One way special relationship? The disgusting behaviour of the US government!

a reply to: thedigirati

LOL You can get away with a lot here I can tell ya. LOL The law in the USA is interesting. I had cousins that were set up by the law and went to prison for it for a few years. Not saying they were innocent in any way because they were as rotten as they come but somehow, nothing they did was busted. So to get them off the streets or maybe because they pissed off the wrong cop, they were set up and sent up.

The law in the USA is something else and as I've been on the wrong side of it and actually left my hometown because of it, tired of sitting my weekends in the local jail, I left. Strange, haven't had any trouble since I left that place. Not that I'm doing anything different here, just haven't pissed off the right people.

And for those people that say "white privilege" LMFAO. My family and I are white. That didn't save us from jail or prison for stuff we didn't do.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Let me correct you, if she pleaded the 5th ammendment whilst under interview by police in the UK, the said 5th ammendment would mean Jack # here as the UK is not the US. Refusing to cooperate with the police here is a clear sign of guilt or considered to be, which is exactly what that would be!

a reply to: BlueJacket

You want to bring history into a conversation about MODERN issues. It's all Americans heve when it comes to trying to bash Britain. Go back to the drawing board and try harder. It's boring now and really dumb.

originally posted by: NotSoBigG
a reply to: BlueJacket

You want to bring history into a conversation about MODERN issues. It's all Americans heve when it comes to trying to bash Britain. Go back to the drawing board and try harder. It's boring now and really dumb.

Hey, hey now.... Don't paint us all with the same brush. I'm sure I could come up with lots of ways to bash you without bringing in history. How's that Islamic London working out for ya over there? Lots of things to bash modern UK for. This American doesn't have to go back into ancient or dead history. You have way to much going on right now that's great bashing material for the UK. But that's all for another thread ya know. LOL We can get into a bashing contest anytime I am sure because the climate is ripe for bashing these days. All over the place. Pick a place. LOL

Our courts are totally corrupt, so it's understandable for any country not to trust them.
It's sad for the family of the young guy, but it was an accident.
This lady should not be subjected to kangaroo courts in the UK.

By the way, OP. Trump didn't just brush it off with 'it happens'. He spoke very reasonably about the situation.

a reply to: Boadicea

She was driving on the wrong side of the road.... endangering and Killing an innocent British Citizen, It is very clear cut.

Also, the UK legal system is quite clear as in when approaching suspects...

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, something which you later rely on in court."

An interview is always taken firstly in such cases then during the interview and total sufficient information gleaned the above statement is read.
The diplomat's wife absconded illegally before the procedure could take place.

It's not rocket science...

DENY IGNORANCE

originally posted by: DreamerOracle
a reply to: Boadicea

She was driving on the wrong side of the road.... endangering and Killing an innocent British Citizen, It is very clear cut.

Very clear cut, eh? So why didn't she see the boy? Was she speeding? Was she distracted? Was she also on a cell phone? Breaking up a fight with her kids? Having car problems?

Or maybe it was something much worse. Was she driving under the influence? Smoking a joint? Taking a swig off her bottle of tequila?

Or maybe she was having an epileptic seizure? Heart attack? Diabetic coma? Septic shock?

Is it possible that the kid somehow contributed to the accident? Did he come out of nowhere? Was he racing her? Did he fall in front of her?

Clear cut? No.

It may be nothing more than an tragic accident. It may be she was negligent or reckless. It could be she was outright dangerous.

The diplomat's wife absconded illegally before the procedure could take place.

You don't know that. If the U.S. State Department is upholding her diplomatic immunity status, and the British authorities are recognizing her diplomatic immunity status, and the U.S. State Department ordered her to come home under her diplomatic status, then no, she did nothing illegal.

It's not rocket science...

DENY IGNORANCE

Indeed. Deny arrogance as well. The combination rarely turns out well for anyone.

She doesn't have diplomatic immunity...

news.sky.com...

CX.

In yer face all those who protected this bitch! Immunity was wavered once she fled the UK.

news-sky-com.cdn.ampproject.org...

Stop stop stop! She's as guilty as sin. Stop making a complete arse of yourself!

a reply to: Boadicea

originally posted by: NotSoBigG
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Let me correct you, if she pleaded the 5th ammendment whilst under interview by police in the UK, the said 5th ammendment would mean Jack # here as the UK is not the US. Refusing to cooperate with the police here is a clear sign of guilt or considered to be, which is exactly what that would be!

Wow.

You obviously have never heard of Sir Edward Coke. The guy responsible for "Right To remain silent", that started in Britain and spread around the world.

The UK's right to remain silent is older than the 5th ammendment. She can go to Britain, remain silent, and not say anything in court. That is her right to do so under British law. Furthermore there is the European Law, which recognises this right.

Islamic London? Wouldn't know, don't live there as I'm Welsh not English, but that's a whole new lesson in geography to have to teach you in the US, as the only real geography you know is which countries have oil to plunder!

