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

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Per that article they won't let her be interviewed. Charge her. If they think they can get a conviction tell the US we want her to be charged, not interviewed. What point is an interview with her lawyer saying 'my client has no comment'.

She can't be charged as she has diplomatic immunity. That is the point.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

show it was not an accident. I will be on board to ship her back.

Driving on the wrong side of the road ( which she was doing ) is not an accident. It is a criminal offence.

Common Examples of Dangerous Driving

Dangerous driving is a very serious offence and the term can cover many different situations. Common examples of dangerous driving will include driving too fast on a busy road, driving on the wrong side of the road.

Causing death by dangerous driving would be the most serious offence and will generally always result in a prison sentence.

www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk...

Stop calling this incident an accident.

It was an act of dangerous driving. This woman knew what the penalty could be for causing death by dangerous driving. That is why she fled. Any fool can see that.

originally posted by: NotSoBigG

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.

Actually this happens all the time in the US and the US can not really do anything about it, and for rather big crimes too. In this case do you think they would get anything more than community order which is the lower end of punishment for manslaughter?

a reply to: alldaylong

Then stop saying you want to question her as part of an investigation and start saying you want to charge her. If the UK has already concluded this is criminal then say so, so far, I can't see where they have drawn that conclusion.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Then stop saying you want to question her as part of an investigation and start saying you want to charge her. If the UK has already concluded this is criminal then say so, so far, I can't see where they have drawn that conclusion.

If she felt she was completely innocent of any offence, then she would have stayed and explained the incident in detail on how it occurred.

By doing a runner it has made her look like she has something to hide. Again, any fool can see that.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Per that article they won't let her be interviewed. Charge her. If they think they can get a conviction tell the US we want her to be charged, not interviewed. What point is an interview with her lawyer saying 'my client has no comment'.

She can't be charged as she has diplomatic immunity. That is the point.

That's false. They can tell the US they are ready to charge her. So far they are saying they just want to talk to her.

Just to destroy the OP though ....

Washington, D.C., Student Stabbed By 12-Year-Old Classmate, Suspect Not Arrested Due To Diplomatic Immunity

www.dailymail.co.uk...

It happens both ways.

I am not a hypocrite, tell the US you are ready to charge her and I will support the immunity being revoked. Talking to her is pointless, what possible point can there be when her lawyer will say 'next question'?

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Then stop saying you want to question her as part of an investigation and start saying you want to charge her. If the UK has already concluded this is criminal then say so, so far, I can't see where they have drawn that conclusion.

If she felt she was completely innocent of any offence, then she would have stayed and explained the incident in detail on how it occurred.

By doing a runner it has made her look like she has something to hide. Again, any fool can see that.

She doesn't have to explain jack squat. I fully agree with her invoking her 5th amendment right as a US citizen with diplomatic immunity. I also fully agree with her being turned over if the UK says they are ready to prosecute.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Then stop saying you want to question her as part of an investigation and start saying you want to charge her. If the UK has already concluded this is criminal then say so, so far, I can't see where they have drawn that conclusion.

If she felt she was completely innocent of any offence, then she would have stayed and explained the incident in detail on how it occurred.

By doing a runner it has made her look like she has something to hide. Again, any fool can see that.

She doesn't have to explain jack squat. I fully agree with her invoking her 5th amendment right as a US citizen with diplomatic immunity. I also fully agree with her being turned over if the UK says they are ready to prosecute.

What amazes me is that you are defending this woman, when there is apparently clear CCTV footage of her driving on the wrong side of the road ( dangerous driving ). Unless you are saying that the camera is lying ?

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Then stop saying you want to question her as part of an investigation and start saying you want to charge her. If the UK has already concluded this is criminal then say so, so far, I can't see where they have drawn that conclusion.

If she felt she was completely innocent of any offence, then she would have stayed and explained the incident in detail on how it occurred.

By doing a runner it has made her look like she has something to hide. Again, any fool can see that.

She doesn't have to explain jack squat. I fully agree with her invoking her 5th amendment right as a US citizen with diplomatic immunity. I also fully agree with her being turned over if the UK says they are ready to prosecute.

