Diplomatic Immunity--An Unemotional Primer and Contextual Reminder

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
She also got done in the U.S a couple of years ago for their equivalent of ' driving without due care and attention '.

This TBH can cover a wide variety of motoring sins.

All this heat and light could have been avoided, if she hadn't been advised to leave the country during the ongoing investigation.....wrong move.

It also calls into question what advice the US Embassy in UK routinely gives its own staff about actions on when facing police investigation.
 

LJONESY

On ROPS
On ROPs
In Germany, I've slipped into default mode and done the same. As many people have said though, if she'd had an accident and coughed to it, people wouldn't be so incensed. It isn't a: "We hate America" thing. It's the fact that she left the country under immunity to avoid the consequences.

As I've stated before, she actually may've had no choice in the matter; she might've been recalled by her employers not wanting her to get bogged down in a trial and red tape etc., regardless of her actual feelings about it.
I think she was trying to do the right thing, but that choice was made for her for reasons that deal with National security. Your way of doing business makes many over here a bit leery.
 

LJONESY

On ROPS
On ROPs
She also got done in the U.S a couple of years ago for their equivalent of ' driving without due care and attention '.

This TBH can cover a wide variety of motoring sins.

All this heat and light could have been avoided, if she hadn't been advised to leave the country during the ongoing investigation.....wrong move.
Yes but the heart of the issue is why, was she shuffled out instead of some behind the scenes diplomacy being worked out? I am not giving her a free pass, but somebody was not willing to take the chance of her being prosecuted by the UK.
 

BlackDyke

Old-Salt
Poor old Jonesy. You lashed out at some of the main things that the Brits take to heart. We love to champion the underdog, and you don't get much more underdog than dead. It is irrelevant how he was driving as if she wasn't on the wrong side of the road (apparently) he would not have been killed.
He, sadly, can no longer defend himself, so unsubstantiated criticism is unthinkable of to a native Brit.
She however is quite capable of defending herself. If she hadn't absconded, despite saying she wouldn't.
The whole episode appears to us as "bad form."
Trying to defend anything here is really flogging a dead horse.
This is why you've outraged a large section of Arrse. Take it on the chin and move on. It'll blow over in a while.
People keep on saying that she absconded.
How do you know this?
Do you not think there might be other reasons for her rapid disappearance?
 

WALT

War Hero
People keep on saying that she absconded.
How do you know this?
Do you not think there might be other reasons for her rapid disappearance?
"leave hurriedly and secretly, typically to escape from custody or avoid arrest."

Whether it was her choice or she was ordered is irrelevant. Anyway, as stated above, I'm out due to JJH's request.
 
Yes but the heart of the issue is why, was she shuffled out instead of some behind the scenes diplomacy being worked out? I am not giving her a free pass, but somebody was not willing to take the chance of her being prosecuted by the UK.
Please take these type posts back to the other thread.
 
"leave hurriedly and secretly, typically to escape from custody or avoid arrest."

Whether it was her choice or she was ordered is irrelevant. Anyway, as stated above, I'm out due to JJH's request.
Thank you.
 
If the point of the disappearing act was to avoid drawing attention to RAF Croughton's role in the GCHQ/NSA domestic monitoring information exchange program, it seems to have backfired spectacularly.
 

BlackDyke

Old-Salt
"leave hurriedly and secretly, typically to escape from custody or avoid arrest."

Whether it was her choice or she was ordered is irrelevant. Anyway, as stated above, I'm out due to JJH's request.
I disagree, 'absconding' is a personal singular decision and action.
Being ordered to 'abscond' doesn't work for me either.
She was ordered back Stateside probably by her CoC.
That doesn't constitute 'absconding' in my lexicon or syntax.

Apologies to @jumpinjarhead if I have gone outside the remit of his thread.
 
Irrespective of the DI, the Politics and the espionage aspects of this case, as a respected UK journalist has remarked today, the US lady is the mother of three children. In years to come, how can she look them in the eye and teach them right from wrong when she has this gorilla sized monkey on her back?
I totally understand she was probably severely traumatised herself by this event and may have allowed others to influence her return Stateside, but I would like to think she is a decent person and on reflection may wish to return to the UK and face (fair) justice in the near future.
 
Irrespective of the DI, the Politics and the espionage aspects of this case, as a respected UK journalist has remarked today, the US lady is the mother of three children. In years to come, how can she look them in the eye and teach them right from wrong when she has this gorilla sized monkey on her back?
I totally understand she was probably severely traumatised herself by this event and may have allowed others to influence her return Stateside, but I would like to think she is a decent person and on reflection may wish to return to the UK and face (fair) justice in the near future.
I'm not convinced that fairness would factor into any investigation and trial after seeing the levels of anti-American rhetoric from some (nominally) adult members of Arrse in some of the threads on this site.

DI was probably a prudent, if not terribly popular, decision.
 
I am not biased toward the broad, she screwed up. But 400 yards is not the same thing as driving down the road drunk for 5 miles, and failing to maintain her lane. She was driving straight up American after being in country for three weeks. I would not trust myself to drive on your roads, so I would find alternate transportation. Because when you are tired you revert to years of experience and muscle memory. We have foreigners here that drive on the wrong side of the road from time to time, or screw up 4 way stops.
You should've seen how many times I've been on the wrong side of the road here during my first month or two - during the middle of the night on roads which didn't have any traffic - and you revert to your own practices.

