It was obviously an accident, **** happens. The media have got hold of this as they knew it will involve Trump down the line. It shouldn’t be on the news,unless Diplomatic Immunity needs some sort of clarification. IMO, they’ve been pushed into chasing this up, which, when they they look back, they are going to regret. Folks will lose sympathy. Its over the top.
It was obviously an accident, **** happens. The media have got hold of this as they knew it will involve Trump down the line. It shouldn’t be on the news,unless Diplomatic Immunity needs some sort of clarification. IMO, they’ve been pushed into chasing this up, which, when they they look back, they are going to regret. Folks will lose sympathy. Its over the top.
“ Obviously an accident “ I’m pretty sure that hasn’t been established yet.
Would you be saying the same if ( god forbid) it was your son or daughter on the motorbike, and if someone was driving on the wrong side of the road ?
Seems folks have already lost sympathy , you shouldn’t need to grieve in silence for people to be sympathetic.
Accident was replaced by the word incident a while ago because in the main someone is always at fault.
Agree Diplomatic Immunity needs clarifying, and if it’s true any member of a diplomat’s family can escape justice for ANY criminal act they commit, then there’d be an outcry.
We tend to just shrug our shoulders and get on with our lives allowing this sort of thing to go on,sad.
Two choices, either an accident or with intent. I don’t think that needs to go to a vote. His mum asked if she got out and comforted him? Well, if you’ve ever been in a serious crash,I have, then your legs turn to jelly through shock, never mind walking about dazed as well. Not sure of the car she was driving, or the damage, but that question by the mum was a loaded one.
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.agreed, but didn’t Dominic Raab confirm she wasn’t entitled to diplomatic immunity, hence our police can now act and investigate whether a criminal act had happened, thus requiring the lady to return to be investigated
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.agreed, but IF she didn’t have DI and IF she was on the wrong side of the road as has been articulated, I’m pretty sure IF that was me I would face criminal proceedings, not just a civil action
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.
Again, agreed which was my point....The useless waste of natural resources known as Trump to try to force the issue to ‘ hijack’ and quietly resolve it....the arrogance to think his importance mattered to persuade grieving parents that he had the ability to mediate this meeting...it wasn’t a crude business deal
Two choices, either an accident or with intent. I don’t think that needs to go to a vote. His mum asked if she got out and comforted him? Well, if you’ve ever been in a serious crash,I have, then your legs turn to jelly through shock, never mind walking about dazed as well. Not sure of the car she was driving, or the damage, but that question by the mum was a loaded one.
Agreed totally....but after when she was away from the accident site and when remorse should have kicked in ..hmmmm what shall I do? Oh I’ll pack my bags and run and get away with it...by get away with it, I mean after the accident she knew she was in the wrong side of the road and had by implication killed someone.
Surely she should have stayed to enable the police to fully investigate?
Moral dilemma...If I was in the same position and I could pull out a ‘ get out of jail’ card, would I?? Honestly? Probably yes I would.. BUT then if I was told my ‘card’ was not valid, I would have to accept the consequences
Two choices, either an accident or with intent. I don’t think that needs to go to a vote. His mum asked if she got out and comforted him? Well, if you’ve ever been in a serious crash,I have, then your legs turn to jelly through shock, never mind walking about dazed as well. Not sure of the car she was driving, or the damage, but that question by the mum was a loaded one.
Agreed totally....but after when she was away from the accident site and when remorse should have kicked in ..hmmmm what shall I do? Oh I’ll pack my bags and run and get away with it...by get away with it, I mean after the accident she knew she was in the wrong side of the road and had by implication killed someone.
Surely she should have stayed to enable the police to fully investigate?
Moral dilemma...If I was in the same position and I could pull out a ‘ get out of jail’ card, would I?? Honestly? Probably yes I would.. BUT then if I was told my ‘card’ was not valid, I would have to accept the consequences
Lots of the information on this thread is just wrong.
Apparently the Mum wouldn't agree to a meeting, while holding Donald Trumps Hand, because she wanted mediators, and therapists to be present?
I once worked in Portugal for a year, and travelled home at regular intervals, which made driving on both sides of the road, fairly confusing. When driving during the day, just viewing the other cars, often kept you in line. This became more difficult at times, and places where there was little or no traffic. Many of my colleagues and I shared a number of stories regarding near misses, caused by being on the wrong side of the road, going the wrong way around roundabouts, etc. It is very easily done, and was never on purpose.
'I am terribly, terribly sorry for tragic mistake': diplomat's wife speaks for first time about fatal crash that killed Harry Dunn
The woman at the centre of the diplomatic immunity row over the death of Northampton Town fan Harry Dunn has spoken for the first time about the incident. In a statement issued by her lawyers, Anne Sacoolas says she is "terribly, terribly sorry for the tragic mistake" of driving on the wrong side of the road.
"Neither she nor Harry Dunn’s family will ever be the same because of it. She wants to meet with the family to apologise and take responsibility," the statement issued by Arnold & Porter added.
“Anne is devastated by this tragic accident. No loss compares to the death of a child and Anne extends her deepest sympathy to Harry Dunn’s family."
Harry, of Charlton, near Brackley, died in hospital earlier this year after his motorcycle collided with an oncoming car on the B4031 Park End, Croughton, on August 27. He was 19. The statement said that Mrs Sacoolas had co-operated fully with the police and the investigation, and spoke with police at the scene of the accident and at her home the following day. Her lawyers said she would continue to co-operate with the police and the investigation. "Anne would like to meet with Mr. Dunn’s parents so that she can express her deepest sympathies and apologies for this tragic accident. We have been in contact with the family’s attorneys and look forward to hearing from them," the statement added. It is understood that there is no dispute from Mrs Sacoolas as to what happened.
Those acting on behalf of Mrs Sacoolas said: "Anne was driving on the wrong side of the road and had no time to react when she saw the motorbike approaching - the crash happened too fast." In an interview with the Chronicle & Echo last week, Harry's father, Tim Dunn pleaded with Mrs Sacoolas to return to the UK and said he wanted to know if she had comforted his son as he lay fatally injured after the accident. The source confirmed that Mrs Sacoolas stayed at the scene of the accident to assist. "She spoke to Harry Dunn to tell him that she would call for help. She waved down another car. That driver pulled over and offered to assist Harry so that Anne could comfort her young children, who had been in her car and were on the scene.
"Ministry of Defence police arrived shortly after the accident but it took a long time for the ambulance to arrive. Anne did not leave the scene until the ambulance had arrived and the police told her they had everything they needed from her and she should go home," the source said.
