations for thousands of years.

The British Empire also fought against the Third Reich and at one point stood alone against Adolf Hitler when the United States was unsure about getting involved, meanwhile Winston Churchill predicted the Cold War and the communist takeover of Eastern Europe while the Americans ignored him.

On the case of selling to poorer nations, i'm afraid if we didn't charge these prices then it wouldn't be economically viable to make these goods to sell, basically what you are getting at is that you wish for the world to have a communist system. The case you make about denying people into this country is a joke at the very most, you need border control and if you cant see this then you are just as blinded as the politicians are. The fact is, we have borders and people want immigration control - so yes, we do want it and it makes us no bad nation for wanting that simple control.

It has always amazed me how the left wishes to tarnish the reputation of the United Kingdom despite the fact that this country gives out so much money to countrys around the world and has given more to the world than any other nation has.

History has always been battle of the fittest, and will continue to be so well into this century.

Same old DM/tories/UKIP, living in the past, feeling they are morally superior. It's not economically not viable to sell life saving drugs at lower prices when the companies like glaxo make billions and billions of pounds profit a year.

You know Macau, it's like Hong Kong, but Portuguese version. Most Hongkongers hold british overseas passports and hong kong was british until very recently, so the royal mail post boxes and the phone boxes aren't exactly going to have all gone. Morocco and other ex-french colonies still have remains of french rule, styles. So not really all the other european colonies were left to ruins.

Read up on the Potato Famine and the millions that starved in India because of our actions. Under our control. They were really living it up then weren't they? They were really living it up when we sold slaves? They were really living it up when our muskets penetrated their skulls as we took their history and their possessions back to the UK. If they were so great under british rule and we set up their country really well, how come some of our ex colonies in Africa are starving, are at war with one an other eh? You're under some sort of illusion that we were some great moral nation that everyone wanted to be a part of, completely false. We didn't go to these countries to help them out, we went to those countries for money and goods.

Survival of the fittest does not equate to being moral.

[UKIP]

Same old DM/tories/UKIP, living in the past, feeling they are morally superior. It's not economically not viable to sell life saving drugs at lower prices when the companies like glaxo make billions and billions of pounds profit a year.

You know Macau, it's like Hong Kong, but Portuguese version. Most Hongkongers hold british overseas passports and hong kong was british until very recently, so the royal mail post boxes and the phone boxes aren't exactly going to have all gone. Morocco and other ex-french colonies still have remains of french rule, styles. So not really all the other european colonies were left to ruins.

Read up on the Potato Famine and the millions that starved in India because of our actions. Under our control. They were really living it up then weren't they? They were really living it up when we sold slaves? They were really living it up when our muskets penetrated their skulls as we took their history and their possessions back to the UK. If they were so great under british rule and we set up their country really well, how come some of our ex colonies in Africa are starving, are at war with one an other eh? You're under some sort of illusion that we were some great moral nation that everyone wanted to be a part of, completely false. We didn't go to these countries to help them out, we went to those countries for money and goods.

Survival of the fittest does not equate to being moral.

I just find it strange how under the alternative to the tories, Labour, the country has declined faster than at any other period, twice. I did not say all the colonies were left to ruins, colonialism built the world up and was a good thing but the point I am making is that the British Empire was morally superiour and was better and more successful than the other colonies because it invested back into those countrys, whereas other nations didn't on the scale that we did.

Colonialism did have bad parts and nobodys denying that, however slavery was the normal back then and we have the gift of hindsight to judge that now. The British however did abolish slavery as one of the first nations and was an amazing achievement, especially concerning the fact that was the biggest world player we could of kept slavery going quite easy with no international sanctions coming for it.

In the wars that occurred between the British Empire and tribes, that is just what we had to fight. Africa was at war with itself all the time before we came and is slowly turning back into that. Africa had no states, no capitals and was a wasteland where people ran around with spears having tribe wars against other tribes because they were a different ethnic race. In a way, Africa was racist before Europe had even seen someone from another race.

Indeed we did, but the result of that was that those nations gained from colonialism greatly and if you cant understand that, you have no concept of history or the world because you can only see it through the same glasses that the Soviet Union saw the world through, and look at the state the Soviet Union was in.

[Sammeth.]

Good deal Gordon, good deal.

[Jordy]

Same old DM/tories/UKIP, living in the past, feeling they are morally superior. It's not economically not viable to sell life saving drugs at lower prices when the companies like glaxo make billions and billions of pounds profit a year.

