Trump branded "oafish and selfish" by grieving mother in diplomatic immunity case.



Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
34,595
so you think some of those posting hateful shyte on the internet aren't affiliated with far right politics or groups, that its beyond the bounds of possibility, that's what you are saying?.My point was the poster in question certainly is a far right gormless goon .
Maybe he is but what his politics got to do with the OP? This thread is about a specific incident outside of politics.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,692
Twitter
No
It is a strange thing to ask of grieving parents. 'What monetary value do you place on your son's life?'

Funnily enough it is closer to Brehon law around recompense and restitution than it is to the Anglo-Saxon/Norman form of law. I know there are compensation principles in the latter form of law but it was much more codified I understand in Brehon law.

The 'blood price' for a lost son would be pretty high in either system I think. But it really wasn't decent to misunderstand the parent's needs and grief in that mercenary way to their faces so soon after the death of their boy.

It might be a cultural thing, I recognise. Americans can be very blunt around deal-making as it is part of the weft and weave to their culture and I've seen plenty of that in my working life. There are times when it can look a bit oafish and it certainly does in this case.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
11,673
It would be sad if this was partly about getting the insurance money.
Whats the story if there is no court case, is no blame officially assigned?
A silly point to make and quite baseless, and, frankly a downright nasty and pointless piece of speculation.
Any insurance claim would be made against her insurers, and any legal action needed would be pursued through the civil courts, where the balance of probabilities is the measure used. And we already can easily guess which way the balance tips in this case.
 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
13,294
The State Department is fairly brazen here:

The US Department of State said the CPS statement was “disappointing and will not bring a resolution closer”. It reiterated that it believed Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity. A department spokesman said: “The use of an extradition treaty to attempt to return the spouse of a former diplomat by force would establish an extraordinarily troubling precedent.”

Sacoolas had been in the UK for only three weeks when the crash occurred. She has been interviewed by British police in the US.

If the shoe were on the other foot, there’s no doubt Trump would be shouting for extradition.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,692
Twitter
No
One wonders what the US legal system finds proportionate as a sanction for killing a 19 year old. As opposed to a 16 year old or 20 year old.
 

pippakin

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
9,615
Diplomatic Immunity has been abused by many countries almost since the day it was introduced.

The silly woman was driving on the wrong side of the road and should be prosecuted but she wont be. The UK is friendly with America but everyone can see how fake allegations could be created if DI were abandoned. Its easy to say DI should never have been introduced I think it should be more strictly enforced and in this particular case the woman should be charged under American law since it is illegal in both countries to drive dangerously.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
3,929
It would be interesting to find out the equivalent statistics in Ireland for prosecutions relating to driving on the wrong side of the road.
I'm referring to elderly people with poor eyesight driving at night, or wandering onto motorways. Also French and German tourists.
How many fatalities were there, and how many of the culprit drivers were actually jailed?
Sometimes an accident is just an accident.
IMO stricter licencing systems are needed. I can fly over to the Continent and hire a car at the airport, and they have no idea how well I will cope with driving on their side of the road. Everyone just hopes for the best.

 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,692
Twitter
No
'In court papers, the former Foreign Office minister Tony Baldry said the diplomatic immunity deal reached in 1995 was intended specifically to exclude dangerous driving cases, or indeed any actions not related to the work of the staff at the base.

The interpretation of the agreement lies at the heart of the dispute about whether Sacoolas was able to leave the country and avoid prosecution. It is the first time the minister who signed it has set out his views on what he believes the then government meant.

He adds that this limited immunity only applied to the staff at the base and no broader immunity was ever meant to be given to the staff’s family or dependants. This would mean that Sacoolas, whose husband Jonathan worked at RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire, should never have been allowed to leave the country or escape prosecution by police.'

 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
11,673
'In court papers, the former Foreign Office minister Tony Baldry said the diplomatic immunity deal reached in 1995 was intended specifically to exclude dangerous driving cases, or indeed any actions not related to the work of the staff at the base.

The interpretation of the agreement lies at the heart of the dispute about whether Sacoolas was able to leave the country and avoid prosecution. It is the first time the minister who signed it has set out his views on what he believes the then government meant.

He adds that this limited immunity only applied to the staff at the base and no broader immunity was ever meant to be given to the staff’s family or dependants. This would mean that Sacoolas, whose husband Jonathan worked at RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire, should never have been allowed to leave the country or escape prosecution by police.'

It's academic now. The Americans are not going to extradite her. Still, she'll never be able to safely take a holiday in Europe again, and worse, she will be a prisoner of her own conscience for the rest of her days.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,692
Twitter
No
She'll be nervous alright because at any time she could also become a negotiation chip between the US and UK. Behind the scenes, of course. She's as much a prisoner in the US where she is effectively on remand for the rest of her natural. Quite likely to be down in UK databases as a person of interest so she won't be able to go anywhere outside of US jurisdiction without the fear of being asked to step to one side in an airport somewhere where someone has spotted she has a flag in her identity.

She's basically tagged, the US military have lost her spouse as an NSA agent as well and his career is well screwed.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom