h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>> The man's dying. He's unlikely to 'Do A Saunders'. <<

Oh dear. Looks like he's failed to die on schedule. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/6475092/Revealed-Lockerbie-bomber-defies-doctors-prediction-of-death.html

RF

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6821704/Lockerbie-bomber-mystery-surrounds-his-location-after-he-goes-missing.html

And it gets worse. Now they've "lost" him.

RF

has anyone considered he may be dead and laid out on a slab under the name 'abdul doe'

has he been found yet or is he ????

Still dying apparently.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8423117.stm

I thought it might be something like that. Amongst the many things in this debacle, the one I suspected was not the case was a fabricated terminal cancer diagnosis.
He's dying, just not on some people's schedule.

The 270 people he murdered didn't die according to a schedule either. Nice that he's with his family for his last days - not falling from five miles up like his victims.

>I thought it might be something like that. Amongst the many things in this debacle, the one I suspected was not the case was a fabricated terminal cancer diagnosis.

That's what I thought. The notion that there would have been a medical conspiracy to declare him "dying" when he wasn't or that he cunningly tricked medical professionals was too ludicrous. It's quite common for doctors to declare someone has X amount of time to live and for them to live longer (or shorter) than that period.

> It's quite common for doctors to declare someone has X amount of time to live<

Actually no, doctors don't do that because of all the tremendous uncertainty with a disease like cancer. Eg how aggressive is it as a type, where has it already spread. My understanding is that they give percentage chances of lasting a certain amount of time based on probabilities of similar types of cancer and spreads. Doctors know full well it is absolutely impossible to give a certain amount of time in any individual case. But they will give a probability given the medical facts.

It's common parlance, and particularly in the media to describe someone as 'dying' and suggest a specific time left for someone. But this is a nonsense.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/7279123/Lockerbie-bomber-Megrahi-living-in-luxury-villa-six-months-after-being-at-deaths-door.html

Still resolutely failing to be "dead in three months".

RF

Hmm. Extended dying.

Not the method I'd prefer, given the choice.

I've been doing it for years.

Good for you.

Me too, but I find the bleaching process ruins the fabric when extended too long

Incidentally my sister-in-law (as it were - not that I'm married) - died last year after being given a possible 5 year prognosis with lung cancer.
She lasted 2 months.

These things can work both ways. Much as people want to find a conspiracy.

It does look bad though it has to be said.

This post has been removed.

A glimpse into the poisonous world of Scottish politics - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/7168515/Lockerbie-bomber-report-critical-of-Kenny-MacAskill-undermined-by-partisan-row.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7896293/Hillary-Clinton-raises-concerns-over-Lockerbie-bomber-release.html

Still resolutely alive, and making the news.

RF

Indeed I was just thinking about this thread. I notice the Scottish executive are refusing to send someone to the senate committee about this in the states.

Having just read the entire backlog on this thread I was reminded of the simply excellent Paul Foot special report on Lockerby that Private Eye put out a few years ago. Whatever oyu think about Megrahi's innocence or guilt I highly recommend reading it.

If oyu are an eye subscriber you can get it fomr their website. If you are not and would like a copy please send me an email at:-

ferrettbadger hotmail com

And I will happily send yous a .pdf like I said well worth a read.

FB

So, how far up the US Senate's collective rump should their "request" that British politicians appear before them be rammed?

seems to me to be a bit of political points scoring around the whole thing (interesting that this hearing is happening because of BP, dontcha think?).

I don't think it would be advisable for our politicians to go.

FB.

P.s. SWL you were quite vehement earlier in the thread, have you read that Paul Foot report I was banging on about?