You are a news reader. You want to know what all this ho-ha about oil and some guy called Al-Megrahi is all about. You want someone to sit you down and talk through the issue as if you're a sensible, reasonable human being. After all, you may have paid up to two pounds for your news! (Or you got it free off the internet). You know the ho-ha has something to do with Lockerbie; how 21 years ago, Libyan-UK-US relations nose-dived like a jet plane, flying from Heathrow to JK airport, blown up by a bomb that killed all 243 passengers and 16 crew members. A metaphor so apt, it's fact. You find out (God bless you, Wikipedia Founder) that in 2001, former Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was found guilty of conducting the bombing. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Except that last month, Al Megrahi's prostate and the legal system's sense of compassion had other plans. With doctors declaring that Al Megrahi had just three months left to live before prostate cancer sends him the way of Pan Am Flight 103, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the Scottish Parliament announced that Al Mergahi would be sent home to his wife and children in Libya, released on "compassionate grounds".
   
Now, you are Libya. You are hot and sandy and very Islamic. Like KFC, your leader is called Colonel. You are slightly unsure how you feel about Al Mergahi; in 2003, you accepted "responsibility for the actions of (your) officials," i.e. Al Mergahi. But now, you, hot and sandy Libya, speaking through the mouth of Saif Al Gaddafi, you tell the Scottish Herald: "So many of us, including so many relatives of the victims, believe that Mr Mergahi is innocent. One day, history will prove this." When he returned home, you were very happy to see Al Mergahi, a dying father and maybe a mass murderer. Maybe the sun has gone to your head?

You are the United Nations observer Hans Kochler. You are Austrian, a professor of philosophy, and you have a very cool surname. You call the original trial of Al Mergahi a "spectacular miscarriage of justice".

You are the Scottish Herald. You are cold and windy and rainy and very hard to understand when you speak. You enjoy haggis and play bagpipes. You're a bit confused about rumours that Al Mergahi was really released for oil deals, so you interview Saif Al Gaddafi, and he says: "This whole process of the PTA (prisoner transfer arrangement - like a school exchange programme, but with criminals) has nothing to do with this latest development because, officially, the Scottish authorities said they rejected the request for Mr Megrahi to return on prisoner transfer...The commerce and politics and deals (i.e. oil deals) were all with the PTA. This was one animal and the other was the compassionate release. They are two completely different animals." You imagine the compassionate release animal being a cuddly pink teddy bear, while the "commerce and politics and deals" animal being whatever-the-hell Lord Mandelson is. You think, so Gaddafi is implying that yes, trade deals were discussed in relation to a PTA, but no, Al Megrahi was not released because of this, but instead he was released on compassionate grounds, right?

You are Fox News. You are middle-aged and have anger management issues. Not many people like you. You believe that Shouting is a valid form of debate. Things like socialism, not being patriotic, and respectfully disagreeing with an interviewee make you angry. Argh, you sure could kill a socialised kitten/puppy/small-child right about now. You read the Scottish Herald interview, and you think the headline "Qaddafi Son: 'Obvious' Lockerbie Bomber's Release Tied to Oil" accurately sums up the interview. You do not think it is odd that the  Scottish Herald does not quote Gaddafi using "obvious" in the same context as you do.
 
You are the Guardian newspaper. You're a bit left wing. People say you eat lentils and wear sandals because you're a big hippie. You do not wear sandals - you have bunions and sandals rub terribly. You report on the Scottish Herald interview with the first line: "Efforts to release Lockerbie bomber linked with trade, says Gaddafi's son, but Saif Gaddafi says deal signed in 2007 ultimately had no bearing on decision to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi." That objective counterpoint starting with "But" seems to spoil all the sensationalist fun. Later, you report: "Gordon Brown insisted trade was not the "core reason" for (his involvement in Al Mergrahi's release), but acknowledged that it did form a part of Anglo-Libyan relations."

You are the Sunday Times. If you had your way, young men would still be wearing bowler hats. You are owned by the same man who owns Fox - but shh! You get hold of certain documents about Al Megrahi and oil and bombs, and you report on it with the headline: "Gordon Brown personally vetoed an attempt to force Colonel Muammar Gadaffi to compensate IRA bomb victims because it might have jeopardised British oil deals with Libya."    

You are 10 Downing Street. You keep your cards very close to your chest. In fact, some people don't think you have any cards left to play. You release a statement that says: "As the prime minister makes absolutely clear...trade considerations were not a factor in the government's decision that it would not be appropriate to enter into direct negotiations with Libya on this issue."

You are the new editor for Ctrl.Alt.Shift. You wish international relations and modern media was less complex. You write an article that ends: "Core reason"? Oil? "Anglo-Libyan relations"? Oil? "Oblivious"? Oil? "Spectacular miscarriage of justice"? Oil? "Compassionate Grounds"? Oil? Lockeroilbe? Oileroilbe? Oil? Consider my oily descent into oil-based madness, here's my resignation as Oil editor. Oil?! Oil?! Argggggggghhhhhhh...

Photo: Flickr user GLORY MAG UK.