Jump to content
BANGKOK
snoop1130

UK police to interview U.S. diplomat's wife about fatal crash

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Theory said:

They leave because the “foreign ministry” advise her to leave the country as quick as possible since she is on political passport, not a tourist. And not because she was at fault. Perhaps time to learn something new for you. 

There is no such thing as the US "foreign ministry."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bruntoid said:

Should his parents ‘get over it’ ? The snivelling coward is hiding behind diplomatic immunity for a MAJOR CRIME - it stinks. 
 

If causing the death of someone isn’t a major crime what is ? 

First , my condolences to the parents of the victim, No parent should have to go through this.Very sad,

But where is the "MAJOR CRIME" it was an accident, perhaps some negligence, but hardly a "MAJOR CRIME"

20 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Yea, that's what happens when you flee the scene of a crime.

How did she leave the scene of a crime? she remained in England for close to 10 days after the accident, and then left,  I did not read anywhere that she was charged with a crime  and or , that there were restrictions placed on her travel, If there were no restrictions placed on her travels , how was her traveling a crime?

  If they are NSA  agents , it might even be possible that she was ordered to leave, as the investigation might compromise what she was working on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Why would they advise her to leave if she did nothing wrong?

 

Even though she was driving on the wrong side of the road.

Where ever it happened, wrong side of the road or right side of the road we don’t know why it has happened and what caused it to happen. What you see in the news is exactly what they want you to know, nothing more. 

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, chingmai331 said:

UK can impound the car she was driving.  Woman made a big mistake due to unfamiliar with the driving rules of foreign land. 

I suspect that she will never set foot again in the UK, or England if the UK splits up due to Brexit.

If they issue a warrant for her arrest then her traveling days are over, she won't be able to go anywhere, ever again.

 

An outstanding arrest warrant can haunt you for the rest of your life, check out what happened to a former CIA station chief once he left the US after fleeing the Italian courts :

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/panama-releases-former-cia-operative-wanted-by-italy/2013/07/19/c73ebc12-f083-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh I see, let’s dispense with courts and trial by jury, over 800 years of common law and the principal that a death should be investigated and those believed to be responsible tried in an open court of law before a jury of their peers - because you think you’ve seen courts return wrong verdicts.

 

Since when do we allow the possible impact of justice on the life of the accused to determine whether or not they face trial - poor poor them.

 

This abuse of diplomatic immunity is an affront to justice.

 

As Jingjing has pointed out, it may very well go unchallenged but please quit with the weak justifications.

The Law is the Law, international treaties are a superceding part of it. there is no point is throwing 800 years around - why not invoke old Rome's law then?

 

Diplomatic immunity doesn't prevent the investigation.

 

There is no such thing as an abuse of diplomatic immunity - either people have immunity or not - if they have it, they can invoke it.

Abuse of diplomatic immunity would be to bestow it onto people who shouldn't have it - this can be discussed here, but then it would be an abuse by the USA, not by the suspect. Also, I believe the UK gets to approve the list of persons who will have diplomatic immunity in the UK, so if immunity is given to too many people, maybe start the finger pointing at the UK government.

 

If the terms of immunity should change, then the UK needs to renegotiate international treaties  to modify the terms and prepare for British citizens with immunity being prosecuted in foreign countries - hopefully not in some middle-eastern country with 800 year old laws...

 

And you didn't understand my explanation - it's from the "suspect's" standpoint. Invoking diplomatic immunity is a personal decision and all I said was that in that situation and under some circumstances it was not only understandable why the person made that decision, but also that in case of her innocence it is ethically not wrong.

Edited by manarak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, sirineou said:

  I did not read anywhere that she was charged with a crime  and or , that there were restrictions placed on her travel, If there were no restrictions placed on her travels , how was her traveling a crime?

 

She told the judge she had no intention of leaving the UK.

 

If she had said she may leave the judge could have held her or held her passport. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of 'insider knowledge' about the process and case at ex-Ambassador's Craig Murray's blog 

 

The only people I know of who effectively enjoy secret diplomatic immunity are spies from CIA/NSA like Jonathon Sacoolas or from Mossad like Shai Masot. There are not any other categories of pretend diplomats having immunity, and the elaborate charade to pretend that there are is a nonsense. It must not distract from the fact that the claim that the government can grant US and Israeli intelligence agencies diplomatic immunity at will is a lie. The government is acting illegally here. There is no legislation that covers Raab in allowing Mrs Sacoolas to kill – albeit accidentally – with impunity.

I pray both the government and Mrs Sacoolas will be brought to account. I hope Mr and Mrs Dunn find what peace they can with their loss, and are able to remember with due warmth the eighteen wonderful years that I am sure they had with their son.

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/the-foreign-office-must-be-challenged-over-sacoolas-immunity/

Edited by beautifulthailand99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

She told the judge she had no intention of leaving the UK.

 

If she had said she may leave the judge could have held her or held her passport. 

So?? was there an Order for her not to leave the country? If not, then i don't think changing one's intentions is a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No secret that diplomats from many nations have been apprehended in the pase for various crimes mainly like smuggling drugs or tax free luxury items free from customs screening, into the countries where they were posted.  Not to forget the illicit sale of tax free booze or tobaco to the locals with a significant profit. Welcome to the limelight of diplomatic immunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, samjaidee said:

She did not have diplomatic immunity prior the accident.

She was given it after she killed the young man.

That could be why it's not so easy to "get over".

Do you have a link showing she was given immunity after the accident?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yes. But they won't.

Im not so sure, consider Trump's mindset. There wont be many Americans , on a personal level , who would support a killer being protected , ergo its not a vote winner to support her , see my drift ?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a theory , 3 ha ha emojis in a row is a sure sign of little or no cerebral performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2019 at 5:46 PM, Ratt Thai said:

Get over it... She has diplomatic immunity period. It does not mean that she not has insurance or is evading justice. Nor is she declining being responsible for the tragic accident.  Justice is there to determine what happened and conclude how much in damages need to be payed. 

This was an accident, not a mayor crime...
 

Would you sing the same song if it was your son who got killed? Normal people stay around, administer first aid and call an ambulance and the cops after having been involved in an accident, especially if they’re innocent, they don’t run back to the fort! 

Edited by pacovl46

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...