According to the statement, Mrs Sacoolas says she did not hear again from the police after she had spoken to them at her home the day after the accident. "She and her family left the United Kingdom approximately three weeks after the accident, after they and the U.S. authorities determined that it would be difficult for the couple and their children to remain in the small Croughton community under these tragic circumstances. "She and her family returned home on a commercial flight (coach). Our understanding is that the British authorities were informed and aware of their departure before they returned to the United States,"
Two choices, either an accident or with intent. I don’t think that needs to go to a vote. His mum asked if she got out and comforted him? Well, if you’ve ever been in a serious crash,I have, then your legs turn to jelly through shock, never mind walking about dazed as well. Not sure of the car she was driving, or the damage, but that question by the mum was a loaded one.
Agreed totally....but after when she was away from the accident site and when remorse should have kicked in ..hmmmm what shall I do? Oh I’ll pack my bags and run and get away with it...by get away with it, I mean after the accident she knew she was in the wrong side of the road and had by implication killed someone.
Surely she should have stayed to enable the police to fully investigate?
Moral dilemma...If I was in the same position and I could pull out a ‘ get out of jail’ card, would I?? Honestly? Probably yes I would.. BUT then if I was told my ‘card’ was not valid, I would have to accept the consequences
Lots of the information on this thread is just wrong.
Apparently the Mum wouldn't agree to a meeting, while holding Donald Trumps Hand, because she wanted mediators, and therapists to be present?
I once worked in Portugal for a year, and travelled home at regular intervals, which made driving on both sides of the road, fairly confusing. When driving during the day, just viewing the other cars, often kept you in line. This became more difficult at times, and places where there was little or no traffic. Many of my colleagues and I shared a number of stories regarding near misses, caused by being on the wrong side of the road, going the wrong way around roundabouts, etc. It is very easily done, and was never on purpose.
'I am terribly, terribly sorry for tragic mistake': diplomat's wife speaks for first time about fatal crash that killed Harry Dunn
The woman at the centre of the diplomatic immunity row over the death of Northampton Town fan Harry Dunn has spoken for the first time about the incident. In a statement issued by her lawyers, Anne Sacoolas says she is "terribly, terribly sorry for the tragic mistake" of driving on the wrong side of the road.
"Neither she nor Harry Dunn’s family will ever be the same because of it. She wants to meet with the family to apologise and take responsibility," the statement issued by Arnold & Porter added.
“Anne is devastated by this tragic accident. No loss compares to the death of a child and Anne extends her deepest sympathy to Harry Dunn’s family."
Harry, of Charlton, near Brackley, died in hospital earlier this year after his motorcycle collided with an oncoming car on the B4031 Park End, Croughton, on August 27. He was 19. The statement said that Mrs Sacoolas had co-operated fully with the police and the investigation, and spoke with police at the scene of the accident and at her home the following day. Her lawyers said she would continue to co-operate with the police and the investigation. "Anne would like to meet with Mr. Dunn’s parents so that she can express her deepest sympathies and apologies for this tragic accident. We have been in contact with the family’s attorneys and look forward to hearing from them," the statement added. It is understood that there is no dispute from Mrs Sacoolas as to what happened.
Those acting on behalf of Mrs Sacoolas said: "Anne was driving on the wrong side of the road and had no time to react when she saw the motorbike approaching - the crash happened too fast." In an interview with the Chronicle & Echo last week, Harry's father, Tim Dunn pleaded with Mrs Sacoolas to return to the UK and said he wanted to know if she had comforted his son as he lay fatally injured after the accident. The source confirmed that Mrs Sacoolas stayed at the scene of the accident to assist. "She spoke to Harry Dunn to tell him that she would call for help. She waved down another car. That driver pulled over and offered to assist Harry so that Anne could comfort her young children, who had been in her car and were on the scene.
"Ministry of Defence police arrived shortly after the accident but it took a long time for the ambulance to arrive. Anne did not leave the scene until the ambulance had arrived and the police told her they had everything they needed from her and she should go home," the source said.
According to the statement, Mrs Sacoolas says she did not hear again from the police after she had spoken to them at her home the day after the accident. "She and her family left the United Kingdom approximately three weeks after the accident, after they and the U.S. authorities determined that it would be difficult for the couple and their children to remain in the small Croughton community under these tragic circumstances. "She and her family returned home on a commercial flight (coach). Our understanding is that the British authorities were informed and aware of their departure before they returned to the United States,"
The matter of it being an “accident” or not isn’t in dispute, you seem to be pointing out it’s easy to happen in a foreign Country ( I can’t find out how long she was in this Country driving on the correct side before her ‘mistake’)
What I find distasteful is someone with alleged Diplomatic Immunity can live in a Foreign Country, cause the death of someone, ( there could be other mitigating circumstances) and flee the Country.
If whist you were abroad you did EXACTLY the same, would you be able to flee?
Do you think it ok for Diplomats to be offered this option?
Lots of the information on this thread is just wrong.
Apparently the Mum wouldn't agree to a meeting, while holding Donald Trumps Hand, because she wanted mediators, and therapists to be present?
I once worked in Portugal for a year, and travelled home at regular intervals, which made driving on both sides of the road, fairly confusing. When driving during the day, just viewing the other cars, often kept you in line. This became more difficult at times, and places where there was little or no traffic. Many of my colleagues and I shared a number of stories regarding near misses, caused by being on the wrong side of the road, going the wrong way around roundabouts, etc. It is very easily done, and was never on purpose.
'I am terribly, terribly sorry for tragic mistake': diplomat's wife speaks for first time about fatal crash that killed Harry Dunn
The woman at the centre of the diplomatic immunity row over the death of Northampton Town fan Harry Dunn has spoken for the first time about the incident. In a statement issued by her lawyers, Anne Sacoolas says she is "terribly, terribly sorry for the tragic mistake" of driving on the wrong side of the road.
"Neither she nor Harry Dunn’s family will ever be the same because of it. She wants to meet with the family to apologise and take responsibility," the statement issued by Arnold & Porter added.
“Anne is devastated by this tragic accident. No loss compares to the death of a child and Anne extends her deepest sympathy to Harry Dunn’s family."
Harry, of Charlton, near Brackley, died in hospital earlier this year after his motorcycle collided with an oncoming car on the B4031 Park End, Croughton, on August 27. He was 19. The statement said that Mrs Sacoolas had co-operated fully with the police and the investigation, and spoke with police at the scene of the accident and at her home the following day. Her lawyers said she would continue to co-operate with the police and the investigation. "Anne would like to meet with Mr. Dunn’s parents so that she can express her deepest sympathies and apologies for this tragic accident. We have been in contact with the family’s attorneys and look forward to hearing from them," the statement added. It is understood that there is no dispute from Mrs Sacoolas as to what happened.
