1. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    18 Feb '21 11:281 edit

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  2. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    18 Feb '21 11:41

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  3. The Ghost Chamber
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    28598
    18 Feb '21 12:06
    @phil-a-dork said
    Accident.
    Not guilty.
    Was that a verdict given in a court of law?

    (Rhetorical).
  4. Joined
    13 Feb '21
    Moves
    659
    18 Feb '21 12:13
    @ghost-of-a-duke said
    Was that a verdict given in a court of law?

    (Rhetorical).
    That's what I bet at the bookies.

    Big Tony says he wants to talk to you ๐Ÿ˜ฎ
    You're in trouble ๐Ÿ˜
  5. Joined
    13 Feb '21
    Moves
    659
    18 Feb '21 12:14
    @ghost-of-a-duke said
    Was that a verdict given in a court of law?

    (Rhetorical).
    The UK blew up the story so much no jury over there would be unbiased.
  6. The Ghost Chamber
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    28598
    18 Feb '21 13:55
    @phil-a-dork said
    The UK blew up the story so much no jury over there would be unbiased.
    The point remains that if a relative of yours was run over and killed by somebody driving on the wrong side of the road you'd expect them to face a day in court.
  7. SubscriberChris Guffoggonline
    Alekhine's Gun
    ๐Ÿค” Bolton
    Joined
    10 May '07
    Moves
    158119
    18 Feb '21 14:031 edit
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Appreciate that (no really) but if somebody doesn't try to do something๐Ÿคท‍โ™‚๏ธ I've two boys (14 & 12) [edit] IF, that happened to mine... Governments playing with lives and the U.S.A. are supposed to be are closest allies. Not on that level, let's just drop bombs, shift some sand and carry on๐Ÿ˜’ King media, Orwell Twa.'.

    Can't hold the tide with a broom - more navel gazing on both sides.
  8. Joined
    13 Feb '21
    Moves
    659
    18 Feb '21 21:281 edit
    Allies?

    Y'all allowed Assange to avoid US prosecution.
    Ya two faced clowns.
    Your judges ruling was "the USA can't prevent Assange from taking his own life in US custody"

    What a lame reason ๐Ÿ™„

    So don't get mad when the USA let's Sacoolas go free.
  9. Joined
    07 Feb '09
    Moves
    151917
    18 Feb '21 23:11
    @phil-a-dork said
    Allies?

    Y'all allowed Assange to avoid US prosecution.
    Ya two faced clowns.
    Your judges ruling was "the USA can't prevent Assange from taking his own life in US custody"

    What a lame reason ๐Ÿ™„

    So don't get mad when the USA let's Sacoolas go free.
    What a lame reason !!!!

    Almost as lame as Mitch McConnell trying to explain away his not guilty verdict in the Senate.
  10. Joined
    13 Feb '21
    Moves
    659
    18 Feb '21 23:15
    @mghrn55

    You be quiet you! ๐Ÿ˜ 
  11. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    19 Feb '21 00:07
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    The decision has to whether she had diplomatic immunity regarding the criminal charges was made by the US embassy, not Mrs. Sacoolas, and they were surely aware what position she held at the base:

    "On 28 August this year, the US embassy notified us that the spouse of a member of staff at RAF Croughton had been involved in an accident. On 30 August, the US asserted that the spouse was covered by immunity, so a waiver was needed. To enable the police investigation to follow its proper course, on 5 September the Foreign and Commonwealth Office formally requested the US embassy to waive immunity. Given the seriousness of the incident, our view was—and remains—that justice needs to be done.

    If the suspect’s immunity had been waived, Northamptonshire police would then have been able to compel her to co-operate fully with their investigation. However, on 13 September the FCO was informed by the US embassy that it would not waive immunity ....."

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-10-21/debates/0147E5F7-092E-4D39-97BD-CAE48237D635/HarryDunn

    The idea that Mrs. Sacoolas engaged in some sort of deception to increase her chances of being granted immunity is unsupported by the facts.
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    19 Feb '21 02:03

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  13. Joined
    13 Feb '21
    Moves
    659
    19 Feb '21 02:251 edit
    I was in DC during the middle East war and a diplomats son ran over a dude and he was allowed to go home to the middle East and not face prosecution.

    2004 or 2005

    It happens.

    I can't find a link because the current case is all that comes up.
  14. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    19 Feb '21 05:051 edit
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Disinterested party or not, it is the US embassy which makes such decisions under international law. Not Mrs. Sacoolas. Your backpedaling doesn't change what you wrote:

    Duchy: "It was easier for Anne Sacoolas to claim diplomatic immunity by pretending to be only a hapless housewife than by admitting that she was working for US intelligence."

    Such a claim exhibits confusion over the actual facts of the case and applicable legal procedure involved.
  15. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    19 Feb '21 06:31

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree