boy dem ppl good sah

[RichD]

so dem sey " does anybody thint hat Britian/Scotland would release the Lockerbee bomber without the consent of the US president?"

den dem add the spin that ...if they did that shows how little they respect the US President now.

[evanovitch]

Re: boy dem ppl good sah

so y dem no respek him..cant be because him is a C student like di forma one...cant be because him lacking in info like di forma...oooohhh wat can it be...oh yes, him is a wog so dem naw respek him..bwoy, dem a really reach dese days dont...
di Obama critics , dat is

[Gen]

Re: boy dem ppl good sah

suh mi nuh hear pan the news yessideh seh it was bush dat broker the release (mix up wid some oil business deal and the release)

was i hearing wrong ??

[RichD]

Re: boy dem ppl good sah

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gen</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> suh mi nuh hear pan the news yessideh seh it was bush dat broker the release (mix up wid some oil business deal and the release)

was i hearing wrong ?? </div></div> mi nuh hear dat line yet

[Yuriatin]

Re: boy dem ppl good sah

You heard right - that indeed is the word on the street and everyplace else!

See here from the London Times.

Girl - the UK is on fire over this thing.



---


From The Sunday Times
August 30, 2009
<span style="font-size: 17pt">
<span style="font-weight: bold">Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil'</span></span>
Jason Allardyce

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.
<span style="color: #FF0000">
The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests.</span>

Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: “This is the strongest evidence yet that the British government has been involved for a long time in talks over al-Megrahi in which commercial considerations have been central to their thinking.”

Two letters dated five months apart show that Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country.

In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before a specified date would not be considered for transfer.

Downing Street had also said Megrahi would not be included under the agreement.

Straw then switched his position as Libya used its deal with BP as a bargaining chip to insist the Lockerbie bomber was included.

The exploration deal for oil and gas, potentially worth up to £15 billion, was announced in May 2007. Six months later the agreement was still waiting to be ratified.

On December 19, 2007, Straw wrote to MacAskill announcing that the UK government was abandoning its attempt to exclude Megrahi from the prisoner transfer agreement, citing the national interest.

In a letter leaked by a Whitehall source, he wrote: “I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion.

“The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom, I have agreed that in this instance the [prisoner transfer agreement] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual.”

Within six weeks of the government climbdown, Libya had ratified the BP deal. The prisoner transfer agreement was finalised in May this year, leading to Libya formally applying for Megrahi to be transferred to its custody.

Saif Gadaffi, the colonel’s son, has insisted that negotiation over the release of Megrahi was linked with the BP oil deal: “The fight to get the [transfer] agreement lasted a long time and was very political, but I want to make clear that we didn’t mention Mr Megrahi.

“At all times we talked about the [prisoner transfer agreement]. It was obvious we were talking about him. We all knew that was what we were talking about.

“People should not get angry because we were talking about commerce or oil. We signed an oil deal at the same time. The commerce and oil deals were all with the [prisoner transfer agreement].”

His account is confirmed by other sources. Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Libya and a board member of the Libyan British Business Council, said: “Nobody doubted Libya wanted BP and BP was confident its commitment would go through. But the timing of the final authority to spend real money was dependent on politics.”

Bob Monetti of New Jersey, whose son Rick was among the victims of the 1988 bombing, said: “It’s always been about business.”

BP denied that political factors were involved in the deal’s ratification or that it had stalled during negotiations over the prisoner transfer talks.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman denied there had been a U-turn, but said trade considerations had been a factor in negotiating the prisoner exchange deal. He said Straw had unsuccessfully tried to accommodate the wish of the Scottish government to exclude Megrahi from agreement.

The spokesman claimed the deal was ultimately “academic” because Megrahi had been released on compassionate grounds: “The negotiations on the [transfer agreement] were part of wider negotiations aimed at the normalisation of relations with Libya, which included a range of areas, including trade.

“The exclusion or inclusion of Megrahi would not serve any practical purpose because the Scottish executive always had a veto on whether to transfer him.”

A spokesman for Lord Mandelson said he had not changed his position that the release of Megrahi was not linked to trade deals.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814939.ece

[Yuriatin]

Re: boy dem ppl good sah

Rich - last week it was reported that this supposed deal, only came to light by sheer accident.

A secretary faxed a letter to someone in error.

I imaging she's now working on her resume.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gen</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> suh mi nuh hear pan the news yessideh seh it was bush dat broker the release (mix up wid some oil business deal and the release)

was i hearing wrong ?? </div></div> mi nuh hear dat line yet </div></div>

[Yuriatin]

Re: boy dem ppl good sah

Gen - just to clarify - I've not heard the &quot;Bush&quot; link yet but yes, that it was the oil they did it for.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gen</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> suh mi nuh hear pan the news yessideh seh it
was bush dat broker the release (mix up wid some oil business deal and the release)

was i hearing wrong ?? </div></div>

[Gen]

Re: boy dem ppl good sah

BOAL @ the fax

dem kinda secret information fi guh by hand courier at least dats how we roll down here

[Yuriatin]

Re: boy dem ppl good sah

Now there's talk that his illness is not terminal.

Peeps worried he's going to live thru to a ripe old age.

<span style="font-style: italic">Guess we'll see!</span>

[Gen]

Re: boy dem ppl good sah

yeah mi did hear him name but could be wrong. a guh listen closely again.

no doubt this will be pan 60 minutes soon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Yuri_</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gen - just to clarify - I've not heard the &quot;Bush&quot; link yet but yes, that it was the oil they did it for.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gen</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> suh mi nuh hear pan the news yessideh seh it
was bush dat broker the release (mix up wid some oil business deal and the release)

was i hearing wrong ?? </div></div> </div></div>

[Yuriatin]

Re: boy dem ppl good sah

Yes mi dear!

Can you imagine?

It was in the &quot;Guardian&quot; last week.

Let me see if I can go find the link ...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BOAL @ the fax

dem kinda secret information fi guh by hand courier at least dats how we roll down here </div></div>

[Gen]

Re: boy dem ppl good sah

well him nevah look too sickly to me but what do i know

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Yuri_</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now there's talk that his illness is not terminal.

Peeps worried he's going to live thru to a ripe old age.

<span style="font-style: italic">Guess we'll see!</span> </div></div>

[Emperah]

Re: boy dem ppl good sah

guy was innocent anyhow.

[evanovitch]

Re: boy dem ppl good sah

http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009_08_01_archive.html