mercuryg

You really need a sense of humour, Monsta, or do I have to identify sarcasm with little smileys and such? For the record, your assertion that Miura is named after 'a Spanish ranch' is a clear indication of reliance on Wikipedia, whose reference page compounds what is, in fact, a myth. Ferrucio Lamborghini always refuted the claim that Miura referred to anything to do with bulls, and it came about largely down to the link with the Lambo badge (a bull!). He indicated it was something to do with a district of Japan, for some reason or another. Still beautiful, though. Unlike the Gumpert!

Monsta, Not only are your taste buds sub par but you do not know beauty when you see it. The Gumpert is called a Gumpert because Gumpert is German for 'This is a hideous artefact'; Miura, on the other hand, is Italian for sheer beauty. There ahs been nothing to surpass its sheer perfection since, and little before; are you, perhaps, mistaking it for teh Countach which does, in fact, look to have been cobbled together by a blind man.

My point was, I thought, very clear indeed, for it included only three words: if you miss the point when someone writes of something 'it defines ugly' then there is something wrong; by way of explanation, my point is that hideous German car - even the name Gumpert is ugly - is, yes, you guessed - ugly. It's a supercar alright, but it's undeniably not very pretty. You want me to give you a supercar? try that new Aston - what do they call it, One 77 or something? - for a modern take on the genre, and the Lamborghini Miura for the original supercar, and perhaps the most beautiful car of all time. Don't worry, if you think they're ugly, i'll get your point.

It defines ugly.

You're getting chickens! Excellent move, you should pop round and check out mine!!

It's a different sort of 'twang', monsta; you clearly have no palette for a great ham sarnie!

What? You choose to desecrate the delicately poised flavours of ham with an aggressive twang of pickle? Are you mad? English mustard is ham's best friend. Cheese I can handle. Why do you suppose that? I use shepherds, of course.

I'm interested in those plans - need an office soon.

All very well if you have a snappy little red convertible at your disposal. I, unfortunately, am relegated to going downstairs and chewing on one of my chickens.

This is my recipe: Get loaf of bread. Cut two slices. Butter one side each slice. Smear one slice with English Mustard (only English; if you use French or German, or anything else, you will die.) Cut slices of ham (make sure pig is dead) and place on slice of bread. Put other slice on top. Eat. Do I win a fiver?

Received said leaflet, very nice it is too!

Great idea - if you need further online promotion please get in touch.

You forgot 'Feed to butterflies'.....

I like cheese. Any cheese. But that place is a bit pricey for me so I wait for it at the cheap section in Tescos.

Electricity, or water?

Too bloody right! How dare you suggest such a sacreligious tenet, and at the BBC, too! I'm surprised you nave not been hanged, drawn and quartered at Alexandra Palace for such a heinous crime you hussy! By the way - why were you photographing butterflies eating chutney? that's just plain wrong. Yours, Nigel Havers

That is an amazing generalisation!

This is the problem, Monsta, for i'm not 'going on about conspiracies' at all. If you care to read much of the detail that has been written about the case - both now and ever since it occurred - it's quite clear that there is much more to it than meets the eye. Have you, for instance, read the judgement as to why he was found guilty, and used your own intelliegence to draw a conclusion? It's easy to say 'he done it, he was convicted' but tell me, who was he convicted by? I don't think you know, so i'll furnish you: he was convicted by a Scottish court sitting without a jury in Holland, behind closed doors, and he was implicated on the say so of one witness- who was later found to have been in the pay of the CIA - who stated that he bought the clothes that were found in his luggage on a certain date, in Malta. He was tried with a co conspirator who was acquitted (how so?) He is said to have put the bomb on a plane in Malta, for it then to be transferred to another flight in Frankfurt, and then to the fateful Heathrow flight. Even those in the courtroom thought this tenuous, at the very best. This is not conspiracy, monsta, this is what was said to have happened, and people closely associated with the case have admitted on several occasions that they foudn the conviction shaky to say the least. You would think, also, that a terrorist atrocity as terrible as this one, on british soil, would merit a full and in depth enquiry: there never has been one, and there never will be, because something is not right. And how would that save any arguments? I asked you before - what, I wonder, would your response be if someone else confesses to the crime at a later date? 'Oh well, he was an arab, he deserved it!'? this is a case where the evidence - just like in teh Barry George case, and james Hanratty, and many others - was simply far too flimsy to secure a conviction, yet one was needed so it was given. That is not what the law is all about.

Exactly that - Vic mentioned that being guilty or innocent is fact; I disagree - its not fact until its proven. Getting back to the Lockerbie bomber and while you're right to hail Brian's well put remarks about the situations as 'well said' - indeed it was - the same could be said of Barry George, james Hanratty, and a whole load of other less high profile cases where people have been wrongly imprisoned. I'm not saying that I know the Lockerbie accused did no do it, but pointing out - as is another on here, I believe - that the evidence upon which he was convicted was flimsy at best, and that there are very solid claims that it may not even have been Libya that committed the atrocity. To decry someone the right to protest innocence as they have been convicted in a court of law is to deny them there right; sadly for James Hanratty he didn't get a chance. What will be your response, I wonder, should Iran - who many suspect to be the real perpetrators of this terrible crime - admit to it at some point in he future?

Nothing is a fact until proven.

No, it shouldn't. he maintains he is innocent, and there is little in the way of evidence to prove otherwise. Absolutely, but convicted thanks to a very flimsy set of circumstantial evidence in a case where the powers that be were desperate for a scapegoat. I'm not defending the man - he may well be a hideous madman who killed a few hundred people - but pointing out the flaw in the system. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is the key, Monsta, and the very fact that there is much doubt means this conviction certainly does not fall into that category. Of course.

Surely they are not guilty until proven guilty.

Good to see you buying useful items, Mrs Vic. Only you!

An interesting conversation, this, and an interesting story also. The consensus among many who were involved in the original investigation appears to be that this guy was simply offered up by the Libyans as a token; there's very little actual evidence that he had anything to do with the event itself. Conspiracies will always rage with such as this, as there is much emotion in play and, also, a lot of political machinations that do not allow us to see a clear cut version of events. the 'he was found guilty so he should serve his sentence' line is on that is oft trotted out, but there have been many, many examples of people being imprisoned for crimes they did not commit; likewises, there have also been - although it would appear to surprise some - many, many British and American terrorists throughout history. We can start, if you like, with Guy Fawkes and his friends. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this is a diplomatic release that, as we don't KNOW whether or not this bloke did it should never have been comtemplated.

Watched a great deal of fun going on behind the fences yesterday afternoon as the poor sods had to move the already positioned post box to a new site. Apparently, there is a law that defines how far a postman is allowed to carry a sack of letters from the postbox to his little red van, and nobody knew about it. The original site meant poor Pat would have to walk a yard too far, so the box had to be moved.