US Diplomat's Wife Hit and Run in UK - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15042502
The real scandal in all this is that irrespective of the law this woman is morally obliged to answer for her crime. If she was any sort of person with any sort of honour she would return to England and sincerely demonstrate to the victim's family that she is mortified by what happened.

Her refusal to do this is cowardly and betrays a lack of sincere remorse on her part.

Diplomatic immunity and the law are all very well, but in terms of what is right and true she has very little ground to stand on.

I am amazed at how many people here are defending the American government's choice and seem quite content to let her off even though she is guilty of a hit and run that resulted in someone's death. In any other circumstance you would all be condemning the perpetrator but because she's one of yours you defend her.
#15042530
The real scandal in all this is that irrespective of the law this woman is morally obliged to answer for her crime. If she was any sort of person with any sort of honour she would return to England and sincerely demonstrate to the victim's family that she is mortified by what happened.


I wouldn't return. It has nothing to do with honor. She was probably ordered to leave by the state department.

But now what has happened is that it is a media circus and there is not a chance in hell that she would get a fair trail if there even was one.

Her refusal to do this is cowardly and betrays a lack of sincere remorse on her part.


Wrong. You don't know how she feels.

Diplomatic immunity and the law are all very well, but in terms of what is right and true she has very little ground to stand on.


What is "right" is to obey the law and do what she is told to do. You seem to not understand that she IS obeying the law. That is plenty of "ground to stand on".

I am amazed at how many people here are defending the American government's choice and seem quite content to let her off even though she is guilty of a hit and run that resulted in someone's death.


First...you don't know this. Guilt is established by a court. She may not have been at fault or the kid may bear some responsibility. We don't know at this point. I suspect she was.

In any other circumstance you would all be condemning the perpetrator but because she's one of yours you defend her.


Nonsense. I believe in the rule of law. If you have a beef I suggest you take it up with the Foreign Office or the Home Office. Whichever is responsible for this law. She did not leave under American law. She left under British law.

As for justice. What is that? Jail for leaving the scene of an accident? I am certain the family will receive a settlement. The lady may even have been insured in the UK. I know when I was in Germany I had German insurance and driving license. You may want jail time but that solves nothing. Calm down.
#15042540
There are too many contradictions in the reporting on this story.

Did she have immunity or didn't she?

It's reported as a hit and run, yet some reports say she spoke to police at the scene.

By my gut I think the former is the case, and the latter damage control, but the reporting is sketchy.

What's her husband up to anyway?

Strange story. I wouldn't doubt it she was drunk. At best she's an idiot.

In Japan there have been plenty of cases of soldiers driving off of bases, and forgetting to switch sides of the road. It might be logical to just drive on the left side of the road on US military bases in the UK, Japan, etc., so dimwits don't get so confused? Maybe that would be too logical, though.
#15042690
Atlantis wrote:So after they let her escape under the pretext of diplomatic immunity, they now say that diplomatic immunity has been revoked. But she won't have to come back to face justice anyways. I wonder how the Trump fanboys justify this degree of hypocrisy.


This has absolutely nothing to do with who's in the White House. I promise you, my position would be the same if we were suffering under a President Clinton.

The government cannot compel her to return to the UK. If she does, and if immunity has, in fact, been revoked (and I'm not finding anything which suggests that), she would certainly risk arrest and prosecution...
#15042691
Rancid wrote:This would be true had she just stayed on the scene.

Makes me wonder if she had something to hide (drunk?)


It's not murder. Continuing to call it that only proves how much you don't understand what you're talking about...
#15042695
Sivad wrote:Big steve :lol: you're all wrong i'M pretty sure you're damn- ed to hell for being how you are. That's pretty rough shit down there. I 've heard some crazy ass hell ndes and it's pretty fucked up how they're gonna do you. You're gonna be all like hey I'm big steve and they're just gonna ram some weird eyeball tentacle demon schlock slathered in rancid hell juice right into your soul bung. Your probably gonna cry and beg for it to stop. your gonna be like noooooo! Not big steve! This can't happen to big steve!


I'm not entirely sure what the point of all that verbal diarrhea is supposed to be, but I'm not wrong. It's not murder...
#15042723
BigSteve wrote:It's not murder. Continuing to call it that only proves how much you don't understand what you're talking about...


Sure it's not murder, but it's a hit and run, which is illegal. It's a bigger offense when someone is injured or killed to leave the scene.

The point here is, a law was broken, and it can be considered a serious offense since someone died. By leaving the scene, the whole thing went from an accident to a crime. This is indisputable. Do you disagree with this?

I'm sure you understand that point, but choose to dance around it by arguing about definitions of words. You're being dense.
#15042746
Rancid wrote:Sure it's not murder, but it's a hit and run, which is illegal. It's a bigger offense when someone is injured or killed to leave the scene.

The point here is, a law was broken, and it can be considered a serious offense since someone died. By leaving the scene, the whole thing went from an accident to a crime. This is indisputable. Do you disagree with this?

I'm sure you understand that point, but choose to dance around it by arguing about definitions of words. You're being dense.


Yes, I completely understand the point you're making.

What you're failing to understand is that the woman is immune from prosecution, regardless of the severity of what happened...
#15042748
Political Interest wrote:The real scandal in all this is that irrespective of the law this woman is morally obliged to answer for her crime. If she was any sort of person with any sort of honour she would return to England and sincerely demonstrate to the victim's family that she is mortified by what happened.

