Jim Bollan: Lockerbie bomber was innocent

The latest email revealing the political lunacy of Jim Bollan concerns an exchange about Scotland’s decision, in 2009, to release (on “humanitarian grounds”) the Lockerbie bomber – the Libyan named Abdelbaset al-Megrahi who planted the bomb on board Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 which killed all 270 passengers – between Bollan and an anti-boycott activist.


And, then:


So, Jim Bollan, a fierce proponent of boycotting Israel goods, and who has referred to Hamas as “freedom fighters” and expressed empathy towards the terrorists who massacred a Jewish family in Itamar, is now on record as defending the terrorist responsible for planting the bomb on a civilian plane which resulted in the murder of 270 innocent civilians, and implying a US conspiracy.

Jim Bollan continues to represent an exquisite example of the malice, bigotry, and political irrationality which informs the BDS movement. 

For those of us on the front lines in the relentless cognitive war against Israel, Bollan is simply the gift that keeps on giving.

7 replies »

  1. Well. not only are we dealing with a lunatic, but no doubt those that elected him share his conspiracy theories.

    DUMB-arton, indeed.

    • Prepare for a shock: on this, Mr B may be right.

      Before making aliyah, I was a lawyer in Scotland. I met Professor Robert Black, the legal brains behind the trial arrangements. He is a thoroughly decent, honest and good man. He is on record as saying something to the effect that the convictions were flawed. In short, the evidence did not come up to scratch. I respect his opinion.

      But, if even that snippet does not carry any weight, I suggest you read “Lockerbie – Private Eye’s special report into the Lockerbie disaster (Originally published in 2001)”. It’s available for download at (under digital downloads) for five pounds. It’s a serious piece of investigative journalism full of hard facts that make Robert Black’s views look like an understatement. There has been no debunking or valid criticism of the material in that report and I heartily recommend it to you.

      There is, of course, a difference between whether the Libyan individuals should have been convicted, and whether they were innocent. But believing in their innocence is not a stretch and is, in light of the facts, a perfectly reasonable opinion. It may not suit a ‘black and white’ narrative; it may be an inconvenient truth, but it’s a truth.

      And, for the sake of completeness, one reasonable opinion does not validate the anti-Israel rubbish that Mr B has been spouting since his rise to infamy.

      • This is all very interesting indeed and I have heard of this as well.
        What I fail to see is the how come an elected politician does not pursue justice?
        How come the SNP didn’t call a spade a spade?
        Why saying releasing him on health grounds when according to Mr. B here it should have been appealed long ago.
        Some one somewhere should have been stepping down if this was the case.
        I bet Mr. B criticising Sharon for his affair in the Lebanon war but at least Israel investigated it openly and acted upon it.

        • The Scottish Parliament will not have had access to the intelligence files of MI5/MI6 or the CIA. So, they will have had to rely on what Westminster told them, and it’s unlikely to have been the full picture. On the face of it, the Scots did a deal on humanitarian grounds that may not have stood up to scrutiny, but it probably got Westminster out of a deep, deep, hole. To put it another way, Westminster (and the USA authorities) were probably going to be embarrassed by evidence in the appeal.

          “Pursue justice?” There’s nothing left in the budget for another Lockerbie investigation. And, given the possible outcome, no political will.

          “Calling a spade a spade.” I don’t know if the Scottish authorities got something out of doing the deal. Maybe, if the Libyan revolt is successful, we’ll hear more.

  2. I happen to agree with Ellis that there should be some circumspection regarding this particular case. The conviction may not have been safe and some of the evidence may well have been engineered to secure a conviction. If this is right, the galling fact is the real culprits have not been brought to justice. This is not good for justice and certainly not for the victim’s family. As for al-Megrahi, subject to the jappeal judges giving permission, his appeal should have been heard to test the evidence again, and al-Megrahi certainly should not have been freed until there was certainty about this. The whole matter was a disgrace.

    As for Mr Bollan, this does not excuse him of his more than biased conduct, particularly when it comes to Israel.

    • It does seem distinctly possible that “the real culprits have not been brought to justice”.

      As for the appeal, I would have preferred it went ahead. But for the reasons given in my reply to Itsik, it’s unsurprising it didn’t take place.