You know Macau, it's like Hong Kong, but Portuguese version. Most Hongkongers hold british overseas passports and hong kong was british until very recently, so the royal mail post boxes and the phone boxes aren't exactly going to have all gone. Morocco and other ex-french colonies still have remains of french rule, styles. So not really all the other european colonies were left to ruins.There's nothing substantially French in their colonies such as Morocco or Tunisia. They speak the language along with Arabic but that's as far as it goes.

You're the one living in the past, you're still rattling on about the morals of the British Empire. I'm afraid you can't bring in History into everything as it was a different time in the past. You can't apply the knowledge we now know to things happening centuries ago.

How dare you even compare us to having some of the worst 'morals' in the world, that's completely outrageous. Our morals on human rights for example are excellent. In most countries outside Western Europe, you can end up in jail for as much as criticising the government. Our media has near total freedom.

We even release a convicted terrorist who killed 270 people on 'compassionate' grounds. Although we don't actually allow anyone into the country, if there's the smallest chance of torture in their home country they can remain in Britain. We also let in large amounts of asylum seekers. As for the Iraq war, I agree that was completely wrong however our country has some of the best morals in the world. I'm very disappointed but not surprised you don't appreciate them, let alone be proud of them.

[alexxxxx]

There's nothing substantially French in their colonies such as Morocco or Tunisia. They speak the language along with Arabic but that's as far as it goes.

You're the one living in the past, you're still rattling on about the morals of the British Empire. I'm afraid you can't bring in History into everything as it was a different time in the past. You can't apply the knowledge we now know to things happening centuries ago.

How dare you even compare us to having some of the worst 'morals' in the world, that's completely outrageous. Our morals on human rights for example are excellent. In most countries outside Western Europe, you can end up in jail for as much as criticising the government. Our media has near total freedom.

We even release a convicted terrorist who killed 270 people on 'compassionate' grounds. Although we don't actually allow anyone into the country, if there's the smallest chance of torture in their home country they can remain in Britain. We also let in large amounts of asylum seekers. As for the Iraq war, I agree that was completely wrong however our country has some of the best morals in the world. I'm very disappointed but not surprised you don't appreciate them, let alone be proud of them.

I think you've taken what i've said too far. Britain does have better morals than a lot of countries in respect to human rights, racism, female rights, gay rights - Social rights are pretty high in this country, not perfect, but good. I was pointing out that our past isn't very moral at all and that you can't say that our past is moral, because in many eyes, it isn't. We can't rely on countries (especially muslim/middle eastern) giving us much respect on our current high standing social morals, as they still live in the past about the crusades, live in a completely different culture dictated by a book, plus with the 'War on oil terror,' giving money and guns to evil militia in Sudan and other current issues, they don't see us as clean, because it's not true. Most rogue states couldn't give a toss about our social morality because their leaders are reluctant to change, for example, the Afghan governments atrocious new bill on men being able to deny wives food if they deny them sex, therefore i see no reason why we can't let some 'maybe not actually a' terrorist die in libya in return for some oil contracts, which ultimately help us, because in the eyes of alot of the world, we're hardly clean. I'm sure the victims' families will be upset with his release, but in the end he is dying and won't be living much longer. We don't need him to become a martyr. If developing countries need good countries to follow, look at countries like Sweden and Norway, as they have the same level of rights for people socially yet they don't feel the need to invade others for sketchy reasons.

I love Britain, but we can't be in denial about some of our shortcomings. I'd love it to change but it's just not in our culture.

[UKIP]

I think you've taken what i've said too far. Britain does have better morals than a lot of countries in respect to human rights, racism, female rights, gay rights - Social rights are pretty high in this country, not perfect, but good. I was pointing out that our past isn't very moral at all and that you can't say that our past is moral, because in many eyes, it isn't. We can't rely on countries (especially muslim/middle eastern) giving us much respect on our current high standing social morals, as they still live in the past about the crusades, live in a completely different culture dictated by a book, plus with the 'War on oil terror,' giving money and guns to evil militia in Sudan and other current issues, they don't see us as clean, because it's not true. Most rogue states couldn't give a toss about our social morality because their leaders are reluctant to change, for example, the Afghan governments atrocious new bill on men being able to deny wives food if they deny them sex, therefore i see no reason why we can't let some 'maybe not actually a' terrorist die in libya in return for some oil contracts, which ultimately help us, because in the eyes of alot of the world, we're hardly clean. I'm sure the victims' families will be upset with his release, but in the end he is dying and won't be living much longer. We don't need him to become a martyr. If developing countries need good countries to follow, look at countries like Sweden and Norway, as they have the same level of rights for people socially yet they don't feel the need to invade others for sketchy reasons.

