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

a reply to: alldaylong

so you really need me to point out all the evils of histories greatest monarchy?

my point is, Im sick and tired of people pointing their fingers at the USA.

Most would not have freedom without this country. Just because BIS bankers took over 100 years ago, like every other Western country, doesnt make the USA the worlds villain.

a reply to: BlueJacket

I suppose one of those " evils " was the British involvement in creating The U.S.

Correct ?

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: BlueJacket

I suppose one of those " evils " was the British involvement in creating The U.S.

Correct ?

You mean their attempt to prevent it? Yes. That was indeed evil. But it's water under the bridge.

a reply to: alldaylong

no, the US was created by people leaving tyrany of Brittain behind.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: alldaylong

no, the US was created by people leaving tyrany of Brittain behind.

No it wasn't.

It was created by businessmen who wanted to make money.

Ever heard of The Virginia Company, The East India Company etc. ?

Go learn some history.

Please, enough with the bitching, guys. No point beating each other up.
An accident happened and then diplomats immunity got invoked (rightly or wrongly).
Anne Sacoolas should not return, I mean what do they want to do anyway? breath-test her now 6 weeks later?
It is tragic, most parents would shout and scream a bit, and then accept it and move on.
I've got a bad feeling that these parents are simply being vindictive, wanting a head to roll, and making a huge fuss to get compensation and plenty of it.
The motorcyclist kid is probably worth more to them dead than alive. Sad but likely true.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: alldaylong

no, the US was created by people leaving tyrany of Brittain behind.

No it wasn't.

It was created by businessmen who wanted to make money.

Ever heard of The Virginia Company, The East India Company etc. ?

Go learn some history.

It was created because you were happy to take money from people without giving them a say.

a reply to: alldaylong

so, all disagreements revolving around my sub standard knowledge of history aside...Brittain, by force of might and greed exported more hate, pain and destruction than silly ol USA right? I mean since an English East India company founded us...I guess England is guilty of everythin the US ever did.

Im really appreciative of you pointing me in the right direction.

a reply to: BlueJacket

.I guess England is guilty of everythin the US ever did

Err no.

After you became independent from Britain, all U.S. evil was down to yourselves.

You wanted to be independent, and with that comes responsibility. Within 90 years of independence, you where killing each other in your civil war.

And then of course their is your infamous " Train Of Tears ". I bet you know about that don't you ?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: NotSoBigG

I'm not especially impressed with how this has been and is being handled... but having said that, what exactly do you think she's guilty of? And how do you think this should have played out? How do you think it would have played out if she hadn't fled?

Do you think she committed first degree murder? In other words, do you think this was a deliberate and pre-meditated crime? Second degree? Reckless manslaughter? Negligent manslaughter? Do you think she was drunk or otherwise under the influence of mind altering substances? What is the crime that she committed?

From everything I've seen, it was an accident. A tragic and horrible accident, and I can't imagine the pain of the parents. But neither do I want anyone thrown in jail for an accident. Do you? What purpose would that serve?

Wouldn't it be more practical and just if she were appropriately fined? And a settlement to the family for the wrongful death she caused?

The point being she has used diplomatic immunity to avoid any proper investigation or potential trial.

If a genuine accident fair enough, if she has been driving in dangerous manner then then she be tried just as anyone else would be.

a reply to: alldaylong

I think we are going a little too far on a tangent. Lol trail of tears...and here I love Andrew Jackson for winning in New Orleans AND fighting against central banking.

We are way off topic, have a good day my friend

originally posted by: Moley
Please, enough with the bitching, guys. No point beating each other up.
An accident happened and then diplomats immunity got invoked (rightly or wrongly).
Anne Sacoolas should not return, I mean what do they want to do anyway? breath-test her now 6 weeks later?
It is tragic, most parents would shout and scream a bit, and then accept it and move on.
I've got a bad feeling that these parents are simply being vindictive, wanting a head to roll, and making a huge fuss to get compensation and plenty of it.
The motorcyclist kid is probably worth more to them dead than alive. Sad but likely true.

How about she is investigated and faces a trial if appropriate rather than using diplomatic immunity to run away?

You comments about the kids parents say a lost more about you than them.

We should boot every US diplomat out.

originally posted by: contextual
We should boot every US diplomat out.

If it had been a less 'important' country their would probably have been some diplomatic consequences.