Those acting on behalf of Mrs Sacoolas said: "Anne was driving on the wrong side of the road and had no time to react when she saw the motorbike approaching - the crash happened too fast." In an interview with the Chronicle & Echo last week, Harry's father, Tim Dunn pleaded with Mrs Sacoolas to return to the UK and said he wanted to know if she had comforted his son as he lay fatally injured after the accident. The source confirmed that Mrs Sacoolas stayed at the scene of the accident to assist. "She spoke to Harry Dunn to tell him that she would call for help. She waved down another car. That driver pulled over and offered to assist Harry so that Anne could comfort her young children, who had been in her car and were on the scene.
"Ministry of Defence police arrived shortly after the accident but it took a long time for the ambulance to arrive. Anne did not leave the scene until the ambulance had arrived and the police told her they had everything they needed from her and she should go home," the source said.
According to the statement, Mrs Sacoolas says she did not hear again from the police after she had spoken to them at her home the day after the accident. "She and her family left the United Kingdom approximately three weeks after the accident, after they and the U.S. authorities determined that it would be difficult for the couple and their children to remain in the small Croughton community under these tragic circumstances. "She and her family returned home on a commercial flight (coach). Our understanding is that the British authorities were informed and aware of their departure before they returned to the United States,"
The matter of it being an “accident” or not isn’t in dispute, you seem to be pointing out it’s easy to happen in a foreign Country ( I can’t find out how long she was in this Country driving on the correct side before her ‘mistake’)
What I find distasteful is someone with alleged Diplomatic Immunity can live in a Foreign Country, cause the death of someone, ( there could be other mitigating circumstances) and flee the Country.
If whist you were abroad you did EXACTLY the same, would you be able to flee?
Do you think it ok for Diplomats to be offered this option?
You are presuming a lot.
I think they had been here for 3 weeks before the accident.
There is a logical explanation for the reason they left the country included in the article.
You have no grounds for stating that she fled.
In fact, if she believed she had Diplomatic Immunity, she had no reason to flee.
The fact that she waited 3 weeks before leaving, would point to the fact that she wasn't in a rush.
Whatever the pros and cons are regarding the immunity, are not her fault.
The police sent her home from the accident scene, and said they didn't need her any further, after completing their interview the following day, at her home.
The police had a further 3 weeks to change their minds, before she left the country.
My reservations are as follows.
Nobody is suggesting that this wasn't an accident.
I am not clever enough to suggest changes to the rules on Diplomatic Immunity.
It would seem crystal clear that the rules have to apply not only to Diplomats, but to their families as well. Otherwise the pressures that can be brought to bear on the Diplomats, that the rules are in place to avoid, could be exerted via their family.
What would be the point of immunity for the Diplomat, if their wife or children could be arrested, in respect of a trumped up charge.
The parents seem to be looking for as much publicity as they can get.
They agreed it was an accident, and wanted an apology.
When offered an apology yesterday they declined, due to a lack of mediators, and therapists.
They are also demanding that the apology conforms to their terms and conditions, and on UK soil.
Really?
This is absolutely ridiculous.
If the woman was prepared to give them a sincere apology, then why not accept it?
Would it be more sincere just because it is in the UK?
Therapists, and Mediators ffs?
They are contemplating a Civil Action?
Money is usually the motivating factor in these cases.
Why did they go to the USA?
I will say it once more. I believe this was a horrific, and tragic accident, but my sympathy for them is waning.
Sometimes those demanding changes in the law, don't know what the changes should be, and ignore the facts.
There was a recent case where someone got run over and killed by someone riding a pushbike. The relatives were demanding law changes to avoid a repeat.
This would have been quite logical, had the previous case not occurred around one hundred years ago.
I cant remember in my adult life an instance of a similar case, involving a Diplomat, or his family.
If there has been one, it certainly isn't a daily, weekly, monthly or even a yearly occurrence.
Fleeing? Sensationalism by the media as usual. They arrive on scenes never knowing the full facts. I thought I read somewhere that his father worked at the school the American ladies kids attended. In which case, if that’s true,would most likely make things very awkward for those concerned. Take it off the tv, along with all foreign affairs news.
Ok, fleeing may be the wrong word Leaving the Country whilst in the midst of a police investigation involving the death of someone she hit in her car . Any better?
My question remains unanswered, do you think it’s ok for Diplomats and their families to be offered the option of leaving the Country in these circumstances? That’s all I’m asking, I’m not asking for anyone to provide an alternative.
Fleeing? Sensationalism by the media as usual. They arrive on scenes never knowing the full facts. I thought I read somewhere that his father worked at the school the American ladies kids attended. In which case, if that’s true,would most likely make things very awkward for those concerned. Take it off the tv, along with all foreign affairs news.
According to the statement, Mrs Sacoolas says she did not hear again from the police after she had spoken to them at her home the day after the accident. "She and her family left the United Kingdom approximately three weeks after the accident, after they and the U.S. authorities determined that it would be difficult for the couple and their children to remain in the small Croughton community under these tragic circumstances. "She and her family returned home on a commercial flight (coach). Our understanding is that the British authorities were informed and aware of their departure before they returned to the United States,"
Ok, fleeing may be the wrong word Leaving the Country whilst in the midst of a police investigation involving the death of someone she hit in her car . Any better?
No, you are completely ignoring the facts. The police told her that she could leave the scene, after being questioned. They then told her that they were finished with her after completing an interview the following day, at her home. She left the country 3 weeks later ffs.
My question remains unanswered, do you think it’s ok for Diplomats and their families to be offered the option of leaving the Country in these circumstances? That’s all I’m asking, I’m not asking for anyone to provide an alternative.
I think it for our police to implement the law. There is no suggestion that her leaving the country broke the law.
OK, Some of my earlier views have been corrected BUT
IF she has been found to have committed an act that requires her to be prosecuted, eg driving without due care and attention at least but as previously stated
I have personal experience when a Spanish lorry driver-on the wrong side of the road-killed a distant cousin...after a length period of investigation, he returned to stand trial and was jailed for 4 years...
With a bit of googly research, personally IF PROVEN the following should apply
Vehicular manslaughter is the crime of causing the death of another individual due to the illegal driving of a vehicle and the sentence for dangerous driving can take many forms. Causes of vehicular manslaughter include:
Gross negligence Drunk driving Drug driving Reckless driving Speeding
What is the definition of involuntary manslaughter? The offence of involuntary manslaughter can be divided into four categories:
Unlawful act manslaughter – an intentional unlawful act which must be objectively dangerous and lead to death Gross negligence manslaughter – a duty of care towards the victim is breached as a result of gross negligence by the defendant, leading to the death of the victim Subjectively reckless manslaughter – a subjectively reckless act which leads to death Corporate manslaughter – a gross breach of the duty of care by a company or organisation that leads to a death
What is the average sentence for manslaughter in the UK? Depending on the severity of the offence – and if it is classified as a voluntary or involuntary act – the maximum sentence for manslaughter in the UK is life imprisonment. However, the judge may impose a lesser sentence, including:
A prison sentence – typically ranging between 2 and 10 years A suspended term of imprisonment (the sentence can be suspended for up to two years and the offender is given the chance to comply with up to 12 requirements set by the court) Community service
How is a manslaughter sentence decided in the UK? The defendant is sentenced after he or she has either pleaded guilty to the offence or been found guilty by the jury.
