[QUOTE=Idiot-Finder]I tell you what, how about for once, you get off your ass, and research some stuff yourself instead of writing absolute rubbish which is totally wrong?
Yeah here is an excerpt from that Article:
Mr Salmond said yesterday: “I think a fair description of the American government’s position is that they didn’t want al Megrahi to be released. However, if he was to be released, they thought it was far preferable for compassionate release as opposed to the prisoner transfer agreement.
Proving my point that they did not want him released...
He also said this opposition was probably because the so-called “deal in the desert”, signed by Tony Blair, which paved the way for the prisoner transfer agreement, was signed at the same time as an oil deal with Libya.
Proving there was a 'quid pro quo' arrangement by the government and libya... why, because of BP... and their half a billion dollar deal to drill for oil, which was deemed to be in the interest of the UK...
Mr Salmond said his government made public all of its own documents relating to the release, but the UK and US governments had refused to grant permission for some of the correspondence they had with the Scottish Government before Megrahi's release to be published.
The American ambassador to the UK, Louis Susman, said the US had “strongly objected” to any type of release. He said the US was examining if its correspondence over the issue could be released.
He said: “It is quite clear the US government was strongly against the release of Megra-hi. We had a mutual understanding with the British Government that if he was tried and convicted he would serve his entire sentence in Scotland. The fact the justice minister made a decision on compassionate grounds to release him was something we were not in favour of.”
Funny how the Scottish minister took it upon himself to release this prisoner, something that would not only affect Scotland, but the whole of the UK and they would make such a decision in such a cavalier manner... don't past the smell test for me...
Calls for the decision to release Megrahi to be re-examined grew in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and reports that BP had lobbied for the bomber to be freed.
The US Senate foreign relations committee revealed plans for an inquiry into the release, but Mr MacAskill and former foreign secretary Jack Straw have both rejected calls to give evidence in person.
Yes you can refuse to give evidence, but if you are telling the truth thn why such recitence? Again smells very fishy... the fact that two governments (Scottish and English) are covering for a MNC is very sad indeed...
Mr Salmond repeated yesterday the Scottish Government had no contact with BP in the build-up to Megrahi’s release. He also insisted estimating life expectancy for terminal cancer sufferers was not an “exact science”.
Then why this prisoner? Why not release other prisoners that have asked for leniency for similar reasons? And why at that [articular time, he was in the Scottish jail for about 19 years, because Lockerbie happened around 1988 I believe...
But one of the cancer specialists who examined Megrahi did not endorse that view.
Professor Jonathan Waxman, one of the world’s leading oncologists, visited Megrahi in prison a year ago but said he was not surprised to see him alive today.
Prof Waxman said: “The Scottish Government took its own advice, not mine.
“I did not say three months and I am not at all surprised to see him alive.
“The problem with a prognosis like this is that there is no such thing as an average person.”
Funny how the medical professionals account differs from the Scottish government's account. He says he never said 3 months, so why would he lie now?
t's not a joint or collective activity, if someone installs a gas system they are the only one involved.. Like Toyota car's that had the bad brakes, it is the company who made them, not the people who used them and crashed who are liable.
The Toyota example holds no water... using your previous example.. you as the owner of the house, used a contractor that caused the damage. If the contractor used shoddy equipment or did a horrible job... then you are liable:
As in evidence from this:
Employer Liability for Work Related Injuries of an Independent Contractor
A cosmetologist designated as an independent contractor by written agreement, injured his back lifting a 5-gallon water bottle and his employer was ordered to pay workers' compensation benefits. In California, an actor who obtained a stunt man to fall off of a horse was found liable for benefits for the stunt man's injuries because the actor dictated what type of fall to make. A circus clown and trapeze artist were both found to be employees because without them there would be no circus. A food salesman was killed in a car accident after attending a dinner meeting and his family collected benefits. A carpenter hired to help remodel a garage was found to be an employee of an unsuspecting homeowner. Still in another case, in New Jersey a court decided that an insurance sales staff is the employee of the insurance company employer despite the contractual designation as independent contractors, their professional autonomy and the highly independent nature of their work.
All of these plaintiffs had one thing in common - their employers considered them to be independent contractors. Whether there was a contract or not, the courts disagreed with their designation and ordered payment of workers' compensation benefits. This area of law is difficult to navigate and employers must beware. Liability for injuries to those designated as independent contractors is extremely common, most often unintentional and almost always very costly.
I await your reply...