Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,381
- Location
- ST4
I suspect you'd feel differently if it was your child that got mowed down and killed by some dumb **** who then fled the country to evade arrest.
Diplomatic Immunity
- Thread starter Dugganator
- Start date
I suspect you'd feel differently if it was your child that got mowed down and killed by some dumb **** who then fled the country to evade arrest.
Eh? so if you break the law then we shouldn't bother as it has happened now anyway or something?
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 2,114
And at no point did I say having left the UK needs to know when DI was thrown in. She is not in the UK and left it. That part was never in question.
Only that it changes the narrative of what transpired to which we don't know about yet, which "would" change it from:
Woman deliberately pulls the DI to willfully escape and evade justice.
To
Woman is fed a story to have hear leave after Husbands employers throw DI into the mix.
One is a vile woman who everyone should hate on, call her what you will, no one cares as we all know she's vile and evil for running in that case. One is a woman who is caught up in things she can't handle - but STILL ran over and killed a kid in the UK, to which again I stress has NOT been denied and neither will this point claim otherwise (only it clarifies whether she called all this in herself, or it was done for her; this point proves intent) and doesn't deserve to be called EVERY name under the sun.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 2,114
Not at all, discussion is good, as well as updates to the story itself, but points where there are missing elements, and people jumping on them like it's word of god when clearly its not (yet), needs to have that pointed out.
It is still her choice regardless - how are you not understanding that? She chose to run away - again - you don't need to know when DI etc.. was applied in order to point out that she fled!
I mean unless you're throwing in something ridiculous like she was kidnapped against her will and is now being held by Trump in the Whitehouse ready to pounce not he family again then you're being incredibly silly here.
She fled the country - we already know that, we don't need further info to know that.
Well not really - you're coming up with spurious objections and are being bizarrely overly defensive of this woman.
I don't doubt that the American lady in question and her family have been through a lot since the accident but I hope the concession to be interviewed by our Police on US soil isn't just an attempt to dilute the situation or ease their conscience.
Sauce?
She'll have been advised, it's probably just PR. Still feel sorry for her (and her family) though, she'll have no control over any of it.
e: Doesn't change what happened though.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 2,114
Her choice to leave is not in question and never has been. I am merely being logical and pointing out that if we give some time for confirmed information, we can actually not care but be all as emotional as we like about it, as we'd be right and there's be no room for getting any part of it wrong. But since we don't actually have that confirmation, some restraint would be good. As I doubt anyone would bother apologise to them for calling them something they're not really deserving of.
You don't need to be kidnapped. The art of soft Coercion, considering the department her husband works in, will be plenty enough to force someone to leave. No kidnapping necessary.
Either I'm not writing it out properly or you're not understanding, I don't know which. But again, at what point have I said in any of my posts that we need (to know the intent of DI that was used through who brought it in) to have confirmation on:
Ran over someone?
Has left the country?
Getting angry on those? Sure, go ahead. Again, those parts are never in question.
As per the topic title about Diplomatic Immunity, I want to be sure that she was the one who threw it in or not to protect themselves. Because again, there's a minor difference between abusing DI to evade justice, to which we should all be angry over. Against someone who has the blanket of DI thrown on them and is unable to see a way to say no.
I'm just being more fair and logical whilst there are questionable points still unaswered than being emotional. I can get emotional later once logic and fair already proves to me that I can let loose my anger on the right target.
So why take issue with people stating that then?
How is she unable to say no or to voluntarily return? You're still making no sense here - you say that her choice to leave is not in question then seemingly contradict yourself?
This seems very detached from reality - whatever advice she got she fled the country and so far hasn't volunteered to return. Pointing that out isn't dependent on any further information as to the extent of any advice or what people said and when or when DI was invoked etc..
For what reason are you trying to defend her with these rather convoluted arguments anyway?
You keep talking about people getting angry or emotional - where? We're discussing the issue.
Last edited:
Well on what basis could she be stopped? Even with Mango in charge they're still a democracy with laws etc..
Anyone can be denied exit or access, unless she gets herself smuggled out.
What do you mean? Why can't she just get on a flight if she chose to do so?
Sorry I updated my previous post but regardless...
Anyone can be denied access or exit, it's a passport thing.
Why would the UK deny her access - on what basis? On what basis could the US deny her access...
Sorry but it feels like people are posting things in here that are completely detached from reality - she's not being kept prisoner in the US, she's not charged with any crime there - she's a free citizen... the US government isn't the Peoples Republic of China able to restrict the movement of its citizens.
They wouldn't.