Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When there's a controversy, when the FCO walks back its original statements of she had immunity, when a DPP, or whoever sees mileage in doing something. You bet they're going to try. Because at the end of the day its just words on paper, both the agreement between the UK and US, and the charges levelled. There is literally nothing to stop charges being made, if there is, what stops them?
The issue is, in truth, no one gives a crap about Harry Dunn, they just want it to go away, and if they can do so by trying a fools errand, they'll do it. Do you honestly believe that given the current climate that Tom Baldry is going to say, "Well you know, she had DI because we screwed the pooch. Sorry and all, we're fixing it"? Not just no, but hell no.
In honesty I think that his parents are just seeing $$$ signs too, having been advised by their lawyers who will take home large portions of any settlement or lawsuit.
The rest is just a pantomime to quiet the mob.
my god what are you all about , were talking about the life of a young man who did nothing wrong.. and his heartbroken parents.. what is wrong with you.
Hill hasn't stated this publicly. The CPS statement issued after the meeting with the family on 09Sep2020 doesn't mention immunity.
There is only a claim by the family's spokesman that Hill said this. I'll wait for a direct public statement from Hill to believe it.
Hill is head of the CPS and was involved in the charging of Anne Sacoolas in the first place, with the CPS stating that the dependents of Consular Staff outside of London do not have immunity.
As previously posted earlier in the thread, this is in the legal situation regarding DI, and the agreement according to those who have seen it, such as former Foreign Office Minister and Barrister Tony Baldry, who stated it merely relates to staff in their roles on the base and not dependents, and this what has been submitted to the High Court as evidence in relation to the Judicial Review in November.
Last edited by Brave New World; 09-15-2020 at 03:27 AM..
And thats one thing that I don't think people in the UK are getting. It doesn't matter if she had DI, it doesn't matter if the UK Gov were wrong in saying she did. What matters is whether the US believes that the 1995 agreement confers DI to dependents of staff at Croughton (not all staff just those designated as diplomats), and whether the actions of the UK appear to be underhanded.
Given that both the UK and US agreed new regs for Croughton, it clearly seems the UK found a hole, and that would lead people to think DI for staff members and dependents has changed (or why bother).
If asked, I'd advise that everyone just forget about it, and get on with their lives, cry mea culpa for the hole, and bung the Dunns a couple of million and a sorry for your loss.
I mean right now the EU is raising hell about the internal market bill in Parliament claiming the UK is failing to keep its promises. Its just not worth the hassle, and you know, if there wasn't a hole, that gives you some currency in trade negotiations with the US too.
The DPP and CPS have stated that Anne Sacoolas was not afforded DI under the agreement as it stood, and the agreement has been further clarified so it is crystal clear to the American State Department.
The CPS, an independent prosecution body rely on the law and would not have prosecuted if they believed DI applied, as this would be breaking the Vienna Convention.
Those involved in the actual signing of the agreement have stated it only applies to roles on base and does not apply to off base car accidents or serious crimes, nor does it include dependents.
The US seems far more interested in finding a resolution now that planning permission for new equipment and facilities at the base has been taken out of local authority hands, and is now in the Governments hands, after the local MP Andrea Leadsom gave a impassioned speech claiming that planning permission should be halted until Anne Sacoolas faces justice.
my god what are you all about , were talking about the life of a young man who did nothing wrong.. and his heartbroken parents.. what is wrong with you.
Totally agree, we are talking about the life of a teenager, and Anne Sacoolas should have stayed and faced justice.
Hill is head of the CPS and was involved in the charging of Anne Sacoolas in the first place, with the CPS stating that the dependents of Consular Staff outside of London do not have immunity.
As previously posted earlier in the thread, this is in the legal situation regarding DI, and the agreement according to those who have seen it, such as former Foreign Office Minister and Barrister Tony Baldry, who stated it merely relates to staff in their roles on the base and not dependents, and this what has been submitted to the High Court as evidence in relation to the Judicial Review in November.
CPS is making a mistake here then. Consular staff / Diplomatic Staff, spouse / children do enjoy Diplomatic Immunity outside London.
I have seen such incidents in many countries where Police staff is trained on DI for visiting Diplomats / Family members. Especially in USA for issuing Traffic citations.
Apart from using her immunity, she should feel deep shame and embarrassment.. what she did was an accident , granted but then what she did after by running away was diabolical considering the extent of her carelessness and her uncaring attitude to this mans untimely death that could have been avoided..She should have at least come clean and took the consequences of her actions.. not that much would have happened to her in court.. she might have lost her drving licence for a time.. and given a warning..
Apart from using her immunity, she should feel deep shame and embarrassment.. what she did was an accident , granted but then what she did after by running away was diabolical considering the extent of her carelessness and her uncaring attitude to this mans untimely death that could have been avoided..She should have at least come clean and took the consequences of her actions.. not that much would have happened to her in court.. she might have lost her drving licence for a time.. and given a warning..
Multiple assumptions made here by you that are not supported by the record.
Apart from using her immunity, she should feel deep shame and embarrassment.. what she did was an accident , granted but then what she did after by running away was diabolical considering the extent of her carelessness and her uncaring attitude to this mans untimely death that could have been avoided..She should have at least come clean and took the consequences of her actions.. not that much would have happened to her in court.. she might have lost her drving licence for a time.. and given a warning..
her government removed her, she had no choice to stay and face any consequence
her government removed her, she had no choice to stay and face any consequence
Yep. She didn't leave of her own accord. She had no choice about whether to stay or go.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