It was easy to follow the right directions and everything else when you were following people and roads had barriers.

But pulling out of a gas station at midnight onto a small road, I used to revert to my American driving mentality.

Thank hell I lived in London after that initial period, just used public transport.
 
Given the morphing of the recent thread originally regarding the diplomatic immunity issue involved in a fatal car-motorcycle crash to somewhat of a general bash America fest (where the usual sweeping and shouty generalizations are made and repeated about how "bad" America and all 300+ million Americans are and even expanding for example to take an ad hominem swipe--by a Mod no less-- at an American ARRSE poster saying he wants kids to die rather than give up his guns etc. etc.), I thought it might be helpful to post in an unemotional way the basics on the law regarding diplomatic immunity.

Perhaps, though I will not hold my breath, it can assist some ARRSERs who take the time from frothing and keyboard mashing to actually see what the laws on the subject actually are---regardless how any of us may "feel" about them.

Also, for the record and to hopefully avoid any crayoning here about the other thread, I unreservedly condemn the actions of the American woman and think she should be returned to the UK to allow the justice system to run its course.

Here is a primer by the UK Crown Prosecution Service for your edification:


Also here is an older article (excuse the DM offering but perhaps the photo of the Russian girl will soothe ruffled feathers at the source and I of course welcome anyone who can find a better source for the events described or that refutes the facts asserted in the article) about a British diplomat having a car accident involving a russian pedestrian where diplomatic immunity was apparently asserted.

And here is a thread in ARRSE about it. Even discounting for the fact KGB_Resident posted it and its relative brevity, it is telling (and may I say, "ironic"), especially in the context of the recent hyperbolic thread about the American woman and diplomatic immunity, that no ARRSER appears to post outrage that the UK apparently did not waive diplomatic immunity of its man in Moscow.



@jumpinjarhead

Mate - both being a citizen of both countries and having been here a few years, I can emphatically tell you that most Brits have a very very positive opinion of the U.S. in general.

Every country has their faults and complications but the U.S. certainly does better than a lot of the others.
 
My point was quite simply that the American was getting all the blame, without all the details from the crash being made public.
A situation entirely brought about by the car driver misleading the police and then exploiting DI to flee the country.
Otherwise the whole affair would have been just another police investigation into just another fatal RTA.
 

Oyibo

LE
My dear fellow, I just read a post from an obviously learned ARRSER on another current thread making a direct and coequal comparison to the US and Russian legal systems. Would not the same apply to the UK in this context? Somewhat tangentially I would also add that the "vigilante" tone and language of some of the posts in the other thread could even cause one who didn't know better, to wonder if there is that much difference between the UK and some "lesser" nation in terms the way justice is or should be carried out. What am I to believe? (Tongue firmly in cheek).

Further, I was not making a direct comparison regarding the UK and Russia. Indeed, the title, thrust and first primary link of this thread have to do with the doctrine of diplomatic immunity, not the moral/legal relativity between nation states.

The reference to the Russian case was secondary and only to make the point of perspective.

As to your last and appreciated conciliatory comments, I think the number and apparent venomous content and tone of posts of "many" other ARRSERs give me pause in accepting your characterization.

I must say, having been away for a while, the difference is stark to me from my previous experience where jibes about America/Americans were frequent but in apparent good fun and the occasional substantive criticism was usually well-intended and appropriately constrained in terms of generalizing and nastiness.

Upon my return, however, the difference is the viciousness in tone and sweeping over-generalizations of the America/American slagging as well as the context of many of these posts that is clearly not to engender or further rational discussion but to "score points" or inflict damage in the nature of snarky ad hominems and inflammatory accusations.
Your points about extraditions are well noted JJH. The reason I raised equivalence is because removing someone to another country for 'justice' - whether real justice or a sham must surely be a consideration. The ECtHR ruled (Soering v United Kingdom) that extradition could only take place if the US did not apply the death penalty. This is an issue that has been used by others against extradition to the US (one of them an Australian who caused British and American deaths).

As to the tone of posts on these fora, I agree: In days gone by one could expect a sound slagging off for just about anything, but it was not personalised for the most part. But a new generation has arrived with a new MO. I think it is something that has generally taken hold on the internet and not just on ARRSE - there can be far more vitriolic comments on The Times of London, and some commenters have been hounded off the comments sections.

I take the line that anyone prepared to debate sensibly (even if I am in violent disagreement with them) is worth engaging in debate. The rest I don't.
 

Joshua Slocum

LE
Book Reviewer
Irrespective of the DI, the Politics and the espionage aspects of this case, as a respected UK journalist has remarked today, the US lady is the mother of three children. In years to come, how can she look them in the eye and teach them right from wrong when she has this gorilla sized monkey on her back?
I totally understand she was probably severely traumatised herself by this event and may have allowed others to influence her return Stateside, but I would like to think she is a decent person and on reflection may wish to return to the UK and face (fair) justice in the near future.
one of the children was in the car with her !
 
My point was quite simply that the American was getting all the blame, without all the details from the crash being made public. That the biker might have also played a role in his own demise, and that in many the hard part can be determining who was the most at fault.

But if you don't believe in natural bias, I am sorry. Everybody is guilty of it and that is a fact one has to take into consideration when dealing with things foreign.
If you don't want all the blame, don't run off instead of facing the music.

It kinda makes you look guilty.
 

Latest Threads

Top