I love Britain, but we can't be in denial about some of our shortcomings. I'd love it to change but it's just not in our culture.

Our past is moral, maybe not in todays world but back then it was moral and especially when compared to that of Europe and the Empire/s which were based their. The only real blot on our history I feel very strongly about is the invasion of Iraq which was illegal and if theres any justice in this world, Tony Bliar, George W Bush & the rest of the New Liebour cabinet should face a trial over it. Once this government if out of office and if the next government has a backbone and is prepared to unravel the police state that has been formed over the past decade, along with restoring moral international relations then maybe, just maybe we'll be on the right footing again.

[Jordy]

I think you've taken what i've said too far. Britain does have better morals than a lot of countries in respect to human rights, racism, female rights, gay rights - Social rights are pretty high in this country, not perfect, but good. I was pointing out that our past isn't very moral at all and that you can't say that our past is moral, because in many eyes, it isn't. We can't rely on countries (especially muslim/middle eastern) giving us much respect on our current high standing social morals, as they still live in the past about the crusades, live in a completely different culture dictated by a book, plus with the 'War on oil terror,' giving money and guns to evil militia in Sudan and other current issues, they don't see us as clean, because it's not true. Most rogue states couldn't give a toss about our social morality because their leaders are reluctant to change, for example, the Afghan governments atrocious new bill on men being able to deny wives food if they deny them sex, therefore i see no reason why we can't let some 'maybe not actually a' terrorist die in libya in return for some oil contracts, which ultimately help us, because in the eyes of alot of the world, we're hardly clean. I'm sure the victims' families will be upset with his release, but in the end he is dying and won't be living much longer. We don't need him to become a martyr. If developing countries need good countries to follow, look at countries like Sweden and Norway, as they have the same level of rights for people socially yet they don't feel the need to invade others for sketchy reasons.

I love Britain, but we can't be in denial about some of our shortcomings. I'd love it to change but it's just not in our culture.I am glad to hear you like Britain it's quite reassuring.

I think our past has definitely influenced are world for the better rather than for the worse although I do see your point about other countries hating Britain and the West in general. Thanks to the British Empire it's made great nations like Canada, USA and Australia and developed the ideology of capitalism. The USA, UK and France built the great nations of Germany and Japan after the War and in turn this has made the world so much better due to the influence we've all had and technology it's brought to the world. The British Empire made the world a better place overall in my opinion and although Sweden and Norway may have slightly better morals due to their "neutral" stances in the past, but what have they contributed to the world? Ikea?

[Feep]

Good, if oil means money and money = no ressesion then its all good.

[Suspective]

I'm in support of this deal. He is going to die anyway soon, if he is terminally ill. I'm not condoning him but if we need the oil, we need it!

Also, UKIP of course there going to welcome him back like that, they haven't seen him for ages. Wouldn't you welcome your family back if they'd just come out of a foreign prison and you hadn't seen them for eight years.

Anyway, I'm not to sure if this oil will be delivered following the latest fall-out with them regarding compensation for IRA Victims!

[Black_Apalachi]

Oh so oil is more important than the hundreds of his victims, my bad.

You make it sound like all the victims will be brought back to life if he's kept in prison :P.

Before I was unhappy about his release but now I realise the reasons behind it, it makes so much more sense. Much more than keeping him behind bars rather than (I'm guessing) doing a favour for our fuel prices - all through nothing but spite.

[UKIP]

I'm in support of this deal. He is going to die anyway soon, if he is terminally ill. I'm not condoning him but if we need the oil, we need it!

Also, UKIP of course there going to welcome him back like that, they haven't seen him for ages. Wouldn't you welcome your family back if they'd just come out of a foreign prison and you hadn't seen them for eight years.

Anyway, I'm not to sure if this oil will be delivered following the latest fall-out with them regarding compensation for IRA Victims!

..not if he'd of murdered hundreds of people in a terrorist attack I wouldn't.


You make it sound like all the victims will be brought back to life if he's kept in prison :P.

Before I was unhappy about his release but now I realise the reasons behind it, it makes so much more sense. Much more than keeping him behind bars rather than (I'm guessing) doing a favour for our fuel prices - all through nothing but spite.

Otherwise known as justice.

[Black_Apalachi]

..not if he'd of murdered hundreds of people in a terrorist attack I wouldn't.



Otherwise known as justice.

Surely gaining something from them is more of a justice?!

[UKIP]

Surely gaining something from them is more of a justice?!

No, they have traded in justice for a dirty oil deal.

There is a difference between justice and a dirty deal.