What amazes me is that you are defending this woman, when there is apparently clear CCTV footage of her driving on the wrong side of the road ( dangerous driving ). Unless you are saying that the camera is lying ?

I don't know how that is your takeaway from my post. Go read it again.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Per that article they won't let her be interviewed. Charge her. If they think they can get a conviction tell the US we want her to be charged, not interviewed. What point is an interview with her lawyer saying 'my client has no comment'.

She can't be charged as she has diplomatic immunity. That is the point.

That's false. They can tell the US they are ready to charge her. So far they are saying they just want to talk to her.

Just to destroy the OP though ....

Washington, D.C., Student Stabbed By 12-Year-Old Classmate, Suspect Not Arrested Due To Diplomatic Immunity

www.dailymail.co.uk...

It happens both ways.

I am not a hypocrite, tell the US you are ready to charge her and I will support the immunity being revoked. Talking to her is pointless, what possible point can there be when her lawyer will say 'next question'?

It's not false, they can't charge her or even arrest her as she has diplomatic immunity.

As already explained the police have investigated. If they are asking for immunity to be waived it is because they want time take it further.

The US are refusing to let that happen.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Then stop saying you want to question her as part of an investigation and start saying you want to charge her. If the UK has already concluded this is criminal then say so, so far, I can't see where they have drawn that conclusion.

If she felt she was completely innocent of any offence, then she would have stayed and explained the incident in detail on how it occurred.

By doing a runner it has made her look like she has something to hide. Again, any fool can see that.

She doesn't have to explain jack squat. I fully agree with her invoking her 5th amendment right as a US citizen with diplomatic immunity. I also fully agree with her being turned over if the UK says they are ready to prosecute.

What amazes me is that you are defending this woman, when there is apparently clear CCTV footage of her driving on the wrong side of the road ( dangerous driving ). Unless you are saying that the camera is lying ?

I don't know how that is your takeaway from my post. Go read it again.

So we are both in agreement that she should be returned to The U.K. for the investigation to be completed .

That's good to hear.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Echo007

really? take a look at the last 500 years...England has done more evil than damn near anyone on the planet

Like to give a few examples and not just make a blanket observation?

Here’s an example from the U.K. national archives:

“Between 1662 and 1807 Britain shipped 3.1 million Africans across the Atlantic Ocean in the Transatlantic Slave Trade.”

Approximately 388,000 slaves in total were transported to the USA, about 5 percent of all slaves sent to the New World. Britain had to import so many slaves because the death rate was higher than the birth rate for slaves working on sugar plantations. I’m not trying to defend American slavery, but slaves reproduced prodigiously in America. By 1808, the importation of slaves was banned by Congress, yet the population of slaves by 1860 was 3.9 million — 10 times as many as those transported to America in the transatlantic slave trade.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Then stop saying you want to question her as part of an investigation and start saying you want to charge her. If the UK has already concluded this is criminal then say so, so far, I can't see where they have drawn that conclusion.

If she felt she was completely innocent of any offence, then she would have stayed and explained the incident in detail on how it occurred.

By doing a runner it has made her look like she has something to hide. Again, any fool can see that.

She doesn't have to explain jack squat. I fully agree with her invoking her 5th amendment right as a US citizen with diplomatic immunity. I also fully agree with her being turned over if the UK says they are ready to prosecute.

What amazes me is that you are defending this woman, when there is apparently clear CCTV footage of her driving on the wrong side of the road ( dangerous driving ). Unless you are saying that the camera is lying ?

I don't know how that is your takeaway from my post. Go read it again.

So we are both in agreement that she should be returned to The U.K. for the investigation to be completed .

That's good to hear.

No, there is no need. I keep asking you, what is the benefit of her being there? What is the benefit of her lawyer telling investigators she is not answering questions?

If you can find a benefit I will listen.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Actually that is not the case. They are asking to be allowed to interview her, not charge her.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If you can find a benefit I will listen.

If justice needs to be served, then she needs to be here to face any possible consequences of what she has done.

Is that a good enough benefit for you?

