...www.boycottscotland.com

Having had a look at this site, I can't help but think how ridiculous the accusations made by this person are.

They claim that it is "repulsive and sickening" that we should release al-Megrahi because it furthers the interests of British Petroleum. From what they write about 9/11 and how we should react to terrorists I can't help but speculate that the author of this website probably supports military action in the middle east. Sorry, but wasn't American Oil helped out by wars in that region? As well as construction and defence contractors.

I don't think Americans can so confidently and assuredly attack the motives of a foreign government. Especially when, even if its true, we set one man free and the motivated and energised large chunks of the population in that region towards guerilla warfare and martyrdom.

For a country where the President can only be elected if he has Christian credentials, some of them are mighty quick in forgetting about forgiveness, compassion and mercy.

...al-Megrahi.

Did he do it? Didn't he do it? Really, those questions aren't the questions any more. Sure, there was doubt over his guilt all along; there was the Malta connection, but the fact the shopkeeper who ID'd him was paid a handsome sum by the Americans helps his case a lot, but the (non-)appeal isn't the issue.

The new issue lies with Kenny MacAskill's decision to allow him to go free on compassionate grounds. I heard a startling figure on the news, apparently he only served 11 and a half days per victim of that particular act of terrorism. If he was actually responsible (although nigh-on impossible for him to be solely responsible), it would seem like he has been given a particularly lenient sentence - although he has now been given a completely new life sentence in the form of prostate cancer.

I heard the presenter of Newsnight Scotland ask Mr MacAskill a particularly difficult question, something along the lines of "What compassion have you shown the families of the victims of that bombing?". Its a really good question, and Kenny didn't answer with any particular conviction. When I thought about the question, releasing a mass murderer shows absolutely no compassion toward the victims' families. Really though, compassion was shown to those families when we fought tooth and nail for the extradition of al-Megrahi, when we put him to trial and got a conviction - some level of closure.

Then I thought about how I would feel, if the boy who stabbed me were let out. Instinctively, I swelled with rage at the thought, but after thinking about it for a few hours I can't help but think, "well if he were dying, with only a few months left, what would it really matter? what difference does it make if he dies in jail or at home...". If I let him go home I show two things. Firstly, that I'm not weak, I caught him and made sure he was punished (or rather the police did) and secondly that I'm merciful.

The law allows for release in the case of a terminally ill prisoner, so that they may see out their last days with loved ones. My first reaction was "why not let him out on compassionate grounds?". I answered myself, thinking "because he showed no compassion in his planting a bomb on that flight, nor remorse since being convicted". I then thought "but that's why we should let him go, we are not the same as him, we are capable of mercy".

That is exactly why it was right to send him home. We're not a country which brazenly supports terrorists or the planned murder of civilians (although we must take responsibility for the unplanned death of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq).

I hope the world will eventually see it this way. I hope the world doesn't look at the scenes of Saltires flying in Tripoli and think Scottish people are celebrating the release of what the courts have deemed a mass murdered. I hope the world eventually sees us for the merciful people we are.


We are not them.
We are better than them.

So it's another all nighter writing an essay that's due in just a few hours. I'm not complaining about that; I bring it on myself and actually quite enjoy the experience. What I am going to complain about is music.

So its time for a break, I'm just about to write my conclusion and its customary for me to take a wee break, have a coffee and relax before I re-read what I've written and dive into my conclusion. I'm flicking through the freeview here in the kitchen, and there's nothing on (I've subconsciously absorbed all the news overnight) except music, my choices are E4 or TMF. E4 wins this hands down. Then the Pussycat Dolls come on and something I've known for a while but never consciously thought about hits me like a wet sponge on a warm day.

What is the point in them even trying. Its not even their voices, most of the pop stuff isn't their voices. Its ridiculously over-produced. Sure, its catchy and all as most chart music is. I even like vocal effects every now and again. When I was in a band I always wanted some of that digitised vocal shizz on the go, but it never happened - probably 'cause I didn't actually suggest it. Sounding good and tight and clear is all good, but if they picked someone with a really good voice then they wouldn't need to go all pagan and produce the soul out of the music.

So aye, good luck to E4 with their Pussycat Dolls, but unless I'm drunk then just give me Death Cab please.