again, thats not proof that he was realeased because of that, your making a massive and highly contrevertial assumption based on evidence that doesnt prove what youre saying and youre insulting my ability to understand things, wow, just wow.

@ bolded - i could easily say the same to you, atleast what i said is based in fact, not assumptions.

no, you misunderstand the system, again

they qualify for compassionate release because they are no longer going to be threats to society, as i pointed out already.

No.  You really couldn't.  Because I believe releasing him was a smart political move.

I'm just not naive enough to think this was some "great act of justice"... when people in scotland are denied compassionate releases all the time who did much less.

It's clear from your last post you don't actually understand how compassionate releases work.  Not everyone who qualfieis for them gets them.

Usually anyone who kills someone else doesn't in fact.

in which case, they should review that element of the system, surely anyone in the same situation would get the same treatment by law.

Edit: infact, this would help reduce prison overcrowding a little, which is a majour problem in the UK, prison should be used to rehabilitate and make sure people are no longer a threat to society, once they are no longer a threat (especially if theyre gonna die anyway) surely it makes sense to release them, you can put someone who is a threat in that jail cell instead. 

No SciFi, they shouldn't.

The man can have medical treatment in prison, he can have as many conjugal visits as he wants, he can even be placed under house arrest/curfew.

A mass murderer doesn't deserve freedom and definitely doesn't deserve to be returned to his home country where he will be treated like a hero.

Everyone does.  Except this guy.  Because it was a good political move that cost the government nothing.  This is where your argument breaks down.  Your argueing that the exception should be the rule... but it isn't... and your ignoring the fact it is the exception... because you WANT it to be the rule.

I mean the man hasn't even admitted his own guilt.

That's a big no no.  Of those who had their cases denied for compassionate release i'd be surprised if any committed worse crimes... yet they died in jail.  Why?  Compassionate release isn't a right it's like parole it's something that's judged on weather you qualify for it or not.

They were going to make 1 of 2 moves in this case.  As can be seen by their contacting the US government.

Compassionate release or a prisoner transfer to libya.  Where he wouldn't of really been a prisoner obviously.

Scotland was ready to go with either because of enland's leaning.  The US perfered the transparent version.  So they went with that.

Kasz, I know what you mean by 'England's leaning' but to be fair England doesn't have a government/Parliament and the current and previous British Prime Minister are both Scots.

I wouldn't have been suprised if the UK gov pressured Scotland but if the SNP didn't want to do it they would have let everyone know about it. The letter from the Guardian seems more like giving the release the green light.

I think a deal has probably been done with the SNP and Gordon Brown too, a win-win situation all round except for the victim's families but hey who gives a shit. Look out for Scotland getting a huge increase in subsidies or probably a referendum on independence (hopefully).

@Kasz216

Do you really think the Labour government pushed for this? The time they have before calling the next UK election is running out.

Being seen to put pressure on a devolved scottish government will harden those occasional nationalists to bloody the government nose in Scotland. Costing them needed seats.

Since yesterdays nationalist speech that they did not regret the decision almost all the attacks have been switched to attacking the uk labour party. Giving Cameron all the chance he needs to make Brown look weak. This will also cost them seats.

The labour party may be likely to lose the next uk election, but to believe they are willing to cut there own throats at this time just makes no sense at all.

Also people who have been regarded as being dangerous have been released in Scotland when terminally ill.

People who have been regarded as dangerous have been released in the US when terminally ill.

People who are terminally ill have not been erleased in both countries.  The Lockbie bomber fits the profile of this second group.

The evidence is obvious the UK government  had a big hand in this.  It wouldn't surprise me if the US government did as well considering their reaction to the US' reaction to save themselves seats.

I think your seeing a conspiracy theory cause you want to.

I've yet to see a government which wouldn't fight tooth and nail to stay in power.

To risk any bad publicity with elections looming would be madness.