The statements from the family I have heard is they want the woman to return and let the police conduct their investigation. Maybe the other statements they have made regarding wanting an apology rather than her being jailed also fit into this narrative. Either way, someone who commits an ( alleged) criminal act and then claims diplomatic immunity is just wrong . Yvonne Fletcher ...
I think you can argue this dependant on the height of the horse you are sat on.
Firstly, many people that were faced with the choice of jumping on a plane, and avoiding any repercussions of an accident they were involved in, lets say on holiday, would be glad to do so.
That's not to say that it is the correct thing to do.
I am not clear on the type of investigation the police wish to conduct.
They have CCTV footage available.
Is anyone expecting the American to put her life on hold, and travel back to the UK, and rent a property for a few months while some sort of investigation is conducted, and possibly going to court sometime later.
Lower your horse a little bit. You are in Thailand on holiday. You are involved in a road accident. They can happen to anyone. The police say give us your passport, you are not going anywhere for a few months. Your wife and kids can go but you are not. You would be over the moon.
Where would you stay? What would it cost? Your job? Your mortgage? Your house?
I don't think anyone has said this was a criminal act.
A criminal act requires intent, and the only description I have heard anyone use describing the incident, is an accident.
She has been on again this morning, mentioning twice in the same sentence that Donald Trump was holding her hand.
WOW.
I’m not on a horse, high or otherwise.
She is the wife of a “ Diplomat” As far as I’m aware they reside at the USA base. Causing death by dangerous driving ( Can that be classed as “ intent”?) needs to be investigated.
She only left the Country because of the “ incident “ She lied when she said she had no intention of leaving.
Usually investigations involve talking to the people involved in the “ incident” Maybe she can say the motorcyclist was at fault, give her side of things, you know ... like every other joe public HAS to do. Being the wife of a diplomat shouldn’t give you immunity from escaping justice from this type of “ incident”.
She was living on an American airbase so no need to rent a property. Try watching 'Banged Up Abroad' you're 'banged up' until your court case eventually comes to court. As stated living on an airbase,no chance of losing her job,house etc as she is a wife not an employee. As far as I know 'Driving without due care and attention' Causing death by dangerous driving' etc are criminal acts.
Put yourself in the parents position,one day they've got a son the next he is dead.Would you be content with the suspect evading any investigation,whether it was an accident or not.People are charged or convicted everyday for accidents/incidents,doesn't make it right for those people to seek to evade any consequences that then follow.
The statements from the family I have heard is they want the woman to return and let the police conduct their investigation. Maybe the other statements they have made regarding wanting an apology rather than her being jailed also fit into this narrative. Either way, someone who commits an ( alleged) criminal act and then claims diplomatic immunity is just wrong . Yvonne Fletcher ...
I think you can argue this dependant on the height of the horse you are sat on.
Firstly, many people that were faced with the choice of jumping on a plane, and avoiding any repercussions of an accident they were involved in, lets say on holiday, would be glad to do so.
That's not to say that it is the correct thing to do.
I am not clear on the type of investigation the police wish to conduct.
They have CCTV footage available.
Is anyone expecting the American to put her life on hold, and travel back to the UK, and rent a property for a few months while some sort of investigation is conducted, and possibly going to court sometime later.
Lower your horse a little bit. You are in Thailand on holiday. You are involved in a road accident. They can happen to anyone. The police say give us your passport, you are not going anywhere for a few months. Your wife and kids can go but you are not. You would be over the moon.
Where would you stay? What would it cost? Your job? Your mortgage? Your house?
I don't think anyone has said this was a criminal act.
A criminal act requires intent, and the only description I have heard anyone use describing the incident, is an accident.
She has been on again this morning, mentioning twice in the same sentence that Donald Trump was holding her hand.
WOW.
I’m not on a horse, high or otherwise.
She is the wife of a “ Diplomat” As far as I’m aware they reside at the USA base.
Not any more.
Causing death by dangerous driving ( Can that be classed as “ intent”?) needs to be investigated. How long could that possibly take?
She hasn't been charged with anything.
She only left the Country because of the “ incident “ She lied when she said she had no intention of leaving.
She was living on an American airbase so no need to rent a property. Try watching 'Banged Up Abroad' you're 'banged up' until your court case eventually comes to court. As stated living on an airbase,no chance of losing her job,house etc as she is a wife not an employee. As far as I know 'Driving without due care and attention' Causing death by dangerous driving' etc are criminal acts.
Put yourself in the parents position,one day they've got a son the next he is dead.Would you be content with the suspect evading any investigation,whether it was an accident or not.People are charged or convicted everyday for accidents/incidents,doesn't make it right for those people to seek to evade any consequences that then follow.
The police are the people that investigate things.
The USA will not send her back.
His mother just wanted an apology, yet when she was offered one, she didn't.