The following will be taken into consideration before passing a sentence for manslaughter:
The level of culpability – was the offence involuntary or voluntary manslaughter? Are there any mitigating or aggravating circumstances? Whether the defendant poses a threat to the public How best to rehabilitate the defendant and deter them from committing another crime A guilty plea – if the defendant pleads guilty the judge will reduce the sentence by up to one third depending on how early the plea was made Circumstances and history of the defendant – does the defendant have any previous criminal convictions? How old are they?
OK, Some of my earlier views have been corrected BUT
IF she has been found to have committed an act that requires her to be prosecuted, eg driving without due care and attention at least but as previously stated
I have personal experience when a Spanish lorry driver-on the wrong side of the road-killed a distant cousin...after a length period of investigation, he returned to stand trial and was jailed for 4 years...
With a bit of googly research, personally IF PROVEN the following should apply
Vehicular manslaughter is the crime of causing the death of another individual due to the illegal driving of a vehicle and the sentence for dangerous driving can take many forms. Causes of vehicular manslaughter include:
Gross negligence Drunk driving Drug driving Reckless driving Speeding
What is the definition of involuntary manslaughter? The offence of involuntary manslaughter can be divided into four categories:
Unlawful act manslaughter – an intentional unlawful act which must be objectively dangerous and lead to death Gross negligence manslaughter – a duty of care towards the victim is breached as a result of gross negligence by the defendant, leading to the death of the victim Subjectively reckless manslaughter – a subjectively reckless act which leads to death Corporate manslaughter – a gross breach of the duty of care by a company or organisation that leads to a death
What is the average sentence for manslaughter in the UK? Depending on the severity of the offence – and if it is classified as a voluntary or involuntary act – the maximum sentence for manslaughter in the UK is life imprisonment. However, the judge may impose a lesser sentence, including:
A prison sentence – typically ranging between 2 and 10 years A suspended term of imprisonment (the sentence can be suspended for up to two years and the offender is given the chance to comply with up to 12 requirements set by the court) Community service
How is a manslaughter sentence decided in the UK? The defendant is sentenced after he or she has either pleaded guilty to the offence or been found guilty by the jury.
The following will be taken into consideration before passing a sentence for manslaughter:
The level of culpability – was the offence involuntary or voluntary manslaughter? Are there any mitigating or aggravating circumstances? Whether the defendant poses a threat to the public How best to rehabilitate the defendant and deter them from committing another crime A guilty plea – if the defendant pleads guilty the judge will reduce the sentence by up to one third depending on how early the plea was made Circumstances and history of the defendant – does the defendant have any previous criminal convictions? How old are they?
This is getting really boring now.
This is what has happened.
There was an accident.
The woman involved was interviewed at the scene, and at her home the following day.
The police told her that they didn't need to see her again.
She left the country some 3 weeks later.
I think that the reason provided in the above article is logical.
It took 3 weeks for her to actually leave, on a scheduled flight.
Who would want to be an American living in a small English village, after being responsible for killing one of the young inhabitants in an accident. That is a fair point.
Even though she left three weeks later, it didn't hit the press until around a week ago.
This was some 6 weeks after the accident, where nothing further had happened.
It would seem that the police have had no further interest, since the day after the accident.
If the police were worried that she would leave the country, they could have put an alert on flights to the USA.
Many people get interviewed by the police without charges being brought.
It is difficult to see that if the police planned to bring charges, that they wouldn't have acted sooner.
This of course may have been down to the immunity.
If that is the case then that horse has bolted.
It may also have been because they didn't think an offence had been committed, or that they couldn't prove it, if one had.
Some relevant facts are not known.
The press will probably get fed up of them fairly soon.
OK, Some of my earlier views have been corrected BUT
IF she has been found to have committed an act that requires her to be prosecuted, eg driving without due care and attention at least but as previously stated
I have personal experience when a Spanish lorry driver-on the wrong side of the road-killed a distant cousin...after a length period of investigation, he returned to stand trial and was jailed for 4 years...
With a bit of googly research, personally IF PROVEN the following should apply
Vehicular manslaughter is the crime of causing the death of another individual due to the illegal driving of a vehicle and the sentence for dangerous driving can take many forms. Causes of vehicular manslaughter include:
Gross negligence Drunk driving Drug driving Reckless driving Speeding
What is the definition of involuntary manslaughter? The offence of involuntary manslaughter can be divided into four categories:
Unlawful act manslaughter – an intentional unlawful act which must be objectively dangerous and lead to death Gross negligence manslaughter – a duty of care towards the victim is breached as a result of gross negligence by the defendant, leading to the death of the victim Subjectively reckless manslaughter – a subjectively reckless act which leads to death Corporate manslaughter – a gross breach of the duty of care by a company or organisation that leads to a death
What is the average sentence for manslaughter in the UK? Depending on the severity of the offence – and if it is classified as a voluntary or involuntary act – the maximum sentence for manslaughter in the UK is life imprisonment. However, the judge may impose a lesser sentence, including:
A prison sentence – typically ranging between 2 and 10 years A suspended term of imprisonment (the sentence can be suspended for up to two years and the offender is given the chance to comply with up to 12 requirements set by the court) Community service
How is a manslaughter sentence decided in the UK? The defendant is sentenced after he or she has either pleaded guilty to the offence or been found guilty by the jury.
The following will be taken into consideration before passing a sentence for manslaughter:
The level of culpability – was the offence involuntary or voluntary manslaughter? Are there any mitigating or aggravating circumstances? Whether the defendant poses a threat to the public How best to rehabilitate the defendant and deter them from committing another crime A guilty plea – if the defendant pleads guilty the judge will reduce the sentence by up to one third depending on how early the plea was made Circumstances and history of the defendant – does the defendant have any previous criminal convictions? How old are they?
This is getting really boring now.
This is what has happened.
There was an accident.
The woman involved was interviewed at the scene, and at her home the following day.
The police told her that they didn't need to see her again.
She left the country some 3 weeks later.
I think that the reason provided in the above article is logical.
It took 3 weeks for her to actually leave, on a scheduled flight.
Who would want to be an American living in a small English village, after being responsible for killing one of the young inhabitants in an accident. That is a fair point.
Even though she left three weeks later, it didn't hit the press until around a week ago.