Saddam Hussein ruled the middle East with an iron fist and it was stable there, even Al qaeeda darent go to Iraq, so the US took out Saddam to give them a base to start a big # off war basically over oil.

All those dead children over a sticky black liquid that America just seems to love so much that they feel they have a natural right to it the world over.

To be fair, the US created Al Qaeeda ffs! Worst thing in modern history is that.

a reply to: sybdragon

No, the right to remain silent was changed many years ago, because it was basically a loop hole for crims to stay silent and fudge up an investigation. That is why that now you cooperate to prove your innocence! Easier to prove yourself innocent than it is guilty you see. Simple that eh? Or do you need me to draw you a picture?

a reply to: Debunkology

originally posted by: NotSoBigG
No, the right to remain silent was changed many years ago, because it was basically a loop hole for crims to stay silent and fudge up an investigation. That is why that now you cooperate to prove your innocence! Easier to prove yourself innocent than it is guilty you see. Simple that eh? Or do you need me to draw you a picture?

a reply to: Debunkology

No, in the UK, and I'll say this again. "You have the right to remain silent". This is in British law and EU law.

a reply to: Boadicea

It may be nothing more than an tragic accident. It may be she was negligent or reckless. It could be she was outright dangerous.

It was a tragic accident but if she was driving on the wrong side of the road then she was driving without due care and attention which is a criminal offence , she could be charged with causing death by driving without due care and attention.

Accidents happen but there is fault in every accident , causing death by accident still has repercussions.

a reply to: Debunkology

No, in the UK, and I'll say this again. "You have the right to remain silent". This is in British law and EU law.

You do have the right to remain silent but NotSoBigG is right , remaining silent is not a defence and will be held against you.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Debunkology

No, in the UK, and I'll say this again. "You have the right to remain silent". This is in British law and EU law.

You do have the right to remain silent but NotSoBigG is right , remaining silent is not a defence and will be held against you.

I don't think you or NotSoBigG understand the whole point to right of silence or why it came about.

You have the right to remain silent, you have the right to a fair trial, the court still has to provide evidence. You will not be charged simply based on "silence" alone.

originally posted by: CX
She doesn't have diplomatic immunity...

news.sky.com...

CX.

Interesting. And somewhat confusing:

"The question remains when such immunity comes to an end, regardless of any waiver.

"We have looked at this very carefully, as I wanted to be confident in the position before conveying it to you.

"The UK government's position is that immunity, and therefore any question of waiver, is no longer relevant in Mrs Sacoolas' case, because she has returned home.

"The US have now informed us that they too consider that immunity is no longer pertinent.

"In these circumstances, Harry's case is now a matter for Northants police and the CPS to take forward.

So apparently she did have diplomatic immunity while in England, but not now. I'm not sure how that works. Perhaps that England can ask for extradition, rather than a waiver of diplomatic immunity?

originally posted by: NotSoBigG
Stop stop stop! She's as guilty as sin. Stop making a complete arse of yourself!

I never said she wasn't guilty of something. I just don't know what exactly... and neither does anyone else.

I've read plenty of British sources and the comments, and there are plenty of people commenting from the UK that even if the investigation had proceeded according to procedure, that she never would have seen jail. It is more likely that she would have been fined, perhaps/probably had her license suspended (if she indeed had one), and possibly some kind of community service. Much like would have happened here in the U.S. if someone from England had done the same here.

Interestingly enough, even the parents of the victim do not believe and do not want her to go to jail. The parents and their attorneys are flying to New York to meet with the woman and her attorneys. The article describes it as a meeting to talk and find "closure." I would assume that if the attorneys are worth their salt that they are already negotiating some kind of civil settlement to cover funeral expenses and some compensation for their loss.

a reply to: Debunkology

You have the right to remain silent, you have the right to a fair trial, the court still has to provide evidence. You will not be charged simply based on "silence" alone.

Nobody has said she would be charged because she remains silent , she would be charged in line with the evidence.
There is evidence she was driving on the wrong side of the road so if she were to return I doubt she would claim her right to silence.

The force has said CCTV of the crash in which Mr Dunn died shows a Volvo travelling on the wrong side of the road

Through her solicitor Mrs Sacoolas has said she would like to meet with Harry Dunn's family , it being reported Harry's family are currently en route to the states for that meeting.

A statement issued on behalf of Mrs Sacoolas, whose husband worked at RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire, said: "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."

It added she had "fully co-operated with the police".

"She spoke with authorities at the scene of the accident and met with the Northampton police at her home the following day. She will continue to co-operate with the investigation," the statement continued.

"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."
www.bbc.co.uk...

I have sympathy with all involved in this story , Mrs Sacoolas has found herself in a nightmare situation due to her mistake and Harry's family have lost their son because of her mistake , it's a sad situation.