Usually investigations involve talking to the people involved in the “ incident” Maybe she can say the motorcyclist was at fault, give her side of things, you know ... like every other joe public HAS to do. Being the wife of a diplomat shouldn’t give you immunity from escaping justice from this type of “ incident”.
No it shouldn't.
This isn't, and never has been an ideal world.
Appearing constantly on the news will not change that.
“ If this is a criminal matter it will be pursued by the police”
A high ranking police officer was interviewed on the radio asking if there’s anything they can do to make the woman come back now she’s claiming diplomatic immunity, the answer? “ No”
And?
And.... if she has committed a criminal offence the police can do precisely.... nothing
@haysie....”sick of seeing them on telly?” Surprised at your lack of compassion...
Also with Trump trying to railroad the couple to meet the guilty party-yes with CCTV footage, she is clearly guilty-so he can look like he’s above the law( again)
Where there is clear evidence of a criminal activity, at best driving without due care and attention at worst manslaughter, surely for the police to apply for extradition and both govt, political figureheads to step aside and let due process take place?
If it was my son and I had the opportunity to meet the woman in the same circumstances, trust me I would have taken it and in all likelihood I would be facing criminal charges myself....
As I have said a number of times, I feel that this was tragic, and something I could not wish on my worst enemies.
Criticising their subsequent actions has nothing to do with compassion.
As I have not seen the CCTV footage, I would not be foolish enough to comment on the accident.
“ If this is a criminal matter it will be pursued by the police”
A high ranking police officer was interviewed on the radio asking if there’s anything they can do to make the woman come back now she’s claiming diplomatic immunity, the answer? “ No”
And?
And.... if she has committed a criminal offence the police can do precisely.... nothing
You cant change the law retrospectively.
Unless it suits them ....
On 25th March 2013, the House of Lords passed a Bill to retroactively change the law to ensure the Coalition Government did not have to face up to their Court imposed responsibilities. This Bill now highlights the utter contempt our “leaders” have for the law by having it changed to suit themselves. They are basically above the law.
“ If this is a criminal matter it will be pursued by the police”
A high ranking police officer was interviewed on the radio asking if there’s anything they can do to make the woman come back now she’s claiming diplomatic immunity, the answer? “ No”
And?
And.... if she has committed a criminal offence the police can do precisely.... nothing
You cant change the law retrospectively.
Unless it suits them ....
On 25th March 2013, the House of Lords passed a Bill to retroactively change the law to ensure the Coalition Government did not have to face up to their Court imposed responsibilities. This Bill now highlights the utter contempt our “leaders” have for the law by having it changed to suit themselves. They are basically above the law.
People make mistakes. They (or their insurers) pay up. The end.
Unless you want our diplomats to be routinely attacked abroad.
Does everything nowadays just come down to money? As someone who has worked in the legal system, I would've thought that you would be more concerned with seeing a thorough investigation being conducted, with a decision then made on the findings of that investigation,rather than brushing the incident off as it was just a mistake,here you go have some money.
People make mistakes. They (or their insurers) pay up. The end.
Unless you want our diplomats to be routinely attacked abroad.
This surprises me from you Phil
The whole Diplomat thing seems to have skewed certain people’s take on this. As I previously stated, Diplomatic Immunity wasn’t meant for these instances.
Let’s say a Diplomat took umbrage with someone and attacked them, then claimed Immunity with the parting words “ Here’s some money, get over it” How does that make any sense.
People make mistakes. They (or their insurers) pay up. The end.
Unless you want our diplomats to be routinely attacked abroad.
No, but when our govt can state that as her husbands post had finished and officially didn’t have diplomatic immunity, she should face the same police investigation that any other American citizen or UK citizen would face,
She hasn’t faced a police investigation, has she? And no , I haven’t seen the CCTV footage and you are correct, I shouldn’t assume what it contains, but I can’t agree it’s just about money UNTIL the the police have had the opportunity to investigate the possibility she has committed a criminal act...am I missing something?
People make mistakes. They (or their insurers) pay up. The end.
Unless you want our diplomats to be routinely attacked abroad.
This surprises me from you Phil
The whole Diplomat thing seems to have skewed certain people’s take on this. As I previously stated, Diplomatic Immunity wasn’t meant for these instances.
Let’s say a Diplomat took umbrage with someone and attacked them, then claimed Immunity with the parting words “ Here’s some money, get over it” How does that make any sense.
Yes, it was.
The 1961 Vienna Convention provides immunity from ALL criminal prosecutions for people with diplomatic immunity. It has been one of the most important things preventing world war.
People make mistakes. They (or their insurers) pay up. The end.
Unless you want our diplomats to be routinely attacked abroad.
No, but when our govt can state that as her husbands post had finished and officially didn’t have diplomatic immunity, she should face the same police investigation that any other American citizen or UK citizen would face,
She hasn’t faced a police investigation, has she? And no , I haven’t seen the CCTV footage and you are correct, I shouldn’t assume what it contains, but I can’t agree it’s just about money UNTIL the the police have had the opportunity to investigate the possibility she has committed a criminal act...am I missing something?