This was some 6 weeks after the accident, where nothing further had happened.
It would seem that the police have had no further interest, since the day after the accident.
If the police were worried that she would leave the country, they could have put an alert on flights to the USA.
Many people get interviewed by the police without charges being brought. Only if @stokefc's dad supply's an alibi... It is difficult to see that if the police planned to bring charges, that they wouldn't have acted sooner.
This of course may have been down to the immunity.
If that is the case then that horse has bolted.
It may also have been because they didn't think an offence had been committed, or that they couldn't prove it, if one had.
Some relevant facts are not known.
The press will probably get fed up of them fairly soon.
OK, Some of my earlier views have been corrected BUT
IF she has been found to have committed an act that requires her to be prosecuted, eg driving without due care and attention at least but as previously stated
I have personal experience when a Spanish lorry driver-on the wrong side of the road-killed a distant cousin...after a length period of investigation, he returned to stand trial and was jailed for 4 years...
With a bit of googly research, personally IF PROVEN the following should apply
Vehicular manslaughter is the crime of causing the death of another individual due to the illegal driving of a vehicle and the sentence for dangerous driving can take many forms. Causes of vehicular manslaughter include:
Gross negligence Drunk driving Drug driving Reckless driving Speeding
What is the definition of involuntary manslaughter? The offence of involuntary manslaughter can be divided into four categories:
Unlawful act manslaughter – an intentional unlawful act which must be objectively dangerous and lead to death Gross negligence manslaughter – a duty of care towards the victim is breached as a result of gross negligence by the defendant, leading to the death of the victim Subjectively reckless manslaughter – a subjectively reckless act which leads to death Corporate manslaughter – a gross breach of the duty of care by a company or organisation that leads to a death
What is the average sentence for manslaughter in the UK? Depending on the severity of the offence – and if it is classified as a voluntary or involuntary act – the maximum sentence for manslaughter in the UK is life imprisonment. However, the judge may impose a lesser sentence, including:
A prison sentence – typically ranging between 2 and 10 years A suspended term of imprisonment (the sentence can be suspended for up to two years and the offender is given the chance to comply with up to 12 requirements set by the court) Community service
How is a manslaughter sentence decided in the UK? The defendant is sentenced after he or she has either pleaded guilty to the offence or been found guilty by the jury.
The following will be taken into consideration before passing a sentence for manslaughter:
The level of culpability – was the offence involuntary or voluntary manslaughter? Are there any mitigating or aggravating circumstances? Whether the defendant poses a threat to the public How best to rehabilitate the defendant and deter them from committing another crime A guilty plea – if the defendant pleads guilty the judge will reduce the sentence by up to one third depending on how early the plea was made Circumstances and history of the defendant – does the defendant have any previous criminal convictions? How old are they?
This is getting really boring now.
This is what has happened.
There was an accident.
The woman involved was interviewed at the scene, and at her home the following day.
The police told her that they didn't need to see her again.
She left the country some 3 weeks later.
I think that the reason provided in the above article is logical.
It took 3 weeks for her to actually leave, on a scheduled flight.
Who would want to be an American living in a small English village, after being responsible for killing one of the young inhabitants in an accident. That is a fair point.
Even though she left three weeks later, it didn't hit the press until around a week ago.
This was some 6 weeks after the accident, where nothing further had happened.
It would seem that the police have had no further interest, since the day after the accident.
If the police were worried that she would leave the country, they could have put an alert on flights to the USA.
Many people get interviewed by the police without charges being brought. Only if @stokefc's dad supply's an alibi... It is difficult to see that if the police planned to bring charges, that they wouldn't have acted sooner.
This of course may have been down to the immunity.
If that is the case then that horse has bolted.
It may also have been because they didn't think an offence had been committed, or that they couldn't prove it, if one had.
Some relevant facts are not known.
The press will probably get fed up of them fairly soon.
And only if they are good looking, or at least used to be good looking, when they were much younger, many years ago. Or if they looked like someone else that was good looking.
Yeah, it is getting a bit boring. Some detail about the crash from the old bill might help. Presumably the lad got hit close to where the flowers are laid out. I would have presumed it happened near a bend. The road looks relatively straight to me. If so, then I’d think it quite possible they could have avoided a collision. I had a few years thrashing my bike around the roads, and found them very maneuverable. A bit more detail about the crash might be an eye opener,or does all info get withheld under this Immunity wrangling? The speed they were doing would obviously be an important factor. End of from me😴
Yeah, it is getting a bit boring. Some detail about the crash from the old bill might help. Presumably the lad got hit close to where the flowers are laid out. I would have presumed it happened near a bend. The road looks relatively straight to me. If so, then I’d think it quite possible they could have avoided a collision. I had a few years thrashing my bike around the roads, and found them very maneuverable. A bit more detail about the crash might be an eye opener,or does all info get withheld under this Immunity wrangling? The speed they were doing would obviously be an important factor. End of from me😴
She admits responsibility. In her statement she said it was close to the brow of a hill, and she was on the wrong side of the road, but had no time to avoid him on the bike.
Ok, fleeing may be the wrong word Leaving the Country whilst in the midst of a police investigation involving the death of someone she hit in her car . Any better?
My question remains unanswered, do you think it’s ok for Diplomats and their families to be offered the option of leaving the Country in these circumstances? That’s all I’m asking, I’m not asking for anyone to provide an alternative.
They have seen the Foreign Secretary, and Donald Trump. You try getting appointments with them and let me know how you get on?
Boris Johnson has been speaking to Donald Trump, on their behalf.
Yet the headline claims they have been abandoned.
If an apology will be so traumatic, that therapists, mediators, officials, etc will be required to attend, then why look for one?
Who do they think would be paying for it all?
Do they really think the US/UK trade deal has been scuppered?
I think they are mistakenly interpreting the American publics sympathy for their loss, as support for their subsequent actions.
It is likely that Brexit will keep them out of the headlines for the next couple of days, at least.
Harry Dunn's parents accuse British government of abandoning them
Mrs Charles said it was remarkable that they were invited by Donald Trump to the White House, on Tuesday evening, and yet were not offered support by their own embassy or consulate.
What sort of support?
His wife continued: “I can’t remember exactly how he explained it, but he said he was brought in to control that area. Or sector. He just used a lot of different words to skirt the issue.”
Clear as mud?
They were ushered in to the Oval Office, and confronted by Robert O’Brien, Mr Trump’s national security adviser, who immediately stated: “She will never return to the UK.”
Very predictable.
Mrs Charles, they all agreed, then commanded the situation. “She went on at him for about five minutes,” said Mr Charles. Mrs Charles explained: “He didn’t interrupt me once. That’s why we said he was gracious and welcoming. I didn’t raise my voice. I just spoke to him like I am now.”