As its the US a polite expression disappointment is probably as far as it will go.

originally posted by: NotSoBigG
OK, this is my first thread and I just have to get this off my chest! Anne Sacoolas is the wife of a US diplomat who was based in the UK. She killed a 19 year old Harry Dunn after driving on the opposite side of the road smashing into his bike and rendering him dead. All completely her fault! She was interviewed by UK police and PROMISED not to leave the country during the investigation.
Guess what? Just like the filthy coward that she is, she absconded back to the US after promising that she wouldn't and is now hiding behind diplomatic immunity. Trump has said that she will not be returned and is basically tossing the situation away and claiming "it happens"!

you like many others, not just here but on just about every news commenting on this subject, are forgetting, or possibly just don't know, the most important thing in this.

you call her a coward, and freak out that she gave her word that she would not leave. and then left going against her word. but here is the reality of the situation. she had no choice in the matter. she actually did not run away from it. she was ordered by the state department to leave. you see the thing is someone with diplomatic immunity has no choice in the matter, they can not voluntarily give it up. they must obey the state department, and do as they tell them to. and while the state department could rescind the immunity, just as every country could do, it almost never happens even for the most serious crimes, not just traffic accidents. she did not in fact go against her word, since she had no control over if she left or not. and there are valid reasons as to why it is not up to the person, but instead up to the government to decide on what to do.

Now, let is say the same thing occurred on US soil involving the family of a British diplomat. The US would scream holy # if the said person came back to the UK and never returned, diplomatic immunity or not! This is rank hypocrisy, and a brilliant example of how the US thinks its above laws in other countries, but expect their laws to be followed complicity.

fact is this happens on US soil all the time. and not just for vehicle accidents, but for actual serious crimes as well. here are some examples of where diplomatic immunity was used for crimes committed in the US. child abuse. slavery (where the victims were in fact treated as a slave within the United States). pretty much any driving offense. including things such as drunk driving. as well as killing US citizens within the US in auto accidents. just like in this case being discussed. in fact someone with diplomatic immunity can quite literally get away with anything from littering to murder.

so you can see no hypocrisy is involved. nor is it a case of "a brilliant example of how the US thinks its above laws in other countries, but expect their laws to be followed complicity.". since of course as everyone should know it happens in every country, by any country's diplomats.

a reply to: contextual

one last off topic comment...

The USA can survive on its own industry, trading amongst its own states, go ahead kick us out...

a reply to: NotSoBigG

With this president only America matters and only American lives count , it's a shame that Diplomatic Immunity has been turned into a get out of jail free card for people who are not diplomats , we need to reevaluate its scope following this case.

a reply to: generik

she was ordered by the state department to leave.

In that case, i would say U.S. morals are basically in the gutter.

originally posted by: contextual
We should boot every US diplomat out.

of course you do

no one is suprised.

I wish we could leave you.

at least we agree on this.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The point being she has used diplomatic immunity to avoid any proper investigation or potential trial.

I have already stated that I don't like how this has been and is being handled. Including that this woman is being vilified for unspecified "crimes".

How has her departure impeded a proper investigation? She has already spoken to authorities, so at least seemingly cooperating with authorities. If necessary, and if consented to, they could have additional conversations via phone. (Or she may invoke her right to say nothing at all) Her flight in no way affects the scene of the accident. Unless she took the vehicle with her, she has not prevented inspection of the vehicle. I have not heard that any/all witnesses were also spirited out with her.

As far as a potential trial, for what? What crime have authorities determined she committed? The presumption is that she is guilty of some crime... or at least that there is reasonable suspicion warranting a trial... but for what? Why are the authorities in England not making the legal and criminal points crystal clear?

If a genuine accident fair enough, if she has been driving in dangerous manner then then she be tried just as anyone else would be.

And it's the "if" that's the problem for me at this point. No one has even asserted that a crime has been committed, or any criminal liability at all!!! If authorities had determined she was criminally liable, then I would expect that we would be hearing exactly that. But we're not.

Nor do I see any reasonable or legal argument for why the longstanding rules and protocols of diplomatic immunity should be waived in this particular situation. I seriously doubt this is the first such accident to ever take place; how were previous such accidents handled? Is the handling of this accident setting a new precedent? Or is this the standard procedure? Beyond Boris Johnson's rabble rousing, have the appropriate officials made a formal request for her to return? The victim's family certainly isn't happy with the way British authorities have handled it either.

Trump has stated that he will try to facilitate a meeting between the two families. I would strongly suggest that the victim's family find a good civil lawyer and sue her in civil court. I'm pretty sure that's the best "justice" they can hope for in their situation.