I thought that had been reported as like 3 weeks or something?
Diplomatic Immunity
- Thread starter Dugganator
- Start date
I thought that had been reported as like 3 weeks or something?
Regardless you're comment was ****, not sure what you should expect (a legitimate reply?), thanks for you're contribution in calling me retarded though.
I thought you were the one always moaning about people being so serious, that it didn't mean anything, yet...
/apologies for this stream of bile if it has legitimately upset you.
Last edited:
The issue here is that she is avoiding coming back to the UK to go through our justice system for it to decide whether she has or has not committed any crimes.
Diplomatic immunity doesn't seem relevant here because there wasn't any reason for her to run someone over in a car as part of carrying our her diplomatic duties.
Diplomatic immunity doesn't seem relevant here because there wasn't any reason for her to run someone over in a car as part of carrying our her diplomatic duties.
Bit off to have a political dig re: his Grandad tbh...
It's also a bit off to call me a retard, when i'm trying to discuss the merits of the judicial system not being made a joke, unless of course we're all just fed up of laws being followed and consequences meted out for not following them?
Because if that's the case then fine, i'd happily concede. (I suspect that people like having laws)
Because if that's the case then fine, i'd happily concede. (I suspect that people like having laws)
Caporegime
Again you can't read. I didn't call you retarded. Your posting is though. Complete lack of any sense, intelligence or logic displayed as always.
I've made my entirely concise point on this, not that it matters because she's a coward and the US wont hand over someone who is in any way connected to that airbase.
Caporegime
And again, your point is based on incorrect logic and ignorance.
Manslaughter, however, does not require intent. And carries quite heavy penalties.
Man of Honour
Vehicular manslaughter pretty much just gets you a "don't do it again now off you go".
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,393
I did not imply anything whatsoever, you might have inferred that by me using the term but I was merely stating that, (and I repeat) the U.S. see this as a tragic accident, but an accident nonetheless which means that she did not do it intentionally or any other gross misconduct i.e. was drunk at the wheel. Therefore they see no reason to waive her immunity despite someone loosing their life due to her mistake.
I have only ever stated the default legal position from both sides.
Last edited:
Link to evidence please?
Certainly not backed up by my earlier link, nor this one:
https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resour...iving-what-offence-could-you-be-charged-with/
Under what circumstances the US would or would not waive immunity is conjecture and a pointless discussion. You are assuming they would waive immunity if she had been drunk - but none of us know for certain either way.
The point comes back to it being an accident or not.
The default legal position (both here and in the US) is that regardless of whether it was an accident (i.e. unintentional), if she acted negligently, she would probably face criminal charges for causing somebody's death. Driving on the wrong side of the road would imply carelessness, at the very least, which could meet the criteria for negligence.
I may have read what you wrote originally incorrectly - but it sounded distinctly like you were saying that the US thinks she's done nothing wrong and therefore would not waive immunity. I think you are wrong. They know damn well she's done something wrong which is precisely why they are not waiving immunity.
But they have to prove there was negligence. Or intent to harm.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,393
No, you misunderstood totally and made deductions from my statements that I have neither implied or inferred.
You might want to ask a specific question to which I can give a specific answer so there is no misunderstanding.
Let me be clear, this is all about the title of the thread; Diplomatic Immunity.
If you go by precedence, which in many instances can indicate what is expected of a government, then as I stated the US last waived it for someone that committed a willful crime in passing secrets to the Nazis. Since then, to my knowledge no American with D.I. has committed a willful crime where the British have asked for D.I. to be waived.
The last time the Americans themselves asked for D.I. to be lifted was against a Georgian diplomat who committed a willful crime, a DUI, killing an individual.
Even if Mrs Sacoolas, returned to this country, nothing would happen unless her D.I. was waived. For this to happen the British government would have to put in an official request. As far as I know they have not done so.
I am not defending the actions of either Mrs Sacoolas, the US or the British Government. Just replying to some of the misinformation and hyperbole in this thread.
Last edited:
Caporegime
The Purge is a film you may have watched in *checks notes* Cambridge. Where did you school? The other place?
I did, I just draw the line at a different place and don't ascribe to the belief that family members should be given immunity. When you start giving immunity to other people related to the diplomat it starts getting silly as you can quite easily argue that their best mates should be given immunity as well in case they are used as leverage.
There are too many serious crimes being committed by diplomats, often occuring when they are not even on duty and the situation gets more ridiculous when we are seeing people who are merely related to a diplomat committing murder and just swanning off back home, the legislation as it is goes against the spirit of the law which is supposed to be there to allow diplomats to carry out their duty, not to be a get out of jail free card. The UK government would probably have allowed Osama Bin Laden to go free with diplomatic immunity.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,393
Nobody could or would ever argue that their "best mates" should be given immunity. It's a laughable and quite ludicrous notion and doesn't help your point at all. You would have been better off using an example of the Diplomats pet dog getting D.I. after biting somebody as that is slightly less ridiculous.