And they put Trump in his place?
We had no idea,” continued Mrs Charles. “We speculated as a family, on the three hour train journey from New York to Washington, about how it could unfold. What about this, what about that. I think that’s why we could be so strong, because we did discuss the fact that maybe he would bring her to the White House. We thought through even the most bizarre scenarios. “We never thought we would be in that situation. But knowing his reputation, we couldn’t rule it out.”
That's called contradicting yourself.
“It was always going to be on our terms,” she said. “We said all along we are happy to meet with her, but it needs to be on UK soil, with proper professionals around to help us all. Her, her family, not just us. Everyone is going to need help to get us there. We need preparing for that, she needs preparing for that.
An army of professionals to witness an apology?
Why UK soil? A ridiculous condition?
All four agree, however, that the trip has been worthwhile. The US coverage has been intense, with the family or Mr Seiger appearing on breakfast shows, late night shows and news broadcasts in between. They will return if need be, they say, to keep pressing the issue. What has been accomplished, other than getting their mugs on the telly?
Asked if they felt that Britain’s desire to secure a trade deal with the US, post Brexit, had made the Foreign Office tread on eggshells around Washington, Mr Dunn laughed. “It’s a bit late for that now!” he said. “The president is saying that Boris wanted us to meet Anne Sacoolas in the White House. And Boris is not backing him up. I think that might have scuppered it all anyway!
Comments
The media have got hold of this as they knew it will involve Trump down the line.
It shouldn’t be on the news,unless Diplomatic Immunity needs some sort of clarification.
IMO, they’ve been pushed into chasing this up, which, when they they look back, they are going to regret.
Folks will lose sympathy.
Its over the top.
I’m pretty sure that hasn’t been established yet.
Would you be saying the same if ( god forbid) it was your son or daughter on the motorbike, and if someone was driving on the wrong side of the road ?
Seems folks have already lost sympathy , you shouldn’t need to grieve in silence for people to be sympathetic.
Accident was replaced by the word incident a while ago because in the main someone is always at fault.
Agree Diplomatic Immunity needs clarifying, and if it’s true any member of a diplomat’s family can escape justice for ANY criminal act they commit, then there’d be an outcry.
We tend to just shrug our shoulders and get on with our lives allowing this sort of thing to go on,sad.
I don’t think that needs to go to a vote.
His mum asked if she got out and comforted him?
Well, if you’ve ever been in a serious crash,I have, then your legs turn to jelly through shock, never mind walking about dazed as well.
Not sure of the car she was driving, or the damage, but that question by the mum was a loaded one.
Surely she should have stayed to enable the police to fully investigate?
Moral dilemma...If I was in the same position and I could pull out a ‘ get out of jail’ card, would I?? Honestly? Probably yes I would.. BUT then if I was told my ‘card’ was not valid, I would have to accept the consequences
Lots of the information on this thread is just wrong.
Apparently the Mum wouldn't agree to a meeting, while holding Donald Trumps Hand, because she wanted mediators, and therapists to be present?
I once worked in Portugal for a year, and travelled home at regular intervals, which made driving on both sides of the road, fairly confusing. When driving during the day, just viewing the other cars, often kept you in line. This became more difficult at times, and places where there was little or no traffic. Many of my colleagues and I shared a number of stories regarding near misses, caused by being on the wrong side of the road, going the wrong way around roundabouts, etc. It is very easily done, and was never on purpose.
'I am terribly, terribly sorry for tragic mistake': diplomat's wife speaks for first time about fatal crash that killed Harry Dunn
The woman at the centre of the diplomatic immunity row over the death of Northampton Town fan Harry Dunn has spoken for the first time about the incident.
In a statement issued by her lawyers, Anne Sacoolas says she is "terribly, terribly sorry for the tragic mistake" of driving on the wrong side of the road.
"Neither she nor Harry Dunn’s family will ever be the same because of it. She wants to meet with the family to apologise and take responsibility," the statement issued by Arnold & Porter added.
“Anne is devastated by this tragic accident. No loss compares to the death of a child and Anne extends her deepest sympathy to Harry Dunn’s family."
Harry, of Charlton, near Brackley, died in hospital earlier this year after his motorcycle collided with an oncoming car on the B4031 Park End, Croughton, on August 27. He was 19.
The statement said that Mrs Sacoolas had co-operated fully with the police and the investigation, and spoke with police at the scene of the accident and at her home the following day. Her lawyers said she would continue to co-operate with the police and the investigation.
"Anne would like to meet with Mr. Dunn’s parents so that she can express her deepest sympathies and apologies for this tragic accident. We have been in contact with the family’s attorneys and look forward to hearing from them," the statement added.
It is understood that there is no dispute from Mrs Sacoolas as to what happened.
Those acting on behalf of Mrs Sacoolas said: "Anne was driving on the wrong side of the road and had no time to react when she saw the motorbike approaching - the crash happened too fast."
In an interview with the Chronicle & Echo last week, Harry's father, Tim Dunn pleaded with Mrs Sacoolas to return to the UK and said he wanted to know if she had comforted his son as he lay fatally injured after the accident.
The source confirmed that Mrs Sacoolas stayed at the scene of the accident to assist.
"She spoke to Harry Dunn to tell him that she would call for help. She waved down another car. That driver pulled over and offered to assist Harry so that Anne could comfort her young children, who had been in her car and were on the scene.
"Ministry of Defence police arrived shortly after the accident but it took a long time for the ambulance to arrive. Anne did not leave the scene until the ambulance had arrived and the police told her they had everything they needed from her and she should go home," the source said.
According to the statement, Mrs Sacoolas says she did not hear again from the police after she had spoken to them at her home the day after the accident.
"She and her family left the United Kingdom approximately three weeks after the accident, after they and the U.S. authorities determined that it would be difficult for the couple and their children to remain in the small Croughton community under these tragic circumstances.
"She and her family returned home on a commercial flight (coach). Our understanding is that the British authorities were informed and aware of their departure before they returned to the United States,"
https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/people/i-am-terribly-terribly-sorry-for-tragic-mistake-diplomat-s-wife-speaks-for-first-time-about-fatal-crash-that-killed-harry-dunn-1-9106703
What I find distasteful is someone with alleged Diplomatic Immunity can live in a Foreign Country, cause the death of someone, ( there could be other mitigating circumstances) and flee the Country.
If whist you were abroad you did EXACTLY the same, would you be able to flee?
Do you think it ok for Diplomats to be offered this option?
Lots of the information on this thread is just wrong.
Apparently the Mum wouldn't agree to a meeting, while holding Donald Trumps Hand, because she wanted mediators, and therapists to be present?