Missing quite a bit.
It is not our police's job to investigate anyone with diplomatic immunity. Likewise other police forces abroad cannot interfere with our diplomats abroad or their spouses.
It is an American decision when the immunity ends. While it lasts, she cannot be charged with any criminal offence without the consent of the diplomat's country. Which is next to never given. By any country. Including us. Our only right would be to expel the diplomat.
She would have had to have appropriate motor insurance. And that will be dealt with in the normal way.
Imagine if, today, Turkey could declare it to be a hanging offence to be American. And could prosecute the US diplomatic staff. That is why the rule is there.
What point is there in meeting this woman? Let's take your example earlier. Your wife would be without a husband as well as a child.
People make mistakes. They (or their insurers) pay up. The end.
Unless you want our diplomats to be routinely attacked abroad.
This surprises me from you Phil
The whole Diplomat thing seems to have skewed certain people’s take on this. As I previously stated, Diplomatic Immunity wasn’t meant for these instances.
Let’s say a Diplomat took umbrage with someone and attacked them, then claimed Immunity with the parting words “ Here’s some money, get over it” How does that make any sense.
Yes, it was.
The 1961 Vienna Convention provides immunity from ALL criminal prosecutions for people with diplomatic immunity. It has been one of the most important things preventing world war.
They got it wrong then. To say any member of a family related to a diplomat can enjoy freedom from prosecution if they commit ANY criminal act is open to misuse.
Comments
She is the wife of a “ Diplomat”
As far as I’m aware they reside at the USA base.
Causing death by dangerous driving ( Can that be classed as “ intent”?) needs to be investigated.
She only left the Country because of the “ incident “
She lied when she said she had no intention of leaving.
Maybe she can say the motorcyclist was at fault, give her side of things, you know ... like every other joe public HAS to do.
Being the wife of a diplomat shouldn’t give you immunity from escaping justice from this type of “ incident”.
She was living on an American airbase so no need to rent a property.
Try watching 'Banged Up Abroad' you're 'banged up' until your court case eventually comes to court.
As stated living on an airbase,no chance of losing her job,house etc as she is a wife not an employee.
As far as I know 'Driving without due care and attention' Causing death by dangerous driving' etc are criminal acts.
Put yourself in the parents position,one day they've got a son the next he is dead.Would you be content with the suspect evading any investigation,whether it was an accident or not.People are charged or convicted everyday for accidents/incidents,doesn't make it right for those people to seek to evade any consequences that then follow.
The USA will not send her back.
His mother just wanted an apology, yet when she was offered one, she didn't.
This isn't, and never has been an ideal world.
Appearing constantly on the news will not change that.
Criticising their subsequent actions has nothing to do with compassion.
As I have not seen the CCTV footage, I would not be foolish enough to comment on the accident.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49592362
On 25th March 2013, the House of Lords passed a Bill to retroactively change the law to ensure the Coalition Government did not have to face up to their Court imposed responsibilities. This Bill now highlights the utter contempt our “leaders” have for the law by having it changed to suit themselves. They are basically above the law.
They (or their insurers) pay up.
The end.
Unless you want our diplomats to be routinely attacked abroad.
A+ for Stokey.
The whole Diplomat thing seems to have skewed certain people’s take on this.
As I previously stated, Diplomatic Immunity wasn’t meant for these instances.
Let’s say a Diplomat took umbrage with someone and attacked them, then claimed Immunity with the parting words “ Here’s some money, get over it” How does that make any sense.
She hasn’t faced a police investigation, has she? And no , I haven’t seen the CCTV footage and you are correct, I shouldn’t assume what it contains, but I can’t agree it’s just about money UNTIL the the police have had the opportunity to investigate the possibility she has committed a criminal act...am I missing something?
The 1961 Vienna Convention provides immunity from ALL criminal prosecutions for people with diplomatic immunity. It has been one of the most important things preventing world war.
It is not our police's job to investigate anyone with diplomatic immunity. Likewise other police forces abroad cannot interfere with our diplomats abroad or their spouses.
It is an American decision when the immunity ends. While it lasts, she cannot be charged with any criminal offence without the consent of the diplomat's country. Which is next to never given. By any country. Including us. Our only right would be to expel the diplomat.
She would have had to have appropriate motor insurance. And that will be dealt with in the normal way.
Imagine if, today, Turkey could declare it to be a hanging offence to be American. And could prosecute the US diplomatic staff. That is why the rule is there.
What point is there in meeting this woman? Let's take your example earlier. Your wife would be without a husband as well as a child.
To say any member of a family related to a diplomat can enjoy freedom from prosecution if they commit ANY criminal act is open to misuse.