Her refusal to do this is cowardly and betrays a lack of sincere remorse on her part.

Diplomatic immunity and the law are all very well, but in terms of what is right and true she has very little ground to stand on.

I am amazed at how many people here are defending the American government's choice and seem quite content to let her off even though she is guilty of a hit and run that resulted in someone's death. In any other circumstance you would all be condemning the perpetrator but because she's one of yours you defend her.


If you break this precedent, you're opening the door for diplomats and perhaps even foreign politicians on trips to be arrested on any charge.

Steve understands this because he's smart.

Others obvipusly do not. He clearly said he is against all kinds of diplomatic immunity, but he understands how the whole thing works.

I wish people on this site would understand the details of what people are saying before jumping in guns blazing and saying e'ryone's going to hell, is a traitor blah blah. Usually they're self projecting..
#15042767
Everyone understands what happened. It really doesn't matter, sad to say.

The guiding principle is that of diplomatic immunity.

This is why governments in quiet and thoughtful deliberation make decisions on things like this. If we let victims set speed limits the freeways would be 25 MPH zones.

Of course the concept of diplomatic immunity could be thrown out in all cases. If it were to be the consequences would be nothing short of tragic.

It is possible to discuss whether every person in the delegation and their families are subject to immunity. If they are not they all become potential hostages. Trumped up charges are easy to fabricate.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor the Japanese ambassador and staff were interned in Virginia. They were exchanged for the US ambassador and staff in 1942. As diplomats both were entitled to special treatment at a time when the sentiment in both countries would have been to kill them.
#15042776
Drlee wrote:When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor the Japanese ambassador and staff were interned in Virginia. They were exchanged for the US ambassador and staff in 1942. As diplomats both were entitled to special treatment at a time when the sentiment in both countries would have been to kill them.


Why would waiving diplomatic immunity for someone unrelated to Pearl Harbor have been bad for the Japanese ambassador?

Recall, the country that would have to waive it, is Japan.

I don't buy that diplomatic immunity is something that would be compromised if waived occasionally for shit that has nothing to do with diplomacy. I think it's valid to believe that it should never be waived, but I do not think it would be a horrible as people claim it would be.
#15042792
Why would waiving diplomatic immunity for someone unrelated to Pearl Harbor have been bad for the Japanese ambassador?


Because without it both he and the US ambassador would have been imprisoned for at least the balance of the war. And, if there was a tint of spying by either (a common pursuit of all legations) they could have been executed.


Recall, the country that would have to waive it, is Japan.


Why would they?

I don't buy that diplomatic immunity is something that would be compromised if waived occasionally for shit that has nothing to do with diplomacy. I think it's valid to believe that it should never be waived, but I do not think it would be a horrible as people claim it would be.


I agree in part. I agree that when in place it should rarely if ever be waived. Would it be horrible? It might not be until it is. A nation would have to decide which nations to trust with its nationals.

An additional wrinkle. Please note that many diplomats are entrusted with very secret information. Turning them over for prosecution for anything might compromise them to the point that they would trade information for preferential treatment. This could be true of the husband if his wife was in custody.

This issue is far more complicated than this thread has considered.
#15042811
Her husband wasn’t on the list. She assured the police she would be available for further questioning, then buggered off back to the states. It’s not likely she would be charged with murder. More likely to be causing death by dangerous driving.
#15042816
Presvias wrote:
If you break this precedent, you're opening the door for diplomats and perhaps even foreign politicians on trips to be arrested on any charge.

Steve understands this because he's smart.

Others obvipusly do not. He clearly said he is against all kinds of diplomatic immunity, but he understands how the whole thing works.

I wish people on this site would understand the details of what people are saying before jumping in guns blazing and saying e'ryone's going to hell, is a traitor blah blah. Usually they're self projecting..


The fact is that she is guilty.

Now she must come back. If she doesn't come back then what does that say about her?
#15042818
It says volumes about her and about Trump, the global capitalist system and intl diplomacy.

We're just explaining the reality of how things are. ^ Read Dr lee's last post for a proper breakdown

Being a Russian, you would NOT want diplomatic immunity to count for zilch. What happens when a good old Russian diplomat accidentally parks his car in the wrong space and MI5 + met are looking to squeeze em' for some info?
#15042836
Presvias wrote:It says volumes about her and about Trump, the global capitalist system and intl diplomacy.

We're just explaining the reality of how things are. ^ Read Dr lee's last post for a proper breakdown

Being a Russian, you would NOT want diplomatic immunity to count for zilch. What happens when a good old Russian diplomat accidentally parks his car in the wrong space and MI5 + met are looking to squeeze em' for some info?


No, I completely understand and I appreciate it.

I'm sorry, I'm becoming emotional. Unforunately I'm too emotional in political discussions. I hope you don't take it the wrong way.

I'm not Russian myself, brother.
#15042842
Political Interest wrote:The fact is that she is guilty.


Guilty of what?

Now she must come back.


No, she doesn't.

Even if the government waived her immunity, the government cannot compel her to return to the UK...

If she doesn't come back then what does that say about her?


I'm not convinced she cares what people will think...
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Satire 2018

https://www.americanthinker.com/image[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

There’s been so much action that almost nobody not[…]

The Irishman...

lol @BigSteve started this thread and hasn't see[…]

The human psychology is adaptable. The human psyc[…]