I once worked in Portugal for a year, and travelled home at regular intervals, which made driving on both sides of the road, fairly confusing. When driving during the day, just viewing the other cars, often kept you in line. This became more difficult at times, and places where there was little or no traffic. Many of my colleagues and I shared a number of stories regarding near misses, caused by being on the wrong side of the road, going the wrong way around roundabouts, etc. It is very easily done, and was never on purpose.
'I am terribly, terribly sorry for tragic mistake': diplomat's wife speaks for first time about fatal crash that killed Harry Dunn
The woman at the centre of the diplomatic immunity row over the death of Northampton Town fan Harry Dunn has spoken for the first time about the incident.
In a statement issued by her lawyers, Anne Sacoolas says she is "terribly, terribly sorry for the tragic mistake" of driving on the wrong side of the road.
"Neither she nor Harry Dunn’s family will ever be the same because of it. She wants to meet with the family to apologise and take responsibility," the statement issued by Arnold & Porter added.
“Anne is devastated by this tragic accident. No loss compares to the death of a child and Anne extends her deepest sympathy to Harry Dunn’s family."
Harry, of Charlton, near Brackley, died in hospital earlier this year after his motorcycle collided with an oncoming car on the B4031 Park End, Croughton, on August 27. He was 19.
The statement said that Mrs Sacoolas had co-operated fully with the police and the investigation, and spoke with police at the scene of the accident and at her home the following day. Her lawyers said she would continue to co-operate with the police and the investigation.
"Anne would like to meet with Mr. Dunn’s parents so that she can express her deepest sympathies and apologies for this tragic accident. We have been in contact with the family’s attorneys and look forward to hearing from them," the statement added.
It is understood that there is no dispute from Mrs Sacoolas as to what happened.
Those acting on behalf of Mrs Sacoolas said: "Anne was driving on the wrong side of the road and had no time to react when she saw the motorbike approaching - the crash happened too fast."
In an interview with the Chronicle & Echo last week, Harry's father, Tim Dunn pleaded with Mrs Sacoolas to return to the UK and said he wanted to know if she had comforted his son as he lay fatally injured after the accident.
The source confirmed that Mrs Sacoolas stayed at the scene of the accident to assist.
"She spoke to Harry Dunn to tell him that she would call for help. She waved down another car. That driver pulled over and offered to assist Harry so that Anne could comfort her young children, who had been in her car and were on the scene.
"Ministry of Defence police arrived shortly after the accident but it took a long time for the ambulance to arrive. Anne did not leave the scene until the ambulance had arrived and the police told her they had everything they needed from her and she should go home," the source said.
According to the statement, Mrs Sacoolas says she did not hear again from the police after she had spoken to them at her home the day after the accident.
"She and her family left the United Kingdom approximately three weeks after the accident, after they and the U.S. authorities determined that it would be difficult for the couple and their children to remain in the small Croughton community under these tragic circumstances.
"She and her family returned home on a commercial flight (coach). Our understanding is that the British authorities were informed and aware of their departure before they returned to the United States,"
https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/people/i-am-terribly-terribly-sorry-for-tragic-mistake-diplomat-s-wife-speaks-for-first-time-about-fatal-crash-that-killed-harry-dunn-1-9106703
The matter of it being an “accident” or not isn’t in dispute, you seem to be pointing out it’s easy to happen in a foreign Country ( I can’t find out how long she was in this Country driving on the correct side before her ‘mistake’)
What I find distasteful is someone with alleged Diplomatic Immunity can live in a Foreign Country, cause the death of someone, ( there could be other mitigating circumstances) and flee the Country.
If whist you were abroad you did EXACTLY the same, would you be able to flee?
Do you think it ok for Diplomats to be offered this option?
You are presuming a lot.
I think they had been here for 3 weeks before the accident.
There is a logical explanation for the reason they left the country included in the article.
You have no grounds for stating that she fled.
In fact, if she believed she had Diplomatic Immunity, she had no reason to flee.
The fact that she waited 3 weeks before leaving, would point to the fact that she wasn't in a rush.
Whatever the pros and cons are regarding the immunity, are not her fault.
The police sent her home from the accident scene, and said they didn't need her any further, after completing their interview the following day, at her home.
The police had a further 3 weeks to change their minds, before she left the country.
My reservations are as follows.
Nobody is suggesting that this wasn't an accident.
I am not clever enough to suggest changes to the rules on Diplomatic Immunity.
It would seem crystal clear that the rules have to apply not only to Diplomats, but to their families as well. Otherwise the pressures that can be brought to bear on the Diplomats, that the rules are in place to avoid, could be exerted via their family.
What would be the point of immunity for the Diplomat, if their wife or children could be arrested, in respect of a trumped up charge.
The parents seem to be looking for as much publicity as they can get.
They agreed it was an accident, and wanted an apology.
When offered an apology yesterday they declined, due to a lack of mediators, and therapists.
They are also demanding that the apology conforms to their terms and conditions, and on UK soil.
Really?
This is absolutely ridiculous.
If the woman was prepared to give them a sincere apology, then why not accept it?
Would it be more sincere just because it is in the UK?
Therapists, and Mediators ffs?
They are contemplating a Civil Action?
Money is usually the motivating factor in these cases.
Why did they go to the USA?
I will say it once more. I believe this was a horrific, and tragic accident, but my sympathy for them is waning.
Sometimes those demanding changes in the law, don't know what the changes should be, and ignore the facts.
There was a recent case where someone got run over and killed by someone riding a pushbike. The relatives were demanding law changes to avoid a repeat.
This would have been quite logical, had the previous case not occurred around one hundred years ago.
I cant remember in my adult life an instance of a similar case, involving a Diplomat, or his family.
If there has been one, it certainly isn't a daily, weekly, monthly or even a yearly occurrence.
They arrive on scenes never knowing the full facts.
I thought I read somewhere that his father worked at the school the American ladies kids attended.
In which case, if that’s true,would most likely make things very awkward for those concerned.
Take it off the tv, along with all foreign affairs news.
Leaving the Country whilst in the midst of a police investigation involving the death of someone she hit in her car . Any better?
My question remains unanswered, do you think it’s ok for Diplomats and their families to be offered the option of leaving the Country in these circumstances? That’s all I’m asking, I’m not asking for anyone to provide an alternative.
"She and her family left the United Kingdom approximately three weeks after the accident, after they and the U.S. authorities determined that it would be difficult for the couple and their children to remain in the small Croughton community under these tragic circumstances.
"She and her family returned home on a commercial flight (coach). Our understanding is that the British authorities were informed and aware of their departure before they returned to the United States,"
There is no suggestion that her leaving the country broke the law.
I am also not disputing the immunity or not.
That's irrelevant now, the USA will not send her back.
The parents appear on the media at every opportunity.
What do they want?
Money?
Maybe they are contemplating a Civil Action.