Go ask your government why the want Assange sent to The U.S. What benefit would they have for wanting him ?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Then stop saying you want to question her as part of an investigation and start saying you want to charge her. If the UK has already concluded this is criminal then say so, so far, I can't see where they have drawn that conclusion.

If she felt she was completely innocent of any offence, then she would have stayed and explained the incident in detail on how it occurred.

By doing a runner it has made her look like she has something to hide. Again, any fool can see that.

She doesn't have to explain jack squat. I fully agree with her invoking her 5th amendment right as a US citizen with diplomatic immunity. I also fully agree with her being turned over if the UK says they are ready to prosecute.

What amazes me is that you are defending this woman, when there is apparently clear CCTV footage of her driving on the wrong side of the road ( dangerous driving ). Unless you are saying that the camera is lying ?

I don't know how that is your takeaway from my post. Go read it again.

So we are both in agreement that she should be returned to The U.K. for the investigation to be completed .

That's good to hear.

No, there is no need. I keep asking you, what is the benefit of her being there? What is the benefit of her lawyer telling investigators she is not answering questions?

If you can find a benefit I will listen.

Because they can then interview her under cauation. Allows any statements she makes to be used in evidence. It's similar but not identical to reading Miranda rights in the US.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If you can find a benefit I will listen.

If justice needs to be served, then she needs to be here to face any possible consequences of what she has done.

Is that a good enough benefit for you?

Go ask your government why the want Assange sent to The U.S. What benefit would they have for wanting him ?

Great, get rid of the 'if' part, and get to the part where they are ready to serve justice.

They are ready to prosecute Assange, not see if he did something and then maybe send him home.

WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Charged in 18-Count Superseding Indictment

www.justice.gov...

So since you are the one comparing their situations, not me, now you can follow through and show me the indictment against this woman.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Then stop saying you want to question her as part of an investigation and start saying you want to charge her. If the UK has already concluded this is criminal then say so, so far, I can't see where they have drawn that conclusion.

If she felt she was completely innocent of any offence, then she would have stayed and explained the incident in detail on how it occurred.

By doing a runner it has made her look like she has something to hide. Again, any fool can see that.

She doesn't have to explain jack squat. I fully agree with her invoking her 5th amendment right as a US citizen with diplomatic immunity. I also fully agree with her being turned over if the UK says they are ready to prosecute.

What amazes me is that you are defending this woman, when there is apparently clear CCTV footage of her driving on the wrong side of the road ( dangerous driving ). Unless you are saying that the camera is lying ?

I don't know how that is your takeaway from my post. Go read it again.

So we are both in agreement that she should be returned to The U.K. for the investigation to be completed .

That's good to hear.

No, there is no need. I keep asking you, what is the benefit of her being there? What is the benefit of her lawyer telling investigators she is not answering questions?

If you can find a benefit I will listen.

Because they can then interview her under cauation. Allows any statements she makes to be used in evidence. It's similar but not identical to reading Miranda rights in the US.

Let me save you the trouble, she pleads the 5th and has no statement. If you require a statement you have no case. If you do not require a statement then move on to the next part. I don't get why that is so hard to understand. You are not getting a statement from her, just like the police in America would not get one. Build a case, they do it here, you can do it too. You guys interpret my belief she is entitled to her rights as a US citizen as me being against her getting prosecuted. Stop being so defensive. US citizens have no right to murder to people, they do have the right to not speak to the police.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If you can find a benefit I will listen.

If justice needs to be served, then she needs to be here to face any possible consequences of what she has done.

Is that a good enough benefit for you?

Go ask your government why the want Assange sent to The U.S. What benefit would they have for wanting him ?

Great, get rid of the 'if' part, and get to the part where they are ready to serve justice.

They are ready to prosecute Assange, not see if he did something and then maybe send him home.

WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Charged in 18-Count Superseding Indictment

www.justice.gov...

So since you are the one comparing their situations, not me, now you can follow through and show me the indictment against this woman.

LOL

So The U.S. can charge someone ( Assange ) without even questioning him first.

Bloody hell, are you the new Soviet Union. LOL

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Actually that is not the case. They are asking to be allowed to interview her, not charge her.

This is 2019, interview by Skype