No justice in Lockerbie saga

Last August, we were told the convicted terrorist was in the advanced stages of prostate cancer and had only three months to live, thereby supposedly justifying the controversial decision to release him on compassionate grounds.

Today, following a hero's welcome on his return to Libya, Megrahi lives in luxury near Tripoli and is treated like a national celebrity. Latest medical reports suggest he could live into next year or even longer.

No wonder many of the families of the 270 people murdered when Pan Am flight 103 was blown out of the sky in December 1988 are furious and are demanding answers as to why he was freed.

The notion that his release was a compassionate act of mercy is

nonsense. What we are dealing with here is politics – very dirty politics. Why else did Megrahi, if he was innocent of the bombing as he claimed, suddenly and mysteriously drop his appeal against conviction?

Megrahi suggested it was all part of a dodgy deal – that he had to drop his appeal in order to gain his freedom. If so, it represents a clear attempt by whoever struck the deal on behalf of the British authorities to meddle with justice.

Inevitably, Tony Blair and his sidekick Peter Mandelson played a role in the run-up to this unsavoury saga. Blair agreed to a prisoner

exchange deal with Libya in 2007, later rubber stamped by his successor Gordon Brown. At the same time, BP was signing a 500m oil and gas exploration contract with Colonel Gaddafi's regime.

Last year, Mandelson admitted to a "fleeting meeting" in a Corfu villa with Colonel Gaddafi's son, Saif, just days before Megrahi was released. Saif Gaddafi also insisted that Megrahi's fate was on the table at all recent trade talks between Libya and the UK. Was Megrahi's release the price paid for some lucrative trade deals?

Certainly a year ago, Ministers in London were piling pressure on the Scottish government to let Megrahi go. This despite the fact his release undermined the war on terror and damaged our relations with the US. But Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill insists the decision to free him was based purely on medical advice.

Yet unease over the decision has grown. This week a group of US senators asked that the full medical reports into Megrahi's condition be released. So far the Scottish government has refused. They should relent and release the files. The victims' families deserve nothing less. And if the decision to release Megrahi really was an honest and legitimate one, then surely the Scottish government and its counterpart south of the border have nothing to hide?

Cause for complaint

If we are looking for quangos to abolish in a time of economic crisis can I nominate the Advertising Standards Authority?

This absurd body, funded by a levy on advertising spending, produces expensive reports on adverts often prompted by a tiny number of complaints. For example, this week the ASA banned a police advert encouraging radio listeners to use an anti-terror hotline to report suspicious activity.

The advert drew attention to people who kept the curtains closed, paid in cash and who don't have a bank card – all specific circumstances which have been among evidence given at recent terror trials.

Clearly the advert was promoting a public good because a vigilant

public represents the first line of defence against terror attacks. But the ASA report said the advert could potentially cause "serious offence" to law-abiding citizens. Really? Well, not that serious, because the advert drew just 18 complaints, obviously from people who clearly need to get out a bit more.

Haven't they got anything better to do? The report is out of all proportion to the supposed offence caused to a very small number of malcontents. Do we really need a bunch of busybodies to tell us when adverts are offensive? Isn't the advertising industry capable of regulating its own output?