An apology?
No not really they could have had one.
The culprit to return to the UK.
This wont happen, but why didn't they accept the opportunity to meet her and attempt to persuade her to do so.
What then?
IF she has been found to have committed an act that requires her to be prosecuted, eg driving without due care and attention at least but as previously stated
I have personal experience when a Spanish lorry driver-on the wrong side of the road-killed a distant cousin...after a length period of investigation, he returned to stand trial and was jailed for 4 years...
With a bit of googly research, personally IF PROVEN the following should apply
Vehicular manslaughter is the crime of causing the death of another individual due to the illegal driving of a vehicle and the sentence for dangerous driving can take many forms. Causes of vehicular manslaughter include:
Gross negligence
Drunk driving
Drug driving
Reckless driving
Speeding
What is the definition of involuntary manslaughter?
The offence of involuntary manslaughter can be divided into four categories:
Unlawful act manslaughter – an intentional unlawful act which must be objectively dangerous and lead to death
Gross negligence manslaughter – a duty of care towards the victim is breached as a result of gross negligence by the defendant, leading to the death of the victim
Subjectively reckless manslaughter – a subjectively reckless act which leads to death
Corporate manslaughter – a gross breach of the duty of care by a company or organisation that leads to a death
What is the average sentence for manslaughter in the UK?
Depending on the severity of the offence – and if it is classified as a voluntary or involuntary act – the maximum sentence for manslaughter in the UK is life imprisonment. However, the judge may impose a lesser sentence, including:
A prison sentence – typically ranging between 2 and 10 years
A suspended term of imprisonment (the sentence can be suspended for up to two years and the offender is given the chance to comply with up to 12 requirements set by the court)
Community service
How is a manslaughter sentence decided in the UK?
The defendant is sentenced after he or she has either pleaded guilty to the offence or been found guilty by the jury.
The following will be taken into consideration before passing a sentence for manslaughter:
The level of culpability – was the offence involuntary or voluntary manslaughter? Are there any mitigating or aggravating circumstances?
Whether the defendant poses a threat to the public
How best to rehabilitate the defendant and deter them from committing another crime
A guilty plea – if the defendant pleads guilty the judge will reduce the sentence by up to one third depending on how early the plea was made
Circumstances and history of the defendant – does the defendant have any previous criminal convictions? How old are they?
This is what has happened.
There was an accident.
The woman involved was interviewed at the scene, and at her home the following day.
The police told her that they didn't need to see her again.
She left the country some 3 weeks later.
I think that the reason provided in the above article is logical.
It took 3 weeks for her to actually leave, on a scheduled flight.
Who would want to be an American living in a small English village, after being responsible for killing one of the young inhabitants in an accident. That is a fair point.
Even though she left three weeks later, it didn't hit the press until around a week ago.
This was some 6 weeks after the accident, where nothing further had happened.
It would seem that the police have had no further interest, since the day after the accident.
If the police were worried that she would leave the country, they could have put an alert on flights to the USA.
Many people get interviewed by the police without charges being brought.
It is difficult to see that if the police planned to bring charges, that they wouldn't have acted sooner.
This of course may have been down to the immunity.
If that is the case then that horse has bolted.
It may also have been because they didn't think an offence had been committed, or that they couldn't prove it, if one had.
Some relevant facts are not known.
The press will probably get fed up of them fairly soon.
Or if they looked like someone else that was good looking.
Some detail about the crash from the old bill might help.
Presumably the lad got hit close to where the flowers are laid out.
I would have presumed it happened near a bend.
The road looks relatively straight to me.
If so, then I’d think it quite possible they could have avoided a collision.
I had a few years thrashing my bike around the roads, and found them very maneuverable.
A bit more detail about the crash might be an eye opener,or does all info get withheld under this Immunity wrangling?
The speed they were doing would obviously be an important factor.
End of from me😴
In her statement she said it was close to the brow of a hill, and she was on the wrong side of the road, but had no time to avoid him on the bike.
Boris Johnson has been speaking to Donald Trump, on their behalf.
Yet the headline claims they have been abandoned.
If an apology will be so traumatic, that therapists, mediators, officials, etc will be required to attend, then why look for one?
Who do they think would be paying for it all?
Do they really think the US/UK trade deal has been scuppered?
I think they are mistakenly interpreting the American publics sympathy for their loss, as support for their subsequent actions.
It is likely that Brexit will keep them out of the headlines for the next couple of days, at least.
Harry Dunn's parents accuse British government of abandoning them
Mrs Charles said it was remarkable that they were invited by Donald Trump to the White House, on Tuesday evening, and yet were not offered support by their own embassy or consulate.
What sort of support?
His wife continued: “I can’t remember exactly how he explained it, but he said he was brought in to control that area. Or sector. He just used a lot of different words to skirt the issue.”
Clear as mud?
They were ushered in to the Oval Office, and confronted by Robert O’Brien, Mr Trump’s national security adviser, who immediately stated: “She will never return to the UK.”
Very predictable.
Mrs Charles, they all agreed, then commanded the situation.
“She went on at him for about five minutes,” said Mr Charles.
Mrs Charles explained: “He didn’t interrupt me once. That’s why we said he was gracious and welcoming. I didn’t raise my voice. I just spoke to him like I am now.”
And they put Trump in his place?
We had no idea,” continued Mrs Charles. “We speculated as a family, on the three hour train journey from New York to Washington, about how it could unfold. What about this, what about that. I think that’s why we could be so strong, because we did discuss the fact that maybe he would bring her to the White House. We thought through even the most bizarre scenarios.
“We never thought we would be in that situation. But knowing his reputation, we couldn’t rule it out.”
That's called contradicting yourself.
“It was always going to be on our terms,” she said.
“We said all along we are happy to meet with her, but it needs to be on UK soil, with proper professionals around to help us all. Her, her family, not just us. Everyone is going to need help to get us there. We need preparing for that, she needs preparing for that.
An army of professionals to witness an apology?
Why UK soil?
A ridiculous condition?
All four agree, however, that the trip has been worthwhile. The US coverage has been intense, with the family or Mr Seiger appearing on breakfast shows, late night shows and news broadcasts in between. They will return if need be, they say, to keep pressing the issue.
What has been accomplished, other than getting their mugs on the telly?
Asked if they felt that Britain’s desire to secure a trade deal with the US, post Brexit, had made the Foreign Office tread on eggshells around Washington, Mr Dunn laughed.
“It’s a bit late for that now!” he said. “The president is saying that Boris wanted us to meet Anne Sacoolas in the White House. And Boris is not backing him up. I think that might have scuppered it all anyway!
They are obviously very influential?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/harry-dunns-parents-accuse-british-government-of-abandoning-them/ar-AAIWk2t?ocid=spartandhp