The Guardian says something feels "not quite right" so far as the "apparently" good decision to release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. What is not quite right is the transmogrification of the Guardian's vision and mode of feeling, which has been corrupted by its Quislings.
"Goodness knows the world could use more mercy. It is a virtue that wins few plaudits in the press or politics, so there was something heartening about hearingScotland's justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, explain his decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi purely in terms of compassion. The terminally ill man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, Mr MacAskill explained to the Holyrood parliament, may have shown Scotland no mercy, but that did not free Scotland of its obligation to show some mercy to him. On the face of it this was a brave and civilising argument, and yet the seeming purity of the appeal could not dispel the feeling that something was not quite right about the decision that had been made."
It may be said that I am biased for personal reasons, but the converse is true.
In the '80s the husband of one of the leading execs of Guardian Online lost an internal, local Labour Party election to me. The lady was most upset and very angry for no terribly good reason, because I had been successful in in a similar role which her husband had not. She then took up a job at the Guardian, where she has prospered, writes avowedly feminist articles from time to time and plays a large role in running "Comment is Free."
It should also be noted that the Guardian's "moderators" who claim it is necessary to pre moderate my posts there are essentially self selecting. Small wonder that the Dully Teles and extreme left wingers also, who loathe any defence of HMG, have signed up, and exercise power there, tendentiously.