Sir, A twenty-fifth anniversary of a disaster always invites both intrigue and reflection. It will continue until the truth about the Lockerbie disaster is known.
There is no more vigilant pursuer of that truth than Dr Jim Swire (Courier, December 19). He could quite easily have accepted that Abdel Baset Ali-Mohmed Al Megrahi was the convicted perpetrator of the atrocity and that Scottish justice had done the best it could in the most difficult of circumstances.
Like most of us now, though, he knows the whole thing is much more complicated.
He and others will never rest until all the facts are known.
He does labour though under an enormous burden. The full facts can only come out if there is an international inquiry.
At the time of Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds in 2009, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill felt that was the best way to resolve any controversy over who was responsible.
The Scottish justice system itself has only limited powers to call witnesses and liaise with other governments. It may be able to establish that justice did miscarry, but Dr Swire may have to realise that only international co-operation can help find out what really happened.
Bob Taylor. 24 Shiel Court, Glenrothes.
Changes to law are needed
Sir, I support the views of John McDonald and Mr Wightman from Dundee (letters and page 14, December 17) re the festive sentencing policy branded vengeful by an academic. Dr Waiton seems to dismiss victims of crime as irrelevant to the due process of law.
This has, indeed been the case, until recent amendments were introduced, allowing for compensation to be paid to victims and proceeds of crime taken from criminals. Let this continue.
Irrespective of the views of academia and members of the legal profession and judiciary, the law must be and be seen to be, sensible (enforceable), incorrupt, (“wretches hang, that judges might take tea” an 18th century observation), affordable (there’s the rub), and prepared to accept criticism and change.
The Magna Carta started things off the Bill of Rights with its “habeus corpus”, demonstrated the continued development of freedom under the law. A bit of efficiency, wasted police time at courts etc, wouldn’t go amiss, either.
It is stupid, in my opinion, to have different sentences for the same, or similar, crime because of seasonal or other reasons religious beliefs, penury, envy and so on. (EU and international law must be a minefield but a nice little earner).
Right now, I believe the law to be in a bit of a mess, caused by resistance to change.
A T Geddie. 68 Carleton Avenue, Glenrothes.
Decision is baffling
Sir, I confess I have not been following the detail of the interminable City Hall debate, but the decision to demolish it all baffles me.
The artist’s impression of the new square you published recently made me wonder how much use this would be for half the year, scoured by wind and rain.
I am sure I was not alone in advocating some time back that the “front” part of the building be retained to visually and physically close off the “square” while providing toilets, admin offices even a few high-class retail outlets, etc. Attached to the back could be a covered stage for musical and community occasions, or a “spine” of permanent market stalls and so on.
No doubt arguments can be marshalled against such an imaginative proposal (and there will have been others) but surely Perth deserves better than just a “hole in the heart” of the city?
David Roche. 1 Alder Grove, Scone.
Such a law does exist
Sir, Gordon Kennedy is right to highlight the dangers caused by cyclists on the pavements but I have to correct him on one point.
He says there “needs to be a law passed . . . to ban cyclists from the pavements.” Such a law already exists and has existed for many years.
It is currently found in Section 129(5) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and is backed up by Rule 64 of the Highway Code which says quite clearly: “You must not cycle on the pavement.”
The legislation already exists but is not, for whatever reason, currently enforced.
David Griffiths. 41 Haston Crescent, Perth.
An alarming insight
Sir, If Joseph Miller’s reasons (letters, December 18) for his intention to vote “yes” are typical of those of his persuasion, we get an alarming insight into how the UK could be broken up for false reasons.
The UK Government’s predictions for retirement age, cited by Mr Miller, arise from the demographic problem of an increasing proportion of pensioners to workers, especially in Scotland. This will result in pensions according to present arrangements becoming unaffordable.
None of Alex Salmond’s assertions and bluster will change that. Neither will Scotland’s share of the national deficit disappear as if by magic.
Mr Miller will have to look for a more convincing reason for voting “yes”, or preferably vote “no”.
Arthur Davis. Kinnaird Steading, Pitlochry.